Conservation Statements for the Estate Buildings of Mount Stewart Demesne, County Down by Purcell Architecture

CONSERVATION STATEMENTS FOR THE ESTATE BUILDINGS OF

Mount Stewart Demesne, County Down

Rebecca Burrows / Beverley Kerr On behalf of Purcell ® 29 Marygate, York YO30 7WH rebecca.burrows@purcelluk.com www.purcelluk.com The hard copy and digital documentation produced under this project is the copyright of the National Trust. Copyright on all reports and case studies resides with the National Trust, although a third-party in-perpetuity licence has automatically been given for reproduction of the works by the originator, subject to agreement in writing from the National Trust, and moderated by the confidentiality arrangements for the resulting data. Purcell asserts its moral rights to be identified as the author of this work under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Purcell® is the trading name of Purcell Architecture Ltd.

Final Issue October 2020

CONTENTS 1.0 VISION FOR THE MOUNT STEWART DEMESNE 1.1 Background to the Conservation Statements 1.2 Aims of Conservation Statements 1.3 Scope of Study 1.4 How to use the Conservation Statements 1.5 Authorship 1.6 Acknowledgements and Stakeholder Consultation 1.7 Research and Resources 1.8 Limitations of the Survey 1.9 Key Findings

2.0 UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY 2.1 Description of the Mount Stewart Demesne 2.2 Ownership, Management and Use 2.3 Gazetteer of Heritage Assets 2.4 Setting and Views 2.5 Condition

3.0 UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEMESNE AND ITS BUILDINGS 3.1 Brief History of Mount Stewart Demesne 3.2 Brief Timeline of Mount Stewart 3.3 Historical Development Plans 3.4 Placing the Demesne in Context

04 04 04 05 09 10 10 11 11 12

14 14 14 16 23 25

46 46 47 65 67

4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 70 Criteria for Assessing Significance 70 Demesne and Estate Buildings: Summary of Significance 71 Statement of Significance 71 Vulnerabilities and Risks to Significance 76

5.0 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Conservation Recommendations 5.3 Approach to Change 5.4 Development Opportunities 5.5 Prioritised Action Plan 5.6 Consultation, Adoption and Next Steps

84 84 84 86 86 87 95

6.0 CONSERVATION STATEMENTS 97 A1.1-A1.4 The Farmyard 98 A1.5-A1.6 Farmhouses 150 A1.7-A1.8 Apple Loft Stables and Cottage 173 A2 Dovecote 202 A3.1-A3.3 Dairy and Rose Garden 216 A3.4-A3.6 Gardener’s House, Vinery and Southern Gardens 240 A3.7-A3.8 Orchard Cottages, former Commercial Areas (Middle and Northern Gardens) and Western Garden 262 A4.1-A4.4 Gamekeeper’s Lodge and Associated Buildings 282 B1 Mountstewart School 308 B2 Folly 332 B3 Stable Block 346

6.0 CONSERVATION STATEMENTS (CONT’D) C1 Sea Plantation Building C2 Old Orchard Barn C3 Rugman’s Cottage and Barn C4 Piggery C5 Patterson’s Cottage C6 Gasworks D1 North Gate Lodge (Hamilton’s Lodge, Back Gate Lodge) D2 Greyabbey Gate Lodge (Clay Gate Lodge, McGivern’s Lodge) D3 Main Gate Lodges (Front Gate Lodges, Twin Gate Lodges) D4 Laundry Cottage (The Old Laundry) D5 Ros Cuan D6 Temple of the Winds E1 Sea Plantation Swimming Pool

380 400 414 440 454 470 494 510 530 550 574 596 654

BIBLIOGRAPHY 674

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

678

APPENDICES 682 A: List Description 683 B: Register of Parks, Gardens and Demesne of Special Historic Interest 693 C: Planning Policy 695

SECTION 1.0 VISION FOR THE MOUNT STEWART DEMESNE 1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE CONSERVATION STATEMENTS The National Trust is a charity that works to preserve and protect historic places and spaces – for everyone, forever. The organisation is completely independent of the Government and therefore relies totally on the generosity of our members, visitors and other ad-hoc supporters in order to continue this important work. As part of their work to take care of Mount Stewart – a Grade A listed building – and its demesne landscape, a number of conservation management documents have been commissioned to inform repairs, conservation and change. These include the Mount Stewart House Conservation Management Plan (CMP) by curator Frances Bailey of 2015, the gardens and pleasure grounds CMP of 2011 the Mount Stewart Demesne Landscape Conservation Management Plan by Chris Gallagher and Sarah Rutherford of 2018 and an earlier landscape study by Dr Anne Casement in 1999. A number of minor studies on the demesne have also been produced, including student dissertations on the Rose Garden and the Farmyard in the 2010s. All are listed in the Bibliography at the end of this report.01 The 2018 landscape Conservation Management Plan recommended that more detailed analysis of the demesne structures was required to fully understand their heritage value, vulnerabilities and conservation requirements in order to inform future management decisions.02 This need for greater understanding is set within the wider background of the Mount Stewart Demesne Development 01

This study acknowledges their significant contribution which has provided a sound foundation of knowledge for this study, and whilst it aims to avoid unnecessary overlaps, this has not always been possible to avoid altogether.

National Trust, Request for Proposal, For the preparation of Conservation Statement for estate buildings and structures within Mount Stewart Demesne, County Down, Northern Ireland, February 2019

Project, for which proposals are currently being developed to include new uses for the demesne buildings and improved visitor facilities. The vision for the development project is for visitors to experience the significance of the landscape, setting and buildings as an authentic whole. In tandem with these Conservation Statements, a spatial design plan is being produced to develop a scheme that provides clarity to the visitor, explores opportunities in the wider demesne and provides better operational circulation. Both documents have informed each other. The spatial plan has been underpinned by an understanding of significance, of the buildings and structures and their setting and also the park and garden landscape context. 1.2 AIMS OF CONSERVATION STATEMENTS These Conservation Statements (CSs) have been produced following completion of the landscape Conservation Management Plan to add detail in our understanding of Mount Stewart, covering the recreational and functional buildings within the demesne. They have been used to inform the initial spatial planning phase of design development and will continue to be vital tools in the evolution of proposals for Mount Stewart. The aim of the CSs is to provide detailed analysis to inform an understanding of the demesne building’s heritage value, vulnerabilities and conservation requirements. This in turn, is being used to inform the National Trust’s strategic programme of repair, improvement and development and conservation management of the property’s heritage assets into the future. Around 25 individual demesne buildings have been assessed and are included within the standalone CSs as part of this piece of research into the Mount Stewart Demesne. This executive summary report gives an overview of the individual statements, offering analysis of the site as a whole.

The aims of the project can be summarised as follows: 03 •

Assess these built heritage assets at a deeper level (to the landscape Conservation Management Plan) in order to inform the preparation of detailed development design proposals.

•

Analyse structural development.

•

Evaluate the significance of the various built heritage elements.

•

Place structures in the historical context of the demesne landscape and in the wider context of the Irish estate.

•

Identify vulnerabilities both in general conservation terms and with specific regard to existing, outline development proposals.

•

Identify those locations most compatible with the development opportunities so far identified.

•

Provide a scoping view of the potential for change within each building/complex and where such change might be best accommodated.

•

Highlight opportunities for additional positive change to enhance these historic structural complexes.

•

Outline conservation policies that will inform the subsequent development of detailed design proposals for the wider project, heritage impact assessment and detailed, analytical historic building survey.

Aims taken from National Trust, Request for Proposal, For the preparation of Conservation Statement for estate buildings and structures within Mount Stewart Demesne, County Down, Northern Ireland, February 2019

VISION FOR THE MOUNT STEWART DEMESNE

1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY This executive summary provides an understanding of around 25 buildings and structures which are the focus of a series of CSs which underpin this document. The buildings in question are located within the Mount Stewart demesne purchased in 1744 by Alexander Stewart, a minor Donegal landowner, and now largely owned by the National Trust. This overarching document provides a brief overview of the history of Mount Stewart demesne, including the key players in its creation and development, in order to provide an historical context for the series of CSs. This document will also provide high-level consideration of the Irish Demesne (once a common feature of Irish landscape) and model farms, thus informing the significance of Mount Stewart. It will also provide a summary of the key facts and findings for each building allowing for easy reference and guiding the reader to the appropriate CS for further information. Additionally, this document gives a summary of condition and of significance. This document concludes with high-level vulnerabilities, opportunities and conservation policies to guide the National Trust in care, management and decision making for the demesne structures.

The CSs which sit alongside this document provide an outline history, description and overarching condition statement for each structure, whilst placing it in a historical context where appropriate. Where necessary, plans, elevations or photographs are annotated for additional clarity. This process of gathering information and understanding the heritage assets informed the individual statements of significance and capacity for change. The reports conclude with a set of vulnerabilities but also opportunities for development, as well as a set of focussed conservation parameters. The contents of the CSs set precedents for future management, maintenance and development, helping to ensure that the overall vision for the heritage assets are fully understood, appreciated and maintained. They have been used to inform the initial stages of the spatial planning exercise and will continue to inform design as it develops.

The CSs are based upon detailed research and observation; no opening-up works took place and condition surveys are at a summary, visual level only. Not all buildings were fully accessible. This executive summary and the associated CSs focuses on an understanding of the demesne buildings and therefore excludes the Mount Stewart House and pleasure gardens from its scope. The house CMP should be consulted to understand the demesne within the context of its main residential building. Additionally, the Mount Stewart Demesne CMP should be consulted regarding the natural heritage value of the gardens and demesne. The location of Mount Stewart, the boundary of the demesne and the location of the buildings and sites are shown on the following pages.

VISION FOR THE MOUNT STEWART DEMESNE

Bangor

BELFAST

Newtownards

Comber

County Down

Mount Stewart Demesne Ballywalter

Strangford Lough

Portaferry

Location of Mount Stewart within Northern Ireland.

VISION FOR THE MOUNT STEWART DEMESNE Mount Stewart Demesne and location of buildings

North Gate Lodge

Patterson’s Cottage

Laundry Cottage

D5 Ros Cuan

C2 Old Orchard Barn

B1 Mountstewart School

C4 Piggery (Bell’s Sheds)

A4.1 Gamekeeper’s Lodge

B2 D3.1

D3.2

Folly

Main Gate Lodges

E1 Swimming Pool Site

C3 Rugman’s Cottage and Barn

C1 Sea Plantation Building

B3.1 Stable Block

Gasworks 07

D2 Greyabbey Gate Lodge

D6 Temple of the Winds

VISION FOR THE MOUNT STEWART DEMESNE Former Commercial Garden Areas

Buildings and areas within the Farmyard and Walled Gardens

Apple Loft Stables

A3.8

A1.7

Farmyard

A1.1

A1.4.1

A3.4 Gardener’s House

A1.2 Farmyard

A3.7 Orchard Cottages A1.3 Farmyard

A3.5 Vinery

Apple Loft Cottage

A2 Dovecote

A1.8

A3.6 Southern Gardens

A1.6.1 Steward’s House/ Farmhouse West

A3.3 Rose Garden

A1.4 A3.1 Dairy

A1.8.1

A3.2 Dairy (outbuildings)

Apple Loft Cottage (outbuildings) 08

A1.6 Steward’s House/ Farmhouse West

A1.5 Farmhouse East/ Agent’s House

Farmyard

VISION FOR THE MOUNT STEWART DEMESNE

1.4 HOW TO USE THE CONSERVATION STATEMENTS Each of the underlying CSs gives more information relating to the specific site it focuses on and cross references back to this overarching document. For ease of reference each of the sites have been assigned a unique identifier, expanding upon the National Trust’s initial classification. The documents are as follows and their locations are shown on the plans on pages 07 and 08:

The following list outlines what information can be found in which sections of the CSs: KEY INFORMATION This provides summary information about the building or site such as its date, use, significance level and any designations.

OVERARCHING CONSERVATION STATEMENTS A1.1- A1.4

Farmyard

Sea Plantation Building

A1.5

Agent’s House (Farmhouse – east)

Old Orchard Barn

A1.6

Steward’s House (Farmhouse – west)

Rugman’s Cottage and Barn

A1.7 - A1.8

Apple Loft Stables and Cottage

Piggery

Dovecote

Patterson’s Cottage

A3.1 - A3.3

Dairy and Rose Garden

Gasworks

A3.4-6

Gardener’s House, Vinery and Southern Garden

North Gate Lodge

A3.7-8

Orchard Cottages and Former Commercial Garden Areas

Greyabbey Lodge

Main Gate Lodges

Gamekeeper’s Lodge

Laundry Cottage

Mountstewart School

Ros Cuan

Folly

Temple of the Winds

Stable Block

Sea Plantation Swimming Pool

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT This provides a summary history of the site expressed as a timeline taken from a variety of primary and secondary sources, and may include a more detailed discussion of the history, a map progression and information from other primary sources including historic drawings or photographs. CURRENT SITUATION This section provides an understanding of the site today and includes descriptions, images and assessment of the built fabric or the site through annotated plans and images. Where appropriate views are also assessed and the section concludes with an assessment of the site’s condition SIGNIFICANCE This summarises what makes the building or site important, why and to whom, as well as providing a statement about group value and their context within the demesne. Where appropriate significance is expressed on plans. CONSERVATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES Identifies the overarching risks and conflicts with regards to significance and potential for, or need for, change and provides an outline set of opportunities to improve management and use and enhance heritage value. PARAMETERS FOR CHANGE/CAPACITY FOR CHANGE This provides guidance and recommendations on managing change and also discusses each site’s capacity for change.

VISION FOR THE MOUNT STEWART DEMESNE

1.5 AUTHORSHIP This report and the accompanying CSs were prepared by Rebecca Burrows BA (HINS), MSc, IHBC, Associate, Dr. Alex Holton, Associate, and Bev Kerr, BA (Hons), Mst (Cantab), CIfA, Heritage Consultant, with contributions from Michael Morrison, Partner and Eleanor Pitt, MA, Assistant Heritage Consultant.

Other contributors include Dr Anne Casement who has extensive knowledge of the Mount Stewart demesne and whose research has laid the foundations for all work that has followed. We would also like to thank the staff at PRONI in Belfast for their assistance both to Purcell and continuing help to the National Trust in accessing the Londonderry archive.

•

Frances Bailey, Lead Curator (NI), National Trust

•

Shannon Fraser, Archaeologist and Curator, National Trust

•

Simon Robertshaw, Buildings and Landscape Design Advisor, National Trust

1.6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION This set of CSs produced for the Mount Stewart demesne was made possible through the close working relationship formed with members of the National Trust; in particular we acknowledge the help of Andrew Corkill, whose enthusiasm and assistance cannot be overstated.

We would also like to thank all those residents of the Mount Stewart demesne, including: Elizabeth ‘Dolly’ McRoberts; Ken Massey; and Noelle and Ruth Houston, as well as all other residents who were kind enough to impart their memories and knowledge. In addition we would like to acknowledge the help of Dr Michael Park, Dr David Park and John McKee. Thanks should also go to the retired architect Joe Tracey, who was originally on the Liam McCormick design team for the Gardener’s House, who made a special visit to Mount Stewart with his son Peter Tracey.

•

Terence Reeves-Smyth

We would also like to acknowledge the contribution made by Lady Rose Lauritzen who generously gave up her time and also provided access to family papers not yet held in the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI). We also acknowledge the assistance of Frederick Lauritzen, who has made a study of the Londonderry family and of Mount Stewart. Our thanks also go to National Trust members of staff at Mount Stewart who have been most kind in welcoming us, specifically Jon Kerr, General Manager; Andrew Upton, Coast and Countryside Manager; Toby Edwards, Ranger; Frances Bailey, Lead Curator; Neil Porteous, Head of Gardens; Neil Watt, House and Collections Manager; Roisin McKenna, Senior Building Surveyor; Malachy Conway, Archaeologist; George Angus of the Estate team; and Frank Weir, who supplied photographs and insight. Purcell thank them for their time, patience, experience and knowledge of Mount Stewart.

Purcell held a consultation event on 23rd September 2019 at Mount Stewart to gather understanding about the demesne buildings. Members of staff, some of whom are named above, attended and we thank them all for their contributions at the event. The CSs have been peer reviewed by a panel of experts. The helpful comments that came out of this consultation has been incorporated into the final drafts of the documents. This panel was made up of: •

Andrew Corkill, Project Manager, National Trust

•

Marcus Patton, Conservation Architect and Hearth Historic Buildings Trust

•

Malachy Conway, Regional Archaeologist, National Trust

Finally, Purcell would like to thank members of the public who responded to a request for information put out by the National Trust in the press and on social media.

VISION FOR THE MOUNT STEWART DEMESNE

1.7 RESEARCH AND RESOURCES The buildings and sites that form the focus of this study are located within the boundary of the Mount Stewart demesne. They comprise a number of structures of varying dates, styles, uses and condition. A number of site visits took place over an eight month period between June 2019 and January 2020 at which point the various buildings and sites were studied and photographed. A number of structures were not fully accessible due to their condition, including Rugman’s Cottage which was only partially accessible in January 2020; whilst this allowed for sufficient information to be gathered about the condition of the structure, built fabric was difficult to study through the extent of ivy growth. Another structure which was difficult to access was that of Patterson’s Cottage which is also in a state of structural collapse. Purcell acknowledge the efforts of National Trust staff in obtaining a number of internal photographs or 3D point cloud data of Rugman’s and Patterson’s as part of this project. Ros Cuan, the Stable Block, Laundry Cottage, Main Gate (east) Lodge are all tenanted residences and were only partially accessible. Surveys were commissioned by the National Trust and supplied to Purcell as part of this project. This included 3D Point Cloud data, and scaled drawings taken from this data, for a number of structures undertaken by John Meneely of 3D Surveying Ltd. In addition to analysis of the physical structures, historical research took place to better understand their history and development. Sources consulted included: •

The Londonderry Papers in the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI), Belfast

•

Historical plans of the demesne

•

Historical Ordnance Survey Maps

•

Census returned 1901-1911

•

Newspaper Archives

•

Travel logs

•

Personal papers in the possession of Lady Rose Lauritzen

•

The Archives of Erasmus Smith Schools, Dublin

The Durham County Record Office (DCRO) also contains its own Londonderry archive under reference D/Lo some of which also relate to Mount Stewart. According to the DCRO, all relevant papers have been photocopied and lodged in PRONI, so no visit has been made to this archive. A number of interviews and site walks were carried out by Andrew Corkill of the National Trust with Lady Rose Lauritzen, current and former residents and estate staff, national trust staff and members of the public, to add to an understanding of the social history and use of the Mount Stewart buildings. Notes were taken from these meetings and provided to the survey team. Additionally, the National Trust appealed for information which prompted a number of responses from members of the public. A full bibliography and list of sources is available at the end of this report. Of interest during research were the plans of a number of demesne structures which Lady Rose was kind enough to allow NT staff to photograph for this project. They revealed plans of many buildings before they were modernised or converted and include the Stable Block, the Laundry Cottage and Orchard Cottages. These gave a snapshot in time of lost layouts and interventions and included a number of interesting photographs of the Laundry in the later 20th century before its conversion to flats.

1.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE SURVEY Despite the resources mentioned in section 1.7 above, it has still been difficult to firmly establish the dates and uses of a number of structures. It is rare to find historical documents relating to the construction or alteration of a vernacular structure, and the built fabric is often the only evidence of past changes. For example, we can only speculate as to the date and use of the ivy-covered ruin located at the Gamekeeper’s Lodge. Where a structure has been rendered, such as Patterson’s Cottage, this evidence is also concealed. Even the Mount Stewart Lodges specifically designed at the behest of the family can only be approximately dated through the Londonderry estate accounts. Historic agricultural uses are difficult to define as these could be temporary, lightweight and regularly altered by season, year or decade. The CSs offer indicates potential uses based on analysis of the fabric and archives but can only ever offer a snapshot of a point in time. Additional research within the Londonderry accounts in PRONI (vouchers, for example) could lead to new discoveries but would require the investment of considerable resources. Where, works may be proposed, archaeological recording of structures is recommended. Whilst a great deal of useful information has been gleaned from demesne staff and residents, this has been treated as anecdotal until wider research has confirmed its validity. This does not negate its importance, as these stories have helped focus and refine research in new directions. However, some long-standing anecdotes about specific architects, designers or uses have not made it into the CS text where no evidence to support them has been found. Where these stories are explored as part of a discussion on possibilities, this will be made clear. Where uncertainties remain, evidence has been weighed to understand the most probable option.

VISION FOR THE MOUNT STEWART DEMESNE

1.9 KEY FINDINGS This study was able to establish or confirm: •

•

The Gardener’s House within the Walled Garden was built at the request of Lady Mairi in 1953 and designed by Liam McCormick, considered to be one of the founders of the modern Irish architectural movement. It is an early example of his secular output and is believed to have been a ‘subsidy house’, where the owner received grant funding as part of a national drive to increase the housing stock after the war. The house has changed little from the design conceived by the architect, internally and externally. Land was given by the Earl of Londonderry for the setting up of a school at both Comber and at Mount Stewart in 1812. The intended design of both schools was discovered in archives. The school consisted of a central door giving access to the school room with a small attached schoolhouse comprising a bedroom, sitting room, pantry and scullery. The Mount Stewart School was considerably extended in the later 19th and the early 20th century. Archives were also able to establish the names of schoolmasters including the longstanding (and longsuffering) William Taylor. Its sister school at Comber was destroyed by fire in the 20th century. Ros Cuan may comprise elements of a farmstead dating to the early 19th century. ‘The Cottage’ was occupied by the 6th Marquess’ steward in the later 19th century. Despite the restrictions of the war, it was converted in 1941 for Lady Mairi following her marriage to Derek Keppel, Viscount Bury. Parts of Jacobean panelling brought from England were installed in the Drawing Room and Master Bedroom.

•

Despite the listed building record, it appears that the eastern farmhouse in the Farmyard was constructed at a later date to the original ‘Steward’s House’. Documents within PRONI from 1919 show plans for the farmhouse’s construction or alteration.

•

Both farmyard houses in the Farmyard retain elements within their fabric of the agricultural buildings which they replaced.

•

The northern gable end of the Apple Loft Stable range is constructed on top of the adjacent garden wall; this indicates that the eastern section of the Walled Garden pre-dates that of the Appleloft Stables.

•

The Vinery dates to the mid-20th century, but a glasshouse has occupied the site from at least 1834 and possibly from a the late 18th century.

•

The Main Gate Lodges (Front Gate, Twin Gate Lodges) were probably constructed around 1808–1809; they were certainly completed by 1815 when they were depicted on a drawing by Lord Kerr.

•

The Gasworks appears to have been built on the site of an earlier Gothick structure and may incorporate elements of it. The Gasworks was built around 1850 and went out of use about 1914. It is significant as one of only a handful of surviving historic gasworks in Northern Ireland and the only near complete example in Northern Ireland serving a domestic site.

•

Designs for a swimming pool on the Sea Plantation were first drawn up in 1918 by JH Thompson of Newtownards using sea water from the lough. It was not constructed for another 20 years to a modified design. It was dismantled in 1997 but the pool survives below ground and fragments of the pavilion remain in storage.

•

Patterson’s Cottage sits on an historic site first depicted on a survey plan of 1807 by David Geddas Jr. Once within the Ballycastle Township it was absorbed into the Mount Stewart demesne in the 19th century and remains, along with Ros Cuan, as one of the last occupied ‘pre-demesne’ sites.

•

The Farmyard operated as a model farm from at least the early 19th century. The threshing barn range, Dovecote and Apple Loft are most probably survivors of a devastating fire in 1815 which affected parts of the farmyard. Whilst they are essentially vernacular buildings, they have polite architectural features which indicate the involvement of an architect. The barn retains historic roof trusses, but has been modified internally over two centuries in order to remain functional into the 21st century.

•

The Dovecote is likely to have been part of the early Farmyard layout and is typical of dovecote designs. Sadly, its nesting boxes have been removed and the roof structure completely replaced. It was probably built for prestige and as an eyecatcher.

•

The courtyard farm buildings have seen a number of interventions typical of the farms which have adapted to new farming practices and new standards of animal husbandry – the north range has undergone substantial intervention including the removal of a spinal wall, raising of the roof and insertion of cross walls; the other ranges were probably once open-fronted animal shelters with arched openings through the spinal wall.

VISION FOR THE MOUNT STEWART DEMESNE

•

The Gamekeeper’s Lodge was once a lodge gate on the old Millisle Road before the boundary of the demesne was moved northwards. It was adapted as a gamekeeper’s lodge with the later construction of animal pens. The Lodge was used as a base for operations by the Hunting Syndicate in the later 20th century.

FUNCTIONAL Patterson’s Cottage Old Orchard Barn

Greyabbey Gate Lodge (Clay Gate Lodge) was substantially renovated in 1991 when heavy rainfall and a high tide flooded the building. The entrance gates were also relocated further to the south. The custodian of the Temple of the Winds lived in the lodge in the 1970s–1980s.

Rugman’s

Dovecote

Gasworks Farmyard Barn & Appleloft stables Schoolhouse

Stables

Laundry Cottage

Functional Ornamental Recreation

Sea Plantation Building

Swimming Pool

Whilst many of the demesne buildings have been largely built as functional structures in a vernacular style (the Piggery, for example), it is clear that many were also intended to be ornamental or ‘pleasing to the eye’ and to embellish the landscape (such as the Dovecote). Other structures which are also for the family’s pleasure and enjoyment include the Folly and the Temple of the Winds.

Gate Lodges

Ros Cuan

The buildings at Mount Stewart reflect a rich, eclectic mix of Gothick, Classical Revival and Vernacular styles. The structures can generally be divided into a number of categories that reflect their use and style: • • •

Piggery

Walled Gardens

Dairy

Temple of the Winds

Folly

I AT

It is therefore possible to arrange the demesne structures within these categories as shown in the following illustration.

TA L

•

SECTION 2.0 UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE MOUNT STEWART DEMESNE The Mount Stewart demesne covers an area of approximately 880 acres beside the north-eastern shores of Strangford Lough and includes a number of buildings listed at Grades A to B2. The undulating landscape is due to the large rounded glacial deposits which are characteristic of the Strangford Lough area.01 Its position by a sea lough also means that at its lowest, lying areas are approximately 3–7m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD), rising inland towards the north and east to 25m AOD. At its highest points (the drumlin hilltops) the land is consistently 30m AOD.02 The climate is exceptional for Northern Ireland, with lower than average rainfall and a position by the sea lough which results in significantly higher than average temperatures. The woodland shelterbelts and the establishment of the Sea Plantation in the late 18th century has also contributed to the unique climate found at Mount Stewart and to the considerable success of its gardens. The demesne is well-wooded, containing landscapes of distinctive character which give rise to repeated patterns and provide a variety of experiences. It contains internationally significant architecture and horticulture set within a highly regarded and near-complete demesne landscape. It comprises a mixture of gardens, water, grazing and arable land interspersed with plantations and surrounded by a shelterbelts of trees and a park wall. The quality of the Mount Stewart Demesne is now increasingly rare in Northern Ireland.

2.2 OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND USE Today, the National Trust owns the majority of the demesne, apart from 13.3 acres of land which includes the house of Ros Cuan, a lodge and Laundry Cottage. These remain in the ownership of the Mount Stewart Estate and the residences are privately let. The Estate has also retained ownership of the former gasworks on the lough shore although on long-term lease to the National Trust. A proportion of the coniferous woodlands (approximately 333 acres) are leased to the Northern Ireland Forestry Service, whilst the agricultural land is farmed under a number of Conacre tenancies. The National Trust directly manages stretches of woodland including the shelterbelt along Strangford Lough as well as a number of inland woodland areas. Their focus has expanded in recent years from the house, gardens and Temple of the Winds to include the wider demesne landscape. Having taken ownership of much of the Mount Stewart Estate, the National Trust is in the process of understanding the demesne and the structures within it. A critical part of the process will be restoring, protecting and providing access to the Demesne’s landscape and structures. This will also include establishing future appropriate uses for building which have fallen out of use and become vacant.

01 C Gallagher & S Rutherford, Mount Stewart Demesne CMP, 2018, p9 02 Ibid, p8

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

View across Strangford Lough from the Temple of the Winds

View across the gardens Tír na nÓg towards the pleasure gardens

The Lake

Outside of the main gardens, the Mount Stewart demesne is a rolling landscape of fields bounded by shelterbelts and woodland, connected by a network of tracks and paths

The rolling demesne landscape

Modern forestry beside the Gamekeeper’s Lodge

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

2.3 GAZETTEER OF HERITAGE ASSETS The demesne buildings at Mount Stewart have been grouped by the National Trust into categories relating to their priority and capacity for change as part of the wider Mount Stewart Demesne Development Project: •

Group A are key areas for opportunities for development;

•

Group B are further opportunities that will be dependent on funding/phasing;

•

Group C are buildings in deteriorating condition;

•

Group D are buildings in good condition varying in significance; and

•

Group E are buildings of which little survives above ground.

Note that although three buildings still owned by the historic family have been included within this research they do not form part of the Demesne Development Project. They have however been included due to their significance and contribution to Mount Stewart Demesne. The table on page 17 provides a summary of key information. These include its names, a brief description, date, significance and designation status where applicable. Significance is defined and expanded on in Section 4 of this volume, and within the individual CSs. For clarity, a definition of the levels of significance are given on this page. Each building, structure or space (a number of gardens with landscape and boundary walls are included) has been assigned a unique identifier, which has been used throughout the CSs to avoid confusion. Many of the structures are known by a variety of names which have changed over the decades. The table on page 17 notes these, and offers one suggestion for the National Trust to adopt as part of their spatial plan.

Relative levels for assessing significance: Exceptional Significance: Fabric or spaces of outstanding significance are less capable of accepting change, although some may be allowed which sustains or enhances significance. Special regard should be given to the desirability of preserving the building, its setting and features of exceptional architectural or historic interest. Harm or loss should not be permissible.

Low Significance: Fabric or spaces that make a lesser contribution to significance but still retaining some value. They may be receptive to a higher degree of change than elements of medium or high significance. Change should sustain or enhance significance and/or relieve development pressure from elements of medium or high significance. Harm or loss should still be avoided if possible but may be permissible if appropriately outweighed by public benefits.

High Significance: Fabric or spaces of the highest significance that are capable of accepting change providing it sustains or enhances significance. Special regard should be given to the desirability of preserving the building, its setting and features of special architectural or historic interest. Harm or loss should be avoided. Any identified harm caused by the proposals will need to be outweighed by substantial public benefits.

Neutral Significance: Fabric or spaces that make no contribution to significance. Change is acceptable which sustains and/or better reveals significance, and/or enhances setting. Such action should seek to relieve development pressure from elements of high, medium or low significance.

Medium Significance: Fabric or spaces that make a collective contribution to significance but are not necessarily outstanding in their own right. Such elements are receptive to a moderate degree of change that sustains or enhances significance, and/or relieves development pressure from elements of higher significance. Special regard should still be given to preserving elements of special architectural or historic interest, but localised harm or loss caused by the proposals may be permissible if appropriately outweighed by public benefits.

Intrusive: Fabric or spaces that actively detract from significance. Removal or reversal of such elements is desirable to sustain and/or reveal significance, and/or enhance setting. Such action should seek to relieve development pressure from elements of high, medium or low significance.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

Component Number

Recommended Component Name

Alternative Name(s)

Significance

Description

Date Range

Statutory Designation

A1.1– A1.4

Farmyard

Model Farm

High

Model farm and related structures, now largely redundant.

1784–1785 and early 19th century with later alterations

B2 HB24/04/055

Volunteer and ranger base

A1.4.1

Modern Structures

Intrusive

Dutch barn and lean-to

20th century

Possibly curtilage listed with Farmyard (requires clarification)

A1.5

Agent’s House

Farmhouse (east)

Low

Demesne staff residence

End 19th century–1915

B2 HB24/04/055

A1.6

Steward’s House

Farmhouse (west)

Low

Demesne staff residence (vacant)

1870s

B2 HB24/04/055

A1.6.1

Outbuilding

Intrusive

A1.7

Apple Loft Stables

High

Heavy horse stables and cart shed (garage) with attics

Late 18th century

B2 HB24/04/055

A1.8

Apple Loft Cottage and garden

High

Privately let residence, formerly for demesne staff

Late 18th century and 19th century

B2 HB24/04/055

Curtilage listed (B2 HB24/04/055)

Interior – Neutral

Gardens formerly in horticultural use with associated structures

Garden – Low

Former frame yard (?)

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

Component Number

Recommended Component Name

A1.8.1

Alternative Name(s)

Significance

Description

Date Range

Statutory Designation

Apple Loft outbuildings

Low

Outbuilding and carport

Between 1865–1900

Curtilage Listed (B2 HB24/04/055)

Dovecote

High

Redundant dovecote or pigeon loft with animal shelter below

Late 18th century

B2 HB24/04/055

Walled Gardens – walls

High

Kitchen gardens partly in commercial use

c.1780

Possibly listed as part of Farmyard. Requires clarification.

A3.1

Dairy

High

Dairy to Mount Stewart House

1920s

B2 HB24/04/055

A3.2

Dairy outbuildings

Low

Outbuilding to Dairy

1920s

Curtilage listed as part of Dairy

A3.3

Rose Garden

Medium

Formal gardens

Created 1920s, restored 2018

A3.4

Gardener’s House

Medium

Privately let residence

1953

A3.5

Vinery

Low/Intrusive

Glasshouse containing vines

c.1950 (on the site of a former glasshouse)

Vine – High

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

Component Number

Recommended Component Name

Alternative Name(s)

Significance

Description

Date Range

A3.6

Southern Garden

Orchard Garden

Low

Garden with fruits trees

Late 18th century walls

A3.7

Orchard Cottages

Low

Privately let residence and stores

19th century

A3.8

Former Commercial Areas (Middle and Northern Gardens) and Western Garden

Low/Intrusive

Formerly commercially let gardens with modern horticultural and agricultural structures

Late 18th century walls with 20th century structures

A4.1

Gamekeeper’s Lodge

High

Former lodge, gamekeeper’s house and Hunting Syndicate base now vacant with associated structures

Early 19th century

B2 HB24/04/057

A4.2

Kennels

Low

Former kennels

1834–1858

Curtilage Listed (B2 HB24/04/057)

A4.3

Ivy Covered Building

Low

Unknown

Early 19th century (?)

Curtilage Listed (B2 HB24/04/057)

Statutory Designation

B2 HB24/04/055

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

Component Number

Recommended Component Name

A4.4

Alternative Name(s)

Significance

Description

Date Range

Modern Structure

Intrusive

Sawmill

Mid-20th century

Mountstewart School

High

Former English School and School House, now National Trust base and volunteer accommodation

1813

Folly

Medium

Ruined summerhouse

Early 19th century

B3.1

Stable Block

High

Former stables, carriage house and accommodation, now privately let residences. Also, storage and partially vacant.

1846–1848

B2 HB24/04/053

B3.2

Outbuilding (south)

Low

Former stables now store and boiler house

1858–1900

B2 HB24/04/053

B3.3

Outbuilding (east)

Low

Store, former WC (?)

19th century?

B2 HB24/04/053

B3.4

Hunter Stables

Low

Former WWII huts

Sea Plantation Building

Medium

Ruined summer house (?), ice house (?) and play house.

Early 19th century

Old Orchard Barn

Low

Ruined field barn

Early 19th century

Summerhouse

Statutory Designation

B1 HB24/04/059

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

Component Number

Recommended Component Name

Alternative Name(s)

Significance

Description

Date Range

Rugman’s Cottage and Barn

Rugman’s Farmstead

Low

Ruined cottage and agricultural buildings

18th century/ Early 19th century

Piggery

Old Piggery, Bell’s Sheds

Low

Ruined agricultural building

Early 19th century

Patterson’s Cottage

Low

Redundant cottage

Late 18th century (?)

Gasworks

Old Gas Works

High

Private Coal Gasworks

c.1850

North Gate Lodge

Hamilton’s Gate Lodge

High

Gate Lodge, now privately let residence

1821–1834

Greyabbey Gate Lodge

Clay Gate Lodge, , McGivern’s Gate Lodge

High

Gate Lodge, now privately let residence

c.1817

B2 HB24/04/050

D3.1

Main Gate Lodges (west)

Front Gate/Twin Gate/West Gate Lodge/Twin Pot Lodges (west)

High

Gate Lodge, one now privately let residence

c.1808

B2 HB24/04/054

D3.2

Main Gate Lodges (east)

Front Gate/Twin Gate/West Gate Lodge/Twin Pot Lodges (east)

High

Vacant Gate Lodge

c.1808

B2 HB24/04/054

Statutory Designation

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

Component Number

Recommended Component Name

Alternative Name(s)

Significance

Description

Date Range

Laundry Cottage

The Old Laundry

Medium

Former Laundry now privately let residences

c.1805

D5.1

Ros Cuan

The Cottage

Low

Former farmstead (?) and demesne staff accommodation, now privately let residence

Early 19th century (?)

D5.2

Outbuilding (Potting Shed)

Low

Potting shed and store

1834–1858

D5.3

Outbuilding (Store)

Low

Store

Mid-20th century

Temple of the Winds

Exceptional

Garden building, belvedere, banqueting house

1782–1785

Sea Plantation Swimming Pool

Low

Former swimming pool

1936–1938

Statutory Designation

A HB24/04/52A

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

2.4 VIEWS Mount Stewart demesne is significant for a number of iconic and majestic views, particular those which look outwards toward Strangford Lough from the Temple of the Winds and from the gardens. Gallagher & Rutherford’s Mount Stewart demesne landscape CMP (2018) established a number of key views, both current and lost, within the demesne, with particular reference to intended views which were part of the original ornamental design. The extent of planting and the topography of a rolling landscape both frame and restrict many views within the demesne. Long range views tend to be those from high viewpoints or those beside the lough looking outwards. Here there are a number of buildings with intended external views, which take advantage of the dramatic views across the lough. These include the Temple of the Winds, the gate lodges of Claygate/Greyabbey and Main Gate and Mountstewart School. In the 1930s, Lady Edith took advantage of the Sea Plantation’s position and located a swimming pool with a rotating summerhouse beside the lough which benefitted from superb views. Sadly, the public do not currently have access to this area to enjoy this situation.

As one might expect for functional structures it is also very likely that many demesne buildings were deliberately screened with limited or no designed viewpoints; the piggery for example is set in a low lying location adjacent to woodland. Other buildings have been screened for reasons of privacy, such as the residence of Ros Cuan. The Laundry is interesting, as a functional building highly visible in longer views, which may or may not have been designed. A number of key, designed views between key buildings, such as those to and from Mount Stewart House and the Temple of the Winds, have now been lost. The Plantations around the Temple

are now such that its original panoramic view of the demesne has also been lost. Other structures like the Folly in the Glen were clearly intended to have views out, but with their original use now lost, views have been obscured by vegetation. The National Trust should seek to protect significant views from development or planting, and if possible, should seek to recover views now lost. It might also be possible in future for visitors to be given access to Bean Hill; following a potential future restoration, visitors might finally enjoy views of the Walled Garden, Farmyard and Dovecote, and see the views once intended for Mount Stewart House.

Today, as the CMP says, the ‘ornamental estate buildings have a very localised effect in views.’03 On approaches along the Portaferry Road, views are short range and sudden. Historically, it seems more likely that the Gothick lodges were originally intended to be a focus for visitors approaching Mount Stewart, as demonstrated in Lord Mark Kerr’s drawing of Mount Stewart from the lough-side, where the Main Gate Lodges can be seen nestling below woodland to the left of the house. For the Gamekeeper’s Lodge, modern forestry planting now obscures the building, restricting views in and out of the building – this was clearly not the designer’s original intent.

03 Ibid, p99

View across the lough towards Mount Stewart and the Main Gate Lodges 1815 by Lord Kerr (Hector McDonnell Collection)

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

KEY VIEWS RELATING TO BUILDINGS WITHIN THIS STUDY Short Range Views Long Range Views Lost Views

This plan is not to scale. It does not include all views on the estate but seeks to identify the key historic ones (extant and lost).

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

2.5 CONDITION 2.5.1 Preliminaries The condition of each of the structures within the demesne has been assessed to support a full understanding of the buildings. Survey findings are included in each of the individual CSs but have been included here as a whole to give an overview of the demesne in its entirety. The purpose of the condition survey was to generally assess the condition of the historic fabric within the project scope and advise on remedial actions and potential priority timescales. Above ground drainage provisions were included, together with a general assessment of interior spaces and finishes. Mechanical and electrical installations were not assessed as part of this survey. 2.5.2 Limitations of the Survey The survey was by visual inspection and from ground level only. Not every roof element was accessible, and no opening-up investigations were carried out. It is not therefore possible to confirm that every element within the area of scope is entirely free of defect. A limited number of previous survey and inspection information was available at the time of the survey. Previous reporting by others includes: •

Temple of the Winds Quinquennial Inspection, Chris McCollum, 2016.

•

Mount Stewart Farmyard and Walled Garden Condition Surveys Outline Condition Survey for Potential Building Acquisitions at Mount Stewart, National Trust, 2010.

•

Structural Inspection of Farm Buildings, Jon Avent, 2015.

•

Mount Stewart Farmyard and Walled Garden Condition Surveys, National Trust, 2015.

•

A set of condition surveys (unauthored) from c.2001 for a number of structures.

The survey was carried out by Dr Alexander Holton, Associate, Purcell across two visits in 2019. The survey was carried out in the presence of Andrew Corkill, Project Manager at the National Trust, who was able to impart valuable advice on the state of the fabric in question. Each structural component is set out on the following pages, summarising the current condition of the fabric and recommendations with indicative timescales for an appropriate response. These recommendations are made without reference to any potential major development project at this stage, but as if they were to be carried out under a normal extended programme of ongoing repairs and maintenance. However, in the event that a major capital development project or projects were to be mobilised, these should seek to address all the issues covered as much as possible in order to maximise the conservation benefit, and to avoid returning to areas to carry out known repairs once other associated major development works are complete. In this context, a minimum ‘design-life’ requirement would often be specified by the client (e.g. 25 years, subject to regular maintenance) that would assist with determining the timing of works, and what could or could not be reasonably deferred within the long-term view.

2.5.3 Criteria for Assessment The following system has been used to broadly class the condition needs, timings/priorities and recommendations at this stage, with specific recommendations in respect to remaining fabric lifespans etc. also noted under each element where appropriate: CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT

TIMESCALE

Urgent Health & Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed

Within 1–2 years

Stable but defective fabric; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs

Ongoing

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

2.5.4 Condition Assessment For location plan of these structures, see page 08. SUMMARY OF CONDITION

RECOMMENDED REPAIRS

Roofs: fair condition, some open joints to ridge and gable copes, with vegetation growth. Occasional slate lift/deflection.

Localised roof repairs.

FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

ORDER OF PRIORITY

A1 GROUP A1.1

Farm range along road (west)

Repointing of open joints/cracks in masonry. Rainwater Goods (RWGs): cast iron, appear sound. Reversal of cement-based interventions desirable.

Masonry: localised open joints and inappropriate modern cement repairs/inserts. Fe damage to jamb masonry on roadside elev.

A1.2

Farm range U-shaped (north)

Windows/doors: fair or poor condition, affected by rot, deterioration of finishes.

Overhaul of windows and doors recommended, including timber repairs and redecorations.

Interiors/finishes: fair or poor condition, but commensurate with present use.

Internal redecorations in traditional finish e.g. limewash.

Roofs: sound condition to south pitch, appears to have been comprehensively repaired in recent times. North pitch with some open joints to ridge and gable copes, with vegetation growth.

Localised roof repairs.

Occasional slate lift/deflection.

Reversal of cement-based interventions desirable.

Repointing of open joints/cracks in masonry.

RWGs: cast iron, appear sound. Masonry: localised open joints and inappropriate modern cement repairs/inserts.

Overhaul of windows and doors recommended, including timber repairs and redecorations.

Windows/doors: fair or poor condition, affected by rot, deterioration of finishes. Some metal framed inserts, which require overhaul.

Internal redecorations in traditional finish e.g. limewash.

Interiors/finishes: fair or poor condition, but commensurate with present use. 26

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

A1.3

Farm range U-shaped (east)

SUMMARY OF CONDITION

RECOMMENDED REPAIRS

FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

ORDER OF PRIORITY

Roofs: sound condition to west pitch, appears to have been comprehensively repaired in recent times. East pitch with some open joints to ridge, with vegetation growth. Occasional slate lift/deflection.

Localised roof repairs.

Further investigation of structural defects required by suitably qualified structural engineer. Monitor.

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

Deteriorating frames to rooflights, broken/missing panes. RWGs: cast iron, appear sound.

Repointing of open joints/cracks in masonry, potential structural repairs required at south end of east elevation. Reversal of cement-based interventions desirable.

Masonry: localised open joints and inappropriate modern cement repairs. Some structural cracking at south end of east elevation through blocked arch.

Overhaul of windows and doors recommended, including timber repairs and redecorations.

Windows/doors: fair or poor condition, affected by rot, deterioration of finishes. Some metal framed inserts, which require overhaul.

Internal redecorations in traditional finish e.g. limewash.

Interiors/finishes: fair or poor condition, but commensurate with present use.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

A1.4

Farm range U-shaped (south)

SUMMARY OF CONDITION

RECOMMENDED REPAIRS

FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

ORDER OF PRIORITY

Roofs: sound condition to north pitch, appears to have been comprehensively repaired in recent times. South pitch with some open joints to ridges. Occasional slate lift/deflection.

Localised roof repairs.

Further investigation of structural defects required by suitably qualified structural engineer. Monitor.

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

Repointing of open joints/cracks in masonry. Potential structural repairs at east end of south elevation.

RWGs: cast iron, appear sound. Masonry: localised open joints and inappropriate modern cement repairs/inserts. Some structural easing noted at eastern end of south elevation.

A1.4.1

Modern farm structures (north)

Reversal of cement-based interventions desirable.

Windows/doors: fair or poor condition, affected by rot, deterioration of finishes. Some metal framed inserts, which require overhaul.

Overhaul of windows and doors recommended, including timber repairs and redecorations.

Interiors/finishes: fair or poor condition, but commensurate with present use.

Internal redecorations in traditional finish e.g. limewash.

Agricultural structures with modern metal framed shelter coverings and historic rear walls. Fair condition overall. Some dilapidation of masonry walling including open joints and loss of limewash finishes but commensurate with present use.

Localised repair and redecorations to masonry walling required.

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

A1.5

Farmhouse (east)

SUMMARY OF CONDITION

RECOMMENDED REPAIRS

FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

ORDER OF PRIORITY

Roofs: appears generally sound, some localised missing pointing to ridges.

Localised roof repairs.

Check and investigate causes of damp problems, prescribing an appropriate solution that facilitates free evaporation of moisture.

Sound, subject to maintenance.

Investigate and seek to address causes of damp ingress and deterioration to interior if not already done so.

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Overhaul RWGs. RWGs: failures of protective finishes and visible rust, overhaul needed. Potential leak in wastewater pipe on north elevation. Masonry: localised open joints, previous cement repairs. Windows/doors: UPVC, sound.

Renewal of inappropriate UPVC windows to traditional timber recommended.

Interiors/finishes: generally sound, but occupier notes damp issues to chimney breasts and also at front (south) of house.

A1.6

Farmhouse (west)

Repointing of open joints/cement sections in masonry. Could be associated with damp issues.

Renewal of interior finishes may be required where damp has persisted, using traditional breathable systems.

Roofs: open joints to ridge, north pitch covered with moss and potentially hiding defective slates.

Further survey needed but potential overhaul of roof now due (inc outshot).

RWGs: UPVC, loose/broken gutters, c/iron waste water pipe in need of overhaul.

Renewal of all RWGs in traditional cast iron recommended.

Masonry: some open joints, dense cement pointing on south elevation. Failure of paintwork on masonry cills. Localised spalling of brickwork surrounds to windows. Hard cement render on outshot to north elevation appears to be trapping moisture.

Repairs and repointing required, removal of hard cement mortars. Redecorate cills, repair brickwork jambs. Remove hard render from outshot and replace with breathable lime render.

Windows/doors: UPVC, requiring overhaul. Allow to carry out significant repairs to interior, including addressing previous issues of moisture ingress and damage.

Interiors/finishes: interior not inspected but significant defects known, related to floors and damp.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

A1.6.1

Outbuilding to farmhouse (west)

SUMMARY OF CONDITION

RECOMMENDED REPAIRS

Roofs: loss/slippage of failing roof coverings.

Roof requires renewal.

RWGs: require overhaul.

RWGs require renewal.

Masonry: open joints, staining caused by damp.

Localised repair to brickwork required including repointing.

FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

ORDER OF PRIORITY Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Windows/doors: rot/failure. Renewal of windows/doors now required. Interiors/finishes: loss of finishes. Renew interior finishes. A1.7

Stables within Apple Loft

Localised roof repairs.

Roofs: fair condition, some open joints to ridge. Occasional slate lift/ slip/deflection.

Repointing of open/weathered joints in masonry.

RWGs: cast iron, appear sound. Displaced connection on east side requires re-setting.

Overhaul of windows and doors recommended, including timber repairs and redecorations.

Masonry: sound overall, some localised open/weathered joints and scaling to window surrounds.

Internal refurbishment required.

Windows/doors: fair condition overall, some localised rot, deterioration of finishes. Interiors/finishes: Upper timber floor structures temporarily propped, but also appear to have been structurally repaired. Lath and plaster lining to roof requires full repair including new laths and new lime plaster. Deterioration and loss of plaster wall finishes and decorations, but condition commensurate with current/historic use.

Monitor scaling masonry surfaces to window surrounds and address if rate of loss is deemed unacceptable. Advise on status of temporary props and whether or not a live defect is present or has now been addressed by structural repairs, and that props can be removed.

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

A1.8

Apple Loft Cottage

SUMMARY OF CONDITION

RECOMMENDED REPAIRS

Building not entered.

Maintain in sound condition.

Sound, subject to maintenance/ minor repairs.

Carry out internal refurbishment when appropriate.

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

Roof: sound condition, appears to have been comprehensively repaired in recent times.

Carry out lime mortar repointing to open joints in masonry.

Masonry: localised open and weathered joints. Internal damp and bio growth.

Overhaul/replace timber elements to roof, doors.

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

Windows/doors/roof openings: fair or poor condition, affected by rot, deterioration of finishes. Main doors missing.

Internal redecoration with limewash desirable. Apply mesh protections to louvres and new doors at ground floor level to prevent vermin.

Roof: sound condition.

FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

ORDER OF PRIORITY

RWGs: sound condition. Masonry: satisfactory condition. Windows/doors: windows in satisfactory condition inc uPVC. Interiors/finishes: Understood to be in sound condition. A1.8.1

Apple Loft outbuildings

Roofs: satisfactory condition commensurate with function as stores/ car shelter. RWGs: sound condition. Masonry: satisfactory condition. Interiors/finishes: Loss of internal finishes.

A2 GROUP A2

Dovecote

Interiors/finishes: fair or poor condition, but commensurate with present use. Tendency for vermin, pigeons etc. 31

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

SUMMARY OF CONDITION

RECOMMENDED REPAIRS

FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

ORDER OF PRIORITY

Walled/ Kitchen Garden Boundary Walls – all areas

Masonry walls, combining stone and brick sections including brick cappings. Some sections rendered.

Long-term repair/consolidation plan required, organised by priority and tackled by manageable sections each year. Repairs should be co-ordinated with any capital development/ improvement projects, or changes in occupation of dwellings.

Structural engineer should advise on structural issues and proximity/implications of earth pile to north.

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

Dairy (B2)

Roof: sound condition, as repaired by the National Trust in 2019.

A3 GROUP

A3.1

Condition variable across walls; sections of lost/damaged cappings, structural, cracking/deflection; vegetation and intrusive plant growth. Loss of pointing. Large earth heap against north section may need to be removed, subject to advice from Structural Engineer.

Masonry: satisfactory condition following repair.

Carry out internal conservation and refurbishment to complete rehabilitation of structure, including refurbishment of glazed doors.

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

Complete protection and stabilisation works ahead of implementation of long-term repair/ rehabilitation.

Immediate Health & Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Windows/doors: windows in satisfactory condition following redecoration etc., doors require refurbishment. Interiors/finishes: fair condition but some surface failures, plaster cracking mould growth and so on. A3.2

Dairy outbuildings

Structure currently scaffolded awaiting repair. Not closely accessed but whole now in very poor condition.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

A3.3

Gardener’s House (Liam McCormick dwelling)

SUMMARY OF CONDITION

RECOMMENDED REPAIRS

FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

ORDER OF PRIORITY

Roofs: flat felt roof, not inspected but assumed satisfactory condition at this stage with no internal ingress reported by occupier.

Carry out internal refurbishment when appropriate.

Check flat roof and drainage for condition and performance to inform timing of renewal.

Sound, subject to maintenance/ minor repairs.

RWGs: not inspected. Masonry: satisfactory condition. Windows/doors: UPVC, satisfactory. Interiors/finishes: sound. Cold rear (garden) wall reported by occupier. Could benefit from further insultation.

A3.5

Vinery glasshouse

Structure is in a serious state of dilapidation.

Carefully dismantle and rebuild, with appropriate consents.

A3.7

Orchard Cottages

Roofs: Welsh slate, some slipped/broken. Gaps to pointing in ridge.

Localised repair and redecorations to masonry walling required address guttering and localised roof defects.

RWGs: appears generally sound, some re-setting needed to gutter sections where dropped. Masonry: rendered, some crazing and loss of finish noted. Windows/doors: UPVC, satisfactory. Interiors/finishes: not inspected. Understood to have been refurbished in 1996.

Immediate Health & Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed. Interiors to be inspected when appropriate.

Sound, subject to maintenance/ minor repairs.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

SUMMARY OF CONDITION A3.8

Modern structures to north inc polytunnels

Modern polytunnels, glasshouses etc. Condition appears generally satisfactory, commensurate with use. Not closely inspected.

Gamekeeper’s Lodge

Roofs: temporary metal sheet, failing and allowing water ingress.

RECOMMENDED REPAIRS

FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

ORDER OF PRIORITY Sound, subject to maintenance/ minor repairs.

A4 GROUP A4.1

RWGs: defective/obsolete.

Major repairs and reinstatement needed. In meantime keep secure and monitor for further deterioration.

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Major repairs needed. Keep secure and monitor for further deterioration.

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Masonry: rendered, cracking and crazing noted, condition beneath render unclear. Saturation possible. Windows/doors: timber, localised rot, deterioration of surface finishes. Interiors/finishes: paint/plasterwork failing throughout. Evidence of significant ingress. A4.2

Kennels

Roofs: temporary metal sheet, failing and allowing water/vegetation ingress. RWGs: defective/obsolete. Masonry: open joints, vegetation, gradual destabilisation of chimneys. Interiors/finishes: commensurate with former use, surface deterioration and evidence of ingress.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

SUMMARY OF CONDITION

RECOMMENDED REPAIRS

FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

ORDER OF PRIORITY

Further safe inspection required.

Immediate Health & Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

A4.3

Ivy Covered Building

Masonry structure only partially inspected. Significant vegetation cover and penetration into masonry.

Stability of fabric not known. Prioritise security. Major repairs/reinstatement needed.

A4.4

Modern structure

Roofs: metal sheet. Some lifting and allowing vegetation growth, ingress.

Repairs required to prevent ingress.

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

Internal refurb required.

Sound, subject to maintenance/ minor repairs.

RWGs: defective/obsolete. Masonry: masonry piers and substructure, sheet metal cladding/ partitions. Some puncturing, surface damage, corrosion. Windows/doors: timber glazed, deteriorating. Interiors/finishes: failing, condition commensurate with meanwhile use. B1 GROUP Mountstewart School

Roofs: slate, recently repaired. RWGs: cast iron, recently repaired and redecorated. Masonry: rendered stone, recently repaired/redecorated. Windows/doors: timber & glazed, recently repaired and redecorated. Interiors/finishes: variable. Internal refurb required. Evidence of internal damage caused by previous ingress now dealt with.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

SUMMARY OF CONDITION

RECOMMENDED REPAIRS

FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

ORDER OF PRIORITY

Folly

Masonry: designed ruin. Open joints, cracking, disruption of wall heads, vegetation growth.

Tactile inspection and removal/fixing of potentially loose masonry required as public access the Folly. Repair and consolidation then needed.

Immediate Health & Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Stable Block

Roofs: slate, lead dressings and fascias, appear sound from ground level.

Basic repairs/maintenance needed.

Sound, subject to maintenance/ minor repairs.

Roof: slate, overgrown with moss, some deflection and broken/slipped units. Torn felt internally.

Strip roof and re-cover with new breathable membrane. Prevent any ingress in short-term.

RWGs: UPVC, slipped and defective.

Renew RWGs in traditional cast iron.

Masonry: stone, with brick detailing, appears sound but not all elevations visible.

Remove vegetation from elevations, allow some re-pointing.

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

Doors: timber with metal fittings, overhaul due.

Overhaul doors.

Interiors/finishes: surface deterioration, condition commensurate with use as store/outhouse.

Redecorate internally.

B2 GROUP

B3 GROUP B3.1

RWGs: cast iron, require servicing/redecorating. Masonry: stone, with brick detailing, sound. Windows/doors: timber & glazed, redecorations due. Interiors/finishes: satisfactory. B3.2

Outbuilding to south

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

B3.3

Outbuilding to east

SUMMARY OF CONDITION

RECOMMENDED REPAIRS

Roof: corrugated sheet, overgrown, some deflection, evidence of ingress.

Significant repairs needed.

FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

ORDER OF PRIORITY Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

RWGs: cast iron, refurbishment due. Masonry: stone, with brick detailing and blockwork vertical extension. Some vegetation, open joints. Windows/doors: timber with metal fittings, glazed window opening, overhaul due. Interiors/finishes: significant deterioration evident. B3.4

Hunter Stable (north)

Roof: corrugated sheet, covered in moss some deflection, evidence of ingress. RWGs: cast iron, refurbishment, repair and renewal of sections due. Masonry: brick, some spalling and loss of painted finish; structural cracking between bays, open joints. Windows/doors: timber doors with metal fittings, metal glazed windows. Requiring extensive repairs. Interiors/finishes: dilapidated.

Significant repairs needed. Structural engineer to advise on masonry defects.

Inspection by structural engineer. Further interior inspection.

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

B3.5

Hunter Stable (south)

SUMMARY OF CONDITION

RECOMMENDED REPAIRS

Roof: corrugated sheet. Appears sound.

Sound subject to ongoing maintenance and basic repairs. Clear gutters. Consider improvements in perimeter drainage/adjacency of hard standings.

Sound, subject to maintenance/ minor repairs.

Sound subject to maintenance. Reduce tree cover to avoid risk of roof damage.

Sound, subject to maintenance/ minor repairs.

RWGs: cast iron, sound subject to maintenance. Gutters require clearance.

FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

ORDER OF PRIORITY

Masonry: brick, painted finish. Appears generally sound; some salt damage noted at low level (e.g. on roadside gable end) due to lack of perimeter drainage and rising moisture/splashback. Windows/doors: timber doors with metal fittings, metal glazed windows. Require some maintenance but appear generally sound. Interiors/finishes: satisfactory. B3.6

Blockwork Shed

Roof: corrugated sheet, some interference from tree cover. Appears sound. RWGs: cast iron, sound subject to maintenance. Masonry: brick, stone, painted finish. Appears sound. Windows/doors: timber doors with metal fittings, metal glazed windows. Appear sound. Interiors/finishes: satisfactory.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

B3.7

Bothy

SUMMARY OF CONDITION

RECOMMENDED REPAIRS

Roof: corrugated sheet, some interference from tree cover. Appears sound.

Sound subject to maintenance. Reduce tree cover to avoid risk of roof damage.

FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

ORDER OF PRIORITY Sound, subject to maintenance/ minor repairs.

RWGs: cast iron, sound subject to maintenance. Masonry: brick, stone, painted finish. Appears sound. Windows/doors: timber doors with metal fittings, metal glazed windows. Appear sound. Interiors/finishes: satisfactory. C1 GROUP Sea Plantation Building

Ruin.

Major repairs needed. Works to make safe required in short-term.

Masonry: stone, significant deterioration including structural defects. Loose/imminently loose masonry units. Risks to trespassers.

Investigation of full repair needs required once safe access is possible. Internal brick bowl to be cleared of rubble to allow historic building investigation to establish former use(s).

Immediate Health & Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

C2 GROUP Old Orchard Barn

Ruin.

Major repairs needed. Works to make safe required in short-term.

Masonry: stone with sections obscured by vegetation. Open joints etc, structural cracking and destabilisation of masonry to wall tops. Risks to trespassers.

Immediate Health & Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

SUMMARY OF CONDITION

RECOMMENDED REPAIRS

FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

ORDER OF PRIORITY

Structures in serious decline.

Major repairs needed. Works to make safe required in short-term.

Immediate Health & Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Repairs, re-roofing and re-purposing needed.

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

Major works required. Demolition may need to be considered.

Immediate Health & Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

C3 GROUP Rugman's farm house and barns

Roof: sheet metal roof to barn deteriorating. Masonry: overrun with vegetation and in decline.

C4 GROUP Piggery

No roofing at present. Masonry: stone walls, vegetation growth, some disruption of wall tops, open joints. Appears sound overall at present.

C5 GROUP Patterson’s Cottage

Roof: slate/?composite. Failing extensively, total loss in some areas. RWGs: generally missing, some UPVC. Masonry: rendered brick, loss of render and structural failures. Windows/doors: timber. Significant deterioration. Interiors/finishes: significant deterioration and ingress.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

SUMMARY OF CONDITION

RECOMMENDED REPAIRS

FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

ORDER OF PRIORITY

Masonry: stone with brick dressings, some sections obscured by vegetation, Open joints etc, but appears stable. Evidence of previous structural stabilisation (tie rods).

Sound at present, ensure site remains secure. Significant repairs needed.

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Sound subject to minor repairs/redecorations.

Sound, subject to maintenance/ minor repairs.

C6 GROUP Gasworks

Interiors/finishes: deterioration to surfaces within vaulted section, ingress. Furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FFE): Galvanised metal steps, iron railings, gates. Railing sections require refurbishment. D1 GROUP North Gate Lodge

Roofs: slate, appears sound. Timber fascias and detailing require redecoration. RWGs: cast iron, redecoration and clearance required. Masonry: rendered, sound. Windows/doors: UPVC, timber, sound. Interiors/finishes: satisfactory.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

SUMMARY OF CONDITION

RECOMMENDED REPAIRS

Only partially inspected from roadside.

Minor repairs/maintenance required.

FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

ORDER OF PRIORITY

D2 GROUP Greyabbey Gate Lodge (Clay Gate Lodge)

Roofs: slate, appears sound, some minor slips/breaks.

Sound, subject to maintenance/ minor repairs.

RWGs: cast iron, redecoration and clearance required. Masonry: stone/brick, rendered to rear. Cracking to chimney renders noted. Vegetation growth. Windows/doors: timber, glazed, appear sound subject to maintenance. Interiors/finishes: not inspected. D3 GROUP D3.1

Main Gate Lodge (west)

Roofs: slate, appears sound.

Sound, subject to maintenance/ minor repairs.

RWGs: cast iron, redecoration and clearance required. Masonry: rendered, sound. Windows/doors: timber, sound subject to maintenance. Interiors/finishes: not inspected.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

D3.2

Main Gate Lodge (east)

SUMMARY OF CONDITION

RECOMMENDED REPAIRS

Not currently habitable.

Significant repair/refurbishment needed.

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

Minor repairs/redecorations required.

Sound, subject to maintenance/ minor repairs.

Roof: slate, open joints to ridge, some slips/damage. RWGs: none present.

FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

ORDER OF PRIORITY

Masonry: stone, generally sound, some open joints etc. Windows/doors: timber, glazed, repair and overhaul required. Interiors/finishes: slow deterioration, stable at present. Significant refurbishment required. D4 Group D4

Laundry Cottage

Roofs: slate, appears sound, patches of moss growth. RWGs: cast iron, sound subject to maintenance/redecoration. Masonry: rendered, generally sound, some water staining from run-off. Windows/doors: uPVC + timber, sound subject to maintenance. Interiors/finishes: satisfactory.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

SUMMARY OF CONDITION

RECOMMENDED REPAIRS

Roofs: slate, appears sound, patches of moss growth.

Minor repairs/redecorations required.

FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

ORDER OF PRIORITY

D5 Group D5.1

Ros Cuan

Sound, subject to maintenance/ minor repairs.

RWGs: cast iron, sound subject to maintenance/redecoration. Masonry: rendered, generally sound, some water staining and loss of finish. Windows/doors: uPVC + timber, sound subject to maintenance. Interiors/finishes: satisfactory. D5.2

Outbuilding 1 – potting shed

Roof: slate, overgrown with moss, some deflection and broken/slipped units. Some separation along gable.

Repairs required following structural advice. Consider removal of adjacent trees that may be affecting gable. Monitor.

Structural engineer to assess condition of gable.

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

Repairs required following structural advice. Monitor.

Structural engineer to advise on condition.

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

RWGs: none. Masonry: brick, rendered. Potential structural deflection and outward movement of gable end adjacent to tree. Doors: timber, glazed, sound subject to maintenance. Interiors/finishes: poor, but commensurate with use as shed. D5.3

Outbuilding 2 – store

Roof: corrugated sheet, some deflection and potential for ingress. RWGs: none. Masonry: reclaimed stone and concrete block. Some open joints, vegetation, deflection. Movement evident through stone and blockwork sections. Interior/finishes: commensurate with current use. 44

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMESNE TODAY

SUMMARY OF CONDITION

RECOMMENDED REPAIRS

FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

ORDER OF PRIORITY

D6 Group D6.1

Temple of the Winds

See Conservation Statement for details.

Minor repairs/redecorations required.

Sound, subject to maintenance/ minor repairs.

D6.2

Outbuilding

See Conservation Statement for details.

Refurbishment required and attention to damp penetration.

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

Swimming pool

Ruined state, only partially visible.

Significant consolidation required.

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

E1 GROUP

Masonry: stone, sections missing, destabilising at low level.

SECTION 3.0 UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEMESNE AND ITS BUILDINGS 3.1 BRIEF HISTORY OF MOUNT STEWART DEMESNE The history of the demesne landscape at Mount Stewart commences in the mid-18th century when Alexander Stewart of Ballylawn purchased the Manors of Newtownards and Comber from Robert Colville. Alexander built himself a modest house by the lough shore; the demesne was then smaller, but its woodland and drives were already taking on a familiar pattern. The Irish landscape gardener William King was engaged by Robert, later 1st Marquess of Londonderry, and plans were drawn up by James Wyatt for a new house on Bean Hill. Whilst the new house did not materialise, the demesne landscape and many of the demesne buildings were already under construction or being planned; the Neo-Classical Temple of the Winds by the celebrated architect, James ‘Athenian’ Stuart, was completed in 1786. The vision for the demesne extended beyond that of pleasure grounds and plantations with the family’s interest in agricultural improvement and the establishment of a home farm adjacent to a walled kitchen garden. During the early 19th century, the Stewart’s, like other Irish landowners, also engaged an ‘improving’ Scottish farm manager. Under the direction of George Greenfield the farm prospered. He introduced the keeping of dairy cows, beef fatteners, veal calves and sheep including Merinos, and the growing of wheat, barley, oats, turnips and potatoes.01

Casement, A (1995) ‘Mount Stewart Landscape Study’. Unpublished: National Trust Northern Ireland Region, pp26–27

King’s design for the demesne took full advantage of the natural rolling landscape. It comprised woodland belts and serpentines walks which separated agricultural fields and paddocks.02 Large wooded areas crowned the higher ground and it appears from an early stage that part of the Ballycastle township was intended to become part of the demesne, although this did not take place until sometime later. Further land was created from the lough, with the addition of the Sea Plantation along the lough side c.1793–1803, which allowed the creation of pleasure grounds and gardens. Into the evolving demesne, Robert Stewart placed a number of Gothick lodges and structures for leisure and enjoyment. The main house was extended in 1804 to designs by George Dance and again in the 1840s; around this time a new stable block and the lake were constructed. Despite the absence of the family from Mount Stewart during the later 19th century, the demesne was well managed by John Andrews of Comber who saw its survival through many challenging years including the Great Famine. However, following his retirement in 1863 the Mount Stewart farm and farmland were leased and a new house was required in the farmyard for the tenant’s steward.

Ibid (‘Executive Summary’)

The late 19th century period of decline for Mount Stewart was arrested in the early 20th century when Charles, 7th Marquess of Londonderry, and his wife Edith chose Mount Stewart as their main residence. Edith began a series of major clearances in the landscape to create the extensive and exceptional gardens that the National Trust manage today. Improvements also took place within the house as well as elsewhere in the demesne including the creation of a Rose Garden and Dairy. Throughout the 20th century the demesne has continued as a productive landscape, although increased mechanisation has impacted on the appearance of both the farmyard and of the surrounding landscape. A further change in the demesne landscape has been the replacement of mixed woodland with extensive plantations and conifers. Mount Stewart was passed to Lady Mairi Bury, daughter of the 7th Marquess and Lady Edith, who sought to improve the condition of her tenants and modernised many of the demesne buildings. She also began the process of transferring the ownership of Mount Stewart to the National Trust which has been continued by her daughter Lady Rose into the 21st century.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEMESNE AND ITS BUILDINGS

3.2

BRIEF TIMELINE OF MOUNT STEWART

1744 Alexander Stewart (1700–1781) acquired the Manors of Newtownards and Comber estate from Robert Colville for £42,000. The Manor of Newtownards included the Templecrone townland, later to become Mount Stewart. Stewart and his wife Mary built themselves a modest house on the shores of Strangford Lough named Mount Pleasant.

1775

1779 David Geddas (surveyor) produced ‘A Map of the demesne of Mount Stewart situated in the Parish of Greyabbey the property of Alexander Stewart Esq…’ This map shows a house north-west of a row of cottages situated beside the Portaferry road, and various plantations are still identifiable today.

Alexander’s son, Robert, married his second wife Lady Frances Pratt. They had eight children, in addition to a son, Robert (later Viscount Castlereagh), from his first marriage. Alexander set about various improvements to the house (now renamed Mount Stewart) to accommodate Robert’s growing family.

Alexander Stewart (1700-1781)

UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEMESNE AND ITS BUILDINGS

1780 Plans are underway for the construction of the ‘Temple of the Winds’ to designs by the celebrated architect James ‘Athenian’ Stuart at a cost of £996 (exc. stone and masons). The famous White Syrian vine is reputed to have been planted at Mount Stewart at this time, having been moved from the family residence in Newton.

1781

1781/82

Following the death of Alexander, Robert inherits the Mount Stewart estate. A new period of investment in Mount Stewart begins.

Payments are documented in demesne accounts to Mr King (possibly the landscape gardener W. King) for the creation of a park. It is assumed this was proposed in conjunction with intended new Bean Hill House.

Robert Stewart, 1st Marquess of Londonderry

Farmyard threshing barn range

1781–1789 Demesne account entries include payments of £914 on new ‘offices’, £945 on ‘gardens’ and £967 on ‘plantations’. The walled garden and farmyard were probably laid out at this time.

June 1783 Accounts show the architect James Wyatt was paid £25 and £83 for his plans for ‘new offices’.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEMESNE AND ITS BUILDINGS

1786

1789 The French Revolution begins.

The ‘Temple of the Winds’ was completed in 1786.

Temple of the Winds 2019

1789 Robert is elevated to the peerage as Baron Londonderry.

1790 Plans for the new house on Bean Hill were given up following the considerable expenses incurred by Robert in the election of his son, also called Robert and later known as Castlereagh, at the infamous Down elections, one of the most expensive elections in Irish history.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEMESNE AND ITS BUILDINGS

1793–1803

1795 Robert became Viscount Castlereagh and Earl of Londonderry in the following year.

The embankment is built to create the Sea Plantation.

1801 Acts of Union 1800 put into effect; the Irish parliament was abolished, and Ireland was united with Great Britain, forming the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

1802 In 1802 Roberts’ son, now Lord Castlereagh, accepted a position in the British Cabinet.

Lord Castlereagh in 1817

The Sea Plantation seen from near the Temple of the Winds

UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEMESNE AND ITS BUILDINGS

1803 Start of the Napoleonic Wars.

1804

1803

Perhaps following Castlereagh’s elevation to the Cabinet, steps were taken to upgrade the house at Mount Stewart. The grand west wing and a Grecian port cochere were commissioned from George Dance of London.

The first sea embankment to the Sea Plantation is completed. Historical accounts list payments made to a stone cutter James Campbell for a bathing house. This may be a reference to the Gothick-style stone building found in the Sea Plantation.

1805–1808 The Laundry was constructed at an approximate cost of £510; payments are made again to the stonecutter James Campbell.

The Laundry (now referred to as Laundry Cottage)

Carved stone in the Sea Plantation building

UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEMESNE AND ITS BUILDINGS

c.1808–1818 Entries within the demesne accounts suggest the Main Gate, McGivern’s and Gamekeeper’s Lodge were constructed during this period. The building in The Glen (also known as the Folly) may also have been built around this time.

1813

1815 End of the Napoleonic Wars. Castlereagh plays a key role in negotiations.

Mountstewart School was built for Viscountess Castlereagh and originally set up under the governance of the Erasmus Smith Foundation.

Plan of Mountstewart School and Comber Schools

1815 A fire destroyed part of the original Farmyard complex, which was subsequently rebuilt 1816-1817.

1816 Robert was created 1st Marquess of Londonderry.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEMESNE AND ITS BUILDINGS

1821 Following the death of his father, Viscount Castlereagh, succeeded as the 2nd Marquess of Londonderry. Tragically, however; Castlereagh died a year later.

1834

1822

First Edition Ordnance Survey Map shows that the majority of demesne buildings including the walled garden and farmyard have been constructed by this time.

The 3rd Marquess, Charles William, inherited Mount Stewart following the death of his half-brother. Charles William was fortunate to have married the heiress Frances Anne Vane Tempest in 1819. She brought with her considerable fortune and estates in County Durham (Wynyard Park and Seaham Hall) and Holderness House in London. Despite considerable investment in Mount Stewart over the next three decades, the couple never made it their home, preferring to live on their English estates. The Mount Stewart demesne was managed by their agent John Andrews.

Castlereagh, now 2nd Marquess of Londonderry in 1821

1834 First Edition Ordnance Survey Map

UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEMESNE AND ITS BUILDINGS

1834–1858

c.1835

This period saw the expansion and consolidation of the demesne landscape.

William Vitruvius Morrison was commissioned to enlarge the house for the 3rd Marquess, replacing the original house to the east. The work was to compliment Dance’s west wing, utilising the Greek Revival style. Morrison died in 1838, about ten years before the building was finally completed by Charles Campbell.

1845–1849 The Great Famine, also known as the Irish Potato Famine, occured in Ireland during this period. A million Irish died (amounting to approx. 20% of the population) and another million emigrated.

Charles William. 3rd Marquess

1845–1850 Payments for a ‘Mt Stewart New Building’ are shown in accounts for this year including payments to C. Campbell, and payments for stone, lime and timber. This is believed to relate to the construction of the stable block south-east of the house to the designs of Charles Campbell. Payments continue up to 1850, by which time, nearly £20,000 had been spent on the improvements.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEMESNE AND ITS BUILDINGS

1846 The lake was commissioned by the 3rd Marquess.

1854

1858

Charles, the 3rd Marquess, died and the estate was inherited by Frederick, a son from his first marriage. He preferred to live on his wife’s estate of Plas Machynlleth in mid-Wales.

Ordnance Survey Map showing the significant expansion of the plantations within the demesne.

The lake in 2019

1858 Ordnance Survey Map

UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEMESNE AND ITS BUILDINGS

1850 The Gasworks is believed to have been constructed, replacing an earlier unknown structure that may have been incorporated into the new building.

1872

1872–1884

Frederick, 4th Marquess died. He is succeeded by George Henry Vane Tempest. He preferred to live at Wynyard, in Co Durham, but visited Mount Stewart during the summer months.

The majority of farmland within the demesne, and land in Ballycastle township to the north, was let to Henry Tate. The stewards’ house was built in the farmyard during the 1870s to allow supervision of the farm.

Wynard Park Co. Durham

1884–1901 Farmland in the demesne was returned to Mount Stewart control and managed, in hand.

1886–1912 Home Rule Bills; three bills for home rule were presented to parliament in 1886, 1893 and 1912.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEMESNE AND ITS BUILDINGS

1884 Charles Stewart Vane-Tempest-Stewart inherited Mount Stewart as the 6th Marquess. He and his wife Tereasa often visited Mount Stewart and moved in Irish political circles. They were involved in the creation of the Ulster Covenant of 1912.

1895 The National Trust is founded by Octavia Hill, Robert Hunter and Hardwicke Rawnsley who pleadged to preserve our historic and natural places.

1895

1901

Lady Theresa’s yacht, the Mountstewart, is lost, with no survivors. A memorial cross is erected in their memory within the Sea Plantation.

Theresa, wife of the 6th Marquess

The Mount Stewart townland boundary was realigned along the Mountstewart road, to the north of the demesne landscape.

1900–1901 Ordnance Survey Map

UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEMESNE AND ITS BUILDINGS

1903 Charles and his wife hosted a visit by King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra to Mount Stewart. Two copper beeches on north front of house were planted by the King and Queen to commemorate their visit.

1911

1912–1920 New Plans for Partition & Home Rule.

Theresa, Lady Londonderry appointed Thomas Bolas as Head Gardener.

1915 Charles, the 6th Marquess died. His son Charles Stewart Henry, inherits as the 7th Marquess.

The Royal visit to Mount Stewart in 1903

Charles, 7th Marquess of Londonderry

UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEMESNE AND ITS BUILDINGS

1914–1918 The Great War (First World War).

1915–1918

1916

1917

1918

During the First World War, Mount Stewart became a convalescent hospital whilst the Marquess was on active service in France.

Easter Rising.

The Southern Walled Garden and Rose Garden were begun by Lady Londonderry, inspired by one of the formal gardens of Dunrobin Castle.

Plans for an oval swimming pool in the Sea Plantation were drawn up by J.H. Thompson of Newtownards. It was another 20 years before the idea came to fruition.

The Rose Garden c.1960

UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEMESNE AND ITS BUILDINGS

1919

1920

Theresa, Lady Londonderry died. The ground was levelled for an Italian Garden. Large steps are ordered for the South Garden and the Rose Garden was laid out.

Partition of Ireland; parliaments in Dublin and Belfast are formed.

1921

1921 OS Map

UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEMESNE AND ITS BUILDINGS

1921 The 7th Marquess was appointed Minister of Education in the first Northern Irish government. During the next 30 years Mount Stewart was to take on a new lease of life, with much of the impetus of improvement down to his wife Edith, Lady Londonderry. Edith became the sole designer, architect and client at Mount Stewart with the support of Thomas Beattie (Local builder), Joe Girvan (Mason) and Thomas Bolas, Theresa’s Head Gardener.

1925

1923

The ‘Dodo Terrace’ was constructed with animal statuary relating to Lady Edith’s ‘Ark Club’, an exclusive dining club established during the First World War. Each member was given the name of a bird, beast or magical character, and the statuary on the terrace therefore represent friends of Lady Londonderry, including Churchill and Ramsey MacDonald.

The vista was created through the Sea Plantation.

Charles, 7th Marquess, with Ramsay MacDonald and Lord Hailsham

Edith, Lady Londonderry

1926–1927 The private burial ground ‘Tír na nÓg’ (The Land of the Ever Young) was laid out.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEMESNE AND ITS BUILDINGS

1936–1938

1939–1945

After a number of years in planning, a swimming pool and pavilion were constructed at the southern tip of the Sea Plantation by Messrs McLaughton & Harvey.

Mount Stewart served as a billet for allied troops. The gardens, except the Walled Garden, were largely neglected. Brick huts were constructed to the north and north-east of the house.

The swimming pool photographed in the 1940s

1947 Thomas Bolas, the Head Gardener, dies.

1948 Creation of the Republic of Ireland.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEMESNE AND ITS BUILDINGS

1949 The 7th Marquess died and Mount Stewart passed to Edith, Lady Londonderry and their youngest daughter, Lady Mairi Bury.

1957

1959

Edith, Lady Londonderry, gifts Mount Stewart gardens to the National Trust.

Edith, Lady Londonderry, passes away. The Memorial Glade was created in her memory by Lady Mairi.

Mount Stewart and gardens

Lady Mairi Bury

1963 The Temple of Winds was given to the National Trust by Lady Mairi Bury.

1968–1998 The Troubles.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEMESNE AND ITS BUILDINGS

1968 A large proportion of the demesne woodland (240 acres/138 ha) was leased to the National Trust and sub-leased to the Northern Ireland Forestry Service.

1987

1976

Mountstewart School was acquired by the National Trust.

Mount Stewart House and remaining 19 acres (7.7ha) of garden were passed to the National Trust.

1990 ‘Tír na nÓg’, the family’s, private burial ground, was gifted to National Trust by Lady Mairi Bury.

Tír na nÓg

Mount Stewart in 2019

1998 Good Friday Agreement.

2009 Lady Mairi Bury died.

2014 Lady Rose Lauritzen transferred the remainder of the land and gardens (apart from a number of small properties) within the demesne to the National Trust.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEMESNE AND ITS BUILDINGS

3.3

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS N

DEMESNE HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Pre demesne landscape? Late 18th century (‘Intended House’ Phase) Expansion and embellishment (Gothick Phase to 1834)

See detailed plan on following page

Further improvements (to 1858) Later 19th century Lady Edith to later 20th century This plan is not to scale

UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEMESNE AND ITS BUILDINGS

WALLED GARDEN AND FARMYARD HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Intended House phase (late 18th century) Expansion and Embellishment (up to 1834) Further 19th century improvements (up to 1850) Later 19th century Lady Edith to later 20th century This plan is not to scale

UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEMESNE AND ITS BUILDINGS

3.4 PLACING THE DEMESNE IN CONTEXT 3.4.1 The Irish Demesne The Mount Stewart demesne typifies a significant landscape that was once common in Ireland. This section sets out a summary understanding of this context. Following the Anglo-Norman Invasion of AD 1169, the feudal system and manorial estates were introduced in order to take control of the land, economy, people and military.03 These manorial estates were split into two components: the land ‘retained by a lord for his own use and occupation’; 04 and the land leased to tenants.05 The former became known as a ‘demesne’, which was separate from the surrounding undeveloped countryside as well as the tenanted land, and used by the manorial classes to demonstrate social and economic prestige through both ornamentation and the production of goods. During the medieval period, such demesnes comprised large fields for crops and livestock, gardens, orchards, ponds and, importantly, deer parks. The post-medieval period saw an increase in the size of demesnes coupled with an intensified focus on ornamentation in line with the popular Baroque theory of the control over nature, including formally designed views, vistas, gardens, tree lined avenues and grid-like fields, to create beautiful settings for manor houses.06

M MacDonagh, Finding New Uses for Irish Demesnes: Authenticity and Integrity Issues. Unpublished. MA. University of Edinburgh, 2010

T Reeves-Smyth, The Natural History of Demesnes in Nature in Ireland: A Scientific and Cultural History. J.W. Foster (Ed.) 1997

MacDonagh, 2010

Ibid

From the mid-18th century, a new appreciation for a romanticised view of the picturesque and naturalised parkland brought about a major shift in style and triggered extensive alterations to existing demesnes. This was so widely adopted in Ireland that few ‘old formal’ demesne layouts remained by the end of the 18th century. demesnes became landscaped parks, comprising open meadows dotted with trees; lakes; tree-lined glades with animals grazing in the shadows of follies; uninterrupted views from the house; meandering paths through the woodlands; and carefully designed ‘natural’ views and vistas. In combination with this aspiration for naturalism came a desire to create picturesque ornamental estate buildings worthy of architectural attention, from pleasure houses to gate lodges.07 The Great Famine of 1845–1849 the agricultural depression and Land War from the 1870s led to the decline of the wealth of the Irish gentry, which aided the popularity of wilder, lowmaintenance parklands and a renewed focus on horticultural and agricultural developments. A series of Land Acts in the late 19th and early 20th centuries led to the dismantling of manorial estates and their demesnes, resulting in vastly reduced demesnes or their destruction entirely.08 However, many intact and partial demesnes are now protected through planning policy in Northern Ireland under the Register of Parks, Gardens and Demesnes of Special Historic Interest.09 The demesne remains an important element of the Irish landscape that requires more research to establish a more holistic understanding of its historical, architectural, archaeological and botanical significance.10

The demesne of Mount Stewart was established as a ‘landscaped park’ style demesne in the late 18th century. Apart from a small expansion in the early 19th century, the extent of the 880 acre demesne has remained intact since the 18th century.11 The closest comparable large demesnes established in the late 18th century include those of Portaferry House, Down (now approximately 430 acres), Downhill, Londonderry (now 416 acres) and Pellipar House, Londonderry (315 acres). Portaferry House appears to have acquired land from nearby demesnes in the 19th century but lost small portions in the 20th century, resulting in an irregularly shaped demesne. The demesne of Downhill, the house now a ruin, has been altered multiple times since its establishment in 1775, as following the expansion of the demesne in the 19th century, the demesne was broken up and sold from 1948 onwards, only for the National Trust to buy back parcels of land between 1949 and 1987, resulting in the existing 416 acre demesne.12 Pellipar House appears to have retained the majority of its demesne since the late 18th century (315 acres), but has lost small portions of land since the 19th century.13 Therefore, Mount Stewart is unique in Northern Ireland for its retention of such a large demesne established in the late 18th century; the combination of an ornamental and a productive landscape as a setting for Mount Stewart House and the retention of so many of its estate buildings lends it exceptional significance.

Built Heritage NIEA (2007). Register of Parks, Gardens and Demesnes of Special Historic Interest: Northern Ireland. NIEA. [Online]. Available at: http:// www.nihgt.org/resources/images/Register%20of%20Parks%20Gds%20&%20 Demesnes%20-%20Northern%20Ireland-NIEA.pdf [Accessed 10 January 2020.

FHA Aalen & K Whelan, Atlas of the Irish rural landscape, 1997

Ibid

Department for Communities (2020). Historic Parks, Gardens and Demesnes, Historic Environment. Department for Communities. [Online]. Available at: https://www.communities-ni.gov.uk/articles/historic-parksgardens-and-demesnes [Accessed 13 January 2020].

Outdoor Recreation NI (2019). Historic Downhill Demesne Outdoor Recreation Masterplan. Report prepared 10 June 2019. [Online]. Available at: http://ccght. org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Downhill-Demesne-Masterplan-FinalReport-10-June-2019.pdf [Accessed 13 January 2019].

Reeves-Smyth, 1997

Built Heritage NIEA, 2007

UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEMESNE AND ITS BUILDINGS

3.4.2 The Model Farm in Northern Ireland Model farms are farmsteads built on private estates during the 18th and 19th centuries in order to test and showcase the latest scientific innovations in agriculture and rural industries in response to the Agricultural Revolution.14 Model farms were often designed by architects, engineers, landowners or agents, originally intended as a single-phase unit, but elements of such model farms were often adapted, altered or demolished over time in response to changes in technology, use and the economy.15 Model farms are rarely named as such in historical documents, as this naming convention appears to be a more recent development.16 Historically, they were more commonly referred to as the Home Farm or Farm Yard – term an ‘improved’ or model farm has been applied by modern historians.17 Records of the architects or documents relating to model farms, such as letters, plans or accounts demonstrating the use of estate farms as model farms, are often difficult to locate. The first-hand accounts written by members of the Londonderry family in the late 18th and early 19th century regarding the Mount Stewart farm and now held in PRONI, are therefore of particular interest. As little research has been undertaken into model farms in Northern Ireland it is therefore somewhat difficult to accurately place Mount Stewart in the wider context of model farming in the area. However, a small number of model farms is known in Northern Ireland, although it is likely that these are representative of a larger body. In particular, model farms are said to be located at the estates of Finnebrogue House and Castle Ward in Downpatrick and Ballywalter Park (previously Springvale), Newtownards, all nearby in Co. Down.

S Wade Martins, The English model farm: building the agricultural ideal, 17001914, 2002

Ibid

JM Robinson, Georgian model farms: A study of decorative and model farm buildings in the Age of Improvement, 1700 – 1846, 1983

Ibid

The demesne of Finnebrogue House is known to have been ‘lavishly developed as a model farm’ in the early Victorian period’.18 The Home Farm was located to the north-east of the main house. The farm is thought to have been originally built between c.1795 and 1800 following the refurbishment of the house. The earliest phase comprised a stone boundary wall with a long range of farm buildings along the north-west boundary wall, a large stable to the south-east, a threshing barn and a horse engine.19 The model farm underwent a number of alterations, additions and demolitions from the 19th through to the 21st century, like Mount Stewart probably corresponding to changes in farming technology, standards and use. The farm complex and remaining individual buildings are listed on the Industrial Heritage Record and a number of the buildings are listed in groups as Grade B1 and B2 buildings. 20 The level of retention of machinery is currently unclear following conversion, with a steam engine, chaffing and grinding machinery being recorded at the site prior to 2003. 21 The loss and poor condition of a number of the historic farm buildings, as well as the introduction of new landscape elements, has partially reduced the group value of the model farm. However, the visual and spatial relationship between the remaining B1 and B2 listed buildings is strong, resulting in a high group value. 22 The model farm contributes a high significance to the overall demesne of Finnebrogue House.

Built heritage NIEA, 2007

Department for Communities (2007). Former stables. HB18/18/001 T. [Online]. Available at: https://apps.communities-ni.gov.uk/Buildings/buildview. aspx?id=9752&js=false [Accessed 09 January 2020].

Industrial Heritage Listings: 11183:000:00, 11183:001:00 and 11183:002:00; HERoNI Historic Buildings Listings: HB18/18/001 N, HB18/18/001 O, HB18/18/001 T and HB18/18/001 U). The Cornstore, Granary and Cowshed are on the Heritage at Risk Register and listed as B1 (HB18/18/001 U).

Department for Communities (2003). Corn store, granary, cowshed etc at Finnebrogue estate farmyard at 31 Killyleagh Road Finnabrogue Downpatrick Co Down. HB18/18/001 U. [Online]. Available at: https://apps.communities-ni.gov. uk/Barni/barniview.aspx?id=593&js=false [Accessed 09 January 2020].

Ibid

Ballywalter Park’s model farm was located far to the south of the main house and walled garden, outside of the demesne. Alexander Knox’s 1875 comment that ‘the farm buildings are on the most approved models’23 could indicate that the original northern courtyard of the Home Farm, constructed between 1840 and 1859 and listed as Grade B1, is a mid-19th century example of a model farm. 24 The model farm was extended considerably with multiple buildings and agricultural areas in the late 19th and 20th centuries and is now currently used as a dairy farm. 25 Due to access restrictions, little is known about the level of survival of built fabric other than the plan form. Architectural decoration is mostly confined to red and yellow brick detailing. 26 Whilst it remains in agricultural use, the extent of additions has partly reduced the legibility of the model farm. The Home Farm of Castle Ward, Downpatrick, Co. Down was built in the early 19th century surrounding the site of the 16th or early 17th century tower-house but constructed on the edge of the demesne and far away from the later main house and walled garden. The farmyard comprises stables and outbuildings around a central courtyard, with workshops, saw-mill, old granary, slaughterhouse, corn/flour mills, house and a potato house. 27 Based on historical mapping, most of the Farm Yard buildings date prior to 1813, with the saw-mill and western range of the

A Knox, A history of the county of Down from the most remote to the present day, 1875. Reprinted Davidson Books, 1982.

Department for Communities (1997). Home farm Ballywalter Park Ballyatwood Road Springvale Ballywalter Newtownards Co Down BT22 2PP. HB24/04/091. Available at: https://apps.communities-ni.gov.uk/Buildings/ buildview.aspx?id=6511&js=false [Accessed 20 December 2019].

Ibid

HERoNI Historic Buildings Listings: HB18/08/071 (Grade B+), HB18/08/073 (Grade B+), HB18/08/070 (Grade B), HB18/08/075 (Grade B), HB18/08/074 (Grade B), HB18/08/072 (Grade B), HB18/08/069 (Grade B1) and HB18/08/076 (Grade B).

UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEMESNE AND ITS BUILDINGS

courtyard built prior to 1859. 28 Despite the loss of some late 19th and 20th century buildings, the earlier structures have remained intact. The buildings are mostly plain stone rubble structures with embattled parapets based on those of the tower-house. 29 The buildings are listed B and B+ and demonstrate a wide range of agricultural production. Further archival research is required to form a more comprehensive understanding of the agricultural practices and innovations at these sites to more accurately establish the comparative significance of these model farms. However, a comparison of the above four estates indicates that the Mount Stewart farmyard may have been the first to be constructed, established around 1784–1785 and partially rebuilt in 1816–1817. The integrity and early date of the Mount Stewart model farm, as well as the extant archival records, affords an intact and valuable example of a model farm.

Ulster Archaeological Society (2019). Survey of Temple Water Castle Ward County Down, Survey Report No. 64. Ulster Archaeological Society in Association with the National Trust. [Online]. Available at: https://www.qub. ac.uk/sites/uas/UASfilestore/CoDown/Filetoupload,904837,en.pdf [Accessed 10 January 2020].

Department for Communities (n.d.). Old Castle Ward, Search the NISMR database. [Online]. Available at: https://apps.communities-ni.gov.uk/NISMRpublic/Details.aspx?MonID=7575 [Accessed 10 January 2020].

3.4.3 The Scottish Influence The horticultural and agricultural cultivation of the demesnes in Northern Ireland during the 18th and 19th centuries appears to have been highly influenced by Scottish methods. Irish landowners tended to employ Scottish agents and head gardeners to supervise the model farms and the walled gardens, which was certainly the case at Mount Stewart.30 Robert Stewart, created Marquess of Londonderry in 1816, together with his son Robert, Lord Castlereagh, employed an ‘Improving’ Scottish farm manager in the early 19th century. For the walled gardens, this often resulted in a practical mix of utility and ornamentation through the mixing of vegetables, fruit and flowers so that the former were hidden behind rows of flowers or shrubs.31 Like those in England and Scotland, model farms in Northern Ireland became showcases of agricultural innovation, often introduced from Scotland, with the documents for the Mount Stewart model farm showing evidence of using Scottish techniques such as marling and the threshing machine, overseen by a Scottish steward in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.32

T Reeves-Smyth, 1997

Ibid

PRONI D3030/H/31; PRONI D3030/H/32; PRONI Val 1B/33.

SECTION 4.0 ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 4.1 CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING SIGNIFICANCE Significance can be defined as the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest or values. The Mount Stewart CSs make use of best practice guidance on assessing significance through the use of ‘heritage values’.01 The value of many of the sites at Mount Stewart are recognised through their statutory designation at A–B2. The understanding of this significance is vital to inform sensitively managed change. This executive summary and the associated CSs focus on an understanding of the demesne buildings and therefore excludes the Mount Stewart House and pleasure gardens from its scope. The house CMP (2015) should be consulted to understand the significance of demesne within the context of its main residential building. Historic England Heritage Values: Evidential value: the potential of a place to yield evidence about past human activity. Historical value: the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through a place to the present – this can be illustrative or associative. Aesthetic, architectural and artistic value: the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from a place. Communal value: the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory.02

Historic England, Conservation Principles, 2008

The National Trust uses the word ‘people’ in place of ‘communal’ value

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

4.2

DEMESNE BUILDINGS: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE

•

Mount Stewart is a rare survival of a near-intact demesne landscape.

•

It holds beauty as a spacious, rolling landscape incorporating a mixture of leafy glades, meadows and farmland which served the ‘Big House’, interspersed with a distinctive and relatively complete collection of demesne structures.

•

Survival of a complete set of Gothick-style lodges.

•

The exceptional significance of the polite architectural folly that is the Temple of the Winds, designed by James ‘Athenium’ Stuart.

•

The Gasworks is believed to be the best surviving example of a domestic gas works in Northern Ireland.

•

Architectural quality and variety of the demesne buildings ranging from the Temple of the Winds, one of the best surviving Neo-Classical garden buildings in Ireland and of exceptional architectural quality, through the designed model buildings of the farmyard, to the less significant, but charming, vernacular simplicity of many other demesne structures.

•

Illustrative value of the demesne buildings, which represent a wide range of functions necessary for the smooth running of a country estate.

•

The Farmyard also illustrates the changes brought about in agriculture from the later 18th century to the present and the impact of the Agricultural Revolution and the development of the model farm.

•

Value of the functional demesne structures including the Farmyard, Walled Gardens and Gasworks which illustrate technical innovations brought about by the Industrial Revolution.

•

Historical connections with the Londonderry family, with the architects James ‘Athenian’ Stuart (d.1788), Charles Campbell (d.1850) and Liam McCormick (d.1996).

•

Strong sense of identity and community drawn from the demesne for those who live and work there.

•

Value drawn from Mount Stewart by its many visitors who come to enjoy the beauty of the house and gardens, and for those who come to walk and enjoy the solitude of the demesne.

•

Loss of historic fabric, features and character following the modernisation or decline of some structures.

•

Potential for greater understanding through additional research and archaeological analysis.

4.3 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 4.3.1 Mount Stewart Demesne The Register of Parks, Gardens and Demesne of Special Historic Interest for Northern Ireland, compiled by the Department of Communities (2019), states that Mount Stewart has one of the most outstanding gardens of the British Isles...set within an important 18th-century walled parkland on the shores of Strangford Lough.03 Demesnes are enclosed spaces, intended to be both picturesque and productive. The demesne has been a dominant feature of the Irish landscape since the medieval period.04 Mount Stewart is famous for its internationally renowned gardens, but it also boasts an outstanding example of a late 18th century landscape park in the Brownian tradition, unusual in that it has been adapted to a drumlin landscape and rare in that it has survived almost entirely intact over a period of two centuries. Its importance is enhanced by the beauty of its setting over Strangford Lough and by the quality of its buildings, most notably the Temple of the Winds, one of the finest 18th century ornamental buildings in the British Isles. Its magnificent 18th-century shelter belts, together with the early 19th century Sea Plantation provide the equable climatic conditions for the astonishing range of plants in the early 20th-century gardens, recognised by many as one of the finest in the British Isles and characterised by the clever use of planting, its scale, diversity and originality, imbued with political and family allusions

Department for Communities, ‘Register of parks, gardens and demesnes of special historic interest’. Available at https://www.communities-ni.gov.uk/ publications/register-parks-gardens-and-demesnes-special-historic-interest Accessed 21st January 2020

T Reeves-Smyth(1997) ‘The Natural History of Demesnes’, in Nature in Ireland: A Scientific and Cultural History. J.W. Foster (Ed.). Dublin: The Lilliput Press

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

Set within the rolling drumlin landscape of the Ards peninsula, Mount Stewart demesne contains a distinctive collection of demesne structures that are as varied in their dates as they are in their form and function. Despite this disparity, their group value is of exceptional significance; they are a relatively complete collection of buildings constructed or modified by the Londonderry family to provide for the needs and requirements of the ‘Big House’, and for their employees. As such they have high group value, and include a complete set of gate lodges, garden and leisure buildings (including the exceptional Temple of the Winds), cottages and houses for demesne staff, a model farm and related agricultural structures, a walled kitchen garden, a laundry, a school and a former gas works. 4.3.2 Historical Values The demesne buildings represent a wide range of functions necessary for the smooth running of a country demesne. They illustrate the consolidation and growth of the demesne, particularly as part of the work of Robert Stewart, 1st Marquess of Londonderry, for example, in the establishment of the gatehouses in the early 19th century. They also illustrate the development of technology in the form of the Gasworks, which was eventually replaced by electrical power in the 20th century. The Farmyard also demonstrated technical innovations with the use of horse and steam power and their later replacement with the combustion engine. It also represents the family’s passion for agricultural improvement in the light of the Agricultural Revolution. Model farms were farmsteads consciously planned and built as a unit to the design of an architect, landowner or his agent. A model farm demonstrated the landowner’s intellect whilst setting an example of good practice to his tenants and to society. This passion is reflected not only in the architecture of the Threshing Barn range and the Apple Loft Stables but demonstrated within correspondents between family members during the early 19th century.

The buildings share a connection with the Londonderry family; many, if not all, were constructed at their behest. Others are significant for other associations, including the architects Charles Campbell (d.1850) and Liam McCormick (d.1996), the latter being one of the founders of the modern Irish architectural movement. Other significant connections include the Erasmus Smith Schools’ Trust, an educational charity founded in the 17th century for the education of children. A number of buildings within the demesne are distinguished by their rarity; for example, the Gasworks, which supplied the house with gas extracted from coal brought from the family mines in Co. Durham between the 1850s and the First World War, is perhaps the best surviving example of a domestic gasworks in Northern Ireland. Although little research has been carried out on modern farms in Northern Ireland, the Farmyard at Mount Stewart, which only ceased operation in 2014, is one of only a few examples to survive in their original form. Despite the many adaptations and alterations commonly found on farms, and following a fire in 1815, it largely retains its key structures including a dovecote, threshing barn, byre, dairy and working horse stables, the latter relatively unaltered from the 19th century. Other survivals of note include the walled gardens, which were probably laid out by 1780–1781, as in July 1781 there is mention in accounts of payments for the ‘freight for tiles for hothouse’, while in 1780 the head gardener replanted a vine ‘in the west pine stove’. This vine, or its descendant, survives in the remains of a 20th century greenhouse within the gardens today, and is said to be almost as old as a vine at Hampton Court. Today, the glasshouse holds four vines of historic horticultural significance but the glasshouse itself is of no significance.

The collection of gate lodges has group value as they were constructed during a short period in the early 19th century and reflect a time of significant development at Mount Stewart when the house was being extended and the demesne was being transformed by extensive planting and new drives. The relocation of the Portaferry and Millisle roads led to the need to establish new approaches and gate houses. They also reflect the fashion during this period for the Gothick-style with a number of similar examples existing on estates in Ulster. The use of the Gothickstyle is also reflected in Mountstewart School, the Folly, and perhaps the early incarnation of the Gasworks. Despite the many survivals, there has also been losses which have reduced the significance of a number of buildings within the study. Residences privately let by the Mount Stewart Estate have undergone significant modernisation; whilst this has allowed them to be appropriate for modern living, it has also removed historic fabric and altered the appearance, layout and character of some structures. The Laundry, for example, was saved from decline and converted to flats in 1994; this altered its original plan form and removed or obscured evidence of the building’s former use. At the other end of the scale, a number of buildings are suffering from decline and dereliction, with potential loss of historic fabric threatening their overall historical significance. The Gasworks remains a significant structure despite current losses to the Retort House, which could be addressed by urgent repair works. Other structures of concern are the Gamekeeper’s Lodge, Patterson’s Cottage, the Sea Plantation building, Folly, Swimming Pool site and Rugman’s Farmstead. The Gamekeeper’s Lodge is listed B2 and underwent significant ‘refurbishment’ in the 1980s, but vacancy now threatens this significant structure. The other structures are not listed; their decline is equally severe without immediate action.

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

4.3.3 Aesthetic, Architectural and Artistic Values Architecturally, the range of demesne structures varies considerably, from the Temple of the Winds, one of the best surviving Neo-Classical garden buildings in Ireland and of exceptional architectural quality, to the less significant, but charming, vernacular simplicity of many other demesne structures. A number of the buildings have classical features such as the Farmyard’s threshing barn and the Apple Loft Stables, whilst the Stable Block designed by Charles Campbell, combines the domestic with classical composition. The North Gate Lodge was designed with two verandas with Doric columns, but it is combined with the ‘Cottage Orne’ as reflected in the pierced bargeboards. There is evidence of some architectural or design input into other buildings on the demesne, but limited evidence has arisen to formalise this understanding. Some of the structures may also be described as vernacular in character, adopting the local architectural dialect in materials, plan form, style and appearance. There is little or no architectural embellishment, but they have an attraction in their simplicity and sit well in the demesne and within the wider landscape. This group includes Rugman’s cottage, the secondary agricultural buildings within the Farmyard, the Old Orchard Barn and the Piggery.

For some structures, overall aesthetic value has been reduced following modern interventions. For example, the installation of uPVC windows, the rear extension on the Steward’s House, and the enclosed verandah and rear extension of North Gate Lodge. There is potential for the National Trust to improve the aesthetic value of many demesne buildings through the reversal of interventions. The reinstatement of new uses into vacant or underused structures is also an opportunity to improve condition and enhance significance across the site. 4.3.4 Communal Value (People Value) The landscape of Mount Stewart is loved by visitors, residence and staff alike. It is a landscape of distinctive character which people visit for its tranquillity and restorative qualities and to experience nationally significant architecture and horticulture. People who live within the demesne or those formally associated with Mount Stewart draw a strong sense of identity and place from the demesne, continuing historic associations with employment and land management. The National Trust’s energy and commitment to conservation work and restoration is recognised and highly regarded. The current project has the potential to continue to improve the wellbeing of people through improved facilities for visitors, expanded recreational opportunities, extended footpaths, new access to demesne buildings and to improve the running of the operations of the Mount Stewart demesne.

Many of the demesne structures are brought together by colour; the blue demesne colour is found on doors, bargeboards, window sills and elsewhere and intended to reflect the colour of the sky and of the lough on a summer’s day; this serves to both unite the buildings but also to link them to their wider surroundings. Whilst this is a relatively new feature, it has become associated with the demesne and its structures.

4.3.5 Evidential Value Significant evidential value is embodied in the demesne buildings, both as individual structures and as a group within their landscape setting. Adapted and altered over the decades, these changes have left evidence within the built fabric. The buildings have enormous capacity to illustrate past ways of life on a variety of scales, covering a range of social groupings. This value is enhanced further by the survival of the exceptional Londonderry family archive in PRONI. It contains historic maps, coupled with correspondence and estate papers, has important learning and research significance enabling a greater understanding of the detailed development of the demesne and its buildings and how the demesne has functioned over the past centuries. The archives contain a huge range of deeds; plans; maps; accounts; bills; vouchers; inventories; correspondence; diaries; and photographs. These documents record activity in a diverse number of spheres such as: legal; commercial; political; religious; cultural; social; local; national; architectural; horticultural; and personal. Of equal value, are the oral histories and living memories of those who have lived and worked on the demesne; a record which has yet to be formally captured. Whilst a good deal of information survives, it has not been possible within this study to answer all the questions posed and there is potential that more may be discovered through future research and archaeological analysis as the Mount Stewart project moves forward.

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

DEMESNE SUMMARY OF RELATIVE SIGNIFICANCE Exceptional

High Medium Low Neutral Intrusive See detailed plan on following page

This plan is not to scale

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

WALLED GARDEN AND FARMYARD SUMMARY OF RELATIVE SIGNIFICANCE Exceptional

High Medium Low Neutral Intrusive This plan is not to scale

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

4.4 VULNERABILITIES AND RISKS TO SIGNIFICANCE 4.4.1 General Issues and Vulnerabilities • Redundancy: Redundancy of demesne structures is particularly harmful to significance through the impact this can have on their condition. Many structures have been identified as derelict, redundant or underused, or in a basic ‘meanwhile’ use for storage. This redundancy puts the heritage assets at risk of further decline and the lack of use (including public access) does not reflect their potential cultural and commercial value. •

•

Condition: Whilst many of the demesne structures have been identified as being in good overall condition, continued decline in the condition of identified historic structures will impact on their significance and on the setting of Mount Stewart demesne. A number of structures have been identified as being seriously dilapidated, requiring major works to stabilise the building envelopes. Individual issues relating to the demesne structures can be found within each specific CS, but detailed condition and structural surveys will be required to establish baseline repair priorities, programming and budget costs moving forward. Existing Uses: A number of the structures have been modernised and are privately tenanted. Additionally, the Mount Stewart Estate retains ownership of a number of dwellings within this study including: Ros Cuan and Laundry Cottage. Tenanted dwellings are potentially at odds with visitor experience proposals unless circumstances change.

•

Ownership: As mentioned previously, a number of dwellings within the demesne are not within the ownership of the National Trust. There is potential for conflict between the National Trust’s management and conservation strategy for its demesne structures and for those not in their ownership.

•

New Development: New development within the Farmyard will be constrained by existing structures and their historic character. Development within the southern areas of the Walled Gardens is likely to be confined to the footprint of historic structures in the Southern Garden, whilst there is more scope within the former commercial areas for new development. There will be some archaeological implications in both the Walled Gardens and the Farmyard, particularly in areas associated with lost structures, which may also provide precedents for new development. Substantial works are likely to be required for conversion of many of the existing structures to viable new uses due to lack of infrastructure, services and facilities. Archaeological analysis and recording of building structures will be required as the buildings are identified for development. Previous internal renovations to the residential dwellings has not been altogether sensitive to historic character and are detrimental to significance. There is an opportunity as part of future development to enhance significance through contextual and high-quality design.

•

Climate Change: The location of Mount Stewart, beside Strangford Lough, is a key factor in what makes the place special. It also means that many structures, particularly those beside the Lough, are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change in the form of increased precipitation, storm events and rising sea levels. Other impacts of climate change include increased temperatures, which may encourage both fungal and plant growth and insect infestation, affecting historic building materials, and structural problems caused by changing extremes and fluctuations (heat as well as cold) in temperature. Future change will need to account for how the climate and sea levels will rise and how this can be mitigated.

•

Ecology: It is likely that many of the demesne buildings may support wildlife (bats and house martins in particular) that may be affected by repair works, maintenance or conversion for new uses. A full appraisal will be required on a caseby-case basis to establish presence and significance, as the project progresses.

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

•

Access: Access for the public is currently confined to certain areas of the demesne and inclusive access is also restricted by uneven surfacing, distances or the local topography. Finding new uses for structures within the demesne (e.g. Rugman’s Farm, the Piggery) will need to be balanced against the potential impact on the demesne in terms of better access, erosion and intrusion. There is also the potential for conflict between the continuation of farming within the demesne landscape (farmed under Conacre tenancies) and public access. A number of sites are vulnerable to unauthorised access and anti-social behaviour, including the Sea Plantation and the Gasworks. The Sea Plantation in particular has an access issue by being cut off from the rest of the demesne by a busy road. To date, this has severely restricted potential for visitor access and redevelopment. Covering an area of nearly 1,000 acres, the demesne structures are spread throughout this landscape, and the distances between key structures is likely to restrict the ability of the public to access and enjoy them; this in turn will affect the choice of sustainable futures uses.

4.4.2 Vulnerabilities by component

Component Number

Component Name

Level Of Significance

Vulnerabilities And Risks To Significance

A1.1– A1.4

Farmyard

High

• • •

• • • • • A1.5

Agent’s House (Farmhouse East)

Low

• • •

Partial redundancy of structures and potential for decline. Lack of regular maintenance regime. Potential loss of historic fabric through conversion and the installation of the services. Potential loss of character from inappropriate alternative use(s). Development within the setting. Lack of understanding/training/skills in appropriate conservation techniques in maintenance and restoration. Lack of public access. Ecological considerations. No defined future use. Intrusive modern structures and surfacing. Ecological considerations. Further loss of historic fabric and features. Development within the setting. Loss of residential character through alternative uses.

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

Component Number

Component Name

Level Of Significance

Vulnerabilities And Risks To Significance

Component Number

Component Name

Level Of Significance

Vulnerabilities And Risks To Significance

A1.6

Steward’s House (Farmhouse West)

Low

•

A1.8

Apple Loft Cottage and garden

High

•

Interior: Neutral

•

• • • • •

A1.7

Apple Loft Stables

High

• •

• • •

Further loss of historic fabric and features. Condition. Loss of residential character through alternative uses. Development within the setting. No defined future use. Intrusive lean-to and outbuilding.

Further loss of historic fabric and features through uninformed change. Residential use potentially incompatible with increased public access.

Garden: Low Outbuilding: Low

Vacancy of structures and lack of regular maintenance regime. Potential loss of historic fabric through conversion and the installation of the services. Potential loss of character from inappropriate alternative use(s). Lack of understanding/training/skills in appropriate conservation techniques in maintenance and restoration. Lack of public access. Ecological considerations. No defined future use.

Dovecote

High

• • • • •

Walled Gardens

High (walls)

• • • • • • •

Ecological considerations. Limitations of existing structural form for suitable alternative uses. Loss of setting. No defined future use. Ecological considerations. Structural condition – vegetation. Structural condition – spoil heap. Structural condition – regular maintenance required. Potential need for new access points through the walls. Potential requirement to increase size of access points. Potential impact from development within boundary and setting. Ecological considerations.

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

Component Number

Component Name

Level Of Significance

Vulnerabilities And Risks To Significance

Component Number

Component Name

Level Of Significance

Vulnerabilities And Risks To Significance

A3.1–A3.2

Dairy and outbuildings

Dairy: High

•

A3.6

Southern Gardens

Low

•

Outbuildings: Low

• • •

A3.3

Rose Garden

Medium

•

Potential public access and increased damage from footfall. Internal condition. Damage to interior from lack of suitable environmental controls. No defined future use.

• • • •

Upkeep and maintenance of gardens and historic walls. A3.7

A3.4

Gardener’s House

Medium

•

• •

•

A3.5

Vinery

Low/Intrusive

• •

Further loss of historic fabric through modernisation or ‘improvement’ works. Potential loss of character through uninformed maintenance works. Potential loss of character from inappropriate extensions or removal of fabric. Residential use potentially incompatible with increased public access.

Orchard Cottages

Low

• •

•

A3.8

Very bad condition at risk of collapse. Loss of vines due to deteriorating condition and instability.

Former Commercial Garden Areas and North Wall Structures

Low/Intrusive

• • • •

• •

Impact of vinery’s condition on remaining gardens on visitor route. Impact of fencing and subdivision of this space. Upkeep and maintenance if gardens restored. Maintenance of historic walls. Ecological considerations. Further loss of historic fabric and features through uninformed change. Impact on setting from recent commercial use in northern compartments. Residential use potentially incompatible with increased public access. Loss of planting and removal of trees. Although in horticultural use, the site operations are largely intrusive. Maintenance of historic walls. Loss and damage to historic walls from machinery, dumping and deliverable breaking through. Modern horticultural structures. Ecological considerations.

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

Component Number

Component Name

Level Of Significance

Vulnerabilities And Risks To Significance

Component Number

Component Name

Level Of Significance

Vulnerabilities And Risks To Significance

Gamekeeper’s Lodge,

High

• •

Folly

Medium

• • •

Kennels

Low

Ivy Covered Building

Low

Modern Structure

Intrusive

Mountstewart School

High

• • • • • •

•

• • • • • •

• •

Condition. Redundancy and potential for continued decline and loss. No defined future use. Forestry setting and loss of views. Uncontrolled vegetation. Potential loss of associated buildings. Ecological considerations. Remote location within the demesne may impact on choice of sustainable uses. Potential conservation deficit in any restoration and reuse project.

• • • B3

Partial vacancy and internal condition. Retention, or addition, of partitions in the schoolroom. Upgrading and modernisation. Loss of historic features. Loss of views across the lough. Climate change – storm damage, increased sea levels and coastal realignment. Distance from Mount Stewart House reduces choice of sustainable uses. Access off a busy road.

Stable Block

High

•

Outbuildings

Low

Hunting Stables and outbuildings

Low

• • • • • •

Remote location. Uncontrolled vegetation. Potential for further decline without maintenance. Lack of interpretation. No defined future use. Ecological considerations. Further loss of historic fabric and features through uninformed change. Domestic paraphernalia. Car parking. Redundancy and lack of use in a number of areas. Lack of public access and interpretation. Residential use potentially incompatible with increased public access. Presence of bats.

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

Component Number

Component Name

Level Of Significance

Vulnerabilities And Risks To Significance

Component Number

Component Name

Level Of Significance

Vulnerabilities And Risks To Significance

Sea Plantation Building

Medium

•

Rugman’s Farmstead

Low

• •

• • • •

Old Orchard Barn

Low

• • • •

• • •

Climate change – storm damage, increased sea levels and coastal realignment. Waterlogging within the Sea Plantation. Access issues due to location outside demesne. Redundancy and lack of potential use. Limited understanding of historic use and therefore its significance – needed to inform change. Condition – without arrest potential for severe loss. Ecological considerations. Potential conservation deficit in any restoration and reuse project. Unauthorised access and anti-social behaviour.

• • • • • C4

Piggery

Low

• • • •

Redundancy of structure. Condition – without arrest potential for severe loss. Uncontrolled vegetation. Remoteness within the demesne may impact on the choice of sustainable uses. Potential conservation deficit in any restoration and reuse project. No defined future use. Ecological considerations.

Patterson’s Cottage

Low

• • • • • •

Redundancy of structure. Condition – without arrest potential for severe loss. Uncontrolled vegetation. Ecological considerations. Remote location may impact on choice of sustainable uses. Potential conservation deficit in any restoration and reuse project. No defined future use. Redundancy of structure. Potential conservation deficit in any restoration and reuse project. No defined future use. Ecological considerations. Redundancy of structure. Condition – without arrest potential for severe loss. Forestry setting and loss of views. Ecological considerations. Potential conservation deficit in any restoration and reuse project. No defined future use.

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

Component Number

Component Name

Level Of Significance

Vulnerabilities And Risks To Significance

Component Number

Component Name

Level Of Significance

Vulnerabilities And Risks To Significance

Gasworks

High

•

Greyabbey Lodge (Clay Gate Lodge)

High

•

• • • • • •

• • •

North Gate Lodge (Hamilton’s Lodge, Back Gate Lodge)

Medium

•

Redundancy of structure and no defined future use. Potential for contamination. Outside National Trust ownership. Position outside of the demesne wall increasing its vulnerability. Loss and damage from anti-social behaviour. Continued decline through lack of repair and neglect. Climate change – storm damage, increased sea levels and coastal realignment. Ecological considerations. Potential conservation deficit in any restoration and reuse project. Access issues due to location outside demesne.

• • • •

Main Gate Lodges (Twin Gate Lodges)

High

• •

• • • •

Further loss of historic fabric and features through uninformed change.

Further loss of historic fabric and features through uninformed change. Climate change – storm damage and increased sea levels. Residential use potentially incompatible with increased public access. Loss of views across the lough. Roadside location. Redundancy of the east lodge with no defined future use. Further loss of historic fabric and features through uninformed change to the west lodge. Climate change – storm damage and increased sea levels. Residential use potentially incompatible with increased public access. Loss of views across the lough. Roadside location.

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

Component Number

Component Name

Level Of Significance

Vulnerabilities And Risks To Significance

Component Number

Component Name

Level Of Significance

Vulnerabilities And Risks To Significance

Laundry Cottage

Medium

•

Swimming Pool

Low

• •

Ros Cuan

Low

• • •

Temple of the Winds

Exceptional

• • • •

Further loss of historic fabric and features through uninformed change. Development within its setting and loss of tranquillity and views. Residential use potentially incompatible with increased public access.

• • • •

Further loss of historic fabric and features through uninformed change. Removal of timber panelling would be detrimental to significance. Residential use potentially incompatible with increased public access.

•

Potential damage from increased public use. Structural concerns of the vaults to modern vehicular traffic above. Climate change and exposure to increased precipitation and storms. Maintenance regime and lack of recording.

Invasive species. Potential damage from prolonged burial and root damage. Continued loss of pavilion fabric currently in storage. Unauthorised access and anti-social behaviour. Climate change – increased sea levels. Access issues due to location outside demesne. Potential conservation deficit in any restoration and reuse project.

SECTION 5.0 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE 5.1 INTRODUCTION The individual CSs for the Mount Stewart demesne buildings set out detailed analysis of significance, vulnerabilities, opportunities and recommended policies. These statements should be referred to as part of any proposals for future development across the site. This executive summary provides a high-level overview of sitewide conservation recommendations, capacity to accommodate change as part of an improved visitor experience, and suggested priority levels to inform a phased approach. All future decisionmaking will be informed by these reports ensuring the potential impact of change is carefully considered against significance. 5.2 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 5.2.1 Overarching Conservation Principles A framework for the sustainable management of the historic environment under six guiding conservation principles has been developed by several leading heritage bodies in the UK. These should also guide the work of the National Trust at Mount Stewart. These are: •

Heritage assets will be managed to sustain their values.

•

Understanding the significance of historic assets is vital.

•

The historic environment is a shared resource.

•

Everyone will be able to participate in sustaining the historic environment.

•

Decisions about change must be reasonable, transparent and consistent.

•

Documenting and learning from decisions is essential.01

Cadw, 2011, https://cadw.gov.wales/advice-support/conservation-principles/ conservation-principles Historic England, 2008, https://historicengland. org.uk/images-books/publications/conservation-principles-sustainablemanagement-historic-environment/

5.2.1 Mount Stewart Conservation Principles In addition, the following conservation principles have been developed specifically to underpin any conservation decisions at Mount Stewart.02 They should be used in addition to the overarching principles, and as part of an interactive design process to ensure an informed and engrained conservation and enhancement process is applied at Mount Stewart.

Principle 5:

Principle 1: All proposed changes within the Mount Stewart demesne – particularly those affecting the listed buildings and registered gardens and demesne – will be grounded in a robust and proportionate understanding of significance.

Consider the effects of climate change and form a long-term plan for Mount Stewart Demesne and its many structures. When adapting buildings to counter effects of climate change or improve energy efficiency, consider the significance of the asset; ensure change is necessary and is sympathetic to the historic building and its fabric.

Principle 2:

Principle 7:

Carry out urgent repairs to all structures in a less than stable condition and ensure a maintenance plan is put in place for all buildings.

Ensure that all new works are of the highest quality as this represents an opportunity for the National Trust to enrich the heritage of Mount Stewart for future generations. Any new work must respect the scale, style and character of the building and respond to local building traditions and materials and the character of wider setting.

Principle 3: All change must be carefully considered as part of a spatial plan for Mount Stewart. Principle 4: All change must achieve the aims of the National Trust.

Historic England, Conservation Principles (2008)

Decisions about change should be reasonable, transparent and consistent. Early and regular consultation with key statutory bodies and stakeholders should be carried out. Principle 6:

Principle 8: As the Mount Stewart Development Project progresses, consider ways to improve the physical and intellectual access to the demesne buildings that balances their key values and significance with increased use, understanding and enjoyment.

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

5.2.2 General Conservation Recommendations • Routine Management and Maintenance: Cyclical and routine management and maintenance regimes are vital to retaining heritage value. This is often linked to good management, use, stewardship and function. The need for periodic repair and renewal can be identified at an early stage through this approach. Regular monitoring of significant fabric and its environment is required i.e. damage, pests and humidity. Identified issues require either a permanent solution or temporary works to prevent problems escalating. Temporary solutions should be effective, timely and reversible. •

Repair: Repair can preserve heritage values if there is sufficient information to understand the impact of the proposals, the long-term consequences are known from experience to be benign and the conflict between heritage values are minimised. The reasons behind the need for the repair are important, as this will influence the solution. Minimum intervention should be applied in order to make failing elements sound and capable of continuing to fulfil their function. Ensure all repairs make use of high-quality workmanship and materials. The repair of some items will require the skills of a professional conservator.03

•

Restoration: Restoration is the deliberate introduction of an element that has previously been eroded, obscured or removed from the site. Restoration should only be carried out on the basis of compelling evidence, without conjecture, following sound research. Restoration is acceptable if the heritage values of the elements being restored outweigh values being lost, the proposed have compelling evidence and the work respects previous forms of the place. The importance of authenticity should be balanced against the

Specialist professionals should be a member of the Institute of Conservation (ICON) or similar

desire to replicate historic fabric for visitors. Restoration can sometimes run counter to the concept of authenticity. Mitigation through recording is required. •

•

New Work and Alteration: New works should seek to preserve or enhance significance. There should be sufficient information about the proposals to be able to assess the impact on significance. Proposals should aspire to a quality of design and execution which may be valued now and in the future. New work should be designed to be clearly identifiable from the existing but contemporary and identifiable as being of the 21st century. Ensure new work is contextual and resonates with the existing. Avoid bad pastiche and imitative new design work. Ensure repairs and alterations are reversible in the future or that the long-term consequences of the works are demonstrated to be benign. Character and Intangible Qualities: The character and atmosphere are fragile elements of significance and vulnerable to change. Spaces are more than the sum of their parts and any alterations to the demesne structures such as the Farmyard threshing barn, need to be carefully considered. The impact of any proposals for change, even minor proposals should be considered within the context of the character it contributes to the space it is within and to the site as a whole.

•

Workmanship and Materials: High-quality workmanship should always be strived for. It is important that any new intervention takes into consideration the original materials and methods used in construction and/or subsequent significant historical phases. There is also potential to identify where original materials and methods have failed and learn lessons from this to ensure the longevity of the demesne structures. In many cases, the materials used should be sourced as direct replacements as far as is possible to ensure consistency; for example, stone sourced from the same or comparable quarries and hewn in a like-for-like manner (i.e. ashlar or rubble finish). This will likely require specialist investigation to inform the specification of materials and techniques.

•

Research and Recording: It is important that any change is recorded and archived as a means of understanding how today’s decisions have been made and also as a record of successful or unsuccessful interventions.

•

Climate Change: Environmental sustainability is an important consideration in the conservation and management of historic buildings. The re-use of historic buildings is innately sustainable compared to new construction. Historic buildings can be adapted to be more energy efficient, reducing carbon emissions and respecting biodiversity. It is unlikely that a historic building like the farm buildings at Mount Stewart will achieve 100% sustainability without detriment to its significance. Where change in favour of sustainability is deemed necessary, the retention of character and historic fabric remains a priority. It is critical that the performance of historic sites is assessed with a degree of flexibility and assessment of environmental impact and energy efficiency should be balanced against the significance of the site.

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

5.3 APPROACH TO CHANGE As the next steps of the Mount Stewart project are undertaken, management decisions will be based on an informed understanding of change – the production of this and the accompanying reports is testament to the National Trusts’ commitment to informed conservation. Proposals that undermine the understanding developed within the CSs will not be acceptable in heritage terms, and in relation to statutory stakeholders. Care should be taken to ensure minor incremental changes do not have a cumulative negative impact. Conflicts between different significance values, design integrity and biodiversity should also be identified and managed. Change required to provide beneficial new uses should be balanced against the possible harm to significance. Mount Stewart and the surrounding landscape have undergone centuries of development and change. The challenge for those entrusted with its care is to manage change effectively, in an informed way, so that it can continue to adapt and grow, whilst at the same time conserving its significance. Change can be related to both physical alterations required to facilitate new or improved use and those that preserve or enhance significance. The removal of negative elements from past phases of change is also an important consideration. The significance of the Mount Stewart demesne as a highly intact Irish demesne is as much about the buildings as it is the landscape. Generally, areas of the highest significance will be more sensitive to change whilst those areas of lower significance, or those detrimental to understanding, will have greater capacity to be altered and enhanced. The CSs which sit alongside this document each contain summary parameters for change, to enhance or avoid compromising the asset’s significance.

At the next stage, proportionate impact assessments will be carried out for all proposals to ensure that risks to significance are properly managed and understood, the impact of change objectively documented, and the consequences of implementation set out. Clear and convincing justification will be required where change undermines significance. As a first principle, all action will avoid a detrimental impact to the heritage asset. 5.4 DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES This document and the CSs which accompany it were commissioned by the National Trust to provide a robust understanding of approximately 20 structures within the Mount Stewart demesne; it outlines their histories, their condition, and what makes them valuable. It also makes recommendations to ensure that their significance is maintained or enhanced and indicates their potential to accept change. The demesne landscape of Mount Stewart has been the subject of change for over 200 years, from the 18th century through to the present, and it would be indefensible to argue that this process cannot or should not continue. Mount Stewart also remains a functioning landscape where agricultural practices and the work of the National Trust help to maintain the demesne’s special character. The challenge for the National Trust, who are entrusted with the care of this unique landscape, will be to manage change effectively, in an informed way, so that it can adapt and continue to thrive, whilst at the same time conserving the significance and special value of the place. As a general rule, areas of the highest significance will be more sensitive to change, whilst those areas of lower significance, or those detrimental to understanding, will

have greater capacity to be altered and enhanced. As such, the outstanding significance of the Temple of the Winds makes is highly sensitive to change, although change may be acceptable if it is targeted at areas of lower value (such as the kitchen), removes negative elements or promotes better care and management or condition of the structure, such as ventilation or heating. As this study has demonstrated, there are many structures within the demesne landscape which are underutilised, or where their condition is a concern. This presents the National Trust with a challenge, but also with opportunities. For example, there are opportunities to enhance both the built and natural fabric by bringing the neglected and mis-used Walled Gardens back into life. There is potential to rebuild the glasshouses, preserving the significant vines. Whilst the late-18th century walls may be sensitive to change, the spaces within them are much less so, particularly within the middle and northern compartments. This enables the National Trust to ‘think outside the box’ allowing the potential for a unique offering and experience. They have the opportunity of creating gardens of the future as well as the past through themes such as sustainability and climate change. The National Trust has a vision to reimagine the farmyard and walled garden as the working, functional heart of a modern, innovative Mount Stewart. There is great potential for the National Trust to re-purpose underused demesne buildings which will ensure their conservation into the future. There is immense potential to make suitable visitor facilities within areas of the Farmyard with the advantage of taking pressure off visitor facilities within the main house, allowing for their re-purposing or restoration. Requiring urgent works, the Gamekeeper’s Lodge and associated buildings have potential to be restored and adapted for a variety of uses.

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

There are opportunities to widen the visitor experience at Mount Stewart, by increasing access into the demesne and its buildings, and telling the histories of Mount Stewart through its many demesne structures. Themes might include the early demesne landscape under the Stewarts, including the establishment of the model farm and walled gardens, the development of the demesne and the construction of demesne buildings and fashions in architecture. It has the potential to tell more detailed histories of technological innovations and agricultural history and their influence on Mount Stewart and the wider landscape of the Ards peninsula and beyond. There is the potential to continue the story of Lady Edith and her work at Mount Stewart through interpretation of the Dairy and within the walled gardens. In addition, this study has demonstrated the impact of ordinary people on the history of Mount Stewart; with such a rich social history, there is potential for the National Trust to include the stories and recollections of demesne workers like Dolly McRoberts. With the continuing emergence of new technologies, so the National Trust have the opportunity to explore new ways to present these stories to visitors.

5.5 PRIORITISED ACTION PLAN The table on the following pages provides a summary by individual asset of their condition, potential for change and suggested development opportunities. It provides recommended priority levels for action, based upon the urgency of conservation works and the potential for the structure to undergo development or change. The capacity for change shown within the table is an overall judgement by individual structure; it does not consider individual spaces, walls or features. As noted in 5.4 above, buildings or areas of the highest significance are more sensitive to change, whilst those buildings or areas of lower or of detrimental significance will have greater capacity to be altered and enhanced. It is therefore suggested that the individual CSs are consulted for a more detailed analysis when required. A simple ready reckoner has been used to calculate the priority level of each structure across the demesne. This offers a summary assessment and should not be used without first consulting the individual CSs. Priority levels should not be used as standalone recommendations but should be used to inform a wider phased spatial plan. The capacity for change levels (major, moderate and minor) have been assessed based on heritage significance and potential to accommodate change (both to preserve and enhance).

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

ACTION PLAN Priority for action (1-6)

Development opportunities

Component Number

Component Name

Condition (Urgent, Decline, Stable, Sound)

Capacity for Change (Major Moderate, Minor)

A1.1– A1.4

Farmyard

Stable

Moderate

• • • • •

Visitor hub (ticketing, café, retail etc). Farming museum. Artisan crafts/brewery. Small business units/offices. Petting farm.

A1.4.1

Modern farm structures

Stable

Major

•

Potential for removal and replacement.

A1.5

Farmhouse East/Agent’s House

Sound

Moderate

• •

Residential, holiday let. Office space.

A1.6

Steward’s House/Farmhouse West

Decline

Major

• •

Residential, holiday let. Office space.

A1.6.1

Outbuilding to Farmhouse West

Decline

Major

•

Potential for removal.

A1.7

Apple Loft Stables

Stable

Minor

•

Display, exhibition/museum space.

Condition/Capacity

Major

Moderate

Minor

Urgent

Decline

Stable

Sound

6 88

Comments and Caveats

Tenanted

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

Component Number

Component Name

Condition (Urgent, Decline, Stable, Sound)

Capacity for Change (Major Moderate, Minor)

A1.8

Apple Loft Cottage and garden

Sound

Moderate

Priority for action (1-6)

Development opportunities

Comments and Caveats

• •

Privately tenanted

•

Residential, holiday let. Restore garages as cart-sheds and incorporat into Apple Loft Barns display/exhibition. Re-purpose gardens as part of farmyard display.

A1.8.1

Apple Loft outbuildings

Stable

Major

• •

Possible conversion to holiday let. Retain as part of farmyard display.

Dovecote

Stable

Minor

• •

Restored dovecote as a feature. Restore setting – orchard?

Walled Gardens – boundary walls

Stable

Minor

•

Maintain and restore lost sections of wall.

A3.1

Dairy

Stable

Minor

•

Restore as part of exhibition. Potential interpretation and inclusion of personal histories (sound show?). Low-impact refreshment space (ice creams/soft drinks/teas), spill-out space into Rose garden.

•

A3.2

Dairy outbuildings

Urgent

Minor

•

Restore as part of listed Dairy.

A3.3

Rose Garden

Sound

Minor

•

Maintain. Possible café/refreshment spill-out space.

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

Development opportunities

Comments and Caveats

•

Residential, holiday let, National Trust office space.

Privately tenanted

Major

•

Rebuild greenhouse as part of full restoration of hothouses and conservatory along south-facing garden wall.

Sound

Major

• •

Restore formal gardens and glasshouses. Contemporary, themed gardens.

Orchard Cottages

Sound

Major

•

Residential, holiday lets and restored gardener’s potting sheds (as part of restored glasshouses).

Former Commercial Garden Areas and Western Garden

Stable

Major

• • • •

Restored gardens/orchards. Horticultural commercial opportunities for the National Trust. Back of house space – ranger base. Back of house space – for gardeners.

• • • • •

Holiday let. Dog-friendly holidays. Outdoor activity hub. Ranger base. Tea room for walkers.

Component Number

Component Name

Condition (Urgent, Decline, Stable, Sound)

Capacity for Change (Major Moderate, Minor)

A3.4

Gardener’s House

Sound

Minor

A3.5

Vinery

Urgent

A3.6

Southern Gardens

A3.7

A3.8

A4.1

Gamekeeper’s Lodge

Urgent

Moderate

Priority for action (1-6)

High capacity for restoration of planting schemes

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

Priority for action (1-6)

Development opportunities

Component Number

Component Name

Condition (Urgent, Decline, Stable, Sound)

Capacity for Change (Major Moderate, Minor)

A4.2

Kennels

Decline

Major

•

Retain and repurpose in association with restoration of the Lodge. Present as part of Mount Stewart story.

A4.3

Ivy Covered Building

Urgent

Major

•

Retain and re-purpose in association with restoration of the Lodge.

A4.4

Modern structure

Stable

Major

•

Consider removal or re-purposing/replacing as part of new visitor activity hub or ranger base.

Mountstewart School

Sound

Moderate

• • • • • •

Tea room. Retail. Education base. Bunk house. Holiday lets. Note issue of access – new access route may be required.

Folly

Urgent

Minor

• •

Picnic spot. Managed ruin.

Comments and Caveats

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

Component Number

Component Name

Condition (Urgent, Decline, Stable, Sound)

Capacity for Change (Major Moderate, Minor)

Stable Block and Outbuildings

Sound

Moderate

Priority for action (1-6)

Development opportunities

Comments and Caveats

• •

Partially tenanted

• • • •

Education rooms. Exhibition/Museum spaces – equestrian history at Mount Stewart. Café and retail functions. Residential and holiday lets. Boutique hotel. Restaurant.

B3.2

Outbuilding (south)

Stable

Major

B3.3

Outbuilding (east)

Decline

Major

B3.4

Former Hunter Stables (north)

Decline

Major

•

WWII huts converted to stabling now redundant.

B3.5

Former Hunter Stables (south)

Sound

Major

•

WWII huts converted to stabling now exhibition space.

B3.6

Blockwork building

Sound

Major

B3.7

Bothy

Sound

Major

Sea Plantation Building

Urgent

Moderate

•

Managed ruin with viewing platform.

Rising sea levels

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

Priority for action (1-6)

Development opportunities

Component Number

Component Name

Condition (Urgent, Decline, Stable, Sound)

Capacity for Change (Major Moderate, Minor)

Old Orchard Barn

Decline

Moderate

• • • •

Managed ruin. Restored as a holiday hideaway. Walkers shelter. Information point.

Rugman’s Farmstead

Urgent

Major

• • • •

Managed ruin. Holiday cottage. Ranger base. Function/wedding venue.

Piggery

Stable

Major

• • • • • •

Managed ruin. Bunk house/Glamping. Picnic shelter. Walkers shelter. Refreshments. Information point.

Patterson’s Cottage

Urgent

Major

• •

Residential. Holiday cottage.

Gasworks

Decline

Moderate

•

Managed ruin, viewing platform, information point.

Comments and Caveats

Rising sea levels Not in National Trust ownership

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

Development opportunities

Comments and Caveats

• •

Residential. Holiday cottage.

Privately tenanted

Moderate

• •

Residential. Holiday cottage.

Privately tenanted

Sound

Moderate

• •

Residential. Holiday cottage.

Partially tenanted

Main Gate Lodges (Twin Gate Lodges) (East)

Stable

Moderate

• •

Residential. Holiday cottage.

Partially tenanted

Laundry Cottage

Sound

Moderate

•

Residential, holiday lets, offices, education centre.

Not in National Trust ownership

Ros Cuan

Sound

Moderate

•

Residential, holiday lets

Not in National Trust ownership

Temple of the Winds

Sound

Minor

•

Limited change possible, but improve public access, manage access arrangements and use kitchen for functions.

Swimming Pool

Decline

Major

•

Restore/partially restore as part of visitor experience. Interpret as part of managed access.

Component Number

Component Name

Condition (Urgent, Decline, Stable, Sound)

Capacity for Change (Major Moderate, Minor)

North Gate Lodge (Hamilton’s Lodge, Back Gate Lodge)

Sound

Moderate

Greyabbey Lodge (Clay Gate Lodge)

Sound

D3.1

Main Gate Lodges (Twin Gate Lodges) (West)

D3.2

Priority for action (1-6)

• 94

Rising sea levels

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

5.6 CONSULTATION, ADOPTION AND NEXT STEPS This report has been submitted to the client for review and will be the subject of thorough consultation with stakeholders. Any results of this review and any feedback from stakeholders will be incorporated into the final draft of this document. This and the CSs which sit alongside, are ‘living’ documents and should be the subject of review on a regular basis, usually every five years or when major changes occur, or new information comes to light. The next steps for the National Trust at Mount Stewart are currently underway, with development of the Mount Stewart Project for the demesne and its structures, utilising the recommendations of this report. Ongoing consultation on the outcomes of this report and future development proposals will be vital to ensuring a sustainable future for Mount Stewart.

[THIS PAGE HAS INTENTIONALLY BEEN LEFT BLANK]

SECTION 6.0 CONSERVATION STATEMENTS

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

A1.4.1 Dutch Barn

A1.2 North Range

A1.1 Threshing Barn Range A1.3 East Range

A1.4 South Range 98

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

KEY INFORMATION

Component Name

Farmyard

Date Range

Late 18th century to early 19th century, with later alterations

Current Use

Redundant/storage/ranger base

Historic Uses

Farm complex

Overall Significance

High

Overall Condition

Stable

Designations

Capacity for Change

Moderate

Farmyard

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Summary Timeline 1779 David Geddas survey of the demesne; the farmyard is not shown. 1781 Robert Stewart inherits Mount Stewart and begins to make improvements. 1781–1782 James Wyatt is paid for drawings of a mansion house and stables. 1783 Robert Stewart incurs heavy election expenses, still losing his seat in the Irish Parliament. 1783–1786 The farmyard and dovecote are thought to have been constructed around this time in a location close to Bean Hill, the site assumed to have been chosen for a new house already designed by James Wyatt. During 1781–1789 nearly £3,000 was spent on ‘New Offices’, ‘Plantations’ and ‘Gardens’ including the walled garden complex and the farmyard. 1803–1815 Napoleonic Wars saw increased grain prices and production.

Early 19th century Robert Stewart employs Scotsman George Greenfield as his land steward. Under his direction the farm prospered. He introduced the keeping of dairy cows, beef fatteners, veal calves and sheep including Merinos, and the growing of wheat, barley, oats, turnips and potatoes.01 1812–1813 More than £500 is spent on a ‘trashing machine’ (a threshing machine). 1815 A fire badly damages the farmyard. 1816–1817 The farmyard is rebuilt according to account entries. 1828–1863 The estate and demesne were managed by the 3rd Marquess’ Agent, John Andrews of Comber.02 Described by Anne Casement as a ‘capable’ man. Andrews also served under the 4th Marquesses successfully managing the demesne and navigating it through some difficult years including famine.03 1834 The farmyard is shown on the 1834 Ordnance Survey map with an enclosed southern farmyard and a more open northern yard, perhaps containing a horse engine. The dovecote lies within its own enclosure.

1835 The Ordnance Survey Valuation states ‘the greater part and I may say the whole of the demesne is chiefly pasture and is used as a stock farm and part let for grazing’.04 1845–1852 The Irish Potato Famine. 1854 Mount Stewart is inherited by Frederick, the 4th Marquess. He prefers to live in Powerscourt, Co. Wicklow, and appears to have made few changes to the demesne landscape.05 By 1858 Few changes are shown on the 1858 Ordnance Survey map apart from the disappearance of the horse engine. The southern courtyard appears to have been opened up through its western range. 1870s Foreign imports of grain from America. There was a widespread decline of arable farming and an increase in beef cattle and dairying. 1872 An incomplete plan of the demesne, revised from an 1855 plan, shows a farm layout similar to the 1858 Ordnance Survey plan. The surrounding fields are annotated in pencil indicating their use as grazing and fields for oats and turnips.06

A Casement (1995) ‘Mount Stewart Landscape Study’. Unpublished: National Trust Northern Ireland Region, p26-27

Gallagher and Rutherford, Mount Stewart Demesne, Conservation Management Plan Part 1, 2018

PRONI Val 1B/33

Gallagher and Rutherford, 2018, p66

Casement p.29

PRONI D654/M71/5

100

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

1872 George Henry Vane Tempest (1821–1884) inherits as the 5th Marquess. He preferred to reside at his wife’s residence, Plas Machynlleth. During this time much of the demesne, including the Farmyard was let to Henry Tate.07 1870s A house (A1.6) is constructed for the tenant’s steward backing onto the southern farmyard enabling him to oversee the farm. The 6th Marquess’ steward resided in ‘The Cottage’ on Stewart’s Hill, later to become ‘Ros Cuan’ (D5). 1884 Charles (1852–1915) inherits as 6th Marquess. He and his wife Theresa preferred to live at Wynyard in Co Durham, but spent more time at Mount Stewart, taking back the farmland ‘in hand’. This remained so until 1910.08 By 1900–1901 The Ordnance Survey map shows that further farm buildings had been added to the northern farmyard.

1911 The 1911 Census records James Weir as the Land Steward. He was living in the Steward’s House with his wife and four children. 1919 Alterations or the construction of a further house in the farmyard. By 1921 The Ordnance Survey maps shows that the dovecote had been subsumed into the adjacent field. A sheep wash (now removed) had been added to the north of the Dovecote. The northern courtyard was fully enclosed by buildings. 1933 A ‘Sketch of Mount Stewart’ from 1933 places the farmyard and walled garden at the heart of the demesne. The Dutch Barn is not shown. 1939–1945 During the war, pasture was put under the plough in an attempt to feed the nation.

1901 The Mount Stewart Townland boundary was revised and moved northwards to the new Mount Stewart Road. Thereafter, the whole demesne parkland lay within of the townland of Mount Stewart.

1940s Major national campaign for concreting farmyards for hygiene reasons.

c.1900 onwards State aid was given for the construction of Dutch Barns.

1948 Farm Buildings Scheme promoted the repair and construction of farm buildings including cattle byres, calf houses and poultry houses.

Casement, 1995 p35

Ibid 101

Later 20th Century The demesne continued a course of beef and dairy farming but was modernised as new regulations and animal welfare standards were brought in. The yards and barns were concreted (probably post-1940) for reasons of hygiene and modern agricultural structures were added to the northern farmyard. These included a covered cattle shed against the eastern elevation of the barn and a concrete grain silo. Other structures in the northern yards include a lean-to shed (now part of the lumber yard). 1960s Sawmill was moved from the farmyard to the Gamekeeper's Lodge 1980s Southern farmyard concreted (formally gravel). The former carpenter’s cottage, located to the north of the farmyard, was demolished. 2014 The farmyard ceased to have a full agricultural function following its transfer to the National Trust. Many of the buildings now lie vacant or are used for storage. The southern range is used as workshops by the National Trust Rangers. Repairs have been carried out by the National Trust including floor repairs, and reroofing of the farmyard ranges in 2016.

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

The Farmyard and Walled Garden do not appear on the Geddes map of 1779, which is the earliest map of the Mount Stewart demesne, although the map tends to focus more on plantations and farmland than buildings. Following the death of his father, Robert Stewart began improvements to the demesne. The architect James Wyatt was paid for providing plans of ‘New Offices’. The plans are held in PRONI, one of which is signed by Wyatt and dated 1783. The items attributed to him are plans of two buildings; the first (D654/ M/71/4B) is a courtyard building, with accommodation, a hay loft and granary above, assumed to be stables. The other is the first floor of a smaller range with a ground floor laundry and brewhouse with accommodation on the first floor (D654/M/71/4C). However, neither of these building appear to have been constructed at Mount Stewart.

Signed James Wyatt drawing of possible stables, dated 1783 (D654/M/71/4B)

102

Laundry and brewhouse range, assumed by James Wyatt (D654/M/71/4C)

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

It is thought that the Farmyard buildings and Dovecote were constructed around 1784–1785. The architect is unknown. Payments for ‘New Offices’ have been identified within the Mount Stewart accounts which may have included the construction of the farmyard.09 These are: •

20 December 1784 New Offices Mount Stewart, to Michael Campbell £42.9.6 for amt of his acct of Stone Cutters work settled the 27th March last.

•

31 December 1784 New Offices Mount Stewart for ?39.340 blue slate delivered there from 6th August 1783 to 12th April last per knox’s acct.

•

December 1785 New Offices at Mount Stewart for sundry articles £377.10.0

•

December 1786 New Offices at Mount Stewart for sundry disbursements £176.3.3

•

December 1787

•

Total(?) July 1789 To New Offices £914.3.0

PRONI: D654/H1/1 1781–1789

£107.14.7 for New Offices

During the period 1781 to 1789 the accounts state that the total spent on ‘New Offices’ was £914, with a further £945 on gardens and £967 on plantations.10 The accounts also show the purchase of animals for the farm during this period including Black Cattle at a total cost of £423.0.9.11 It is likely that much of the extant north–south barn range and the Apple Loft barn range date to this early period of construction. This and the adjacent walled gardens appear to have been deliberately sited at the heart of the demesne, serving both to provision the house, to raise revenue and also to serve as a ‘model farm’ to tenants and neighbours. The western range of buildings which face onto a demesne drive appear to have been deliberately designed for display and to impress visitors and reflect the enlightenment and intellect of the Londonderry family. The farm buildings to the rear have a more utilitarian character, but their original design and construction would have been only slightly less impressive. Examples of courtyard arrangement of farm buildings are documented from the 18th century. This meant that the barns, stables, feed stores and cattle shelters were ranged around a yard, and carefully placed in relation to one another in order to minimise the waste of labour. Another method recommended from the mid-18th century was the collection of manure from within the fold yard and shelter sheds, to be conserved in the farmyard and eventually re-used on the surrounding fields.

A Casement (1995) ‘Mount Stewart Landscape Study’. Unpublished: National Trust Northern Ireland Region p18

PRONI: D654/H1/1 1781–1789

103

Model Farms A model farm is defined as a large-scale farm located on the estate of a great landowner, developed as an improvement exercise and example to their tenantry. They might be consciously planned and built as a unit to the design of an architect, engineer, the landowner or his agent, although not all planned farmsteads were necessarily model farms. A model farm demonstrated the landowner’s intellect and desire for agricultural improvement and set an example of good practice to his tenants and to society. They were a product of the agricultural revolution of the 18th to mid-19th century, when new crops, vegetables, breeds of sheep and cattle and a new system of crop rotation, were introduced (for example, clover and turnips replaced the unproductive period of fallow) and technological advances, such as the Scottish plough, appeared. They were also a product of warfare, where the pursuit of agricultural progress was seen as both patriotic and morally correct, particularly during the Napoleonic Wars.

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

Correspondents within the Londonderry archives during the late 18th century and early 19th century provide a valuable insight into the management of the Mount Stewart demesne. In June 1796 John Cleland, writing from Newtownards, comments in a letter to James Cleland: ‘My Lord Castlereagh and Family are at Mount Stewart. The high tides in winter got over his embankment and destroyed his wheat crop. He has now sown it in barley...Markets here are cheap and the crop has a most promising appearance’. In the early 19th century the land steward John Leech was replaced by a Scotsman named George Greenfield. He is described by Robert Stewart as being 'very conversant and skilful in the management of sheep as well as every other branch of farming, and being most alert, zealous and assiduous, he is equally painstaking in performing his own duties and in watching that all under him shall do the like. Indeed in all particulars, I deem him a great acquisition and a most valuable servant, as no one can be more punctual in fulfilling whatever direction he receives.'12 These were agricultural boom years following the Napoleonic Wars which saw increased prices and a move from pasture towards tillage. However, a fire is known to have damaged the farmyard in 1815. Its quick repair, however, reflects its importance at this time. Details of the fire are recorded within the family archives in a letter in December 1815 from Robert Stewart to his son Castlereagh. He describes how his land steward succeeded in cutting off the fire by sawing the roof timbers and causing the roof of one of the barns to fall in, thus saving other buildings from destruction:

PRONI D3030/H/37

But to answer your inquiry as to my dairy and cattle yard destruction and conflagration: the whole of the sheds, both inside and out of the yard, were quite destroyed, as the lofts were filled all round with hay and no separate and partition wall, and had it not been for the presence of mind of Greenfield, the land steward, who cut off the communication by sawing the timber and making a part of the roof fall in, the barn, thrashing machine, stabling, coach houses, and all the offices would have been burnt, to which I may add the whole haggard[?]13 containing all my grain, would have been in a blaze. No less than 30 acres of choice wheat, 40 acres of oats and 25 of barley. You are knowing enough in agriculture to render it useless for me to say what might be the value of that; but assuredly it would have proved a serious addition to 17 cows giving milk, three horses and three calves smothered. Fortunately all my draft bullocks and fat cattle had not been housed, and were in the field. This catastrophe would have still been more vexatious if there had been any grounds to surmise it had its origin in either carelessness or malice, but as well as I could investigate the matter, there was no-one to blame. The only cause we could ascribe it to was a boiler erected about a year ago, the flue of which was certainly very near to one of the rafters and at that end next the dairy, where the fire first began. We have been since put to our shifts and obliged to our neighbours for the loan of cows until we got others bought and got thatched sheds to shelter them for this winter.’14 From this account we understand that the farmyard comprised a dairy and cattle yard, hay lofts, stabling, coach house and grain store. He also mentions a ‘thrashing’, or threshing, machine.

The threshing machine was an early type of mechanisation in agriculture, having been invented in the 1780s by the Scottish engineer Andrew Meikle. The use of a threshing machine at Mount Stewart, as opposed to the manual flailing and winnowing of the cut and dried wheat or barley to release the grain, is likely to have been an early example in Ireland. It also demonstrates their dedication to agricultural improvement. Mechanisation was an increasing feature in farming in the first half of the 19th century15 – along with the threshing machine, it is likely that horsepower, in the form of a horse gin was a feature of the farmyard by 1834.16

Drawing by Lord Mark Kerr of 1811. It depicts a field within the demesne containing hay cocks. The Temple of the Winds can be seen in the background. (Hector McDonnell Collection)

‘Haggard’ is an Irish term for a hay or rick yard where hay was stored after harvesting.

S Wade Maretins, The English Model Farm, Building the Agricultural Ideal, 1700–1914, 2002, p7

PRONI D3030/H/31

See 1834 Ordnance Survey map

104

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

This took place during a period of intense interest in agricultural improvement in which the Scottish land steward Greenfield played a key role. This is evidenced in a letter from December 1815 in which Robert Stewart, then Earl of Londonderry, tells his son: …knowing full well …how much interest you will take in the agricultural progress I am making at present in my new mode of farming under a Scotch land steward, who is a very clever fellow, and while he is putting my grounds in nice order, he serves as a model for all the neighbourhood. Indeed the country come, far and near, to see how he manages and to get a little instruction from him, so that I foresee plainly that his example and the exertions I am making in draining, quarrying and smoothing rocky ground, will ultimately prove beneficial to the country as well as myself, as also in collecting turf mould, and raising great heaps of clay to cover thin parts, also drawing immense heaps of seaweed or grass to mix with dung and to spread in the sheep yards, also mowing all the after-grass in the plantations a second time at this season, and raking and collecting it with all the leaves off the trees to add to the dunghill which, by these expedients, are increased in quantity beyond anything you can possibly form an idea of… He goes on to say: ‘The best of my wool was sent to Dublin, and produced £130. The inferior sort I sold in Belfast. I am so much bent upon increasing my sheep flock, for which my grounds are particularly suited, that I have dismissed my bull and rear no black cattle. I buy young cows ready to calve, and as soon as they don’t give a handsome pail of milk, turn them to the beefing side of the yard. The calves are all fatted for veal in a new way of my invention.17

PRONI D3030/H/32

Following the fire in the farmyard, the demesne accounts suggest that a rebuilding programme was put into action in the following year. Entries in the accounts for 1816 show payments of £242.8.0½ for ‘Offices repairing at Mount Stewart being burned’, £57.1.10½ for 'coals to burn lime for the building', and another £144.5.1½ for 'Offices repairing in October 1817'.18 It is unclear as to the extent of rebuilding or repair, or how much the Londonderry's interest in agricultural improvement influenced the programme but the northern farmyard range (A1.2) may have been raised at this time, and re-roofed with the removal of the spinal wall and introduction of partition walls. This provided a lofty and well ventilated cattle shed with room for a loft above.

That Mount Stewart were involved in testing new varieties of crop, soil improvement and in crop rotation is also apparent:

Robert, now Marquess of Londonderry, continued to express his interest in farming, and how the attention and skill of his agent continued to deliver results. In August 1817 he writes:

Turnip crops were increasingly used in the early 19th century to provide additional feed for animals during the winter months, which improved the condition of the cattle and of the soil through in-field manuring, ultimately increasing grain yields in following seasons.22

Mount Stewart demesne is undergoing a wonderful change, both as to aspect and fertility. That you may form some idea of the latter yourself, I send you herein an agricultural memorandum Greenfield handed to me this day, which is a pretty accurate statement of what I may expect from it this autumn in the way of yield, as all the crops look well and abundant.19 He also writes of his passion and delight in farming and how much gratification he feels in ‘showing my grounds and taking visitors to my crowded haggard is more that I can well describe, or detail the admiration that it so universally meets with...’20

I have got my hay, which was a most extraordinary, abundant crop, stacked and well saved. That cut in the plantations much better than any I ever saw come out of them. The general verdure and abundance of grass far more than usual. The corn crops of all sorts look promising, but none are yet cut in this neighbourhood. The country has nearly planted double its usual quantity of potatoes, frightened by the distress and scarcity of last year, and they seem to be doing very well. I have forty acres of very excellent fine growing turnips, and twenty of potatoes.21

Succeeding George Greenfield, the farm and demesne were successfully managed by John Andrews of Comber from 1828 to 1863. He skilfully guided them through difficult years including the Potato Famine of the 1840s. The farm was then let out but later brought back under the family’s control in the later 19th century. The First Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1834 is the first depiction of the farmyard. It shows the farmyard laid out around two courtyards; the southern courtyard is enclosed by a range of buildings on all sides, whilst the northern courtyard is more open, confined on the north side by a wall and on the east side by a detached rectangular structure (in the location of the piggery). The circular (hexagonal) Dovecote lies within an orchard enclosure which is roughly triangular in shape with a track running to the

PRONI D654/H/1/5

PRONI D3030/H/37

PRONI D3030/H/39

PRONI D3030/H/38

Gallagher and Rutherford, 2018, p56

105

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

east. Also, of note is a semi-circular structure which is appended to the east elevation of the barn in the northern courtyard. Its shape suggest it was a horse engine enclosing a horse gin attached to the side of the barn. Additionally, lying to the north of the farmyard complex is a rectangular building orientated on a different alignment and separated from it by a lane or farm track. A further yard lies to the south of the whole complex. A range of buildings associated with the farmyard (now called the Apple Loft) also lay across the lane to the west. The May 1835 Valuation includes the following as part of the ‘Farmyard and Offices’: • • • • • • • • • •

Coach house and ?stables Dairy and store Cart Sheds Bullock sheds and loft Store house and loft Stable Barn Open shed to front Shed for ?thrashing machine Pigeon house

Also mentioned are the Marling House and Laundry (the former was probably located to the south of the latter), and a further two Sheep and Cow Sheds probably located elsewhere. The valuation states ‘the greater part and I may say the whole of the demesne is chiefly pasture and is used as a stock farm and part let for grazing’. 23

PRONI Val 1B/33

The mention of a Marling House is significant as it indicates the use of another method of soil improvement. Marling was used both to give body to lighter soils and for its chemical effects in the reduction of soil acidity. 24 It was known to have taken place at Holkham Hall, a renowned model farm of the late 18th and 19th century. It was particularly popular in Scotland to improve the soil structure and reduce acidity. Lime may have been stored in the marling house, ready to be spread at the appropriate time of year. The 1858 Ordnance Survey map shows few changes to the layout of the farmyard although the southern courtyard appears to have been opened up (possibly through the removal of an entrance archway?), and the semi-circular structure in the north courtyard, assumed to be a horse engine, is no longer apparent. This perhaps suggests less of reliance on horse power and a move towards other forms of power (such as steam) to drive machinery for crop and feed processing. Evidence of the existence of machinery in the form of drives, belts and oil staining has been noted in the barn. In the 1870s much of the demesne was let out to a tenant farmer and a steward’s house was built to the south-west of the barns to manage the farm on behalf of the new tenant. 25 This would have involved the demolition of part of the southern range of buildings to facilitate construction. 26 A partial map of the demesne captures the farmyard in 1872, but shows no noticeable changes to the farmyard layout, although it does show field uses; many fields are pasture, but others like the ‘Temple Meadow’ east of the Temple of the Winds, are sown with oats, whilst Cumming’s Hill just north of Patterson’s farmstead, was ‘for Turnips’. 27

WM Mathew, ‘Marling in British Agriculture: A Case of Partial Identity’, in Agricultural History Review, 41, 1997, pp97–110

The eastern-most house was constructed at an unknown, but later, date.

Remains of archways can still be traced on the rear wall of the eastern-most house.

PRONI D654/M71/5

106

The Ordnance Survey map for 1900–1901 shows a similar arrangement of farm buildings, but the outline of a walled garden to the south indicates the existence of the steward’s house (had the adjacent manager’s house yet to be constructed?). Additionally, a number of outbuildings had been constructed within the northern courtyard, including a large rectangular structure appended to the eastern elevation of the barn. An undated plan assumed to date from the 20th century suggests this building was a solid construction with a Bangor slate roof and later used as a sawmill. This was later replaced in the 20th century by a modern cattle shed. The Census return of 1901 for Mount Stewart House includes a return of ‘out-offices and farm-steadings’. This lists the farm as including four Cow Houses, five Calf Houses, one Dairy, two Piggeries, three fowl Houses, and two Barns. The 1921 Ordnance Survey map shows further developments within the northern courtyard which fully enclose this space. A ‘sheepwash’ is annotated to the north-east, just outside of the yard. The 1933 sketch of the demesne places the farmyard at the heart of the demesne. The key describes it as ‘Farm Buildings including Saw Shed’ (14). In the location of the Dutch Barn is a ‘Cattle Shed’ (16) whilst to the north, and enclosing the north side of the north courtyard, is a ‘Vehicle Shed’ (15). Later in the 20th century the farmyard was altered and modernised in response to new regulations and new ideas on animal welfare. The yards were concreted and modern agricultural structures, including a concrete grain silo, were added to the northern farmyard. Many of the openings to the northern range were modified or blocked to enclose these areas for housing beef cattle, and for sheep and calf pens.

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

A Dutch Barn was added after 1933 in the northern courtyard on its eastern side, replacing a cow shed. The earliest examples were introduced in the mid-19th century and were made as a kit and shipped from Britain to agents in Ireland. Around 1900, grant aid was given by the State for their construction and they are perhaps the most commonly found farm building in the Irish landscape. 28 Whilst their primary use was for hay or straw, they could also be used for machinery storage or as shelter sheds for animals. A later 20th century plan of the farmyard annotates the building as ‘Hayshed’.

Lady Mairi ploughing up pasture in the demesne in 1939

Another change in the northern courtyard was the removal of a chicken shed and cart shed against the northern wall and their replacement with a timber lean-to now used as a lumber yard. Further modern structures were added in the northern courtyard in the latter half of the 20th century but were removed very recently by the National Trust. An undated 20th century image shows the southern courtyard fenestration as formerly containing diamond lights which appear to have cast-iron glazing bars (as opposed to the lighter leaded diamond lights). These were probably replaced in the mid-20th century with the present metal casements.

George Weir 1930s/1940s taken in the southern farmyard showing the earlier arrangement of fenestration (courtesy of the Weir family)

B O’Reilly and C Murray (nd) ‘Built and Natural Heritage (2): Traditional Buildings on Irish Farms’. Heritage Council and Teagasc. Available at: https:// www.heritagecouncil.ie/content/files/traditional_buildings_irish_farms_ series_02_2mb.pdf

107

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

PRIMARY SOURCES N

1834 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1858 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

108

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

PRIMARY SOURCES N

Extract of the 1872 partial plan of the demesne (D654/M71/5)

1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

109

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

PRIMARY SOURCES N

1921 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

1933 ‘Sketch of Mount Stewart Buildings’ (D654/M71/13)

110

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

PRIMARY SOURCES N

Detail of ‘Sketch of Mount Stewart Buildings’ (D654/M7/13)

1971 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

The key describes the Farmyard as ‘Farm Buildings including Saw Shed’ (14). In the location of the Dutch Barn is a ‘Cattle Shed’ (16) whilst to the north is a ‘Vehicle Shed’ (15).

111

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

A1.1

A1.2

A1.4

Oblique aerial image of the Farmyard taken prior to the removal of modern agricultural structures

112

A1.3

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

A1.1

Exterior The range runs roughly north-west to south-east and joins a range of farm building (A1.2) at its south-east end. The building is twostoreys and of 14 bays. A straight joint with extant quoins to the south-east end between the bays 12 and 13 would indicate that bays 13 and 14 were part of a slightly later addition. This attractive building is constructed of rubble-stone roughly coursed with a slate roof (Tullycavey to the west facing slope). At the north-west end is a bellcote retaining a bell of unknown date. The principal elevation faces south-west onto a demesne trackway and was clearly designed for show. Here the door and window openings have moulded stone dressing and keystones. The first floor openings have an attractive arrangement of alternating square and circular windows, whilst on the ground floor, the rectangular window openings are only utilised on the northern end, with lunette windows utilised elsewhere on the ground floor; this appears to be a deliberate functional differentiation, integrated into the overall polite façade intended to make the aesthetic as unitary as possible. Bay 13 now has an inserted modern garage door. The barn doors to bay nine has been raised historically. The north-east elevation would have originally had fewer openings, many of which are now blocked. The opposed barn doors (common to threshing barns) remain and are set with modern timber doors. Narrow, rectangular ventilation slits are also apparent to the ground floor at the northern end. The north-east elevation evidences many alterations within its fabric, both historical and modern. Some may be associated with former features shown on the historical map evidence, such as a horse engine and the later sawmill. The grey horizontal scarring relates to the modern cattle shed removed in 2018.

113

Interior The building range is of two-storeys internally with a timber floor running the full length of the building. Historically, this does not appear to have always been the case throughout the building; for example, the floor cuts across the arched opening seen on the north-east elevation and must therefore have been a later insertion in this location. The timber stair rises in front of a blocked (assumed original) arched window indicating it may have a later insertion in this position. Additionally, if hand flailing crops took place at the northern end of the barn, it is unlikely that a first floor existed between the opposed threshing doors. The mention of a threshing machine within historical sources would suggest hand flailing was replaced by a threshing machine before 1815. This may have been powered by a horse engine shown on the Ordnance Survey map of 1834 against the north-east elevation of the barn. It appears the range was constructed for a number of uses; the building at the north-west end has opposed doors and ventilation slits suggesting it was utilised as a traditional barn for the processing and storage of grain or fodder, whilst other compartments may have had multiple uses over time including horse stables, byre and storage. The ghost outlines of former timber stalls can still be discerned within bays 10 to 12, whilst staining to the walls in a number of areas indicate the former position of machinery, drives or belts. The first floor is known to have been used as a grain store until the 1960s. The trusses could date to the late 18th century and are timber pegged, king post trusses with some metal repairs. Roman numeral carpenter’s assembly marks were also apparent on many trusses.

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

A1.2

Exterior This range runs north-east to south-west and is connected to A1.3 at its north-east end. It encloses the north side of the southern courtyard. The structure is constructed in roughly-coursed rubblestone, with a slate roof (Tullycavey to the courtyard roof slope). Originally single-storey, with arched openings on both the north-west and south-east elevations, the building has been raised, perhaps to improve light and ventilation into the interior. The original wall height can be seen just above the voussoirs of the arched openings and a scar on the south-west gable end. When raised, rectangular openings with arched brick heads were inserted which currently contain louvres. Many of the original arched openings have been historically modified or infilled on the south-east elevation (with stone infills) and more recently on the north-west elevation (with concrete blocks). Dating the raising of the roof is problematic; although it may have been raised in a response to the fire in 1815, or at a later date. From the mid-19th century onwards, agricultural theorists proposed that ventilation and light were good for cattle, and recommended that they be more hygienically accommodated in an airy cow-house which was well lit including roof-lights and windows.29 On the south-east elevation, an early alteration (probably when the building was raised) was the blocking of most of the arched openings with stone. Today these contain 20th century metal framed windows and timber double-leafed boarded doors. There is also a raised archway providing access into the north farmyard and modern arched opening with concrete block dressings and voussoirs.

R W Brunskill, Traditional Farm Buildings of Britain and their Conservation, 1999

114

Interior Now subdivided into three large compartments open to the roof. Two of three compartments were more recently used for animal housing with concrete flooring and a stone flagged feeding passage on the south side. Doorways inserted through the cross-walls are a later feature. There are also two inter-mural feeding troughs. The western-most compartment was recently used for the preparation and storage of feed. Machinery against the western-most wall rolled the barley and mixed it with other nutrients which were passed into two large silos which reached almost to rafter level (now removed). The feed was lifted to a distributer via augers. Once in the silos the grain would have been stored for the winter. It is possible that the building was originally designed as an opensided cattle shed with a spinal wall, which supported the roof. The spinal wall would have avoided through-drafts if the shed was open on both sides and would have been similar to the other two ranges. The roof trusses are king posts and appear to be pine with timber pegs and later iron straps. There are a number of modern repairs. Walls and historic timbers are whitewashed.

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

A1.3

Exterior The structure is constructed in roughly-coursed rubblestone, with a slate roof (Tullycavey to the courtyard roof slope). Like the northern range, it is possible that the single-storey range was formerly an open-fronted shelter shed on its western side which faced onto the farmyard (or foldyard). The arched openings are now blocked with stone and inset with metal-framed windows. Two of the arched openings have been lost completely and their voussoirs removed; only the springer stones for the arch remain. Another arched opening has been widening historically, and voussoirs replaced in brick.

In the north-east corner is a workshop with ceiling. The space, however, appears to have formerly been open to the west, as evidenced by the cast iron columns and timber lintels embedded in the spinal wall. This was eventually blocked up to form the current compartments. The colonnade of cast iron columns is likely to have been a later alteration to open up the space, rather than an original feature.

The eastern façade comprises 20th century windows to a workshop (in modified openings) and loose-box doors. Of interest, however, is a remaining arched opening, now blocked in stone, to the southern end of the façade. Whilst there is limited evidence for other earlier arches on the external façade, an inspection of the stabling shows that this elevation did originally feature at least one other arched opening, in direct correlation with another noted on the spinal wall.

The remains of a blocked arched opening (original?) can also be traced on the spinal wall hinting at a different layout of the interior spaces which pre-date the stables and lambing pens. As noted previously, this appears to have originally been located directly opposite another arched opening on the north-east facing elevation.

Interior A spinal wall which supports the roof trusses runs north-east to south-west dividing the range into two. On the eastern side are former stables and on the west are sheep and lambing pens. The pens are constructed of various materials and from a number of different periods.

A feeding passage running along the western side of the building has stone flags; doorways to the feeding passes have been inserted through the supporting stone partition walls.

Many of the walls do not rise to the rafters and some have remnants of whitewashed timber partitions above, which are of some value.

Many walls have rendered dados to the stone walls presumably added in the 20th century for reasons of hygiene.

Walls and historic timbers are whitewashed. On the eastern side are four loose boxes with hay racks and troughs, although not original to the structure. A number of features are of note within these, including an (original?) blocked arched opening, and cast iron columns. High level doors indicate the former presence of lofts.

115

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

A1.4

Exterior The single-storey range lies north-east to south-west and forms the south range enclosing the southern courtyard. At the south-west end lie the 19th/early 20th century houses of the Farm Manager and former Steward’s residence. The structure is constructed in roughly-coursed rubblestone, with a slate roof (Tullycavey to the courtyard roof slope). There is a single brick stack on the south-east facing roof slope. The north-west elevation, which faces onto the southern farmyard, comprises 11 arched openings which are now blocked with stone and inset with roughly alternating double-leafed doors and metalframed windows. It is possible that this, like the other elevations onto this farmyard, were originally designed as shelter sheds facing onto a foldyard for loose cattle. The building has been truncated at its west end by the construction of the Farm Manager’s house, and it is clear from the remains of voussoirs within the wall of the Farm Managers House and yard, that the range projected further to the west by at least a further two bays. The arched openings were probably incorporate into the Farm Manager’s House when the house was extended, possibly at the start of the 20th century.

116

The south-east facing elevation features a complex series of modifications, infilling and insertions into the historic fabric. The arched opening to the easternmost bay with stone dressings appears to be historic, but with voussoirs replaced in brick. A further historic arched opening can be seen at the western end with stone voussoirs, whilst there are a further two arched openings which have now been infilled or truncated. The arched openings are dissimilar in shape and material to those on the more uniform arches of the farmyard elevations, suggesting they were either part of later alterations or were deliberately designed to be different. There are a number of later doors and windows now inserted into this elevation which belong to several phases. Interior Similar to the eastern range, the building has a central spinal wall which supports the roof trusses. The northern side of the range is occupied by a modern office at the western end, whilst the majority of the space is occupied by two modern byres with concrete partitions and concrete floor with central drain. On the southern side, the range is subdivided into units now occupied by the National Trust as volunteer facilities and ranger base. The evidence suggests that historically the spaces were possibly adapted as workshops in the 19th century. Modifications have included the loss of several of the arched openings and insertion of doors and windows. A corner chimney (note the presence of a second in the adjoining space) could have formed part of a smithy.

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

Farmyards and Other Buildings The southern farmyard is partially laid to grass and to concrete. To the south-west are a number of intrusive structures relating to the Steward's and Manager’s Houses including a lean-to shed, store and tank. Within the northern farmyard, are a number of 20th century structures of limited interest including a Dutch Barn constructed after 1933; a lean-to shed, now used as a lumber yard by the National Trust; and a cement block store. They are all built against the stone farmyard wall with the block store using the farmyard wall as part of its rear wall. The stone wall appears to date from at least the mid-19th century and is therefore of some significance. Holes within its structure would suggest that earlier buildings (now lost) were originally constructed against it.

Immediately north of the Farmyard is an area now used for dumping rubble and rubbish where a cottage was historically located. This building is shown on the earliest Ordnance Survey map of 1834 and described on a 1933 plan as the ‘Estate Carpenter’s Cottage’.30 This area is archaeologically sensitive and would benefit the setting of the Farmyard by being cleared, landscaped and interpreted in future plans for the Farmyard. To the south of the Farmyard, and facing the Steward’s and Manager’s Houses, are a water pump and a weigh bridge, now disused.

To the east of the Dutch Barn is an area of pens. Although ruinous and partially overgrown, it was possible to identify a series of pigsties built against the Farmyard wall. Although cement rendered, the pigsties appear to have been robustly constructed in stone. Their date is unclear from historical maps although a structure is shown in this location from the 1834 Ordnance Survey map and may relate to, or have replaced, this structure.

PRIONI D654/M71/13

117

Key Features • Formal appearance of the south-west elevation with austere Neo-Classical detailing comprising moulded dressings to openings, keystones, alternating circular and square windows on the first floor. • Evidence within the fabric of 250 years of alteration and adaptation, reflecting changing agricultural technologies and philosophies and accompanying social change. • Distinctive courtyard ranges forming an ‘S’ shape. • Bellcote to the barn. • Arched openings to courtyard ranges with stone voussoirs, which despite alteration, provide a distinct uniformity to the courtyard. • Exposed timber trusses. • Large, open interior spaces. • Historic boarded doors internally and externally. • Partial Tullycavey slate roofs. • Opposed barn doors and ventilation slits to the barn. • Cobble and stone floors where extant. • Remains of drives and wheels evidencing power sources. • Carpenters assembly marks.

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

The barn range, principal elevation (A1.1)

The barn range, north-east elevation (A1.1)

First floor, view south-east from northern end (A1.1)

Machinery in-situ and altered archway (A1.1)

First Floor, southern end (A1.1)

118

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

Detail of principal elevation (A1.1)

King post truss with wooden pegging and carpenter’s assembly marks (A1.1)

119

Ground floor, southern end (A1.1)

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

North range, feeding passage (A1.2)

North range, south farmyard – south-east elevation (A1.2)

North range north-west elevation (A1.2)

North range, internal (A1.2)

East range, south farmyard – south-west elevation (A1.3)

120

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

East range, north-east elevation (A1.3)

East range, sheep pens with arched opening to spinal wall (A1.3)

South range, south farmyard – north-west elevation (A1.4)

East range, sheep pens and feeding passage (A1.3)

121

South range, south-east elevation (A1.4)

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

South range, modern byre

South range, workshops (A.3)

Northern farmyard looking north-east

Dutch barn

Concrete block store

Timber yard

122

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD Variety of Arched openings:

123

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT N

Remnants of chute to ceiling and on wall

FARMYARD A1.1: GROUND FLOOR BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT PLAN General Notes: Moulded stone surrounds with keystones and stone cills and relieving arches a key feature. Principal elevation faces south-west. Note symmetry of some elements.

Bellcote – retains bell and chain. Missing finial?

This plan is not to scale

Former opening (windows or machinery access) with slim timber lintel, splayed opening in brick, blocked in breeze blocks

Timber stair inserted in front of blocked (original) arched window opening suggesting later insertion

Wall tiles and blocked openings indicate former location of machinery, drives, belts etc.

Later 20th century partitions for offices intrusive

Hatch in ceiling

Blocked door openings of varying size

Ventilation slits (now blocked) a feature of traditional barns

Most windows and doors replaced in 20th/21st centuries. Scarring north-east elevation following erection and demolition of modern agricultural buildings

Timber first floor with level change – mixture of modern and historic timber with some inserted steel beams

Large arched opening, no stone dressings so assumed later inserted in 19th century? Now blocked in stone. Timber floor a later insert.

Historic grain crusher latterly powered by electric motor Plastered

Brick floor Rectangular windows without splays Intrusive modern electrical cable runs to exterior

Curved corner at ground floor level, dressed stone and rubble quoins above

Opposed doors – a feature of the traditional threshing barn

Concrete floor

Blocked openings and blackening to walls indicate former location of machinery, drives, belts etc

Staining to walls and blockings – former location of machinery

Concrete floor

Deep splays to arched windows no cills, white washed walls

Inserted doorway, later modified to door and doorcase inserted with brick infill above

124

Bay used as stone store

Door raised?

Remnants of stalling for heavy horses

Archway raised as interrupts floor above, assumed for taller or loaded cart storage

Remnants of drive shaft above door. Note wall ties on exterior for drive. Low door suggest human access not animal – originally a store?

Deep splays to arched windows and plain cills. Historic window frames

Plastered and painted. Concrete floor. Timber beams above painted historically with later interventions.

Modern opening with steel lintel and breeze block patching intrusive

Deep splays to arched windows and splayed cills

Building break suggests southern end a different phase of construction

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

Loading door with plain dressings suggests not original but potentially a very early insertion.

FARMYARD A1.1: FIRST FLOOR BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT PLAN General Notes: Storage for grain cleaner (last used in c.1950), changing room doors to swimming pool, and school benches Used as seed grain store up to 1960s Reroofed 2016 Some original windows believed to have been replaced in the 1960s – probably with metal frames

Pully above door relates to trap door for raising/ lowering of items. Stills retains chain, wheel and leather belt Blocked opening low on wall, may relate to blocking below

Grain store up to 1960s. Note lower walls are lined in cement mortar, probably relating to grain drying on the floors Timber beans jointed into tie beams with additional iron straps

Evidence of arch with brick voussoirs, opening has random brick/stone infill Trap door in floor Loading door, blocked externally, but retains historic ledged and braced door

Modern electricity cupboard Change in floor level King post trusses (pine?) with carpenters marks to tie beam, post, struts and principal rafter. Joints are pegged. Strengthened with iron straps to one truss.

Arched opening with brick voussoirs, later infilled in stone and modified again with brick to current opening

This plan is not to scale

125

Trap door in floor

Red brick architraves to all round openings

King post trusses have all received additional iron straps. One truss has a modern steel repair

Doorways formed through stone, made good with brick

Original arched loading door with historic ledged and braced door

Roof trusses have iron bolts to collars Arch over square window contrasts to others on first floor Timber vents to roof noted on elevation retain a number of steel tubes running from roof to floor. No evidence on ground floor as to purpose due to modern flooring

Former position of water tank

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

BARN (Features rectangular windows to ground floor)

A1.1 SOUTH-WEST ELEVATION BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT PLAN

STABLES?/GRANARY/HAYLOFT/ STORE/OFFICES ETC (Features doors and lunette windows to ground floor)

Tullycavey slate roof Metal ties to secure machinery on interior

Quoins

Modern insert

General Notes: Alternating square and circular windows to first floor This plan is not to scale

Relieving arches to all square openings to ground floor

Opposed barn doors (for threshing)

Lower doorcase with relieving arch and without overlight in contrast to other entrance doors on this elevation. This may be the original arrangement.

Window altered to loading door

Blocked window. Intrusive vent

Arch raised (and widened?) as interrupts window above internally. This bay is wider than those either side which would suggest it has always been an entrance door to a barn, store or coach/cart house, but may have been narrower and lower originally. Note the opposed door appears to have been inserted later.

126

Building break indicates southern end a different phase of construction

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

A1.1 NORTH-EAST ELEVATION BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT PLAN Brick patching Breeze block infill/ repair Capped timber vents

Unmoulded architraves suggest slightly later inserts

Assumed original opening now bricked up. Further original opening with relieving arch (see north west elevation for similar) below.

Former hole for chute blocked in brick

Bellcote missing finial? Unmoulded architraves suggest slightly later inserts

General Notes: The north-east elevation appears to have originally had a limited number of openings. Former access to door to first floor?

Moulded architraves similar to south-west elevation

Bricked up opening

Bricked up ventilation slits

This plan is not to scale

Rendered stone below breeze infill. Former window, later modified?

Scars from 20th century agricultural shed Simple depressed arch with stone voussoirs. Assumed later opening, historically blocked with stone rubble. Did this form a pass into the northern yard or was this storing loaded carts?

127

Original opening hung with modern doors (replacing top hung doors)

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

Feeding passage with stone flags

Doorways allowing connectivity for feeding passage. Partition walls are a later insert

Concrete walls to feeding passage

A1.2 NORTH RANGE BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT PLAN This plan is not to scale

Troughs Modern opening at loft level

Possible line of original central spinal wall before roof raised and partition walls built

Partition walls secondary to original construction, possibly contemporary with raising of roof, providing larger stock accommodation possibly with a loft above (?). Note walls interrupt the arched openings. Have the partition walls also been raised historically?

Modern buttressing

128

Vent or machinery hole

Former joist holes evidence location of (modern?) platform/ half loft. Note this cuts across openings.

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

A1.2 NORTH RANGE: NORTH-WEST ELEVATION BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT PLAN Modern opening Louvred ventilation openings Modern concrete block infill

Loading doors (?) or large vents (louvred). Slate cills

Straight joint?

Original roofline

Building raised above arched openings (following fire?). Loft inserted?

Original roofline visible on elevation

This plan is not to scale

Raised archway

Brick dressings to later openings

Openings retained. Note extant pintles of gates/doors

129

Pintles from gate/doors

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

Inserted door – possibly allowing connectivity to former building which stood adjacent to this elevation

A1.2 NORTH RANGE: SOUTH-EAST ELEVATION BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT PLAN All 20th century metal casements with cement rendered to reveals Modern opening Double-left boarded doors Louvred ventilation openings Modern concrete block infill This plan is not to scale

Modern gate intrusive

Tullycavey slate roof

Bricked blocking internally, boarded externally

Former location of structure. Wall now repaired

Stone infill, traces of former door (now infilled) with Modern concrete blocks internally

Concrete blocks internally

Modern opening with concrete block dressings

Concrete blocks internally

130

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

A1.3 NORTH RANGE BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT PLAN Modern opening Modern concrete block infill Cast iron columns below timber lintel embedded into wall Formerly open area as indicated by lintel and cast iron columns

Door formed through wall partition with brick reveal and timber lintel

Lambing pens largely modern structures with some earlier rendered walling

Former door opening

Heavy timber stalling

Stone flags

Small opening with timber jambs and lintel now blocked in stone – unknown use

Historic timber boarded doubleleaf doors in modified (modern) opening

Top-hung sliding door

Stone flags

Cast iron column embedded into wall, formerly supported upper wall on timber lintel

Joist holes assumed for a loft above

This plan is not to scale

Ranger’s store

Blocked arched opening

Evidence that roof has been raised high on wall

Workshop –note this room is ceiled

Blocked arched opening

Water tank and fire hose Whitewashed timber partition above

Cast Iron columns embedded into stone wall

High level door

Wall not full height. Whitewashed timber partition above Cobbles

131

Wall not full height

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

A1.3 NORTH RANGE: SOUTH-WEST ELEVATION BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT PLAN All 20th century metal casements with cement rendered to reveals

Archway infilled and voussoirs removed. Note straight joints

Opening widened historically. Brick voussoirs – bricks similar to northern range? Tullycavey slate roof

This plan is not to scale

Archway infilled and voussoirs removed. Note straight joints from a later opening now infilled in stone

132

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

A1.3 NORTH RANGE: NORTH-EAST ELEVATION BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT PLAN 20th century metal or timber casements Straight joint Areas of patching/ repair

Historical arched opening (original phase?) inset with modern window with concrete lintel Cabling and lighting intrusive

Cracking Straight joints indicate former pitching/ventilation/ window now blocked in stone

This plan is not to scale

Gate pintle

Doors appear to have inserted into earlier fabric. Brick repairs to jambs and concrete lintels

Cracking

133

Inserted door with brick reveal, blocked with stone and 20th century window inserted with concrete lintels

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

National Trust Rangers Workshops/ offices – roof structure appeared to be largely non-historic. Concrete floor. Harling or thick lime plaster to walls Set back in wall – brick and stone infill suggest the store was historically open to the workshop unit

This plan is not to scale

Modern partition

A1.4 SOUTH RANGE PLAN BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT PLAN

National Trust Ranger and volunteer ‘pod’ facilities

Historic chimney constructed in brick – suggests use of these spaces as workshops (possibly including a smithy?). Wall stub originally stone, but modified in brick to form opening

Cobbled floor

Modern store intrusive

National Trust Store

Stone partition is historic and dates to before construction of Manager’s House but is later than the arched openings

Stone floor Partition walls a historical insertion

Blocked door

Water tank visible

Doorway blocked in concrete blocks. Wall also of (historical) brick with breeze repairs

20th century byre with cement partitions, cement floor with extant feeders and watering system Blocked door

Top hung door

Corner chimney stack only extant high on wall suggests this space was also heated

Modern offices/prep area with intrusive booth

134

Passageway probably created late 19th century. Flagstone flooring and evidence of laths to centre opening and lime plastering to walls

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

A1.4 SOUTH RANGE: NORTH-WEST FACING ELEVATION BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT PLAN 20th century metal and timber casements Double-left boarded doors

Brick stack to northeast facing elevation

Tullycavey slate roof Straight joints and remains of springer and voussoirs of former arched openings

General Notes: Service tank intrusive This plan is not to scale

Historically range extended further westwards Security lighting intrusive

Passageway – no door. Note passageway a later insert – the flanking walls interrupt the earlier archway. Modification probably made late 19th century

135

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

A1.4 SOUTH RANGE: SOUTH-EAST FACING ELEVATION BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT PLAN 20th century metal and timber casements Areas of patching/ repair

Passageway

Primary (?) phase arched opening

Primary phase arched opening infilled with stone historically and later (?) set with door

General Notes: Services, pole and security lighting intrusive This plan is not to scale

Note ground level change

Doors blocked in brick and formed into windows assumed 20th century

20th century windows appear to have replaced earlier windows as evidenced by brick infilling/repair

Brick dressings indicate former window (?) lowered to form door

136

Brick stack with two flues

Modern door and openings (?)

Brick voussoirs with sandstone dressings to the left jamb. Is this a later insert which replaced the arched door on the north-east elevation?

Primary phase arched opening infilled with stone

Straight joints suggest door with stone dressings inserted historically. Later formed into window with brick dressings. Similar phase as adjacent opening

Later 19th century (?) opening with brick dressings later infilled in brick and modern window inserted

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

Location of chicken shed 20th century Possible location of rickyard late 18th – early 19th century

Building raised following fire ?

Cart Shed with leanto roof by 1900 (?) removed 20th century

Former building range erected post-1858, removed post-1921 and replaced by Dutch Barn N

Dutch Barn post-1933

Building in-situ 1858–1900. Used as a Sawmill in 20th century. Removed later 20th century and replaced with modern structure for cattle

Sheep wash (in-situ 1901–1920 Pigsties assumed 19th century. Structure in this location 1834

Approximate location of Horse Engine possibly pre-1815 but first shown on plans 1834. Absent by 1858

Historic stone wall and gate posts

Lean-to in-situ 1834. Replaced by flat roof structure (?) 20th century. Bull Pen in 20th century. Removed later 20th century

Modern structure constructed against historic stone wall

Approximate location of enclosure wall to Dovecote

Building in-situ 1834 removed post-1921

BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT PLAN Phase 1: * Phase 2: * Phase 3: * Phase 4: 1870s Phase 5: Late 19th/early 20th century Phase 6: 20th century * Assumed partly late 18th century with early 19th century rebuilding and episodes of later alteration and adaptation This plan is not to scale

Structure post 1921. Marked as ‘Piggery’ on later 20th century plan

Range of buildings in-situ 1834 assumed removed in two phases and replaced by steward’s/manager’s houses

Garden not shown on 1921 Ordnance Survey Map

Base plan © GoogleEarth

137

Barn and principle ranges assumed to be late 18th century with later modifications

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

CONDITION

A1.1

Farm range along road (west)

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

•

Localised roof repairs.

•

Repointing of open joints/ cracks in masonry.

•

Reversal of cement-based interventions desirable.

•

Overhaul of windows and doors recommended, including timber repairs and redecorations.

•

Internal redecorations in traditional finish e.g. limewash.

•

Roofs: fair condition, some open joints to ridge and gable copes, with vegetation growth. Occasional slate lift/ deflection. Rainwater Goods (RWGs): cast iron, appear sound. Masonry: localised open joints and inappropriate modern cement repairs/ inserts. Iron damage to jamb masonry on roadside elevation.

•

Windows/doors: fair or poor condition, affected by rot, deterioration of finishes.

•

Interiors/finishes: fair or poor condition, but commensurate with present use.

Further Investigations

138

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

A1.2

Farm range U-shaped (north)

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

•

Localised roof repairs.

•

Repointing of open joints/ cracks in masonry.

•

Reversal of cement-based interventions desirable.

•

Overhaul of windows and doors recommended, including timber repairs and redecorations.

•

Internal redecorations in traditional finish e.g. limewash.

Roofs: sound condition to south pitch, appears to have been comprehensively repaired in recent times. North pitch with some open joints to ridge and gable copes, with vegetation growth. Occasional slate lift/ deflection.

•

RWGs: cast iron, appear sound.

•

Masonry: localised open joints and inappropriate modern cement repairs/ inserts.

•

Windows/doors: fair or poor condition, affected by rot, deterioration of finishes. Some metal framed inserts, which require overhaul.

•

Further Investigations

Interiors/finishes: fair or poor condition, but commensurate with present use.

139

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

A1.3

Farm range U-shaped (east)

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

Further Investigations

•

Localised roof repairs.

•

Repointing of open joints/cracks in masonry, potential structural repairs required at south end of east elevation.

•

Reversal of cement-based interventions desirable.

•

Overhaul of windows and doors recommended, including timber repairs and redecorations.

•

Internal redecorations in traditional finish e.g. limewash.

•

RWGs: cast iron, appear sound.

•

Masonry: localised open joints and inappropriate modern cement repairs. Some structural cracking at south end of east elevation through blocked arch.

•

Windows/doors: fair or poor condition, affected by rot, deterioration of finishes. Some metal framed inserts, which require overhaul.

•

Interiors/finishes: fair or poor condition, but commensurate with present use.

140

Further investigation of structural defects required by suitably qualified structural engineer. Monitor.

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

A1.4

Farm range U-shaped (south)

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

Further Investigations

•

Roofs: sound condition to north pitch, appears to have been comprehensively repaired in recent times. South pitch with some open joints to ridges. Occasional slate lift/deflection.

•

Localised roof repairs.

•

Repointing of open joints/cracks in masonry. Potential structural repairs at east end of south elevation.

•

RWGs: cast iron, appear sound.

•

Reversal of cement-based interventions desirable.

•

Masonry: localised open joints and inappropriate modern cement repairs/ inserts. Some structural easing noted at eastern end of south elevation.

•

Overhaul of windows and doors recommended, including timber repairs and redecorations.

•

Windows/doors: fair or poor condition, affected by rot, deterioration of finishes. Some metal framed inserts, which require overhaul.

•

Internal redecorations in traditional finish e.g. limewash.

Interiors/finishes: fair or poor condition, but commensurate with present use.

141

Further investigation of structural defects required by suitably qualified structural engineer. Monitor.

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

A1.4.1 Modern farm structures (north)

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

•

Further Investigations

Localised repair and redecorations to masonry walling required.

142

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Summary The special interest of the Farmyard is recognised by its listed status. It holds value for its association with the family at Mount Stewart and holds significant group value with the Walled Gardens, Dovecote, Apple Loft and Managers Houses. The Farmyard is a significant collection of agricultural buildings which were once key to the operation of the house and the demesne. Evidential Despite the existence of documentary sources, our current understanding of the history and development of the Farmyard is limited. Historical documents record a ‘conflagration’ which engulfed the Farmyard in 1815, and the subsequent repair and rebuilding which took place; there are also documents relating to livestock and crop returns within archives. However, it is still unclear to what extent the Farmyard was rebuilt in 1816 – architecturally the barn range would suggest a number of elements have survived, and that the fire may have struck courtyard ranges only. The Farmyard has continued to be adapted up to the present day and as a result, the buildings are a palimpsest of change and alteration which is currently little understood. As is common with agricultural buildings, their uses also change over time – those at Mount Stewart are no exception, and the use of spaces has yet to be firmly established. There is high potential that detailed archaeological analysis and recording, including, for example, dendrochronology, may significantly improve our understanding of the dates of the various building phases. This type of investigative work may be a condition of planning approval in any future development proposal for the Farmyard.

There is also potential for additional information to come from documentary research in PRONI or from other sources; for example, payments within demesne accounts towards improvements to the Farmyard buildings and their associated invoices may still await discovery. The Farmyard has high evidential value. Historical Mount Stewart is an example of a ‘model’, or planned farmstead. Farmsteads from the late 18th century are much less common than from the 19th century, lending the Farmyard at Mount Stewart high historical significance. Although struck by a ‘conflagration’ in 1815, there appears to be a good deal of survival of earlier fabric. Common to many farms, the Mount Stewart farm buildings have responded over the decades to changing fashions, farming practices and mechanisation. They have undergone adaptation and change from an early period, including, for example, the construction of a horse engine. Many such changes have left traces on the buildings, with the most extensive being the 20th century changes in response to improvements in hygiene and animal welfare standards. The Farmyard is therefore a record of farming practice from more than two centuries. Many buildings retain historical features from a number of periods including cobble and flag floors; timber partitions; mangers; layers of lime plaster and whitewash; wheels and pulleys; machinery; and timber boarded doors. The use of traditional Tullycavey slate also adds to the buildings’ significance.

143

The Farmyard has high significance for its association with the Londonderry family; its longevity and success are a testament to the family and to the agents they appointed. Their initial investment produced a planned farmstead and improvements to the quality of soil, crops and cattle within the demesne. It is clear from historical documents that the family took pride in the operation and saw it as their duty to set an example for their neighbours and tenants. Casement has suggested that the proposed new house at Mount Stewart was to be located on the hill adjacent to the farm; a move which would not have been unusual in the late 18th century, where ‘improvements’ to the designed landscape setting and to the agricultural management of the land would all be seen as part of the same aesthetic and moral, philosophical ethos. Aesthetic The group of buildings form an impressive collection of structures, with the barn range as the most architecturally significant. This, and the Apple Loft stables which it faces, are similar in architectural style and detail, making them an attractive ensemble. The adjoining agricultural ranges are robustly constructed and possess a utilitarian character, but their original design and construction would have been only slightly less impressive. Although there is less architectural embellishment, the arrangement of stone arches to the southern courtyard is altogether pleasing and reflects the planned nature of the Farmyard. Despite the alterations over the last two centuries, such as the infilling of the arched openings with cement blocks, there is significant potential for improvement. Communal Whilst the Farmyard has significance for those who live within the demesne or who have worked there, the site is not accessible to the public, apart from visits by groups of volunteers. The communal value of the Farmyard is, at present, low, but it has very high potential for future enhancement.

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

Setting The Farmyard is located at the heart of the demesne and set amid farmland and adjacent to the Walled Garden. The setting has remained largely unaltered since it was laid out and makes a highly significant contribution to our appreciation and understanding of the Farmyard. The integrity of the setting should be a primary consideration in future plans for the development of the site. Contribution to the Wider Demesne and the Mansion House The Farmyard of Mount Stewart is one of a number of key buildings within the demesne. With the Walled Garden, they form an impressive ensemble of the demesne’s production buildings. As the Demesne CMP says, ‘the group occupies and defines the working heart of the demesne and sits at the functional and physical centre of the landscape design’ with ‘their great scale reflecting that of the demesne itself ’.31 The Farmyard and Walled Garden are inextricably linked to the demesne landscape and are therefore of the highest significance to it. Key Views Due to the demesne topography, long range views are limited to a farm track to the north. Other views tend to be short range within the circuit of demesne roads.

Gallagher and Rutherford, 2018, Part II, p154

144

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

SIGNIFICANCE AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE PLAN High Medium Low Neutral Intrusive

Key Views (Please refer to the Executive Summary Section 5.0 for an explanation of significance and its relationship to capacity for change)

Concrete yard intrusive

This plan is not to scale Base plan © GoogleEarth

Internal finishes to cottage are neutral significance

145

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

CONSERVATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES •

•

Following repairs by the National Trust the farm buildings are now in a stable condition. Attractive set of agricultural structures. A model farm from the late-18th and early 19th century, probably architect designed, making a superb backdrop for visitor arrivals and for interpreting Mount Stewart and its landscape to the public.

•

Archaeological considerations regarding the location of former buildings.

Specific • Retain cobbled, flagstone or other historic surfaces.

•

Potential to enhance the structures through the sensitive re-use of surrounding spaces and the removal of concrete surfacing.

•

Retain lime plasters and historic finishes where possible.

•

Refrain from stripping paint from roof timbers – timbers may have historic paint finishes, markings and graffiti which could be damaged or destroyed.

•

Retain the plan form where possible; avoid subdivision of spaces.

•

Be aware that historic surfacing may lie below modern surfaces or flooring.

•

Retain historic windows and doors.

PARAMETERS FOR CHANGE

•

Dramatic spaces open to the rafters.

•

Vacancy of structures and lack of regular maintenance regime.

General • Listed Building Consent is required prior to any material impact on significance. Alterations would also need to conform to policies in PPS 6, notably BH6.

•

Opportunities for new uses and capacity for change.

•

Opportunity to increase understanding through archaeological analysis of the buildings to better understand the complex series of changes and to establish the extent of 18th century fabric.

•

Potential contamination from sheep dip and other agricultural products.

•

Potential to reveal original interior features such as cobbled floor surfaces.

•

Wealth of original features could be retained as features and form part of the story of Mount Stewart farmyard. Potential to restore some areas to original appearance such as reopening of arched openings. Ecological consideration including bats and house martins.

The external appearance should be maintained as it is in a prominent location.

•

Maintain and repair the structure to a level commensurate with its significance.

•

New development should utilise traditional materials, colour schemes and roof forms.

•

The principle of maximum historic fabric retention should be followed.

•

Carefully site new buildings by reusing the footprint of demolished structures in the northern farmyard.

•

Changes proposed should generally aim to be reversible.

•

Retain historic walls and gate piers to the farmyards.

•

Any change should respect the character, scale and massing of the current building and its setting.

•

Retain the integrity of the Farmyard setting in future plans for the development of the Farmyard.

•

Any strip out of modern surface treatments, suspended ceilings etc. provides an excellent opportunity to reveal hidden historic fabric. A recording exercise should be carried out prior to, and during, change. Information recovered should continue to feed into the understanding of the significance of specific areas and directly inform future options for change.

•

Retain historic features and machinery, including pintles, hoist, belts and hatches.

•

Retain historic repairs in stone and brick but aim to sensitively replace modern intrusive cement renders and concrete block repairs.

146

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

•

Respect historic alterations and interventions as these are part of the building’s story.

•

Avoid new development in the southern farmyard which is sensitive to change.

•

Retain the integrity of the setting – the location of new building and car parking, for example, will require careful consideration.

Remove modern elements which are intrusive including: •

Concrete surfaces and yards.

•

Cement renders or pointing.

•

Modern structures such as: Reverse modern interventions such as the blockwork within these openings

o o o o o o o

the lean-to in the northern farmyard; the Dutch Barn; blockwork store in the northern farmyard; modern kitchen to the rear of the Steward’s House; garage lean-to in the southern courtyard; wiring, security lighting and pipework, particularly where attached to the exterior elevations; and modern inserted office spaces.

Respect historic changes like this inserted door

147

A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 THE FARMYARD

CAPACITY FOR CHANGE •

There may be some capacity to reopen arches on the north range (north-east elevation) but removal of the historic infilling of arched openings to the southern courtyard will require a clear justification.

•

There may be capacity to remove historic blocked openings to improve internal circulation where this avoids new openings through historic fabric.

•

The large spaces make some areas ideally suited as an interpretation centre, visitor centre and retail functions.

•

Equally, the Farmyard is well placed for educational uses, classroom facilities and workshops for craft skills etc.

•

Conference and events are particularly suitable in the north range of the southern courtyard due to the size of spaces.

•

The Farmyard may be suitable for craft workshops/retail units/ small scale craft industries e.g. cheese making etc.

148

[THIS PAGE HAS INTENTIONALLY BEEN LEFT BLANK]

149

A1.5, A1.6 FARMHOUSES

A1.6.1 Outbuilding to Steward’s House/Farmhouse West

A1.6 Steward’s House/Farmhouse West A1.5 Farmhouse East/Agent’s House

150

A1.5, A1.6 FARMHOUSES

KEY INFORMATION

Component Name

Farmhouses and outbuilding Also Steward’s House, Agent’s or Farm Manager’s House

Date Range

West Farmhouse: c.1872 East Farmhouse: probably late 19th century/early 20th century

Current Use

West Farmhouse: Vacant East Farmhouse: Tenanted

Historic Uses

Residential

Overall Significance

Low

Overall Condition

West Farmhouse: Decline East Farmhouse: Sound

Designations

B2 (as part of the Farmyard HB24/04/055)

Capacity for Change

High

Farmyard

151

A1.5, A1.6 FARMHOUSES

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

1783–1786 The Farmyard and Dovecote are thought to have been constructed around this time in a location close to Bean Hill. 1815 A fire badly damages the Farmyard. 1816–1817 The Farmyard is rebuilt according to account entries. 1828–1863 The estate and demesne were managed by the 3rd Marquess’ Agent, John Andrews of Comber.01 Described as a ‘capable’ man, Andrews also served under the 4th Marquess successfully managing the estate and navigating it through some difficult years including the Great Famine.02 1834 The Farmyard is shown on the 1834 OS map with an enclosed southern farmyard and a more open northern yard, perhaps containing a horse engine. The Dovecote lies within its own enclosure.

1854 Mount Stewart is inherited by Frederick, the 4th Marquess. He prefers to live in Powerscourt, Co. Wicklow and appears to have made few changes to the demesne landscape.03 By 1858 Few changes are shown on the 1858 OS map apart from the disappearance of the horse engine. The southern courtyard appears to have been opened up through its western range. 1872 An incomplete plan of the demesne, revised from an 1855 plan, shows a familiar farm layout similar to the 1858 OS plan. The surrounding fields are annotated in pencil indicating their use as grazing with some fields set aside for oats and turnips.04 1872 George Henry Vane Tempest (1821–1884) inherits as the 5th Marquess. He preferred to reside at his wife’s residence, Plas Machynlleth. During this time much of the demesne, including the Farmyard was let to Henry Tate.05

Gallagher and Rutherford, Mount Stewart Demesne, Conservation Management Plan Part 1, 2018

Gallagher and Rutherford, 2018, p66

PRONI D654/M71/5

Casement p29

Casement p35

c.1872 A west farmhouse is constructed for the tenant’s Steward backing onto the southern farmyard thus enabling him to oversee the farm. The 6th Marquess’ Steward resided in ‘The Cottage’ on Stewart’s Hill, later to become ‘Ros Cuan’. This would have involved the demolition of part of the southern range of buildings to facilitate construction. 1884 Charles (1852–1915) inherits as 6th Marquess. He and his wife Theresa preferred to live at Wynyard in Co Durham, but spent more time at Mount Stewart, taking back the farmland ‘in hand’. This remained so until 1910.06 By 1900–1901 The Ordnance Survey map shows that further farm buildings had been added to the northern farmyard. The west farmhouse is indicated by the existence of a garden to the south. No garden is shown for the any adjacent farmhouse. 1911 James Weir was Land Steward to the Mount Stewart estate and living in the west farmhouse with his wife Euphemia and their four children.

152

Ibid

A1.5, A1.6 FARMHOUSES

May 1919 Alterations or the construction of a further house adjacent to the west farmhouse are proposed.07 A partial plan and elevations held in PRONI show the south elevation of the east farmhouse, with the west farmyard to the left and the passage through to the south farmyard to the right. The plan, however, is dissimilar to the 2020 existing plan of the house. It perhaps represents a rejected scheme for a new house, or for a proposed reordering of the existing. If the latter, it perhaps suggests a date the house received its present extension into the rear yard. By 1921 The Ordnance Survey maps indicates the existence of the two farmyard houses. The west farmhouse has a projection to the rear, whilst the east house is shown as an ‘L’ shape with a small yard and outbuildings. No garden is indicated for the east house. 1933 A ‘Sketch of Mount Stewart’ from 1933 places the Farmyard and Walled Garden at the heart of the demesne. The west farmhouse is referred to as ‘14a Steward’s Dwellinghouse’, whilst the east farmhouse is ‘14b Plumber’s Dwellinghouse’.

PRONI D654/M70/39

Later 20th century The demesne continued a course of beef and dairy farming but was modernised as new regulations and animal welfare standards were brought in. The yards and barns were concreted (post-1940) for reasons of hygiene and modern agricultural structures were added to the northern farmyard. Before it ceased production, an undated insurance plan of the Farmyard and Walled Gardens in possession of the National Trust, annotates the west farmhouse as the ‘Clerk of Works House’, whilst the east farmhouse was ‘Farm Manager’s House’.08 1971 The 25 inch OS map clearly indicates the two farmhouses, both with gardens to the south. 2014 The Farmyard ceased to have a full agricultural function following its transfer to the National Trust. The Farmyard houses remain in residential use, although the west farmhouse currently lies vacant.

'Layout of Garden and Farm Buildings at Mount Stewart’, n.d., private collection.

153

A1.5, A1.6 FARMHOUSES PRIMARY SOURCES

1834 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1858 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

154

A1.5, A1.6 FARMHOUSES

Extract of the 1872 partial plan of the demesne (D654/M71/5)

1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

155

A1.5, A1.6 FARMHOUSES

1921 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

156

A1.5, A1.6 FARMHOUSES

A photo from the Weir family album taken in front of the West Farmhouse

1919 front elevation of what is assumed to be the east farmhouse. The west farmhouse to the left and the passageway to the south farmyard is to the right. PRONI D654/M70/39

1919 ground floor plan of rejected scheme. PRONI D654/M70/39

The West Farmhouse c.1930. Note the timber sliding sash windows

157

A1.5, A1.6 FARMHOUSES

CURRENT SITUATION Setting The farmhouses are an integral part of the Farmyard complex which is located at the centre of the Mount Stewart demesne, half a mile north-east of Mount Stewart House. Immediately to the south lie two enclosed gardens, laid to lawn with mature borders. The west farmhouse has a curved brick wall and is accessed by a gate to the west which leads onto a hard-standing area. To the north lies a farmyard, a brick-built outbuilding with monopitch slate roof (A1.7) and a lean-to car-port associated with the Farmyard houses. The outbuilding could not be inspected due to its poor condition. West Farmhouse Exterior The principal elevation faces south and is of two-storeys and four bays. The rear elevation is of two bays with a small monopitched ground floor extension with rendered walls. The building is constructed in rubblestone with brick dressings to all openings and has a roof of slate. It has two brick chimneys on the ridge – a further brick chimney on the east gable-end is associated with the adjacent house. All windows and doors have modern uPVC replacements.

Interior The house is currently vacant, and interiors have been modernised and are in relatively poor condition decoratively. Structurally a suspended floor has been recently repaired and there are signs of water ingress. The house comprises an entrance hall, flanked by a sitting room and dining room to the front ground floor, with a large former living-kitchen to the rear and a further small room behind the stairs (possibly a former scullery). The house retains some historic features including cornice in the sitting room, a 19th century fireplace in the adjacent room, quarry tiles floor to the rear room, 19th century architraves and four panelled doors. The staircase is of particular interest for its size relative to the house. It features open-treads with decorative tread-ends, and heavy-turned newel posts and handrail. The balusters are fretted – a feature particularly popular in the later 19th century. Also of interest is a round window in the gable end which would formerly have lit the stairwell, now blocked by the adjacent house. Natural light is now provided by a rooflight. The walls appear to have been lined out, presumably due to cold or damp penetration, and so may hide other features of interest. Upstairs there are three bedrooms and a bathroom. The cupboard in the bathroom is panelled but there are no apparent features of historical interest.

158

Key Features • Formal appearance of the southern elevation. • Red brick dressings to openings. • ‘Ghost’ features of former barn range preserved in the west elevation. • Large formal staircase and circular stained glass window. • Survival of a number of original fixtures and fittings.

A1.5, A1.6 FARMHOUSES

Front elevation

Outbuilding (no access)

Staircase

Blocked stair window

Rear elevation

Car-port

19th century fireplace

19th century cornice

159

A1.5, A1.6 FARMHOUSES

East Farmhouse Exterior The east farmhouse whilst similar in materials to the adjacent house, was clearly built at a slightly later period. Constructed against the eastern elevation of the wet farmhouse, it blocks the circular window to its stair. The house is of three bays and twostoreys which sit higher than the adjacent building. It has a hipped slate roof and has been constructed against, or possibly sharing, the party wall. This has resulted in an awkward roof arrangement, and possibly the cause of damp issues within both houses.

Interior Currently tenanted, the house is in a good state of repair internally and has been largely modernised. However, a number of historical features have been retained such as cornicing to the principal rooms, four panelled doors, door architraves, skirtings, historic staircase and a number of cast-iron bedroom fireplaces.

Unlike the west farmhouse, the principal elevation is symmetrically arranged with a central entrance door. It shares similar construction materials and brick dressings to the openings and has been fitted with uPVC doors and windows. To the right a passageway allows access to the southern farmyard. It is, however, roughly ‘L’ shaped; the rear elevation has a small yard with small brick outbuildings. Part of the rear of the building has also historically received a small extension into this yard; partially constructed in brick, it has a flat roof. Like the west farmhouse, it too evidences earlier fabric within its external walls; the north facing wall retains voussoirs to lost arched opening of the earlier barn. It is also likely that the spinal wall to the barn may form part of the rear wall of the house.

Plaster cornice

160

Key Features • Formal appearance of the southern elevation. • Red brick dressings to openings. • Fabric of an earlier agricultural range preserved in the north elevation.

A1.5, A1.6 FARMHOUSES

Front elevation

Rear elevation

Cast iron fireplace

161

A1.5, A1.6 FARMHOUSES

BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT West Farmhouse Blocked window above stair

Panelled cupboard

Extension in-situ by 1920 Blocked door

Modern kitchen

Former kitchen

Quarry tile floor

Bathroom

Modern shelving in former recess or cupboard?

Step up

Sitting room with historic cornice

Chamfered reveals

All fireplaces now blocked

Historic fireplace

162

A1.5, A1.6 FARMHOUSES

Cement 'ribbon' pointing

Tarmacadam surfacing

uPVC windows and doors

Brick reveals

163

A1.5, A1.6 FARMHOUSES

The western gable appears to retain fabric from the earlier building range shown on the 1834 and 1858 Ordnance Survey maps. This image shows a change in fabric (shown by the dashed line) indicating the building was raised from a single-storey with hipped roof, to two-storeys. A blocked door with semi-circular head and stone voussoirs is a feature within the Farmyard agricultural buildings.

164

A1.5, A1.6 FARMHOUSES

Partially repaired/ reconstrcuted

1870s fabric

Other blocked doors along this elevation may relate to a building, or buildings, which formerly enclosed the southern farmyard on its western side. An archway which gave access into the southern farmyard was removed in the 20th century to allow access for large vehicles.

1870s insert

Secondary insert later blocked prior to conversion?

165

A1.5, A1.6 FARMHOUSES

East Farmhouse

Historical extension in English garden wall bond

Rear extended by 1921

Possible remnants of (raised) spinal wall of adjacent building

Voussoirs to former arched openings

166

A1.5, A1.6 FARMHOUSES CONDITION

A1.5

Farmhouse dwelling (east)

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

Further Investigations

•

Roofs: appears generally sound, some localised missing pointing to ridges.

•

Localised roof repairs.

•

Overhaul RWGs.

RWGs: failures of protective finishes and visible rust, overhaul needed. Potential leak in waste water pipe on north elevation.

•

Repointing of open joints/cement sections in masonry. Could be associated with damp issues.

Masonry: localised open joints, previous cement repairs.

•

Windows/doors: uPVC, sound. Interiors/finishes: generally sound, but occupier notes damp issues to chimney breasts and also at front (south) of house.

•

Renewal of inappropriate uPVC windows to traditional timber recommended. Renewal of interior finishes may be required where damp has persisted, using traditional breathable systems.

167

Check and investigate causes of damp problems, prescribing an appropriate solution that facilitates free evaporation of moisture

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

A1.5, A1.6 FARMHOUSES

A1.6

Farmhouse dwelling (west)

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

Further Investigations

•

Roofs: open joints to ridge, north pitch covered with moss and potentially hiding defective slates.

•

Further survey needed but potential overhaul of roof now due (including outshot).

•

RWGs: uPVC, loose/ broken gutters, cast iron waste water pipe in need of overhaul.

•

Renewal of all RWGs in traditional cast iron recommended.

• •

•

Repairs and repointing required, removal of hard cement mortars. Redecorate cills, repair brickwork jambs. Remove hard render from outshot and replace with breathable lime render. Requires significant repairs to interior, including addressing previous issues of moisture ingress and damage.

Interiors/finishes: interior not inspected but significant defects known, related to floors and damp.

168

Investigate and seek to address causes of damp ingress and deterioration to interior if not already done so.

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

A1.5, A1.6 FARMHOUSES

A1.6.1

Outbuilding to farmhouses (west)

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

Further Investigations

•

Roofs: loss/slippage of failing roof coverings.

•

Roof requires renewal.

•

RWGs require renewal.

•

RWGs: require overhaul. •

•

Masonry: open joints, staining caused by damp.

Localised repair to brickwork required including repointing.

•

Windows/doors: rot/failure.

•

Renewal of windows/doors now required.

•

Interiors/finishes: loss of finishes.

•

Renew interior finishes.

169

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

A1.5, A1.6 FARMHOUSES

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Summary The farmhouses hold significance for their connection with the Farmyard and in the running of Mount Stewart demesne. The west farmhouse was constructed for the Steward of Henry Tate around 1872. It retains fabric from the earlier barn range which it replaced; this fabric may date to the late 18th or early 19th century. The east farmhouse, although slightly later, also retains earlier fabric seen in the northern elevation. The houses have been modernised affecting their overall character. The west farmhouse now lies vacant which has impacted on its condition. Evidential Constructed in the southern yard, an analysis of the external walls of both houses suggests they retain fabric from the earlier barn range shown on 19th century Ordnance Survey maps which they replaced. The extent of earlier fabric within is unclear without further archaeological analysis. There is also some potential for further documentary sources to be uncovered, which might add to our present understanding of the structures as well as former occupants; the evidential value is medium.

Historical The farmhouses are significant for their connection with the Farmyard and with the day-to-day running of Mount Stewart demesne. They also reflect the changing priorities of the family towards Mount Stewart – the 5th Marquess preferred to live in Wales after he succeeded to the title in 1872 and much of the demesne was let to Henry Tate. The west farmhouse was constructed for the Steward of Henry Tate shortly after 1872, although the exact date is unknown. Whilst the demesne lands were later taken back ‘in hand’, both houses appear to have been associated with agents or stewards of the demesne. The historical value is medium. Aesthetic Both houses are unremarkable domestic residences typical of many constructed in the later 19th and early 20th century. There is limited architectural embellishment, although the staircase in the west farmhouse is of interest. There remains some historical features such as cornicing, fireplaces, quarry tiles and doors, although both have seen periods of modernisation which have impacted on their integrity. The rear extension to the west farmhouse and the uPVC windows to both are inappropriate. The current condition of the west farmhouse and its outbuilding has impacted on their aesthetic value. The aesthetic value is low.

170

Communal Whilst the farmhouses retain some significance for those who have lived in them or who are familiar with them on a day-to-day basis, they are private residences. The communal value of both is low. Setting The buildings are located within the Farmyard complex which is located at the heart of the demesne and set amid farmland. This wider setting has remained largely unaltered since it was laid out. The integrity of the setting should be a primary consideration in future plans for the development of the site. Contribution to the Wider Demesne and the Mansion House The houses are an integral part of the Farmyard. Along with the Walled Garden, they form an impressive ensemble of the demesne’s production buildings. As the demesne CMP says, ‘the group occupies and defines the working heart of the demesne and sits at the functional and physical centre of the landscape design’.09 The farmhouses, as part of the Farmyard, are inextricably linked to the demesne landscape and are therefore of significance to it. Key Views and Associated Designations Due to the demesne topography, long range views are limited. Other views tend to be short range within the circuit of demesne roads, in particular the view from the road when approach from the south.

A1.5, A1.6 FARMHOUSES

SIGNIFICANCE PLAN

PARAMETERS FOR CHANGE

CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

Please refer to the Farmyard Conservation Statement.

•

Retain the domestic character of both buildings.

•

CONSERVATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

•

Retain the plan form where possible.

There is good capacity for change within the farmhouses which have undergone modernisation and the removal of some original features.

•

The condition of the west farmhouse remains a concern, and both farmhouses suffer from water ingress.

•

Be aware that historic features may lie below modern surfaces or flooring.

•

Private letting or holiday accommodation may be suitable for both, although this may need revisiting should the Farmyard be made more publicly accessible in a future scheme.

•

They are both well located farmhouses at the heart of the demesne.

•

Retain fabric of the earlier agricultural range preserved in the northern elevation.

•

Any development and public access to the Farmyard will likely impact on the amenity of the two farmhouses.

•

Retain the garden in future plans if possible ensuring the domestic character of the properties is maintained.

Given the size of rooms, the west farmhouse would be suitable as National Trust office space or part of visitor facilities.

•

A large farmhouses with potential for a number of uses.

•

Reinstate historic features where possible.

•

Inappropriate alterations and poor condition.

•

Ensure the future use of the two farmhouses is considered alongside that of the Farmyard avoiding conflict.

•

Opportunity to improve the external appearance of the building.

•

Reverse inappropriate modern interventions where possible including:

•

There is a limited site boundary and low potential for new development within its curtilage.

o o o

the tarmacadam surface to south elevation; ribbon pointing to external walls; uPVC windows throughout. These should be replaced with appropriate timber sash windows as shown in historic images; and the intrusive kitchen extension to the west farmhouse.

171

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

A1.7 Apple Loft Stables

A1.8 Apple Loft Cottage

A1.8.1 Apple Loft Cottage Outbuilding

172

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

KEY INFORMATION

Component Name

Apple Loft Stable and Cottage

Date Range

Late 18th century to early 19th century, with later alterations

Current Use

Redundant/storage

Historic Uses

Coach house, stables, hayloft (?), apple store and accommodation (?) Garden may have been a frame yard

Overall Significance

High

Overall Condition

Apple Loft Stables and ancillary structures: Stable Apple Loft Cottage: Sound

Designations

B2 (listed as part of the Farmyard)

Capacity for Change

Low

Farmyard

173

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT (A full history can be found under the Farmyard Conservation Statement A1.1) Summary Timeline 1779 David Geddas survey of the demesne; the Farmyard is not shown. 1781 Robert Stewart inherits Mount Stewart and begins to make improvements. 1781–1782 James Wyatt is paid for drawings of a mansion house and stables. 1783–1786 The Farmyard and Dovecote are thought to have been constructed around this time in a location close to Bean Hill, the site assumed to have been chosen for a new house already designed by James Wyatt. During the 1781–1789 nearly £3,000 was spent on ‘New Offices’, ‘Plantations’ and ‘Gardens’ including probably the Walled Garden complex and the Farmyard.

1815 A fire badly damages the Farmyard. It is unclear if the fire affected the Apple Loft range, but from its position, it may have escaped damage. 1816–1817 The Farmyard is rebuilt according to account entries. 1828–1863 The demesne and wider estate was managed by the 3rd Marquess’ Agent, John Andrews of Comber.01 Described as a ‘capable’ man, Andrews also served under the 4th Marquess successfully managing the demesne and navigating it through some difficult years including the Great Famine.02

1834 The Farmyard is shown on the 1834 Ordnance Survey map. The structure now known as the Apple Loft faces the barn range across a demesne road. To the rear is a yard enclosed on three sides. The depiction on the OS map (not adopting the convention for gardens and ornamental ground) indicates that the yard was associated with the Farmyard offices and not with the Walled Garden. 1854 Mount Stewart is inherited by Frederick, the 4th Marquess. He prefers to live in Powerscourt, Co. Wicklow, and appears to have made few changes to the demesne landscape.03 By 1858 The 1858 Ordnance Survey map shows development within the Apple Loft’s courtyard.

Gallagher and Rutherford, Mount Stewart Demesne, Conservation Management Plan Part 1, 2018

Casement p29

174

Gallagher and Rutherford, 2018, p66

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

1872 An incomplete plan of the demesne, revised from an 1855 plan, shows a similar arrangement to the Farmyard and Apple Loft range as to the 1858 Ordnance Survey plan.

By 1900–1901 The Ordnance Survey map shows new development within the Apple Loft’s courtyard and a projection at the southern end of the building.

1901 The Mount Stewart Townland boundary was revised and moved northwards to the new Mount Stewart road. Thereafter, the whole demesne parkland lay within of the townland of Mount Stewart.

1884 Charles (1852–1915) inherits as 6th Marquess. He and his wife Theresa preferred to live at Wynyard in Co Durham, but spent more time at Mount Stewart, taking back the farmland ‘in hand’. This remained so until 1910.05

1921 The Ordnance Survey map shows the Apple Loft as three distinct units and a projection to the south (probably the scullery). The Apple Loft courtyard contained an open-sided building to the south, a glasshouse along the northern wall, and a further glasshouse lying north-west to south-east.

Casement p35

Casement p35 175

1933 A ‘Sketch of Mount Stewart’ from 1933 places the Farmyard and Walled Garden at the heart of the demesne. The Apple Loft range (11) is described as ‘Stable Coaches, Garage & Dwghse’ (dwellinghouse) whilst to the rear, the open-sided shed to the south of the yard (12) is described as ‘Cart House and Timber Store’ with a ‘Conservatory’ placed centrally. 1962 An aerial image of Mount Stewart demesne, shows the Apple Loft range with the courtyard to the rear filled with glasshouse. 2006 Plans were drawn up to convert the stables and carriage house into two cottages. The plans were not executed.

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

The Farmyard, Apple Loft range and Walled Garden do not appear on the Geddes map of 1779, which is the earliest map of Mount Stewart, although the map tends to focus more on plantations and farmland, than buildings. It is thought that the Farmyard buildings, including the Apple Loft range were originally constructed around 1784–1785.06 A number of payments for ‘New Offices’ in the demesne accounts, may have included their construction. ‘New Offices’ are mentioned from 1784 are as follows: •

20 December 1784 New Offices Mount Stewart, to Michael Campbell £42.9.6 for amt of his acct of Stone Cutters work settled the 27th March last.

•

31 December 1784 New Offices Mount Stewart for ?39.340 blue slate delivered there from 6th August 1783 to 12th April last per knox’s acct.

•

December 1785 New Offices at Mount Stewart for sundry articles £377.10.0.

•

December 1786 New Offices at Mount Stewart for sundry disbursements £176.3.3.

•

December 1787 £107.14.7 for New Offices

•

Total(?) July 1789 To New Offices £914.3.0.

Anne Casement, ‘Mount Stewart landscape study’, 1995 Appendix, page 72, DNIEAOE (2007) Register of parks, gardens and demesnes of special historic interest, Northern Ireland, p.62

During the period 1781–1789 the accounts state that the total spent on ‘New Offices’ was £914, with a further £945 on gardens and £967 on plantations.07 The accounts also show the purchase of animals for the farm during this period including Black Cattle at a total cost of £423.0.9. It is likely that much of the extant north-south barn range and the Apple Loft barn range date to this early period of construction. This and the adjacent Walled Gardens appear to have been deliberately sited at the heart of the demesne, serving both to provision the house, to raise revenue and also to serve as a ‘model farm’ to tenants and neighbours. The western range of buildings and the Apple Loft range, which face onto a demesne drive, appear to have been deliberately designed for display and may have been designed to impress visitors and to reflect the taste and intellect of the Londonderry family. Correspondents within the Londonderry archives in PRONI in the early 19th century record a tragic incident at the farm in 1815. Its quick repair, however, reflects its importance at this time. Details of the fire are recorded within the family archives in a letter in December 1815 from Robert Stewart to his son Castlereagh. He describes how his Land Steward succeeded in cutting off the fire by sawing the roof timbers and causing the roof of one of the barns to fall in, thus saving other buildings from destruction: But to answer your inquiry as to my dairy and cattle yard destruction and conflagration: the whole of the sheds, both inside and out of the yard, were quite destroyed, as the lofts were filled all round with hay and no separate and partition wall, and had it not been for the presence of mind of Greenfield, the land steward, who cut off the communication by sawing the timber and making a part of the roof fall in, the barn, thrashing machine, stabling, coach houses, and all

Casement, 1995 p 18

176

the offices would have been burnt, to which I may add the whole [?haggard]08 containing all my grain, would have been in a blaze.’ 09 From this account we understand that the Farmyard comprised a dairy and cattle yard, hay lofts, stabling, coach house, offices and grain store.10 It seems possible that due to its position on the west side of a demesne road, that the Apple Loft barn range escaped damage. Following the fire in the Farmyard, the demesne accounts suggest that a rebuilding programme was put into action in the following year. Entries in the accounts for 1816 show payments of: £242.8.0½ for ‘Offices repairing at Mount Stewart being burned’; £57.1.10½ for coals to burn lime for the building; and another £144.5.1½ for 'Offices repairing in October 1817'.11 Succeeding the Scottish agent George Greenfield, the farm and demesne were successfully managed by John Andrews of Comber from 1828 to 1863. He skilfully guided them through difficult years including the Potato Famine of the 1840s. The farm was then let out but brought back under the family’s control in the later 19th century. The First Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1834 is the first depiction of the Farmyard and Walled Garden. It shows the Farmyard laid out around two courtyards. The Apple Loft barn range lies to the west across the demesne road with a rectangular yard to the rear, enclosed on three sides.

‘Haggard’ is an Irish term for a hay or rick yard where hay was stored after harvesting.

PRONI D3030/H/31

Does his account describe the burning of the southern farmyard ranges, with the barn and Apple Loft escaping the blaze? His description of his ‘sheds’ could relate the ranges around the southern farmyard.

PRONI D654/H/1/5

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

The May 1835 Valuation includes the following as part of the ‘Farmyard and Offices’: • • • • • • • • • •

Coach house and ?stables (the Apple Loft range?) Dairy and store Cart Sheds Bullock sheds and loft Store house and loft Stable Barn Open shed to front Shed for ?thrashing machine Pigeon house

The valuation states ‘the greater part and I may say the whole of the demesne is chiefly pasture and is used as a stock farm and part let for grazing’.12 The 1858 Ordnance Survey map shows no change to the layout of the Apple Loft barn range, but a number of small structures have been constructed within its enclosed yard to the rear.

The Ordnance Survey map for 1900–1901 shows new development within the Apple Loft’s courtyard and a projection at the southern end of the building (probably the scullery). It is possible that the southern end of the range was already in use as a cottage. The 1921 Ordnance Survey map shows the Apple Loft barn range with three divisions and a projection to the south. This is likely to relate to the stables, coach house and dwelling house. The Apple Loft courtyard comprises an open-sided building on the southside of the yard, a glasshouse along the northern wall, and a further glasshouse lying north-west to south-east. These developments clearly indicate a move from an agricultural function to horticultural use are well underway. The 1933 sketch of the demesne places the Farmyard at the heart of the demesne. The Apple Loft range (11) is described as ‘Stable Coaches, Garage & Dwghse’ (dwellinghouse) whilst to the rear, the open-sided shed to the south of the yard (12) is described as ‘Cart House and Timber Store’ with a ‘Conservatory’ placed centrally. It may have been around this time that the metal windows and front door were added to the Apple Loft Cottage.

Terence Reeves-Smyth has interpreted the Apple Loft garden as a former frame yard. This was where forcing pits and hot beds were located. The frame yard often had wide span glasshouses for forcing early and late cucumbers, melons and growing pot plants and carnations. Compost was sometimes located in the frame yard and they therefore had a tendency to be kept out of view of the main garden, but conveniently close to the farmyard.13

PRONI Val 1B/33

Pers. Comm. Terence Reeves-Smyth to Andy Corkill, Sept 2020. 177

Lady Rose Lauritzen recalls that there were once five glasshouses within the Apple Loft yard; a lean-too glasshouse against the north wall which contained peaches and nectarines. The other glasshouses were part of a commercial venture by her mother, Lady Mairi, to grow orchids; sadly it was not a success, but a venture ahead of its time no less. Lady Rose also recalls that the working horses were kept in the Apple Loft stables during the 20th century. The carriage house adjacent (now garages for Apple Loft Cottage), stored the carts used for transporting logs and bringing the laundry from the ‘big house’ up to the Laundry building. During the later 20th century, Elizabeth 'Dolly' and Hugh McRoberts lived in Apple Loft Cottage. Plans were drawn up in the later 20th century to convert the stables and carriage house into apartments in 1996 and 2006. Additionally, modern garage doors were inserted into the carriage house openings. The Apple Loft Cottage was refurbished post-2006 when Dolly McRoberts moved to the Orchard Cottages. A number of alterations were made including: the insertion of new fenestration; the removal of the rear projection (annotated as a scullery); and the blocking up of the entrance door on the southern gable end.

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

PRIMARY SOURCES

1834 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1858 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

178

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

PRIMARY SOURCES

1872 Demesne Plan (PRONI D654/M71/5)

1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

179

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

PRIMARY SOURCES

1921 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

180

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

PRIMARY SOURCES

1933 Demesne Map. The Apple Loft is annotated as No.11 and described as ‘Stable Coaches, Garage & Dwghse’

1960 aerial photograph of the Walled Gardens and Farmyard.

181

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

1971 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

182

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

PRIMARY SOURCES

Plan of Apple Loft in 2006

Elevations of Apple Loft in 2006

183

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

Sections and gable end in 2006

A greenhouse in the Apple Loft yard c.1960

184

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

Images of Apple Loft in 2006:

East elevation. Note the fenestration. To the left is an older timber sash window probably relating to the use of the Apple Loft as a cottage during the 19th century

Rear elevation shows the old scullery. Note one window reflects the historical pattern of fenestration also found in the stables. The brick structure rising above the scullery is a garage block

Stables, east elevation entrance

Apple Loft – note the extensive lath and plaster and rooflights which would suggest its use as staff accommodation. 185

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

Images of Apple Loft in 2006:

Stables, west elevation

The old peach house on the northern courtyard wall.

Southern elevation. Note former entrance door, boiler shed and garages.

The courtyard and modern glasshouse and cart shed, assumed early 2000s

186

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

CURRENT SITUATION Setting The Farmyard complex with the Apple Loft is located at the centre of the Mount Stewart demesne and half a mile north-east of Mount Stewart House. It is largely surrounded by farmland and the Walled Gardens lie to the west. A demesne road runs between the two. Exterior The building is stone with slate roof and one and a half storeys, separated into two units: the cottage to the south, and the stable, coach house with ‘apple store’ above, to the north. There are three ridge stacks, two in modern stock brick. The principal elevation faces north-east onto a demesne road and lies directly opposite the Farmyard range. The architectural similarities to the barn opposite suggest they were constructed as a set piece, forming part of a ‘show’ group of buildings. The Apple Loft has a similar stone construction with lunette windows with mounded Scrabo stone dressings. The window to the right of the door is bricked up on the inside, comprising roughly alternating headers and stretchers using lime mortar and plastered on the interior. This suggests the window was blocked historically, although it is unclear as to the reason – did the space have an earlier and alternative use, or were the stables modified and the stalling a later insertion? The semi-circular headed door into the stable also has similar attention to detail. The cottage to the left has a number of openings, all of which are later than the stables.

The south-west elevation also possesses similar architectural detailing, although the dressings are not moulded. The cottage to the right possesses lunette windows with modern fenestration. To the left is a former door into this space (now a window) with relieving arch. The cottage has modern dormer windows. There are two large carriage arches to the left of the cottage, adjacent to this are two lunette windows with multiple panes, which would appear to reflect the historical fenestration of smaller planes and delicate glazing bars (also found on the principal elevation). These windows light the stables with the entrance door to the left. To the far left is a door with worn stone steps which leads up to the ‘apple store’. Outbuilding Within the walled courtyard, laid mainly to grass, is a rectangular building forming the southern side of the courtyard. It is constructed in brick at the western end and open to the east. The slate roof is partially supported on cast iron columns. This structure appears to have been partly used as a cart shed. This building was constructed within the yard between 1858 and 1900. Interior Stable and Coach House The former coach house is currently used for storage, whilst the stables are at present unused. The latter has been largely untouched and possesses many features of interest including: cobbles; flag stone and paviour floor surfaces; timber stalling; mangers; plastered walls; and timber boarded doors. Pencil graffiti is of historical interest and includes caricatures of demesne figures, including James Weir, a former Land Steward at Mount Stewart. The ceiling above is in poor condition following water ingress. As is commonly found in stables, the ceiling and beams were formerly plastered. Also extant is part of a gas light fitting.

187

‘Apple Store’ The ‘apple store’ above the stable and coach house is accessed from an exterior door on the south-west elevation and a timber staircase. It was inaccessible at the time of the visit, but the condition of the floor allowed a limited inspection. The store is divided into two units with (failing) lath and plaster walls and ceiling and is lit by a number of roof lights. The space was last used as an apple store, but it seems very likely it was also used as staff accommodation due to the wall finishes and chimney breast. The loft may also have been originally used as a hay loft. Apple Loft Cottage The interior of the cottage has been fully modernised and comprises a ground floor living room, kitchen and dining room. Stairs rise to two bedrooms and a bathroom under the eaves. There are no observable historical features, although the chimney breasts would support the theory that the cottage has been used as a residence for some considerable time. Key Features • Stalls and mangers • Ventilation holes (?) • Gas light fitting • Saddle racks • Cobbles, stone flags, brick flooring • Lime plastered walls • Graffiti • Plastered beams • Pegs, nails etc for hanging tack etc • Historic boarded doors • Lath and plaster finishes • Enclosed timber stairs to apple store

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

Apple Loft Cottage eastern elevation

Entrance to Apple Loft stables to the left

South-west elevation with coach arches and stable beyond. The door to the loft is beyond the stable entrance.

Apple Loft Cottage, south-west elevation. Note roofline of former scullery.

Blocked window

Entrance lobby. Note blocked fireplace to right. Timber and brick partition to the left.

188

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

Stables looking towards enclosed loft stairs

Stalls with mangers. Note ventilation holes (?) above.

Timber door

Interior of Cart Shed/Carriage House

Loft entrance door

189

Graffiti on door reveal of Samuel Bailie and James Weir

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

North gable of the Apple Loft stables showing the brick inner face of the garden wall and the stone gable above

Outbuilding to Apple Loft

Apple Loft Cottage and entrance arch

190

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT

Loft space visible through hole. Lath and plaster ceiling visible. Could this space once have been used as accommodation?

The stables were used to house the farm horses right up to the 1990s. Dolly McRoberts (who lived in the attached cottage) is believed to have cared for the last horses.

History: Range shown on 1834 Ordnance Survey map. Assumed constructed at the same time as Farmyard West range.

Historic ledged and braced doors Intrusive garage doors. Note pintles from earlier doors.

Historic brick and timber partition inserted into cart/carriage shed

20th century pencil graffiti of historical interest Timber saddle rack

Step up

Stone flooring brick pavers to stalls, bricks below staircase

Ceiling formerly lath and plaster. Plaster still adhering to lintels. Walls also lime plaster and white washed.

Partition inserted historically

Timber staircase to loft accessed externally. It was common practise to place a hay loft/granary or accommodation above a stable

Hooks and nails assumed for harness etc

Timber mangers in stalls

Historic timber stalling assumed 19th century

Cobbled floor

Loft last used for apples storage. Earlier uses may have included hayloft and accommodation.

Apple Loft Cottage (not surveyed)

Cobbled floor

WC of no interest Chimney breast constructed in brick against rubblestone wall. Assumed later insert. Fireplace bricked up. The phasing is unclear as this faces into what appears to have been a cart/carriage shed.

Note external ground level higher on east elevation 191

Ventilation holes(?) in wall above each stall

Tethering Rings Cobbled floor surface. Ceiling formerly lath and plaster. Walls – some lime plaster. Brick and timber partition white washed only.

Loose box of different construction to neighbouring stalls

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT A similar range of buildings is shown on the 1834 Ordnance Survey plan. Window bricked up on inside. Roughly alternating headers and stretchers using lime mortar suggesting historic blocking. Does this suggest a former use to the stable, or that the stables were modified and stalling a later insertion?

Building is noted as ‘Stable coaches, garage and dwelling house’ on the 1933 demesne plan

Stock brick stacks

Formerly a multi-pane sash window – probably 19th century

Inserted or modified c.1930, concrete surrounds

Stables converted to dwelling (?) or always residential accommodation?

Bangor blue slate roof

Hay-loft and accommodation (?) Last used as apple store

Carriage/Cart Shed

192

Brick stack appears to be a later insertion

Double-leaf entrance board doors

Stable

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT A similar range of buildings is shown on the 1834 Ordnance Survey plan. Building is noted as ‘Stable coaches, garage and dwelling house’ on the 1933 demesne plan

Historical pattern of fenestration Brick stack appears to be a later insertion Skylights

Entrance to loft, worn stone steps are of historical interest

Pintles from historical carriage house doors

Modern unsympathetic dormer windows

Arched openings for storage of carts and carriages, now unsympathetic garage doors

Wide entrance door for horses

193

Skylights

Former door

Unsympathetic modern windows in original openings

Modern door formerly to scullery (now demolished)

Concrete surround

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT History – Similar structure shown on 1900 Ordnance Survey plan –assumed constructed 1865–1900. Former uses include cart shed, timber store, potting shed.

Archway similar to others in the Farmyard range

Cart shed

Faced in stone

Cast iron columns

194

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT

Arch rebuilt following vehicle collision in 2015

Double leaf doors

Lean-to garages formerly adjacent to this well. Note subsidence in the hardstanding

195

Converted from door to window post 2006

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

APPLE LOFT BARN WALLED GARDEN LAYOUT Footprint of former structures by 1858 Footprint of former structures between 1900–1921 Footprint of former garage built between 1921–1962 Footprint of former glasshouses shown on 1962 image

Peach house, 20th century

Walled garden – brick on internal face and stone on external face. Stonework to ‘external’ face suggests this area may have been enclosed at a slightly later date to the rest of the Walled Garden.

The 1834 and 1858 Ordnance Survey maps do not shade this yard in the same way as the Walled Garden areas, suggesting it was more likely to have been a space associated with the Farmyard.

Elevation shows stone structure of Apple Loft barn built on top of brick garden wall demonstrating the Appleloft stable range was constructed at a slightly later date the Walled Gardens.

Orchid houses installed 1960s and removed 1990s. Also contained figs, nectarines and other fruits.

Historic yard was laid to grass by Lady Rose 20th century.

This plan is not to scale

Brick structure with slate roof probably built 1858–1900. Built against stone wall of Walled Garden – exposed stone face on internal west wall with remains of lime plaster. Apple Loft Barn range shown on 1834 Ordnance Survey but assumed to be late-18th century

Structure described as ‘Cart House and Timber Store’ in 1933 sketch plan of demesne. Also potting shed? Now used for storage. Note roofline scarring on external wall

Open-sided shed with decorative cast iron columns. Shown as a ‘T’ shaped building on 1900 Ordnance Survey

Modern partition 196

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE CONDITION

A1.7

Stables within Apple Loft

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

Further Investigations

•

Localised roof repairs.

•

Repointing of open/ weathered joints in masonry.

•

Overhaul of windows and doors recommended, including timber repairs and redecorations.

Monitor scaling masonry surfaces to window surrounds and address if rate of loss is deemed unacceptable.

•

Advise on status of temporary props and whether or not a live defect is present or has now been addressed by structural repairs, and that props can be removed.

•

Roofs: fair condition, some open joints to ridge. Occasional slate lift/slip/deflection. RWGs: cast iron, appear sound. Displaced connection on east side requires re-setting.

•

Masonry: sound overall, some localised open/weathered joints and scaling to window surrounds.

•

Windows/doors: fair condition overall, some localised rot, deterioration of finishes.

•

Internal refurbishment required.

Interiors/finishes: Upper timber floor structures temporarily propped, but also appear to have been structurally repaired. Lath and plaster lining to roof requires full repair including new laths and new lime plaster. Deterioration and loss of plaster wall finishes and decorations, but condition commensurate with current/ historic use.

197

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

A1.8

Apple Loft dwelling

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

Roof: sound condition.

Maintain in sound condition.

Further Investigations

RWGs: sound condition. Masonry: satisfactory condition. Windows/doors: windows in satisfactory condition inc uPVC. Interiors/finishes: in sound condition. A1.8.1 Apple Loft ancillary structures

Roofs: satisfactory condition commensurate with function as stores/car shelter.

Carry out internal refurbishment when appropriate.

RWGs: sound condition.

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

Masonry: satisfactory condition. Interiors/finishes: Loss of internal finishes.

198

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Summary The Apple Loft shares a number of architectural features with the opposite barn range and may possibly be architect designed and date to the late 18th or early 19th century. The stables are perhaps the best preserved element of the Farmyard, having escaped the changes and modernisation of the later 20th century. The stables retain many historical features and the range has significance for its association and group value with the rest of the Farmyard range. Evidential As with the Farmyard, our understanding of the Apple Loft range, is limited. Its date of construction is unknown, but it is assumed to have been constructed during the 1780s. It seems likely it was unaffected by the fire of 1815, but the extent of original fabric is unknown. It is also unclear if the cottage has always been in residential use. Our understanding of the stables could also be improved; for example, the stalling to the stables appears to be a later addition or alteration, as its relationship to one of the east facing windows is problematic. There is potential that a detailed archaeological analysis and recording may significantly improve our understanding of the building and its various uses and phases. This type of investigative work may be a condition of planning approval in any future development proposal for the building. There is also potential for additional information to be discovered in documentary research in PRONI or from other sources. The Apple Loft has high evidential value.

Historical Mount Stewart Farmyard is an example of a ‘model farm’, or planned, farmstead. Model farms from the late 18th century are much less common than from the 19th century, lending the Farmyard and Apple Loft high historical significance. Although common to farm buildings, they have responded over the decades to changing fashions, farming practices and modernisation. The Apple Loft is no exception – the loft, for example, has possibly had a number of different uses. The stables are unusual in having largely escaped modernisation, retaining many historical features including graffiti. The stables and cart shed/carriage house have high historical value. The Apple Loft Cottage has undergone significant modernisation and has low historical value internally, whilst the outbuilding has medium historical value. Aesthetic Like the Farmyard barn range which it faces, the Apple Loft stables are similar in architectural style and detail. They form an impressive collection of structures and may possibly have been architect designed. Later alterations to the eastern elevation of the Apple Loft Cottage have been sympathetically carried out. The western elevation, however, has a number of unsympathetic modern additions. Internally, the stables still retain a unique atmosphere; the National Trust should take care during repair and restoration work to retain the authenticity and atmosphere of the interiors.

Setting The Farmyard, including the Apple Loft range, is located at the heart of the demesne and set amid farmland and adjacent to the Walled Gardens. The setting has remained largely constant since the buildings were laid out and makes a highly significant contribution to our appreciation and understanding of the Farmyard and Apple Loft. The integrity of the setting should be a primary consideration in future plans for the development of the site. Contribution to the Wider Demesne and the Mansion House The Farmyard, and associated Apple Loft range are one of a number of key buildings within the demesne. With the Walled Garden, they form an impressive ensemble of the demesne’s production buildings. As the Demesne CMP (2018) says, ‘the group occupies and defines the working heart of the demesne and sits at the functional and physical centre of the landscape design’ with ‘their great scale reflecting that of the demesne itself ’.14 The Farmyard, Apple Loft and Walled Garden are inextricably linked to the demesne landscape and are therefore of the highest significance to it. Key views and associated designations Due to the demesne topography, long range views are limited to a farm track to the north. Other views tend to be short range within the circuit of demesne roads. Significance Plan Please refer to the Farmyard Conservation Statement

Communal Whilst the Apple Loft barn range is significant for those who live or work there, the site is not accessible to the public. The communal value of the Apple Loft, at present, is low. There is potential, however that the stables may feature within future plans for the Farmyard which will raise the buildings communal value. 14

199

Gallagher and Rutherford, Mount Stewart Demesne Conservation Management Plan, 2018, Part II, p154

A1.7-A1.8 APPLE LOFT STABLES AND COTTAGE

CONSERVATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

PARAMETERS FOR CHANGE

CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

•

Following roof repairs, the Apple Loft range is in a stable condition. The Cottage has been restored and is in a good overall condition.

•

Retain historic features.

•

There is high capacity for change in the modernised Apple Loft Cottage, but as it is privately let, this may be problematic.

•

Retain cobbled surfaces, flagstone or other historic surfaces. •

There is an opportunity to repair and restore the Apple Loft stables and carriage house/cart shed and put them on public display.

•

Retain lime plasters and historic finishes where possible.

•

Repair and restore the Apple Loft interior utilising traditional materials and techniques.

There is low capacity for change to the stables and cart/ carriage shed where historical fabric and features survive and should be retained. There is some capacity for change to the loft, but its use must be low impact.

•

Retain graffiti.

•

Refrain from stripping plaster/paint from roof timbers – timbers may have historic paint finishes, markings and graffiti which could be damaged or destroyed.

•

Retain the plan form where possible; avoid subdivision of spaces.

•

Retain historic windows and doors.

•

Respect historic alterations and interventions as these are part of the building’s story.

•

Remove insensitive features such as the modern garage doors and insensitive dormer windows.

•

Consider careful repair and restoration of the stables and loft whilst retaining historic surfaces, flooring and features. Ensure graffiti is retained.

•

The Apple Loft forms part of an attractive set of agricultural structures. As part of a model farm from the late-18th and early 19th century, it makes a superb backdrop for visitor arrivals and for interpreting Mount Stewart and its landscape to the public. Vacancy of structures and lack of regular maintenance regime threaten its future. Opportunity to increase understanding through archaeological analysis of the building, to better understand change and to establish the extent of 18th century fabric.

•

Wealth of original features could be retained and form part of the story of Mount Stewart.

•

Potential to restore some areas to their original appearance.

•

Ecological consideration such as bats and house martins.

•

Partially let and modernised could make its use as part of visitor offering problematic.

200

[THIS PAGE HAS INTENTIONALLY BEEN LEFT BLANK]

A2 DOVECOTE

Dovecote

202

A2 DOVECOTE

KEY INFORMATION

Component Name

Dovecote

Date Range

Assumed late 18th century

Current Use

Byre to GF with redundant dovecote above

Historic Uses

Dovecote

Overall Significance

High

Overall Condition

Stable

Designations

B2 (HB24/04/055 as part of the Farmyard complex)

Capacity for Change

Low Farmyard

203

A2 DOVECOTE

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Summary Timeline 1779 David Geddas survey of the demesne; the Farmyard and Dovecote are not shown. 1781 Robert Stewart inherits Mount Stewart and begins to make improvements. 1783–1786 The Farmyard and Dovecote are thought to have been constructed around this time in a location close to Bean Hill, the site assumed to have been chosen for a new house. During the 1781–1789 nearly £3,000 was spent on ‘New Offices’, ‘Plantations’ and ‘Gardens’ including probably the Walled Garden complex and the Farmyard. 1815 A fire badly damages the Farmyard, but it is assumed the Dovecote survived the ‘conflagration’. 1816–1817 The Farmyard is rebuilt according to account entries. 1834 The Farmyard and Dovecote are shown on the 1834 Ordnance Survey map. The Dovecote lies within its own enclosure on the eastern side of the Farmyard. The roughly triangular enclosure includes a number of trees. 1858 No changes are shown to the Dovecote on the 1858 Ordnance Survey map.

1872 An incomplete plan of the demesne of 1872, revised from an 1855 plan, shows a farm layout similar to the 1858 Ordnance Survey plan; the Dovecote does not appear to hold enough significance to be shown.01 By 1900–1901 The Ordnance Survey map is unclear, but no changes to the Dovecote or its immediate setting appear to be shown. By 1921 The Ordnance Survey map shows that the Dovecote had been subsumed into the adjacent field by the removal of part of its boundary wall. Trees still surround the Dovecote. 1933 A ‘Sketch of Mount Stewart’ from 1933 places the Farmyard and Walled Garden at the heart of the demesne. The Dovecote (25) is shown, but erroneously placed to the south. 1940 The Dovecote features in a treasure hunt held to entertain guests at Mount Stewart: For those on foot the ‘walkers’ clue 5 reads: ‘Near the farm I’ve always stood Sheltering every sort of brood. Pigeons black, and pigeons white. Riffles too, at the dead of night.’

PRONI D654/M71/5 204

1940 (cont'd) The last line refers to a discovery in the 1920s of a stash of illegal weapons which had been hidden on the demesne without the family’s knowledge. The weapons probably related to the Irish Civil War of 1922–1923. The choice of hiding place might suggest that the Dovecote was not in full or regular use. 1943 The Dovecote is captured in an image; it appears to be within an unenclosed field but with a number of trees within its immediate setting. 1962 An aerial image of the Farmyard at Mount Stewart captures the Dovecote to the east within a rectangular enclosure. By now, all surrounding trees have disappeared. Later 20th century The Dovecote roof structure and glovers were replaced and the nesting boxes removed. 2014 The Farmyard ceased to have a full agricultural function following its transfer to the National Trust.

A2 DOVECOTE

DOVECOTES Dovecotes (also known as dovecots or pigeon houses) were originally seen as the preserve of landowners and therefore as status symbols. They were originally designed to supplement the limited medieval and post-medieval diet with pigeon eggs and meat. Their droppings also made a useful fertiliser. By the late 18th and early 19th century, however, they were more likely to be constructed for picturesque reasons, particular on model farms.02 Internally they would have comprised a range of nesting holes or boxes; these might be integral to the structure or constructed in brick or as can be found at Mount Stewart, in timber. The boxes would have been accessed by a simple ladder; in circular dovecotes this might be fixed at the top and rotating around a central post. The Mount Stewart Demesne CMP (2018) notes that the multi-purpose building with dovecote to the upper floor and undercroft byre is unusual in Ireland. One example in Downhill, Co. Londonderry, is built into a slope and combines icehouse with dovecote. An example of a similar octagonal-shape dovecote can be found at Castle Hume, Co. Fermanagh of 1729.03 Multi-use, octagonal dovecotes, are not, however, unusual in Britain; an example at Walkern in Hertfordshire is an elegant structure with brick patterning.

Dovecote and ice house, Downhill demesne (CC Jo Turner)

R W Brunskill, Traditional Farm Buildings of Britain and their Conservation, 1999, p85

Gallagher and Rutherford, 2018, p84

205

A2 DOVECOTE

PRIMARY SOURCES

1834 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1858 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

206

A2 DOVECOTE

PRIMARY SOURCES

1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1921 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

207

A2 DOVECOTE

PRIMARY SOURCES

Detail of the Farmyard and Walled Gardens. The Dovecote (25) is erroneously shown to the south.

The Dovecote in 1943. Note the deterioration of the slate roof, and the presence of trees.

208

A2 DOVECOTE

PRIMARY SOURCE

1962 aerial image of the Farmyard and Dovecote

209

A2 DOVECOTE

CURRENT SITUATION Setting The Farmyard complex is located at the centre of the Mount Stewart demesne, and half a mile north-east of Mount Stewart House. It is largely surrounded by farmland and the Walled Gardens lie to the west. The Dovecote lies not in the Farmyard, but within a field to the east of the Farmyard. Exterior The hexagonal structure with hipped slate roof, is constructed in basalt rubble with brick dressings. The eves are constructed in Scrabo sandstone. There are no rainwater goods. There are two semi-circular arched door openings on the ground floor (which face the Farmyard) with timber door frames but no doors (but with evidence of former doors). A further high-level, squareheaded door faces eastwards away from the Farmyard and has a modern ledged and braced door.

Interior The interior on the ground floor comprises a brick vaulted, twocell undercroft, currently used as a byre, with earth floor, whitewashed walls, timber mangers and stone troughs. The partition wall does not appear to be keyed into the outside walls, but despite this, appears to be loadbearing. Above is a single-celled dovecote open to the roof, with stone walls (partially whitewashed) and stone flag floor. The interior walls would have been lined with timber nesting boxes, fixed to the timber beams which are embedded into the walls. The timber nesting boxes were removed in the later-20th century when the structure was repaired.

The roof is topped by a weathervane. The birds formerly accessed the Dovecote through holes within four triangular glovers on the roof. When restored, these were covered in glass to prevent access. The Dovecote has limited architectural embellishment externally other than its octagonal plan form, weathervane and the triangular glovers with moulded bargeboards. Exposed brick dressings are not found on the early farmyard buildings to the east; it is possible that they are either not contemporary with the early farm structures, or the dovecote was perhaps rendered (though no evidence of the latter was observed).

210

Key Features • Octagonal plan form. • Hipped slate roof. • Triangular glovers with decorative bargeboards. • Brick dressings. • Semi-circular headed door openings. • Brick vaulting to lower storey and dividing wall. • Flagstone floor to upper storey. • Weathervane.

A2 DOVECOTE

Looking south

Looking east with high level access door

Looking north

Stone trough

Flagstone floor with tooling marks

Vaulted interior

211

Modern roof structure and glover in Dovecote

Raised entrance into Dovecote – note timber embedded in

A2 DOVECOTE

BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT Weathervane thought to be Halley’s Comet which was discovered in 1758 and partially visible in 1835 Modern slate roof covering and roof structure – replaced late 20th century

Triangular glovers, decorative bargeboards, perches and openings for birds (now partially blocked) Scrabo sandstone eves

High-level door to east facing elevation giving access to pigeon loft Stone flag floor to pigeon loft, nesting boxes removed

Brick quoins

Brick dressing, timber door frame with evidence of door, now lost

Brick vaulted ‘undercroft’, formed into two cells with central partition stone wall, earth floor, timbers mangers and stone troughs

Undercroft currently used as byre

Basalt random rubble walls – formerly rendered?

212

A2 DOVECOTE CONDITION

Dovecote

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

•

Roof: sound condition, appears to have been comprehensively repaired in recent times.

•

Carry out lime mortar repointing to open joints in masonry.

• •

Masonry: localised open and weathered joints. Internal damp and bio growth.

Overhaul/replace timber elements to roof, doors.

•

Internal redecoration with limewash desirable. Apply mesh protections to louvres and new doors at ground floor level to prevent vermin.

•

Windows/doors/roof openings: fair or poor condition, affected by rot, deterioration of finishes. Main doors missing.

Further Investigations

Interiors/finishes: fair or poor condition, but commensurate with present use. Tendency for vermin, pigeons etc.

213

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

A2 DOVECOTE

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Evidential Despite the existence of documentary sources, our current understanding of the history and development of the Farmyard and the Dovecote is limited. The exact date of its construction remains unknown, although it is assumed by some researchers to have be built at the same time as the Farmyard c.1784. Historical documents record a ‘conflagration’ which engulfed the Farmyard in 1815, but it is unclear if the Dovecote was affected, and it is not mentioned in the letter of the fire by Robert Stewart to his son Castlereagh. Architecturally, there is little similarity with the Farmyard buildings which may date to the late 18th century; the Dovecote has more in common with the demesne buildings of the early 19th century, and its location on the edge of the Farmyard may suggest a slightly later date. There is some potential that detailed archaeological analysis and recording may improve our understanding of the structure; for example, an analysis of the bricks and comparison with other examples in the demesne. There is some potential that as yet unrecognised historical sources may further out understanding of the structure. The Dovecote has medium evidential value.

Historical The Dovecote at Mount Stewart is one of only a few examples of multi-purpose dovecotes in Northern Ireland, and only a few hexagonal examples. This type appears to be far more common in England. Considered to be a status symbol, they continued to be constructed into the first-half of the 19th century, particularly on model farms. Casement has suggested that the Farmyard and Dovecote were intended to be positioned in close proximity to the proposed new house on Bean Hill. This evidences the value placed upon them by the family and supports the idea that the Dovecote was intended as an eyecatcher and status symbol. The building has undergone repair in recent years which has ensured the future of the structure. The roof structure has been completely replaced and the nesting boxes have been removed. Despite the loss of historical fabric, the historical significance of the Dovecote remains high. Aesthetic The Farmyard and Dovecote form an impressive collection of buildings, with the western barn range and Apple Loft as the most architecturally significant. The Dovecote, although not executed with the same architectural detailing, is none the less an attractive building which is due to its hexagonal plan form, hipped roof and triangular glovers. The glovers have received playful decoration in the form of delicate moulded bargeboards. Although more elaborate dovecotes exist, the Dovecote was probably intended as an eyecatcher and has high aesthetic value.

214

Communal Whilst the Dovecote has significance for those who live within the demesne or who have worked there, the site is not accessible to the public and set within a field. The communal value of the Dovecote is, at present, low, but it has high potential for future enhancement. Setting The Dovecote is located adjacent to the Farmyard and is located at the heart of the demesne. The setting has remained largely unaltered since its construction and makes a highly significant contribution to our appreciation and understanding of the collection of agricultural buildings. The integrity of the setting should be a primary consideration in future plans for the development of the site. Contribution to the Wider Demesne and the Mansion House The Farmyard and Dovecote are a collection of buildings which lie at the heart of the demesne. With the Walled Garden, they form an impressive ensemble of the demesne’s production buildings. As the Demesne CMP (2018) says, ‘the group occupies and defines the working heart of the demesne and sits at the functional and physical centre of the landscape design’ with ‘their great scale reflecting that of the demesne itself ’.04 The Farmyard, Dovecote and Walled Garden are inextricably linked to the demesne landscape and are therefore of the highest significance to it.

A2 DOVECOTE

Key Views and Associated Designations Due to the demesne topography, long range views are limited; but as an unusual and distinctive building, it can be seen in views within and around the Farmyard and from the trackways in the immediate setting. Potential future change within the Farmyard should ensure that views of the Dovecote are maintained and enhanced.

Significance plans Please refer to the Farmyard Conservation Statement

PARAMETERS FOR CHANGE •

Retain flagstone floor to the first floor.

•

Retain historic finishes.

•

Retain or reinstate historic doors where possible. Consider replacement of modern roof with traditional Tullycavey slates.

CONSERVATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES •

Following repairs to the roof, the Dovecote is in a sound condition.

•

It is an attractive building on the periphery of the Farmyard but currently set within a field.

•

Opportunity for regular maintenance regime.

CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

•

Opportunities for the building to form part of the visitor experience.

•

The size and planform limited the uses and capacity for change.

•

Potential to reinstate nesting boxes and put the first floor dovecote back into use to aid understanding of the building's original function.

•

Consider restoring the function of the Dovecote and orchard setting.

•

Ecological consideration including bats and house martins.

•

Opportunity to restore its orchard setting.

215

A3.1, A3.2, A3.3 DAIRY AND ROSE GARDEN

A3.2

A3.3 Rose Garden

Outbuilding

A3.1 Dairy

216

A3.1, A3.2, A3.3 DAIRY AND ROSE GARDEN

KEY INFORMATION Component Name

Rose Garden and boundary walls, Dairy and adjoining structure

Date Range

Late 18th century walls Diary, adjoining structure and Rose Garden Layout: early 20th century (c.1920)

Current Use

Rose Garden: formal garden Dairy and adjoining structure: vacant

Historic Uses

Formal garden Dairy and adjoining structure: Dairy

Overall Significance

Rose Garden: medium significance Boundary walls: high significance Dairy: high significance

Overall Condition

Rose Garden boundary walls: stable Dairy: stable Adjoining structure: decline

Designations

Dairy designated at B2

Capacity for Change

Low

Walled Garden

217

A3.1, A3.2, A3.3 DAIRY AND ROSE GARDEN

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Summary Timeline 1780–1781 The Walled Garden is believed to have been built and the White Syrian vine planted by Alexander Stewart (1699–1781) and his gardener James Wallace. A gardener called William King was employed by Robert Stewart (1739–1821). 1781–1789 Robert Stewart’s accounts of 1781–1789 show £945 was spent on gardens and £914 on new offices.01 It has been suggested that such a large sum was probably spent mainly on the creation of the Walled Gardens.02 This is supported by accounts showing payments for ‘watering engines, tiles for the hothouse, foreign seeds, fruit trees and shrubs, pineapple plants and exotics.’03 1784–1785 The model farm adjacent to the Walled Garden is believed to have been completed. 1814 In a letter to Lord Castlereagh, the Walled Garden is described as: a desert waste and absolutely nothing in it, vines &c, all [? dead] not a grape, scarce a cabbage. The gardener is dismissed but no successor as yet.04

PRONI D654/H1/1

A Casement, Mount Stewart Landscape Study, 1995, p18

Ibid. Also grouped with these are three payments to Mr King in 1781 and 1782 (presumed to be W. King who is known to have been involved in the design of the landscapes at Florence Court and Downhill in 1778, and Castle Coole in 1780–83).

PRONI D3030/P/123

1834 The Ordnance Survey map of 1834 is the first known depiction of the Walled Garden, by now already 50 years old. It indicates that the layout of walls has remained largely unchanged to the present. The map also shows the possible layout of beds, planting and provides evidence that the Rose Garden and Orchard formed a single unit in a ‘T’ shape. The gardens are laid out into what was essentially a formalised plan. A pathway leads from the southern entrance of the gardens (now the location of the Dairy) up through the centre of the gardens. Buildings (assumed to be glasshouses) appear to run along the south facing wall which subdivides the north walled gardens from the south. Evidence for buildings on the north side of this wall is unclear, but it seems likely that they would have existed at this time as part of the maintenance of the hothouses and the gardens. Further walled compartments lie to the north of the glasshouse range and another to the west. A garden structure lies in the northern gardens. It is interesting to note that the yard behind the Apple Loft is treated in the same way as the Farmyard, suggested it was not laid out as a garden area. Plantations lie to the west of the Walled Gardens as they do today, whilst a demesne road runs along the northern and eastern sides of the garden wall, separating it from the Farmyard to the east.

218

1858 The Ordnance Survey map shows a linear and diagonal layout rather than circulate beds. The area of the Rose Garden remains a central entrance and path with trees either side. 1900–1901 The Ordnance Survey map does not indicate the layout of the area of the Rose Garden beside the central path and several trees. 1913 The 6th Marchioness gives a description of the Walled Garden including reference to ‘delicious pale pink, white, yellow and damask crimson roses’ on the south wall of the current Rose Garden. She appears to describe a pergola that covers the central path leading from the southern entrance.

A3.1, A3.2, A3.3 DAIRY AND ROSE GARDEN

1921 The 25 inch Ordnance Survey map shows a paths through the centre of the garden but also shows evidence of a boundary path with trees at each corner, similar to the features seen today within the garden, indicating the Rose Garden was laid out between 1900 and 1921. When Lady Londonderry was creating the gardens around the house in 1920, she planted a rose garden, but it did not prosper due to its proximity to the sea. It is thought it was therefore moved to the Walled Garden around this time. The dairy is not shown but it is likely that it was constructed soon after. 1927 Lady Edith wrote in a description in the Gardener’s Yearbook that ‘the Rose Garden is also here – Betty Uprichard, Madame E. Herriot and Christine are some of the best. This year my namesake Dame Edith Helen and two other roses named after my daughters will find a home here, Lady Margaret Stewart, a glorious orange, and Lady Helen Maglona, a blood red. We hope to add yet another lovely rose next year, named after my youngest daughter, Mary Elizabeth, a vivid cherry pink. All these roses have a delicious fragrance – no scentless rose will ever be found at Mount Stewart.’

1921–1935 A Dairy was constructed by Lady Edith outside of the southern wall of the Rose Garden. Roof tiles are reputed to have been taken from a dismantled Ice House. An undated, but likely early 20th century image shows the Rose Gardens with the Dairy with its distinctive roof visible in the background. Milk was transported from the Farmyard and churned to make butter and cream. 1935 An article in the Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society mentions the well-established Rose Garden, which was also known as the Atrium Garden and was adjacent to the Dairy. The roses that failed to thrive in the terrace gardens near the house where moved here in 1926.05 1962 An aerial image shows the layout of the Rose Garden. An urn is a central feature with ‘crazy-paving’ paths radiating outwards; between these paths, roses bloom. The pillars were used for climbing roses. Four standard trees in containers were located on each side of the garden, with larger rose beds in each corner. Large exotic trees were also located in the corners.

1970–1980s Photographs show the Rose Garden unattended and overgrown. 1971 The 1971 25 inch Ordnance Survey map shows the familiar layout of circular areas with square path around the garden walls. The semi-circular shape of the Dairy and adjacent building is also shown. 2010 The National Trust took on the lease of the Walled Gardens and cleared overgrown gardens, including the Rose Garden. 2014 The Walled Garden was acquired by the National Trust from Lady Rose Lauritzen, daughter of Lady Mairi Bury. 2016 The Ulster Archaeological Society recorded the Rose Garden prior to restoration by the National Trust.07 2018 The Rose Garden was restored by the National Trust.

Later 1960s The Dairy was moved to the Farmyard (being more practical and avoiding the ferrying of milk) and the present building when out of use.06

2019 The Diary roof was restored with Tullycavey Slate by the National Trust.

Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society, December 1935, Vol LX, part 12

Pers. comm. Dolly McRoberts and Andrew Corkill, 25th July 2019

219

R Scott and C Stevenson, Ulster Archaeological Society, Survey Report 67: Rose Garden at Mount Stewart Co. Down, 2018

A3.1, A3.2, A3.3 DAIRY AND ROSE GARDEN

Dolly McRoberts – the `Treasure’ of Mount Stewart Elizabeth or `Dolly’ McRoberts came to live at Mount Stewart with her husband, Hugh, in 1958. Hugh McRoberts replaced Jim Weir as the Farm Manager. Initially Dolly didn’t work on the demesne but found work in Newtownards. However, when her husband fell ill, she became more involved at Mount Stewart. In the 1950s Hugh Weir’s wife, Margaret, looked after the Dairy. They churned butter and made cream with the milk brought in containers on a wheelbarrow from the farm. This was supplied to the big house, with demesne staff taking any surplus. Later, Margaret Weir took over as Housekeeper at Mount Stewart and Dolly ran the Dairy. She chose to churn the butter in the Farmyard as it was less work transporting the milk from the milking parlour. She was a professional seamstress and came to work in Mount Stewart following an interview by Lady Rose. Lady Rose remembers it was the first interview she had conducted as her mother, Lady Londonderry was ill. Dolly later went on to look after her clothes and furs. Dolly was one of four sisters brought up on a farm in Gannoway, County Down. Like her sisters she played an active role on the farm from an early age, including milking cows and working the horses. She does not recall being taught these skills, 'you were just bought up with them’.08 Dolly’s early experience on a farm clearly came in useful at Mount Stewart and following the death of her husband, Dolly remained at Mount Stewart and looked after the pedigree Jersey cattle and working horses. Dolly still lives at Mount Stewart, now in the Orchard Cottages, but previously lived in Appleloft Cottage with her husband.

J Bell, (2005) Ulster Farming Families 1930–1960 p46

Dolly 1932

220

A3.1, A3.2, A3.3 DAIRY AND ROSE GARDEN

PRIMARY SOURCES

1834 Ordnance Survey map 6 Inch

1858 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

221

A3.1, A3.2, A3.3 DAIRY AND ROSE GARDEN

PRIMARY SOURCES

1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map 6 Inch

1921 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

222

A3.1, A3.2, A3.3 DAIRY AND ROSE GARDEN

PRIMARY SOURCES N

Photograph from the early 20th-century, looking south from the orchard into the Rose Garden and the Dairy beyond.

1971 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

223

A3.1, A3.2, A3.3 DAIRY AND ROSE GARDEN

PRIMARY SOURCES

Early 20th-century family photo of an urn similar to that in the Rose Garden

Early 20th-century family photo showing the urn in the Rose Garden

224

A3.1, A3.2, A3.3 DAIRY AND ROSE GARDEN

PRIMARY SOURCES

1960s view of the Rose Garden and central urn towards the orchard and atrium glasshouse

c.1920 photograph of the font and statue within the Dairy. The statue has been removed

225

A3.1, A3.2, A3.3 DAIRY AND ROSE GARDEN

PRIMARY SOURCES

1960s photograph of the Rose Garden in bloom

Aerial photograph of the Rose Garden in 1962 showing the star-shaped bed arrangement, trees and pergola

226

A3.1, A3.2, A3.3 DAIRY AND ROSE GARDEN

PRIMARY SOURCES

Photograph of the Rose Garden c.1980s following abandonment. Glasshouses are just visible in the Apple Loft garden.

Photograph of the Rose Garden following lease to the National Trust in 2010 and clearance of overgrown vegetation, but prior to replanting. The doors to the Dairy were replaced following damage.

227

A3.1, A3.2, A3.3 DAIRY AND ROSE GARDEN

CURRENT SITUATION Setting The Rose Garden, historically also referred to as the Atrium Garden, is an enclosed walled garden to the south of the Walled Garden complex. The northern boundary of the Rose Garden is open to the Orchard. Rose Garden The Rose Garden would have originally formed part of the kitchen gardens designed for food production for the house and its demesne staff. It was adapted as a formal rose garden in the early 20th century. The walls are constructed in rubble stone on the exterior face, and brick in Flemish bond on the interior face. Recently restored, it retains its early 20th century layout. Columns support climbing roses around the outer path, and along the eastern wall a pergola has been built upon the column. Within this the garden is symmetrically arranged and similar to a wheel with spokes; paths radiate from the centre, between which are eight triangular flowerbeds set with a variety of rose bushes. At the centre of the garden is a pedestal base – this was originally the position of an ornamental urn (captured in historical photos) which may have been relocated here from the gardens of Mount Stewart House. A replica urn is now planned by the National Trust. On the southern wall of the Rose Garden stands the entrance to the Dairy (see image on page 17). This arched opening is constructed with fine ashlar Scrabo sandstone dressings. The arched opening is flanked by two smaller square headed openings with keystones (one currently blocked). The treatment of the openings is a particularly fine for a walled garden and similar to others around the Walled Gardens. It is therefore assumed that Lady Edith’s Dairy was carefully designed to utilise existing entrances through the wall.

Dairy Exterior The dairy is an attractive single-storey, semi-circular building with a half conical roof constructed by Lady Edith in the 1920s. The graduating slates are said to have come from the old ice house on Rhododendron Hill when it was dismantled. It is constructed in rubble stone with sandstone dressings and has four multi-paned top-opening timber casements. There are two entrances placed beneath the garden wall to the east and west. The exterior of the building and the Tullycavey slate roof were restored by the National Trust in 2019. Constructed directly against the garden wall of the Rose Garden, a pair of double glazed timber doors open directly into the Walled Garden where Lady Londonderry laid out a formal parterre and pergolas for the growing of roses, now recently replanted and restored by the National Trust. Flanking the glazed timber doors facing the Rose Garden are two openings; one allows the public access into the gardens, and the other now contains an interpretation board. Both Lady Rose Lauritzen and Dolly McRoberts recall these once contained ‘sunburst’ iron gates; one of which can be found inside the Dairy.09 Adjacent to the east is a square structure constructed in rubble stone with sandstone dressings and quoins. It has a slate monopitched roof. The structure is undergoing repair and currently contains an early refrigerator evidencing its former use. Adjacent and attached, is a smaller structure – formerly a boiler house for the Dairy.

228

Interior Both half-glazed entrance doors provide access to the interior via two small lobbies. At present one lobby is utilised by members of the public to access the Rose Garden, but the interior remains inaccessible. The floor is laid with quarry tiles and the walls are largely plastered but set with panels of fine Spanish tiles, originally intended for the Spanish Garden. They were placed in the Dairy after Lady Edith found alternative tiles for the Spanish Garden following a visit to Jerusalem.10 Around the curving wall below the windows is a stone bench and in the centre of the floor stands a stone fountain, once set with a statue of Hermes. This fountain was used to cool or humidify the air.

A3.1, A3.2, A3.3 DAIRY AND ROSE GARDEN

CURRENT STRUCTURE

Exterior of the Dairy

Interior showing the curving work bench, tiles to walls and font (right)

Rose Garden with the remains of the damaged urn in the centre

Rose Garden elevation of the Dairy.

229

A3.1, A3.2, A3.3 DAIRY AND ROSE GARDEN INTERNAL

Tile panel originally intended for the Spanish Garden

Dairy and outbuildings in 2019

‘Original door from the Dairy now in storage in the Farm complex’

Interior entrance

View towards the Rose Garden entrance doors

230

‘Sunburst’ iron gate

A3.1, A3.2, A3.3 DAIRY AND ROSE GARDEN

Conservatory or Atrium was described as ‘new’ in 1911 by the 6th Marchioness and appears in a late 19th century image.. Demolished in the 1980s when its condition deteriorated. The building was accessed by steps and accommodated orange and lemons trees brought from Mount Stewart gardens in the winter

BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT Site Assessment Plan SITE ASSESSMENT PLAN Key Views Line of demolished wall Footprint of former structures by 1834–1900 Footprint of former structures by 1834 or 1854 Footprint of former structures by 1900. Footprint of former glasshouses 1921(?)–1971

Location of rockery in early 20th century image

Beehives

Ornate orchids kept in these glasshouses in later 20th century. Demolished along with potting sheds (on north side) in the later 20th century. Note wall scars.

Gardener's House built by Lady Mairi Bury 1953 to designs by Liam McCormick Mature fruit trees remnant of former orchard(?) or Lady Edith scheme of planting?

Paths restored by the National Trust Present structure mid20th century

A 1911 account of the garden describes a pergola from south entrance up to conservatory. Pergola not extant on c.1920s photo.

Temporarily fenced area and gates

This plan is not to scale

Garden used to contain miniature plum trees, mid-20th century

Mid 1920 (?) image shows these areas formerly planted with flower beds and small trees/standards

Cracking to wall. Walls raised?

Tree at the end of the Rose Garden is a highly-valued specimen. However tends to block views into Rose Garden.

Urn at the centre of the garden was irreparably damaged in the latter half of the 20th century. To be replaced with a replica.

Rose Garden stone columns all originally supported timber trellis. Pergola recreated by the National Trust in this area

Rose garden restored by the National Trust to planting scheme created by Lady Edith in the 1920s

231

A3.1, A3.2, A3.3 DAIRY AND ROSE GARDEN

Dairy, built 1920s on site of the main entrance into the Walled Gardens. Out of use by 1960s.

Central font, which is missing a statue of Hermes. According to Dolly, the statue may have been removed by the time Lord Londonderry died in the 1940s. She was told by Margaret Weir that when the King and Queen came to visit, they cut butter into the shape of fish and placed them in the font.

Curved stone bench

Dairy said to have been constructed from re-used materials from an old ice house near the Mount Stewart lake. Spanish tiles embedded at intervals around the walls c.1920s. These tiles were originally intended for the Spanish Garden.

Jug from the dairy now in the care of Dolly McRoberts

Architectural fragment of iron gates. Dolly McRoberts and Lady Rose both remember these were placed on the doors either side of the Dairy, on the Rose Garden side.

Quarry tile floor

Public route into Rose Garden

Location of old refrigerator Boiler house

Opening formerly contained ‘sunburst’ gate

Margaret Weir, the wife of Jim Weir the farmer, used to churn milk in the Dairy. By Dolly’s time, production was moved to the Farmyard as it was more convenient c.1960s

Blocked opening with interpretation board formerly contained ‘sunburst’ gate

Modern doors installed by the National Trust following damage. Original door leaf in storage in Farm Complex.

232

A3.1, A3.2, A3.3 DAIRY AND ROSE GARDEN

CONDITION

Walled/Kitchen Garden Boundary Walls – all areas

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

Further Investigations

•

Masonry walls, combining stone and brick sections including brick cappings. Some sections rendered.

•

Condition variable across walls; sections of lost/ damaged cappings, structural cracking/ deflection; vegetation and intrusive plant growth. Loss of pointing. Large earth heap against north section may need to be removed, subject to advice from Structural Engineer.

Long-term repair/ consolidation plan required, organised by priority and tackled by manageable sections each year. Repairs should be coordinated with any capital development/improvement projects, or changes in occupation of dwellings

233

Structural Engineer should advise on structural issues and proximity/ implications of earth pile to north.

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

A3.1, A3.2, A3.3 DAIRY AND ROSE GARDEN

A3.1

A3.2

Dairy (B2)

Structure adjacent to Dairy

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

•

Roof: sound condition, appears to have been comprehensively repaired in recent times.

•

Masonry: satisfactory condition following repair.

•

Windows/doors: windows in satisfactory condition following redecoration etc., doors require refurbishment.

•

Interiors/finishes: fair condition but some surface failures, plaster cracking mould growth and so on.

•

Structure currently scaffolded awaiting repair. Not closely accessed but whole structure is now in very poor condition.

•

Further Investigations

Carry out internal conservation and refurbishment to complete rehabilitation of structure, including replacement of glazed doors in a style in-keeping (reference to the style of original door currently in storage).

Complete protection and stabilisation works ahead of implementation of longer term repair/rehabilitation.

234

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

A3.1, A3.2, A3.3 DAIRY AND ROSE GARDEN

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Evidential There is potential that underlying deposits within the Walled Gardens may provide evidence of former uses, planting regimes and lost structures. A Gound Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey was carried out by the Queen's University, in 2015 within the Rose Garden and Orchard; it indicated evidence of basins (which may have been manmade or possibly geological), plough marks, a possible central pathway and possible flower beds. Further surveys and archaeological investigations within the Orchard and other parts of the Walled Garden have the potential to verify these initial findings and expand our knowledge, including establishing the extent of Lady Edith’s planting scheme of the 1920s. There is also potential for further documentary sources to be uncovered which might add to our present understanding. The evidential value of the Walled Gardens is medium. Historical The Walled Gardens of Mount Stewart have significance as one of the most extensive surviving kitchen gardens in Ulster and Ireland despite the loss of historical layout and planting. The Gardens were laid out in the late 18th century and were designed to give shelter to produce grown for the ‘Big House’ and for demesne employees, and to feature as part of the pleasure ground circuit to delight and impress Mount Stewart guests.

Aesthetic The Dairy is a delightful and unusually-shaped building. It has vernacular charm but was also built for a purpose and in-use in living memory. The Spanish tiles, curving bench and the central basin all contribute to the aesthetic value of the interior. The aesthetic value of the dairy could be further increased by its careful internal restoration. The storage heaters are an intrusive feature and should be removed.

Setting The setting of the Rose Garden is restricted due to its high boundary wall. However, it forms a part of a wider complex, and is inextricably linked to other elements of the Walled Garden and Farmyard. The setting of the Diary is both the Rose Garden to the north and the external areas outside of the Walled Garden. Yet the Dairy remains on the periphery of the Farmyard, almost engulfed by the plantations to the south and west.

The Rose Garden has recently undergone restoration by the National Trust and once fully established will be a valuable addition to the visitor offer. The Garden would benefit further from the restoration of the centrepiece urn, currently in storage. The lichencovered walls provide a suitable backdrop as well as shelter to the Garden.

Contribution to the Wider Demesne and the Mansion House The Dairy forms part of an impressive ensemble of the demesne’s production buildings and areas. As the Demesne CMP (2018) says, ‘the group occupies and defines the working heart of the demesne and sits at the functional and physical centre of the landscape design’ with ‘their great scale reflecting that of the demesne itself ’. They are inextricably linked to the demesne landscape and are therefore of the highest significance to it.

Both have medium aesthetic value, with potential to be of high value. Communal The communal value of the Rose Garden has increased since its restoration. The Dairy also has the potential for increased communal value, once work is completed on its restoration and it is made accessible to the public.

The Dairy and Rose Garden hold significance for their association with the Londonderry family More recently the Rose Garden has been associated with Lady Edith who is believed to have redesigned the Rose Garden and built the Dairy in the 1920s. The overall historical value of the Rose Garden and Dairy is high.

235

A3.1, A3.2, A3.3 DAIRY AND ROSE GARDEN

Key Views The site is divided from the wider demesne landscape by its boundary wall, which restricts setting to a confined area, with short-distance views. The visitor route is through the Dairy lobby and into the Rose Garden and provides an initial ‘surprise’ view for the public. Views into the Rose Garden from the Orchard are restricted by a mature tree which also provides a short-distance, framed view along the footpath.

View from the orchard

Framed view into the Rose Garden from the Orchard

Looking back from the orchard

236

A3.1, A3.2, A3.3 DAIRY AND ROSE GARDEN

Significance SIGNIFICANCE AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE High Medium Low Neutral Intrusive

(Please refer to the Executive Summary Section 5.0 for an explanation of significance and its relationship to capacity for change) This plan is not to scale

Glass house of low value and present appearance is detrimental to the overall appearance of the gardens. However, the contents (the vines) are of high significance.

237

A3.1, A3.2, A3.3 DAIRY AND ROSE GARDEN

CONSERVATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

PARAMETERS FOR CHANGE

•

Issues of wall maintenance to ensure public safety.

•

Continue the current programme of restoration of the Dairy.

•

Potential to improve the interior of the Dairy and improve public access.

•

Potential issues with security of the Dairy if open to the public.

Inspired by the Rose Garden and Dairy restoration projects, continue the restoration of other areas of the Walled Garden, reintroducing historic garden layouts, combining flower with food production.

•

Wear and tear on the Dairy and other areas from increased footfall.

•

Ensure the Walled Garden project is planned holistically; refrain from piecemeal restoration projects.

•

The Walled Gardens provide the National Trust with an opportunity to expand on or create a different garden experience should the effects of climate change be felt on the formal gardens.

•

The policy recommendation within the Demesne CMP (2018) states that the Walled Garden could ‘play a strategic role in the survival of a number of garden areas that are under treat due to global warming and sea level rises; namely the formal garden areas close to Portaferry Road. The potential to relocate garden features to the Walled Garden would allow for the long-term survival of the Formal Garden of Mount Stewart’; this should continue to be considered by the National Trust.

•

Asbestos contamination in structure adjacent to Dairy.

•

Opportunity to increase understanding through documentary and archaeological analysis.

•

Establish the designation status of the Walled Gardens.

•

Remove modern intrusive features within the Dairy such as the storage heaters.

238

•

Maintain walls. Remove or control invasive growth which may be damaging to foundations and to mortar destabilising the structure. Excessive growth on walls also prevents them being fully appreciated and therefore their archaeological value is devalued.

•

Record all walls and structures prior to change.

•

Continue a programme of research to add to the understanding of the Walled Garden and associated structures.

•

Public access or interpretation should continue to be improved.

CAPACITY FOR CHANGE The Rose Garden and Dairy have limited capacity for change. They should continue to be maintained/restored and made accessible to the public.

[THIS PAGE HAS INTENTIONALLY BEEN LEFT BLANK]

239

A3.4, A3.5, A3.6 GARDENER'S HOUSE, VINERY AND SOUTHERN GARDENS

A3.5 Vinery

A3.4 Gardener’s House

A3.6 Orchard Gardens

240

A3.4, A3.5, A3.6 GARDENER'S HOUSE, VINERY AND SOUTHERN GARDENS

KEY INFORMATION Component Name

Orchard Garden and boundary walls, Vinery and Gardener's House

Date Range

Late 18th century walls Vinery: Mid 20th century on earlier site Gardener's House: 1953

Current Use

Vinery largely redundant but vines still fruiting Orchard Garden: Former beds laid to grass in orchard Gardener's House: privately tenanted

Historic Uses

Vinery: vinery Orchard Garden: Produce garden, formal gardens, rockery and orchard Gardener's House: staff residence

Overall Significance

Vinery: structure of low significance but contents of high significance Orchard Garden: low significance but boundary walls are high significance Gardener's House: medium Significance

Overall Condition

Boundary walls: Stable, but defective in some areas

Walled Garden

Vinery: Urgent Health and Safety Issues Gardener's House: Sound Designations

Not listed

Capacity for Change

Orchard Garden: Medium, with high capacity for restoration Vinery: High Gardener's House: Low

241

A3.4, A3.5, A3.6 GARDENER'S HOUSE, VINERY AND SOUTHERN GARDENS HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Summary Timeline 1769 The White Syrian vine was planted by William Adams in the Castle Garden, Newtownards. 1780–17811 The Walled Garden is believed to have been built and the White Syrian vine was relocated to the West Pine Stove Mount Stewart by Alexander Stewart (1699–1781) and his gardener James Wallace. A gardener called William King was employed by Robert Stewart (1739–1821). 1781–1789 Robert Stewart’s accounts of 1781–1789 show £945 was spent on gardens and £914 on new offices.01 The large sums of money were probably spent mainly on the creation of the Walled Gardens.02 This is supported by accounts showing payments for ‘watering engines, tiles for the hothouse, foreign seeds, fruit trees and shrubs, pineapple plants and exotics.’03 1784–1785 The model farm adjacent to the Walled Garden is believed to have been completed.

1814 In a letter to Lord Castlereagh, the Walled Gardens are described as: a desert waste and absolutely nothing in it, vines &c, all [? dead] not a grape, scarce a cabbage. The gardener is dismissed but no successor as yet. 04 1834 The Ordnance Survey map of 1834 is the first known depiction of the Walled Garden, by now already 50 years old. It indicates that the layout of walls has remained largely unchanged to the present. The map also shows the possible layout of beds, planting and provides evidence that the Rose Garden and Orchard formed a single unit in a ‘T’ shape. The gardens are laid out into what was essentially a formalised plan. A pathway leads from the southern entrance of the gardens (now the location of the Dairy) up the centre of the gardens. Buildings (assumed to be glasshouses) appear to run along the south facing wall which subdivides the north walled gardens from the south. Evidence for buildings on the north side of this wall is unclear, but it seems likely that they would have existed at this time as part of the maintenance of the hothouses and the gardens. Further walled compartment lie to the north of the glasshouse range and another to the west. A garden structure lies in the northern gardens. It is interesting to note that the yard behind the Apple Loft is treated in the same way as the Farmyard, suggested it was not laid out as a garden area until sometime later.

PRONI D654/H1/1

A Casement, Mount Stewart Landscape Study, 1995, p18

Plantations lie to the west of the Walled Gardens as they do today, whilst a demesne road runs along the northern and eastern sides of the garden wall, separating it from the Farmyard to the east.

PRONI D3030/P/123

1858 The Ordnance Survey map shows few changes but indicates that the earlier layout of planting has changed. 1875 Alexander Knox in History of County Down observed that the vine had a two foot circumference and boasted branches which extended 20 foot either side of the glasshouse.05 1900–1901 The Ordnance Survey map does not indicate the layout of the planting to the gardens although it suggests an orchard exists in the northern-most compartment. The buildings along the central south-facing wall have undergone alteration; centrally placed is a rectangular glasshouse, assumed to be the atrium glasshouse captured in late 19th century images.

05 242

Ibid

A3.4, A3.5, A3.6 GARDENER'S HOUSE, VINERY AND SOUTHERN GARDENS

1911 Theresa, wife of the 6th Marquess, gives an account of the Walled Garden including reference to ‘delicious pale pink, white, yellow and damask crimson roses’ on the south wall of the current Rose Garden. She appears to describe a pergola that covers the central path leading from the south entrance of the gardens to a central glasshouse, also referred to as the conservatory. A rockery was located to the right of this glasshouse. “ ... we come to the nice walled in old garden – up until this year it had two borders of wall flowers and a mass of rhododendrons, pale pink, deep red and white, but this year I have endeavoured to plant it up in front of the North Wall – The roses on the south wall are beyond words, delicious, pale pink, white, yellow and a damask crimson... A pergola leads from the south door up to the conservatory which is quite new and has only just been planted with white and yellow broom, clematis, roses and ivy and the border with wall flower, tulips, forget-me-nots in fact everything to make a constant secession of flowers from January til June. Dracaenas grow in the grass and the flower beds are one mass of colour, white, yellow, blue, violet, crimson. The herbaceous border on the right hand side is a constant joy – there are crimson roses, peonies and poppies in June, a little lilac hedge is in progress dividing the rock garden from the wall flower and though it is a slow growing plant I trust that some day it will repay the waiting...In the left hand house there is a fine old vine, planted the same time as the Hampton Court – the house harbours every imaginable spring flower... In the second kitchen garden, there is a glorious Jessamine, which when in flower looks like one shower of gold – the second kitchen garden is walled round and has large beds of anemones, Lily of the Valley, St Bridget anemones, irises and a herbaceous border full of paeonies and every conceivable spring flower, to walk up from this garden you come into the orchard, surrounded by a grey wall – the blossom on the apple and pear trees...’06 06

1921 The 25 inch Ordnance Survey map shows a path through the centre of the garden to the conservatory but hints at little else. A continuous building is shown on the north side of the wall divided into a series of compartments, likely to be gardener’s store, boiler houses and accommodation. 1922–1923 Edith, Lady Londonderry, plans to transform an area of the Walled Garden to Italian and Elizabethan designs and produced a sketch showing plantings in 1923. This plan was recorded in her diary Mount Stewart Garden Book No.1 and shows a large rectangular area divided into 28 small rectangular beds with details of different hedging and edging plants to be used and possibilities for standard trees. A list of fruit trees to be planted includes medlar, mulberry, quince, olive, fig and crab apples. It is unclear if this came to full fruition, but Anne Casement says that Nigel Marshall, Head Gardener from 1970, ‘suspects it must have been created, though perhaps only partially, in the large rectangular area immediately south of the greenhouses.’ This is confirmed in an early 20th century photograph of the Orchard and Rose Garden which shows a formal arrangement of flower beds and trees.

1935 In the 1935 article The Gardens at Mount Stewart for the RHS Journal, Lady Londonderry describes the history of the white Syrian grape growing in the west pine stove by quoting an inscription found in an old garden book: This famous vine was planted in the year 1769 by Wm. Adams, gardener, in the pine stove that stood in the castle garden, Newtownards. It was taken up in the year 1780 and replanted by James Wallace, gardener, where it now stands in the west pine stove at Mount Stewart. Its principal limbs are regularly trained….and suspended from the roof sash bearers. Exclusive of its fruit wood, it runs 40ft in length by 20ft in depth and when in bearing covers 800 square feet… The article also mentions the old beech hedge which protects the gardens, located in the northern walled garden. The fruit produced in the Walled Garden included apricots, figs, peaches, melons and nectarines plus bush and soft fruit. Second World War The Walled Gardens played a key role in supplying vegetables and fruit for the war effort. Vegetables were also grown in the surrounding fields. So successful was their operation that in 1940, Lady Londonderry considered establishing a canning factory within the demesne.07 Soon after the war, the vinery was said to have been rebuilt. Today, a part of the structure of the vinery steps out to incorporate the bole of the old vine. 1953 The Gardener's House, designed by the architect Liam McCormick, was constructed within the southern walled garden at the request of Lady Mairi Bury.

PRONI D3084/C/B/1/1

07 243

Demesne CMP 5.11.1

A3.4, A3.5, A3.6 GARDENER'S HOUSE, VINERY AND SOUTHERN GARDENS

Liam McCormick Liam McCormick has been described as one of the founders of modern Irish architectural movement and one of the most important church architects in Northern Ireland.08 He was born in Derry in 1916(?) to a Catholic family with a Donegal background. He was educated at Greencastle, Co Donegal, and St Columb’s College, Derry, before going on to study architecture at Liverpool University. After graduating in 1943, he was appointed as an architect and planner at the Ballymena Urban District Council. In 1948 he founded the architectural practice of Corr McCormick with Frank Corr, following their success in a major competition to design a new church at Ennistymon, Co Clare.

He received many accolades including the RIAI Gold Medal in 1971 and was awarded an honorary doctorate from New University of Ulster in 1977 and was created a Knight of St Gregory in 1984. He also held a number of significant advisory roles and posts in architecture and heritage including a member of the Liturgical Advisory Group on Churches, honorary life member of the Royal Society of Architects of Ulster, and an executive member of the RlAl, a founder-member of the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society and North-West Architectural Society, and a trustee of the Ulster Museum.09 His St Aengus’ Church, Burt in Co Donegal was built in 1967 and was voted ‘Building of the Century’ by a national poll run by the Irish Times.

In 1968 he formed Liam McCormick and Partners. After expansion in the 1970s the practice name changed to McCormick Tracey Mullarkey Architects, when Tom Mullarkey became partner in the firm. During the Troubles, McCormick’s studio was bombed leading to the loss of his professional records.

The Irish Times (online) Friday August 30, 1996 https://www.irishtimes. com/news/tributes-to-dr-liam-mccormick-noted-church-architect-andsailor-1.81363

1971 The 1971 25 inch Ordnance Survey map shows a number of changes from the 1921 plan – the Rose Garden has been laid out to the south, whilst the east glasshouse has been replaced with two glasshouses. Later 20th Century The condition of the greenhouses within the Orchard deteriorated and they became too expensive to maintain or repair. As a consequence, they were taken down by demesne staff. The central atrium glasshouse, or conservatory, was removed during the late 1980s.10 Early 1990s Between tenancies, the living room windows of the Gardener's House were lowered on Lady Mairi’s instructions. She wanted future tenants to enjoy views of the Walled Gardens.11

During his career he designed 27 new churches and was responsible for alteration to many more throughout England and Ireland. He continued to be distinguished in church design until retiring in 1982. Whilst his career focussed on churches, he also designed a number of private houses including the Garden House at Mount Stewart and the house of Northern Ireland politician John Hume.

1962 An aerial image shows the layout of the Walled Gardens. The Orchard appears to be planted with shrubs and trees and largely laid to grass with no evidence of the earlier flowerbeds. The Gardener's House is shown for the first time.

2010 The National Trust took on the lease of the Walled Gardens and cleared overgrown gardens. 2014 The National Trust acquired the Walled Garden from Lady Rose Lauritzen, daughter of Lady Mairi Bury.

Ibid

244

Pers Comm Ken Massey to Andrew Corkill, 25th July 2019

Ibid

A3.4, A3.5, A3.6 GARDENER'S HOUSE, VINERY AND SOUTHERN GARDENS

Walled Gardens The walled garden is an enclosure, usually protected by high walls of brick and / or stone. In its basic form, the walled garden was a simple square enclosure divided into four quarters by paths. Examples of early gardens have been found in Roman Italy; some feature a covered cannonade. Their design has been known to have influenced the development of the monastic cloister during the medieval period which saw the emergence of a garden specifically for medicinal and kitchen provision. As country houses were established, so the desire emerged for a garden providing fruit, flowers and vegetables for the needs of the household. It was common in the 19th century for ornamental floral displays to feature alongside productive horticulture. In temperate climates, the function of the wall was to protect the garden from the worst of the weather. Generally located on south-facing slopes, the enclosing wall created a microclimate allowing plants to be grown which would not normally survive in the local climate. The south-facing wall was favoured for the most exotic of fruits which were trained along its elevation. Further, some walls were built with flues within their structure through which warm air was circulated from furnaces. This aided the growing of the most delicate of fruit such as nectarines, peaches, figs and vines. As iron and glass technologies improved during the Victorian period, so the use of glass houses increased in walled gardens, further aiding the cultivation of exotic plants and flowers for the ‘big’ house. The decline of the walled garden is closely linked to that of the country house. However, many have seen a revival producing fruit and vegetables or as decorative gardens thanks to organisations like the National Trust.

Mount Stewart Walled Garden in Context At Mount Stewart, the walled gardens may have featured as part of the pleasure ground circuit of the demesne to impress and delight guests. It is one of a number walled gardens which have survived in Britain and Ireland. The Mount Stewart Demesne CMP analysed walled gardens in Britain and Ireland and found that Mount Stewart possessed one of the most extensive walled kitchen gardens in Ulster and Ireland. Covering eight acres is possesses six compartments.12 Comparable examples exist at Carton, Co. Kildare which is of 8.65 acres with three compartments, Ballyfin in Co. Laois with two separate gardens covering a total of 6.67 acres. Greyabbey, Co. Down is also of a smaller acreage at 6.18 acres. Others such as Clandeboye, Co. Down and Castle Ward, Co. Down are of a smaller acreage. Curraghmore in Co. Waterford was over 10 acres and three compartments filled with glasshouses but is no longer extant.13

White Syrian Vine at Mount Stewart

As quoted in Gallagher and Rutherford, 2018, p87. The Rose Garden was historically part of the Orchard Garden and it is likely that the Apple Loft compartment may have originally formed part of the Farmyard complex.

Ibid 245

A3.4, A3.5, A3.6 GARDENER'S HOUSE, VINERY AND SOUTHERN GARDENS

PRIMARY SOURCES

1834 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1858 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

246

A3.4, A3.5, A3.6 GARDENER'S HOUSE, VINERY AND SOUTHERN GARDENS

PRIMARY SOURCES

Extract of the 1872 partial plan of the demesne (D654/M71/5)

1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

247

A3.4, A3.5, A3.6 GARDENER'S HOUSE, VINERY AND SOUTHERN GARDENS

PRIMARY SOURCES

1921 Ordnance Survey Map 25 Inch

1971 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

248

A3.4, A3.5, A3.6 GARDENER'S HOUSE, VINERY AND SOUTHERN GARDENS

PRIMARY SOURCES

Central glasshouse assumed 1890s – looking south-west across the rockery (by kind permission of the 10th Marquess of Londonderry)

1890s image of the flower bed and rockery with central glasshouse to the left (by kind permission of the 10th Marquess of Londonderry)

249

A3.4, A3.5, A3.6 GARDENER'S HOUSE, VINERY AND SOUTHERN GARDENS

PRIMARY SOURCES N

Photograph from the early 20th-century, looking south from the Orchard into the Rose Garden and the Dairy beyond

Plan of walled garden for flowers, fruit and herbs Jan 1923. The numbers shown refer to a key which indicated what was grown in each bed. PRONI D654/N/3B/1-4

250

A3.4, A3.5, A3.6 GARDENER'S HOUSE, VINERY AND SOUTHERN GARDENS

PRIMARY SOURCES N

The Orchard compartment and Conservatory c.1940

1962 aerial photograph of the Walled Gardens

251

A3.4, A3.5, A3.6 GARDENER'S HOUSE, VINERY AND SOUTHERN GARDENS

CURRENT SITUATION Setting The Walled Garden at Mount Stewart covers approximately eight acres.14 The Southern Garden, sometimes referred to as ‘Orchard’, is an enclosed walled garden to the south of the Middle Garden compartment within the Walled Garden complex. The Farmyard lies to the east, to the south is the Rose Garden. Southern Garden Sometimes referred to as the ‘Orchard,’ it appears to have been given this name from a number of old and more recently planted fruit trees. These may be remnants of early 20th century planting when the garden was formerly laid out into flower beds punctuated by small trees to designs by Lady Edith. Today the area is largely laid to grass with a number of paths recently restored by the National Trust. To the north of this compartment is a large south facing wall – to the west of this wall is an extant vinery. The vinery is in very poor overall condition. However, it contains a White Syrian vine which is the oldest grapevine in Ireland. The other vines are a Black Hamburg, French Muscat and Red Harniput vine. The wall against which the vinery is constructed is in brick and stone, with areas of render and evidence of the scars of former buildings. The wall and vinery are not accessible to the public and currently separated by a temporary fence. The eastern end is also separated from the public areas. Here the Gardener’s House is located against the eastern wall of the compartment. The garden originally formed part of the kitchen gardens designed for food production for the house and its demesne staff. It was 14

As quoted in Gallagher and Rutherford p87. The Rose Garden was historically part of the Southern Garden and it is likely that the Apple Loft compartment may have originally formed part of the Farmyard complex.

later adapted as a flower garden and orchard. The walls are constructed in rubble stone on the exterior face, and brick in Flemish bond on the interior face. Glasshouse The mono-pitched structure has been constructed against the east-west south-facing garden wall on a brick dwarf wall which has a cement-render finish. Built of timber and glass, a number of the glass panes are missing and the timberwork is in poor overall condition. Modern plastic gutters have been installed. The interior has been separated into a number of compartments and the roof is supported by a series of slender columns. The rear wall is plastered and painted and within the back wall is a rectangular ‘set-back’, with a section of pitched roof finished in lath and plaster. It is unclear what the former use of this feature was, but there is a corresponding set-back at the eastern end of the garden wall. The glasshouse also features metal heating pipes and wires for training plants but it is now overgrown and neglected, although a number of vines are still extant and continue to produce fruit. The ironmongery has the maker’s name: Supplied by Hortus Ltd & Glasshouse Materials Ltd, Abbey Rd, Barking, Essex. The company are known to have been supplying glasshouses in the 1930s.15 The glasshouse was reputedly rebuilt after the Second World War on a smaller scale but with a small square extension which incorporated the bole of the old grape vine which can still be seen today. Gardener's House Exterior The Gardener’s House was built in 1953 to designs by Liam McCormick. It is a contemporary building with a flat roof of three distinct levels; the living area sits higher than the flanking bedrooms

See an advertisement in Scientific Horticulture Vol. 4 (1936) pxxvii 252

and porch to the left and right.16 The roof (which has lost its original low profile following recent works to improve insulation) also has prominent eves and a chimney stack in white brick lies to the rear. The latter is not thought to have been part of the original design by McCormick, but a design modification made during construction.17 The house was built incorporating a section of garden wall on its east elevation and the mounded surrounds to the window openings within this elevation have been carefully designed to compliment those within the adjacent barn and stable. The bungalow has a grey stone plinth, above which the structure is constructed in red brick and red mortar in stretcher bond. In contrast, the windows overlooking the Southern Garden have light grey stone or concrete surrounds. The windows to the living area were originally higher, providing the occupants with privacy, but were lowered to afford views of the Walled Garden. The windows and the front door are now uPVC replacements. Interior The bungalow is entered from the west elevation via steps. Entrance to the living room is via a lobby. The living room provides access into a kitchen to the rear and also into a corridor which gives access to three bedrooms and a bathroom. Although the building has lost its original windows and doors and has been modernised, it retains many original features including: skirtings and door architraves; three-panel doors; bedroom cupboards; fireplace; and parquet flooring in the living room. The architraves and skirtings are typical of the post-war economising of materials and the architect Joe Tracey, who worked on the original project as a junior architect, believed it had been a ‘subsidy house’. These houses were grant funded to increase the housing stock following the War. The houses were no bigger than 900sq feet in size.18 16

The latter is believed to have been a slightly later extension, but the use of complimentary materials, mortar and the same brick would suggest otherwise.

Pers Comm. Joe Tracey to Andrew Corkill and Bev Kerr, 15th August 2019

Pers Comm, 15th August 2019

A3.4, A3.5, A3.6 GARDENER'S HOUSE, VINERY AND SOUTHERN GARDENS

CURRENT STRUCTURE

The garden looking east

East end of garden wall and former location of glasshouses

Gardener's House

Vinery exterior

Vinery interior

253

A3.4, A3.5, A3.6 GARDENER'S HOUSE, VINERY AND SOUTHERN GARDENS

BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT

Site assessment plan

SITE ASSESSMENT PLAN Orchard Cottages (see A3.7) Vinery This plan is not to scale

Rear wall plastered and painted. Set-back in wall has lath and plaster to a pitched roof above. Glasshouse contains four important vine specimens: Black Hamburg; White Syrian; French Muscat; and Red Harniput The Syrian grape vine is reputed to be the second oldest after one at Hampton Court. Note remains of large grape vine bole.

Rendered Wall

254

A3.4, A3.5, A3.6 GARDENER'S HOUSE, VINERY AND SOUTHERN GARDENS

BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT Site Assessment Plan SITE ASSESSMENT PLAN Key Views Line of demolished wall Footprint of former structures by 1834 – 1900 Footprint of former structures by 1834 or 1854 Footprint of former structures by 1900. Footprint of former glasshouses 1921 (?) – 1971

Paths restored by the National Trust Present structure mid20th century

Garden used to contain miniature plum trees, mid-20th century

Location of rockery in early 1890s image.

Beehives

Ornate orchids kept in these glasshouses in later 20th century. Demolished along with potting sheds (on north side) in the later 20th century. Note wall scars. Historic water pump (relocated?)

Gardener's House built by Lady Mairi Bury 1953 to designs by Liam McCormick Mature fruit trees remnant of former orchard(?) or Lady Edith scheme of planting?

A 1911 account of the garden describes a pergola from south entrance up to conservatory. Pergola not extant on c.1920s photo.

Temporarily fenced area and gates

This plan is not to scale

1890s image shows these areas formerly planted with flower beds and small trees/standards

Conservatory or Atrium was describes a ‘new’ in 1911 by Theresa, the 6th Marchioness. Demolished in the 1980s when its condition deteriorated. The building was accessed by steps and accommodated orange and lemons trees brought from MS gardens in the winter

Apples, pears and plums are said to have grown along the walls

Cracking to wall. Walls raised?

Tree at the end of the Rose Garden is a highly-valued specimen. However tends to block views into Rose Garden

Urn at the centre of the garden was irreparably damaged in the latter half of the 20th century. To be replaced with a replica

Rose garden restored by the National Trust to planting scheme created by Lady Edith in the 1920s

Rose Garden stone columns all originally supported timber trellis. Pergola recreated by the National Trust in this area

255

A3.4, A3.5, A3.6 GARDENER'S HOUSE, VINERY AND SOUTHERN GARDENS CONDITION

Walled/Kitchen Garden Boundary Walls – all areas

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

Further Investigations

•

Masonry walls, combining stone and brick sections including brick cappings. Some sections rendered.

•

Condition variable across walls; sections of lost/damaged cappings, structural cracking/ deflection; vegetation and intrusive plant growth. Loss of pointing. Large earth heap against north section may need to be removed, subject to advice from Structural Engineer.

Long-term repair/ consolidation plan required, organised by priority and tackled by manageable sections each year. Repairs should be co-ordinated with any capital development/ improvement projects, or changes in occupation of dwellings.

256

Structural Engineer should advise on structural issues and proximity/ implications of earth pile to north.

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

A3.4, A3.5, A3.6 GARDENER'S HOUSE, VINERY AND SOUTHERN GARDENS

Summary of Condition

A3.4

A3.5

Gardener's House (Liam McCormick dwelling)

Vinery glasshouse

•

Roofs: flat felt roof, not inspected but assumed satisfactory condition at this stage with no internal ingress reported by occupier.

•

RWGs: not inspected.

•

Masonry: satisfactory condition.

•

Windows/doors: uPVC, satisfactory.

•

Interiors/finishes: sound. Cold rear (garden) wall reported by occupier. Could benefit from further insulation.

•

Structure is in a serious state of dilapidation.

Recommended Repairs

•

Carry out internal refurbishment when appropriate.

Further Investigations •

Carefully dismantle and rebuild, with appropriate consents.

257

Check flat roof and drainage for condition and performance to inform timing of renewal.

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs

Ongoing

A3.4, A3.5, A3.6 GARDENER'S HOUSE, VINERY AND SOUTHERN GARDENS

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Evidential There is potential that underlying deposits within the Walled Gardens may provide evidence of former uses, planting regimes and lost structures. A GPR survey was carried out by the University of Belfast in 2015 within the Rose Garden and Southern Garden; it indicated evidence of basins (which may have been manmade or possibly geological), plough marks, a possible central pathway and possible flower beds. Further surveys and archaeological investigations within the Southern Garden and other parts of the Walled Garden have the potential to verify these initial findings and expand our knowledge including establishing the extent of Lady Edith’s planting scheme during the 1920s. There is also potential for further documentary sources to be uncovered which might add to our present understanding of the Walled Gardens. The evidential value of the Walled Gardens is medium. Historical The Walled Gardens of Mount Stewart have significance as one of the most extensive surviving kitchen gardens in Ulster and Ireland despite the loss of historical planting. The gardens were laid out in the late 18th century and were designed to give shelter to produce grown for the ‘Big House’ and for demesne employees, and to feature as part of the pleasure ground circuit to delight and impress Mount Stewart guests. The Southern Gardens and Vinery hold significance for their association with the Londonderry family and for their connection with the ancient grapevine reputed to be the second oldest to that of Hampton Court. More recently the gardens have associations with Lady Edith who is believed to have redesigned the Southern Garden and Rose Garden in the 1920s. Also known as ‘The

Orchard’ because of the remnant fruit trees, research has shown that even during the early 20th century it had a formal layout of beds and planting. The historical value of the Southern Garden is medium. The horticultural interest lies in the extant vines, and the few examples of historical planting which remain, as well as the historical layout of paths and the garden walls. The associative value of the Vinery is very high, but the structure has limited historical value overall. The Gardener’s House also has high historical significance for its association with the Irish architect Liam McCormick, described as the father of modern Irish church architecture; the house is a rare and early example of his secular work. The building’s historical value is slightly lessened by the loss of its original doors and windows and lower roof profile. Aesthetic The Southern Garden is mainly laid to grass and currently of limited aesthetic value, but with the potential to be high through careful restoration of planting schemes. The Gardener's House, despite some alteration and loss, is of medium aesthetic value within its present context. The building’s design demonstrates a sensitivity to its setting through its low form, colour palette and materials. Its uses of the existing garden wall and treatment of the window surrounds in the west elevation is sympathetic to the adjacent agricultural buildings. The vinery is of low to intrusive aesthetic value due to its neglected condition. The use of temporary fencing and the subdivision of the eastern half of the garden also impacts on the aesthetic value of this area.

258

Communal The communal value of the gardens is generally low despite being accessible to the public. This area has high potential for improvement through restoration and replanting. The Gardener's House is privately let and separated from the public areas of the garden. The Gardener’s House has low communal value. Setting The setting of the garden is restricted due to its high boundary wall. However, it forms a part of a wider complex, and is inextricably linked to other elements of the Walled Garden and Farmyard. Contribution to the Wider Demesne and the Mansion House The Southern Garden, Vinery and Gardener’s House form part of an impressive ensemble of the demesne’s production buildings and areas. As the Demesne CMP (2018) says, ‘the group occupies and defines the working heart of the demesne and sits at the functional and physical centre of the landscape design’ with ‘their great scale reflecting that of the demesne itself ’. They are inextricably linked to the demesne landscape and are therefore of the highest significance to it.

A3.4, A3.5, A3.6 GARDENER'S HOUSE, VINERY AND SOUTHERN GARDENS

Key Views The site is divided from the wider demesne landscape by its boundary wall, which restricts setting to a confined area, with short-distance views. The visitor route passes through the Southern Garden and key views are currently restricted to those of the Garden House from the public path, and the approach to the Vinery, with views of the rear wall of Orchard Cottage on the north side of the wall.

View of the vinery on the public approach from the Rose Garden

The Gardener’s House from the Orchard

259

A3.4, A3.5, A3.6 GARDENER'S HOUSE, VINERY AND SOUTHERN GARDENS

Significance N

SIGNIFICANCE AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE High Medium Low Neutral Intrusive (Please refer to the Executive Summary Section 5.0 for an explanation of significance and its relationship to capacity for change) This plan is not to scale

Glasshouse of low value and present appearance is detrimental to the overall appearance of the gardens. However, the contents (the vines) are of high significance.

260

A3.4, A3.5, A3.6 GARDENER'S HOUSE, VINERY AND SOUTHERN GARDENS

CONSERVATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

PARAMETERS FOR CHANGE

•

Record all walls and structures prior to change.

•

Increasing urgency to improve the conditions of the grape vines as the present glasshouse deteriorates.

•

Continue a programme of research to add to the understanding of the Walled Garden and associated structures.

•

Potential to create contemporary new structure for the vines, or to recreate traditional forms using earlier foundations.

•

Public access or interpretation should continue to be improved.

•

Potential to recreate Lady Edith’s formal gardens.

•

Restore/rebuild the section of wall immediately west of the Binery glasshouse (part of the visitor route).

•

Potential to showcase the skills of the National Trust gardeners, inspired by Lady Edith’s passion and creativity.

•

Consider carrying out a programme of archaeological investigation in the Walled Garden prior to any decision regarding restoration. These may establish former planting schemes and the location of pathways and flower beds hinted at in Ordnance Survey maps and within a limited programme of GPR.

•

Issues of wall maintenance to ensure public safety.

•

The Walled Gardens provide the National Trust with an opportunity to expand on or create a different garden experience should the effects of climate change be felt on the formal gardens.

•

Potential for below ground archaeology in the foundation of lost structures, paths, other surfaces, features and evidence of planting and gardens layouts.

•

Opportunity to increase understanding through documentary and archaeological analysis.

•

Extensive ivy growth and damaging climbers on walls.

•

Cracking and missing capping stones to some areas of wall.

•

Establish the designation status of the Walled Gardens.

The future use of the Walled Garden should be planned holistically; refrain from piecemeal restoration projects. The policy recommendation within the Demesne CMP (2018) stages that the Walled Garden could ‘play a strategic role in the survival of a number of garden areas that are under treat due to global warming and sea level rises; namely the formal garden areas close to Portaferry Road. The potential to relocate garden features to the Walled Garden would allow for the long-term survival of the Formal Garden of Mount Stewart’; this should continue to be considered by the National Trust

CAPACITY FOR CHANGE •

•

Continue the current programme begun in the Rose Garden by the restoration of other areas of the Walled Garden, reintroducing historic garden layouts, combining flower with food production.

Continue the restoration of built structures including the reconstruction of the Vinery.

•

Consider the reintroduction of the central ‘Conservatory’ and eastern glasshouses to reflect the historical layout along this wall as seen in historical Ordnance Survey maps and photographs.

•

A scheme of formal planting of flower beds and/or the growing of produce should both be considered in the Southern Garden.

•

261

The Southern Garden and Vinery have excellent capacity for redevelopment. Continuing the restoration of the Rose Garden and Dairy, the National Trust should consider restoration of Lady Edith’s gardens and in the restoration of glasshouses likely to have been extant in the 1920s, based upon historical research. They should continue to be maintained and made accessible to the public. The Gardener’s House is best suited for its original purpose as residential accommodation, but consideration should be given to more appropriate windows and doors, appropriate for a Liam McCormick property. Should a change of use be required the National Trust should resist alteration to the interior including the removal of walls and historic features.

A3.7, A3.8 ORCHARD COTTAGES, FORMER COMMERCIAL AREAS (MIDDLE AND NORTHERN GARDENS) AND WESTERN GARDEN

A3.8 Former Commercial Gardens: Northern Compartment A3.8 Western Compartment: National Trust Propagation Facilities

A3.8 Former Commercial Gardens: Middle Compartment

A3.7 Orchard Cottage 262

A3.7, A3.8 ORCHARD COTTAGES, FORMER COMMERCIAL AREAS (MIDDLE AND NORTHERN GARDENS) AND WESTERN GARDEN

KEY INFORMATION Component Name

Orchard Cottages and Former Commercial Areas and Western Garden.

Date Range

Late 18th century walls. Orchard Cottages: possibly early 19th century with later alterations.

Current Use

Gardens north and east were formerly let for commercial use. NT propogation facilities in the western compartment. Orchard Cottages: privately tenanted.

Historic Uses

Produce gardens/formal gardens. Orchards Cottages: dwellings for staff, potting sheds etc.

Overall Significance

Former commercial areas: low significance with some areas detrimental due to use and condition. Boundary walls: high significance. Orchard Cottages: low significance.

Overall Condition

Boundary walls: Stable.

Designations

Orchard Cottages listed B2 with Farmyard Complex and Dairy (HB24/04/055).

Capacity for Change

Gardens: medium but high capacity for restoration.

Walled Garden

Cottages: high but subject to a third party lease.

263

A3.7, A3.8 ORCHARD COTTAGES, FORMER COMMERCIAL AREAS (MIDDLE AND NORTHERN GARDENS) AND WESTERN GARDEN

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Summary Timeline

1780–1781 The Walled Garden is believed to have been built and the White Syrian vine planted by Alexander Stewart (1699–1781) and his gardener James Wallace. A gardener called William King was employed by Robert Stewart (1739–1821).

1814 In a letter to Lord Castlereagh, the Walled Gardens are described as a desert waste and absolutely nothing in it, vines &c, all [? dead] not a grape, scarce a cabbage. The gardener is dismissed but no successor as yet.04

1781–1789 Robert Stewart’s accounts of 1781–1789 show £945 was spent on gardens and £914 on new offices.01 Anne Casement suggests such a large sum was probably spent mainly on the creation of the Walled Gardens.02 This is supported by accounts showing payments for ‘watering engines, tiles for the hothouse, foreign seeds, fruit trees and shrubs, pineapple plants and exotics.’03

1831 Two young gardeners and a senior gardener were found unconscious in their apartment to the rear of the glasshouses in the Walled Garden. The young boys did not recover and it was discovered they had used hot coals placed in a pot to heat their room which emitted carbon monoxide gas.05

1784–1785 The model farm adjacent to the Walled Garden is believed to have been completed.

1834 The Ordnance Survey map of 1834 is the first known depiction of the Walled Garden, by now already 50 years old. It indicates that the layout of walls has remained largely unchanged to the present. The map also shows the possible layout of beds, planting and provides evidence that the Rose garden and Orchard formed a single unit in a ‘T’ shape. The gardens are laid out into what was essentially a formalised plan. A pathway leads from the southern entrance of the gardens (now the location of the Dairy) up the centre of the gardens. Buildings (assumed to be glasshouses) appear to run along the south facing wall which subdivides the north walled gardens from the south. Evidence for buildings on the north side of this wall is unclear, but it seems likely that they would have existed at this time as part of the maintenance of the hothouses and the gardens. Further walled compartments lie to the north of the glasshouse range and another to the west. Plantations lie to the west of the Walled Gardens as they do today, whilst a demesne road runs along the northern and eastern sides of the garden wall, separating it from the Farmyard to the east.

PRONI D654/H1/1

A Casement, Mount Stewart Landscape Study, 1995, p18

PRONI D3030/P/123

K Haines, ‘Posterity and Posteriors at Mount Stewart’ in Due North, Vol 1, Issue 5, Spring/Summer 2002 264

A3.7, A3.8 ORCHARD COTTAGES, FORMER COMMERCIAL AREAS (MIDDLE AND NORTHERN GARDENS) AND WESTERN GARDEN

1858 The Ordnance Survey map shows few changes but indicates that the earlier layout of planting has changed and the small garden structure in the northern gardens remains.

1935 In the 1935 article The Gardens at Mount Stewart for the RHS Journal, Lady Londonderry describes the history of the white Syrian grape growing in the west pine stove.

1900–1901 The Ordnance Survey map does not indicate the layout of the planting to the gardens although it suggests an orchard exists in the northern-most compartment. The buildings along the central south-facing wall have undergone alteration; centrally placed is a rectangular glasshouse, assumed to be a conservatory captured on early 20th century images.

The article also mentions the old beech hedge which protects the gardens, located between the Western Garden and the northern walled garden. The fruit produced in the walled garden included apricots, figs, peaches, melons and nectarines plus bush and soft fruit.

1911 The 6th Marchioness described an account of the walled garden.06 1921 The 25 inch Ordnance Survey map shows a path through the centre of the garden to the central atrium, also known as the conservatory, but hints at little else. A continuous building is shown on the north side of the wall divided into a series of compartments, likely to be gardener’s store, boiler houses and accommodation.

Second World War The walled gardens played a key role in supplying vegetables and fruit. Vegetables were also grown in the surrounding fields and so successful were they during this period that in 1940, Lady Londonderry considered establishing a canning factory within the demesne.07 c.1949 Lord Londonderry was photographed with his dog in the Walled Garden. Around this time Lady Rose began a commercial venture growing orchids in glasshouses within the compartment adjacent to the Apple Loft. Sadly it was not a success, but a venture ahead of its time no less. 1962 An aerial image of Mount Stewart shows the layout of the Walled Gardens. The compartments north of the glasshouse wall are planted in strips. The historical layout of paths is also discernible but no structures are visible within these areas. The western compartments appear to be laid out to grass.

PRONI D3084/C/B/1/1

Demesne CMP (2018) 5.11.1 265

1971 The most notable change on the 1971 25 inch Ordnance Survey map is the appearance of glasshouses or polytunnels within the northern-most compartment. A small structure lies to the north of the wall which was later replaced with a silage. clamp. Around this time the Hunting Syndicate used the triangular shaped western compartment for rearing phesants. 1980s The archway to the demesne road was increased in height to allow commercial vehicles to enter the Walled Garden. 1996 By 1996 many of the structures which lay along the north-side of the glasshouse wall had been demolished. The Orchard Cottage was refurbished by Lady Mairi Bury and a new approach road and parking provided. A hedge was planted to provide the cottages with privacy. 2010 The National Trust took on the lease of the Walled Gardens and cleared overgrown areas of the gardens. 2014 The Walled Garden was acquired by the National Trust from Lady Rose Lauritzen, daughter of Lady Mairi Bury.

A3.7, A3.8 ORCHARD COTTAGES, FORMER COMMERCIAL AREAS (MIDDLE AND NORTHERN GARDENS) AND WESTERN GARDEN

PRIMARY SOURCES

1834 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1858 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

266

A3.7, A3.8 ORCHARD COTTAGES, FORMER COMMERCIAL AREAS (MIDDLE AND NORTHERN GARDENS) AND WESTERN GARDEN

PRIMARY SOURCES

1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1921 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

267

A3.7, A3.8 ORCHARD COTTAGES, FORMER COMMERCIAL AREAS (MIDDLE AND NORTHERN GARDENS) AND WESTERN GARDEN

PRIMARY SOURCES

Aerial photograph of the Walled Gardens

1971 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

268

A3.7, A3.8 ORCHARD COTTAGES, FORMER COMMERCIAL AREAS (MIDDLE AND NORTHERN GARDENS) AND WESTERN GARDEN

Charles, 7th Marquess of Londonderry in the Walled Gardens

Photograph taken c.1940 of a girl in front of the access to the demene road before the archway was raised c.1980

269

A3.7, A3.8 ORCHARD COTTAGES, FORMER COMMERCIAL AREAS (MIDDLE AND NORTHERN GARDENS) AND WESTERN GARDEN

Plans of Orchard Cottage prior to refurbishment in 1996

270

A3.7, A3.8 ORCHARD COTTAGES, FORMER COMMERCIAL AREAS (MIDDLE AND NORTHERN GARDENS) AND WESTERN GARDEN

CURRENT SITUATION Setting The gardens occupy the area to the north of the Southern Garden compartment. It includes two cottages and outbuildings on the north side of the garden wall formerly potting sheds and gardener’s accommodation. The Farmyard lies to the south-east whilst to the north of the Walled Garden lies farmland and Laundry Cottage. A shelterbelt of trees shown on historical Ordnance Survey maps to the north and east of the Walled Gardens has been depleted in some areas, and removed in others. A redundant silage clamp sits on the north side of the Walled Garden and a portion of the original historical wall has been removed to provide access. Orchard Cottages Orchard Cottages are a pair of dwellings privately let which were not accessed as part of this survey. They probably formed part of the accommodation for gardeners and demesne staff in the 19th and 20th centuries, although elements may once have formed a part of the buildings associated with the gardens (potting sheds, boiler house etc). The building is of one and one-and-a-half-storeys and has a mono-pitch roof constructed against the garden wall. The roof is of slate, with modern rainwater goods, the majority of windows have been replaced with uPVC windows and the walls have a modern cement render. There are three brick stacks to the rear wall. The cottages are accessed from a gabled porch which steps forward. On the east and west elevation of the porch are two lancet windows which suggest the cottages may be of an early 19th century origin. The cottages are flanked to the east and west by single-storey outbuildings.

Prior to their modernisation the attic room accommodation was lit by roof lights. One chimney (to the east) was removed in the later 20th century. The building forms part of a range of structures which formerly stretched along the full north face of the garden wall. In the later 20th century many of these structures were removed as their condition deteriorated. In 1996 the pair of cottages were refurbished and living accommodation was extended. The proposals included: •

re-roofing,

•

the removal of roof lights and construction of gabled dormers and leaded-arched dormers to improve accommodation space on the attics;

•

replacement of the central staircase, and insertion of a new staircase to the eastern cottage;

•

new internal layout with removal and repositioning of stud partitions;

•

stripping-out of lath and plaster ceilings and insertion of modern plasterboard;

•

repair and relaying of floors;

•

new bathrooms and kitchens;

•

repair of windows; and

•

rendered external finish.

The proposals also resulted in new window openings inserted through the south-facing wall.

271

Middle and Northern Walled Gardens A large part of the northern walled garden was recently let to a private nursery grower operating within glasshouses and polytunnels; a working farm partly occupied another area. No historical structures have survived and planting is limited to a few fruit trees and a grownout beech hedge which separates the northern compartment from the western at its northern end. Many of the trees formerly within this area are said to have been removed without permission. A small area has been fenced as grazing for cattle. A former commercial operator removed many of the original fruit tree’s without permission in this section as they interfered with his operations.08 Temporary buildings and a large agricultural shed are intrusive features within the Walled Gardens, as are areas of rubbish and a large spoil heap against the northern wall; the latter was placed there to counter the lateral movement caused by the sileage clamp on the other side of the wall.09 Western Garden The northern part of the western compartment is the location of the National Trust’s own propagation facilities, including a shed, shipping container and number of glasshouses and polytunnels. To the south, the area is laid to grass. The Hunting Syndicate used part of this area as a pheasantry in the later 20th century. The 1971 Ordnance Survey maps indicate that this compartment once featured trees, but these were damaged and killed by goats which were kept in this area by a demesne worker.10 The walls in this area are extensively overgrown with ivy. An historic arched gateway is also located in the western wall with similar dressings to the access arch through the Dairy. A visitor route runs across the western compartment through the disused gardens utilising openings within the walls believed to have been made by the National Trust.

Pers Comm Ken Massey to Andrew Corkill, 25th July 2019

Ibid

A3.7, A3.8 ORCHARD COTTAGES, FORMER COMMERCIAL AREAS (MIDDLE AND NORTHERN GARDENS) AND WESTERN GARDEN

CURRENT STRUCTURE

Orchard Cottages looking south-west

South-facing wall of Orchard Cottages from the Southern Gardens

Outbuilding to the east of Orchard Cottages

Middle Gardens north of Orchard Cottage

Archway raised for commercial vehicle access in the 1980s.

Polytunnels, northern area

272

A3.7, A3.8 ORCHARD COTTAGES, FORMER COMMERCIAL AREAS (MIDDLE AND NORTHERN GARDENS) AND WESTERN GARDEN

CURRENT STRUCTURE

Looking south-west within the northern garden

Redundant sileage clamp

Spoil heap piled against northern garden wall

Cow Byre

Western compartment – looking north

Western compartment – looking south

273

A3.7, A3.8 ORCHARD COTTAGES, FORMER COMMERCIAL AREAS (MIDDLE AND NORTHERN GARDENS) AND WESTERN GARDEN

BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT

Site assessment plans SITE ASSESSMENT PLAN Proposed 1996 alteration This plan is not to scale

Single storey, walls less thick – assumed different phase of construction

Lancet windows

Porch not shown on Ordnance Survey maps until 1900–1901

Former location of fireplace

Stair replaced in 1996

Blocked post 1996

274

A3.7, A3.8 ORCHARD COTTAGES, FORMER COMMERCIAL AREAS (MIDDLE AND NORTHERN GARDENS) AND WESTERN GARDEN

Modern opening in 18th century wall with concrete block reveals

SITE ASSESSMENT PLAN Structures 20th century Key Views Visitor Route Temporary cabin buildings Walls to garden compartments generally constructed with stone exterior face, with brick on the interior

Redundant silage clamp with concrete walls and floor

Modern cow byre

Out-grown beech hedge shown as wall on Ordnance Survey maps

This plan is not to scale

Large polytunnels

Waste dumping Significant ivy growth

Large modern greenhouse

Brick inner face to wall, stone to outer face

Spoil against wall

Large polytunnels

Large modern greenhouses/poly tunnels and back-of-house areas visible to public visitor route to the south

Brick to southern side of wall, stone to northern face

Scrabo stone, arched entrance (moulding similar to farmyard) raised 20th century to allow passage for modern vehicles

Wall a combination of stone and brick on both elevations. Scarring, brick and render indicates location of former glasshouses (south) and gardener’s sheds (north). Also note doorways which linked glasshouses to sheds.

Significant ivy growth

Redundant garden areas Access through wall created by the National Trust for visitor route

North face of wall stone with brick scaring. This and end wall indicates location of former gardener’s sheds.

Orchard Cottages let privately, flanked by storage buildings/garages Private gardens 275

A3.7, A3.8 ORCHARD COTTAGES, FORMER COMMERCIAL AREAS (MIDDLE AND NORTHERN GARDENS) AND WESTERN GARDEN CONDITION

Walled/Kitchen Garden Boundary Walls – all areas

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

Further Investigations

•

Masonry walls, combining stone and brick sections including brick cappings. Some sections rendered.

•

Condition variable across walls; sections of lost/damaged cappings, structural cracking/ deflection; vegetation and intrusive plant growth. Loss of pointing. Large earth heap against north section may need to be removed, subject to advice from Structural Engineer.

Long-term repair/ consolidation plan required, organised by priority and tackled by manageable sections each year. Repairs should be co-ordinated with any capital development/ improvement projects, or changes in occupation of dwellings.

276

Structural Engineer should advise on structural issues and proximity/ implications of earth pile to north.

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

A3.7, A3.8 ORCHARD COTTAGES, FORMER COMMERCIAL AREAS (MIDDLE AND NORTHERN GARDENS) AND WESTERN GARDEN

A3.7

A3.8

Orchard Cottage

Modern structures to north inc polytunnels

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

Further Investigations

•

Roofs: Welsh slate, some slipped/broken. Gaps to pointing in ridge.

•

RWGs: appears generally sound, some re-setting needed to gutter sections where dropped.

•

Masonry: rendered, some crazing and loss of finish noted.

•

Windows/doors: uPVC, satisfactory.

•

Interiors/finishes: not inspected. Understood to have been refurbished in 1996.

•

Modern polytunnels, glasshouses etc. Condition appears generally satisfactory, commensurate with use. Not closely inspected.

Localised repair and redecorations to masonry walling required address guttering and localised roof defects.

277

Interiors to be inspected when appropriate.

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

A3.7, A3.8 ORCHARD COTTAGES, FORMER COMMERCIAL AREAS (MIDDLE AND NORTHERN GARDENS) AND WESTERN GARDEN

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Evidential There is potential that underlying deposits within the Walled Gardens may provide evidence of former uses, planting regimes and lost structures. A GPR survey was carried out by the University of Belfast in 2015 within the Rose Garden and Southern Garden; it indicated evidence of basins (which may have been manmade or possibly geological), plough marks, a possible central pathway and possible flower beds. Further surveys and archaeological investigations within other parts of the Walled Garden have the potential to verify these initial findings and expand our knowledge. There is also potential for further documentary sources to be uncovered which might add to our present understanding of the Walled Gardens. The evidential value of the Walled Gardens is medium. Historical The Walled Gardens have significance as one of the most extensive surviving kitchen gardens in Ulster and Ireland despite the loss of historical layout and planting. The gardens were laid out in the late 18th century and were designed to give shelter to produce grown for the ‘Big House’ and for demesne employees, and to feature as part of the pleasure ground circuit to delight and impress Mount Stewart guests.

The horticultural interest of the gardens lies in the few examples of historical planting which remain, such as the beech hedge, vines and fruit trees, as well as the historical layout of paths and the garden walls. Orchard Cottages are a listed building associated with the operation of the Walled Gardens although the building’s historical integrity has been lessened by its recent refurbishment. Orchard Cottages has low historical value. Aesthetic Whilst horticultural operations within the Walled Garden are appropriate for their setting, their recent operation is largely detrimental to the aesthetic quality of the areas. The concrete modern sheds, sileage clamp and temporary buildings are practical additions to the operation of the farm and the commercial operations but detrimental to the character of the historical Walled Gardens. The use of areas for parking and the dumping of rubbish is also unsympathetic. The aesthetic value of the Middle, Northern and Western Gardens is neutral to intrusive. Orchard Cottages has undergone alteration and modernisation. The curved dormers and uPVC windows are unsympathetic to the listed building. The aesthetic value of Orchard Cottages is low.

The Walled Gardens hold significance for their association with the Londonderry family and for their connection with the ancient grapevine reputed to be the second oldest to that of Hampton Court. The northern areas have lost much of their integrity through the loss of planting and the removal of trees, and many of the gardener’s sheds and glasshouses have been removed. The historical value of the Commercial Areas is medium.

278

Communal The garden areas formerly in commercial use have limited public access but may be glimpsed from the visitor route or through the open gateway. This area has low communal value but high potential for improvement through restoration and replanting. Orchard Cottages are privately let and separated from the public areas of the garden. The communal value is low. Setting The setting of the former commercial areas is restricted due to its high boundary wall. However, the gardens form a part of a wider complex, and are inextricably linked to other elements of the Walled Garden and Farmyard. Contribution to the Wider Demesne and the Mansion House The Orchard Cottages and walled gardens form part of an impressive ensemble of the demesne’s production buildings and areas. As the Demesne CMP (2018) says, ‘the group occupies and defines the working heart of the demesne and sits at the functional and physical centre of the landscape design’ with ‘their great scale reflecting that of the demesne itself ’. They are inextricably linked to the demesne landscape and are therefore of the highest significance to it.

A3.7, A3.8 ORCHARD COTTAGES, FORMER COMMERCIAL AREAS (MIDDLE AND NORTHERN GARDENS) AND WESTERN GARDEN

Key Views The site is divided from the wider demesne landscape by its boundary wall, which restricts setting to a confined area, with short-distance views.

Spoil piled against wall

The visitor route passes through the western compartment and key views are currently restricted to this area from the public path. Views would benefit from improvement through repurposing/reuse of this area. Significance and Capacity for Change plan [floor plan] SIGNIFICANCE Low Neutral Intrusive Negative Views

Waste dumping

(Please refer to the Executive Summary Section 5.0 for an explanation of significance and its relationship to capacity for change) This plan is not to scale

Access through wall created by the National Trust for visitor route

279

A3.7, A3.8 ORCHARD COTTAGES, FORMER COMMERCIAL AREAS (MIDDLE AND NORTHERN GARDENS) AND WESTERN GARDEN

CONSERVATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES •

•

Potential to restore the Walled Gardens area and showcase the skills of the National Trust gardeners, inspired by Lady Edith’s passion and creativity. Potential to take the commercial areas back under the control of the National Trust. Potential to manage the Commercial Areas sympathetically by the National Trust for plant production and commercial operations. The Walled Gardens provide the National Trust with opportunity to expand on or create a different garden experience should the effects of climate change be felt on the formal gardens.

•

Dumped earth against northern wall may destabilise it as sileage clamp is now redundant.

•

Extensive ivy growth and damaging climbers on walls.

•

Cracking and missing capping stones to some areas of wall.

•

New opening formed through historic wall to access intrusive sileage clamp.

•

Overgrown beech hedge.

•

Opportunity to establish the designation status of the Walled Gardens

Continue the current programme begun in the Rose Garden by the restoration of other areas of the Walled Garden, reintroducing historic garden layouts, combining flowers with food production.

•

Issues of wall maintenance to ensure public safety.

•

Potential for below ground archaeology in the foundation of lost structures, paths, other surfaces, features and evidence of planting and gardens layouts.

•

The future use of the Walled Garden should be planned holistically; refrain from piecemeal restoration projects.

Opportunity to increase understanding through documentary and archaeological analysis.

•

The policy recommendation within the Mount Stewart Demesne CMP (2018) states that the Walled Garden could ‘play a strategic role in the survival of a number of garden areas that are under treat due to global warming and sea level rises; namely the formal garden areas close to Portaferry Road. The potential to relocate garden features to the Walled Garden would allow for the long-term survival of the Formal Garden of Mount Stewart’; this should continue to be considered by the National Trust

•

Commercial use resulting in a negative impact on the gardens with intrusive dumping and waste, intrusive horticultural and agricultural structures, use of some areas by cattle. Under use and overgrown areas of the gardens.

Consider the restoration of built structures including the reconstruction of the Vinery and associated structures on the north facing wall.

•

Consider the reintroduction of the central ‘conservatory’ and eastern glasshouses to reflect the historical layout along this wall as seen in historical Ordnance Survey maps and photographs.

•

Take back commercial areas ‘in hand’. Remove all intrusive structures and intrusive poly-tunnels.

•

Urgently remove the silage clamp and reinstate garden walls where commercial operations have removed sections for access.

•

A scheme of formal planting of flower beds and/or the growing of produce should both be considered in the Southern Garden Gardens and northern walled gardens

•

Innovative new-build elements might be appropriate for the northern walled garden including styles inspired by the Cornish Eden Project (for example).

•

Maintain the garden walls. Remove or control invasive growth which may be damaging to foundations and to mortar, destabilising the structure. Excessive growth prevents full appreciation of their archaeological value.

•

Urgently remove spoil against the northern wall of the commercial areas, to prevent its destabilisation.

•

Record all walls and structures prior to change.

PARAMETERS FOR CHANGE •

•

280

A3.7, A3.8 ORCHARD COTTAGES, FORMER COMMERCIAL AREAS (MIDDLE AND NORTHERN GARDENS) AND WESTERN GARDEN

•

Continue a programme of research to add to the understanding of the Walled Garden and associated structures.

•

Public access or interpretation should continue to be improved.

•

Restore/rebuild the section of wall immediately west of the Vinery glasshouse (part of the visitor route).

•

Consider carrying out a programme of archaeological investigation in the walled garden prior to any decision regarding restoration. These may establish former planting schemes and the location of paths and flower bed hinted at in OS maps and within a limited programme of GPR.

CAPACITY FOR CHANGE The commercial and western walled gardens have excellent capacity for redevelopment. The National Trust should holistically plan the future of the Walled Gardens carefully considering the various options. These include the restoration of planting, based upon historical mapping and the running of the northern gardens in-hand, as a commercial operation if sympathetically planned and managed. The northern compartment may be an appropriate location for back-of-house operations required in the maintenance of the Mount Stewart Gardens. The Orchard Cottages are best retained as residences, but consideration should also be given to their potential as a base for National Trust staff managing the gardens.

281

A4.1-A4.4 GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS

282

A4.1-A4.4 GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS

KEY INFORMATION

Component Name

Gamekeeper’s Lodge

Date Range

Gamekeepers: 1817–1819 Kennels: 1834–1858 Ivy Building: 1808–1834

Current Use

Vacant

Historic Uses

Gate Lodge Gamekeeper’s Lodge 1983–2015: base for hunting parties

Overall Significance

High

Overall Condition

Immediate Health and Safety issue

Designations

Capacity for Change

High

A4.1

283

A4.1-A4.4 GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Summary Timeline The expenditure for the construction of the Mount Stewart lodges is mentioned within accounts within the demesne’s archives held in PRONI, but it is difficult to establish which lodges are being referred to. These entries are as follows: 1817 New Porter Lodge and Approach £99.1.6. 1818 New Porter Lodge and Approach £51.3.5½. 1819 New Porter Lodged Dr to Rev J Cleland. £34.4.3½. 1858 By 1858, the kennels had been added. 1883 The porch was added. 1911 The McDonald Family were living in the lodge.

1933 Shown as ‘The Gamekeeper’s House’ with the ‘Kennels and Lumber House’ adjacent on a sketch plan of the demesne. 1950s–1960s The Lodge was lived in by Jim McDonald and his wife. 1979 Shooting rights granted to Dr David Park for a period of 35 years. The Hunting Syndicate was established. 1982 Lady Mairi offered the Hunting Syndicate the use of the Lodge as a base. Following extensive repairs, they moved into the building the following year. January 2015 The Gamekeeper’s Lodge was vacated by the Syndicate and is now in severe decline.

Jim MacDonald, Gamekeeper, c.1930.

284

A4.1-A4.4 GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS

The Mount Stewart gate lodges date to the early 19th century and are typical of ‘Gothicised’ demesne buildings and summerhouses in Northern Ireland. The Gamekeeper’s Lodge has been described as a ‘toy fort’,01 and is more elaborate than the other lodges. It was originally associated with an entrance on the former northern boundary of the demesne along what was then the Millisle Road. The construction of the demesne lodges is mentioned within the PRONI Londonderry Papers; in 1817 £99 was spent on ‘New porters lodge and approach’. £51 was spent on the same in 1818 and another ‘porters lodge’ appears in 1819 when £34 was spent. It seems likely that these entries relate to Greyabbey Gate Lodge and the Gamekeeper’s Lodge.

A date plaque within the porch formerly read ‘built 1883’. It seems likely that this referred to the date of the construction of the timber porch. The date plaque has now been painted over.03 A photograph of the Lodge dating to the early 20th century shows the MacDonald family posing in front of the Gamekeeper’s Lodge. Sitting are Robert and wife Jane, whilst their children James, Agnes, Isabella and John stand behind them.04 The Lodge is well kept and set in neat gardens with roses growing up the front wall. The

fenestration is similar to the present arrangement and the exterior walls appear to be painted render. The family were from Scotland and Robert MacDonald and his son James were gamekeepers at Mount Stewart. Robert, from Tarbert, is also believed to have worked on the Glamis Estate when Elizabeth the Queen Mother was growing up. In 1911, the Census also records living with Robert and James were Robert’s wife, and daughter Agnes in a fourroomed house.

Although originally sited on the Millisle road, the Lodge faces away from the former highway to the south suggesting that it was intended to be viewed as the site was approached from the south-east and south-west. Around the time of the Lodge’s construction, plans were already being mooted to alter the line of the Millisle road and take part of the Ballycastle townland into the demesne; the orientation may have anticipated this change and in the building’s use. It has not been possible to establish the architect responsible and they may also be the product of a local builder, familiar with the style of similar-styled buildings, particularly those associated with Rosemount House.02

The MacDonald family posing in front of the Lodge in the early 20th century 01

C Gallagher etc al, ‘Mount Stewart Demesne, County Down, Northern Ireland’, 2018 (unpublished report), p52

Department for Communities, Listed building database HB24/04/054 Available at: https://www.communities-ni.gov.uk/services/buildings-database

Pers Comm Dr Michael Park to Andrew Corkill Nov 2019

Pers Comm Andrew Corkill, NT, 01/01/2020] 285

A4.1-A4.4 GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS

The building was known as the ‘Gamekeeper’s House’ in a sketch of the demesne in 1933, suggesting it was still occupied. The ‘Kennels and Lumber House’ are also shown.05 Dolly McRoberts, a Mount Stewart resident since 1958, recalls the Gamekeepers’ Lodge was occupied by Jim McDonald and his wife when she came to the demesne. At some point in the 1960s, the building fell vacant.06 A photograph of the Lodge from 1967 shows the Lodge’s external walls rendered but unpainted – perhaps suggesting it had by now been re-rendered in cement. The gardens are less well kept. The Hunting Syndicate, who were initially based in Ros Cuan, moved their base to the Gamekeeper’s Lodge in 1983. The building was heavily restored at this time including the removal of a suspended ceiling, exposing the vaulted ceiling, the replacement of the failing roof with corrugated sheeting and substantial replastering of the walls and ceiling. By this time the outbuildings had largely been removed, though remains of a quarry tile floor were still visible. The portacabin was added to provide additional space for the Beaters.07

The Lodge in 1967. The picture shows the former Gamekeeper James MacDonald’s wife.

The Hunting Syndicate outside of the Lodge

Following the sites vacancy in January 2015, the building’s condition has again deteriorated, and it now requires urgent works to prevent further loss.

PRONI D.654/M/71/13

Pers Comm: Dolly McRoberts to Andrew Corkill, 25th July 2019

Pers Comm Dr Michael Park to Andrew Corkill Nov 2019

Pre-1911 photo of Gamekeepers Lodge with the MacDonald Family (Father, Sons and dog

286

Jim MacDonald, Mount Stewart Gamekeeper, c.1930

A4.1-A4.4 GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS

PRIMARY SOURCES N

1834 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1858 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

The earliest representation of the Lodge shows an ‘L’ shaped structure at the junction of a number of tree-lined tracks and set within a small enclosure. Two small structures are indicated to the northeast one of which is likely to be the ruinous ivy-covered building adjacent to the Lodge. The townland boundary runs along the line of the old Millisle road beside the building. The main frontage faces south but without a porch, with a rear projection to the north-west. The plan also defines the enclosing wall of the rear yard. By the time of the first Ordnance Survey map, the building’s role as a gate lodge had already been superseded by the newer North Gate Lodge.

The 1858 Ordnance Survey map shows the lodge, kennels and unidentified ivy-covered building set within woodland criss-crossed by a network of paths. The ‘L’ shape and irregularity of the north-west projection is consistent with the remains of the north-west rear wall. Additional drives are depicted and there is a deliberate re-direction of the drive further away from the Lodge, to intersect with the main junction to the north.

287

A4.1-A4.4 GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS

1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map 6 Inch

1921 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

The 1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map is of poor quality and it is difficult to establish any clear changes to the site. However, the kennels and adjacent out-building can be discerned.

There is little change from the 1900–1901 Ordnance Survey plan that can be clearly identified. However, a ‘P’ indicates the location of a water pump. The kennels has an extension on the north facing elevation and it clearly indicates the addition of the porch to the Gamekeeper’s Lodge.

288

A4.1-A4.4 GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS

1933 Plan of Demesne

1971 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

The sketch map of the demesne dated 1933 in PRONI shows the Gamekeeper’s Lodge (20) and the Kennels and Lumber House (21) to the north.

The 1971 25 inch Ordnance Survey map shows development within the setting of the Lodge, with a large structure (the sawmill) to the north-east. It also suggests that the outbuildings to the Lodge were still extant at this time.

289

A4.1-A4.4 GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS

CURRENT SITUATION Setting When first built in the early 19th century, the Gamekeeper’s Lodge would have been a prominent building on rising ground beside an entrance to the demesne from the Millisle road. Today, its setting has dramatically altered; the demesne boundary has moved north, and the building is now set within commercial forestry with limited views both into and out of the site. A modern shed formerly used as a sawmill is located to the north-east. Other adjacent buildings, including a kennel, are derelict. Exterior Gamekeeper’s Lodge The building is a single-storey, two-celled structure with battered walls covered in cement render over stone walls; the render has been lined-out to give the impression of ashlar. It was designed in a Gothick-style and has been described as a ‘toy fort’ or fortlet due to the battering of the walls and mock crenellations and towers. The building is three bays wide; the central pointed arched doorway is now obscured by a later Victorian timber porch; this central bay is set-back slightly from the flanking bays which give the bays the appearance of corner towers. The flanking bays are each set with a single window, with Gothick pointed-arches and plainlymounded surrounds. The timber casements are modern, and may have originally contained casements with ‘Y’ tracery.

The parapet hides a modern lean-to corrugated roof. Walls project from the rear of the building, enclosing a small yard (one wall incorporating a chimney). The yard walls, although now rendered, evidence the likely existence of a number of rear extensions. The varying pitches to the walls would suggest three separate phases of construction of outbuildings, although all were demolished between 1921 and 1983. The yard is now occupied by a modern portacabin. The Kennels The kennels comprise a rectangular stone structure with a series of caged runs along the southern elevation. The roof of the kennels has been modified to mono-pitch in breeze-block with a corrugated covering. The structure is constructed of coursed rubble stone with sandstone quoins. There is a blocked door on the west elevation There are remains of a brick stack on the east elevation though no corresponding hearth could be found internally. The kennels has five outdoor runs which are enclosed by metal fences with a modern corrugated roof which rest on cement rendered stone walls. The railings to two runs to the left (east) were supplied by Boulton & Paul of Norwich.08

Above each window and the central doorway are blind quatrefoils with plainly-moulded surrounds. The walls are topped with mock crenellations and pyramidal finials, which continue on the east and west elevations. 08

Boulton & Paul traded under the name from 1887 onwards. They became successful general manufacturers by the turn of the century and were manufacturing wire netting, and horticultural buildings by 1914 before diversifying into aircraft. Other Boulton & Paul products have been found elsewhere in the demesne (Grace’s Guide to British Industrial History https:// www.gracesguide.co.uk/Boulton_and_Paul. Last accessed 19th November) 290

Ivy Covered Building The ivy covered building is rectangular and built of coursed stone rubble with stone quoins (repaired in brick). The building is roofless, but originally appears to have been a one-and-a-half storey structure with a pitched slate roof. Part of the ground floor (or basement?) was accessed via a timber louvred door in the north gable end. The ground floor was divided by a wall which supported a floor above. Access to the other half of the ground floor/basement is more problematic to define, but two small openings are placed low on the south elevation. The first floor was accessed from an external door (via timber ladder or steps?) set in the south gable end (now partially collapsed). A number of metal decorative vents on the north gable wall and the louvre door suggest a need for ventilation and indicates that the building was probably used for storage or drying. A square opening on the west elevation appears to be a later insertion. Openings have brick dressings.

A4.1-A4.4 GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS

Interior Gamekeeper’s Lodge The Lodge is entered from the timber porch, which is set with two small timber seats and has a stone tiled floor. Internally, the Lodge is divided into two rooms with access to the portacabin to the rear. The larger room is entered directly from the porch and both rooms have vaulted ceilings, continuing the Gothick character. The larger room contains a fireplace (the grate is a later insert). This is flanked by two recesses, now fitted with modern cupboards. The second, smaller room is fitted out with a modern kitchen. The floors are carpeted, covering a partially suspended timber floor. The interior is in an overall poor condition with signs of water and vegetation ingress.

Kennels The interior of the kennels originally comprised five interlinked units, each with access into an animal run. A number of connecting doors have been bricked up whilst a number of ledged and braced doors remain. The walls have a cement render with a painted dado and there is evidence that the roof was once double-pitched. The kennels has been subject to a fire with evidence of scorched doors and door frames.

Key Features Gamekeeper’s Lodge • Gothick-style. • Fortlet appearance – battered walls, crenellations and pyramidal finials. • Pointed-arched windows and doors. • Vaulted ceilings. • Remnants of outbuildings in an irregularly shaped yard.

Ivy Covered Building Not accessed.

Kennels • Solid stone construction. • Dog runs with historic fencing. Ivy Covered Building • Ruinous. • Picturesque nature.

Gamekeeper’s Lodge

Front elevation from the south-west

West elevation

East elevation

291

A4.1-A4.4 GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS

Gamekeeper’s Lodge

Rear Elevation

Main room looking east

Vaulted ceiling

Date plaque thought to have read 1883, now overpainted

292

A4.1-A4.4 GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS

Kennels

South elevation of the kennels

Ledged and braced door showing signs of burning

East elevation with chimney stack and coat hooks. Note concrete foundation in the foreground.

East elevation showing historic railing on stone walling

One of the five dog runs with historic gate and railings

North elevation

Interior

293

A4.1-A4.4 GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS

Ivy Covered Building

South elevation and modern toilet

West elevation showing later (?) window

North elevation

West and south elevation

Interior. Note holes for ventilation in basement level?

The first floor opening south elevation

294

A4.1-A4.4 GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS

BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT: GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE Pyramidal finial

Modern stock-brick chimneys on each side elevation Mock crenellations

Blind quatrefoils

Battered walls

Y-tracery lost (?) Casements in-situ c.1900. Present windows c.1980

Scrabo stone surrounds

Low plinth

Lined-out cement render with rubble beneath?

Porch – later addition in 19th century

295

A4.1-A4.4 GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS

GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT PLAN Phase 1: c.1817 Phase 2: c.1817–1834 Phase 3: c.1858 and later 20th century Timber suspended floor Assumed roofscapes or rear outbuildings – three possible phases identified

23 03 24

07 20 08 09

21 10 14

19 18

14 17

11 15

01 20th century harling or cement pebble-dashed render 02 Gutter bracket 03 Direction of slope 04 Brick chimney stack 05 Wall steps up 06 Corrugated roof sloping down from front to back – possible evidence of a second floor? 07 Ivy ingress 08 Recesses now with modern shelves 09 Later fireplace without mantle or surround 10 Internal roof structure is Gothick stone pointedarch vaulting 11 Modern window seat 12 Stone step and plinth, arched opening 13 19th century garden-style porch added believed to have been added in 1883. Timber plaque with this date, now over-painted. Timber planking, stone floor tiles 14 Radiator 15 Decorative bargeboards 16 Former date plaque(?) 17 Concrete/lino 18 Modern boiler 19 Modern kitchen fit-out 20 Coat hooks 21 Arched casement windows 22 External chimney stack, not visible internally 23 Thicker wall possibly indicates chimney stack 24 Opening possibly second/later phase This plan is not to scale

296

A4.1-A4.4 GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS

BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT: THE KENNELS AND IVY BUILDING Timber structure supports modern roof of corrugated sheeting

Sandstone quoins

Dog runs

Roughly courses stone rubble

Low stone walls with cement render Late 19th century or early 20th century metal gates and railings

Roof modified in breeze block with corrugated covering – formerly doublepitched roof

297

A4.1-A4.4 GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS

THE KENNELS AND IVY BUILDING BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT PLAN 1834–1858 Assumed Early 19th century 01 19th century ventilation grilles 02 Timber louvred door suggest need for ventilation 03 Modern WC of no interest 04 Low level openings to access/light basement area? 05 Noted on 1933 demesne map as a ‘lumber house’. Possible other uses suggested include smoke house, game pantry and gate lodge 06 Dividing wall supports floor to first floor 07 Later opening 08 Railings and gates late 19th century or early 20th century 09 Concrete 10 Modern mesh fencing attached to older railings 11 Block external door 12 Internal opening blocked to form store 13 Internal opening blocked 14 Hounds and ferrets kept here during the 1950s (per comm Lady Rose) 15 Brick stack 16 Decorative coat hooks 17 Concrete base, associated with a lost building shown on 1971 Ordnance Survey map

16 15

02 14

06 04

08 07 01

05 09

12 09 10

This plan is not to scale

298

A4.1-A4.4 GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS CONDITION

A4.1

Gamekeepers Lodge

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

•

Roofs: temporary metal sheet, failing and allowing water ingress.

•

Rainwater Goods (RWGs): defective/obsolete.

•

Masonry: rendered, cracking and crazing noted, condition beneath render unclear. Saturation possible.

•

Windows/doors: timber, localised rot, deterioration of surface finishes.

•

Interiors/finishes: paint/ plasterwork failing throughout. Evidence of significant ingress.

Further Investigations

Major repairs and reinstatement needed. In the meantime keep secure and monitor for further deterioration.

299

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

A4.1-A4.4 GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS

A4.2

Kennels

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

•

Roofs: temporary metal sheet, failing and allowing water/vegetation ingress.

•

RWGs: defective/obsolete

•

Masonry: open joints, vegetation, gradual destabilisation of chimneys.

•

A4.3

Unknown structure

•

Further Investigations

Major repairs needed. Keep secure and monitor for further deterioration.

Interiors/finishes: commensurate with former use, surface deterioration and evidence of ingress. Masonry structure only partially inspected. Significant vegetation cover and penetration into masonry.

•

Stability of fabric not known. Prioritise security. Major repairs/ reinstatement needed.

•

300

Further safe inspection required.

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

A4.1-A4.4 GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS

A4.4

Modern structure

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

•

Roofs: metal sheet. Some lifting and allowing vegetation growth, ingress.

•

RWGs: defective/obsolete.

•

Masonry: masonry piers and substructure, sheet metal cladding/partitions. Some puncturing, surface damage, corrosion.

•

Windows/doors: timber glazed, deteriorating.

•

Interiors/finishes: failing, condition commensurate with meanwhile use.

Further Investigations

Repairs required to prevent ingress.

301

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

A4.1-A4.4 GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Summary The Gamekeeper’s Lodge is of value as a surviving gate lodge exhibiting the Gothick-style and an original floor plan. It therefore has group value with the demesne’s other Gothick-style gate lodges built around the same time. It is the most ambitious of the gate lodges, with interesting architectural features including the blind-quatrefoils and pyramidal finials. Although the architect is unknown, the style is typical of this type built at the end of the 18th century or start of the 19th century. The date of construction is supported by historical documentary sources. Evidential The simple plan form holds some evidential value for lodge buildings constructed at the start of the 19th century and suggests a simple layout of a living-kitchen space and separate bedroom. The walls of a rear yard evidence the former existence of additional outbuildings which appear to have been built in three phases and included a scullery with chimney stack and outside WC. Internally, the building has been modernised. It is possible that evidence of original fittings and finishes lie beneath modern plaster, fitted furniture, paint and floor coverings. Archival sources have suggested an approximate date for the building’s construction, but other information such as the architect have yet to be established. The Kennel is an example of a building type from the 19th century which, although altered, has largely retained its plan form and a number of historic features.

Due to its condition there is still much to learn about the ivy covered building through a closer inspection of the historic fabric. It is still unclear what the original purpose of the building was and how it functioned. This adds to its evidential value. As a collection, the buildings have medium evidential value. Historical The Lodge is an example of the Gothick-style of architecture which was fashionable in the late 18th and early 19th century. It is significant for its historical connections with the Mount Stewart demesne and as one of a number of possible architectdesigned gate houses built for Robert Stewart, the 1st Marquess of Londonderry, at a time when the house and demesne were undergoing significant improvements. The building is also associated with the Millisle road which was removed when the demesne was enlarged in the early 19th century. The Lodge and the kennels are firmly associated with hunting and shooting, which were an important pursuit during the 19th and 20th centuries. The connection has lasted until recent decades. The Kennel and ivy covered building have group value with the Lodge which is of high historical value. Aesthetic Although now vacant and in a deteriorating condition, the Gamekeeper’s Lodge is probably the most ambitious of the Mount Stewart gate houses. Particular features of aesthetic value are: the pointed-arched windows; battered walls; blind quatrefoils; crenellations; pyramidal finials; and vaulted ceilings. The aesthetic appearance could be improved through restoration, a removal of the cement render and a new use for the Lodge and surrounding associated structures. At present the aesthetic value of the lodge is medium.

302

Communal Communal value is currently limited as the former gatehouse is not generally viewed or visited by the public, the interior is inaccessible, and views of the building are very limited in its setting. There is high potential to improve communal significance for the whole site through future uses. Setting The building’s setting has undergone significant change since its construction, with the removal of the Millisle road, its change of use from a gatehouse to a gamekeeper’s lodge and the later establishment of commercial forestry around the site. This now limits views in and out of the site. The modern corrugated shed has a negative impact on the site’s setting. The vacancy and neglect of surrounding buildings contribute to the setting’s overall character of neglect and decay. Contribution to the Wider Demesne and the Mansion House The site contributes to our understanding of the development of the demesne and and is an important element of the setting of Mount Stewart House although it is currently in a neglected state.

A4.1-A4.4 GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS

Key Views The site is located within dense woodland. As such there are no long distance views of the site from within the demesne and only a number of key views of the principal elevation. The site sits on elevated ground with the land falling away to the south and south-west. Historically, it may have originally been intended as an eye-catcher from the old Portaferry Road. Although it is currently difficult to establish historical views from the building, it seems likely that it once had views of Strangford Lough to the west and south-west. Historical views could be revealed through clearance of the commercial forestry to the south and south-west.

Sawmill Kennels

Ivy covered building (game store?) KEY VIEWS AND ASSOCIATED DESIGNATIONS Gamekeeper’s Lodge Key Views Historic routes shown on the 1834 Ordnance Survey map Lost views

o ine

f th

le illi s

ad Ro

This plan is not to scale Base plan © GoogleEarth

303

t he Line of

Millisle

Road

A4.1-A4.4 GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS

GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE SIGNIFICANCE AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE PLAN High Medium Low Neutral Intrusive (Please refer to the Executive Summary Section 5.0 for an explanation of significance and its relationship to capacity for change) This plan is not to scale

Modern kitchen fit-out: Intrusive All modern fixtures and fit-out, including carpets: Intrusive Security lighting: Intrusive

Modern shelving: Intrusive

Security lighting: Intrusive

304

A4.1-A4.4 GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS

THE KENNELS AND IVY BUILDING SIGNIFICANCE AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE PLAN High Medium Low Neutral Intrusive

Railings of historical value

(Please refer to the Executive Summary Section 5.0 for an explanation of significance and its relationship to capacity for change) This plan is not to scale

305

A4.1-A4.4 GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS

CONSERVATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

PARAMETERS FOR CHANGE

Condition: • There is no interpretation for visitors who make it this far into the demesne.

•

The site is overgrown and public access is prohibited.

•

The setting has changed considerably since the Lodge was built, including the removal of the former road and demesne boundary further north. The site is now set in commercial woodland and former views have been lost.

•

There is high potential to restore the structure and the Kennels to a variety of new uses.

The external appearance should be maintained or improved including maintenance of surrounding grounds and removal of portacabin.

•

Urgent works are required to the roof covering and the overall condition should be improved, including the removal of cement renders.

•

A programme of long-term maintenance and repair should be implemented following the stabilisation and repair of the building.

•

The principle of maximum historic fabric retention should be followed; of particular importance are the building envelope, decorative features and internal vaulting.

•

Any change should respect the character, scale and massing of the current building.

•

Listed Building Consent is required prior to any material impact on significance.

•

The pattern of fenestration and doors should be guided by historical research both of the building and of buildings of a similar-style and date, both within the demesne and found more widely.

306

•

The modest size of the building makes the interior and principal elevation and setting to the south sensitive to new development.

•

There is potential for expansion of the limited accommodation within the rear yard following removal of the portacabin.

•

New work within the rear yard should be guided by the height and former roof pitches evidenced within the yard walls.

•

Work with bodies to improve the current wooded setting. Consider possible solutions to open up views and vistas both from and to the building.

•

Plans for the Lodge should also include the retention and consider future uses of the Kennels. New uses should be considerate of its association with dogs and hunting within the wider history of Mount Stewart.

•

Consider managing the ivy covered building as consolidated ruin.

•

The sawmill is of detrimental value to the building’s setting and should be removed.

•

Given the vacancy and condition of the structures, ensure a full ecological survey has been carried out as part of any future project.

•

Consider restoring the date plaque in the porch through careful paint removal by a specialist.

A4.1-A4.4 GAMEKEEPER’S LODGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS

CAPACITY FOR CHANGE •

New uses should be appropriate to its size and former uses and may include: o

holiday let;

long-term let;

form part of the visitor experience and include interpretive materials; and/or

Ranger’s office

307

B1 MOUNTSTEWART SCHOOL

308

B1 MOUNTSTEWART SCHOOL

KEY INFORMATION

Component Name

Mountstewart School

Date Range

1813

Current Use

Offices, storage and residential

Historic Uses

School and schoolhouse

Overall Significance

High

Overall Condition

Sound

Designations

B1 (HB24/04/059)

Capacity for Change

Medium/High

309

B1 MOUNTSTEWART SCHOOL

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Summary Timeline 1812 Erasmus Smith School Trust agreed to establish a school at Mount Stewart and at Comber. His Lordship provided an acre of ground at each and money to fit out both schools. The Erasmus Smith Board of Register states on 25 Feb 1812: ‘At Cumber and Mount Stuart in the County of Down, provided The Earl of Londonderry will grant an Acre of ground each in perpetuity at a peppercorn Rent instead of the Annuities of £10 each which his Lordship proposed to give, and on his paying £100 for fitting up each School.’ Many of the several hundred Erasmus Smith schools were established between 1810 and 1820, usually on the land of the main local landowner or on church glebe lands. A plan of 1813 shows the Mountstewart school was situated on the northwestern edge of the demesne. The school would have taught lessons entirely in English, hence they were called ‘English Schools’. The schools ran on the basis that the local community or patron would pay for half of the teacher’s salary, for half of any repairs and maintenance and for half of the books and equipment required for teaching. In the beginning, the English Schools were to provide basic education for tenants’ children and then other poor children in the parish, often both Protestant and Catholic.01 David Geddas Jnr, map of the intended site of the school, 1813

Erasmus Smith Schools Archive: History https://erasmussmithschools.ie/ history/[Last accessed 24th October 2019]

310

B1 MOUNTSTEWART SCHOOL

1812 cont’d Historical plans within the Erasmus Smith Schools archive, show a proposed design for the approval of Viscountess Castlereagh which was to be adopted for both schools. The building was to be ‘Gothick’ in style, 72ft in length with a centrally placed door flanked by two sets of windows with ‘Y’ tracery and leaded lights. The right-hand portion contained a small schoolhouse simply laid out and comprising a bedroom, sitting room, pantry and scullery. On the roof was to be a small bellcote topped by pyramidal finials and a short spire. The building was to be one of a number of Gothick-style structures built within the demesne at that time. The school at Comber was captured in drawings and photographs before it was destroyed in a fire in the early 20th century. It shows that the builders did not stray far from the original architect’s design, although it was built a bay wider at each end. The school at Mount Stewart appears also to have been built largely to this plan, although the measurements do not fully conform. It was built with a symmetrical frontage of five bays wide with very modest accommodation for the schoolmaster.

’Schools at Comber and Mount Stewart’, 1812

311

B1 MOUNTSTEWART SCHOOL

1813 The school was built in 1813 as evidenced by a plaque on the principal façade which reads: ‘This School Founded AD 1813 by Viscountess Castlereagh & The Govrs of Erasmus Smith Schools.’ 02 Robert Morrow was appointed Master. 1814 The school is mentioned in a letter in August from Charles Stewart to Lord Castlereagh as he describes various works on the demesne: ‘There are many small improvements, school houses, bath, dairy, &c., built, but nothing of much importance’.03 The Mount Stewart accounts include entries for the ‘Lancastrian School Mount Stewart’. Payments to The Reverend John Clelland in July and August of 1814 for £83.7.0 and £24.19.10 are most probably for the construction and equipping of the new school. 1820 Lord Castlereagh writes to his wife and describes various changes taking place on the demesne. He plans to increase the tree belt along the Newtown road ‘by the schoolhouse, so as to enclose the whole in wood’.

The plaque is likely to have been relocated to its current position when the building was extended, and the Masters’ quarters raised by a storey.

D3030/P/123 22nd August 1814

1829 Arthur Bell is appointed as Master. 1830s Noted in the Ordnance Survey memoirs as a ‘neat schoolhouse’ with an attendance of 45 pupils, both male and female. 1839 Following a storm on 6th January, the Governors grant the school £1:0:06 for repairs. 1834 The schoolhouse is shown on the Ordnance Survey map as a simple rectangular structure aligned with the Portaferry road. It is annotated as ‘School Ho’. Three small square structures are evident to the rear within the boundary and are assumed to be outhouses. A small path leads to the school from the north with the principal access from the Portaferry road. 1836 Martha Taylor is appointed as Mistress to the school. In June of that year the Master is ordered to ‘restore’ the schoolroom ‘to its original size’, suggesting they had perhaps subdivided the space. 1841 The Governors have no objection to the appointment by Lord Londonderry of a teacher to instruct needlework. William Taylor is appointed as Master of the school following the resignation of Arthur Bell. In November of that year the Governors agree to an ‘exchange of the ground belonging to Mountstewart School, for an equal extent outside his Lordship’s demesne.’ The following year the Master applies for a water pump to be installed at the school, following the loss of a well which formed part of the land exchange.

312

March 1842 The Governor’s request that the girls and boys at the school are taught in separate classrooms. June 1844 An application is made to the Governors to instruct the children at singing. April 1846 An application is made to the Governors for the schoolmasters’ apartments to be extended and for a wall which ‘intersects the Garden’ to be removed. The Board refuse changes to the schoolhouse due to a lack of funds but give their permission to remove the wall. The building may perhaps have been modestly extended at this time to the south-east using alternative funds. June 1847 A report is sent to Lord Londonderry from the Board recommending that an assistant be appointed to the school. 1852 William Taylor writes to the Governors to ask to be moved to a different school. The following year he is asking to be moved to Comber, and his son James appointed to Mount Stewart in his stead. 1855 The Reverend Pooler writes to the Governors asking if they would assist in paying for the construction of a Girls School at Mount Stewart. It was common within Victorian schooling that the sexes were taught separately; this might include a segregation in the playground and separate entrances. The original plans for the school show it was originally intended to have just one room, which would have made segregation problematic.

B1 MOUNTSTEWART SCHOOL

1857 Monies were given for the repair and repainting of the school as noted in the Erasmus Smith Board of Register. 1858 The Ordnance Survey map annotates the building as ‘Mounstewart School’ and shows the building as a simple rectangle; no additions to the rear are apparent. The boundaries to the plot have changed and there is an offset pathway leading to the front elevation; this has led to a suggestion that the north-west portion of the building has been removed.04 An alternative suggestion is that the building had received a small extension to the south-east. Perhaps an extension to the schoolmaster’s accommodation. The rear yard has been enclosed and subdivided. William MacMillen is appointed as schoolmaster following William Taylor’s resignation. 1862 In March the Governors of the Erasmus Smith Trust request that the ‘Male and Female Pupils at Mountstewart shall be instructed in their respective schoolrooms’. The request was to be ‘further considered’ by Lord Londonderry. Does this suggest that two schoolrooms existed, but classes were mixed? 1865 The chaplain to the Marchioness, Reverend Poole, wrote to the Governors requesting the Master is dismissed. The misdemeanour is not explained.

1866 Mr O’Flaherty, formerly teaching at the Mission School in Kiel Co. Kerry, is recommended to the Governors by the Reverend James Whiteside, vicar of Muckamore. It is unclear if he and his wife are accepted to the teaching posts. 1867 The Governors grant £6.5.9 (half of the estimated costs) for repairs and repainting. March 1869 The school gates and fences are damaged by a storm. An application is made to the Erasmus Smith Board for funds to repair the damage. The request is refused. July 1872 Henry Campbell is appointed to the school. Catherine Campbell is appointed in December that year. April 1873 ‘Mountstewart Female School’ is referred to in the Erasmus Smith Board of Register when a Mrs Rosanna Campbell is refused payment of £3.6.8 for teaching. Does this imply that an extension has been provided to warrant this description ‘Female School’? The Erasmus Smith Trust was experiencing financial difficulties and had no monies to pay so it is likely to have been funded from another source.05

05 04

See Casement, 1995, Appendix 8

A check of the accounts found in PRONI have not yet revealed any additional information of funding such projects.

313

May 1877 ‘Mountstewart Male and Female’ is referred to in Governors’ minutes. The Inspector reports to the Governors of the ‘insufficient progress’ at the school by the children. Both teachers are to be warned that improvement must be made by the next inspection or they will be dismissed. January 1878 Schoolmaster William Taylor requests a salary rise which is refused by the Board. Taylor and his wife made a further application in November and are supported by the Reverend Goldsmith. In December this is again refused – they claim that he is already receiving a payment larger than most in their employ. The Female School is placed under the Erasmus Smith scheme. June 1880 William Taylor repeats his request for a salary rise and is again refused. June 1883 By the mid-1800s the financial burden of running the Erasmus Smith schools was so great that they were forced to relinquish a number of schools in their care. It was during this period that many schools closed or became National Schools. The Erasmus Smith Board of Register records that the Trust struggled to maintain the school at Mount Stewart and toyed with giving it up on various occasions. In June 1883 it was decided to ‘discontinue’ their support for the school. However, in August of the same year, the school was given a stay of execution due to the protestations of the Reverend Goldsmith and due to William Taylor’s age and long service – on the proviso he ‘continues efficient’.

B1 MOUNTSTEWART SCHOOL

1884–1885 The Mount Stewart accounts for 1884–1885 detail payments for teachers’ wages, books, toys and prizes at Mount Stewart, Comber and Newtownards. The teachers at Mount Stewart are W Taylor, Mary and E Taylor, assumed to be his wife and daughter. February 1885 The ‘inefficiency of the Teachers’ is reported to Governors who issue a written warning. November 1886 Martha Taylor, William Taylor’s daughter, is appointed as school mistress alongside her father. January 1888 William Taylor is given a warning by the Board of his inefficiency and ‘an enquiry made as to why he was appointed at such an advanced age’. In March, Taylor makes enquiries with the board regarding a pension. The Governors make no assurances. April 1888 The Inspector recommends that the school be discontinued. As it was well-attended, the Inspector felt that it would likely obtain a grant from the National Board. The school was discontinued in November of that year. The long-standing Master William Taylor at 73 years was granted a pension of £30 for life (£10 of which is granted to his daughter ). He accepts in October 1888.06 The Mount Stewart accounts also detail a payment to William Taylor of £5.15.0 in November of the following year. Thereafter, quarterly payments are made to James Millar assumed to be Taylor’s successor.

A note in the Erasmus Smith Archives says that William Taylor was a teacher at the school for 22 years when he retired in 1888. In 1902 he is said to be residing in Bangor where he had fallen ill following a stroke. His daughter applied to the Erasmus Smith Trust for monies and was granted £5.

1892 James Morrison becomes the schoolmaster. 1900–1901 The 1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map shows that the school has now been extended. It is unclear when this took place. Given the financial difficulties of the Erasmus Smith School Trust in the latter half of the 19th century, it seems likely that any extension or improvements came until after the Erasmus Smith Schools relinquished their support or they were funded by the Marquess. A small projection (probably the porch) lies to the front, and a projection to the rear. Two outbuildings are shown, and the overall boundary appears unchanged. Two routes lead from the site to the east and north-east. 1901 The Census returns show James Morrison is still the schoolmaster at Mount Stewart, and living there along with his wife Maryanne, their four children and James’ brother William John Morrison, also a school teacher. They are living in a house with five to six rooms and five windows to the front elevation. This would concur with the schoolhouse accommodation adjacent to the schoolroom. 1911 The schoolmaster is now Frederick Morrison, listed as a ‘National School Teacher’ on the Census return. He is living with his wide Hannah, their two children, sister-in-law and a servant. 1914 Fred Morrison is paid as schoolmaster of £7.10.0 by Mount Stewart.07

PRIONI D654/H/2/13 314

1921 The 1921 Ordnance Survey map appears to show little change from the earlier map. However, the 25 inch version shows an additional outbuilding to the north. The garden is further defined and there is clear division between the schoolrooms and the accommodation. 1933 A schematic map of the demesne does not show the school, indicating that it was not considered to be part of the demesne and likely therefore to have still been running. 1933–1935 The building was converted into a tearoom. It is possible this took place in 1935 as the demesne accounts show the purchase of a ‘Cooker for Tea Rooms’ in March of that year.08 May 1936 Entries in the accounts include £2.18.0 for the supply of coal to the ‘tea rooms.’ July 1938 Account entries list a payment for the painting of notices for the tea rooms.09 1939 The building was extended. The plans were prepared by WDR Taggart and the contractors were Robert Kerr and Sons.10 The building also appears to have been re-roofed at this time and it is possible many of the windows were installed with casements around this time.

PRONI D654/h/2/19 Ledgers 1930–39

Ibid

B1 MOUNTSTEWART SCHOOL

1978 The tea rooms were run by Barry and Anne Smith.

1940–1945 During the Second World War the building is used as a canteen for soldiers billeted at Mount Stewart. The Mount Stewart estate receive rent from 5th October 1940. They also let out various other structures near the Farmyard. Post-1945 The building reverts to its earlier use as a tearoom.

1987 The National Trust acquired the Mountstewart School. The school was used by a number of commercial businesses and the adjacent two cottages were accommodation for the Mount Stewart gardeners.

1954 Wedding reception of Ian Morrison and Maisie Coffey takes place at the tea rooms.

1994 The schoolhouse was let to the artist RB Higgins as a studio and art gallery. c.1995-1996 The National Trust began using the schoolhouse for accommodation for staff and volunteers. The Strangford Ranger team began operating out of the schoolhouse at this time.

Photo taken outside the Mount Stewart Tea Rooms in 1954 – Wedding of Ian Morrison and Maisie Coffey. Left to right: Lily Morrison, Montgomery McCullough, Annie Morrison, Margaret Morrison (daughter of WM Henry), Mrs Montgomery McCullough, Elma Morrison (in front), Mary Morrison (Mother of Elma) and Betty McCullough (nee Harkness).

315

B1 MOUNTSTEWART SCHOOL

PRIMARY SOURCES N

1834 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1858 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

316

B1 MOUNTSTEWART SCHOOL

1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1921 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

317

B1 MOUNTSTEWART SCHOOL

1971 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch 318

B1 MOUNTSTEWART SCHOOL

Photograph of interior prior to refurbishment (no date)

Comber School (date unknown). The school closed in 1938.

Refurbishment of the schoolhouse 2013

319

B1 MOUNTSTEWART SCHOOL

CURRENT SITUATION Setting The building is located roughly three miles north-west of Greyabbey on the north-east (inland) side of the Portaferry Road, set back from the road but with open views across Strangford Lough. There is a small lawn to the front aspect and gardens to the rear. It is located on the edge of the Mount Stewart demesne in an area that is heavily wooded. The building is prominent in views along the Portaferry road and the first demesne building to be seen by visitors to Mount Stewart. There are extensive views west of Strangford Lough from the Schoolhouse. Exterior The Schoolhouse is largely a single-storey building of 11 bays with a two bays of two-storeys left of centre. The roof is hipped with a slate covering. There is a bellcote with leaded spire above the third bay from the left, and two triangular dormers to the roof slope. The building has distinctive pointed Gothick-arched doors and windows. The majority of windows now contain modern timber casements, which (within the historic bays) probably once contained ‘Y’ tracery. There are sliding sashes to the front first floor bedroom; one of which has been modified. A pointed Gothick-arched doorway in bay three from the left, is set in a timber porch, the latter is assumed to be a later 19th century feature. There is a two bay, two-storey section to the centre, constituting a later 19th century extension to the schoolmaster’s accommodation. It has been proposed that schoolrooms were formerly located either side of the masters’ accommodation but further research is required into the various room uses. The two bays to the far right were constructed in 1936 as accommodation when the building was a tearoom.

The rear elevation features a series of projecting extensions and additions. Also to the rear of the Schoolhouse are a series of stone outbuildings which appear to date to the 19th century, now used for storage. A hand pump in the rear yard may have been installed following a request by the schoolmaster in 1841. Interior A key feature of the building is the large open space of the original schoolroom with exposed trusses. Today, part of this has been subdivided and used as an office space. Linked by a set of double doors is a smaller classroom to the rear. A doorway, formerly leading into the original accommodation from the classroom was blocked during a recent refurbishment and shelves installed. Despite many years of alteration, the building retains a number of features of interest including 19th century fireplaces to the main schoolroom and second floor bedrooms, and a fire surround evidencing the location of a kitchen range within what is now a study/storeroom. The timber boarded ceiling in this room is historic. A cornice in the adjacent bedroom and corridor has been cut by an inserted wall indicating the area was probably a living room. Also of interest are shutters to a rear window in the ground floor corridor and various historic timber boarded and panelled doors. Intrusive features are the subdivision of spaces including the schoolroom, modern casements, exposed services and the present internal condition and use of the original schoolroom.

320

Key Features: • Open views across Strangford Lough. • Gothick-arched openings. • Harling. • Bellcote. • Timber porch. • Metal finials. • Historic doors internally and externally. • Pierced bargeboards. • Water pump. • Victorian fireplaces. • Open spaces of the schoolrooms with exposed trusses. • Timber boarded ceiling and cornice.

B1 MOUNTSTEWART SCHOOL

Front elevation

Rear elevation

Rear garden

Rear elevation showing 1930s and 19th century extension

Date stone

321

B1 MOUNTSTEWART SCHOOL

Main schoolroom

Front door

The rear schoolroom

Kitchen

322

B1 MOUNTSTEWART SCHOOL

Boarded door

Fireplace in main schoolroom

Fireplace, first floor bedroom

323

B1 MOUNTSTEWART SCHOOL BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT Historic plank door

No fire surround and modern hearth

Historic plaster cornice cut by modern wall

Former location of kitchen range

Later 19th century porch

Exposed roof trusses Modern suspended ceiling

1930s Fireplaces

Line of former wall (?)

GROUND FLOOR BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT PLAN Phase 1: 1813 Phase 1b: 1813–1858 potentially original phase Phase 2a: 1858–1900 Phase 2b: 1858–1900 Phase 2c: 1858–1900 Phase 3: 1936 Phase 4: Modern

Timber Sash Panelled reveals

Exposed roof trusses Historic plank door

Late 19th century fireplace Late 19th century fireplace

This plan is not to scale

324

Remnants of historic tongue and groove wainscot Modern woodburner and kitchen units

Modified timber sash Four panelled 19th century door

Historic plank door Heavy double doors (historic)

Historic shutters

1930s-style door

19th century fireplace

Suspended timber floor (exposed)

B1 MOUNTSTEWART SCHOOL CONDITION

B1.1

B1.2

Mountstewart School

Outbuilding

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

•

Roofs: slate, recently repaired.

•

RWGs: cast iron, recently repaired and redecorated.

•

Masonry: rendered stone, recently repaired and redecorated.

•

Windows/doors: timber and glazed, recently repaired and redecorated.

•

Interiors/finishes: variable. Internal refurb required. Evidence of internal damage caused by previous ingress now dealt with.

•

Roofs: sheet metal, potential for vegetation, ingress.

•

Masonry: stone, patch repairs needed, re-pointing.

•

Windows/doors: timber, in need of maintenance.

•

Interiors/finishes: not inspected.

•

Further Investigations

Internal refurb required.

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

Repairs/maintenance needed.

325

B1 MOUNTSTEWART SCHOOL

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Summary The Mountstewart School is significant for its historical associations with the Londonderry family and with the Erasmus Smith Trust. Evidential Details regarding the building’s date, cost, original appearance and plan form have been established through historical research. A picture has also been formed of the schoolmasters’ appointed and the subjects taught. However, there is potential for additional information from documentary sources and from built fabric through historical research to further inform understanding. The rendered exterior and modern ceilings, for example, have the potential to conceal evidence of changes and of earlier fabric. The evidential value is medium.

The building is illustrative of rural schools which provided for the poor in the early 19th century. The simple layout which combined a single schoolroom and accommodation for the schoolmaster under one roof would have been typical for the period. With the growing numbers and/or the need to separate the sexes the school was extended. It is also illustrative of the Gothick-style which was adopted for a number of demesne buildings at Mount Stewart during this period. Extant features such as exposed roof trusses, fireplaces etc., also indicate the kind of interiors that a school and associated accommodation were likely to have been like, whilst the water pump is also a reminder of the limited services of the Victorian era. It has high group value along with the collection of Gothick-style demesne buildings.

Historical The Mountstewart School is significant for its historical associations with the Londonderry family who were instrumental in setting up the school. It is also significant for its connection with the Erasmus Smith Trust and with the (lost) school at Comber.

Aesthetic The building, with Gothick-style windows and doors, bellcote and pierced bargeboards is of high aesthetic value. It is a key building visible from the main road and its principal elevation is therefore of high importance.

326

Communal The schoolhouse is undoubtedly a prominent building on the Newtownards to Portaferry road. For many visitors this will be the first building they will encounter on their visit. Whilst there will be few alive today who will remember the school in operation, its later uses as a tea-room, an artist’s studio or volunteer residence and a place of work, make the building of high value to many people. However, a lack of public access rather reduces its current communal value, although there is very high potential to improve this in future. Setting The current setting facing onto Strangford Lough is of high value. The lawns facing the main road are maintained by the National Trust and the well-stocked rear gardens are pleasant but lack regular maintenance. A modern timber shed, wheelie bins and cars also negatively impact on the building’s setting. Contribution to the Wider Demesne and the Mansion House As a prominent building on the Portaferry road the Mountstewart School introduces visitors to Mount Stewart and its contribution to the demesne is therefore high.

B1 MOUNTSTEWART SCHOOL

KEY VIEWS AND ASSOCIATED DESIGNATIONS Site Boundary Key Views

This plan is not to scale Base plan © GoogleEarth

327

B1 MOUNTSTEWART SCHOOL

Front elevation of high aesthetic value

Inserted wall and ceiling intrusive value

Door blocked on interior – intrusive

Exposed trusses and bellcote of high value

Roof structure of high value

Intrusive exposed services GROUND FLOOR SIGNIFICANCE AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE PLAN High Medium Low Neutral Intrusive (Please refer to the Executive Summary Section 5.0 for an explanation of significance and its relationship to capacity for change) This plan is not to scale

328

Water pump of high value

B1 MOUNTSTEWART SCHOOL

CONSERVATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

PARAMETERS FOR CHANGE

•

The exterior of the building has been repaired and recently repainted and is therefore in a good overall condition.

General • Listed Building Consent is required prior to any material impact on significance.

Consider the installation of ‘Y’ tracery in window designs which will complement the Gothick appearance and original design intension.

•

There is potential to improve the overall condition of the interior through a programme of repair and maintenance and through alternative uses.

Reinstate the rear schoolroom dimensions by relocating kitchen facilities from the staff room to a more appropriate space.

•

Reinstate the school benches in store at the Farmyard.

•

Relocate/hide exposed services in staff room.

•

Ensure that in any future changes, historic features are retained or better revealed, such as exposing fireplaces, hearths and grates.

•

The Trust should ensure that the building continues to be maintained and a programme of long-term maintenance and repair should be continued. Attention should now focus on improvements to the interior.

•

The building is located on a busy road, where access from the Portaferry road is problematic. The future use of the site is likely to be dependent on safe access from the road, or the provision of an alternative access.

•

There are opportunities to exploit its prominent location beside the Portaferry road.

•

The building is set beside Strangford Lough. Rising sea levels are therefore of concern and will feature in future strategies for the site.

•

Due to under utilisation and use as accommodation for volunteers, many areas are in poor condition, particularly the 1936 extension.

•

Current use of the schoolroom for storage is inappropriate.

•

There is potential to enhance historic features such as reopening fireplaces, returning spaces to their original dimensions and uncovering lost features.

•

There is potential for interpretation to improve understanding and enjoyment.

•

The external appearance should be maintained.

•

Maintain and repair the structure to a level commensurate with its significance.

•

The principle of maximum historic fabric retention should be followed.

•

Changes proposed should generally aim to be reversible.

•

Any change should respect the character, scale and massing of the current building and its setting.

•

Any strip out of modern surface treatments, suspended ceilings etc., provides an excellent opportunity to reveal hidden historic fabric. A recording exercise should be carried out prior to, and during, change. Information recovered should continue to feed into the understanding of the significance of specific areas and directly inform future options for change.

Understanding • Continue to pursue areas of limited understanding such as the potential for a schoolroom to the right of the Schoolmaster’s accommodation, which will inform potential future changes.

Enhancing Significance • Consider reinstatement of the schoolroom as a single space fully exposing the roof trusses.

•

Continue to look into PRONI records for entries relating to the schoolhouse which may help date improvements/ extension to the building.

•

Reinstate use of the entrance door to the front elevation.

•

Investigate possible sitting room and kitchen as schoolroom.

•

Remove corridor division which cuts across historic cornice.

329

B1 MOUNTSTEWART SCHOOL

CAPACITY FOR CHANGE External Minor capacity for change. Internal High capacity for change in residential areas. There is a low capacity for change in the main schoolroom, although this space could be improved through a more sympathetic use and the removal of the room division and suspended ceiling. Located on the busy Portaferry road, the Mountstewart School is a prominent building. Consideration should be given to appropriate uses which include: •

Retail function and/or food and drink function

•

Holiday lets

•

Educational centre

•

Visitor centre

330

[THIS PAGE HAS INTENTIONALLY BEEN LEFT BLANK]

331

B2 FOLLY

332

B2 FOLLY

KEY INFORMATION

Component Name

Folly Summerhouse

Date Range

Early 19th century

Current Use

Ruin

Historic Use

Leisure building/summerhouse

Overall Significance

Medium

Overall Condition

Immediate Health and Safety issue

Designations

None

Capacity for Change

Low

333

B2 FOLLY

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Summary Timeline Early 19th century The date of construction of the Folly cannot be firmly established; no entries within the demesne accounts can be attributed to its construction. Fabric analysis, does however, suggest that it was constructed in the early 19th century, and is an example of a ‘Gothicised’ demesne building or summerhouse of the ‘Picturesque’ period of architecture.

1858 The Ordnance Survey map depicts the structure as rectangular lying east–west. It has been suggested that the structure was built in two phases, with the completion of the eastern section first (as shown on the 1834 Ordnance Survey map) and extended to the west by 1858.02 The quarries are no longer annotated, suggesting that they were now disused.

1834 The building is shown on the First edition Ordnance Survey map as a simple rectangular structure lying north–south set within woodland. What appears to be a small enclosure or structure is shown attached to the south-west elevation. The Ulster Archaeological Society have suggested that the building was ‘half-roofed’ at this time.01 A stream runs past the building to the south-west, then turns west before heading south towards Strangford Lough. A track also follows the stream through the woodland before diverging to the south-east and to the northwest. Two quarries are annotated within the woodland to the north and south-west of the structure indicating they were still active at this time.

1900–1901 The rectangular building is shown as unroofed and may already have been in decline.

J McDonald and J Welsh, ‘Cottage Ornee, Mount Stewart Demesne, County Down: Survey Report No 30’, 2016, p 12, unpublished report.

1968 The local Scouts began using the Folly in the Glen for Scout Camps (having been previously located at Rugman’s Cottage)03 2015 The Ulster Archaeological Society undertook a survey of the building, concluding that the structure is likely to be contemporary with the Gate Lodges and Mountstewart School.

1921 The Ordnance Survey map (25 inch) shows the unroofed, square structure. The setting has changed little from the 1834 Ordnance Survey map. 1940 The building is shown on the ‘Riders Map’ for a Treasure Hunt held by the Londonderry family to entertain guests. The building is annotated as ‘Ruin’.

Ibid

334

Pers Comm. John McKee to Andrew Corkill, 19th November 2019

B2 FOLLY

Whilst the building has been named ‘The Folly’, this now appears to be a misnomer, derived from at least 100 years of decline. The evidence suggests that the building was originally roofed with doors and windows. It is located on an outcrop and had a large bay window which would have afforded views down The Glen. There is no evidence that the building was heated, suggesting it may have only been used during the summer months. This, as well as its location, layout, size and appearance, would suggest it was intended as a decorative building, perhaps used as a retreat by the family or as a summerhouse for pleasure trips, picnics or parties. The building, and the Mount Stewart Gate Lodges, share similar Gothick features including lancet-like window and doors. It has not been possible to establish the architect responsible and they may be the work of a local craftsman who was familiar with the ‘Picturesque’ style of building which was fashionable during the Romantic movement of the late 18th and early 19th century.

Scouts visit the Folly in 1993

335

B2 FOLLY

PRIMARY SOURCES

1834 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1858 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

336

B2 FOLLY

1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map 6 Inch

1971 Ordnance Survey map 25 Inch

337

B2 FOLLY

CURRENT SITUATION Setting The structure is set in dense woodland and on top of an outcrop. A National Trust path passes the site and there are signposts to the ‘Folly’. A stone bridge crosses the Glen Burn to the south-west. Exterior04 The structure is rectangular and aligned roughly east–west. It measures 8.84m east–west by 7.8m north–south, with the foundation of a canted bay window to the west. The structure is built of roughly-coursed greywacke rubble-stone of varying sizes. Brick voussoirs are visible to the interior and exterior faces, suggesting the building may have been rendered externally. An internal dividing wall can be discerned, formerly separating the interior. Fragments of roof slates found by the Ulster Archaeological Society (UAS) evidence that the building was roofed in slate. The north wall remains largely intact rising to 2.65m with two splayed and pointed-arched openings – the taller to the west is believed to have been a door, with a window to the east. Halfway along the interior face is evidence of a dividing wall formerly keyed into the fabric.

The east wall is extant at its southern end and contains a pointedarched window without its sill. Adjacent, the UAS have noted the remains of a central door (the springing point is higher than the adjacent window) and beyond this, evidence was found of another window. The west wall is largely absent, but the remains of stones have suggested the building had a canted bay window. This would have afforded the building excellent views down The Glen below.05 Interior Whilst the building is now unroofed, there is evidence that the interior walls were formerly plastered. An interior wall has been noted above, with a further division noted by the UAS during their survey in 2015. The foundation stones for a wall were discovered during ground clearance which would have formerly subdivided the eastern space. The ends were not keyed into the external walls suggesting it is a later feature. Whilst the map evidence would suggest that the structure was built in two stages, the lack of evidence in the form of building breaks on the north or south walls does not support this theory.

The south wall stands to its full height (2.75m) but truncated at its western end. There is no evidence of doors or windows in this elevation. An internal wall projects from its north face but has not been keyed in.

The description has been aided by the unpublished report by J McDonald and J Welsh, ‘Cottage Ornee, Mount Stewart Demesne, County Down: Survey Report No 30’, 2016, Ulster Archaeological Society 338

Key features • Ruined, ‘picturesque’ nature. • Gothick pointed-arched openings. • Modest size. • Location on an outcrop within woodland.

B2 FOLLY

The site looking north

Remains of the east elevation

Interior looking at the north wall – note the extent of vegetation

Interior looking at the south wall with remains of partition wall

339

Internal wall plaster

B2 FOLLY Assumed former window

BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT

BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT PLAN Early 19th Century

Door

This plan is not to scale

Fragmentary remains only Assumed former windows Remains of canted bay window Foundation of dividing wall and doorway

340

Door

B2 FOLLY

CONDITION

Folly

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

•

Masonry: designed ruin. Open joints, cracking, disruption of wall heads, vegetation growth.

Further Investigations

Tactile inspection and removal/fixing of potentially loose masonry required as public access the Folly. Repair and consolidation then needed.

341

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

B2 FOLLY

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Summary The Folly has some significance as one of a group of buildings constructed in the early 19th century by the Londonderry family to embellish the demesne. It is likely to have been used as a garden building or retreat but went into decline in the latter half of the 19th century and suffered substantial loss as a result. There is no interpretation for visitors and the overgrown and neglected nature of the site lowers the visitor experience. Evidential The Folly is a little understood building in the Mount Stewart demesne and has been the subject of an investigation by a local archaeological society. However, the building is still not fully understood; whilst an approximate date of construction has been established from fabric analysis and cartographic sources, a search of archival records has failed to establish its use and the exact date it was built. There is potential to increase our understanding of the building and its historical development through further research of documentary sources and a further analysis of the built fabric. Evidential value is medium. Historical The Folly is significant for its historical associations with the Londonderry family who may have constructed it as a garden building or retreat. It was probably constructed at a time when significant improvements were being made to the demesne and new buildings were being constructed. The Folly is also representative of the Gothick-style popular during the Picturesque Movement at the end of the 18th and start of the 19th century. The structure, however, has been subject to many years of decline with significant loss of the built fabric, reducing its historical value. Its overall historical value is therefore low.

Aesthetic Built on a promontory, its location appears to have been deliberately chosen to exploit the quiet location within the demesne and views down The Glen. This supports the suggestion that it was a retreat or garden building. Originally, it was likely to have been a ‘cottage orne’, deliberately constructed to be rustic, rather than a formal building like the Temple of the Winds. Today, the site is enclosed by the woodland and views into the site are restricted. Views down The Glen from the site have been lost. Despite this, the building holds aesthetic value as a romantic ruin. The overgrown nature of the site, however, prevents the public from fully appreciating the structure. The aesthetic value is low. Communal The Folly is signposted as part of the National Trust’s trails around the demesne, ensuring that members of the public can locate the site. Access is, however, restricted to the more ambulant visitors and there is no interpretation of the site. This, and the condition of the site may disappoint some visitors. Communal value could be increased in a future programme for the site. The communal value is low.

Contribution to the Wider Demesne and the Mansion House As one of a collection of extant buildings constructed in the early 19th century, the Folly has group value. However, its contribution to the wider demesne could be improved through better management and interpretation. Key Views Due to its position within woodland, tree cover restricts views into and out of the site. Without signposting, the site might be missed by many visitors. Key views are therefore limited to within the immediate site. It is unclear whether historically the structure was intended as an eye-catcher within the demesne. The remains of a canted bay windows suggests that it benefited from views down the Glen towards the south-west which have now been lost.

Setting The way the site is experienced has dramatically altered since it was constructed. Originally placed within a designed setting and deliberately sited with views down The Glen, the site is now ruined and overgrown, and views now lost. Despite this, the quiet, rural setting makes an important contribution to how visitors experience the Folly; through careful management and improved interpretation, public understanding and enjoyment could be further enhanced. The setting is of medium value. View towards the Folly from the footpath

342

B2 FOLLY

SIGNIFICANCE AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE PLAN High Medium Low Neutral Intrusive

(Please refer to the Executive Summary Section 5.0 for an explanation of significance and its relationship to capacity for change) This plan is not to scale

343

B2 FOLLY

CONSERVATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

PARAMETERS FOR CHANGE

CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

•

The Folly is an unroofed building which is ruinous. Its condition will continue to deteriorate without a programme of maintenance and repair of the exposed walls. Ivy should be controlled.

General • The site is non-designated.

As a ruin, the site should be retained as such. With better management and the addition of seating, the site could become a picnic area and stopping off point for walkers.

•

The external appearance should be maintained.

•

As a ruin the site could be dangerous to the public, and without regular maintenance there is potential for collapse.

•

Maintain and repair the structure to a level commensurate with its significance.

•

Archaeology is likely to be a consideration in any future development.

Enhancing Significance • The Trust should consider improving access through controlled management of the undergrowth.

•

The vacancy of the site increases the potential for deliberate damage or other anti-social behaviour.

•

The Trust should consider improving or recreating views along The Glen through carefully considered tree management.

There is potential to improve the site through controlled management of undergrowth.

•

The Trust should ensure that the building is maintained in a stable condition and a programme of long-term maintenance and repair should be continued/put in place.

•

There is potential to improve views along The Glen through carefully considered tree management.

•

There is potential for interpretation to improve understanding and enjoyment.

Understanding • Continue to pursue areas of limited understanding to help inform interpretation.

•

The condition of the structure reduces uses.

•

Public access and interpretation should be improved.

•

The site is non-designated.

•

A recording exercise and archaeological assessment should be carried out prior to any works or change.

•

Continue to improve understanding of the site through research.

344

[THIS PAGE HAS INTENTIONALLY BEEN LEFT BLANK]

345

B3 STABLE BLOCK

The stables in the 1940s with Lady Mairi to the left 346

B3 STABLE BLOCK

KEY INFORMATION

Component Name

Stable Block

Date Range

1846–1848

Current Use

Residential and storage

Historic Uses

Coach house, stables and staff accommodation

Overall Significance

High

Overall Condition

Stable Block: Sound Outbuilding (south): Stable Oubuilding (east): Decline Hunter Stable (north): Decline Hunter Stable (south): Sound Blockwork Shed: Sound Bothy: Sound

Designations

B2 ref: HB24/04/053

Capacity for Change

High (but partially tenanted)

B3.1

347

B3 STABLE BLOCK

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Summary Timeline 1783 The architect James Wyatt was paid for plans for a new house and stable block. Plans of stables have been located in the Londonderry archives, one of which is signed by the architect. 01 It is unclear if these were ever constructed, although Casement has suggested that they may have been demolished when the current stables were constructed. 02 The Ordnance Survey map of 1834 does not evidence buildings similar to Wyatt’s plan form within the demesne. 1834–1835 The 1834 Ordnance Survey map does not show the ‘U’ shaped stables, but the Ordnance Survey Valuation of 1835 records that stables lay adjacent to the house at this time, whilst a Coach House and Stables also formed part of the Farmyard and Offices. The Stable Block may be one of the buildings located east of the house and shown on the 1834 Ordnance Survey map, prior to its extensive remodelling.03

Charles Campbell (d.1850) Charles Campbell was a builder and architect from Newtonards who was extensively employed by the 3rd Marquess of Londonderry. He carried out minor alterations to Mount Stewart House in 1825 and when William Morrison died in 1838 he continued the additions to the house. His other work included the building of Garron Towers, Co. Antrim, for the Marchioness of Londonderry in 1848 which he may also have been involved in designing, the Cleland Mausoleum at Dundonald, and the town hall, in Newtownards, Co. Down. He died bankrupt in 1850.04

PRONI D654/M71/4B and D654/M71/4C

A Casement, 1995 p18

PRONI D654/H1/1

‘W Millan gets on in the Yard. The Stable is roofed and the Coach House is rising. The small offices will also be at a height, but I fear the yard will not be quite finished by the 15th. I hope it may be nearly so by the end of the month.’05 1854 The Stable Block first appear on the revised 1854 Ordnance Survey map. The ‘U’ shaped building is clearly discernible with its enclosed courtyard. A routeway passes in front of the building. A direct path between the Stable Block and house is not yet in place. The eastern elevation is shown tightly built against the hillside. 1900–1901 Although not altogether clear, the 1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map appears to show the small stable block and rear outbuilding now in-situ. The area in front of the courtyard has increased in size, from which a number of routeways now radiate.

1846–1848 The stables were built to a design by Charles Campbell at a time when considerable improvement works were being undertaken to the house and at a significant time during the Irish Famine.

29th September 1848 John Andrews, agent to the 3rd Marquess wrote:

1901 In 1901, the Londonderry’s were at Mount Stewart during the survey. The Census return records eight coachmen and an electrician residing in the Stable Block. One is recorded as being John Rugman a 29-year-old ‘coachman and domestic servant’ from England. In addition, groom, Nathaniel Stewart, lived with his family elsewhere on the demesne. At an age of 69 he is likely to have been the head coachman. 04

Anne Casement, ‘William Vitruvius Morrison’s scheme for Mount Stewart, County Down: was it ever realised?’, Irish Architectural and Decorative Studies 7 (2004), 41–44

348

PRONI D654/N/24 1846–1848 Letter of John Andrews to the 3rd Marquess.

B3 STABLE BLOCK

1911 The 1911 Census records only one groom and two coachmen at Mount Stewart, the family not being in residence at the time of the survey. It also reveals that the groom, John Rugman, has married Nathanial Stewart’s daughter, Margaret (31), and is living with the Stewart family and their three children. The cottage known as ‘Rugmans’ forms part of this wider study of the demesne. 1921 The 25 inch Ordnance Survey map clearly shows the Stable Block and its outbuildings. A path leads to the service area of the house – the huts to the north-west have yet to be constructed. 1933 A schematic plan of the demesne is drafted. The Stables are numbered 5, 5a and 6. The building immediately adjacent to the north is a ‘Garage’ whilst the small stable to the south was being used as a ‘straw and coal house’. 1939 Demesne accounts show that the family still retained a head groom and other stables staff. The accounts show that the family paid for the cooking of meals and for the cleaning of bedrooms and a sitting room within the stables.06 Historic photographs from this period also suggest the first floor was in use as accommodation. Lady Rose recollects that the chauffeur’s apartment was situated in the north wing, first floor, whilst the senior groomsman’s apartment was located in the south wing, and junior groom’s accommodation was within the central section.

PRONI D654/H/2/19 1930–39

Second World War During the Second World War the US Army constructed huts to the west of the Stable Block. Mount Stewart During the Second World War Mount Stewart was used by 231 Squadron Royal Air Force (RAF) during 1940 in conjunction with 106 Field Squadron (Air Support) Royal Engineers (RE). The men of these units were billeted at Mount Stewart during this period, commanded by Major Fulton of the Royal Engineers.07 The Headquarters Company of the Royal Engineers was also based at Mount Stewart, with Officer Commanding, Major Fulton, lodged in the mansion house while junior ranks were billeted in the buildings around the coach house and stables. Charles, the 7th Marquess, was the Secretary of State for Air in the 1930s, which became incorporated into the Ministry of Defence in 1964.08 Early 1950s Lady Mairi Bury (1921–2009) set up the first horseracing bloodstock stables in Northern Ireland. She used the stables and also converted the former mess-huts built by the US Army during the War. Late 1970s/early 1980s Private living accommodation (now flats 3, 4 and 5) was created on the first floor.

R Preston, 2017, Military Base, Mount Stewart, Co.Down Survey Report No.58, Ulster Archaeological Society

Ibid

349

Early 1990s Flats 1 and 2 were created on the ground floor within the original stabling and loose boxes and the floor raised (under X/90/0297 and X/90/279 approved 1st August 1990). Two new ground floor door openings were created on the east elevation. 2004–2005 The roof was repaired and slates replaced. This work also included: •

Stonework repairs to front curtain wall and gate piers.

•

Rebuilding of chimneys in sandstone (formerly brick) and installation of new clay pots.

•

Repair of yard lanterns (formerly gas).

•

New rainwater goods.

•

Removal of TV aerials into roof space.

2008 A new weathervane commissioned as part of the restoration works was installed. 3rd September 2009 Ownership transferred to the National Trust. 2010 Unexecuted plans were produced to convert the remaining ground floor areas to residential accommodation. 2015 In keeping with the listed status of the building, uPVC windows were replaced with single-glazed timber sashes.

B3 STABLE BLOCK

PRIMARY SOURCES

1834 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1858 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

350

B3 STABLE BLOCK

PRIMARY SOURCES

1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1921 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

351

B3 STABLE BLOCK

PRIMARY SOURCES

1971 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

352

B3 STABLE BLOCK

PRIMARY SOURCES

Detail of schematic plan of the demesne from 1933. Key: 5. Stables, Garages, Vehicle Shed & Dewghse, 5a Garage, 6. Straw & Coal House.

353

B3 STABLE BLOCK

Aerial image of the Stable Block, early 20th century

The Stable Block c.1940

The Stable Block prior to restoration works in the early 2000s

Looking towards Mount Stewart House and the Second World War huts c.1960

354

B3 STABLE BLOCK

CURRENT SITUATION (Please note, it was not possible to access all areas as part of the survey) Setting The Stables are located a short distance south-east of Mount Stewart House orientated towards the service areas. The building is cut into a low hill and set within a sheltered area of trees. Resident’s gardens are located on the east side. Between the house and stables are a series of single-storey former Second World War huts more recently used by the family as loose boxes, and now used by staff as office accommodation and workshops. One hut has also been converted to house the Londonderry’s state chariot and is publicly accessible.

Also associated with the stable is a small stone, brick and breeze block structure with mono-pitched roof and modern ledged door. This may have originally been an outside WC or store. Additionally, on the south-side, is a range of stores and loose boxes constructed in squared stone and brick with brick dressings and a hipped slate roof.

The former stables retain features which include: • • •

Stable doors and ironmongery; Cement rendered wainscot; and Historic floor surfacing.

They now function as stores and as a boiler house and have been re-roofed in modern times.

To the south-east is also a large expanse of hard surfacing used by vehicles including coaches. A vehicular route passes beside the Stables used by staff, residents and visitors. National Trust staff parking and workshops/stores lie immediately north of the stable. Former stables

Plaque

Former Second World War huts converted to hunter stables

Outbuilding

The stable yard is located to the north-west and enclosed by a gated screen with rusticated sandstone pillars topped by pyramidal capping. The inner pillars to the screen are also fitted with coach lamps. The yard surfacing is a mixture of cobbles and tarmac. Residents park cars within the yard as well as to the rear of the stables where there is a lean-to shelter for this purpose. Further modern hard surfacing also wraps around the exterior enabling vehicular access to the rear of the building. A modern breeze block wall provides a retaining wall on the north side

355

B3 STABLE BLOCK

Exterior The Stable block is a two-storey ‘U’ shaped building with the principle elevation facing south-west. It is constructed in roughly dressed stone with sandstone dressings to the principal elevations. The Neo-Classical building is symmetrically arranged but with a domestic character. The central three bays of the main western façade breaks forward and are topped by a pediment with a roundel at its centre. The pediment is completed by a weathervane. The west façade has centrally placed timber double doors with rectangular overlight and stone canopy on stone brackets above. The five bays are set with large multi-paned timber sliding sashes on both floors with sandstone dressing and keystones. All the timber sashes are modern replacements. An historic water pump is located below this elevation. The west elevation is flanked on either side by matching projecting wings. Mirrored within each wing are five timber sliding-sash windows to the first floor. On the ground floor are two doors and two sash windows – the eastern-most door is narrower with a single panelled door and overlight, whilst the western-most has a double door with overlight. Adjacent to the west, are three large conjoined segmental arch openings set with large double timber doors. Historical images suggest that the leaves of the doors were set with rectangular openings, perhaps to improve light into the interior. Most of the doors appear to have been replaced in the later 20th century. The west elevations of the wings are a single bay wide, with a multi-paned modern sash window on each floor and pediment to the gable end and central roundel.

The north and south elevations are notable for the modern metal access step/ramp access to the first floor accommodation. The façades both contain openings with brick dressings (as opposed to sandstone on the principle elevations). The openings are equally spaced and have undergone alteration, with some probably intended to be ‘blind’, but the arrangement overall suggests an intention at symmetry. The east elevation has also undergone some alteration historically and more recently during the building’s conversion; two new door openings were made to access the ground floor flats in the 1990s. Additionally, the ground floor window openings have been lowered as evidenced by a change in brickwork to both surrounds. This would have made them the same height as the original ground floor openings on the north and south elevations. The date of this alteration is unclear. Also of interest are two low blocked door openings which probably relate to the use of the ground floor as stabling, but also suggest that the ground level has built up somewhat. A metal bracket and hook located above the first floor apartment access, indicates the door was originally for loading, perhaps for storage on the first floor. The roof is of slate with lead flashings which were replaced in the 2000s. There are three evenly spaced sandstone chimney stacks on the roof ridge on both the north and south wings. These evidence that the wings are likely to have been heated and used for accommodation. A lack of chimneys to the central element would suggest it was likely used for stabling and storage. Photos indicate that prior to restoration, the chimneys were constructed in brick and not sandstone.

356

Interior Today the main access door leads in a modern hall, with raised floor leading to two private apartments. This area was originally stabling containing stalls and loose boxes. The ground floor apartments were not accessed during this survey, but the spaces are known to have been subdivided and fully modernised as part of their conversion. Although not fully accessed, of interest on the ground floor is a former office/tack room in the southern wing which retains a number of historic features. The adjacent space contains a staircase up to the first floor staff accommodation; the staircase has been removed from the north wing. Also of interest is the carriage house in the south wing; this retains some historical features, including tongue and grove panelling and a stone flag floor. The ceiling is modern. The first floor above the original stables may have been intended for use as storage of hay and other feed stuffs, as was the usual arrangement in stable blocks. This is also suggested by the external winch/hoist mechanism on the east elevation, and by the apparent lack of provision of heating, with no visible chimneys within the central section.

B3 STABLE BLOCK

Today, the first floor is largely subdivided into privately rented residential accommodation with no visible features of interest. However, the northern wing is not currently in use and historic fabric including lath and plaster ceilings, architraves and skirtings have been removed and stripped back to original plaster and brickwork. The original layout of the spaces and position of fireplaces is still discernible and confirms that the wings were originally used as staff accommodation. Key Features • U-shaped plan, symmetrical arrangement of principle frontages and residential character. • Water pump. • Cobble surfacing to yard. • Timber board doors with ironmongery. • Large carriage arches and doors. • Surviving tongue and groove panelling and flag floors.

West elevation, gated screen and tarmac forecourt

West elevation and courtyard

Pediment with roundel

Cobbled surfacing

357

B3 STABLE BLOCK

South elevation of north wing

North elevation, north wing

Interior of coach house

South elevation, south wing

East (rear) elevation

358

B3 STABLE BLOCK

Interior first floor north wing

Winching hook (east elevation)

Lathes to opening

Brick wall stripped to reveal blocked fireplace, first floor north wing

359

B3 STABLE BLOCK BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT GROUND FLOOR BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT PLAN Original/Historic Fabric Modern Unknown 01

Window lowered at unknown date

Doors inserted 1990s

Window lowered at unknown date

Window blocked?

Former Door

Not Surveyed

This plan is not to scale

Historic pump Former location of staircase

Flats created 1990s – floor raised

Former office/tack room containing historic features including tongue and groove panelling

Window modified to door at unknown date

Modern concrete floor

Modern ceiling

Former Carriage House and Garage – tongue and groove cladding and flag floors 360

B3 STABLE BLOCK Originally intended as storage FIRST FLOOR BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT PLAN Original/Historic Fabric Modern Unknown 01

Not Surveyed

This plan is not to scale

Winch/hook above door

Probable line of original internal wall

Location of blocked door

Location of blocked door Former location of staircase

Location of historic fireplace – suggests space formerly accommodation

Former location of fireplace

Trusses replaced Lath archway

Probable line of original internal wall providing staff accommodation

Trusses replaced

Evidence of laths to underside of trussels 361

B3 STABLE BLOCK

Bothy and Work Shed

Asbestos roof

Corrugated gable end roof

Telephone wire

Replaced corrugated iron roof

Interiors not inspected. Note structures first shown on 1971 OS map 25 Inch

Breeze-block construction Large double doors with evidence of a previous sliding door mechanismm above

Downpipe

Steel windows (with top hung casements) with internal secondary uPVC glazing

Breeze-block construction

Stone plinth (?)

Timber inserts at each end may imply the gable elevations were open or held large double doors

Steel window

362

Side elevation has narrow double door and three steel windows at varying heights. Small brick chimney in far corner

B3 STABLE BLOCK

Stables Stables adapted from Second World War huts Two stalls have blocked windows to the rear Loose box hunting stables

Two part, metal casement windows with one side opening and one top hung

'Textured' glazing of first half20th century, some panes replaced

Steel windows at imminent risk of loss

Corrugated asbestos roof and ridge

Casement replaced

Internally, windows have metal grilles to protect the horses

Timber stable doors with iron hinges. Iron grill attached to bottom door allows top to be opened for ventilation without horses leaning out.

Redundant electrics

Downpipe

'Side-bedded' red brick in stretcher bond

Moulded non-slip setts and drainage channel

Waterpipe to each stable

Brick buttress/pier

363

Damage to brick pier base

End wall forms open enclosure, possibly for manure, now grass cuttings

B3 STABLE BLOCK

Stables

Ivy ingress

Tethering rings

Drinking fountain for hunting horses (on front wall)

Open roof timbers sit on wall plate, ceiling and wall divisions have been more recently boarded in

Black and white estate decorative scheme for agricultural interiors

Feeding troughs for horses (on rear wall)

Vents to rear

Breeze-block partitions

364

B3 STABLE BLOCK

Stables (now exhibition) Stables, now accommodating the Londonderry State Chariot

Brick piers

Moulded no-slip setts with drainage channel

Timber roof structure with iron straps and tie beam

Replaced corrugated metal roof

Modern replaced doors

Downpipe

Each stall has individual water supply

365

Wall partitions removed from three loose boxes

Internal metal bars to rear windows

B3 STABLE BLOCK

Stables (now exhibition) 'Side-bedded' brick in stretcher bond

Top of gable end rebuilt

The Londonderry State Chariot, accessed through large opening on the end wall

Evidence of blocked door and window openings with concrete lintels Metal-framed windows – casements with top hung panes, some replaced.

366

B3 STABLE BLOCK CONDITION

B3.1

Stable Block (central range and wings)

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

•

Roofs: slate, lead dressings and fascias, appear sound from ground level.

•

RWGs: cast iron, require servicing/redecorating.

•

Masonry: stone, with brick detailing, sound.

•

Windows/doors: timber and glazed, redecorations due.

•

Further Investigations

Basic repairs/maintenance needed.

Interiors/finishes: satisfactory.

367

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

B3 STABLE BLOCK

B3.2

Outbuilding to south

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

•

Roof: slate, overgrown with moss, some deflection and broken/ slipped units. Torn felt internally.

•

Strip roof and re-cover with new breathable membrane. Prevent any ingress in short-term.

• •

RWGs: uPVC, slipped and defective.

Renew RWGs in traditional cast iron.

•

Remove vegetation from elevations, allow some re-pointing.

•

Overhaul doors.

•

Redecorate internally.

•

Masonry: stone, with brick detailing, appears sound but not all elevations visible.

•

Doors: timber with metal fittings, overhaul due.

•

Interiors/finishes: surface deterioration, condition commensurate with use as store/outhouse.

Further Investigations

368

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

B3 STABLE BLOCK

B3.3

Outbuilding to east

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

•

Roof: corrugated sheet, overgrown, some deflection, evidence of ingress.

•

RWGs: cast iron, refurbishment due.

•

Masonry: stone, with brick detailing and blockwork vertical extension. Some vegetation, open joints.

•

Windows/doors: timber with metal fittings, glazed window opening, overhaul due.

•

Interiors/finishes: significant deterioration evident.

Further Investigations

Significant repairs needed

369

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

B3 STABLE BLOCK

B3.4

Hunter Stable (north)

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

Further Investigations

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

•

Roof: corrugated sheet, covered in moss some deflection, evidence of ingress.

•

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed

Immediate

•

RWGs: cast iron, refurbishment, repair and renewal of sections due.

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs

Ongoing

•

Significant repairs needed. Structural Engineer to advise on masonry defects.

Masonry: brick, some spalling and loss of painted finish; structural cracking between bays, open joints. Windows/doors: timber doors with metal fittings, metal glazed windows. Requiring extensive repairs. Interiors/finishes: dilapidated.

370

Inspection by Structural Engineer. Further interior inspection.

B3 STABLE BLOCK

B3.5

Hunter Stable (south)

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

•

Roof: corrugated sheet. Appears sound.

•

RWGs: cast iron, sound subject to maintenance. Gutters require clearance.

•

Masonry: brick, painted finish. Appears generally sound; some salt damage noted at low level (e.g. on roadside gable end) due to lack of perimeter drainage and rising moisture/splashback.

•

Further Investigations

Sound subject to ongoing maintenance and basic repairs. Clear gutters. Consider improvements in perimeter drainage/ adjacency of hard standings.

Windows/doors: timber doors with metal fittings, metal glazed windows. Require some maintenance but appear generally sound. Interiors/finishes: satisfactory

371

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs

Ongoing

B3 STABLE BLOCK

B3.6

Blockwork Shed

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

•

Roof: corrugated sheet, some moss and interference from tree cover. Deflection noted. Appears sound overall.

•

RWGs:– cast iron, generally sound subject to maintenance.

•

Missing sections require reinstatement.

•

Masonry: breeze block, painted finish. Appears sound.

•

Windows/doors: timber doors with metal fittings, metal glazed windows. Maintenance needed.

•

Further Investigations

Appears sound subject to maintenance. Reduce tree cover to avoid risk of roof damage.

Interiors/finishes: not inspected.

372

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

B3 STABLE BLOCK

B3.7

Bothy

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

•

Roof: corrugated sheet, some interference from tree cover. Appears sound.

•

RWGs: cast iron, sound subject to maintenance.

•

Masonry: brick, stone, painted finish. Appears sound.

•

Windows/doors: timber doors with metal fittings, metal glazed windows. Appear sound.

•

Interiors/finishes: satisfactory.

Further Investigations

Sound subject to maintenance. Reduce tree cover to avoid risk of roof damage.

373

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

B3 STABLE BLOCK

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Summary The special interest of the Stable Block is recognised by its listed status. It holds value for its association with the family at Mount Stewart and with the architect Charles Campbell. It holds group value with the house, as an important building within the history and operations of the house and wider demesne. Evidential The Stable Block has undergone significant removal of historic fabric as part of its conversion to residential accommodation – in particular the areas of the original stabling within the ground floor. This conversion has resulted in the removal of stalls and loose boxes and other related fixtures, fittings and finishes. However, there is some potential that the current modern fit-outs hide evidence of the former layout of spaces, the location of stalls and the division between animal feed and bedding store on the first floor and staff accommodation. The modern raised floor to the ground floor may hide original floor surfaces within the stables area. The evidential value of the Stables is medium. Historical The Stable Block has high historical value for its association with the architect Charles Campbell and with the Londonderry family. The Stable Block holds value as an example of a demesne building which has played an important role within the operations of the house and the wider demesne.

The building is a typical example of small country estate stables which would have been used to house the carriage horses and to store the family’s carriages. The upper floors were generally used as staff accommodation and storage – fodder was typically placed above stables for ease of access, and often hatches allowed feed to be dropped down to the horses below. The building also reflects the rise of the motor car, with the carriage house converted into garages in the early 20th century. The adjacent small single-storey stable range probably dates to the later 19th century and has medium historical value as an example of a vernacular stable and its association with the Stable Block. The outbuilding has been somewhat altered and little remains of its historic fabric. The building was possibly a store or WC and is now intrusive within the setting of the Stable Block. The loss of historic fabric internally has somewhat reduced the historical value of the Stables, but for those reasons listed retains high historical value. Aesthetic The Stable Block was designed by Charles Campbell, who was extensively employed by the 3rd Marquess. The building has NeoClassical styling, with the main façade symmetrically arranged but it also retains a domestic character. The carriage doors provide limited evidence of the building’s former use. The design is wellproportioned, and use of rubble stone, sandstone dressings similar to Mount Stewart House, whilst the scale ensures its subservience. The building has high aesthetic value in its own right and as part of the immediate setting of the house. Elements which detract from this significance are modern interventions such as the metal access staircase and modern inserted external doors.

374

Communal The building holds value for those who live there. However, the Stable block is private residential housing to which the public do not have access, lowering its communal value; the building will be admired by those who pass it and may raise curiosity. The Stables currently has low communal value although there is potential for this to be increased in future by the National Trust. Setting and Contribution to the Wider Demesne and the Mansion House The Stables are positioned a short distance from Mount Stewart House with inter-visibility to the former service areas. Set in an area of woodland, its position and connection to the house is of high importance. Unfortunately, vehicle parking within the vicinity of the Stables, modern workshops and huts mar the building’s setting. Tree planting to the south helps to screen the building from the main car park.

B3 STABLE BLOCK Key views N

KEY VIEWS Site Boundary Key Views Approximate line of historic routeways This plan is not to scale Base plan © GoogleEarth

Drive from Greyabbey Gate Lodge in place by 1858

375

B3 STABLE BLOCK

GROUND FLOOR SIGNIFICANCE AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE PLAN High Medium Low Neutral Intrusive

Pump of High Significance

(Please refer to the Executive Summary Section 5.0 for an explanation of significance and its relationship to capacity for change) This plan is not to scale

376

B3 STABLE BLOCK

Access staircase and bridge link to rear garden

FIRST FLOOR SIGNIFICANCE AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE PLAN High Medium Low Neutral Intrusive

(Please refer to the Executive Summary Section 5.0 for an explanation of significance and its relationship to capacity for change) This plan is not to scale

Access staircase to first floor accommodation

377

B3 STABLE BLOCK

CONSERVATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES •

The Stables has undergone extensive removal of historic fabric as part of its conversion to residential housing. Those historic features which remain, both internally and externally, relating to original use are therefore of value and should be retained. These include: o o o o o o o

water pump in yard; winch bracket on rear elevation; historic doors (entrance and carriage doors) and ironmongery; timber wainscot in coach house; brass name plate on stable door; remaining stable doors on the small stable; and mangers and historic flooring.

•

• •

Conserve and restore where appropriate the ground floor office.

•

Consider restoring the first floor residential area in the north wing which respects the historic layout utilising appropriate materials.

The building has been recently restored and is therefore in a good overall condition. The Trust should ensure that a programme of long-term maintenance and repair is continued. There is opportunity to reinstate historic features (where there is sufficient evidence) such as fireplaces and lath and plaster ceilings. There is potential for interpretation to improve understanding and enjoyment. The public have limited contact, access or understating of the Stables. There is opportunity to include the Stables within the visitor experience. The Stables are an ideal location for the display of the Londonderry State Chariot. Parked vehicles around and within the courtyard are inappropriate. There is the opportunity to improve the setting of the Stables through their relocation.

378

PARAMETERS FOR CHANGE General • Listed Building Consent is required prior to any material impact on significance. •

An assessment of impact commensurate with significance is required at the point of any proposed development.

•

The external appearance should be maintained.

•

Maintain and repair the structure to a level commensurate with its significance.

•

The principle of maximum historic fabric retention should be followed.

•

Changes proposed should generally aim to be reversible.

•

Any change should respect the character, scale and massing of the current building and its setting.

•

B3 STABLE BLOCK

Enhancing Significance • Consideration in any future design should be given to reinstating the historic internal staircase in the north wing and an internal reorganisation that allows the removal of intrusive external metal staircases. •

•

Ensure that any changes to doors and windows are commensurate with their historic form and utilise traditional materials and craftsmanship. Consider resurfacing of the modern surfacing to the west of the building. Consider removing all vehicles from parking/ waiting and consider removing modern National Trust workshops/stores from the vicinity to improve the setting.

•

Consider preventing car parking in the courtyard.

•

Consider re-siting/removal of: wheelie bins, oil tanks and modern storage sheds adjacent to the structure.

•

Consider removal of modern metal stairs/bridges to north, east and south elevations (see previous recommendations for internal reordering and reinstatement of internal staircases).

CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

•

Include the small single-storey stable block in any future plans. Remove or restore the outbuilding.

•

Any alterations or additions should be high-quality, of appropriate materials and craftsmanship and respect the existing scale of development.

Areas of low capacity for change include the external envelope, the courtyard, the carriage house and ground floor office/tack room. Areas of high capacity for change include all modernised residential areas.

•

Ensure any potential new building is of a high-quality design which is sympathetic to its setting.

Externally, the removal of the access staircases and bridges would benefit the appearance of the exterior.

•

Consider removing modern interventions, paint finishes, cementitious pointing and renders.

•

Change, such as sub-division or opening-up, may be justified by the creation of viable spaces.

The Stable Block is a prominent building of high significance; however, it is underused as part of the visitor experience. Consideration should be given to developing the building as part of the visitor route around Mount Stewart and to improving interpretation.

•

The subdivision of spaces could be considered in relation to historic plan form and its significance.

Potential uses which are sympathetic to the character and fabric of the historic building include:

•

New uses should be sensitive to the historic building and should seek to reveal significance of architectural features.

•

Continued residential uses to first floor areas.

•

Holiday lets.

•

Exhibition spaces – the Stables is an ideal location for exhibiting the Londonderry State Chariot, for example.

•

Conference/event spaces to ground floor areas.

•

Office spaces to first floor areas.

379

C1 SEA PLANTATION BUILDING

380

C1 SEA PLANTATION BUILDING

KEY INFORMATION

Component Name

Sea Plantation Building

Date Range

Early 19th century

Current Use

Disused and ruinous

Historic Uses

Unknown

Overall Significance

Medium

Overall Condition

Immediate Health and Safety issue

Designations

None

Capacity for Change

Low

381

C1 SEA PLANTATION BUILDING

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT The construction of the Sea Plantation is detailed in Anne Casement’s unpublished document ‘Mount Stewart Landscape Study’, 1995. In addition, the history and significance of the Sea Plantation has been assessed by the curator of Mount Stewart, Frances Bailey, in another unpublished document, ‘Mount Stewart Sea Plantation: Notes on its History and Significance’ (revised 2011) and within the ‘Mount Stewart Demesne Conservation Management Plan’, 2018. The drainage and reclamation of land within Strangford Lough was not an unusual occurrence; other projects such as Anne’s Point were carried out at a similar time, as well as the creation of large tracts of land south of Newtownards. The drivers may have been to protect the lough-side road from flooding and increase the amount of usable land.01 It is thought that once the construction of a new house on Bean Hill had been disregarded, the Londonderry’s set about improvements to the existing house and the demesne. It is likely, therefore, that the construction of the embankments which saw the creation of the Sea Plantation were one of a series of improvements made to the demesne at the end of the 18th century and start of the 19th century. The reclamation of land enabled the public highway to be routed further away from the house and to increase the size of the gardens which reduced exposure to Mount Stewart from driving winds and salt sea spray.02

F Bailey, ‘Mount Stewart Sea Plantation: Notes on its history and significance’, 2011

F Bailey 2011, after A Casement, ‘Mount Stewart Landscape Study, 1995

Summary Timeline 1779 The Geddas map of Mount Stewart demesne shows an absence of the embankment. Prior to its construction, the area was part of Strangford Lough; a spit of land is also shown on the map curling out into the lough. 1793 Lord Camden wrote to his stepson Castlereagh, of his delight at the ‘imbankment’ that was ‘so near conclusion’ and that ‘the like attempts at Mount Stewart will produce with a certainty of success’.03

1804 An invoice in accounts for February 1804 list payments made to a stone cutter ‘James Campble’ 05 for a bathing house. Whilst it has been speculated that this may refer to the provision of stonework for the Sea Plantation building, the evidence remains unclear.06 1817 A description of the house in ‘Ireland Exhibited to England, in a Political and Moral Survey of her Population’ suggests that the land within the embankment had yet to be planted with trees.07

1793–1803 Entries in the demesne accounts show payments totalling £1,790 for the construction of an embankment forming the southern edge of the Sea Plantation. The work was supervised by the local architect and carpenter John Ferguson, including the heightening and repairs which were undertaken in 1803.04

PRONI D3030/F/9 after A Casement, 1995

Casement, 1995 p.21

382

Spelling as it appears in manuscript.

The invoice in PRONI D654/H/7/A/16 states: ‘To measurement of Stone Cutters work done for Rt Hnble the Earl of Londonderry at the bathing House by James Campble 72 Chiseled Quoins 13.0.0 2 Gothic Door cases 8.8.9 3 Large Windows 10.12.7 2 Small ditto 3.4.0 5 Window Stools 1.16.0 Ambrazure Coping 10.7.11 Flagging for the Roof Jointed & Rabitted 39.0.6 total: £86.9.9’ However. ‘Chiseled Quoins,’ are not a feature on the Sea Plantation structure, only the staircase. Anne Casement notes payments for the bathing house as early as 1802 before the Sea Plantation was probably completed. The accounts also refer to the ‘Bathing House at old embankment’ suggesting a different structure altogether.

“Ireland Exhibited to England, in a Political and Moral Survey of her Population” (A Atkinson, 1823, Baldwin, Craddock, and Joy, London) after F Bailey, 2011

C1 SEA PLANTATION BUILDING

1834 The Ordnance Survey map shows the embankment to be more or less complete and planted with trees and shrubs. The southeastern edge follows the curve of the spit of land shown on the Geddas map. A walk or path runs around the three sides of the embankment and within the embankment runs a long, drainage ditch or canal. A ‘Wooden Bathing Ho’ is also indicated on the southern tip of the Sea Plantation and a rectangular structure is also shown halfway along the embankment, in the position of the stone building which forms the focus of this study. The structure has been referred to as an icehouse although there has been little supporting evidence to confirm this.08 Casement notes that in the demesne accounts, £3 was paid for the repair and filling of the icehouse and in 1840 a further £2 was paid. She has speculated that this may refer to this structure and that ice may have been gathered from the nearby canal.09 It was only after 1846, that an icehouse was built into the hill to the south west of the new Lake (Clark’s Hill) to the north of the house.10 1858 The Ordnance Survey map shows little change from the 1834 map although a path is now shown to run along the top of the embankment, and another now leads from Mount Stewart House to the Portaferry road where it joins the embankment walk on the opposite side of the highway. The rectangular structure is still shown halfway along the embankment.

1900–1901 The Ordnance Survey map shows that the Sea Plantation is continuing to be exploited for pleasure and sport, with the appearance of a ‘Boat Ho.’ and a landing stage extending out into the lough. 1913 Theresa, Lady Londonderry, described the Sea Plantation as ‘One of the nicest walks’, where ‘Passing through the little postern gate you cross the road and over three stone steps on to the Sea Walk.’ She also says that ‘In addition to the walk on top of the embankment…there is also a delicious walk inside the plantation within the embankment, running right round it and just covered in moss’, and that there is ‘a curious old building which may have been used for burning seaweed and which has two or three ruined rooms in it’. Here Lady Londonderry assumes that the stone building in the Sea Plantation may have been a Kelp Burning Pit. 1921 The 25 inch Ordnance Survey map shows little change from the 1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map, although the position of buildings within the Sea Plantation are clearly indicated.

1923–1924 The Garden Diaries of Edith, Lady Londonderry, detail the creation of the vista through the Sea Plantation. This extended the views from the house and gardens towards the lough. 1930s–1940s The shelter created by the Sea Plantation was exploited by Edith, Lady Londonderry, in the creation of the gardens which she planted with exotics and sub-tropical plants. Edith, cleared a further path through to the ‘curious’ building described by Lady Theresa.11 A family photograph from this period shows that the structure had now been re-used. Along with the creation of a summerhouse on the embankment to the south-east, and the construction of a swimming pool, the family colonise the Sea Planation further with the creation of a timber playhouse on top of the stone building. Lady Rose Lauritzen recalls taking lessons in the hut on summer days. The hut’s walls were covered in cartoon characters and a large window overlooked the lough.12 Around this time the landing stage was further extended running several hundred meters further into the lough.

F Bailey, 2011

A Casement, 1995 p24

Ibid

F Bailey, 2011

Pers comm – Lady Rose Lauritzen 09/07/19

383

C1 SEA PLANTATION BUILDING

PRIMARY SOURCES N

Detail of the Geddas map, 1779

1834 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

384

C1 SEA PLANTATION BUILDING

PRIMARY SOURCES N

1858 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map 6 Inch

385

C1 SEA PLANTATION BUILDING

PRIMARY SOURCES N N

1921 Ordnance Survey map 25 Inch

Map of the Sea Plantation possibly late 1920 to 1930s of an unrealised plan by Lady Edith of formal gardens.

386

PRIMARY SOURCES

1971 Ordnance Survey map 25 Inch

387

C1 SEA PLANTATION BUILDING

Tree clearance within the Sea Plantation – assumed 1940s

Sea Plantation – assumed 1940s

The Sea Plantation building with playhouse on top – assumed 1940s

388

C1 SEA PLANTATION BUILDING

CURRENT SITUATION Setting The site is located in a quiet area within the Sea Plantation, adjacent to the embankment pathway. From the rooftop views can be enjoyed across Strangford Lough. Flooding within the Sea Plantation inhibits access to the site. Exterior The rectangular structure, measuring roughly 15.2m x 7.3m, is a single-storey, stone built structure, comprising internally of two chambers. The structure has battered walls and a flat roof of asphalt with four stone columns. The structure is in a semi-ruinous condition and the site was partially filled with water during the site visit, restricting access. The extent of vegetation across the structure also made inspection difficult. The south-west elevation is blank with a battlemented parapet above. The upper area of walling appears to have been rebuilt. Of note are the putlog holes still remaining from the building’s construction. Adjacent, to the right, is an additional structure incorporating stone steps which lead up to the roof from the south-east elevation. This appears to be a second phase of building which allowed access onto the roof. This structure has sandstone quoins unlike the rest of the building. The north-east facing elevation is the most interesting – facing inland and onto a flooded area of the Sea Plantation, this elevation exhibits Gothick-style features. There is a pointed-arched window (now blocked) and an opening which preserves a fragment of elaborate stone tracery with cusping (although this part of the building has partially collapsed). Sadly, much of the other dressed stone to other openings has been robbed away.

Interior Internally the building comprises two chambers with brick vaulting which is similar to the Gamekeeper’s Lodge. Within the northern chamber are the remains of a brick and rubble stone structure very similar to the bowl of an icehouse. Above, in the roof, is a circular opening, now blocked, which may have allowed the filling of the icehouse from above. No other features were discernible as it is now partially filled with rubble and in a state of collapse. The structure would benefit from further investigation/excavation to clarify use. Icehouses from this period are normally partially submerged underground to keep them cool. This is not the case here, perhaps due to the high water table. Icehouses also have drains to allow meltwater to drain away – a feature which might be discovered if the site was excavated. Discussion The structure appears to have had a number of uses during its history. As a building with decorative features, centrally placed along the Sea Plantation walk and facing inland onto the canal, it seems likely that the structure was originally built for pleasure.13 Its Gothick features are similar to other buildings within the demesne suggesting an early 19th century date. The building may have been built to allow the family and guests to explore and admire the newly constructed Sea Plantation. Like the Folly in The Glen, it may have been designed for parties or picnics, but later appears to have been given a new use; the structure was extended to the southeast with a staircase added to access the roof. A bowl-shaped structure was constructed in one of the chambers and a hole gave access from above. If it was adapted as an icehouse, it is possible that ice may have been gathered from the canal. However, its use may have been fairly short lived, as by 1846 a new icehouse was created on Clarke’s Hill. It has also been suggested that the site may have been involved with kelp production on Strangford Lough. Income from kelp production has been recorded in the accounts of Mount Stewart.

389

An entry in 1804 records that over 17 tons of kelp was produced within the demesne. Kelp Houses have also been noted beside the lough at this time. These stored the product of kelp production which would have been burnt in stone-lined pits. Could kelp have been stored here in the bowl-shaped structure following production? Further work is required. In the 1930s, the third phase of alteration took place with the installation of an asphalt roof and the construction of stone pillars in which a timber shed was erected as a playhouse. The crenellations may have been constructed/reconstructed at this time.

C1 SEA PLANTATION BUILDING

EXTERIOR

The building, south-west elevation

The building, north-west elevation

Stone columns on roof

Area of collapse showing possible icehouse structure

390

Blocked arched-window, north-east elevation

C1 SEA PLANTATION BUILDING

EXTERIOR CONT’D

Remnants of decorative stone-work

Battered south-west elevation

Staircase to roof

391

C1 SEA PLANTATION BUILDING

INTERIOR

Vaulting

Interior looking south-east. Note hole above and remains of bowl-like structure below

Vaulting

Blocked former hole in roof

392

C1 SEA PLANTATION BUILDING

BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT

Area of collapse

Mounded stonework with cusping

Pointed-arched window with stone dressings blocked in phase 2 (?)

Remains of chimney flue? Inaccessible due to flooding

Low door with brick voussoirs

Battered Walls Stairs (phase 2)

BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT PLAN Phase 1 (early 19th century) Phase 2

Put log holes

Brick and rubble structure (possible icehouse) (phase 2)

This plan is not to scale

393

Brick Vaulting

Rubble Wall

C1 SEA PLANTATION BUILDING Columns (formerly four in total) to hold timber play house: Phase 3 (1930s)

Rebuilt and crenelations added in phase 3? Sandstone Quoins to staircase Battering Staircase assumed phase 2

Putlog holes : phase 1 (early 19th century

394

C1 SEA PLANTATION BUILDING CONDITION

Sea Plantation Building

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

Further Investigations

•

Ruin

•

Masonry: stone, significant deterioration including structural defects. Loose/ imminently loose masonry units. Risks to trespassers.

Major repairs needed. Works to make safe required in short-term.

395

Investigation of full repair needs required once safe access is possible.

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

C1 SEA PLANTATION BUILDING

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Summary Overall the site has high evidential and medium historical value. The current condition of the site and its overgrown and neglected state lends it some aesthetic value as a ‘romantic’ ruin. The site is largely inaccessible reducing its communal value. Evidential The site is little understood and its original function, date of construction and later uses are little understood lending it high evidential value. The site would benefit from further recording and investigation following drainage, stabilisation and clearance of vegetation. Historical The building is an example of the Gothick-style of architecture found in buildings constructed in the late 18th and early 19th century. It is significant for its historical connections with Robert Stewart, the 1st Marquess of Londonderry, and with the construction of the Sea Plantation, which was built at a time when the demesne was undergoing significant improvements. It is set within a landscape created in the early 19th century which has played a crucial role in the development of the park and gardens at Mount Stewart for over 200 years. The Sea Plantation created a micro-climate for Mount Stewart and is likely to be a key driver in the success of the existing internationally important gardens created by Edith in the first half of the 20th century.

Aesthetic The site might be considered a romantic ruin, and its appearance raises interest and curiosity. However, its current condition is threatening the historic fabric, which will continue to decline unless this is addressed. Communal The Sea Plantation is not accessible to the public and has negligible communal value. Key Views Key views are from the Sea Plantation embankment. Due to the overgrown nature of the site and flooding, views of the site from within the Sea Plantation are at present limited. Historically the structure may also have featured as an eye-catcher both from the embankment and from walks within the Sea Plantation, but this is now difficult to establish. There is potential to improve the setting of the site and improve views through the restoration of the Sea Plantation paths.

396

C1 SEA PLANTATION BUILDING

KEY VIEWS AND ASSOCIATED DESIGNATIONS Sea Plantation Building Swimming Pool Site Key Views Lost Views Panoramic Views

This plan is not to scale Base plan © GoogleEarth

397

C1 SEA PLANTATION BUILDING

SIGNIFICANCE AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE PLAN High Medium Low Neutral Intrusive (Please refer to the Executive Summary Section 5.0 for an explanation of significance and its relationship to capacity for change) This plan is not to scale

398

C1 SEA PLANTATION BUILDING

CONSERVATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

PARAMETERS FOR CHANGE

CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

•

The site is in very poor condition and rapidly deteriorating.

•

There is potential to improve understating of the building through archaeological analysis of the structure, excavation of the bowl structure and interior, and analysis of the brickwork.

Any change should be considered within the context of a wider project to improve public access, planting and walks within the Sea Plantation.

•

An assessment of impact commensurate with significance is required at the point of any proposed development.

The site would benefit from stabilisation and some restoration to enable it to be opened to the public. The site could be interpreted following additional investigations, excavation and recording to establish its former uses. The restoration of the playhouse could provide an interesting addition to the story of Lady Edith and the Londonderrys at Mount Stewart.

There is potential to restore the structure as part of a wider restoration of the planting, walks and vistas within the Sea Plantation.

•

As a minimum, the site should be stabilised preventing further loss of historic fabric.

•

Restoration could make it an interesting feature for visitors.

•

Consider drainage to improve public access.

•

The site is positioned within easy reach of the house and could form part of a project to improve public access and extend walks into the Sea Plantation where there are excellent views across Strangford Lough.

•

Consideration should be given to the reinstatement of historic features informed by thorough historical research and as part of a wider plan for the Sea Plantation.

•

Seek to control vegetation.

•

There is potential to open the site to the public in its present state following consolidation and vegetation management as part of a wider project to improve public access.

•

Given its ruinous condition, ensure that a full ecological assessment has been carried out in advance of any repair works/consolidation/vegetation clearance.

•

Improve interpretation.

•

Seek to put into place a programme of maintenance and repair.

•

Ensure the site is fully investigated and recorded prior to any proposed development.

•

There is potential to radically improve the aesthetic value of the site through clearance and reuse. Stabilisation for public access and/or restoration of the site is likely to be costly and may not be a priority for the National Trust.

399

C2 OLD ORCHARD BARN

400

C2 OLD ORCHARD BARN

KEY INFORMATION

Component Name

Old Orchard Barn

Date Range

Early 19th century

Current Use

None

Historic Uses

Agricultural Barn

Overall Significance

Low

Overall Condition

In decline

Designations

None

Capacity for Change

Medium

401

C2 OLD ORCHARD BARN

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

Summary Timeline 1779 The building is not shown on the David Geddas’ map of the demesne; it seems more likely it was built after the orchard went out of use. However, Geddas does show a walled orchard with curving walls to a gated access, surrounded by an ‘orchard screen’ (annotated 25), and a ‘Nursarry’, presumed to be a tree nursery, (27) to the east. Mote Hill Plantation (28) (still referred to as ‘Moat Hill’) is also shown (28). Anne Casement suggested that the orchard would have formed an attractive feature below the proposed house on Bean Hill to the south-east. The abandonment of the orchard may have taken place when the new house was given up.01 1834 The barn is shown on the 1834 Ordnance Survey map in the north-west of the orchard enclosure. By 1834 the orchard appears to have been abandoned and has become a field – no trees are indicated. What appears to be the remains of a wall can be seen running down the eastern side of the enclosure. 1858 The 1858 Ordnance Survey map shows the barn standing on the north-west corner of the rectangular field. The former orchard plantation screen appears to have been extended to envelope the north and west sides of the barn.

1872 An incomplete plan of the demesne, revised from an 1855 plan, shows a similar layout to the 1858 Ordnance Survey map. Access into the enclosed rectangular field is indicated to the north via gated access with gatepiers, in roughly the same location shown by Geddas’ plan of 1779. ‘The Old Orchard’ as it was still known, is also annotated in pencil with the words ‘Old Grass’ suggesting it had long been in use as grazing.02 By 1900–1901 The 1900 Ordnance Survey map is unclear but appears to show that the barn is now standing within a larger field. The western boundary has been removed and the plantation now forms part of the field. A pond lies on the western boundary. By 1921 The Ordnance Survey maps indicates little change from the 1900–1901 Ordnance Survey plan; the barn is still roofed and lies within an irregular shaped enclosure. However, the rectangular form of old orchard can still be discerned. 1940 The old orchard is shown on the Rider’s Treasure Hunt Map adjacent to ‘Moat Hill’, lying within plantations. The barn is not shown. Later 20th Century Lack of use or maintenance resulted in the loss of the roof and partial collapse of walls. No roof is shown on the 1971 Ordnance Survey 25 inch map.

Anne Casement, ‘Mount Stewart landscape study’, 1995

PRONI D654/M71/5 402

C2 OLD ORCHARD BARN

PRIMARY SOURCES

1779 David Geddas map

1834 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

403

C2 OLD ORCHARD BARN

PRIMARY SOURCES

1854 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

Detail of the incomplete plan of the Demesne from 1872 (PRONI D654/M71/5)

404

C2 OLD ORCHARD BARN

PRIMARY SOURCES

1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1921 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

405

C2 OLD ORCHARD BARN

PRIMARY SOURCES

Detail of barn from the 1921 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

The Old Orchard and barn on the 1971 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

406

C2 OLD ORCHARD BARN

CURRENT SITUATION Setting The site is located on a sloping ground within a field approximately 90 metres north-east of a demesne track which is not generally accessible to the public. The track leads north to the farm, approximately 400 metres to the north-west. To the north-east of the ruined barn lie two gatepiers, which formerly marked the entrance to an orchard. The field is laid to grass, but to the west and south-west of the barn lie a number of mature trees, the remnants of the orchard screen shown on the Geddas map of 1779 but now severely degraded.

The west gable-end has almost completely collapsed, and the southern elevation is now fragmentary, but a wide doorway rises to just below the former eves. The doorway does not possess a lintel, but it is possible it featured a depressed arch similar to the doorway opposite. Internally the openings are also dressed in hand-made bricks. The modest single-storey structure, without decoration or evidence of fenestration, would suggest it functioned as a shelter for animals or for some other agricultural use such as a store. A single extant pintle can still be seen on the opening to the south elevation suggesting it once possessed doors.

Current structure The single-celled structure is rectangular and measures approximately 7.93 metres by 6.40 meters. Now roofless, the walls are constructed of rubble-stone in varying states of collapse. The ground level within the building has been partially raised following the inward collapse of the structure. The presence of vegetation also prevented full inspection of the walls. The east gable-end and the north elevation are largely intact, rising to full height, indicated on the latter by a slightly projecting eaves course. The east gable-end is featureless, whilst the north elevation has an arched doorway with stone voussoirs which has historically been blocked in rubblestone. Internally, this opening was dressed in hand-made brick in a construction process similar to others found elsewhere on the demesne, such as at Rugman’s Cottage.

407

C2 OLD ORCHARD BARN

Looking north-east

The east gable-end and north elevation with trees from the old orchard screen behind

The interior looking north-east. Note the brick dressings to the doorway on the left

South elevation with central entrance door now blocked. Note projecting eaves

408

C2 OLD ORCHARD BARN

SITE ASSESSMENT

Anglo-Norman Motte

Old hedge-line and bank Plantations shown by Geddas map 1779

Building in situ by 1834 Gatepiers assumed in-situ by 1779 Orchard Shelter Belt (by 1779)

Old Orchard boundary

Orchard Shelter Belt (by 1779)

Orchard removed between 1779 and 1834

409

C2 OLD ORCHARD BARN

CONDITION

Agricultural building (field barn) east of Bean Hill

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

•

Ruin.

•

Masonry: stone with sections obscured by vegetation. Open joints etc, structural cracking and destabilisation of masonry to wall tops. Risks to trespassers.

Further Investigations

Major repairs needed. Works to make safe required in short-term.

410

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

C2 OLD ORCHARD BARN

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Summary The building was formerly a small barn which is likely to have been constructed after the orchard was abandoned. The orchard may have been associated with the pre-demesne landscape or may have been associated with improvements to the demesne in the later 18th century. Little is known about the simple structure, which is first depicted in 1834. There is some potential for new discoveries to be made about the structure through an archaeological examination and excavation which could establish lost features and former uses. The condition of the site is very poor and further loss to the built fabric is likely to occur without immediate conservation stabilisation and repair. The site has some aesthetic value as a ruin set within an agricultural landscape. Evidential Little is known about the site, which is first depicted on the 1834 Ordnance Survey map. The map indicates that the building was still roofed into the early 20th century, but it is unclear when the site was finally abandoned. There is some potential for belowground remains in the form of floor surfaces and material culture which could establish former uses, but the potential for archival information to further understanding is limited. The evidential value is low.

Historical The site has close associations with the early history of the demesne; the former orchard in which the ruins sit was depicted by David Geddas in 1779. The orchard may have once been associated with the pre-demesne landscape or with the improvements to the demesne in the later 18th century. The barn is likely to have been constructed after the orchard was abandoned as its use probably relates to the care of livestock. Little is known about the simple structure, which is first depicted in 1834. Due to a lack of maintenance and neglect, the building has lost much of its integrity through the loss of its roof and the further collapse of a number of walls. The former orchard has a role to play today in the presentation and interpretation of the Mount Stewart story to visitors. As part of this, the barn has the potential to make a valuable contribution to public enjoyment and understanding and in retaining the special nature and character of the demesne, as a ruin or as a restored structure. Whilst it currently has low historical value, there is potential for improvement to its overall value. Aesthetic The site is ruinous and partially overgrown and could be considered to be attractive as a romantic ruin. The arched opening to the blocked door is similar to others found on the demesne, but the simple structure lacks any other architectural embellishment. The aesthetic value is low.

411

Communal The site is not accessible to the public and there is limited communal value at present. The low communal value could be improved through increased accessibility to visitors to the demesne by the construction or reopening of paths and trails by the National Trust or the replanting of the orchard. Value could also be increased by restoration of the structure and through a new use. Setting The setting of the building is of significance. It remains little altered over the years and the boundaries of plantations drawn by Geddas in 1779 can be traced on the ground today. The site remains within agricultural land, surrounded by fields and woodland. The immediate setting has seen the transition from an orchard to pasture which probably began 200 years ago. The gradual loss of the orchard screen threatens the setting of the building. Contribution to the Wider Demesne and the Mansion House The site currently makes a limited contribution to the wider demesne due to its lack of use, ruinous nature and inaccessibility. However, as a barn it contributes to the agricultural character of the demesne landscape.

C2 OLD ORCHARD BARN

Location of blocked door

SIGNIFICANCE PLAN High Medium Low Neutral Intrusive (Please refer to the Executive Summary Section 5.0 for an explanation of significance and its relationship to capacity for change) This plan is not to scale

Area of wall collapse

412

C2 OLD ORCHARD BARN

CONSERVATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

PARAMETERS FOR CHANGE

CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

•

Very poor overall condition and danger of further loss.

•

Seek an ecological assessment of the site.

•

Potential for managed decline and return to nature.

•

The structure may require stabilisation to prevent further loss.

•

High capacity for change due to substantial loss of historic fabric.

•

A recording exercise should be carried out prior to restoration.

The site has a high capacity for change due to the extensive losses suffered in recent decades. Consideration should be given to future uses which may include agricultural, or as a shelter or interpretation point for the public, as part of wider plans to improve access and footpaths within the demesne.

•

Seek to improve understanding and interpretation of the site.

•

Consider reinstatement of the orchard, or orchard screen.

•

Equally, any restoration is likely to be costly, and the Trust are likely to have other concerns in the short- to medium-term.

•

Consider engaging a local archaeological or architectural group in the investigation and recording of the structure.

•

Consider the managed decline of the site as a picturesque ruin within the demesne landscape.

•

Potential for restoration and re-use.

•

Potential for below-ground remains and floor surfaces.

•

Ecological factors will need to be considered. The site is the likely home to wildlife. An ecological assessment will be required before any works are carried out (including repairs and stabilisation).

•

Seek to retain and restore the historic function as part of proposals for reuse.

•

Seek to retain the agricultural character in any restoration.

•

Potential for archaeological analysis and recording.

•

New uses should be sensitive to the historic building and should seek to reveal significance of architectural features.

•

Potential to restore the building utilising local and traditional materials and techniques.

•

Any alterations or additions should be high-quality, of appropriate materials and craftsmanship and respect the existing scale of development and setting.

•

The subdivision of spaces should be considered in relation to historic plan form and its significance.

•

Potential use for teaching craft skills through its restoration.

413

C3 RUGMAN’S COTTAGE AND BARN

414

C3 RUGMAN’S COTTAGE AND BARN

KEY INFORMATION

Component Name

Rugman’s Cottage and Barn

Date Range

Possibly 18th century or early 19th century

Current Use

None

Historic Uses

Cottage and farm complex

Overall Significance

Low

Overall Condition

Urgent Health and Safety Issues

Designations

None

Capacity for Change

High

415

C3 RUGMAN’S COTTAGE AND BARN

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Summary Timeline 1779 The farmstead is not shown on the David Geddas’ map of the demesne although Geddas appears to have little concern for buildings within his survey. 1834 The farmstead is shown on the 1834 Ordnance Survey map. Approached by a track from the west, the Farmyard is enclosed by an ‘L’ shaped range of buildings to the north and east, and a further range to the west. To the south, the site is bordered by woodland. 1835 The Griffith’s Valuation described the field north of Rugman’s as ‘Steep friable sandy loam’ worth 26.2.12 with ‘waste at house’ worth 1 shilling.01 1858 No discernible changes are shown on the 1858 Ordnance Survey map. 1872 An incomplete plan of the demesne, revised from an 1855 plan, shows a familiar farm layout similar to the 1858 Ordnance Survey map. Gatepiers are indicated at access points to the farmstead from the west and east. The field to the north enclosing ‘Cummins Hill’ is annotated in pencil as in use for growing turnips.02

By 1900–1901 The Ordnance Survey map shows no changes to the farmstead. 1901 The house may have been occupied by the Waugh family. The 1901 Census has the head of house as Samuel Waugh, an ‘Agricultural Labourer’ of 58, married to Eleanor Jane, and living with five other family members. The Census also lists a number of outbuildings associated with the house including a stable, cow house, piggery and fowl house, indicating a farmstead.03 1911 The Waughs were probably still living in the house, but Samuel no longer appears to be farming. He is described as a ‘General Labourer’ and was by now a widower of 68. Only a fowl house is now listed, indicating a decline in the use of the farmstead. By 1921 The Ordnance Survey map indicates the range of buildings to the north of the Farmyard are no longer extant. The Farmyard remains enclosed and a small outbuilding is now shown north of the Cottage. The western range of buildings are clearly shown to be two units – these are a now known to be a cottage to the north and an attached barn/stable to the south.

03 01

PRONI: VAL1B/33, and VAL1A/3/11

PRONI D654/M71/5

This is assumption is based upon the (limited) returns within the 1901 Census of houses within the Mount Stewart Townland with associated agricultural buildings, the occupation of the head of the household and the number of rooms within the house.

416

1933 A ‘Sketch of Mount Stewart’ from 1933 does not show the farmstead – this may indicate a decline in the use/importance of the farmstead within the demesne. 1940 The farmstead is annotated on a Rider’s Treasure Hunt Map as ‘Mrs Rugman’s Cottage’. She also features in Clue 3: Mrs Rugman lives hard by A worthy dame, forbye. If you hear her in you’ll be Very fortunate, you’ll see. John Rugman, a coachman from England, is listed in the 1901 Census probably residing in the Stable block. By 1911 he was married to Sarah Stewart and the couple were living on the demesne with her family (father Nathanial Stewart (a coachman), mother, Margaret, and their two children). Sarah may be the Mrs Rugman referred to in the Treasure Map, who would have been 60 years old in 1940. Lady Rose remembers the cottage and barn as perhaps the most attractive farmstead within the demesne.04

Pers Comm: Lady Rose Lauritzen to Andrew Corkill 098/07/2019

C3 RUGMAN’S COTTAGE AND BARN

Late 1950s–1968 Rugman’s was used as by the Scouting Movement (1st Ards Scouts) as a base. They added the corrugated roof to the cottage. In 1968 the scouts moved operations to the Folly in The Glen, and Rugman’s continued to be used by the Cub Scouts until the late 1970s or early 1980s.05 Late 1970s/Early 1980s – Present day The site was unoccupied and fell in disrepair. The access road disappeared. 2015 The site came into the National Trust’s possession as part of the wider demesne acquisition.

Pers Comm John McKee to Andrew Corkill, 19th November 2019.

417

C3 RUGMAN’S COTTAGE AND BARN

PRIMARY SOURCES

1834 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch of Rugman’s Cottage

1858 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch of Rugman’s Cottage

418

C3 RUGMAN’S COTTAGE AND BARN

PRIMARY SOURCES N

1872 incomplete map of the demesne

1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map 6 Inch of Rugman’s Cottage

419

C3 RUGMAN’S COTTAGE AND BARN

PRIMARY SOURCES

1921 Ordnance Survey map 25 Inch of Rugman’s Cottage

1962 Aerial image

420

C3 RUGMAN’S COTTAGE AND BARN

CURRENT SITUATION Setting Rugman’s Cottage is located is a hollow between the woodland of Patterson’s Hill to the south and fields rising up to Cumming’s Hill to the north. The site is heavily overgrown and access was limited at the time of survey. The site comprises two buildings; a barn range to the east and a cottage and barn range to the west, separated by an overgrown former farmyard. Cottage Exterior The cottage comprises five bays and is one and half storeys. Like other demesne structures the building is constructed in basalt stone rubble – the barn openings have some brick to the interior reveals, but the cottage has brick external dressings to openings. The visible areas of roof are hipped and covered in corrugated asbestos sheeting, but formerly covered in slate. The rectangular structure runs roughly north–south, with the former cottage occupying the five bays to the north of the structure, and a barn/stable to the southern end. Part of the cottage on the ground floor appears to have been extended into the barn in the 20th century.

The cottage was originally approached from a track to the west, with the cottage entrance in bay one of the west elevation. To the right are three windows to the ground floor with dormer windows above. In bay two of the first floor, the dormer window still retains some of its fenestration, evidencing it was a three-over-three timber sash (now without glazing). Much of the remaining elevation is obscured by ivy. There is one chimney stack to the ridge between bays two and three which is partially rendered. The east elevation is also largely obscured by ivy. However, a feature of this elevation are the remains of two arched openings (one collapsed) which formerly accessed the barn. Cottage Interior The ground floor comprises two units of formerly heated rooms (at least one with a suspended floor – now lost), and a third unit (the barn/stable) to the south. There is access into a blockwork lean-to extension on the east elevation, and additional room has been formed within the barn/stable. Much of the first floor within bays one and two has collapsed into the ground floor. This has revealed the room above to have been unheated. The formerly inhabited areas are distinguished by the remains of plaster adhering to the walls. The roof (where extant) was hipped at the northern end and evidence suggests it formerly had a slate covering. No fireplaces remain. Accessed from the cottage is a room with breeze block walls which extends into the adjacent barn. This appears to have been a 20th century addition, perhaps to create an internal bathroom. Partial collapse of the roof and floors prevented a full examination.

421

Eastern Barn Range Largely overgrown with ivy, the range runs north–south facing the cottage to the west. It is roughly a parallelogram in shape. It once formed part of a ‘L’ shaped range which enclosed the north and east of the farmyard. The floor appears to be of dirt, although it is possible a stone or cobbled surface lies below. Like the cottage and barn range to the west, the barn is constructed of local basalt rubble stone. Where still extant, the roof structure has been covered in corrugated iron sheeting. The southern gable end has suffered collapse and has been partially reconstructed in concrete blocks. Key features of the range include the ventilation slits seen in the eastern elevation and the arched openings similar to other agricultural buildings on the demesne. There are believed to be three arched openings on the western elevation which would have opened out onto the farmyard, possibly indicating its use as a lyingin barn for cattle. The arches are constructed in local stone on the outer face with mortared brick on the inner face with Scrabo sandstone springer stones. A further narrow arch can be found on the western elevation at the northern end. This perhaps provided access into the adjacent barn which formerly adjoined the northwest end.

C3 RUGMAN’S COTTAGE AND BARN

CURRENT STRUCTURE Setting and Cottage Range

Cumming’s Hill from the site boundary

Overgrown farmyard. Note arched opening to barn

North facing gable end showing rubble walls, hipped roof and brick chimney stack.

East elevation of cottage showing rubble walls, asbestos roof, brick dressings to openings and brick dormer with three over three sash window. A further dormer is to the right.

East elevation of cottage showing lean-to extension walls, asbestos roof, brick dressings to openings and brick dormer with three over three sash window. A further dormer is to the right.

Roof structure of cottage. The hipped gable-end is to the left

422

C3 RUGMAN’S COTTAGE AND BARN

Room above with plastered chimney breast. Note substantial cracking to right

Second heated room. Note collapsed suspended floor. The first floor above remains intact. Looking north-east

Interior, showing first floor collapsed, looking north-east. Access to the lean-to extension is through the door in this image.

423

Fireplace with built-in cooking range(?), looking south-east

C3 RUGMAN’S COTTAGE AND BARN

Interior of adjoining barn to cottage, looking south-east

Interior of adjoining barn to cottage, looking south

Interior of cottage looking west

424

C3 RUGMAN’S COTTAGE AND BARN

Barn Range

Barn interior looking north

Eastern elevation showing rubble walls, ventilation slits and corrugated sheeting roof (looking north-west)

Arched opening north gable end

Interior of barn looking south-east

Arched opening in the west elevation, looking south-west

425

C3 RUGMAN’S COTTAGE AND BARN

Drone photographs of the site, looking south

The barn

The cottage, looking east

The site, looking west 426

C3 RUGMAN’S COTTAGE AND BARN BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT N

GROUND FLOOR Assumed to be 18th century, with 19th and 20th century alterations. Barn shows similar construction techniques aeast barn ie external stoneconstruction with brick tointernal reveals

19th century window surround

Partition wall and chimney breast in brick

20th century rendered breeze block extension – assumed kitchen/scullery

Suspended floor collapsed

Wall brackets for sink

Breeze block buttress

Collapsed arch - similar in construction to arched opening in barn range

Arched door opening into attached barn

Evidence of loft above on interior walls

Possible location of stair Wall collapsed. Gable above also lost

Remains of 19th century (?) internal porch in tongue and groove panelling Living kitchen

Inaccessible. Ceiling collapsed. Modern insert with plastered walls into barn. Lit by modern window Fireplace removed Fireplace removed

Remnants of lime plaster (very poor condition)

427

20th century casement with concrete lintel

C3 RUGMAN’S COTTAGE AND BARN

FIRST FLOOR

Barn shows similar construction techniques as the east barn i.e. external stone construction with brick tointernal reveals

Floor collapsed

Brick partition with plaster to ceiling height

Assumed to be 18th century, with 19th and 20th century alterations.

19th century sash

Wall collapsed

Direction of joists No access due to partial collapse

Hipped roof – partially collapsed above Chimney breast – no evidence of fireplace

VOID

Substantial cracking to brick wall

Dormer with remnants of timber sliding sashes assumed to be 19th century. No glazing.

428

C3 RUGMAN’S COTTAGE AND BARN

WEST ELEVATION Corrugated asbestos sheeting

Roof lost

Cottage entrance

Domestic arrangement of windows does not equate to use as barn/ stable. Assumed later alteration/insertion

Remains of historic sash windows

429

C3 RUGMAN’S COTTAGE AND BARN

EAST ELEVATION

Partially rendered brick stack Roof lost

Window to loft

Arched opening similar to low arched openings in barn range Modern blockwork extension

Assumed former arched opening with brick reveals - possibly similar to arched opening in barn range

430

C3 RUGMAN’S COTTAGE AND BARN

Ventilation slits RUGMANS COTTAGE BARN Corrugated metal roof

Historic brick to interior of stone arch with sandstone springer

High level, loft (?) openings - no brick to reveals

Tall arched opening with brick reveals and voussoirs - similar to arched opening in barn in cottage range?

Low arched openings similar to barn in cottage range. Brick to inside of stone voussoirs

Dirt floor - evidence of burrowing animals Small putlog holes assumed for low upper storey / loft

Wall capped at low level with concrete Area of collapse

Raised tie beams to trusses

Tall arched opening would have allowed connectivity to a northern range shown on OS maps

Low blockwork wall

Interior formerly partitioned? 431

C3 RUGMAN’S COTTAGE AND BARN

Site Assessment N

Site of outbuilding

Location of former building (assumed agricultural barn)

Stone wall Embankment

Tall and narrow arched opening Arched opening

Courtyard (not surveyed) overgrown

Hipped corrugated roof Area of collapse. Low level modern wall

Arched openings

Approach road

COTTAGE AND BARN

BARN

Approach road

Embankment Stone walls 20th century breeze block extension

432

C3 RUGMAN’S COTTAGE AND BARN

CONDITION

Rugman’s Cottage house and barns

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

•

Structures in serious decline.

•

Roof: asbestos sheet roof to cottage deteriorating.

•

Roof: sheet metal roof to barn deteriorating.

•

Further Investigations

Major repairs needed. Works to make safe required in short-term.

Masonry: overrun with vegetation and in decline.

433

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

C3 RUGMAN’S COTTAGE AND BARN

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Summary The site was formerly a small farmstead which is likely to have preceded the improvements to the demesne and construction of the Farmyard below Bean Hill by Robert 1st Marquess of Londonderry. Little is known about the site, which is first depicted in 1834. There is potential for new discoveries to be made within documentary sources and through a study of the built fabric which may establish the origins and development of the site. The condition of the site is very poor and further loss to the built fabric is likely to occur without immediate stabilisation. Evidential Little is known about the site, which is first depicted on the 1834 Ordnance Survey Map. The Ordnance Survey maps indicates the loss of a range of buildings on the northern side of the Farmyard. The potential for below-ground remains in the form of building foundations and yard surfaces is therefore high. There is potential for new discoveries to be made within documentary sources, through a study of the built fabric and through archaeological investigations, which could establish the origins and development of the site. The evidential value is medium.

Historical The site appears to have been a small farmstead which may have been built in the 18th or early 19th century. It seems likely that the farmstead preceded the improvements to the demesne made by Robert, 1st Marquess of Londonderry, which saw the construction of the model farm located below Bean Hill. Due to a lack of maintenance and neglect, the buildings have lost much of their historic fabric, although the external stone envelopes and any remaining roof structures are of some value. The historical value is low. Aesthetic The site is unrecognisable as a historic farmstead. It has some aesthetic value for its overgrown and wild nature, and the arched openings to the barn range are visible from the public path, adding mystery and character. Whilst the site is overgrown, and some features such as the modern blockwork extension to the cottage are not immediately visible, corrugated sheeting and neglect mar the site’s appearance. The aesthetic value is low with potential for improvement. Communal The site is not accessible to the public and there is limited communal value at present. The overgrown nature of the buildings, the loss of the yard and access roads beneath vegetation also reduces understanding and appreciation of the site. The low communal value could be increased through as programme of restoration and use, and through improved interpretation.

434

Setting The setting has changed little in the past 200 years, remaining a quiet corner of the demesne, surrounded by fields and woodland. The immediate farmyard setting, however, is overgrown and neglected and does not promote an understanding of the site. The retention of the setting is key to the success of potential future uses, whilst the farmyard has potential for improvement. Contribution to the Wider Demesne and the Mansion House The site currently makes a limited contribution to the wider demesne due to its overgrown nature and a lack of understanding of the site. It is possible that the site may have played an early role in the shaping of the demesne, and the restoration of the site has the potential to make a valuable contribution to public enjoyment and understanding of Mount Stewart, and in retaining the special nature and character of the demesne.

C3 RUGMAN’S COTTAGE AND BARN

Key Views and Associated Designations Due to the overgrown nature of the site, views are limited to a path to the north-east where the agricultural building can be seen across a field. Views from other parts of the demesne could be substantially improved of the site through its clearance and restoration. This would also have the advantage of revealing views of Cumming's Hill to the north and pleasant views of the demesne to the east and west.

Key view of the site from the public path from the north-east

435

Ruined farmstead from Cumming’s Hill

GROUND FLOOR RUGMAN’S COTTAGE AND ATTACHED BARN SIGNIFICANCE PLANS High Medium Low Neutral Intrusive Roof material is intrusive. Overall condition reduces the significance of the site which could be described as intrusive due to its neglected state. This plan is not to scale

FIRST FLOOR

436

C3 RUGMAN’S COTTAGE AND BARN

BARN RANGE SIGNIFICANCE PLAN High Medium Low Neutral Intrusive This plan is not to scale

437

C3 RUGMAN’S COTTAGE AND BARN

CONSERVATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

PARAMETERS FOR CHANGE

•

Very poor overall condition and danger of further loss.

•

Potential for managed decline and return to nature. •

Seek an ecological assessment of the site as some urgency.

•

High capacity for change due to substantial loss of historic fabric.

•

The structures require urgent stabilisation works if further loss is to be prevented.

Equally, any restoration is likely to be costly, and the Trust are likely to have other concerns in the short- to medium-term.

•

The ivy covering is likely to be detrimental to the structures’ stability but may also be acting to stabilise areas. A full assessment should be carried out in advance of any clearance works.

•

Seek to retain and restore the historic function as part of proposals for reuse.

•

The footprint of previous structures could provide precedents for new buildings, providing they respect the historic plan form.

•

Any alterations or additions should be high-quality, of appropriate materials and craftsmanship and respect the existing scale of development and setting.

•

The subdivision of spaces should be considered in relation to historic plan form and its significance.

•

Restore farmyard surface and envelope of buildings and resist development within the yard itself.

Any change should respect the character, scale and massing of the current building and its setting.

•

Lean-to extensions should be removed.

•

A recording exercise should be carried out prior to change.

•

Seek to restore appropriate roofing materials.

•

Seek to improve understanding and interpretation of the site.

CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

•

Consider engaging a local archaeological or architectural group in the investigation and recording of the site.

•

Retain as far as practicable the external stone envelopes and roof trusses.

•

Seek to retain the open farmyard and the character and appearance of an agricultural complex in any future restoration/development.

•

New uses should be sensitive to the historic buildings and should seek to reveal significance of architectural features.

Potential for restoration and re-use, but capacity for innovation and high quality design in future development. Potential for below-ground remains, building foundations, yard and floor surfaces and undiscovered features within the historic built fabric. Ecological factors will need to be considered. The site is the likely home to wildlife, including bats and other protected species. An ecological assessment will be required before any works are carried out (including repairs and stabilisation). Potential to improve understanding of the farmstead through additional documentary research.

•

Potential for archaeological analysis and recording.

•

Potential to restore the buildings utilising local and traditional materials and techniques.

•

Potential use for teaching craft skills through its restoration.

•

Currently the structure is in a dangerous condition and public access should continue to be prevented.

438

The site has a high capacity for change due to the extensive losses suffered in recent decades. Consideration should be given to future uses which may include holiday lets for the cottage and barn ranges or for other commercial uses such as a wedding venue. The site may also be suitable as a base for the National Trust Rangers.

[THIS PAGE HAS INTENTIONALLY BEEN LEFT BLANK]

C4 PIGGERY

440

C4 PIGGERY

KEY INFORMATION

Component Name

Piggery (Bell’s Sheds)

Date Range

Early 19th century

Current Use

Ruin

Historic Uses

Agricultural

Overall Significance

Low

Overall Condition

In decline

Designations

None

Capacity for Change

High

441

C4 PIGGERY

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

Summary Timeline 1834 The building is shown on the 1834 Ordnance Survey map as a rectangular structure with enclosing wall and a pond in the south-west corner. 1858 The 1858 Ordnance Survey map shows little change. 1872 The site appears on the 1872 incomplete map of the demesne. Although indicating no change from the 1858 Ordnance Survey map, it does indicate the enclosure was accessed via a gate in the east wall. 1900–1901 The 1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map is unclear but appears to show additional structures forming a U-shape, partially enclosing a courtyard, which is also subdivided.

1933 The structure is captured in both vertical and oblique aerial images taken of the demesne. It appears to be roofed, with a boundary wall to the east and south of the enclosure. An entrance is located in the eastern boundary wall. 1971 By 1971, the structure appears to be roofless. The enclosing wall has been truncated. 2019 In an interview Dolly McRobert’s said that Mrs Weir used to refer to this as ‘Bell’s Sheds’. She said that at one stage there was damage to the Dairy roof and said that the roof of this was taken off during her time on the Demesne and the tiles were used to repair the dairy roof. They were also used for repairs elsewhere on the estate.02

1921 The Ordnance Survey map of 1921 shows that the additional structures shown on the 1900–1901 plan have been removed.01

16.09.1933 nr2

Pers Comm. Dolly McRoberts and Andy Corkill, July 2019. 442

C4 PIGGERY

PRIMARY SOURCES

1834 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1858 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

443

C4 PIGGERY

PRIMARY SOURCES

1872 incomplete map of the demesne

1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

444

C4 PIGGERY

PRIMARY SOURCES

1921 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

Vertical aerial photograph, 1933

445

C4 PIGGERY

PRIMARY SOURCES

Oblique aerial image, 1933 (PRONI D654/M71/5)

1971 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

446

C4 PIGGERY

SITE ASSESSMENT PLAN N

KEY Pre-1834 – assumed later 18th or early 19th century This plan is not to scale

Roughly coursed rubblestone walls

Direction of former roof pitch (high to low)

Roof lost

No doors or frames Arched doorways with stone voussoirs

Access door to feeding passage?

Archway lost

Modern repair to arch

Gate pier with pintle

Piggery Front Elevation Laser Scan Image

447

C4 PIGGERY

CURRENT SITUATION Setting The ruined structure is set on the edge of grazing to the west of Bell’s Hill and adjacent to a belt of mixed woodland. The site is overgrown and the building faces onto an area of rough ground, which is partly enclosure on the eastern side by a high stone wall which terminates in a gate pier (shown on the 1872 map of the demesne). A demesne track runs past the site to the south and a footpath heads north-east past the site. Current Structure The structure is rectangular, and carefully constructed in roughly courses rubblestone, lying north-west to south-east. The structure is roofless. The south-east elevation indicates that the roof was formerly mono-pitched, possible covered in slate. The principal elevation faces south-west and is characterised by a series of equally spaced arched openings with stone voussoirs (brick on the internal face). The head of the eastern-most arched opening has been lost, but the springer stone is still visible. There is no evidence that the interior was formerly divided, although the evidence of lightweight partitions in timber or wattle, may have long since disappeared. Due to the amount of vegetation, it was difficult to make a close inspection in the internal walls.

Known locally as the ‘Piggery’ it has also been referred to as ’Bell’s Shed’, suggesting it may also have served another purpose.03 The style of construction of the east wall (the rough coursing of larger blocks interspersed with courses of smaller material) can also be found in other structures within the demesne, such as the Farmyard and Walled Garden. The lack of architectural embellishment, lack of windows and repetitive door openings would suggest an agricultural building. However, the height of the building, the high doorways, lack of obvious internal divisions and separate external pens, does not accord with the traditional pigsty. Pig accommodation was more usually located close to the Farmyard or near occupation areas, and fed on waste products, including whey from the Dairy. The site is in fact located half a kilometre south of the Farmyard, and nearly 850 metres by the indirect demesne roads. One explanation might be that it was created as part of the ‘model farm’ to be as much picturesque as productive, and part of a ‘tour’ of the demesne.

448

The site may reflect that Mount Stewart was engaged in large scale pig production. Some 19th century agricultural writers recommended the raising of pigs in ‘Scandinavian Piggeries’, where pigs were raised undercover in walled boxes in a building which was more like a cow-house than a standard pigsty.04 These structures might incorporate a feeding passage along its length and often there would be an area for feed preparation at one end. The building may also have acted as a shelter shed – in some areas herds of pigs matured in a yard but had access to a shelter. In more severe climates, the pigs were kept in pens within the building. Its location near a water course and set on a gentle slope may have facilitated drainage, whilst the adjacent plantations afforded the site shelter.

C4 PIGGERY

Approach from the south-east

Principle elevation

Archyway lost to eastern-most doorway, adjacent to boundary wall

Gate pier

Rear elevation

South-east elevation of pigsty showing roofline

449

C4 PIGGERY

Views The site is visible to the public from a demesne track. Key views are largely confined to an approach from the south-west.

SITE ASSESSMENT Location of former buildings and wall shown on 1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map Extant structure Pond Lost boundary wall Key views This plan is not to scale. Base plan © Google Earth 2020.

450

C4 PIGGERY

CONDITION

Piggery

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

•

No roofing at present.

•

Masonry: stone walls, vegetation growth, some disruption of wall tops, open joints. Appears sound overall at present.

Further Investigations

Repairs, re-roofing and repurposing needed.

451

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

C4 PIGGERY

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Summary The Piggery is a ruined building about which little is known. It is possible that it was part of the early improvements to the demesne and the establishment of a ‘model farm’. Further research and analysis of the fabric has the potential to improve understanding. Evidential Little is known about the Piggery and no references were found within historical documents to the structure. Further research and analysis of the fabric has the potential to improve understanding. The evidential value is low/medium. Historical The Piggery was probably constructed as part of the agricultural improvements and experimentation in the late 18th or early 19th century. Its location is curious, but it may have been designed as much for picturesque reasons as for pork production. Ordnance Survey maps also suggest it continued in use throughout the 19th century. The name ‘Bell’s Sheds’, however, would suggest an alternative use. The historical value is low. Aesthetic Following abandonment, the site has declined and is now roofless. Well-constructed, the linear nature and regular arched openings make it a building of interest. The building is, however, overgrown with an air of neglect. The aesthetic value is medium.

SIGNIFICANCE PLAN High Medium Low Neutral Intrusive

(Please refer to the Executive Summary Section 5.0 for an explanation of significance and its relationship to capacity for change) This plan is not to scale

Communal The site lies beside a public footpath and partly accessible to the public providing it with some communal value. Value could be increased through clearance and maintenance/new use of the structure. The communal value is low.

452

C4 PIGGERY

Setting The setting of the building has not changed dramatically in the past 200 years. It remains within a quiet agricultural setting suitable for the building. The setting has medium value.

PARAMETERS FOR CHANGE •

The Trust should consider improving access through controlled management of the undergrowth.

Contribution to the Wider Demesne and the Mansion House As one of a small collection of agricultural ruins within the demesne, the building has some group value with the Old Orchard Barn and Rugman’s Cottage, which stand as reminders of the demesne’s agricultural past. However, its contribution to the wider demesne could be improved through interpretation and safe access.

•

Continue to pursue areas of limited understanding to help inform future change.

•

Interpretation should be improved.

CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

•

A recording exercise should be carried out prior to change.

•

CONSERVATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

•

Continue to improve understanding of the site through research.

As a ruin, the site could be retained as such. With better management and seating the site could become a stopping off point for walkers and as a picnic area.

• •

The Trust should ensure that the building is maintained in a stable condition and a programme of long-term maintenance and repair should be continued.

There is also potential for the site to be restored for other uses, such as a picnic shelter or bunk house.

•

Consider the reinstatement of the pond.

•

Consider reinstating the enclosure.

•

Consider engaging a local archaeological or architectural group in the investigation and recording of the structure.

•

New uses should be sensitive to the historic building and should seek to reveal the significance of any remaining architectural features.

•

Lack of sustainable use.

•

Potential for managed decline and return to nature.

•

Capacity for change due to loss of historic fabric.

•

Potential for restoration and re-use.

•

Equally, any restoration is likely to be costly, and the Trust are likely to have other concerns in the short- to medium-term.

•

Potential for archaeological analysis and recording.

•

Potential to restore the building utilising local and traditional materials and techniques.

•

Potential use for teaching craft skills through its restoration.

453

•

Any alterations or additions should be high-quality, of appropriate materials and craftsmanship and respect the existing scale of development and setting.

•

Any additions should utilise former building footprints such as the structure to the west, and any reinstatement of the roof should ensure it is mono-pitched.

C5 PATTERSON’S COTTAGE

454

C5 PATTERSON’S COTTAGE

KEY INFORMATION

Component Name

Patterson’s Cottage

Date Range

Possibly late 18th century elements with 19th century with 20th century additions

Current Use

Derelict

Historic Uses

Residential

Overall Significance

Low

Overall Condition

Urgent Health and Safety Concern

Designations

None

Capacity for Change

High

455

C5 PATTERSON’S COTTAGE

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Summary Timeline

1807 A building in the approximate location of the Cottage is shown on the David Geddas Jr survey of 1807. The single-storey Cottage is illustrated possessing one chimney, a door and a window. To the east is a row of three cottages whilst another cottage lies to the west. All are aligned along the ‘Road to Ballywalter’. In pencil, the line of the new road (now Mount Stewart road), has been sketched in. This may have taken place between 1821 and 1834, allowing the Mount Stewart demesne to be extended northwards. 1834 A building is shown on the 1834 Ordnance Survey map in roughly the same position as the Cottage. By now the Millisle road had been taken into the Mount Stewart demesne and a new road (Mount Stewart road) has been laid out north of the Cottage and reached by an existing track. Another track a short distance to the east is no longer shown. 1858 The 1858 plan indicates that since 1834 further consolidation of the demesne has taken place. The cottages appear unchanged, but a trackway to the east of the Cottage has been re-established and now continues south-west towards the Mount Stewart Farmyard. By 1900–1901 The 1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map is very unclear and does not appear to show any buildings in the location of the Cottage.

By 1920 The Ordnance Survey map of 1920 clearly shows a rectangular structure in the position of the Cottage with further cottages to the east and to the west. The 1921 25 inch version also shows two small projections to the north (porches?) and a small projection to the west. It sits in a roughly rectangular enclosure with an outbuilding to the south. 1933 The Cottage is shown on a sketch plan of the demesne. It lies between the buildings also shown on the 1921 Ordnance Survey map. It may have been around this time that the Cottage was extended. 1968 The Cottage was captured in an aerial image. In contrast to today, it is set within open ground. The driveway follows the line of the old Millisle road which continues to the top right of the image. 1971 The Cottage is known as 73 Mount Stewart Road. Later 20th Century The Cottage was enclosed by forestry in the latter half of the 20th century and continued to be occupied until the late 20th/ early 21st century. However, following vacancy, the Cottage has rapidly declined. Referred to locally as ‘Patterson’s Cottage’ Dolly McRoberts remembers the last person to live there went by the surname of ‘Patterson’.01

Pers comm to Andrew Corkill 456

C5 PATTERSON’S COTTAGE

PRIMARY SOURCES

Pencil sketch to route of intended Millisle Road (Mount Stewart Road)

1807 survey of by David Geddas Jr (PRONI D654/47/7)

1834 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

457

C5 PATTERSON’S COTTAGE

PRIMARY SOURCES

1858 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

458

C5 PATTERSON’S COTTAGE

PRIMARY SOURCES

1921 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

1933 Sketch Plan of the Demesne

459

C5 PATTERSON’S COTTAGE

PRIMARY SOURCES

1968 aerial view of the cottage

1971 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

460

C5 PATTERSON’S COTTAGE

CURRENT SITUATION Setting The derelict Cottage is to the west of a trackway off of Mount Stewart road and set within dense 20th century conifer plantations established by the Forestry Service. Current structure The structure is a single-storey five bay cottage with seven rooms, rendered walls, and a partially slated roof (slates missing from the first bay). The thick walls to bays two to five would suggest a stone construction of some age. The Cottage has three chimneys to the ridge, although a chimney stack has been removed from between bays three and four. The Cottage’s principal elevation faces north, where there is a shallow porch and uPVC entrance door. There is a partially rendered brick extension to the rear (south) which is now roofless. The window sizes and shapes vary, but all fenestration has been replaced with uPVC units within the last few decades. The removal of slates to the eastern-most unit has led to significant damage to this part of the Cottage. The vacancy of the structure is also led to significant damage to the interior of the remaining cottage from vandalism and water ingress.

The earliest phases of construction are represented by bays two to five which comprise thick stone walls, as opposed to the use of modern brick in bay one. A number of windows also possess chamfered reveals. It is also possible that the earliest elements are bays four and five – a closer inspection of the fabric including the walls and roof trusses is required. The Cottage was not accessed due to its dangerous condition, but an inspection was carried out through windows. Based upon the style of the fire surround in the first bay, the eastern-most element appears to have been constructed during the inter-war years (probably 1930s), when the Cottage was probably also refurbished – many doors and architraves are also stylistically from this period. The walls to this element are also thinner suggesting brick cavity construction. North elevation. Entrance door and 20th century extension to the left (Bay 1)

Glimpses of roof timbers through collapsed ceilings were unable to identify timbers of any great age which might suggest that the roof has been replaced; this is also suggested by the level roof ridge.

North elevation

461

C5 PATTERSON’S COTTAGE

Rear brick extension

West gable end and rear elevation photographed in 2015

Rear elevation photographed in 2010

Interior (Bays two and three demonstrating the poor condition and substantial water ingress

462

20th century extension interior photographed in 2010

C5 PATTERSON’S COTTAGE

SITE ASSESSMENT PLAN

Flush Bridge SITE ASSESSMENT The Site Site of Former Cottages Road diverted c.1820s, now Mount Stewart Road Access road removed by 1858 Line of Old Millisle Road Demesne road first appears on 1858 Ordnance Survey map Road to Ballywalter This plan is not to scale. Base plan © Google Earth 2020.

463

C5 PATTERSON’S COTTAGE

Location of shallow projection (photographed in 1968 and may also relate to projections shown on 1921 Ordnance Survey map)

HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Chamfered reveals

This plan is not to scale

Lobby area Phase one (?) Flue

Cottage of three or four rooms

Chimney removed above Phase 2 extension (?)

Former kitchen Stone core with cement render

Brick dressings

Chamfered reveals

Roof collapsed

464

Fireplace with stone? surround

Phase 3 (20th century extension)

Inter-war style tiled fireplace surround Roof covering removed Vegetation growth Brick cavity construction with cement render

Phase 3

Former bathroom Brick with cement render (stretcher bond)

C5 PATTERSON’S COTTAGE

CONDITION

Estate Cottage (Patterson’s)

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

•

Roof: slate/?composite. Failing extensively, total loss in some areas.

•

RWGs: generally missing, some uPVC.

•

Masonry: rendered brick, loss of render and structural failures.

•

Windows/doors: timber. Significant deterioration.

•

Further Investigations

Major works required. Demolition may need to be considered.

Interiors/finishes: significant deterioration and ingress.

465

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

C5 PATTERSON’S COTTAGE

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Summary The building was formerly a cottage which may pre-date the extension of the Mount Stewart demesne and has connections with a lost road. Little is understood about the origins or history of the cottage, which could be improved through additional research and fabric investigation. Its modernisation and subsequent vacancy and vandalism have led to a detrimental appearance. Evidential A building is depicted in roughly the location of the cottage as early as 1807. However, it is unclear if the current building contains elements of this early structure. There is potential through fabric analysis and recording to add to our current understanding. The potential for archival information to further understanding is limited given the low status of the building. The evidential value is low/ medium. Historical The site’s history reflects the improvements to the demesne and the diversion of the Millisle road in the early 19th century. The Gamekeeper’s Lodge and the Cottage, are the only surviving buildings built beside the old Millisle road. Additionally, along with Ros Cuan, it may be the oldest surviving structure to have survived the extension and consolidation of the demesne. However, this remains unclear without additional fabric investigation. The site remains of low historical value.

Aesthetic Following modern refurbishment, and progressive decline, the site cannot be considered to be a romantic ruin. It is perhaps fortuitous that the surrounding forestry screens the site from view. Detrimental aesthetic value. Communal The site is not accessible to the public and there is no communal value at present. Value could be increased by restoration of the structure and through a new use. The communal value is low. Setting The setting of the building has changed dramatically in the latter half of the 20th century. Formerly set in open ground, it is now hidden within dense commercial forestry. There is now limited value in its setting and no views of the site. Contribution to the Wider Demesne and the Mansion House The site currently makes a limited contribution to the wider demesne due to its lack of use, detrimental appearance and inaccessibility.

466

C5 PATTERSON’S COTTAGE

SIGNIFICANCE PLAN High Medium Low Neutral Intrusive

(Please refer to the Executive Summary Section 5.0 for an explanation of significance and its relationship to capacity for change) This plan is not to scale

467

C5 PATTERSON’S COTTAGE

CONSERVATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

PARAMETERS FOR CHANGE

CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

•

Very poor overall condition and danger of further loss.

•

Currently the structure is in danger of further collapse and total loss.

•

Lack of sustainable use. •

Seek an ecological assessment of the site.

•

Potential for managed decline and return to nature. •

•

High capacity for change due to alteration and loss of historic fabric.

The structure may require protection against the elements to prevent further loss.

•

A recording exercise should be carried out prior to restoration.

•

Equally, any restoration is likely to be costly and the Trust are likely to have other concerns in the short- to medium-term.

•

Seek to improve understanding and interpretation of the site.

•

Potential for restoration and re-use.

•

Consider engaging a local archaeological or architectural group in the investigation and recording of the structure.

•

Ecological factors will need to be considered. The site is likely to be home to wildlife. An ecological assessment will be required before any works are carried out.

•

New uses should be sensitive to the historic building and should seek to reveal the significance of any remaining architectural features.

•

Any alterations or additions should be high-quality, of appropriate materials and craftsmanship and respect the existing scale of development and setting.

•

Remove the detrimental rear extension and re-instate the building’s enclosure.

•

Potential for archaeological analysis and recording.

•

Potential to restore the building utilising local and traditional materials and techniques.

•

Potential use for teaching craft skills through its restoration.

468

The site has a high capacity for change due to its current condition. Should the National Trust deem it viable the site could be considered for residential uses or as a holiday let.

[THIS PAGE HAS INTENTIONALLY BEEN LEFT BLANK]

C6 GASWORKS

470

C6 GASWORKS

KEY INFORMATION

Component Name

Gasworks

Date Range

c.1850

Current Use

Semi-derelict with public viewing platform

Historic Uses

Gasworks

Overall Significance

High

Overall Condition

Immediate Health and Safety issue

Designations

None

Capacity for Change

Moderate

471

C6 GASWORKS

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Summary Timeline 1834 The Ordnance Survey 6 inch first edition map shows a building in the location of old Gasworks. It is possible that elements of this building were incorporated into the later structure.

1905 An electrical power house near Mount Stewart House is shown on demesne maps but expenditure on the Gasworks continued until c.1914.

c.1850 The Gasworks was probably established around 1850.01 The works were mentioned in a letter from the 4th Marquess to his stepmother, Frances Anne, the Dowager Marchioness, who said that the gasometer was built by a Mr Sanderson for about £250 and that the fittings were supplied by a Mr Cubitt.02 Coal was probably delivered to the Gasworks by barge having been brought from the Vane-Tempest coal mines in Co. Durham.

1921 The Ordnance Survey 25 inch map annotates the existence of the ‘Gasometer’, but the Gasworks was probably already out of use. An open sided structure is shown along the north-east facing elevation of the southern yard wall and may have been a store. Several small structures are also shown adjacent to the retort house and beside the western wall.

1858 The Gasworks are first shown on the 1858 Ordnance Survey 6 inch map and annotated as ‘Gasworks’. It shows the circle of the gas holder along with a rectangular structure to the south-east. 1859 The demesne accounts show expenditure on gas meters and sundry associated items.03

F Hamond, ‘Mount Stewart Gasworks Survey’, unpublished report, Oct 1997, p1

Durham Record Office D/Lo/C/543 13

PRONI D654/H2/8

1933 The ‘Old Gasworks’ is shown on a 1933 schematic plan of the demesne.04 The plan erroneously places the Gasworks north of the Portaferry road, and inside of the demesne. The ‘L’ shape of the main structure and adjacent lean-to (7), as well as the gas holder (9) are shown. Another building (8) is described as a ‘store’ although its location is unclear.

1997 The Gasworks was surveyed by Fred Hamond for the National Trust and was by then semi-derelict with the retort house roofless, although the roof of the store was in use as a bird hide. The report recommended stabilisation of the structure and suggested the structure might be eligible for designation due to its rarity. Present day The site continues in use as a viewing point over Strangford Lough and a car park is located in the yard which once housed the gasholder. The site has been subject to anti-social behaviour. From 2020 the National Trust has leased the site from Lady Rose Lauritzen’s Estate for a period of 25 years.

Modern aerial image of the gasworks site beside Strangford Lough

PRONI D654/M71/13

472

C6 GASWORKS

GAS PRODUCTION The location of a Gasworks was generally influenced by two factors; they needed to be sited on the lowest lying land, as the pressure of the lighter-than-air gas rose with altitude.05 They were also located by waterways or railways to ease delivery of coal. The technology behind the production of gas remained largely unchanged right up to when manufacturing ceased in the late 20th century.06 The survey of the Mount Stewart Gasworks by F Hamond in 1997 clearly explains this process: ‘To make coal-gas, the coal was placed in fireclay retorts and heated to over 1000 degrees Centigrade. Cast-iron lids sealed the mouths of the retorts (which were closed at the other end), so that no air could enter. As the coal could not combust, its volatile matter was driven off up the ascension pipes at the front of the retort setting. This gas was then cooled and purified (to rid it of tar, ammonia and hydrogen sulphide) before being stored in the gasholder. Once all the gas was removed, the spent coal – now high-grade coke – was used to heat the freshly charged retorts.’07

As the it was uneconomic and impractical to match the rate of gas production to use, the gas was stored in a gas holder (large metal cylinders sometimes known as ‘gasometers’ made initially from wrought-iron and later steel) ready for use.08 Typical buildings found within a Gasworks were: •

The retort house;

•

The purifier house (though in smaller works this may be combined with the retort house and referred to as a ‘gas house’);

•

Coal store; and

•

Gasholder.

Whilst a number of country houses in England and Scotland retain Gasworks buildings, such as Holkham Hall in Norfolk, Wimpole Hall in Cambridgeshire and Culzean Castle in Ayrshire, there are few extant private coal gasworks in Northern Ireland. The above ground remains of gas works exist at Castle Ward and on the Clandeboye Estate, both in Co. Down. However, the latter was converted into an art gallery c.200909 and the former has very limited above ground remains which were surveyed by the Ulster Archaeological Society in 2010.10 Others with limited or unknown remains are recorded at Downhill Palace, Co. Derry11 Ballywalter Park in Co. Down, Crom Castle in Co Fermanagh and Cairndhu House in Co Antrim. Palmer et al name only Mount Stewart as retaining its gashouse with retorts. The only surviving public gasworks in Ireland is at Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim.

Planning Portal (2007). W/2007/0972/LB | Change of use to art gallery including installation of first and second floor staircase and platform lift. Erection of stud partitions and new door openings to be formed in existing internal walls. | Clandeboye Courtyard, Clandeboye Estate, Bangor, Clandeboye Gas Works Building [Online]. Available at: http://epicpublic. planningni.gov.uk/publicaccess/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&ke yVal=LD0P54SVDT625 [Accessed 19 December 2019].]

Ulster Archaeological Society (2013). Survey of Gasworks, Castle Ward, County Down UAS/10/02. Ulster Archaeological Society Survey Report: No. 24. In association with The National Trust and George Rutherford. Belfast: Ulster Archaeological Society, The Queen’s University of Belfast. [Online]. Available at: https://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/uas/UASfilestore/ CoDown/Filetoupload,545593,en.pdf [Accessed 02 January 2020]].

Ulster Archaeological Society (2014). Survey of Gasworks, Bishop’s Palace, Downhill, County Londonderry UAS/10/04. Ulster Archaeological Society Survey Report: No. 26. In association with The National Trust and George Rutherford. Belfast: Ulster Archaeological Society, The Queen’s University of Belfast. [Online]. Available at: https://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/ uas/UASfilestore/CoLondonderry/Filetoupload,545585,en.pdf [Accessed 19 December 2019]]

Gaswork retorts (Carrickfergus Gaswork Preservation Trust)

M Palmer, M Nevell, M Sissons, Industrial Archaeology: A handbook, 2012, p292

Ibid

Hamond, 1997, P1–2

Palmer et al, p292

473

C6 GASWORKS

Illustration showing a Retort House from N Cussons, The BP Book of Industrial Archaeology, 1987, p221

474

C6 GASWORKS

THE USE OF GAS AT MOUNT STEWART The Mount Stewart Conservation Management Plan mentions the use of gas at Mount Stewart: ‘Gas was first used for lighting in Belfast in 1810, where it was used to light the factory of McCrum, Lepper & Co, and street lighting appeared in 1823, powered by the Ormeau Road Gasworks. Private owners of houses in the country had no choice but to build their own Gasworks and given the availability of coal to the Stewart family from the Vane-Tempest coal mines, it is not surprising that Mount Stewart was provided with its own works. ‘It would have been much easier to install the pipe work associated with the provision of gas lighting for the house during the building works in the late 1840s, though there are no references to this in any of the letters or bills of the period. Few signs of the gas lighting survive in the house, though there are chandeliers that were formerly gasoliers in the Drawing Room, now in the Music Room and Lord Londonderry’s Sitting Room. ‘Two ‘12-light’ gasoliers are mentioned in the 1895 inventory in the Dining Room, but there is no other reference to gas lighting in the house at that time. It is likely that the gas lighting was used to light service areas and exterior lighting, including the large gas lantern over the front door, and the lamps set on the balustrade around the forecourt.

‘The reason gas was not used in other reception rooms, was probably that, as Maureen Dillon writes: ‘Gas lighting was also known to vitiate the atmosphere, tarnish gilding, and damage decorations and furnishings with soots. In 1875 King commented on this, But when Gas is very impure, it creates a disagreeable odour when burning; it also tarnishes gold and silver plate, gilt mouldings, and picture frames; it quickly blackens white ceilings, and turns the colour of the best wall papers, and the atmosphere where such Gas is consumed becomes very unwholesome [King, G. Advice to Gas Consumers on Gas Economy, or How to Keep Down High and Extravagant Bills, Martin Billing, Son. Birmingham, 1875]. With this knowledge it is hardly surprisingly those with priceless paintings, furniture and objects chose not to expose their collections to the depredations of gas lighting.’12 ‘It continued to be used in the house until at least 1903, and later in some areas, by which time electric lighting had been introduced to some rooms. Remains of the gas pipe runs can be seen in the Central Hall.’13

Maureen Dillon, A History and Survey of the Lighting at Mount Stewart, 2011, Survey carried out for the National Trust

Bailey, F (2016) ’Mount Stewart Conservation Management Plan’. Unpublished: National Trust

475

C6 GASWORKS

PRIMARY SOURCES

1834 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1858 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

476

C6 GASWORKS

PRIMARY SOURCES

1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1921 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

477

C6 GASWORKS

PRIMARY SOURCES

Detail of 1933 schematic plan of ‘Mount Stewart Buildings’. The plan’s key indicates the following: 7. Old Gas Works, 8. Store, and 9. Gasometer.

Aerial view of the Mount Stewart Gasworks

478

C6 GASWORKS

CURRENT SITUATION Setting The Gasworks is located beside Strangford Lough shore on the south-east corner of a small piece of woodland approximately 80m south-west of Greyabbey Gate Lodge. A track into the site is positioned opposite the public entrance into Mount Stewart demesne from the Portaferry road. A rough gravel surfaced open area in front of the building is used as a car park. Fly tipping and graffiti were in evidence. Description The site is heavily overgrown in some areas and also not accessible internally making full inspection problematic. However, there is a detailed description of the site in F Hamond’s survey, ‘Mount Stewart Gasworks Survey’ 1997 (unpublished report). Although over 20-years-old, the report and its description are still relevant, although deterioration of the structure has continued. Briefly, the site consists of a central block (the chimney block) with battered walls and square chimney. This is set-forward from two flanking blocks of similar proportions, symmetrically arranged; to the right (south-west) is a vaulted store, and to the left (northeast) the retort house. There is no evidence of a purification house which may have been located in a standalone structure.

The area to the front of the site was formerly enclosed on three sides by a stone wall which created a yard in which the coal store and gas holder were located. The north-west wall has now been completely removed. Of note, however, are remnants of the southwest wall, the upper section of which has been raised, probably to allow a lean-to structure shown on the Ordnance Survey maps, to be constructed against it. The site has been constructed in the Gothick-style, with pointed arched openings, all of which have been blocked or modified. The openings have brick voussoirs set with pieces of slate which project forwards from the wall surface. These would have been filled with mortar to create the impression of large ashlar stone dressings. A similar treatment has also been applied to create massive mock-ashlar quoins (restored in cement on the south-east corner). This and the battering of the chimney house gives the whole structure a solid, defensive-like appearance, appropriate for an industrial building. The architectural style also leads to the question of whether it was adapted from an earlier structure on the site; a rectangular structure is also shown in the location of the Gasworks on the 1834 Ordnance Survey map. This might also explain a number of anomalies noted in Hamond’s survey, such as the blocked openings in the Retort house which would have been superfluous to the building’s operation.

The building is constructed in roughly coursed rubble stone. The south-west block is currently used as a public viewing platform which has a flat roof above a vaulted storage chamber. It has a set of modern metal steps on the north-west elevation. The northeast block (the retort house) is in the poorest condition and currently roofless.

479

Key Features • Gothick, pointed-arched openings with mock keystones and voussoirs. • Battered walls. • Defensive character. • Squat square chimney. • Symmetry.

C6 GASWORKS

The site looking south-east

Modified entrance to the store

Blocked opening to Chimney House, south-east elevation

The central chimney block showing the pointed-arched opening, battering and mock voussoirs and keystones

480

Chimney from the viewing platform

C6 GASWORKS

Modern railings to brick parapet

The Retort House

South-west facing elevation of north yard wall – note the blocked opening which would have given pedestrian access into the yard

Boundary wall which formerly enclosed a yard – south-west elevation. Note the upper section has been re-built or raised.

481

Fire clay retorts – at the base would have been the furnace

C6 GASWORKS

View along the south-east elevation. Note the brick-mock quoins and battering.

Blocked opening on the Retort House

Interior of stone vaulted store

482

C6 GASWORKS

BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT Modern metal access stair Concrete and asphalt viewing platform Modern railing on brick parapet

Stone vaulted store

Location of leanto structure

Chimney House (inaccessible)

Location of gas holder

Retort House (roofless) Bricked up opening for yard access by vehicles

Wall collapsed Brick dressings

483

Blocked pedestrian access – stone voussoirs and no brick dressing

Line of removed yard wall

C6 GASWORKS

North-West Facing Elevation Retort House

Store House

Chimney House

Rendered, square tapering chimney now ivy covered

Roof lost, wall heads falling

Brick parapet behind stone facing

Historical ties to stabilise Retort House walls probably during its operation

Viewing platform on flat concrete with asphalt covering. Brick parapet and modern railings South-West

North-East Blocked pointedGothick opening

Later inserted door into Gothick-arched opening

End of stone walls rebuilt in brick

Modern metal stair

Ground level build-up

Vegetation largely screens this elevation

Blocked pointed-Gothick opening – this openings relationship to the Retort House is problematic – is this evidence of an earlier use of the structure?

Brick infill Mock ashlar quoins and voussoirs

484

C6 GASWORKS

South-East Facing Elevation Store House

Retort House

Chimney House

Brick parapet behind stone facing

Battering to walls

Modern parapet to viewing platform

Historical ties to stabilise Retort House walls probably during its operation

Blocked pointedGothick opening

Mock ashlar quoins and repaired in cement (?) render

Later opening now blocked Mock ashlar quoins and voussoirs

485

Straight joints with brick dressings indicate possible blocked door – no doorhead or lintel. Its relationship to the Retort House is problematic – is this evidence of an earlier use of the structure?

C6 GASWORKS

North-East Facing Elevation

Brick wallhead

North-east elevation of yard wall (south)

Wall above dotted line raised historically, perhaps to allow construction of lean-to structure against wall

Stone blocking to pedestrian access Remains of retorts

Furnace hole

Retorts lost in this section

Brick infill to inserted former vehicular access

Stone blocking to pedestrian access

486

Modern rebuilding

Fragmentary remains of yard wall (west)

C6 GASWORKS

South-West Facing Elevation

Change in stone walling above – later repair/consolidation?

South-west elevation of Store House

Metal ties possibly relating to former structure located against this wall

Wall head consolidated in modern brick

Broken parapet to Chimney House

Mock ashlar quoins and repairs in cement (?) render

Straight joint

Walls likely to be later than main structure – lack of quoins, not keyed into structure

Change in stone work above suggests wall raised, perhaps to allow construction of lean-to structure against wall

Difference between stonework on right and left side of straight joint indicated infilling of door opening/ rebuilding of wall. No evidence of lintel or door head. Ivy obscures elevation and full inspection. No evidence of opening/alteration to vaulted interior?

487

C6 GASWORKS CONDITION

Gasworks

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

•

Masonry: stone with brick dressings, some sections obscured by vegetation, Open joints etc, but appears stable. Evidence of previous structural stabilisation (tie rods).

•

Interiors/finishes: deterioration to surfaces within vaulted section, ingress.

•

Furniture, fixtures, and equipment: Galvanised metal steps, iron railings, gates. Railing sections require refurbishment.

Further Investigations

Sound at present, ensure site remains secure. Significant repairs needed.

488

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

C6 GASWORKS

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Summary The site is one of only a small number of surviving historic Gasworks in Northern Ireland. Examples of gas works which were built to supply country estates are also rare.14 The site is therefore of archaeological and historical interest as a rare example of its type. It also has historical value for its associations with Mount Stewart. The site has some communal value as a viewing platform over Strangford Lough, but a lack of interpretation and the site’s condition reduces its aesthetic and communal value. Evidential The site began production of gas in the mid-19th century as evidenced in documentary sources. However, there is still much to learn about the site; a building existed on the site before the Gasworks was constructed and there is a question as to whether this building survives within the fabric of the current building. This may be the explanation for the curious use of the Gothickstyle within a mid-19th century building. There is still much to understand about the original appearance of the works and the full details of how it functioned below and above ground as well as the location of the purification process, and nature of later alterations. There is potential that structures may survive below ground. The evidential value of the site is high.

Historical The Gasworks has high historical value as a rare example of a private gasworks. The site was constructed by the 4th Marquess of Londonderry and supplied with coal from the Vane-Tempest coal mines in Co. Durham. It provided the house at Mount Stewart with gas for illumination and cooking until the early 20th century when electricity became the preferred power source. Unlike other private gasworks, the principle building is largely extant. However, the site’s condition has continued to deteriorate since it was surveyed in 1997 and still requires urgent conservation works to address the continuing loss of historic fabric. The site retains high historical value although the site’s condition threatens this significance. Aesthetic The site is semi-derelict and has been partially overtaken by vegetation. Although a former industrial site, the building’s Gothickstyle arches, mock quoins and voussoirs, and the battering of the walls were clearly intended to give it a defensive-like appearance. The site’s architectural form, the peculiar shaped arches and mock dressings are unlike other Gothick structures found within the demesne and indicate the work of a different architect or builder. Unfortunately, its overgrown and neglected state and issues with fly-tipping and anti-social behaviour reduce its aesthetic value at present.

489

Communal The site has some communal value as a viewing platform over Strangford Lough, but a lack of interpretation and the site’s condition reduce its communal value and may deter visitors. Setting The Old Gasworks is located beside Strangford Lough and has been recognised for its superb location resulting in its use as a viewing platform. However, its setting amongst trees and outside of the demesne boundary wall encourages anti-social behaviour. Contribution to the Wider Demesne and the Mansion House The site currently makes a limited contribution to the wider demesne due to its location outside of the demesne walls and a perceived lack of connectivity to Mount Stewart. Although it has been used as a viewing point over Strangford Lough, its has the potential, through consolidation and interpretation to add to our understanding of the operations of the house and of the wider demesne.

C6 GASWORKS

Reformed doorway detrimental value

Concrete asphalt covering of no value

This plan is not to scale

Site of former structures

490

C6 GASWORKS

Key Views The site is set amongst trees with limited views from the Portaferry road. Views are therefore limited largely to short-range views within the site and glimpses from the road.

Greyabbey Gate Lodge, B2 Listed

Location of former jetty KEY VIEWS AND ASSOCIATED DESIGNATIONS Site Short-range views Long-range views This plan is not to scale Base plan © GoogleEarth

491

C6 GASWORKS

CONSERVATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES •

The site is a rare example of a domestic Gasworks and it may be eligible for designation.

•

There is potential to improve interpretation of the building.

•

Carry out urgent works including stabilisation of walls and wall heads.

•

The building is set beside Strangford Lough. Rising sea levels are therefore of a concern and will feature in future strategies for the site.

•

Carry out an ecological survey before any proposed changes to the site.

•

The building requires urgent conservation works to address the continuing loss of historic fabric.

•

The site’s condition, lack of boundary fencing and position away from the road encourages anti-social behaviour.

•

Consider restricting access to dangerous areas of the site to reduce potential for injury to the public.

•

Consider security options including restricting vehicular access to the site to discourage anti-social behaviour and fly tipping.

•

The site suffers from anti-social behaviour, littering, fly-tipping and damage.

•

Consider signage to inform the public of access restrictions, the site’s dangers etc.

•

There is the opportunity to improve the site through discouraging anti-social behaviour through restricting access – gated access with restricted opening hours and signage are possible solutions.

There are opportunities to establish partnerships with Industrial Heritage specialist and interest groups, utilising their expertise, gaining advice to improve understanding and interpretation of the site.

•

Gaswork sites are notorious for contamination due to the by-products of the gas production process. At present the level of contamination is unknown. However, the site’s age and location next to the lough, may have reduced this danger over time.

PARAMETERS FOR CHANGE •

Seek an assessment of the extent or otherwise of site contamination.

•

Any alterations or additions should be of high-quality, of appropriate materials, scale, massing and design. New buildings could utilise the footprint of former buildings.

•

There is potential that the semi-derelict site is home to animal and bird species.

•

Consider restoring mock-ashlar quoins and voussoirs in lime mortar and remove cementious mortars or renders.

•

There is potential to improve understanding through further investigation of the site both above and below-ground. This could lead to better interpretation of the site.

•

Restore Gothick-arched openings to Store House.

•

As a minimum remove invasive vegetation and provide the temporary cover to Retort House to halt decline.

492

CAPACITY FOR CHANGE The site is partially derelict but in use as a public viewing platform. The status and location mean there is potential for development to exploit its location, either as a visitor centre and/or café/ retail premises. However, issues with possible contamination, coastal erosion and sea level rise may reduce the attractiveness of developing the site. At a minimum the site should be consolidated and better protected and interpreted to the public.

[THIS PAGE HAS INTENTIONALLY BEEN LEFT BLANK]

D1 NORTH GATE LODGE (HAMILTON'S LODGE, BACK GATE LODGE)

494

D1 NORTH GATE LODGE (HAMILTON'S LODGE, BACK GATE LODGE)

KEY INFORMATION

Component Name

North Gate Lodge (Hamilton’s Lodge, Back Gate Lodge)

Date Range

1821–1834

Current Use

Residential

Historic Uses

Residential

Overall Significance

Medium

Overall Condition

Sound

Designations

None

Capacity for Change

Low

495

D1 NORTH GATE LODGE (HAMILTON’S LODGE, BACK GATE LODGE)

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Summary Timeline Whilst the other gate lodges at Mount Stewart are typical of ‘Gothicised’ demesne buildings and summer houses in Northern Ireland, and are probably contemporary, the North Gate Lodge, or Hamilton’s Lodge as it is also referred to, diverges from this architectural style. Its position on the realigned Millisle road (now the Mount Stewart road) within the northern extension to the demesne, also supports a slightly later date. The expenditure for the construction of the Mount Stewart lodges is mentioned within the demesne’s accounts held in PRONI. However, it is difficult to establish which entries related to which lodges. The last entries in the accounts are dated 1817 to 1819, and may possibly relate to the North Gate Lodge. However, the Lodge is not shown on the ‘Map of the Townland of Ballycastle’ of 1821, which shows the new approach and plantation of trees, but no new lodge building.01 The intended Millisle road is also not shown and it has been speculated that the death of Robert, 1st Marquess of Londonderry in 1821 and the death of the 2nd Marquess in 1822 could have delayed the rerouting of the road even further.02

PRONI D654/M7/12

C Gallagher & S Rutherford, MS Demesne CMP, 2018, p50

The entries within PRONI relating to the construction of the Lodges are as follows: 1808 Lawn for Pillars and Porters Lodge at Mount Stewart £94.5.10½. 1812 A balance on an account for ‘Lawn and Porters Lodge’ was £1,692. This is assumed to be the same as the above lodge. 1817 New Porter Lodge and Approach £99.1.6. 1818 New Porter Lodge and Approach £51.3.5½. 1819 New Porter Lodge Dr to Rev J Cleland £34.4.3½. 1834 The lodge is first depicted on the Ordnance Survey first edition. The building is shown as a simple rectangle lying north–south within an unenclosed clearing in a tree belt beside the new Mount Stewart road. The entrance to the demesne lies northwest of the building which is marked as ‘Lodge’. A drive leads from the entrance and heads southwards towards the Farmyard and Walled Garden. A long, rectangular building also lies to the south-west.

496

1858 The Lodge is shown again on the Ordnance Survey map marked as ‘Gate Lodge’. Little appears to have changed since 1834, although an outbuilding now lies to the north-east and the tree belt adjacent has increased in extent. The long building to the south-west has since disappeared; one in a number of buildings ‘removed’ from the landscape during the expansion of the demesne in the early 19th century. At some point in the latter half of the 19th century, it seems likely that the lodge was extended to the rear and a further extension was constructed on the north side with the addition of a single heated room. The rear columned veranda was probably underbuilt and encased in the extension. 1900–1901 The 1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map is less clear than the previous Ordnance Survey maps but it appears to be a ‘T’ shape. 1921 The Ordnance Survey maps shows the lodge with an extension to the rear and on the north side. A number of outbuildings lie to the north-east. A ‘Well’ is indicated to the south. 1968 An aerial view of the Lodge shows the front veranda now enclosed. The building appears to have metal framed windows and the rear extension is now larger than shown on the 1921 Ordnance Survey map. The rear extension also has a monopitched roof and a chimney on the southern gable of the extension. Today, this chimney has been removed and the rear extension has been given a flat roof. Additionally, the demesne gatepiers have been altered.

D1 NORTH GATE LODGE (HAMILTON’S LODGE, BACK GATE LODGE)

PRIMARY SOURCES N

1834 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1858 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

497

D1 NORTH GATE LODGE (HAMILTON’S LODGE, BACK GATE LODGE)

PRIMARY SOURCES N

1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1921 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

498

D1 NORTH GATE LODGE (HAMILTON’S LODGE, BACK GATE LODGE)

PRIMARY SOURCES N

1971 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

499

D1 NORTH GATE LODGE (HAMILTON’S LODGE, BACK GATE LODGE)

The lodge in 1968 (Skyview Aerial Y890)

500

D1 NORTH GATE LODGE (HAMILTON’S LODGE, BACK GATE LODGE)

CURRENT SITUATION Setting North Gate Lodge, is situated on the Mount Stewart road. Set back behind the demesne boundary wall, it is less prominent than other gate lodges at Mount Stewart and not on a main visitor route. The building is set in a pleasant copse of trees within the demesne shelterbelt. Exterior The Lodge is a single-story structure with a Bangor slate roof and two brick stacks. The gabled front is set forward and has a fretted and pierced bargeboard in the picturesque ‘cottage orne’ style, commonly found in the early 19th century. The walls are a painted harling and the doors and windows are modern uPVC replacements. There is a large flat roofed extension to the rear. There are deep eaves on both the principal and the northern elevation. The Lodge is unlike the other Mount Stewart gate lodges by being constructed in the Neo-Classical style; Doric columns support a veranda on the right of the central gabled element. This has now been enclosed and windows installed between the columns. A further column on the rear elevation indicates that a similar veranda was constructed on the rear elevation. This has now been enclosed within an extension.

The original plan form, despite the Ordnance Survey map evidence, appears to have been an ‘L’-shaped. This comprised a central element with gabled front which incorporated the living-kitchen, and a single room off to the right, set between two columned porches at the front and rear. The building has, at some point, been extended northwards by an additional room with chimney on the gable end, and also to the rear in several stages: firstly an extension which today forms the kitchen; and a second addition in the 20th century which provided an additional bedroom and bathroom. Interior Today, the interior has been fully modernised; features of historic interest are the original chimney breast in the living room, and corner stack in the adjacent bedroom, and the gable end stack in the northern gable. No historic fireplaces remain. The extension to the rear contains a modern kitchen, bathroom and bedroom. During works throughout the 1990s, the present tenant observed part of a column embedded in an internal wall. This has been interpreted as evidence of a colonnade associated with a rear veranda.03

Pers Comm Ken Massey and Andy Corkill, 25th July 2019

501

Key Features • Doric columns. • ‘Cottage orne’ pierced bargeboards. • Modest size. • Bangor slate roof and brick stacks. • Painted harling. • Deep eaves.

D1 NORTH GATE LODGE (HAMILTON’S LODGE, BACK GATE LODGE)

Front elevation

Enclosed veranda

Doric column of former veranda, now enclosed

Side and front elevation

Flat-roofed extension to rear

Modern interior

502

D1 NORTH GATE LODGE (HAMILTON’S LODGE, BACK GATE LODGE) BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT PLAN

Chimney demolished

Chimney stack rebuilt

Doric Column

Verandas enclosed 503

D1 NORTH GATE LODGE (HAMILTON’S LODGE, BACK GATE LODGE) Doric columns to originally unenclosed veranda

Pierced barge-boards in ‘cottage-orne’ style

Bangor slate roof

Assumed later 19th century extension

Extent of original lodge

504

D1 NORTH GATE LODGE (HAMILTON’S LODGE, BACK GATE LODGE)

BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT PLAN Original Lodge in-situ by 1834 In-situ by 1921 In-situ by 1964 Assumed later 19th century extension Line of columns to rear veranda (now enclosed)

Column embedded in wall

This plan is not to scale

505

D1 NORTH GATE LODGE (HAMILTON’S LODGE, BACK GATE LODGE)

CONDITION Summary of Condition D1

North Gate Lodge

•

Roofs: slate, appears sound. Timber fascias and detailing require redecoration.

•

Rainwater Goods: – cast iron, redecoration and clearance required.

•

Masonry: rendered, sound.

•

Windows/doors: uPVC, timber, sound.

•

Recommended Repairs •

Further Investigations

Sound subject to minor repairs/redecorations.

Interiors/finishes: satisfactory.

506

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

D1 NORTH GATE LODGE (HAMILTON’S LODGE, BACK GATE LODGE)

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Summary North Gate Lodge has some significance as part of the complete set of surviving gate lodges at Mount Stewart, and for its association with the expansion of the demesne. It has undergone modernisation and extension with the loss of historic features. It has limited communal value, set back from the road and is privately let. Evidential The approximate date of construction for North Gate Lodge is suggested from archival sources, but the exact date and the architect have still to be established. The simple plan form holds some evidential value for lodge buildings constructed in the early 19th century and suggests a simple layout of a living-kitchen space and separate room. Few records were found in archives relating to the lodge, and there is potential for more to be learnt about the phases of construction through an examination of the built fabric. Modern finishes, ceilings, floors and the external harling have the potential to conceal historic fabric and provide information about the history and development of the structure. Evidential value is therefore medium.

Historical North Gate Lodge is a non-designated heritage asset. It is significant for its historical associations with the Londonderry family. It is unlike the other Mount Stewart gate lodges, as it is the only one to be constructed in the Neo-Classical style and probably represents an abandonment of the ‘Gothick Picturesque’ to the ‘Classical Picturesque’. Its construction is also associated with the expansion of the demesne which appears to have been pushed northwards c.1816 and the old Millisle road abandoned in favour of a new alignment (now the Mount Stewart road). The survival of the gate lodges at Mount Stewart lends them high group value. The historical value of the building has been partially eroded by its modernisation which is medium. Aesthetic The Lodge is an attractive building, modest in size and in the Picturesque-style with pierced bargeboards and Doric columns as key features which lend it medium aesthetic value. The windows are factory fitted uPVC and inappropriate for the historic lodge. The Lodge does not face onto the Mount Stewart road unlike the lodges on the Portaferry road and is well set back from the highway. It was built as an attractive lodge for visitors to enjoy on entering or leaving the grounds. The building and gardens are well maintained, adding to its medium aesthetic value.

507

Communal The Lodge is privately rented and lacks public access. The Lodge’s position away from the highway and behind the demesne wall also give it low communal value. Setting The Lodge is set in the shelterbelt of the demesne and not a prominent building. Whilst the gardens contribute to the building’s picturesque nature, the building’s wider impact on its setting is reduced by its location. Contribution to the Wider Demesne and the Mansion House As one of a group of extant lodges within the Mount Stewart demesne, its contribution as a group to the demesne is of high value. Key Views The Lodge is not a prominent building on the Mount Stewart road and might easily be missed by passers-by. There are limited views both within the demesne and outside.

D1 NORTH GATE LODGE (HAMILTON’S LODGE, BACK GATE LODGE)

SIGNIFICANCE AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE PLAN High Medium Low Neutral Intrusive Note: all uPVC windows considered intrusive (Please refer to the Executive Summary Section 5.0 for an explanation of significance and its relationship to capacity for change) This plan is not to scale

508

D1 NORTH GATE LODGE (HAMILTON’S LODGE, BACK GATE LODGE)

CONSERVATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

PARAMETERS FOR CHANGE

•

The Lodge is in good overall condition and well maintained.

•

The modest size and location limits new uses.

General • Maintain and repair the structure to a level commensurate with its significance.

•

The rear flat-roofed extension could be improved.

•

The principle of maximum historic fabric retention should be followed in any future development.

•

The Doric columns could be better revealed by the opening up of the veranda.

•

Changes proposed should generally aim to be reversible.

•

Any change should respect the character, scale and massing of the current building and its setting.

Understanding • Continue to pursue areas of limited understanding to help inform future change. •

Public access or interpretation should be improved.

•

A recording exercise should be carried out prior to change.

CAPACITY FOR CHANGE External: Medium capacity for change.

•

The building could be improved by the replacement of uPVC door and windows with more appropriate materials, to designs based upon sound research.

Enhancing Significance • Consider replacement of modern uPVC doors and windows. •

Ensure that in any future changes, historic features are better revealed, such as fireplaces and the veranda.

•

Given the extensive modernisation, resist any further loss of historic fabric.

•

The Trust should ensure that the building continues to be maintained and a programme of long-term maintenance and repair should be continued.

•

Any alterations or additions should be of high-quality, of appropriate materials and craftsmanship and respect the existing scale of development.

509

Internal: High capacity for change. The Lodge is already in residential use. The modest size of the historic building limits use. Continue in residential use or as a holiday let.

D2 GREYABBEY LODGE (CLAY GATE LODGE, MCGIVERN’S LODGE)

510

D2 GREYABBEY LODGE (CLAY GATE LODGE, MCGIVERN’S LODGE)

KEY INFORMATION

Component Name

Greyabbey Lodge (Clay Gate Lodge, McGivern’s Lodge)

Date Range

Early 19th century (c.1817)

Current Use

Residential

Historic Uses

Residential

Overall Significance

High

Overall Condition

Sound

Designations

Capacity for Change

Low

511

D2 GREYABBEY LODGE (CLAY GATE LODGE, MCGIVERN’S LODGE)

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

These entries are as follows:

Summary Timeline The lodges at Mount Stewart are typical of ‘Gothicised’ demesne buildings and summer houses in Northern Ireland. It has not been possible to establish the architect responsible and they may be the work of a local craftsman who was familiar with the building style at estates like Rosemount House.01

1808 Lawn for Pillars and Porters Lodge at Mount Stewart £94.5.10½ (assumed to relate to the Main Gate Lodges).

The date of the Lodge may be connected to the construction of the Sea Plantation (completed c.1803) and relocation of the Portaferry road a short distance further west from Mount Stewart House. The alteration in the line of this road would have probably required the creation of the new approaches to the house from Newtownards and Greyabbey, and hence the creation of a collection of new lodges at a time when the house was also undergoing a transformation.02

1817 Entry reads ‘New Porter Lodge and Approach £99.1.6’.

The expenditure for the construction of the Mount Stewart lodges is mentioned within accounts held in PRONI. It is unclear, however, which payments relate to which buildings.

Department for Communities, Listed building database HB24/04/054 . Available at: https://www.communities-ni.gov.uk/services/buildings-database

Casement, 1995 p. 52

1812 A balance on an account for ‘Lawn and Porters Lodge’ was £1,692. This is assumed to be the same as the above lodge.

1818 Further entry for ‘New Porter Lodge and Approach £51.3.5½’. 1819 ‘New Porter Lodge Dr to Reverend J Cleland £34.4.3½’. 1834 Depicted on the Ordnance Survey map first edition, the Porters Lodge is shown as a simple rectangle with a small enclosed yard to the rear containing two small outbuildings. Beside the east elevation is the entrance drive into the demesne. The drive heads north towards the Farmyard. A path is shown leading through the demesne wall north-west, towards the house – this is roughly in the same position as a present pedestrian gateway.

512

1858 The Lodge is shown again on the Ordnance Survey map. Little appears to have changed since 1834, although one of the outbuildings has been removed. 1900–1901 The Ordnance Survey map is less clear, but suggests the rear extension was added between 1858 and 1900. The demesne drive which formerly headed northwards has been repositioned to the north-east. 1911 The Lodge is believed to have been occupied by William McGivern and his wife Grace. 1921 The Ordnance Survey map shows the Lodge with an extension to the rear and a small outbuilding beyond. To the left of the front elevation is the curving boundary wall familiar today; on the right, the straight wall terminates at the entrance gates into the demesne. 1921–1971 The Lodge is further extended to the rear. This may have taken place in the 1930s during a period of improvements to many of the demesne cottages. The rear wall of the original lodge was probably raised (using grey/black engineering bricks) and a concrete flat roof and covering replaced a mono-pitched roof. The rear extension was increased in width and elements of the earlier structure were incorporated into the extension.

D2 GREYABBEY LODGE (CLAY GATE LODGE, MCGIVERN’S LODGE)

PRIMARY SOURCES N

1933 In a schematic plan of the demesne, the Lodge is named ‘Greyabbey Gate Lodge’. 1970s The Lodge was lived in by Grace Shannon and her husband Bob. Grace was custodian of the Temple of the Winds. 1990 The Lodge was flooded following heavy rain and a high tide. 1991 The Lodge was substantially renovated, including stripping out of plaster and installation of plasterboarding, the complete replacement of the roof and rebuilding of the chimneys, installation of new windows, and rebuilding of the door and window surrounds to the front elevation. The stone surrounds (mentioned in the list description) were replaced with cement render. It was also around this time that the flanking boundary walls were raised. The entrance gateway was also relocated further east to where it is now located, forming a wider vehicular access into the site.

1834 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

513

D2 GREYABBEY LODGE (CLAY GATE LODGE, MCGIVERN’S LODGE)

1858 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

514

D2 GREYABBEY LODGE (CLAY GATE LODGE, MCGIVERN’S LODGE)

1921 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

1971 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

515

D2 GREYABBEY LODGE (CLAY GATE LODGE, MCGIVERN’S LODGE)

A couple, possibly the McGivern’s, standing in front of the Lodge in 1905

Extract from the Belfast Telegraph, Saturday January 23rd 1982

National Trust staff pose outside of the Greyabbey Gate Lodge in the 1970s

516

Restorations of 1991:

The Lodge following the 1990 flood

Flooded yard c.1991

Interior

Rebuilding of a window

Removal and renewal of the roof

View from the Lodge roof looking south-east across the demesne boundary wall in the process of being reconstructed

517

D2 GREYABBEY LODGE (CLAY GATE LODGE, MCGIVERN’S LODGE)

Restorations of 1991 (cont’d):

Exterior view of east elevation. Note the former position of the yard gateway.

Note the height and position of the former demesne entrance

The Lodge following restoration in 1998 showing the raised flanking walls. The demesne entrance is now positioned off to the right.

518

D2 GREYABBEY LODGE (CLAY GATE LODGE, MCGIVERN’S LODGE)

CURRENT SITUATION Setting Greayabbey Gate Lodge (also referred to as Clay Gate Lodge or McGivern’s Lodge), is situated on the busy Portaferry road in a prominent position beside the main visitor access into the Mount Stewart demesne. The site offers significant views across Strangford Lough. It is set back from the road behind a hedge in pleasant, well-stocked gardens. Exterior The Lodge is similar to Gamekeeper’s Lodge in that it was constructed in a Gothick ‘toy-fort’ style, although the Gamekeeper's Lodge is visually stronger. The symmetrical frontage is of three bays with central door flanked by a pair of windows. The façade has a shallow breakfront in bay one and three, giving the effect of a castle with flanking towers the corners of which are topped by pyramidal finials. The similarity to the Gamekeeper’s Lodge would suggest that they are roughly contemporary. It is also similar to the other Mount Stewart gate lodges built at the start of the 19th century in that it is a very modest size, single storeyed and probably originally built with just two rooms. The front façade is faced in random rubble-stone with roughly squared quoins; however, the lower courses are constructed of coursed roughly-squared stone with decorative galletting between – a very similar method of construction to the twin gate lodges of the Main Gate. This feature would also suggest a construction date roughly contemporary with the Main Gate Lodges.

The window and door openings have pointed arches; the windows have timber casements with a form of ‘Y’ tracery, and cement rendered dressings and decorative arches in stone. The centrally placed door has a similar treatment. To the rear is a large extension probably initially constructed in the latter 19th century but modified and extended further in the 20th century. The roof is now constructed in lead, though was probably formerly two double pitched roofs with a valley gutter. Areas of stone work and render indicate various alterations and modification to the rear extension. The Lodge is flanked by a curving wall which incorporates the main vehicular entrance to the demesne. Interior The plan form of the historic lodge is largely discernible, although the front entrance may have entered directly into the main livingkitchen, with a further room off to the left. Today, the interior has been fully modernised and no historic features are discernible. The extension to the rear contains a modern kitchen, a bathroom and three bedrooms.

519

Key Features • ‘Toy fort’ appearance. • Gothick-style windows and doors. • Modest size. • Random rubble walls. • Pyramidal finials. • Curving flanking walls. • Key position by main entrance, the Portaferry road and Stangford Lough.

D2 GREYABBEY LODGE (CLAY GATE LODGE, MCGIVERN’S LODGE)

Detail of front elevation – note coursed stonework below window similar to Main Gate Lodges

The Lodge from beside the Portaferry road

Front elevation

Store and former gate pier

520

D2 GREYABBEY LODGE (CLAY GATE LODGE, MCGIVERN’S LODGE)

Rear extension – east elevation

Flanking wall – original height indicated

West elevation

West elevation detail (suggesting current building reused existing stone walls)

521

D2 GREYABBEY LODGE (CLAY GATE LODGE, MCGIVERN’S LODGE)

BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT

BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT Early 19th century Later 19th century 20th century (possibly 1920s/30s Original Gateway Modern This plan is not to scale

Extensions built upon historic stone wall

Original stone walling with breeze block repairs

522

Modern breeze block

Position of former Gateway

D2 GREYABBEY LODGE (CLAY GATE LODGE, MCGIVERN’S LODGE) Plan

Dwelling extension built into older garden wall on this elevation

Lead to flat roof. Formerly roof valley rebuilt 1990s

Slate

Concrete render to top of wall

Evidence of stone setts

Stone and rendered wall – modern engineering bricks to window reveals

Slate Extension added in late 19th century, further extended in the 20th century – 1920/1930s?

Line of former yard wall Decorative cast iron soil vent pipe

Timber sash

Engineering brick at parapet level indicates the height has been raised Cast iron hopper

Modern block wall built 1990s. All internal finishes are modern – post 1990 Timber sash Rendered chimney stack – rebuilt 1990s

Redundant gate-pier – part of former gated access into lodge yard

Heated Room

Small lean-to extension with slate roof Pyramidal pinnacle

Pyramidal pinnacle

Wall-tops rebuilt in breeze block

Historic boundary wall raised – assumed 1990s. Historic access still extant. Gates 20th century

Wall altered and raised by NT when gateway relocated

Cement coping to parapet

Rendered chimney stack – rebuilt 1990s Original lodge – early 19th century 523

D2 GREYABBEY LODGE (CLAY GATE LODGE, MCGIVERN’S LODGE) Front Elevation

Arches rebuilt 1991. Recent repointing above arches Parapet copings replaced with concrete (those under the pinnacles are stone)

Large rounded pebble masonry at high level Modern Lamps

Pyramidal stone pinnacles

Decorative pebble window surrounds Dressed quoins in basalt

Attached boundary walls contain narrow rubble stones

Low-level stonework consists of larger stones with galletting – similar to the twin lodges at the Main Gate

Modern door and casement windows – replicating original design or a variation of?

Modern cement rendered stone surrounds

524

D2 GREYABBEY LODGE (CLAY GATE LODGE, MCGIVERN’S LODGE) CONDITION

Greyabbey Gate Lodge

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

•

Only partially inspected from roadside.

•

Roofs: slate, appears sound, some minor slips/breaks

•

RWGs: cast iron, redecoration and clearance required

•

Further Investigations

Minor repairs/maintenance required.

Masonry: stone/brick, rendered to rear. Cracking to chimney renders noted. Vegetation growth.

•

Windows/doors: timber, glazed, appear sound subject to maintenance.

•

Interiors/finishes: not inspected.

525

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

D2 GREYABBEY LODGE (CLAY GATE LODGE, MCGIVERN’S LODGE)

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Summary The Lodge is listed B2 in recognition of its architectural and historical significance. It is of value for its association with the 1st Marquess of Londonderry and is of interest for its connection with improvements made to Mount Stewart at this time. The Mount Stewart lodges are representative of a small number of gate lodges in Northern Ireland built in the Gothick-style. Although the architect is unknown, the style typically dates to the end of the 18th century or start of the 19th century. The approximate date of construction is supported by documentary sources.

Historical The Lodge is significant for its historical associations with the Londonderry family. Along with Gamekeeper’s Lodge and the Main Gate Lodges, it was constructed at a time when significant improvements were being made to the demesne. Their survival lends them high group value. The Lodge is also representative of an architectural style which was popular at the end of the 18th century and start of the 19th century. The historical value of the building has been eroded by the removal of historic fabric, but the exterior envelope retains high historical value.

Setting The setting facing onto Strangford Lough is of high value although the busy road and access into the demesne interrupts enjoyment and appreciation of the building and the setting.

Evidential The approximate date of construction is recorded in archival sources, but the exact date and architect have still to be established. Fabric analysis has confirmed it is roughly contemporary with both the Gamekeeper’s Lodge and the Main Gate Lodges. The simple plan form holds some evidential value for lodge buildings constructed at the start of the 19th century and suggests a simple layout of a living-kitchen space and separate room. The Lodge is fairly well understood from documentary sources, which evidence the substantial modernisation of the building in the 1990s. Evidential value is therefore low.

Aesthetic The Lodge is of high aesthetic value and a key building visible from the Portaferry road and to visitors entering the Mount Stewart demesne. The building exudes charm for its Gothick ‘toy-fort’ style, pointed arched openings, rubble walls and pyramidal finials. The building and gardens are well maintained, adding to its high aesthetic value.

Key Views Due to its prominent position there are long and short range kinetic views of the site from the Portaferry road travelling towards Newtownards. Due to the curving road, vegetative cover and high demesne wall, the site is not seen until almost reached when travelling from Newtownards. The flanking walls are included within the B2 listing, but were substantially altered and raised in the 1990s. The views from the Lodge to the south and south-east across the Lough are significant.

Communal The Lodge is undoubtedly a prominent building on the Newtownards to Portaferry road, and frequently photographed by visitors to the demesne. As the first building seen by visitors as they pass through the main entrance, the building plays an important role in introducing Mount Stewart to visitors and raising anticipation. It is also valued by those who pass it on a daily basis. It formerly featured in the Belfast Telegraph series on ‘interesting houses’ in 1982 but it remains a private home – a lack of public access reduces its communal value to medium.

526

Contribution to the Wider Demesne and the Mansion House As a prominent building on the Portaferry road the Lodge attracts attention for visitors to Mount Stewart. It is of high value as part of a complete collection of lodge buildings still extant on an Irish demesne. Its contribution to the demesne is therefore high.

D2 GREYABBEY LODGE (CLAY GATE LODGE, MCGIVERN’S LODGE)

527

D2 GREYABBEY LODGE (CLAY GATE LODGE, MCGIVERN’S LODGE)

CONSERVATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

PARAMETERS FOR CHANGE

•

The Lodge is in good overall condition following extensive works in 1991 following flooding.

General • Listed Building Consent is required prior to any material impact on significance.

Any alterations or additions should be of high-quality, of appropriate materials and craftsmanship and respect the existing scale of development.

•

Seek to replace cement window and door reveals in stone.

•

The Lodge is positioned on the roadside so is vulnerable to traffic noise, vibration and collisions.

•

The building is set beside Strangford Lough; flooding due to a high tide and heavy rainfall caused extensive damage in 1990. Rising sea levels and increased precipitation are therefore of concern which are likely to influence future strategies for the site. There are opportunities to exploit its prominent location beside the Portaferry road and the main route into the demesne for visitors.

•

The best use of an historic building is often the one for which it was built; the Lodge remains in residential use.

•

The modest size and location limits new uses.

•

The external appearance should be maintained as it is in a prominent location.

•

Maintain and repair the structure to a level commensurate with its significance.

•

The principle of maximum historic fabric retention should be followed during any future development project.

•

Changes proposed should generally aim to be reversible.

•

Any change should respect the character, scale and massing of the current building and its setting.

Understanding • Continue to pursue areas of limited understanding to help inform future change. •

Public access or interpretation should be improved.

•

A recording exercise should be carried out prior to change.

CAPACITY FOR CHANGE External: Minor capacity for change.

Enhancing Significance • Retain the ‘Y’ tracery, upholding the Gothick appearance and original design intention. •

Ensure that in any future changes, historic features are better revealed, such as fireplaces.

•

Given the extensive works of 1991, resist any further loss of historic fabric.

•

The Trust should ensure that the building continues to be maintained and a programme of long-term maintenance and repair should be continued/put in place.

528

Internal: High capacity for change. The Lodge is already in residential use. The modest size of the historic building’s limits use. The most appropriate is continued residential use or conversion to holiday accommodation.

[THIS PAGE HAS INTENTIONALLY BEEN LEFT BLANK]

529

D3 MAIN GATE LODGES (FRONT GATE LODGES, TWIN GATE LODGES)

530

D3 MAIN GATE LODGES (FRONT GATE LODGES, TWIN GATE LODGES)

KEY INFORMATION

Component Name

Main Gate Lodges (Front Gate Lodges, Twin Gate Lodges)

Date Range

c.1808

Current Use

Pair of gate lodges: West Lodge – residential: East Lodge – vacant

Historic Uses

Residential

Overall Significance

High

Overall Condition

West Lodge: Sound East Lodge: Stable

Designations

B2 (HB24/04/054)

Capacity for Change

Low

D3.1

D3.2 West Lodge

East Lodge

531

D3 MAIN GATE LODGES (FRONT GATE LODGES, TWIN GATE LODGES)

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

1808 The expenditure for the construction of the Mount Stewart lodges is mentioned within accounts within the demesne’s archives held in PRONI. An entry in 1808 may relate to the Main Gate Lodges: ‘Lawn for Pillars and Porters Lodge at Mount Stewart £94.5.10½’. 1812 A balance on an account for ‘Lawn and Porters Lodge’ was £1,692. This is assumed to be the same lodge as the 1808 entry. 1815 The pair of lodges are depicted on a sketch of Mount Stewart dated October 1815 by Lord Mark Kerr. The lodges nestle beside the Lough whilst Mount Stewart House emerges from trees to the right. 1834 Both lodges are shown on the Ordnance Survey plan as simple structures with associated small gardens. A drive leads through the grounds to the main house. Another drive passes adjacent to the east lodge from Gamekeeper’s Lodge to join the main drive to the house.

1858–1920 Between 1858 and 1920, the west lodge received a small addition to the rear. This was probably no more than one room to add to the existing and is likely to have taken place in the latter half of the 19th century.

2001 The west lodge received a large extension, doubling the accommodation floorspace. The new ‘L’ shaped building was connected to the existing lodge by a glazed link, creating a threebedroomed bungalow.

1921 The Ordnance Survey map (25 inch) shows the gate lodges clearly. The west lodge with extension has a small extension to the south, whilst the east lodge is its original size but with several outbuildings in a rear yard.

2016 The extension of the west lodge and boundary wall were badly damaged by a lorry. The east lodge was then obscured by undergrowth. The west lodge extension was subsequently repaired.

1970s Lady Rose and Dolly McRoberts recall a brother and sister, John and Sadie, living in the west gate lodge. They took great care of the lodge gardens and Lady Rose recalls how his sister, Sadie, would always curtsy whenever the family used the entrance gates.

2019 The rhododendrons which have taken over the gardens were cleared by the National Trust to reveal the eastern gate lodge.

1971 The 1971 Ordnance Survey 25 inch map shows the west lodge with an additional extension to the south.

1858 The Ordnance Survey map shows the lodges now have outbuildings to the rear.

532

D3 MAIN GATE LODGES (FRONT GATE LODGES, TWIN GATE LODGES)

The construction of the Mount Stewart Gate Lodges is mentioned within the PRONI Londonderry Papers; in 1808 and 1812 the accounts mention money spent on the ‘Lawn and Porters’ Lodge’. As the lodges are depicted on a sketch of Mount Stewart by Lord Mark Kerr in October 1815, it is therefore likely they were built around 1808. The lodge buildings at Mount Stewart are typical of ‘Gothicised’ demesne buildings and summer houses in Northern Ireland. It has not been possible to establish the architect responsible and they may be the work of a local craftsman who was familiar with the building style at estates like Rosemount House.01 The date of the twin lodges may also be connected to the construction of the Sea Plantation (completed c.1803) and relocation of the Portaferry road a short distance further west from Mount Stewart House. The alteration in the line of this road would have probably required the creation of the new approaches to the house from Newtownards and Greyabbey.02

COMPARATIVE EXAMPLES IN NORTHERN IRELAND A similar example to the Mount Stewart Main Gate Lodges can be found at Rosemount House, Greyabbey. Here, there is a single Gothick-style lodge probably of a similar date which is also constructed in coursed basalt with decorative galletting, canted ends and half-umbrello roof. The building is now a ruin. The proximity and similarity to the Mount Stewart Main Gate Lodges would strongly suggest that the same architect, mason or builder was at work. Another example within close proximity is Ballymore Gate, Creeslough, Co Donegal built c.1820. It is also in the Gothickstyle and a similar scale, with canted ends and half-umbrello roof but with a rendered finish. Coincidentally, the demesne was bought by Alexander Stewart, the younger brother of the 1st Marquess of Londonderry in 1781. It is unclear which of the demesne’s gate lodges was built first.

Mount Irwin

Similar examples can also be found at Montalto and Florida Manor both in Co. Down, and at Mount Irwin, Tynan, Co Armagh. A fully octagonal example formerly stood at Millbrook Lodge, Larne, Co Antrim, which is thought to have been built c.1790 and may have influenced later examples like the Mount Stewart lodges and other lodges elsewhere in Northern Ireland.03

Rosemount House

Department for Communities, Listed building database HB24/04/054. Available at: https://www.communities-ni.gov.uk/services/buildings-database

Casement, 1995 p53

J.A.K. Dean, ‘The Gate lodges of Ulster- a gazetteer’ (Belfast, 1994)

533

D3 MAIN GATE LODGES (FRONT GATE LODGES, TWIN GATE LODGES)

PRIMARY SOURCES N

1834 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1858 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

534

D3 MAIN GATE LODGES (FRONT GATE LODGES, TWIN GATE LODGES)

PRIMARY SOURCES N

1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1921 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

535

D3 MAIN GATE LODGES (FRONT GATE LODGES, TWIN GATE LODGES)

PRIMARY SOURCES N

1971 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

536

D3 MAIN GATE LODGES (FRONT GATE LODGES, TWIN GATE LODGES)

1815 Sketch of Mount Stewart by Lord Mark Kerr showing the gate lodges to the left (Hector McDonnell Collection)

Late 20th century photograph of the west lodge before the brick chimney was replaced

The entrance gates in the 1940s.

537

D3 MAIN GATE LODGES (FRONT GATE LODGES, TWIN GATE LODGES)

CURRENT SITUATION Setting The Main Gate Lodges are situated on the busy Portaferry road in a prominent position. The site offers significant views across Strangford Lough. The Lodges are set either side of the historic wrought iron entrance gates into the demesne from Newtownards. The piers are of dressed stone topped by lanterns. These were converted from gas to electricity during the 20th century. The west lodge lies immediately roadside. Both have front gardens – a low wall topped by modern railings bordering the east lodge front garden, whilst a low wall to the west lodge has lost its railings and has been partially re-capped. The east lodge has a small rear yard with hard surfacing surrounded by a stone wall. There are extant foundations of a long outbuilding (noted on the 1921 Ordnance Survey map) and adjacent, brick built raised beds. Exterior The lodges are a matching pair of single-storey buildings which have been described as ‘ink pot’ gate lodges.04 They are effectively similar rectangular buildings with canted gable ends making them semi-octagonal. They are constructed in squared and coursed stone, with decorative galletting. Both have half-umbrello shaped roofs of slate and octagonal stone chimneys (the west lodge chimney was formerly in brick but has now been restored). The west lodge has cast iron rainwater goods; the east lodge has none. A key feature of both Lodges is the pointed-arch windows and doors with stone surrounds in the Gothick-style. The windows have ‘Y’ tracery. Some windows in the west lodge have been altered and set with casements. Additionally it has windows set in its west end looking across the Portaferry road and Strangford Lough.

Interior: West Lodge Not accessed but believed to have been fully modernised in 2001 when a rear extension was added. Interior: East Lodge The east lodge has not been modernised. The building is entered through the western end via a very low opening set with a plank door. The awkwardness of this entrance and lack of stone dressings suggests it was a later insertion, probably carried out when the door to the rear of the building was blocked. The door leads into one of two small rooms. The first room was probably a living-kitchen which was heated by a central brick stack constructed against the stone partition which divides the building. Formerly wider to accept a cooking range, the fireplace has been narrowed. The walls are roughly painted and there are the remains of lime plaster still in evidence. The floor is of heavily worn clay tiles and lit by a single window to the front elevation. The rafters and underside of the slate roof are exposed. Although no longer extant, fabric evidence suggests that both rooms had ceilings. The second room is accessed through a timber board door set in a lime plastered brick partition. The partition is set at an angle to the stack, avoiding the former rear door which is centrally placed to the elevation and is now bricked up and set with a window. An additional window faces the front elevation. The walls are whitewashed stone rubble. The floor is of dirt, and a combination of stone rubble and stone slabs, which has the remains of a lime mortar screed(?) above.

Department for Communities, Listed building database HB24/04/054 https:// www.communities-ni.gov.uk/services/buildings-database 538

Key Features: • Prominent pair of matching buildings. • Gothick-style windows and doors set with ‘Y’ tracery. • Modest size. • Canted ends and half-umbrello roof with central stacks. • Coursed stone with decorative galletting. • Low curving front garden walls. • West lodge remains un-modernised.

D3 MAIN GATE LODGES (FRONT GATE LODGES, TWIN GATE LODGES)

East lodge front elevation

East lodge rear elevation – note blocked door

West lodge

West lodge with rear extension

539

Main gates

D3 MAIN GATE LODGES (FRONT GATE LODGES, TWIN GATE LODGES)

East lodge side and rear elevation – note low entrance door

West lodge – glazed link and modern extension (left). Historic element with main door to right.

West lodge – western elevation

West lodge – modern extension

540

D3 MAIN GATE LODGES (FRONT GATE LODGES, TWIN GATE LODGES)

East lodge – fireplace, living-kitchen

Stonework and galletting

East lodge – living-kitchen

541

East lodge looking at rear door, now a window

D3 MAIN GATE LODGES (FRONT GATE LODGES, TWIN GATE LODGES) Built-Fabric Assessment N

Foundation of outbuilding

BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT PLAN Phase 1: c.1808 Phase 2: 19th century alterations Phase 3: 2001 additions/alterations

Foundation of raised beds/greenhouse

This plan is not to scale

Doorway formed into window Historic windows with ‘Y’ tracery

Low door non-original, assumed formed when rear door blocked

Former living/kitchen Modern railings Doorway sealed internally Doorway ‘reopened’ in 2001 Railings to wall removed

Former location of bathroom

Former kitchen

542

Chimney stack restored in stone 2001

D3 MAIN GATE LODGES (FRONT GATE LODGES, TWIN GATE LODGES) CONDITION Summary of Condition D3.1

Main Gate Lodge (west)

D3.2 Main Gate Lodge (east)

•

Roofs: slate, appears sound.

•

RWGs: cast iron, redecoration and clearance required.

•

Masonry: rendered, sound.

•

Windows/doors: timber, sound subject to maintenance.

•

Interiors/finishes: not inspected.

•

Not currently habitable.

•

Roof: slate, open joints to ridge, some slips/damage.

•

RWGs: none present.

•

Masonry: stone, generally sound, some open joints etc.

•

Windows/doors: timber, glazed, repair and overhaul required.

•

Recommended Repairs

•

Further Investigations

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

Significant repair/ refurbishment needed

Interiors/finishes: slow deterioration, stable at present. Significant refurbishment required. 543

D3 MAIN GATE LODGES (FRONT GATE LODGES, TWIN GATE LODGES)

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Summary The Main Gate Lodges are listed B2 in recognition of their architectural and historical significance and for its group value with the other Mount Stewart lodges. They are of value for their association with the Marquess of Londonderry and are of interest for their connection with improvements being made to Mount Stewart at this time. They are representative of a small number of similar gate lodges in Northern Ireland built on a similar plan form and in the Gothick-style. Although the architect is unknown, the style is typical of this type built at the end of the 18th century or start of the 19th century. The approximate date of construction is supported by documentary sources. The east lodge is of particular interest having remained un-modernised. Evidential The simple plan form holds some evidential value for lodge buildings constructed at the start of the 19th century and suggests a simple layout of a living-kitchen space and separate room. The approximate date of construction is recorded in archival sources, but the exact date and architect have still to be established. The date of fabric changes is also not fully understood. There is potential to increase our understanding of the buildings’ development through further research from documentary sources and analysis of the built fabric. The evidential value is medium.

Historical The Lodges at Mount Stewart are significant for their historical associations with the Londonderry family. They were constructed at a time when significant improvements were being made to the demesne including a realignment of the Portaferry road. They are also significant for servicing the principle entrance to the demesne from the north. The Lodges are also representative of a type of Gothick-style gate lodge in Northern Ireland built on a similar plan form, with extant parallels existing locally. They also represent a type of architectural style which was popular at the end of the 18th century and start of the 19th century. The east lodge is unmodernised and provides an indication of what living conditions were like in the 19th and early 20th century. The historical value is high. Aesthetic Built in a prominent location beside the Portaferry road, the Lodges were designed to impress visitors and passers-by and were a reflection of the family’s taste in Gothick-style demesne buildings. The pair give the impression of symmetry either side of the gated entrance from Newtownards. Their playful design incorporates an interesting plan form (though rather impractical to live in), decoratively laid stonework and lancet windows and doors under half-umbrello roofs. The vacancy of the east lodge and unkempt nature of the front gardens could be improved but they still hold high aesthetic value.

544

Communal The Lodges will hold value as prominent buildings on the Portaferry road. They will be admired by visitors to Mount Stewart and feature daily to local residents and commuters. As private dwellings inaccessible to the public their communal value is somewhat reduced. The communal value is therefore low. Setting The current setting facing onto Strangford Lough is of high value. Improvements, however, could be made to the front garden of the west lodge and to the front and rear gardens of the east lodge. Contribution to the Wider Demesne and the Mansion House The attractive Gate Lodges are part of the initial visitor experience to Mount Stewart and their contribution to the wider demesne is therefore high.

D3 MAIN GATE LODGES (FRONT GATE LODGES, TWIN GATE LODGES)

Key Views and Associated Designations KEY VIEWS AND ASSOCIATED DESIGNATIONS The Site Key Views Approximate line of historic routeways

Drive from Gamekeeper’s Lodge

Main drive to Mount Stewart House

545

D3 MAIN GATE LODGES (FRONT GATE LODGES, TWIN GATE LODGES)

546

D3 MAIN GATE LODGES (FRONT GATE LODGES, TWIN GATE LODGES)

CONSERVATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES Condition • The west lodge is in a reasonable condition having been modernised and extended in 2001. The east lodge does not appear to have been in use as a residence for a least 50 years but has been used for storage. It currently lies vacant. •

•

Safe access from the Portaferry road will need to be aconsideration for any future development.

•

There is potential for interpretation to improve understanding and enjoyment.

•

The size of the east lodge limits potential future uses; this may be eased by the addition of an extension. Its position would make any extension visible from the road, therefore any addition would have to be carefully designed (the west lodge extension is largely hidden behind a high wall which limits impact).

The west lodge is positioned on the roadside and is vulnerable to traffic noise, vibration and collisions. The best use of an historic building is often the one for which it was designed; the west lodge remains in residential use. The lack of use for the east lodge, however, threatens its future survival.

The buildings are set beside Strangford Lough. Rising sea levels are therefore of a concern and will feature in future strategies for the site.

There is potential to improve the overall condition of the east lodge through a programme of repair and maintenance and a new use.

•

Whilst there has been some clearance of the gardens, there is potential to improve the appearance and landscaping treatment to both Lodges.

•

There are opportunities to exploit their prominent location beside the Portaferry road.

547

PARAMETERS FOR CHANGE General • Listed Building Consent is required prior to any material impact on significance. •

The external appearance should be maintained as they are in a prominent location.

•

Maintain and repair the structures to a level commensurate with their significance.

•

The principle of maximum historic fabric retention should be followed.

•

Changes proposed should generally aim to be reversible.

•

Any change should respect the character, scale and massing of the current buildings and their setting.

•

D3 MAIN GATE LODGES (FRONT GATE LODGES, TWIN GATE LODGES)

Enhancing Significance • Retain or restore the ‘Y’ tracery in windows which will complement the Gothick appearance and original design intension. •

Establish a use for the east lodge.

•

Ensure that in any future changes, historic features are retained or better revealed, such as fireplaces, doors and floor surfaces.

•

The east lodge may require an extension if it is to have a future use. This should be well-designed, appropriate in style and modest in scale to ensure that it does not detract from the historic building. The footprint of a former outhouse/shed could be considered as a precedent for a new structure.

•

The Trust should ensure that the buildings continue to be maintained and a programme of long-term maintenance and repair should be continued/put in place.

•

Given their position on the Portaferry road, consider improvements to landscaping.

•

Reinstate the railings to the west lodge garden.

•

Any alterations or additions should be high-quality, of appropriate materials and craftsmanship and respect the existing scale of development

Understanding • Continue to pursue areas of limited understanding to help inform future change. •

Public access or interpretation should be improved.

•

A recording exercise should be carried out prior to change.

CAPACITY FOR CHANGE Minor capacity for change The west lodge is already in residential use. The modest size of the historic buildings limits their use. Continued residential or as holiday accommodation. A choice will have to be made between providing the east lodge with a new use and allowing it to be modernised, or for it to remain largely untouched and for it to be included as part of the visitor experience in future long-term plans.

548

[THIS PAGE HAS INTENTIONALLY BEEN LEFT BLANK]

549

D4 LAUNDRY COTTAGE (THE OLD LAUNDRY)

550

B2 FOLLY D4 LAUNDRY COTTAGE (THE OLD LAUNDRY)

KEY INFORMATION

Component Name

Laundry Cottage (the Old Laundry)

Date Range

c.1805

Current Use

Residential

Historic Use

Laundry and residential accommodation

Overall Significance

Medium

Overall Condition

Sound

Designations

None

Capacity for Change

Low as not owned by the National Trust

551

D4 LAUNDRY COTTAGE (THE OLD LAUNDRY)

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Summary Timeline 1805–1808 The building was constructed at an approximate cost of £510 01 and payments are made to the stonecutter James Campbell.02 1834 The building appears on the Ordnance Survey map first edition, shown as rectangular with a projection on the east (rear) elevation (perhaps a crude interpretation of the stair tower). The building is reached from a trackway which passes to the west of the building. An ‘L’ shaped building is located to the south. Also of interest is a pond, suggesting a nearby water source which would have been essential for operations. 1835 The Ordnance Survey Valuation of 1835 refers to a ‘Marling House and Laundry’. The Marling House may have been the ‘L’ shaped structure identified on the plan to the south of the laundry, as it would be rather peculiar for the two processes to share the same building.03

D654/H2/4 See Anne Casement p. 23

D654/|H1/4

Marling is a process of soil improvement through the addition of clay, the clay requiring storage before application.

1858 On the second edition Ordnance Survey map the building remains unchanged. The ‘L’ shaped building is no longer extant and a new trackway now passes immediately beside the northern gable. Access to a track to the south (which would have given a route to the house without passing through the Farmyard) appears to have continued, as a small bridge is now shown to traverse the water course. 1900–1901 The 1900-1901 Ordnance Survey map shows the building as a simple rectangular structure (and does not show the stair tower). A new drive now runs north of the Laundry. 1921 The 1921 Ordnance Survey 25 inch map shows that an extension has been added to the northern elevation. A pump is shown in the yard. 1933 A schematic map of the demesne entitled ‘The Most Noble, The Marquis of Londonderry: Sketch of Mount Stewart Buildings 1933’ shows the ‘Laundry (18)’. This implies it was still in use for its original purpose.

552

c.1960–1993 An apartment was situated within the northern end of the Laundry building occupied by Mr and Mrs Milligan. Later, when the Laundry was no longer in use the building was formed into two residences – Lady Rose recalls an artist residing in one of the apartments. 1993 An application was made for the ‘conversion and refurbishment’ of the building into two ground floor flats and two maisonettes in order to preserve an ‘important building on the Estate now in the process of decay’. Architects Dalrymple-Wilson of Bangor produced plans for the conversion of Laundry Cottage which was described as ‘in a state of decay’ and vacant for two years. 20th May 1994 Permission was granted by Ards Borough Council. The conversion was completed by the following spring at a cost of approximately £118,000.

D4 LAUNDRY COTTAGE (THE OLD LAUNDRY)

Dolly McRoberts, a resident of the Mount Stewart demesne since 1958, recalls that the Laundry was still in use when she came to Mount Stewart. A small apartment was situated on the north side of the Laundry and occupied by a Mr and Mrs Milligan who had moved from Mountstewart School. They would take the left-over hot water from the water boilers at the end of the day for their own use, until they had a falling-out with the laundry workers.04 Later, it is believed that the artist RB Higgins, one of Northern Ireland’s foremost contemporary landscape painters and whose brother Jo Higgins was a Ranger on the Mount Stewart demesne, rented the Laundry as a studio.05

The west (front) elevation has a number of differences to the present arrangement – the first floor windows (three blocked with tongue and groove boarding or possible louvres) contained eightover-eight timber sliding sash windows whilst the ground floor featured six lunette windows to the ground floor with multi-paned timber windows. The pediment above the central entrance front door appears to be slightly smaller than it is today, with the gutter traversing across the central bay. The principal door originally contained a double door of six panels. The condition of the building was clearly deteriorating, and one window has been boarded up from the inside.

•

Installation of external spiral staircases to the gable ends;

•

New roof structure to allow for a second floor installed with dormers and roof lights;

•

Installation of new floor structures. The first floor was set below the original floor position to allow for adequate head height on the second floor;

•

Installation of new internal partitions, staircases, floor surfaces, fixtures and fittings;

Dolly and other Mount Stewart residents recall that the southern end of the building was once fully open to the rafters and used for drying laundry aided by louvres in the first floor windows. It seems likely that the hot, steamy washing process and pressing took place on the ground floor, and the drying of clothes above.06

In 1993, an application was made the Ards Borough Council for the ‘conversion and refurbishment’ of the building into two ground floor flats and two maisonettes. The ‘as existing’ plans from this period show the interior roughly divided into two residences. A water boiler is shown in the central hallway. The ‘studio flat’ encompassed the double-height space of the original laundry.

•

The installation of new boundary walls, gates, car parking and turning circle and a new septic tank;

•

New doors, including a new double front door of eight panels and the installation of uPVC windows; and a

•

Smooth rendered exterior finish.

By the 1980s, the laundry function had ceased, and the building was divided into two apartments. Photographs from the 1990s show the white painted or thinly rendered stone exterior, slate roof, brick stacks (probably 20th century) and a small extension on the northern gable with mono-pitch roof. Gated access from the road led onto a concrete yard to the rear (east) elevation. This appears to have been used by the residents as the preferred entrance, with the garden below the west elevation laid to grass.

Pers Comm: Dolly McRoberts to Andrew Corkill, 25th July 2019

Pers Comm: Lady Rose Lauritzen to Andrew Corkill, 9th July 2019

Pers Comm: Dolly McRoberts to Andrew Corkill, 25th July 2019 Lady Rose Lauritzen to Andrew Corkill, 9th July 2019, Michael Park to Andrew Corkill 17th November 2019

The architect’s plans of August 1993 indicate the following: •

The retention of the rear projecting stair tower with new spiral staircase;

•

New openings for multiple access routes;

•

Removal of mono-pitched roof extensions on the north elevation;

•

Lowering of ground floor windows on the front elevation;

•

Reordering of ground floor openings on the rear elevation to give a more symmetrical appearance;

553

Permission was granted by Ards Borough Council on 20th May 1994. The conversion was completed by the following spring at a cost of approximately £118,000.

D4 LAUNDRY COTTAGE (THE OLD LAUNDRY)

Front elevation prior to conversion (date taken probably early 1990s)

North gable with extension, the latter probably late 19th century (date taken probably early 1990s)

Rear elevation prior to conversion (date taken probably early 1990s)

554

D4 LAUNDRY COTTAGE (THE OLD LAUNDRY)

Existing plan of ‘Old Laundry Building’ prior to conversion in 1993

555

D4 LAUNDRY COTTAGE (THE OLD LAUNDRY)

THE LAUNDRY IN THE COUNTRY HOUSE In a large country house the laundering of bed linen, tablecloths, and towels together with the clothing of the family and servants was a considerable task. This sometimes required a team of laundry women working six-days-a-week. Equipment typically included boiling coppers, iron-heating stoves or grates and heated drying closets or rooms. Then came hand-operated mangles and various steam and later electrical laundry apparatus. The process was organised into washing-room, drying-room and ironing room and became the technological counterpart to the kitchen.07 According to Mark Girouard, the laundry ‘was in a unique position’. The laundry-maid had a long history in the country house, long before the arrival of housekeepers and maids, ensuring that they were an independent group not necessarily under the control of the housekeeper or normal servant conventions.08 Maintaining the laundry for a country house involved a good deal of water, smell and steam and the requirement of being close to a large drying ground; this meant that the laundry was located on the periphery of the servant’s quarters. In the case of Mount Stewart this was half a mile away from the house itself.

Former workers of the demesne recall carts loaded with laundry being sent from the house at Mount Stewart down to the laundry. Washing would have taken place in large containers, sinks or tubs. The hot water would have been heated in a boiling copper or over a fire. At Mount Stewart what appears to have been a copper or boiler was still located in the hall, prior to its conversion. Laundry would have been scrubbed on washboards or agitated using washing dollys; the more delicate items were carefully washed by hand. To aid in the process laundry soap became commonly used from 1800. After washing and rinsing, water would be removed by hand through wringing. During the 18th century the ringing of clothes was aided by the box mangle, a large unwieldy piece of equipment which used stones in a box to squeeze out the water. Thankfully after 1800 the patent mangle was introduced, which squeezed the laundry between rollers, improving the efficiency of this process.

Communities, including large households, often had fields set aside as drying or bleaching grounds where washed clothes and textiles could be laid out in the sunshine – the sun assisted in bleaching off-white fabrics whilst drying at the same time. The location of these areas can often remain fossilised in the name of fields long after the practice has ceased. At Mount Stewart, Laundry Hill is mentioned on an incomplete map of the demesne from 1855 and located to the north-west of the Laundry.09 At Mount Stewart overhead drying racks are believed to have been used on the first floor. Racks would have been raised and lowered from the ceiling on system of pulleys and ropes examples of which survive at Florence Court, Co. Fermanagh. In the later 19th century, drying rooms were made more efficient by the development of drying cupboards heated by hot water pipes. Ironing would have been initially carried out using ‘sad’ or flat irons, heating on ironing-stoves. Box irons allowed hot embers or slabs of heated metal to be placed within a special receptacle, prolonging the heat.

A feature of many laundries was high ceilings to relieve the uncomfortable atmosphere brought about by the laundry process; part of the Mount Stewart laundry building is known to have been open to the first floor prior to its conversion in the 1990s.

Laundry at Petworth House, Sussex 07

M Girouard, Life in the English Country House, 1978,Yale: New Haven and London, 284

Ibid, 283

Drying and ironing at Castle Ward, Co. Down

556

D654/M71/5 See also Anne Casement ‘Appendix’ 1995

D4 LAUNDRY COTTAGE (THE OLD LAUNDRY)

PRIMARY SOURCES N

1834 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1858 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

557

D4 LAUNDRY COTTAGE (THE OLD LAUNDRY)

1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1921 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

558

D4 LAUNDRY COTTAGE (THE OLD LAUNDRY)

1971 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

559

D4 LAUNDRY COTTAGE (THE OLD LAUNDRY)

CURRENT SITUATION Setting Located half a mile north-east of the Mount Stewart House and a short distance north-west of the Farmyard and Walled Garden, access to the Laundry was historically via a track to the south of the building, but today residents and visitors use the drive from the main gates via the farm. The building is set in a depression within rolling farmyard, originally close to a water course which ran to the west of the building. The surrounding landscape is a mixture of pastoral and arable enclosed fields, with mixed woodland bordering the gardens to the south. The building is set in a lawned garden bordered by rendered walls and timber fences. A tarmaced car park is provided for residents. Exterior The two-storey building with attic, is symmetrically arranged and of seven bays with a plat band separating the ground and first floors. The central bay is set forward and topped with a simple pediment (rebuilt in 1993). The 1993 conversion also saw the walls smooth rendered and painted, obscuring the stone rubble walling of the original structure. The classical pedimented stone door surround appears to be original, but the two leaf panelled door and overlight are modifications of the earlier arrangement. The building’s ground floor window openings have segmental heads to the front elevation – these were originally lunettes but lowered in 1993. The rear elevation reflects the original lunette arrangement on the ground floor, although heavily modified. The window openings now contain uPVC frames.

The original spiral stair turret is located on the east elevation with a large segmental headed window opening. The stair turret was replicated in 1993 on the north and south gables to create two new staircases to access the first floor maisonettes. The building has a slate roof with dormers to the front elevation and modern roof lights, all added in 1993. The roof also has two end chimney stacks and a third arranged off-centre on the roof apex, apparently relating to the original heating arrangements of the Laundry. Interior The interior was extensively modernised when the building was converted into two ground floor flats and two maisonettes. There are no visible historic features.

560

Key Features • Rear and gable end stair turrets and flanking walls. • Neo-Classical stone door surround, double leaf door and overlight. • Segmental-headed window openings. • Symmetrical arrangement.

D4 LAUNDRY COTTAGE (THE OLD LAUNDRY)

Setting of the Laundry, looking west

Front elevation

Front entrance with stone doorcase

Modern stair turret with spiral stair

Rear elevation

Front elevation

Modern internal finishes

561

D4 LAUNDRY COTTAGE (THE OLD LAUNDRY)

BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT

Principle elevation

All windows uPVC

Re roofed 1993, dormers and rooflights added Chimneys rebuilt 1993

Raised 1993

Stair turrets added 1993

Flanking walls and landscaping 1993

Windows lowered 1993

Doors and overlight replaced 1993 562

D4 LAUNDRY COTTAGE (THE OLD LAUNDRY)

Eastern elevation Former two-over-two sliding sash

Original stair turret raised 1993

Re-roofed 1993

Former eightover-eight sliding sash

19th century extension demolished and stair turret added 1993

Entrance door and porch modified into lunette window 1993

Window inserted 1993

Formerly lunette window 1993

Doors inserted 1993 Window modified 1993 from rectangular sliding sash to lunette 563

Flanking walls and landscaping 1993

D4 LAUNDRY COTTAGE (THE OLD LAUNDRY)

Two-storey extension removed 1993

Door inserted 1993

‘Concrete’ staircase replaced 1993

Door inserted 1993

Entrance and porch removed 1993 Exterior smooth rendered 1993

Former doubleheight space floors inserted 1993

First floor lowered 1993

Ground floor windows lowered 1993

Water boiler removed 1993 GROUND FLOOR BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT Assumed original/historic fabric 1993 conversion This plan is not to scale

564

D4 LAUNDRY COTTAGE (THE OLD LAUNDRY)

Staircase to second floor inserted 1993

Exterior smooth rendered 1993

FIRST FLOOR BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT Assumed original/historic fabric 1993 conversion This plan is not to scale

565

D4 LAUNDRY COTTAGE (THE OLD LAUNDRY)

SECOND FLOOR BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT Assumed original/historic fabric 1993 conversion This plan is not to scale

566

D4 LAUNDRY COTTAGE (THE OLD LAUNDRY) CONDITION

Laundry Cottage

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

•

Roofs: slate, appears sound, patches of moss growth.

•

RWGs: cast iron, sound subject to maintenance/ redecoration.

•

Masonry: rendered, generally sound, some water staining from run-off.

•

Windows/doors: uPVC and timber, sound subject to maintenance.

•

Further Investigations

Minor repairs/redecorations required.

Interiors/finishes: satisfactory.

567

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

D4 LAUNDRY COTTAGE (THE OLD LAUNDRY)

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Summary The Laundry has significance as a surviving demesne building constructed in the early 19th century at a time of significant change to the house and demesne. It holds illustrative value for its part in the functioning of the country house and for its association with the Londonderry family. The building underwent extensive modernisation in the 1990s which prevented the loss of the historic building, but also resulted in a loss of historic fabric and plan form, and an alteration to its character and appearance. Overall, the building has medium significance. Evidential The building is known to have been constructed around 1805. Despite entries within historical accounts, little else is known about the building, and its original plan form is little understood. Ordnance Survey maps and architects plans of 1993 evidence that the building was extended in the past and divided into two separate residences, but the date of these occurrences and extent of surviving original internal fabric at that point in time remains unknown. Whilst part of the building was open to the first floor in 1993 (a common feature of laundries) the location of the separate processes of washing, drying and ironing within the building can only be surmised. It is also unclear if the laundry was always partly a residence for demesne workers as well as a laundry. Further research is required. The evidential value is medium.

Historical The building holds high historical value as an early 19th century laundry building, and an important surviving element of the operation of a country demesne. It is unusual in being separated by half a mile from the main house, but this allowed the unpleasant processing and drying of laundry to be kept at a distance.

Communal The building is a private residence and therefore has limited communal value. However, the building is situated on a public access road and is passed by walkers and visitors to the demesne; the exterior holds some value to observers and it features in medium-distance views which are uncommon in the demesne.

The building has historical significance for its connections with the Irish artist RB Higgins, who is said to have used the building as a studio.

Setting The setting of the Laundry has remained rural since its construction, although minor changes have taken place to access routes with the loss of the approach from the house. Its peaceful setting surrounded by farmland makes it a pleasant residential retreat.

Aesthetic The building is a pleasant structure, with symmetrical elevations and a polite stone door surround with pediment above. Today, the smooth rendered finish and stair towers to the gable-ends lend the building a mediterranean character. The building has high aesthetic value, marred only by the uPVC windows and inserted dormers.

568

Contribution to the Wider Demesne and the Mansion House It is a functional building which is highly visible in long views within the demesne, which may or may not have been designed. The building makes a positive contribution to the setting of the demesne as an attractive building, which is admired by visitors, although its current neat residential appearance is in contrast to its former use.

D4 LAUNDRY COTTAGE (THE OLD LAUNDRY)

Key views

KEY VIEWS AND ASSOCIATED DESIGNATIONS Site Boundary Key Views Approximate line of historic routeways

Laundry Hill/ Laundry Field

Walled Gardens

569

D4 LAUNDRY COTTAGE (THE OLD LAUNDRY)

GROUND FLOOR SIGNIFICANCE AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE PLAN High Medium Low Neutral Intrusive

(Please refer to the Executive Summary Section 5.0 for an explanation of significance and its relationship to capacity for change) This plan is not to scale

570

D4 LAUNDRY COTTAGE (THE OLD LAUNDRY)

FIRST FLOOR SIGNIFICANCE AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE PLAN High Medium Low Neutral Intrusive

(Please refer to the Executive Summary Section 5.0 for an explanation of significance and its relationship to capacity for change) This plan is not to scale

571

D4 LAUNDRY COTTAGE (THE OLD LAUNDRY)

SECOND FLOOR SIGNIFICANCE AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE PLAN High Medium Low Neutral Intrusive

(Please refer to the Executive Summary Section 5.0 for an explanation of significance and its relationship to capacity for change) This plan is not to scale

572

D4 LAUNDRY COTTAGE (THE OLD LAUNDRY)

CONSERVATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

•

Changes proposed should generally aim to be reversible.

•

The Laundry is in good overall condition following extensive works in the 1990s and the current maintenance regime.

•

Ensure any potential new building is of a high-quality design which is sympathetic to its setting.

The building is set in a peaceful part of the demesne with good access.

Enhancing Significance • Consider the replacement of uPVC windows with more appropriate timber frames. The pattern of new fenestration and doors should be guided by historical research both of the building and of buildings of a similar-style and date, both within the demesne and found more widely.

• •

The building has been subdivided into apartments in the 1990s at which point internal historic features have been covered or removed. The extent of alteration increases potential future options.

•

Opportunity to improve interpretation.

•

Public interpretation should be improved.

•

There may be potential for the building to come under National Trust ownership with the potential opportunity of making the building publicly accessible and part of the visitor experience.

•

Consider removing modern interventions, paint finishes, and cementitious renders. Consideration should be given to more appropriate finishes based upon conservation methodologies and historical research.

PARAMETERS FOR CHANGE General • Any alterations or additions should be high-quality, of appropriate materials and craftsmanship and respect the existing scale of development. •

•

Any further change should respect the character of the current building and its setting and should avoid upsetting the current symmetry of the structure.

Setting • The setting of the site should be retained. •

Retain connectivity and green space of the former Laundry Field/Laundry Hill.

•

The external appearance should be retained due to its eyecatching appearance in views within the demesne.

•

Retain views to the east and west.

Mitigation • An assessment of impact commensurate with significance is required at the point of any proposed development. •

Any internal fixtures and fittings revealed during future works which relate to its original use should be recorded or retained.

CAPACITY FOR CHANGE •

•

The subdivision or opening up of spaces could be considered in relation to historic plan form and its significance. New uses should be sensitive to the historic building and should seek to reveal significance of architectural features. There are no immediate concerns with the building’s condition, although a programme of long-term maintenance should be put into place or maintained.

The building has successfully operated as residential housing for many decades which is suitable for the location within the demesne. Modernisation has seen the loss of the internal historic features. The modern interiors increase capacity for change which might enhance its heritage value and increase potential uses. Potential future uses could include: o o o o

The principle of maximum historic fabric retention should be followed in any future development. Modern interiors are of neutral significance and have high capacity for change.

573

holiday let; demesne offices; interpretation/exhibition or visitor centre; and/or education centre

D5 ROS CUAN

574

D5 ROS CUAN

KEY INFORMATION

Component Name

Ros Cuan

Date Range

Possibly early 19th century, on an older site

Current Use

Residential

Historic Uses

Residential/Farmstead?

Overall Significance

Low

Overall Condition

Sound

Designations

None

Capacity for Change

Medium (not owned by National Trust)

575

D5 ROS CUAN

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Summary Timeline

1807 A building in the approximate location of Ros Cuan is shown on the David Geddas, Jr survey of 1807.01 This shows part of the Ballycastle Townland before it was absorbed into the northern part of the Mount Stewart demesne. A number of cottages and farmsteads are shown scattered amongst a patchwork of fields. In pencil, the line of the new road (now Mount Stewart road), has been sketched in, as have the proposed plantations and drive to the new lodge. 1821 A survey of the Townland of Ballycastle also puts a pair of cottages in roughly the same location as Ros Cuan.02 The patchwork of fields and scatter of cottages are still shown, but a plantation belt sweeping up to the proposed Mount Stewart road is now shown.

PRONI D654/M7/7 ‘A Map of part of the Townland of Ballycastle…’ David Geddas 1807

PRONI D654/M7/12 ‘Map of part of the Townland of Ballycastle in the Estate of the Most Noble the Marquis of Londonderry’ 1821

1834 The 1834 Ordnance Survey map shows the developing demesne landscape. A number of cottages or farmsteads are still in existence within the northern demesne and two buildings are shown within the approximate location of Ros Cuan. The site is approached from a track to the north-west which connects with the new Mount Stewart road which must, therefore, have been laid out between 1821 and 1834. The map shows a rectangular building lying south-west to north-east with another smaller rectangular building lying to the north at a right-angle. Two small outbuildings appear to be associated with the site. 1835 The Ordnance Survey Valuation Map of 1835 and the accompanying notebook 03 show that the site was tenanted by James Gaw.04

PRONI Val 1A/3/11 and Val 1B/33

Casement, 1998, p29

1858 The 1858 Ordnance Survey map reflects the maturing demesne landscape; many farmsteads and cottages shown on the 1834 map have been removed. The site, which was shown to be two structures in 1834, is now an irregular shaped building, perhaps following their amalgamation and extension. The access route has been removed and no longer directly linked to the Mount Stewart road, but connected to a network of demesne drives; the principal heading south-east, as it does today. Gardens are now laid out to the south and south-west of the house. 1861 The Valuation Map and notebook suggests the site was no longer tenanted.05 Although it is not certain, the house was probably by then occupied by the Steward to the Mount Stewart demesne and comprised a House, Gate House, Offices and Land.

576

PRONI Val 2A/3/11C and Val 2B/3/4

D5 ROS CUAN

By 1900–1901 The 1900 Ordnance Survey map is unclear, but the site is now referred to as ‘The Cottage’. By 1921 The Ordnance Survey maps indicates little change from earlier maps and still refers to the building as ‘The Cottage’. 1933 The ‘Sketch of Mountstewart Buildings 1933’ annotates the cottage as ‘Stewart Cottage’ (19).06 1940 The Cottage is also shown on both the ‘Rider’s’ and the ‘Walker’s’ Treasure Hunt maps of 1940.

1941 Following the marriage of Lady Mairi Bury and Derek Keppel, Viscount Bury, son of the 9th Earl of Albemarle in 1940, the building which had until then been occupied by the Farm Manager, was extended and converted for their use. Despite wartime restrictions, entries within the Mount Stewart accounts indicate a significant investment in the building for ‘additions and alterations’.07 There appears to have been a small extension at this time to the two-storey house, whilst a sitting room and master bedroom were fitted out with panelling imported from England which contained Jacobean carved panels.08 A plan of Ros Cuan survives from around this time and shows that service quarters, including the kitchen and maid’s room, lay within the long rectangular building. A school room is annotated on the ground floor. However, Lady Rose recalls that Ros Cuan was considered to be too small for her and her sisters, who lived in Mount Stewart House; Lady Rose recalls walking to Ros Cuan to visit her parents as a child.09 By 1945 the building is referred to as ‘Ros Cuan’ within the Mount Stewart Accounts.10 Payments show that works continued throughout 1945 and 1946 including £73.13.10 for electrical works, £350 for roof repairs.

1968 The building was captured in an aerial image in 1968. The site appears to be an amalgamation of various separate buildings The long single-storey range may partly be the remains of the structure shown on the 1834 Ordnance Survey map. 1971 The 1971 Ordnance Survey map shows modest changes to the site since the 1921 map; these include an extension to the northern element and the addition of two outbuildings. 1979–1982 Ros Cuan was used as the base of the Hunting Syndicate.11 1984–mid-1990 Ros Cuan was let to Dr David Park 1996–1997 Plans were drawn up for the refurbishment and subdivision of Ros Cuan into three residences. The two-storey element was converted into a three-bedroom residence through the partitioning of the hall. The central single-storey element was converted into a two-bedroomed apartment with a long rectangular unit as a one-bedroomed apartment and a garage at the northern end. Today Ros Cuan remains in the ownership of Lady Rose Lauritzen and is let privately.

PRONI D654/M71/13 ‘Sketch of Mount Stewart house and outbuildings’ 1933

PRONI D654/H/2/23 1940–51

Pers Comm, Andrew Corkill and Lady Rose Lauritzen, 9/7/2019

Ibid

PRONI D654/H/2/23 1940–51

577

Pers comm Michael Park to Andrew Corkill, November 2019

D5 ROS CUAN

PRIMARY SOURCES N

David Geddas, Jr Survey of 1807

578

D5 ROS CUAN

PRIMARY SOURCES N

Survey of 1821 with the approximate location of Ros Cuan indicated

579

D5 ROS CUAN

PRIMARY SOURCES N

1834 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1858 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

580

D5 ROS CUAN

PRIMARY SOURCES N

Detail of 1858 Ordnance Survey map of the site of Ros Cuan

1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

581

D5 ROS CUAN

PRIMARY SOURCES N

1921 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

582

D5 ROS CUAN

PRIMARY SOURCES

1941 plan of Ros Cuan following conversion

583

D5 ROS CUAN

PRIMARY SOURCES N

1968 aerial image of Ros Cuan

1971 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

584

D5 ROS CUAN

PRIMARY SOURCES

Photograph c.1997 of the panelled bedroom

1997 proposed conversion of Ros Cuan

585

D5 ROS CUAN

Current situation Setting The site is accessed from a private road to the south. The location is remote within the demesne. There are no other inhabited buildings within 370 metres. Plantations border the gardens to the south-west, whilst the site faces onto arable fields to the northeast. Stone gate piers to the north-east are potential remnants of the former driveway to the Mount Stewart road before its removal between 1834 and 1858. There are several stone outbuildings within the immediate setting; to the north-east is a small single-storey garden building with slate roof, chimney, door and window. It is constructed in stone with a rendered finish. The building was probably constructed between 1834 and 1858. Another structure within the setting is an opensided shed with mono-pitched corrugated roof. The walls are faced in cobblestones and three faces with stone quoins and a pseudo doorway and window with dressed-stone surrounds. Internally the structure is now subdivided with concrete blocks and used as a store. The structure is not shown on the 1921 Ordnance Survey map and Lady Rose recalls the structure being built by her father, Derek Keppel.12

Current Structure The house known as Ros Cuan is roughly ‘L’ shaped and comprises a series of single and two-storey structures. The buildings have a vernacular appearance and lack architectural ornamentation. A garage is located within the longest range at the eastern end. The site was converted into three separate residences in the 1990s and is currently owned by Lady Rose Lauritzen and let to a number of private tenants. The roof is of slate and retains all but one of the chimneys shown on the 1968 aerial photograph. Windows and doors have been replaced in uPVC and the exterior has a roughcast cement rendered finish throughout. The interior of the garage however, indicates this part of the building is constructed in stone. Although extended and refurbished during the Second World War, an analysis of historic maps and a limited inspection of the interior suggest that the building largely dates to the 19th century, although there is a small possibility it retains some earlier fabric. Ros Cuan is believed to have been occupied by the Mount Stewart Farm Manager or Land Steward in the 19th century which was then known as ‘The Cottage’.

Pers Comm, Andrew Corkill and Lady Rose Lauritzen, 9/7/2019

The two-storey element partially dates to the 1940s, but the mixture of 19th and 20th century architectural features and the installation of Jacobean panelling, hampered the identification of the various phases of construction with confidence. The staircase, for example is closed string with elegant Georgian-turned balusters; on the landing the cut-marks indicate that the balusters have been adapted from another staircase. Doors are also a mixture of 19th century quality four-panelled doors, some are modern and others dating to the 1941 refurbishment. The most recent refurbishment has added to the confusion of phasing and the cement harling obscures external evidence. Rooms with particular interest are the principal rooms originally designed for Lady Mairi and her husband, Derek Keppel. The drawing room and a bedroom contain floor to ceiling timber panelling, thought to have been brought to Mount Stewart from England which includes Jacobean carved panels.13 Key Features • Irregular plan giving the building the appearance of having evolved over time. • Timber panelling. • Closed string staircase with ramped handrail and turned balusters.

586

Ibid

D5 ROS CUAN

Gate piers to the north-east of Ros Cuan

20th century outbuilding

Eastern elevation

Garage (gable end and north elevation)

Western elevation

Southern elevation

587

D5 ROS CUAN

Northern elevation

Sitting room panelling

Western elevation

Jacobean carved panel

Staircase

588

D5 ROS CUAN

Former ‘schoolroom’ 1940s

Panelled sitting room – brought from England 1941

HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT 19th century? Shown on 1833 Plan? 1941 additions/alterations? 1997 alterations?

Bedroom in 1941

This plan is not to scale

Kitchen in 1941

Cloakroom 1941

Former bedroom 1940s

Former dining room 1940s

Panelled bedroom

Staircase installed from elsewhere? 1941?

Stone walls

589

D5 ROS CUAN CONDITION

F2.1

Ros Cuan

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

•

Roofs: slate, appears sound, patches of moss growth.

•

RWGs: cast iron, sound subject to maintenance/ redecoration.

•

Masonry: rendered, generally sound, some water staining and loss of finish.

•

Windows/doors: uPVC and timber, sound subject to maintenance.

•

Interiors/finishes: satisfactory.

Further Investigations

Minor repairs/ redecorations required.

590

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

D5 ROS CUAN

F2.2

Outbuilding 1 – potting shed

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

Further Investigations

•

Roof: slate, overgrown with moss, some deflection and broken/slipped units. Some separation along gable.

•

RWGs: none.

•

Masonry: brick, rendered. Potential structural deflection and outward movement of gable end adjacent to tree.

•

Doors: timber, glazed, sound subject to maintenance.

•

Interiors/finishes: poor, but commensurate with use as shed.

Repairs required following structural advice. Consider removal of adjacent trees that may be affecting gable. Monitor,

591

Structural Engineer to assess condition of gable.

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

D5 ROS CUAN

F2.3

Outbuilding 2 – store

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

Further Investigations

•

Roof: corrugated sheet, some deflection and potential for ingress.

•

RWGs: none.

•

Masonry – reclaimed stone and concrete block. Some open joints, vegetation, deflection. Movement evident through stone and blockwork sections.

•

Repairs required following structural advice. Monitor.

Interior/finishes: commensurate with current use.

592

Structural Engineer to advise on condition.

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

D5 ROS CUAN

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Summary Ros Cuan is an unlisted building with close historical connections to the Londonderry family. There is limited understanding of the current structure; questions remain as to whether Ros Cuan retains any early fabric formerly associated with the cottages/ farmsteads shown on historical maps and plans. The buildings have been modernised but retain interesting features installed for Lady Mairi Bury and her husband. Overall, the site has medium value. Evidential There is limited understanding of the current structures and whether they retain any early fabric associated with the cottages/ farmsteads shown on historical maps and plans. There are limited historical sources within archives to shed light of the development of the site during the 19th century. There is potential to learn more about the site through a study of the fabric. There is also potential that unidentified historical documents contain information about the refurbishment of the house and the source of internal architectural features. The evidential value is medium.

Historical Ros Cuan has associations with the pre-demesne landscape and is one of only a few sites to survive from this earlier period. The extent of historic fabric at Ros Cuan is currently difficult to quantify following alterations and refurbishment, although it is possible that some parts, such as the linear range, may pre-date the 1834 Ordnance Survey map. The site has significance for its connection with Lady Mairi Bury who occupied the house following her marriage, and for its refurbishment which incorporates Jacobean panelling, said to have been imported from England. It is also believed that before this, the building, then known as ‘The Cottage’, was occupied by the Farm Manager or Land Steward. The historical value is medium. Aesthetic Ros Cuan is an amalgamation of various structures which have been extended and modified over the years giving it a slightly haphazard and unplanned appearance. Further modifications in the 1940s created a house suitable for Lady Mairi and her husband. However, the house lacks any architectural ornamentation and the replacement of the windows in modern uPVC has reduced the historical character of the property. The playful modern outbuilding is of some aesthetic value. Overall, however, the site has low aesthetic value.

593

Communal Apart from those who live at Ros Cuan and their visitors, the house is not within the publicly accessible areas of Mount Stewart and therefore has low communal value. Setting Ros Cuan is located at the end of the private track on the edge of arable fields and nestling within extensive woodland. This area of the demesne is not accessible to the public and its peaceful setting on the edge of woodland makes it a pleasant residential retreat. Contribution to the Wider Demesne and the Mansion House During the 20th century Ros Cuan was intended as a private residence for members of the Londonderry family. Whilst the house has potential to add to our understanding of the development of the demesne and plays and small part within the Mount Stewart story, it currently makes a limited contribution. Key Views Ros Cuan’s secluded location means there are no key views of the house within the demesne.

D5 ROS CUAN

GROUND FLOOR SIGNIFICANCE AND CAPACITY FOR CHANGE PLAN High Medium Low Neutral Intrusive Note: Low overall, but panelling and staircase of medium value (Please refer to the Executive Summary Section 5.0 for an explanation of significance and its relationship to capacity for change) This plan is not to scale

594

D5 ROS CUAN

CONSERVATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

PARAMETERS FOR CHANGE

CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

•

Ros Cuan is in good overall condition following extensive works in the 1990s and with the current maintenance regime.

•

Maintain and repair the structure to a level commensurate with its significance.

•

Ros Cuan is not in the ownership of the National Trust.

•

The principle of maximum historic fabric retention should be followed during any future development project.

The building has remained as residential housing for many decades which is suitable for the location within the demesne. Modernisation both in the 1940s and 1990s are likely to have seen the loss of the internal historic features.

•

The building is set in a peaceful part of the demesne with good access.

•

Changes proposed should generally aim to be reversible.

•

Any change should respect the character, scale and massing of the current building and its setting.

•

Continue to pursue areas of limited understanding to help inform future change.

•

Retain key features such as the wood panelling, historic doors and staircase which appear to have been installed for Lady Mairi and her husband in the 1940s.

•

Consider replacement of uPVC windows with more appropriate fenestration.

•

A recording exercise should be carried out prior to change.

•

Given the extensive works of 1991, any further loss of historic fabric should be resisted.

•

The building has been modernised and subdivided into apartments in the 1990s. The extent of alteration increases potential future options.

•

There is opportunity to improve understanding of the site through a more detailed analysis of the fabric.

595

Subject to change of ownership, potential future uses could include its continuation as a private residence and use as a holiday let.

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

596

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

KEY INFORMATION Component Name

Temple of the Winds

Date Range

Temple of the Winds c.1782–1785 Associated structure – 19th century (in-situ by 1858 Ordnance Survey map)

Current Use

Temple of the Winds • Dining Room: meetings, weddings and small events. • Drawing Room: display (with the centre of the floor protected by a low rope barrier) • Basement: kitchen space could be used by caterers. Cellars not used. • Public access is only occasional but special guided tours are organised from time to time. Associated Structure • Public toilets and boiler room

Historic Uses

Temple of the Winds: Belvedere, banqueting house, retreat Associated Structure: outbuildings

Overall Significance

Temple of the Winds: Exceptional Associated Structure: Low

Overall Condition

Temple of the Winds: Sound Associated Structure: Stable

Designations

A (HB24/04/52A)

Capacity for Change

Low

597

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Summary Timeline c.1780 Plans for the construction of the Temple of the Winds were underway by 1780. Lord Camden, Robert Stewart’s brother-inlaw, wrote in March 1780 that he intended to obtain a model of the Temple to despatch to Dublin ‘with the first ship that sails.’01 c.1782–1785 The Temple of the Winds was constructed between 1782–1785 to designs by James ‘Athenian’ Stuart as a ‘Temple built for jollity and mirth’.02 The Temple was based directly on the 1st century BC Tower of the Winds in Athens. Stuart was only paid for the final drawings on June 10th 1783, when he was sent £54.3.4 for Temple at Mount Stewart for cost of the Plan & Designs for finishing it.03 The family accounts show that the chief masons were David W. Blain (also David McBlain) and William W. Blain; William and Michael Campbell; and the plasterer William FitzGerald. The fine joinery and the inlaid floors in the Temple were supervised by master-carpenter John Ferguson.04 Other items paid for during this period were a chimneypiece from a carver named Adair from London, and ornaments executed at Birmingham by Edward Lee and John Eginton. In May 1782 the accounts record

As noted F Bailey ‘Conservation Management Plan’, 2016 after JacksonStops, Gervase, ‘Mount Stewart’, Co Down, in Country Life, March 6, 1980. Bailey also notes that the account was only settled in April 1782 “For the following paid Lord Camden, The Model of the Temple which he had paid £28.5.6. PRONI D/654/H/1/1, p14

F Bailey Conservation Management Plan, 2016.

PRONI D/654/H/1/1, p38 after Bailey

As noted by F Bailey 2016; his name is also associated in the accounts with the building of the house in the 1780s and of the Dance Wing in 1804–5. In particular he is reputed to have been responsible for the Music Room floor. T Reeves-Smyth argues in Irish Arts Review, 2009, pp104-07 that the work was executed by one of George Dance’s team in 1803/04.

payment for ‘a chimneypiece from Thomas Scheemakers’.05 1786 Largely complete, the new building at Mount Stewart was celebrated in two paintings commissioned from Solomon Delane. Both capture the beauty of the Temple and of its setting. It is clear that when constructed, the surrounding hill was not planted with trees and it could therefore see, and be seen, for many miles around.

3rd September 1787 An account is paid in London for: ‘Temple for a Pattern Chair & a quantity of Green Morrocca Leather & Brass nails etc paid For to have others of the same sort made in Ireland £32.5.2’.08 1809–1815 During visits to Mount Stewart, the Temple and demesne are sketched by Lord Mark Kerr.

A third painting of the Temple by an unknown artist from around the same period, was painted to commemorate the saving from drowning of the young Robert Stewart.06 The Post Chaise Companion also recorded: The Rt Hon Robert Stewart…has erected on a hill near the Lough, a temple to the winds, designed after the celebrated model at Athens.07

View of Strangford Lough and the Temple of the Winds, Soloman Delaney, c.1786 05

PRONI: D654/H/1/1 after Bailey

According to a plaque on the painting, in 1786, when Robert Stewart was 16, both he and his tutor’s son, Henry Storrock had gone sailing on the lough. During a sudden squall their boat capsized. The tutor, Rev Storrock and the Rev John Clelland who happened to be standing by the Temple, noticed the disappearance of the boat. They immediately took action and rowed out to save the lives of the boys.

After F Bailey, Mount Stewart Conservation Management Plan, 2016 598

Ibid

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

1821 On the death of the 1st Marquess, an inventory was taken of the contents of Mount Stewart. It also included the following in the Temple:

1822 When Lord Castlereagh died in 1822, it was suggested that the Temple should become a mausoleum to his memory. Charles Stewart is said to have rejected the idea with the following words:

Dinning Room A Marble Chimney Piece An Old Fashioned Steel Grate 2 Mahogany Dinning Tables 2 folding leaves each 12 Do Chairs hair seats 1 Oil Painting of the Temple 1 Vaws [vase] Plaster of Paris

I am entirely against the Idea….I have no Taste for Turning a temple built for Mirth and Jollity into a Sepulchre. The place is solely appropriate for a Junketting Retreat in the Grounds.09

Drawing Room A Marble Chimney Piece as above 8 Bamboo Painted Chairs Cane Seats 3 Figures and 2 Vaws plaster pair [sic] Kitchen 1 Kitchen Range 4 Cupboards under windows Dresser in the Center with Cupboards under 1 Deal Dresser and Shelves 2 Painted Chairs hair seats

1834 The temple is depicted on the 1834 Ordnance Survey map. It is unclear if the out-buildings are also shown.

Early 20th century The Shanks family lived in the Temple in the early 20th century at which time the ground floor room was partitioned. The family were later moved by Edith, Lady Londonderry, to more suitable accommodation.10 Members of staff were photographed in front of the Temple c.1905. The same couple were also pictured outside of Clay Gate (Greyabbey) Lodge and may have been the Lodgekeeper and his wife.

1837 Lewis’ Topographical Dictionary draws attention to the ‘floors, which are of bog fir, found in the peat moss of the demesne, which are, for beauty of material and elegance of design, unequalled by anything in the country’. 1858 The Temple, and what appears to the be outbuildings to the east, are shown on the Ordnance Survey map. Although it is not entirely clear when the outbuildings were constructed, it is likely they were built well after the Temple of the Winds. It is probable the outbuildings were constructed as a response to the inadequacy of the cellars, perhaps in the first half of the 19th century.

Members of staff photographed in front of the temple

Ibid

10 599

Ibid

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

1920s During this period Edith, Lady Londonderry, set about redecorating and altering the house at Mount Stewart. Within the Drawing Room two chimney pieces were removed and replaced by a single central fireplace, its chimney piece being brought from the first floor of the Temple of the Winds. The chimney piece of sienna and white marble may have been by Thomas Scheemakers and mentioned in the Londonderry accounts in the 1780s.11 It was replaced by a chimney piece supplied by Lord Rossmore.12 c.1910 A photograph depicts the Temple surrounded by vegetation.

Mid-Late 20th Century The roof was repaired and a steel-frame was installed into the roof structure (manufactured by Dorman Long, Middlesbrough). Much of the historical timber elements to the roof structure were retained. 1962 The Temple of the Winds and the surrounding five acres was given to the National Trust by Lady Mairi Bury and was extensively restored soon afterwards, with both main rooms redecorated to a scheme prepared by John Fowler. James LeesMilne was involved with the works at the request of Lady Mairi Bury. James Lees-Milne was said to be horrified by the Fowler decorative scheme. The architects Houston, Bell and Kennedy supervised the roof and chimney replacement and also carried out stone repairs. 1966 The Temple was opened to the public by the Governor of Northern Ireland, Lord Erskine. 1971 Lady Mairi gave rights of way to enable woodland paths to be made from the visitor car park in an attempt to improve access and raise visitor numbers.

View of the Temple of the Winds, c.1910 (W. A Green Collection, 949, NMNI).

Jackson-Stops, Gervase, Mount Stewart, National Trust guidebook, 1978

F Bailey Mount Stewart Conservation Management Plan, 2016, p227

1996 Further restoration work was carried out, this time by architects A&E Wright. Paint analysis revealed the original and 19th century paint schemes. The works included: • • •

•

• • •

•

re-roofing; re-leading of the balconies at first floor level and improvements to the rainwater pipes; replacing quarry tiles with stone flags in kitchen. This was part of the work to install underfloor heating for environmental control. It included a new insulated concrete floor slab and a damp proof membrane; refurbishment of the chandelier on loan from Lord Patrick Rossmore (and subsequently donated to the National Trust by him); following paint analysis, repainting of all the interiors; introduction of lavatories to the out-building; heating, providing environmental control through a Building Management System which involved the installation of new bronze floor grilles in both main rooms; and up-dating of fire and security wiring and fittings14

c.2002 The early-Victorian chandelier in the Drawing Room, on loan since the late-1970s, was gifted by Lord Patrick Rossmore.

1970s Grace Shannon was custodian of the Temple of the Winds. Her and her husband lived in Clay Gate (Greyabbey) Lodge.13

Belfast Telegraph, Saturday January 23rd 1982 600

Bailey, 2016

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

Context The Temple of the Winds was commissioned by Robert Stuart, later the 1st Marquess of Londonderry, from the architect and artist James ‘Athenian’ Stuart. The Temple was based directly on the 1st century BC Tower of the Winds in Athens. The Greek style was made popular in the British Isles by Stuart after his publication of The Antiquities of Athens and Other Monuments of Greece in 1762, which he wrote with partner, Nicholas Revett. It was then the first accurate survey of Greek classical remains. Nicholas Revett went on to design a temple similar to the Tower of the Winds in West Wycombe, Buckinghamshire. Similarities can also be seen in James Wyatt’s Radcliffe Observatory in Oxford. Stuart created two garden temples more closely related to the Athenian examples – the Temple at Mount Stewart and in Shugborough in Staffordshire which is said to have been the first Greek Revival building in Europe.15 The Temple is Stuart’s only Irish building and is testament to his patron’s cultural interests and vision. Historical Use The Temple was built originally as a ‘Temple built for jollity and mirth’. The existence of a kitchen, ample cellars, two entertainment rooms and its superb location with views across Strangford Lough would certainly support this historical use. Hyde, writing in ‘The Rise Of Castlereagh’ (1933) says that: ‘by day, members of the family and their guests would repair to it for rest and contemplation, and by night for dessert and postprandial conversation.’ Its intended use is also evidenced by Charles Stewart’s response in 1822 to a suggestion of turning it into a Mausoleum: ‘I am entirely against the Idea….I have no Taste for Turning a temple built for Mirth and Jollity into a Sepulchre. The place is solely appropriate for a Junketting Retreat in the Grounds’.

Tower of Winds from Stuart and Revett’s The Antiquities of Athens and Other Monuments of Greece, 1762

J Howley & R D'Ussy, The Follies and Garden Buildings of Ireland, 1993, p156 601

Plan of the Tower of the Winds from Stuart and Revett’s The Antiquities of Athens and Other Monuments of Greece, 1762

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

PRIMARY SOURCES N

1834 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1858 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

602

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

PRIMARY SOURCES N

1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1921 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

603

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

PRIMARY SOURCES N

The Temple c.1786 by Solomon Delane

1971 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

604

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

The Temple c.1786 by an unknown artist, commissioned following the saving of young Robert Stewart, later Viscount Castlereagh, from drowning in the Lough

Mount Stewart House and the Temple sketched by Lord Mark Kerr, 1809 (Hector McDonnell Collection)

605

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

Mount Stewart demesne and the Temple sketched by Lord Mark Kerr, 1811 (Hector McDonnell Collection)

Mount Stewart House and the Temple sketched by Lord Mark Kerr, 1815 (Hector McDonnell Collection)

606

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

Members of staff were photographed in front of the temple

View of the Temple of the Winds, c.1910 (W. A Green Collection, 949, NMNI)

607

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

The Temple following acquisition and prior to restoration works:

The Drawing Room

The Drawing Room ceiling

608

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

The Temple following acquisition and prior to restoration works:

The Staircase

The kitchen with quarry tile floor before its replacement

609

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

The Temple in the 1980s:

The ceiling with addition of chandelier in the Drawing Room

The Dining Room furnished

610

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

CURRENT SITUATION Setting The Temple sits within plantations on a pronounced drumlin approximately 800m south-west of Mount Stewart House. Its location commands superb views over Strangford Lough. It is approached by gravel paths to the north and south. Vehicle access is possible but is discouraged for anything other than service vehicles. There is a gravel turning circle around the Temple and the main path leads directly to the main entrance gates at the Clay Gate (Greyabbey) Lodge. East of the Temple, and at a lower level, is a service building now used as a toilet block and boiler room. The original servant’s tunnel and entrenched passageway lead towards the location of the toilet but with surface gravel paths also providing access. The ancillary toilet block is a small rectangular single-storey stone rubble built block with a pitched and hipped roof covered with slates. It provides separate public toilet accommodation which is opened for the use of visitors on a daily basis. The block was refurbished in the 1990s and again in 2003.

Exterior The Temple of the Winds is a two-storey, octagon on plan. Like the original Tower of the Winds in Athens it has two projecting porticoes protecting two of the ground floor windows and a circular outshot housing a spiral staircase. The structure is set on a three-step plinth above a basement and ancillary subterranean accommodation. The structure is constructed in stone and brick and faced with Ballyalton ashlar with fine carved decoration. Mouldings are simply executed including the single string course, windows mouldings and moulded eaves. The quality of the stonework is very high. The Temple has a multi-pitched roof covered with slate. The current roof structure is 20th century metal trusses set over the remains of a timber truss, with timber rafters supporting the multi-pitch roof. The covering was replaced in the 1994/96 work programme. The roof has a single central-octagonal chimney stack (no longer in use) constructed in English ashlar sandstone. This was also rebuilt in the 20th century with concrete flues leading from the walls to the central chimney, the flues being supported on the metal trusses.16 There are timber multi-paned sash windows (some with curved sections and metal glazing bars) on seven of the elevations on both the ground and first floor. They are generally with plainly moulded surrounds but some have pediments. Two windows (one on each floor) are cleverly disguised blind windows. Two windows to the ground floor are located beneath projecting stone porticoes topped by balustrades below which is an entablature and dentilled cornice supported on two fluted

Noted in the 2016 Condition Survey

611

Corinthian columns with respondent pilasters without bases, but with ornate palm leaved leaf capitals. Two of the sash windows in the ground floor room extend to the floor. These open downwards into a slot in the basement wall allowing the ground floor room to be accessible from the exterior. The sash windows are slightly taller on the piano nobile than those on the ground floor which serves to emphasise the height of building. To the rear is a projecting three-quarter circular stairwell, also in the same stone ashlar work and with a domed roof. The building is accessed through a curved Georgian timber twin-leaf four panelled door with flush mouldings on the ground floor of this projection, cleverly located in the lee of the building with protection from the wind. Light wells with grills provide daylight to the basement which in turn is accessed via a subterranean tunnel and passage which runs to the east of the Temple. Leading off the basement is a narrow ‘area’ and a number of secondary below-ground stores. These include a coal cellar, wine cellar and a scullery. There are four other small chambers whose previous use is unknown. Interior The plan of the Temple is a simple one – the interior has three principle spaces – the basement kitchen, the Dining Room at ground level and the Drawing Room on the first floor. They are all linked by the projecting staircase turret.

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

Basement The basement was originally a kitchen. There is a modern stone flag floor and unmoulded modern stone skirting. The vaulted ceiling is supported on a central octagonal stone column on a plinth. Below the vaulted ceiling runs an exposed stone string course. The basement has painted plaster walls and ceiling. There is a blocked fireplace on the south-east wall. What remains visible is a stone lintel and four stone uprights with plastered blocking between. This formerly contained a range – possibly some elements of this survive behind the blocking. It is not known when this was removed but the blocking probably dates from the 1960s works programme. The kitchen is below ground level but a narrow passageway around the building allows light into the kitchen via four modern replacement timber-sash windows with semi-circular heads. The windows have no sash cords and were clearly never intended to open, a pity given the original use where open windows would have been welcome. Two modern doors lead out of the kitchen, one into the base of the stair turret, the other leads into the ‘area’. There is a modern (1996) fireproof cupboard (doors lined with supalux and fitted with intumescent strips) between the two doors which contain the fire and security alarm panels, the heating control panel, the Hanwell environmental control panel and a disconnected set of wires to a box marked “Damp Detection Monitor”. Access to the ‘area’ opens onto the narrow passage around the base of the building. The passage is partly covered over with a half arch supporting the stepped base to the Temple. This is open at each window position with the stepped iron grilles above giving light and air to the kitchen. Off this passage there are six vaulted underground compartments and also the vaulted passage leading eastwards to the external door. The vaulted chambers include a scullery (with stone sink remaining in place), a coal cellar, a wine cellar and four other spaces. All are constructed in rubble stone and some brick with cobbled or cement screed floors. One of

the cellars has what appears to be a replacement vault in board marked concrete. This might be the result of a previous collapse – an investigation into the National Trusts own records (if they exist) might give the answer to this if it was part of the 1960s work. There are no doors of timber joinery left in the cellars in the basement (other than the modern external door) but there are still some iron pintles left in place in the stone jambs to the openings off the corridor. These are rusting and are damaging the stone jambs – but they are interesting evidence of the original doors. It will be desirable to treat them and keep them in place rather than simply to cut them out. The door that leads north-east out of the kitchen opens into the base of the spiral staircase. The open string staircase has simple stone steps with plain square section painted iron balustrades (as opposed to the decorative bronze balusters from ground to first floor) and a simple curving timber handrail which ends in a curtail. The stair is not cantilevered at basement level but supported on solid walls with two cupboards in the under-stair spaces. Both cupboards have modern doors and frames, the easternmost one being a cleaner’s store cupboard and the smaller space to the south is currently being used to store carpet. The walls in this area of the stair tower are plastered and painted and show minor mechanical damage as well as dirty streaking in the paintwork. The mechanical damage is presumably from people handling equipment up to the Dining Room from the basement. A protocol for the careful handling of any object being transported is clearly desirable. The floor in the base of the staircase area is a stone flagged floor installed in 1994/96 as part of the work to install underfloor heating in the kitchen. There is some damage occurring to the stone treads from the rusting of the base of the iron balusters with five steps affected. This should be dealt with soon to avoid further damage.

Staircase From ground level, the staircase rises to the Drawing Room on the first floor. Above the basement it is a fine example of an open string, stone-cantilever staircase with decorative cast-bronze balusters. The circular walls are painted plaster. The decoration has a fair amount of discoloured streaking which suggests at times that the walls are prone to a good deal of condensation. There is no specific heating or environmental control in the stair. The intention of the design is that the heat in the main rooms should be sufficient to prevent condensation in the stair. The skirting around the stair is probably a 20th century replacement.17 The ceiling above is coffered and similar to that of the Shugborough dome with square panels set with patera, moulded centrepiece with fluted frieze. The centre has a smoke detector fitted to it, which is unfortunate as it is a fine ceiling and an aspirated system would be more sympathetic. The dome at the time of inspection had cobwebs and cluster flies in the mouldings and a clean is desirable. The curved original pair of timber doors are set in the south-east side of the stair tower. The doors are surprisingly small if they were intended to act as a primary entrance to the building. There is a small landing inside the doors with the stair sweeping up in a continuous run to the first floor room. The upper landing having a decoratively carved underside. The stair is lit by a single timber sash window at ground level (which is fitted with shutters) and with three sash windows at first floor level – these upper ones having moulded reveals to look like shutters but which have never been actual shutters. The windows are all curved to the profile of the stair tower.

17 612

See F Bailey 2016

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

Dining Room The Dining Room is entered through a twin, four panel flush moulded door with entablature and dentilled cornice above. A plainer room than the Drawing Room above, it was subdivided in the late 19th/early 20th century when the building was used as living accommodation. The building has seen a number of interventions in the second half of the 20th century. The Temple was given to the National Trust in 1962 by Lady Mairi Bury and it is known that there was a substantial programme of repair following this. The work included the replacement of both the floor and ceiling.18 The wall to the north-west side was where a chimney piece was once located – there are no detailed descriptions of this fireplace, although Tom Helme noted in 1994 (during his visit to analyse the history of the interior decoration) that: ‘the new plaster suggests it was the same proportion as the first floor fireplace though some four inches smaller’.19 This would agree with the 1821 Inventory which notes in the Dining Room: ‘A Marble Chimney Piece as above’ (the “above” reference being to the note of the content of the Drawing Room which contained “A Marble Chimney Piece An Old Fashioned Steel Grate”). Lady Mairi Bury recalls a stove in this room, but this is likely to have been a later introduction when the living accommodation was removed. The timber suspended floor is laid in pine. The board pattern follows the octagonal shape of the room and is attractive – though does not compare with the decorative floor of the Drawing Room. As this room is the one that is used for ceremonies, the floor is covered by a modern carpet fitted close up to the skirting. The plastered coffered ceiling with simple geometric pattern has a central rose. Bailey presumes the design was Stuart’s as the guilloche bands and honeysuckle motifs are similar to details in the drawing room at the now demolished Portman House in London. 20

Ibid

There is a simply moulded dado rail and moulded skirting. Windows have timbers shutters with fielded panels to the room face split not upper and lower sections and secured by cross-over iron bars. The bars appear to be original but the method of fixing their ends looks like a later adaption not up to the quality of the rest of the fittings. Four of the windows are conventional six-oversix sliding sashes but the two large nine-paned sashes which give onto the west and south porticos are unusual as they descend into slots the basement wall to allow the room to be opened up to the exterior. Whilst this is an unusual arrangement, it was copied in the servant’s hall in the 1840s extension at Mount Stewart House. 21 The room is used for meetings and weddings. For everyday purposes it is sparsely furnished with a desk and some modern chairs – but when it is used for weddings or receptions in can accommodate up to 40 people seated lecture theatre style. The space is also used occasionally for dining or drinks receptions. The space is heated from finned hot water convectors under heavy bronze grilles situated in each window opening. These are set to respond to maintain and appropriate relative humidity. The room has electric sockets set into the skirting boards and is lit by modern free-standing uplighters. The window shutters have vibration detectors fitted to them and there is a smoke detector fixed to the ceiling. The smoke detector is at the intersection of the decorative ribs and is replacing a decorative moulding.

Ibid 613

Drawing Room The Drawing Room is entered from the cantilevered staircase through twin timber four panelled and fielded doors. The room is more elaborately decorated than the Dining Room with exquisite plasterwork to the ceiling executed by William FitzGerald; the design is reminiscent of Stuart’s late style as seen in the Chapel at Greenwich. The coffered ceiling gives the impression of being domed but is in fact flat. The central motif is mirrored in the beautifully inlaid parquetry floor. Unlike the room below there is a chimney piece, although this is known to have been replaced in the 1920s when Lady Edith had the original chimney piece removed to the Drawing Room of the main house. The present chimney piece (given by Lord Rossmore) is painted timber with classical motifs inset with a marble surround and set with a dog grate. The timber dado rail has a carved frieze with a Vitruvian scroll and is set with a decorative band of mahogany top and bottom. The windows have timbers shutters with fine decorative detailing to the room faces. As in the room below the shutters are split into upper and lower section and are secured by similar cross over iron bars. The two largest sash windows extend almost to the floor and provide access onto two small balconies – the roofs of the porticoes. The sash to the west runs freely to give access to this roof but that to the south was jammed at the time of inspection. Given that access is needed to keep the (very small) outlet to the rainwater pipe draining the lead flat roof it is important that this window is maintained in good working order.

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

The colour scheme is based on that created by John Fowler in the 1960s. The paint analysis carried out by Tom Helme suggests that the original colour was a much darker green; though there have been a variety of blue and pink schemes used in the room over the years. The decorative parquetry floor is very fine and is generally in good condition; though there is a significant crack across the central decorative motif. The timber surrounding the crack seems to be firm enough at present, but this is certainly a good reason for not walking on this area of floor. The room is currently used only for display and has very little furniture. The parquetry floor is now protected by a roped barrier around the central area. This is clearly good in terms of the conservation of this fine floor, but it is slightly sad to see this room unused and perhaps a repair followed by a suitable protective patterned floor covering, might be considered. The room has the same heating by a hot water system to finned convectors set under heavy bronze grilles in the window reveals. This is a conservation system with the level of heat controlled by the relative humidity. There is a large ornate chandelier hanging from the centre of the ceiling. This is the gift of Lord Rossmore, given in 2002 but having been hung in the room for many years before that. The chandelier has not been converted to electricity and there is currently no lighting in the room; though there are 13 amp sockets in the skirting. The chandelier is really too big for the space and consideration should be given to its removal to elsewhere in the house and more appropriate lighting to be chosen.

Outbuilding The ancillary building has been in this location for many years. It features on the 1858 Ordnance Survey map. Almost certainly built as a service building to the Temple of the Winds; though the relationship between the use of the cellar spaces and basement kitchen and the service building is unclear. It was converted to its present use as public WCs in 2003; though the boiler must have been installed as a part of the 1994/96 programme of work. The building is constructed of rubble masonry with dressed stone used as lintels and as arches over the curved headed windows. One opening, currently into the boiler room, has dressed stone jambs and head. This is most probably the original doorway into the building and the others have been created to provide direct access from the exterior to three WC compartments, female, male and accessible. The building has a timber hipped roof covered with slate (with stone and clay ridges) with a clay brick chimney now serving the oil fired boiler. Door openings have modern timber ledged and braced boarded. The windows are all modern painted timber with round headed louvred openings providing ventilation to the boiler room and small sliding sash windows to the WCs. The boiler room has an oil fired boiler, probably now 25-years-old, and pumps and a control panel. This boiler provides the heat for the environmental control system for the Temple of the Winds; though not the heating to the WCs which have electric heaters on frost stats. The oil tank is a plastic tank of the double skin variety situated at the south end of the building in a small fenced off area (which is overgrown and looks neglected with the gate and fence in a state of semi-collapse).

614

The building was probably intended to be hidden from the main building from the start. It is sunk half into the ground with the back (west) wall acting as a retaining wall to half its height. This gives problems with damp in the back wall and causes salt damage and dislodged wall tiles internally. The building has been screened from the Temple of the Winds by a lot of planting though much of this has recently been cleared. What remains is a straggly collection of yew bushes – possibly planted with the intention of forming a hedge. These are planted close to the back wall making access to the roof difficult. It would be worth considering removing this collection of bushes and if screening is required planting a new hedge at a good distance from the building wall. This would allow the drainage in this area to be improved to help the dampness in the back wall. At present the building has no gutters so rainwater on the east side drips onto the stone paving and splashes back up the wall. On the west side the rainwater runs-off from the roof helps to keep the ground being retained in a damp condition. The four spaces from north to south are the boiler room, the male WC, an accessible WC and the female WC. In the back of the male WC is a separate locked room (not inspected) that houses the electrical intake and fuse boards. The three WC spaces are all fitted out in the same way with quarry tiled floors with coved cement skirtings. White ceramic tiles on the walls up to approximately 1.5 metres and then plastered and painted walls above. Ceilings are of white painted match boarding. The male and female WCs are lit by small sash windows, the accessible WC by a rooflight. WC and basins are standard white ceramic fittings with the usual collection of paper and soap dispensers, mirror, disposal bins and hand dryer. The lights in the ceiling are switched on automatically by a movement detector. The space has electric heaters controlled by a local frost stat. The spaces are also fitted with smoke detectors and alarms. The female WC has a lobby before the WC space which contains a cleaner’s sink.

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

The general condition of the building is good and apart from some concerns about the dampness of the rear wall nothing should be needed other than routine maintenance. The WC compartments remain entirely serviceable and, given that many people using them will have been walking through the demesne and may have muddy boots, they need to be robust. But after 17 years in service they are beginning to look ‘tired’ and will be desirable to carry out a significant refurbishment in the next few years. This will probably also be the moment to replace the oil fired boiler and to consider whether this is still the most appropriate way to provide conservation heating to the building.

CURRENT STRUCTURE

Viewed on approach from the south

View of Strangford Lough from the Temple

West elevation

Dining Room

615

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

Dining Room

The staircase

Drawing Room shutters

Window to the stair

Drawing Room

Drawing Room ceiling and chandelier

Drawing Room

Detail of dado rail, skirting and architrave in the Drawing Room

616

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

Drawing Room chimney piece

The ‘area’

Looking back at the Temple towards the servant’s passageway and subterranean stores

Public WCs

The kitchen

Wine cellar

Cellar

617

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS TEMPLE OF THE WINDS LASER SCANNING SURVEY

Temple of the Winds 3D view

618

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS TEMPLE OF THE WINDS LASER SCANNING SURVEY

Temple of the Winds: Elevational View

619

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS TEMPLE OF THE WINDS LASER SCANNING SURVEY

Temple of the Winds: Ground Floor Plan Temple of the Winds: Basement Plan

620

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT N

Low level lighting in passage no longer working. Late 20th century

Basement Configuration of the basement area all as originally designed Sash window from above drops into a slot here

All windows in basement are late 20th century replacements

Floor in passage appears to be a 20th century replacement

Vault over the scullery either repaired or reconstructed Modern (?1994) door and frame

1994 door and joinery

Modern (1994) doors and frames to cupboards

1994/96 new stone floor on concrete slab with underfloor heating Door from 1994 Drainage system repaired and part renewed in 1994

Blocked range here

Manifold in floor trap for underfloor heating

621

Cellar floors generally retain stone cobble finish

Vault over cellar either heavily repaired or replaced

Damage to stone treads from corroding iron balusters

All the joinery removed from the cellar area but iron pintles remain

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT Ground Floor N

Lead rainwater pipe new in 1994/96

External ashlar work in Ballyalton stone has a good number of new stones let in but the bulk of the ashlar appears to be original 18th century work

Original stone spiral cantilevered stair and bronze balustrade Curved single glazed timber windows may be original Original Georgian bars

Leadwork to portico roof renewed in 1994/96

Decorative finishes on first floor all appear to be to original design but heavily restored and redecorated. Very fine original marquetry floor

Very small rainwater outlet needs regular maintenance Access needed through the window for maintenance

Original fireplace removed in 1920s now located in house Leadwork to portico roof renewed in 1994/96

Small rainwater outlet needing regular maintenance

622

Lead rainwater pipe new in 1994/96

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT Bronze grills with pinned heaters beneath all date from 1994/1996 environmental control work

First Floor

Blind window appears to be original

Upper flight of cantilevered stone stairs has a bronze balustrade, original and in good order

Dropping lower sash designed to be used as an entrance

Original/timber doors Stepped iron grilles provide light ventilation to basement

Fireplace here removed probably late 19th century when the room was subdivided.

External steps around the Temple all part of original design

Decorative finishes in this room all renewed in 20th century. Last redecorated in 1996.

Bottom sash window designed to drop but currently not working

Plain pine floor laid in octagonal pattern.

623

Lower flight of stairs original but not cantilevered and with iron baluster some of which are corroding and damaging the stone treads

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS BUILT-FABRIC ASSESSMENT N

Section A-A

Slate roof covering relaid in 1994/96 Steel roof trusses thought to date from 1960s work Asphalt gutter renewed in 1994/96

Windows and shutters were repaired and overhauled in the 1994/96 work. Configuration is original but timber sashes may have been renewed

Dome roof reslated in 1994/96

Asphalt gutter renewed in 1994/96

Two porticos both of finely carved stone appear to be original 18th century work

Doors from stair to rooms appear to be original Georgian work

Original timber entrance doors

Doors and windows all modern (1994) replacements Modern (1994) stone floor on new concrete slab with wet underfloor heating

Decorations in basement all redone in 1994/96

624

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

CONDITION Summary Description of Building Condition The general condition of the Temple of the Winds is good, in as much as there are no immediate threats to the structure. There are a number of minor repairs that need to be attended to which are detailed later in the Condition Survey (see pages 136–158). In the long-term decisions are needed about the extent of public access and what this means for display and decorative condition. The maintenance regime also needs to be reconsidered and improved.

•

There is damage to several of the treads in the lower flight from rusting iron balusters. This needs urgent attention.

•

The two large ground floor windows which are supposed to drop into slots in the floor need overhauling to allow them to function properly.

•

The south window in the drawing room needs to be eased to make it open easily as this is the necessary access to the roof of the south portico.

•

The two flat lead roofs over the porticoes have very small outlets for rainwater and it is essential that these are regularly cleaned out and that the narrow lead rainwater pipe is checked to ensure that it is clear. There has been a problem with blockages in the past and water ingress through the portico ceilings.

The outbuilding now contains the boiler room and public WCs which were installed as a part of the 1994/96 programme of work. A further refurbishment was completed in 2003 and little seems to have been done since then. It remains serviceable at present but in the medium-term it is going to need a significant amount of refurbishment work. • Recommendations A number of elements have been identified that need attention and these are detailed within the Condition Survey. However, the key elements that need to be addressed are: •

The environmental control system does not appear to be working properly. Bob Hayes says that the system does not communicate properly with the new National Trust systems and that further work is needed to make sure that they communicate, that the link between the Temple of the Winds and the Main House office works properly. There is also the need for a screen in the Temple of the Winds to allow for local adjustment when the system drops out.

•

It is not clear when there was an electrical inspection. In the 2016 Quinquennial the mechanical and electrical services are excluded from the inspection. The electrics in the Temple of the Winds is limited, but this still needs to be regularly checked and tested. Consideration should be given to the use of a ‘logbook’. It is assumed that the systems (environmental control; lightning conductor; fire alarm and smoke detection; and security system) are being regularly tested. It would be good to have these noted down in a ‘logbook’ (assumed to be an electronic version).

625

•

The drainage from the Temple of the Winds was modified in the 1994/96 works, but the plans of the drainage do not seem to be available. It would be good to have the drains traced and their condition checked. Given the configuration of the basement area and blockage in the drains is likely to cause some flooding in the building.

•

It was noted in the last Quinquennial Inspection that annual roof void inspections were recommended. Given the difficult access to the roof voids this will be a major and expensive task and it may be sensible to moderate the frequency. However a proper maintenance schedule where these inspections are planned in is thoroughly desirable. It would be better that it happens every few years than having a target that is aspirational but never met.

•

The conditions in the staircase should be monitored to try and avoid further condensation problems. It might be worth leaving the doors to the three main rooms open so that the stair area benefits from the environmental controls in these spaces.

•

There is little that needs any urgent work in the service building, although the interiors are reaching the end of their service life. In the medium-term consideration might be given to the removal of the yew bushes to the west of the building and an improvement to the drainage in this area.

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Summary The Temple of the Winds was described by Brett as the ‘finest garden building in Ireland’ and in the Listed Building Status as ‘one of the most important single pieces of architecture within Northern Ireland’. The views of the Temple and from the building are of outstanding significance, whilst the craftsmanship of the structure both internally and externally is of the highest order. The building’s association with the Londonderry family as a place for ‘jollity’, with the architect James ‘Athenian’ Stuart, the Tower of the Winds in Athens, and with the various master craftsmen, also contribute to the building’s exceptional significance. Evidential Documentary sources provide a good understanding of the Temple of the Winds; correspondents and account books suggest an approximate date of construction between 1782 and 1785, payments ‘for cost of the Plan & Designs’ were made to the architect James ‘Athenian’ Stuart, whilst the names of craftsmen and suppliers are also known. Added to this information, paint analysis has established former decorative schemes. The building itself is believed to have been little altered but it will be important to maintain records for future generations to record minor works and changes to maintain understanding. Although some details are missing and no original historical plans have yet been discovered, the site has low evidential value.

Historical The Temple of the Winds designed by ‘Athenian’ Stuart is a splendid early example of a Neo-Classical garden building. The building, despite various uses and changes in the past, remains remarkably close to its original design intent and it is Stuart’s only completed building in Ireland. The Temple was the first major building project undertaken by the family. It is therefore an indication of what they hoped would follow. Sadly, the proposed new house on Bean Hill did not materialise, but the Temple gives a window on what the new Mount Stewart House may have been envisaged. The building also gives a good illustration of the way that the family entertained in the 19th century. As Charles Stewart said in 1822 when it was proposed to make the Temple into a mausoleum for Lord Castlereagh: ‘The place is solely appropriate for a Junketting Retreat in the Grounds’. The model for the Temple of the Winds was the Tower of the Winds in Athens (also known as the Tower of Andronicus Cyrrhestes) which ‘Athenian’ Stuart had surveyed. This connection was designed to demonstrate the Classical education and social standing of its patron. The Temple has exceptional historical value both on local and national level.

626

Aesthetic The Temple is one of the finest Neo-Classical garden buildings in Ireland and with its elevated position overlooking Strangford Lough, is probably one of the most romantically situated. The interiors of the main spaces are all special but the two preeminent spaces are the Drawing Room and the Staircase. These are both splendid examples of very special design and exquisite craftsmanship. The exterior in Ballyalton ashlar work is completed to a very fine standard of craftsmanship with very fine joints. There have been a significant number of repairs and replacement stones – but these too have been executed well and do not detract from the overall quality of the building. The Temple has exceptional aesthetic value. Communal The Temple of the Winds is used for special events including weddings. Public access is only occasional, but special guided tours are organised from time-to-time. Its use lends it some communal value. The site is part of the visitor experience to the demesne and signposted on the National Trust footpath trail. It is, however, at a distance from the car park and from the House. It has communal value for those who are physically able to walk to it and view it. There is capacity to increase the present medium communal value by improving public access to the interior.

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

Setting The siting of the Temple of the Winds on a high drumlin overlooking Strangford Lough is spectacular. The road below the Temple between it and the Lough is hidden from view and there is a splendid unobstructed view across the Lough. This must be one of the great views in Northern Ireland. It is also a prominent feature for any vessel sailing on the Lough. Contribution to the Wider Demesne and the Mansion House The Temple has been a key building within the demesne since its construction in the late 18th century. As the first major project undertaken by the family, it remains the most impressive of all the demesne and garden structures and of the highest value to the wider demesne and beyond.

Aerial image of the Temple of Winds set in woodland with Strangford Lough behind and Scrabo Tower in the distance

627

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

Key Views When originally constructed, it seems likely that Temple Hill, upon which the building was constructed, was left unplanted allowing for 360 degree views from the Temple over surrounding countryside, whilst the Temple acted as an eyecatcher, Delane’s oil painting of 1786 demonstrates the historic relationship between the Temple, Mount Stewart demesne and Strangford Lough. By the early 19th century, the Temple was depicted from various locations by Lord Kerr indicating that the Temple was also visible from the House. Also of historical significance would have been views from the Lough for the family or visitors approached Mount Stewart by boat.

Today the Temple is enclosed on the north, south and east sides by plantations and self-set vegetation. Historical views of the Temple have been lost and only short-range views can be obtained from the approach paths. A key view noted in the Demesne CMP (2018) from the Temple towards the south-west was lost from at least the mid-19th century by excessive tree growth; however, it may be recoverable. 22 Significantly, the Temple is screened from the busy A20 below. Views west towards Strangford Lough and beyond are of considerable value. The National Trust should ensure that vegetation is controlled in order to retain views across the Lough.

VIEWS Limited short-range views towards the temple Long range views from the temple Lost 360 degree view from and to the Temple Specific lost views noted in the Demesne CMP (2018) This plan is not to scale Base plan © GoogleEarth 22

Mount Stewart Demesne CMP (2018) Part 1 p.100

628

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

CONSERVATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES ISSUES • There is a potential structural concern over the strength of the vaults over the tunnel and cellars which run eastwards under the gravel sweep around the building. This was constructed to take the weight of a horse and cart and not modern vehicles. Consideration should be given to a weight restriction and possibly to ensuring that vehicles use the west side of the building for access and do not use the driveway on the east side. •

•

The use and footfall in the building needs to be closely monitored. There is both condensation, particularly in the stair tower, and general wear and tear which is visible in damage to the plaster of the staircase walls. Whilst access should be maintained, the impact of that access needs to be monitored and assessed. The Temple of the Winds sits in an exposed location and there may be long-term issues from climate change, particularly increased and heavier rainfall. This will make the capacity of the drains and the size of gutter and downpipes a more significant factor. The Temple has some reasonably sophisticated environmental controls. These are not working as well as they might. This seems to be a combination of new software, a poor link between the system in the building and the control point in the office and (possibly at least) an ageing boiler plant and pump. Some work needs to be competed to make the environmental control system work as well as possible.

PARAMETERS FOR CHANGE •

There must be some doubt over the routine maintenance of the building. A fresh look should be taken at the maintenance regime including both the regular work from week-to-week and the long-term items such as electrical tests and the redecoration of external joinery.

OPPORTUNITIES • Given the very special nature of this building there must be an opportunity for increased opening, both for the casual visitor and for booked events. The building was designed to be enjoyed and this seems to be an appropriate objective for the National Trust to be following. At a basic level this simply means additional opening, but it will be more attractive to visitors with more interpretation in areas like the kitchen and the cellars. On a more complex level there is potential for increased promotion of the Temple as a place to hold celebrations and events. •

•

There does seem to be an opportunity to make better use of the first floor. This is a great space and whilst concerns about the parquetry floor are very real there does seem to be the possibility of protecting and covering it to allow the space to be used with the real floor only being shown occasionally. The kitchen and basement are rather sterile areas at present. Both would lend themselves to more interpretation or exhibition space. This can be robust to avoid the need for too much monitoring of visitors. Free access to the basement areas and use of the external door seems to be a good objective.

629

•

Establish a balance between allowing increased access and enjoyment of the Temple of the Winds, with preservation of the built fabric.

•

The building’s future use should not be too far removed from ‘Junketting’. It would be a great pity if concern for the fabric restricted the use too much.

•

The chandelier on the first floor is too big for the space and consideration should be given to its removal to elsewhere in the House and more appropriate lighting to be chosen.

•

Ensure a regular maintenance programme is put into place and issues, such as the first floor sliding sash, are swiftly dealt with and a record is maintained.

•

Consider relocating the central smoke detector on the stair ceiling to a less aesthetically sensitive location.

•

Establish a protocol for the careful handling of any objects within the building to prevent damage to surfaces and to the built fabric.

•

Retain and treat the iron pintles within the cellars to prevent further damage to stonework.

•

Consider installing the mechanisms to allow the opening of windows within the kitchen.

•

Consider reopening the kitchen fireplace and reinstating the range.

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

•

Consider use of the kitchens by caterers.

CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

•

Consider installing an appropriate marble fireplace into the Dining Room.

•

Consider installing a copy of the original fireplace into the Drawing Room.

•

Consider alternative sustainable heating arrangements for the building.

This is a building which remains remarkably close to its original design and purpose. It is a simple building beautifully constructed to a highly significant design and to a very high standard of craftsmanship. In physical terms there is virtually no capacity for change. Any work that is done should be concentrating on maintaining the existing fabric as far as possible and where replacement is necessary making sure that this is as far as possible on a like-for-like basis.

•

Restrict vehicle access for anything other than service vehicles above the subterranean tunnel and cellars.

•

Ensure the area for the oil tank in a small fenced off area is maintained and its appearance improved.

•

Consider removing the bushes adjacent to the public WCs. If screening is deemed necessary, replant hedging at a good distance from the building, allowing for the installation of the improved drainage to the back wall and reducing damp.

•

Consider refurbishing the public WCs.

•

Record any maintenance works or changes to the built fabric.

•

Preserve the setting and significant views from the building across the Lough.

Where there is perhaps some capacity for change is in the management and use of the building. It seems entirely appropriate that this ‘Temple built for Junketting’ should continue in use for public enjoyment and celebrations. These uses should continue, and perhaps wider access can be given to the building. There seems to be every reason to allow people access to the basement area and cellars. These spaces could be enlivened by appropriate interpretation and there may be capacity to allow visitors to approach and depart from the external cellar door. The question of the first floor is more difficult. Clearly the protection of the very fine parquetry floor is a high priority – but it seems sad that this fine space is little used. Perhaps an appropriate protection of the floor (perhaps printed to reflect the parquetry pattern) could allow regular use of this very fine space with the actual floor only revealed on occasions to those who are properly interested.

630

Similarly, there might be some minor changes in the Dining Room and the kitchen to make these areas more comprehensible. The kitchen could have the fireplace opened up and possibly the reinstatement of a range. The Dining Room could have a fireplace modelled on that in the Main House, which was removed by Lady Londonderry, reinstated on the blank wall. A way of bringing life back into the site and attracting people up the hill, might be to run a pop-up café or tea room in the kitchen – a cup of tea and a fantastic view to welcome every visitor!

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

TEMPLE OF THE WINDS INTERIM CONDITION SURVEY

631

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

632

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

633

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

634

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

635

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

636

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

637

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

638

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

639

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

640

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

641

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

642

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

643

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

644

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

645

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

646

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

647

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

648

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

649

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

650

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

651

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

652

D6 TEMPLE OF THE WINDS

653

E1 SEA PLANTATION SWIMMING POOL

654

E1 SEA PLANTATION SWIMMING POOL

KEY INFORMATION

Component Name

Sea Plantation Swimming Pool

Date Range

1936–1938

Current Use

Disused and ruinous

Historic Uses

Swimming Pool

Overall Significance

Low

Overall Condition

Dynamic decline

Designations

Non-designated heritage asset within the setting of designated assets

Capacity for Change

High

E1 Swimming Pool Site

655

E1 SEA PLANTATION SWIMMING POOL

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT The construction of the Sea Plantation is detailed in Anne Casement’s unpublished document ‘Mount Stewart Landscape Study’, 1995. In addition, the history and significance of the Sea Plantation has been assessed by the curator of Mount Stewart, Frances Bailey, in another unpublished document, ‘Mount Stewart Sea Plantation: Notes on its history and significance’ (revised 2011) and within the ‘Mount Stewart Demesne Conservation Management Plan’, 2018. The drainage and reclamation of land within Strangford Lough was not an unusual occurrence; other projects such as Anne’s Point were carried out at a similar time, as well as the creation of large tracts of land south of Newtownards. The drivers may have been to protect the lough-side road from flooding and increase the amount of usable land.01 It is thought that once the construction of a new house on Bean Hill had been disregarded, the Londonderry’s set about improvements to the existing house and the demesne. It is likely, therefore, that the construction of the embankments which saw the creation of the Sea Plantation were one of a series of improvements made to the demesne at the end of the 18th century and start of the 19th century. The reclamation of land enabled the public highway to be routed further away from the house and to increase the size of the gardens which reduced exposure to Mount Stewart from driving winds and salt sea spray.02

F Bailey, ‘Mount Stewart Sea Plantation: Notes on its history and significance’, 2011

F Bailey 2011, after A Casement, ‘Mount Stewart Landscape Study, 1995

Summary Timeline 1779 The Geddas map of Mount Stewart Demesne shows an absence of the embankment. Prior to its construction, the area was part of Strangford Lough; a spit of land is also shown on the map curling out into the Lough. 1793 Lord Camden wrote to his stepson Castlereagh, of his delight at the ‘imbankment that was ‘so near conclusion’’ and that ‘the like attempts at Mount Stewart will produce with a certainty of success’.03 1793–1803 Entries in the demesne accounts show payments totalling £1,790 for the construction of an embankment forming the southern edge of the Sea Plantation. The work was supervised by the local architect and master-carpenter John Ferguson, including the heightening and repairs which were undertaken in 1803.04 1817 A description of the house in ‘Ireland Exhibited to England, in a Political and Moral Survey of her Population’ suggests that the land within the embankment had yet to be planted with trees.05

PRONI D3030/F/9 after A Casement,1995

A Casement, 1995 p.21

“Ireland Exhibited to England, in a Political and Moral Survey of her Population” (A Atkinson, 1823, Baldwin, Craddock, and Joy, London) after F Bailey, 2011

656

1834 The Ordnance Survey map shows the embankment to be more or less complete and planted with trees and shrubs. The southeastern edge follows the curve of the spit of land shown on the Geddas map. A walk or path runs around the three sides of the embankment and within the embankment runs a long, drainage ditch or canal. A rectangular structure is also shown halfway along the embankment in the position of a stone structure referred to by some as the Ice House.06 A ‘Wooden Bathing Ho’ is also indicated on the southern tip of the embankment. 1858 The Ordnance Survey map shows little change from the 1834 plan although a path is now shown to run along the top of the embankment and another now leads from Mount Stewart House to the Portaferry road where it joins the embankment walk on the opposite side of the highway. 1900–1901 The Ordnance Survey map shows that the embankment is continuing to be exploited for pleasure and sport, with the appearance of a ‘Boat Ho.’ and a landing stage extending out into the Lough.

F Bailey, 2011

E1 SEA PLANTATION SWIMMING POOL

1913 Theresa, Lady Londonderry described the Sea Plantation as: ‘One of the nicest walks’, where ‘Passing through the little postern gate you cross the road and over three stone steps on to the Sea Walk.’ She also says that: ‘In addition to the walk on top of the embankment…there is also a delicious walk inside the plantation within the embankment, running right round it and just covered in moss’, and that there is ‘a curious old building which may have been used for burning seaweed and which has two or three ruined rooms in it’. 1918 Plans for a swimming pool at Mount Stewart were drawn up by H. Rowlett of Leicester and sent to the family agent, DW Meiklejohn at Wynard, recommending a sheltered position from cold winds. Plans were also drawn up at this time for an oval swimming pool by JH Thompson of Newtownards. William Wilson of Newcastle (Waterworks Contractors and Plumbers) provided a quote of £2875.15.0 for works.07 It appears the plans were shelved.

1923–1924 The Garden Diaries of Edith, Lady Londonderry, detail the creation of the vista through the Sea Plantation. This extended the views from the house and gardens towards the Lough. 1927 Plans for the swimming pool were revived and specifications for the pool’s construction were drawn up and with quotes received from potential contractors.08 This again came to nothing. 1930s Edith, Lady Londonderry, cleared a further path through to the ‘curious’ building described by Lady Theresa.09 The shelter created by the Sea Plantation was exploited by Edith in the creation of the gardens which she planted with exotics and subtropical plants. Around this time the landing stage was further extended running several hundred meters further into the Lough.

1935–1937 During the summer, plans were again revived for a swimming pool within the embankment. Specifications were drawn up in Dec 1935 and in Jan 1936 a tender from Messrs McLaughlin and Harvey of £1208.0.0 was accepted by the Marquess. Plans were again provided by JH Thompson of Newtownards for a kidney-shaped pool fed by water from the Lough. Work had commenced by the summer and a payment of £35.017.0 was made to McLaughlin and Harvey for its excavation.10 The finish of the pool was still under discussion a year later when tenders were being sought for a concrete painted or tiled finish.11 Payments were made from the accounts in December 1937 for stone and the supply of Snowcrete for the pool. 1938 Correspondence was still being exchanged in March 1938 over the finish of the pool. It is assumed that the pool was completed in the same year as an entry in the demesne accounts shows a payment of £45 to Norman MacNaughton & Son for Mertol enamel paint.12

1921 The 25inch Ordnance Survey map shows little change from the 1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map, although the position of buildings within the embankment are clearly indicated.

PRONI D654/5/1/12

PRONI D654/H/2/19 Ledgers 1930–39

Ibid

PRONI D654/5/1/12

Ibid

D654/H/2/19 Ledgers 1930–39

657

E1 SEA PLANTATION SWIMMING POOL

1939 The Swimming Pool was in use and captured in family photos. The Pool was used by family and their house guests. There is also anecdotal evidence that Sir Winston Churchill may have used the Pool whilst visiting Mount Stewart.13

1980s and 1990s The Pool had fallen into disuse after the Second World War. The site began to be used surreptitiously by locals. A team of volunteers cleaned and restored the Swimming Pool in the 1980s but anti-social behaviour became a concern.

Historic images from this time show a kidney-shaped pool with two diving boards. Adjacent was a ‘U’ shaped stonebuilt pavilion with a Tullycavey slate roof, which incorporated changing rooms. The pavilion was flanked by two arched gateways. The Pool was 11m by 8m and was closely built adjacent to the embankment of the Sea Plantation, providing it with shelter. The embankment was terraced and constructed in rounded pebbles and largely planted with flowers and shrubs. Access was provided up to the embankment via steps and through stone archways with gates constructed from bog oak. On top of the embankment was a rotating timber summer house set on a concrete base.

1991 The Swimming Pool was captured in an aerial photograph, the Pool was filled with lough water and the pavilion still extant.

1992 Due to the increasing problem of anti-social behaviour and damage, Lady Mairi’s agent and the National Trust considered possible options. Lady Mairi suggested re-erecting the sandstone pavilion beside the Lake. The Pool was drained, and a public liability sign was erected. Surrounding the site with a timber fence and razor wire were also proposed.

G M Johnston & L McShane, ‘Survey of Swimming Pool, Sea Plantation, Mount Stewart: Ulster Archaeological Society Survey Report no 76’, 2019, p 36

658

1997 In 1997 it was finally agreed to dismantle the site. The Pool was filled-in with a fine material and covered in soil in the hope that it could be resurrected in the future. Part of the outer wall to the site was dismantled to allow lorry access and the work was carried out by Thorndene Developments of Kircubbin. The decision was also taken to dismantle the pavilion and store on the demesne with the intention of rebuilding it elsewhere. Architectural stonework, doors and gates are now in storage at the Farmyard.

E1 SEA PLANTATION SWIMMING POOL

PRIMARY SOURCES N

Details of the Geddas Map 1779

1834 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

659

E1 SEA PLANTATION SWIMMING POOL

PRIMARY SOURCES N

1858 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

1900–1901 Ordnance Survey map 6 inch

660

E1 SEA PLANTATION SWIMMING POOL

PRIMARY SOURCES N

1921 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch

Map of the Sea Plantation possibly late 1920 to 1930s of an unrealised plan by Lady Edith of formal gardens.

661

E1 SEA PLANTATION SWIMMING POOL

1971 Ordnance Survey map 25 inch overlain with pool complex dimensions

662

E1 SEA PLANTATION SWIMMING POOL

THE SEA PLANTATION HISTORIC IMAGES

Aerial view of Mount Stewart and part of the Sea Plantation.

The landing stage with Charles, 7th Marquess and Edith, Lady Londonderry.

Late 19th century image of jetty and boat house

View towards the Sea Plantation down the vista created 1923–1924 towards the Swimming Pool c.1940

Family photo with the landing stage, boat houses and earlier bathing house in the background before the construction of the Swimming Pool c.1920

Sailing boat launched from the jetty c.1940s

663

E1 SEA PLANTATION SWIMMING POOL

THE SWIMMING POOL

The Swimming Pool, 1939.

The Pool in 1939. Note the timber-rotating summer house on the embankment.

The Swimming Pool c.1940

The pavilion c.1940

Gateway looking into the Pool c.1940

664

E1 SEA PLANTATION SWIMMING POOL

THE SWIMMING POOL CONT’D

Stone-arched gateway c.1940

The pavilion with sliding glazed doors, now stored at the Farmyard at Mount Stewart

Swimming pool and changing rooms 1960s.

The summer house c.1960

Aerial image of the swimming pool, 1991

665

E1 SEA PLANTATION SWIMMING POOL

Proposed plan of the Swimming Pool, JH Thompson of Newtownards, 1935

666

E1 SEA PLANTATION SWIMMING POOL

CURRENT SITUATION The former Swimming Pool site is located on the southern tip of the Sea Plantation. The site is in a sheltered position immediately behind the embankment. The area is difficult to access due to the overgrown nature of the site. The Swimming Pool has been infilled but is said to be extant below ground. The former stone pavilion has been dismantled and little evidence on site now remains. Stone from the building is said to be located within the barn at the Mount Stewart Farmyard, whilst the glazed pavilion doors, timber gates, metal gates with herons formerly set with privacy glazing and the stone benches are all stored on the demesne.14 The key features of the site are the remains of the stone terracing on the embankment, the remains of the steps and stone-archway which formerly led onto the top of the embankment, and fragments of walling to the top of the embankment. Another extant feature is the concrete base and walls of the rotating summer house. Historic images show this to have been a circular timber structure with windows and a conical roof which could be manually rotated. This had been removed by 1991. The Ulster Archaeological Society carried out a survey of the site in 2019 when they made a full assessment of the extant remains.15 Little evidence now remains of a landing stage, and earlier bathing house noted on historic maps and in historic images. These were used by the Londonderry family for recreation. The jetty formerly extended out into the deep water of the lough from the headland close to the swimming pool site. Historic images show the Rivers (a class of racing yacht owned by the Londonderry’s) moored beside the jetty.

Ibid

G M Johnston & L McShane, ‘Survey of Swimming Pool, Sea Plantation, Mount Stewart: Ulster Archaeological Society Survey Report no 76’, 2019

Aerial view of the Sea Plantation 2009 (National Trust)

667

E1 SEA PLANTATION SWIMMING POOL

Looking towards the embankment across the former pool area

Remains of the overgrown stone terracing

Stone archway (now blocked up) and steps up embankment, remains of stone terracing

Concrete base and walls of the rotating summer house 668

E1 SEA PLANTATION SWIMMING POOL

General view across site looking north-east

Gates to the former Changing Rooms now in storage

View down steps towards former swimming pool

669

Looking at the archway from the embankment and the location of the summer house. Note the metal pintle upon which the hut rotated.

E1 SEA PLANTATION SWIMMING POOL CONDITION

Swimming pool

Summary of Condition

Recommended Repairs

•

Ruined state, only partially visible.

•

Masonry: stone, sections missing, destabilising at low level.

Further Investigations

Significant consolidation required.

670

Order of Priority

Criteria for Assessment

Timescale

Immediate Health and Safety issue; priority for stabilisation and protection until significant repairs agreed.

Immediate

Fabric in dynamic decline; significant repairs needed.

Within 1–2 years

Defective fabric but stable; continue to monitor ahead of planned repair.

3+ years unless further investigations/ monitoring indicates otherwise.

Sound, subject to maintenance/minor repairs.

Ongoing

E1 SEA PLANTATION SWIMMING POOL

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Summary Overall the site has low evidential and low historical value. The current condition of the site and its overgrown and neglected state lends it low aesthetic value. The site is largely inaccessible and unrecognisable as a swimming pool; apart from the few who may have memories of it in use, the site has negligible communal value. As part of a future project, the heritage value of the site has the potential to be greatly improved. Evidential Details relating to the Swimming Pool’s construction, including the original plans, reside in the Public Record Office in Belfast. A good deal is known about its former appearance from historical photographs. The remains of the kidney-shape pool now lie below ground and its position is well understood. The evidential value of the site is therefore considered to be low.

Historical The Swimming Pool has some significance for having been created by the Londonderry family in the early 20th century. The Swimming Pool was used and enjoyed by the family and their friends, as evidenced by family photograph albums. It is set within a landscape created in the early 19th century which has played a crucial role in the development of the park and gardens at Mount Stewart for over 200 years. The Sea Plantation is likely to be a key driver in the success of the existing internationally important gardens created by Edith in the first half of the 20th century. Whilst the embankment is of high historical value, the present condition of the Swimming Pool site due to the loss of the fabric and other structures reduces its historical value.

671

Aesthetic Whilst the site may have reverted to nature, it cannot be considered a romantic ruin. There are a few hints at its former appearance, including the use of smooth pebbles within the terraces of the embankment, and the arched-form of the gateway which gives access to the embankment path. Unfortunately, any enjoyment of the structure is reduced by the use of modern breeze block within the opening. The site has low aesthetic value. Communal The Sea Plantation is not accessible to the public. The site may hold some lingering value to those people who used the private pool in the past, but the site now has negligible communal value.

E1 SEA PLANTATION SWIMMING POOL

CONSERVATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES •

The site in currently overgrown and inaccessible due to the presence of Japanese Knotweed.

•

The site has undergone substantial evidential loss through the dismantling of the pavilion. Due to a loss of building recording documents and architectural fragments, the potential to faithfully recreate the structure stone-by-stone is low. However, photographic sources could allow a reconstruction of the building utilising new materials.

PARAMETERS FOR CHANGE •

There is potential to open the site to the public in its present state following consolidation and vegetation management as part of a wider project to improve public access.

•

Any change should be considered within the context of a wider project to improve public access, planting and walks within the Sea Plantation.

•

There is potential to radically improve the aesthetic value of the site through clearance and reuse.

•

Investigate the current condition of the Pool and catalogue the location and condition of all architectural fragments from the Pool and Pavilion.

•

Full restoration of the site is likely to be costly and may not be a priority for the National Trust.

•

Seek to control invasive vegetation.

•

Consider the reinstatement of historic structures informed by historical research and as part of a wider plan for the Sea Plantation.

•

Improve interpretation.

•

Seek to put into place a programme of maintenance and repair.

•

There is potential to excavate and restore the pool.

•

Safe access into the Sea Plantation and the site for pedestrians and vehicles is problematic.

•

The stone terraces are still largely extant and could be restored.

•

Climate change and potential future sea level rises and inundation.

•

There is potential to restore the structure as part of a wider restoration of the planting, walks and vistas within the Sea Plantation.

CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

Restoration of the bathing house on the embankment could make an interesting feature for visitors or could make a walker’s shelter or bird hide.

The site has high capacity for change should the Trust choose to restore the pool area or choose to locate a more contemporary structure within the general location.

The site is positioned within easy reach of the House and could form part of a project to improve public access and extend walks into the Sea Plantation where there are excellent views across Strangford Lough.

672

[THIS PAGE HAS INTENTIONALLY BEEN LEFT BLANK]

BIBLIOGRAPHY PUBLISHED AND UNPUBLISHED SOURCES Aalen, F.H.A & Whelan, K (1997) Atlas of the Irish rural landscape. Cork: Cork University Press Allison, K (2019) ‘An analysis of model farms on the Birdsall Estate in the Yorkshire Wolds’. Unpublished: University of York MA Atkinson, A (1823) Ireland Exhibited to England, in a Political and Moral Survey of her Population. London: Baldwin, Craddock, and Joy Bailey, F (2011) ‘Mount Stewart Sea Plantation: Notes on its history and significance’. Unpublished: National Trust Bailey, F (2016) ’Mount Stewart Conservation Management Plan’. Unpublished: National Trust Brett, CEB, (2002) Buildings of North County Down, Ulster Architectural Heritage Publications Brunskill, R W (1999) Traditional Farm Buildings of Britain and their Conservation. Newhaven and London: Yale Casement, A (1995) ‘Mount Stewart Landscape Study’. Unpublished: National Trust Northern Ireland Region

Dillon, M (2011) ‘A History and Survey of the Lighting at Mount Stewart’. Unpublished: National Trust

Authenticity and Integrity Issues’. Unpublished: University of Edinburgh MA

Foster, J.W. (Ed.) (1997), Nature in Ireland: A Scientific and Cultural History. J.W. Foster (Ed.). Dublin: The Lilliput Press

McDonald J & Welsh J (2016) ‘Cottage Ornee, Mount Stewart Demesne, County Down’. Ulster Archaeological Society Survey Report No 30. Available at: https://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/uas/ UASfilestore/CoDown/Filetoupload,687678,en.pdf

Gallagher C & Rutherford S (2018) ‘Mount Stewart Demesne Conservation Management Plan’. Unpublished: National Trust Girouard, M (1978 ) Life in the English Country House. Yale: New Haven and London Glendinning, M & Wade Martins, S (2008) Buildings of the Land: Scotland’s Farms 1750-2000. Edinburgh: RCAHMS. Hamond, F (1997) ‘Mount Stewart Gasworks Survey’. Unpublished: National Trust Howley J & D’Ussy R, (1993) The Follies and Garden Buildings of Ireland, London: Yale Irwin, F (2014) ‘ Planning a Sustainable Future for the farmyard at Mount Stewart’. Unpublished: Queen’s University, Belfast, MSc Jackson-Stops, G (1978) Mount Stewart, National Trust Guidebook

Casement, A (1999) ‘Mount Stewart Garden Archives & Historical Survey 1917-1959’. Unpublished: National Trust Northern Ireland Region Cussons, N (1987) The BP Book of Industrial Archaeology. Newton Abbot: David & Charles Dean, JAK (1994) Gate Lodges of Ulster: A Gazetteer. Ulster Architectural Heritage Publications

Johnston G.M & McShane L (2019) ‘Survey of Swimming Pool, Sea Plantation’, Mount Stewart: Ulster Archaeological Society Survey Report no 76. Available at: https://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/uas/ UASfilestore/CoDown/Filetoupload,920439,en.pdf Knox, A (1875) A history of the county of Down from the most remote to the present day. Dublin. Reprinted Davidson Books, 1982 MacDonagh, M (2010), ‘Finding New Uses for Irish Demesnes:

674

Mathew, WM (1993) ‘Marling in British Agriculture: A Case of Partial Identity’, in Agricultural History Review, 41, No. 2, pp. 97-110 Morrow, C (2015)’ Conservation of a Walled Garden: Planning a future for the walled garden and Rose Garden at Mount Stewart’. Unpublished: Queen’s University, Belfast, MSc Reeves-Smyth, T (1997) ‘The Natural History of Demesnes’, in Nature in Ireland: A Scientific and Cultural History. J.W. Foster (Ed.). Dublin: The Lilliput Press Robinson, J.M (1983) Georgian model farms: A study of decorative and model farm buildings in the Age of Improvement, 1700 – 1846. Oxford: Clarendon Press Van Es, L, and Forsythe, I (2019) ‘Survey of Temple Water Castle Ward County Down’. Ulster Archaeological Society Survey Report No. 64. Available at: https://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/uas/ UASfilestore/CoDown/Filetoupload,904837,en.pdf Wade Martins, S (2002) The English model farm: building the agricultural ideal, 1700-1914. Cheshire: Windgather Press

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTERNET SOURCES Ards and North Down Planning Portal. Available at: https://www. ardsandnorthdown.gov.uk/resident/planning/northern-irelandplanning-portal Erasmus Smith Schools, History and Archives. Available at: History https://erasmussmithschools.ie/history/ Grace’s Guide to British Industrial History https://www. gracesguide.co.uk/ Department for Communities, Listed Buildings Database. Available at: https://www.communities-ni.gov.uk/services/ buildings-database NIEA Built Heritage ‘Register of Parks, Gardens and Demesnes of Special Historic Interest’

NEWSPAPER SOURCES Belfast Telegraph, Saturday January 23rd 1982 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND D714/1/7 John Cleland, Newtownards, to James Clealand 8 June 1796 D3030/P/238/1 30 May 1811, Letter from Stewart to Castlereagh, commenting on livestock he has arranged to have sent to Castlereagh. D3030/P/123 22 August 1814, Letter from [Charles Stewart, now Lord] Stewart, Mount Stewart, to Castlereagh.

D3030/T/4 Second of two volumes, containing letters from Robert, 2nd Marquis of Londonderry, to his wife, Emily, daughter of the Earl of Buckinghamshire. 1797-1821. 7 Mar. [1820] Letter from Castlereagh, [Mount Stewart], to his wife. D3099/11/4/1/1 May 1915 Londonderry.

Meiklejohn writes for advice to Lord

D3099/11/28/1 28 Jan 1935 Establishment of a private aerodrome and hangar. D654/H/1/1 Mount Stewart Journal of Accounts, 1781-1789. D654/H/2/5 Mount Stewart Estate Ledgers 1810-1819

D3030/H/31 4 December 1815, Letter from Londonderry, Mount Stewart, to Castlereagh, in which he gives an account of a recent fire on the demesne.

D654/H/2/7 Mount Stewart Estate Ledgers 1828-1850 D654/H/2/8 Mount Stewart Estate Ledgers 1850-1864

Available at: http://www.nihgt.org/resources/images/Register%20 of%20Parks%20Gds%20&%20Demesnes%20-%20Northern%20 Ireland-NIEA.pdf NIHGC, ‘Northern Ireland Heritage Gardens Inventory’. Built Heritage: Environment and Heritage Service. Available at: https:// www.communities-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/doe/ heritage-gardens-inventory.pdf Outdoor Recreation NI, ‘Historic Downhill Demesne Outdoor Recreation Masterplan’. Report prepared 10 June 2019. [Online]. Available at: http://ccght.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ Downhill-Demesne-Masterplan-Final-Report-10-June-2019.pdf

D3030/H/32 Letter from Londonderry, Mount Stewart, 15 December 1815 Letter from Londonderry, Mount Stewart, to Castlereagh, St James’s Square, about the new farming techniques he has introduced on the demesne. D3030/H/37 14 August 1817 Letter from Londonderry, Mount Stewart, to Castlereagh, alluding to an accident Castlereagh has recently had; referring to the continuing economic depression; and giving an account of progress being made on the Mount Stewart demesne. D3030/H/39 9 August 1818 Letter from Londonderry, Mount Stewart, to Castlereagh, commenting on the state of the harvest. D3030/4827 19th Jan 1815(?) Letter from Castlereagh at Cray Farm to his father.

675

D654/H/2/9 Mount Stewart Estate Ledgers 1884 – 1894 D654/H/2/13 Mount Stewart Estate Ledgers 1908-1914 D654/H/2/19 Mount Stewart Estate Ledgers 1930-39 D654/H/2/23 Mount Stewart Estate Ledgers 1940-51 D654/H/7/A/16 Mount Stewart Domestic and estate vouchers 1804 D654/M/7/7 ‘A Map of part of the Townland of Ballycastle…’ David Geddas 1807 D654/M/71/13 ‘Sketch of Mount Stewart House and outbuildings’ 1933

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ros Cuan: ‘The Cottage’, Mount Stewart. Plan of proposed alterations, Feb 1941

D654/M/69/12 David Geddas map showing the line of the new road proposed in 1812.

CENSUS RETURNS Mount Stewart township 1901

D654/M70/40

Map of Strangford Lough 1859-60

Mount Stewart Township 1911

D654/M/70/43

Sketch of plantation Undated but 20 th century

ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPS 1st Edition, 6 inch County Edition, 1834

D654/M/71/2 Mount Stewart Road Survey: land between MS and the sea, February 1779. D654/M/71/4 A-H Wyatt’s plans for stables and new offices at Mount Stewart c1783.

Internal photographs c1997 1st Revision, 6 inch County Edition, 1858 2nd Revision, 6 inch County Edition, 1900-1901 3rd Revision, 6 inch County Edition, 1920

D654/M/71/10 William Adam’s Survey of Fields in Templecrone, 1768.

25 inch, revised 1920, published 1921

D654/M/71/12/A/B/C 1931 sketch of demesne

25 inch Irish-Grid Edition, 1971

D654/N/5/18 swimming pool.

Correspondence on the construction of the

D654/N/1/27

Mount Stewart Farm Accounts 1916.

MOUNT STEWART ESTATE PAPERS The Apple Loft Cottage and Barns: Apple Loft Condition & Feasibility Report, March 2006. Unpublished report and associated proposal plans

D654/N/2/24 Letters from John Andrews (agent at Comber) 1846-1848 and transcribed by Anne Casement (1995). VAL 1 B 33 and map VAL/1/A/3/11 c.1834-38

Refurbishment and Conversion of Ros Cuan, Mount Stewart, Dalrymple-Wilson Architect, 1997

Laundry Cottage: X/93/0554 Planning application Laundry Cottage, Mount Stewart September 1993. Conversion and refurbishment of the Laundry Cottage into 2 no ground floor flats and 2 no maisonettes. Approved May 1994. Various plans as existing and proposed by R Dalrymple-Wilson Nov 1993

X/96/0570 Apple Loft Planning application August 1996 Change of use from existing coach house and stable, staff dormitories to 4 flats. Granted

Various colour photographs of the Laundry Cottage preconversion The Stables: X/2004/1313/LB Planning application for repair and replacement of the roof, 2004. Extracts from Condition Report of Pitched Roof, March 2004

First valuation, Greyabbey,

VAL 2B/3/4 and map VAL/2/A/3/11C Second valuation, Greyabbey, c.1859.

Farmyard plans: Untitled insurance plan of the farmyard and walled garden, nd.

Detail drawings of roof and leadwork 2004 Photographs of roof restoration works c2004

‘PG Burton Agent, Estate Office, Mount Stewart - Existing plan’. C20 plan – no date. PG Burton Agent, Estate Office, Mount Stewart, ‘Layout and Yard for 50-100 Beast’, D/9564/FL, Sept 1959 – proposed plan of north farmyard 676

Letters concerning the repair and restoration of stonework, 2005 Drawings of weathervane, 2005

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Plans for proposed conversion of flat 5&6 April 1990 Plans for proposed refurbishment Nov 2008

PHOTOGRAPHS FROM PUBLIC APPEALS McGivern Family photos at Mount Stewart and the Temple of the Winds c1940 supplied by the North Down National Trust Members Association.

Floor Plans for further works Nov 2010 Clay Gate Lodge: Renovation plans 1990-91 Plans 1997

Weir family photos supplied by Frances Weir and Lauren McShine, granddaughter of George Weir whose father was the Land Steward James Weir. Records and photographs of the Hunting Syndicate at Mount Stewart provided by Michael Park, son of Dr David Park.

Inspection Log and photographs 1990-1998

MacDonald Family photos of Gamekeeper’s Lodge c.1911 Main Gate Lodges: Existing and proposed plans for ‘Alterations and Extension’ to west gate lodge, 2001 Photographs c2001

Images of the Folly provided by John McKee of the Scout Movement Photographs provided by Lady Rose Lauritzen of Front/ Main Gate Lodge c1970 with John Weir (former resident)

‘Mountstewart Gatelodge Condition & Feasibility Report’ 2001

677

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

TERM

DEFINITION

TERM

DEFINITION

Aesthetic Value

Value deriving from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from a place.

Buttress

Vertical member projecting from a wall to stabilize it or to resist the lateral thrust of an arch, roof, or vault.

Archaeological Interest

There will be archaeological interest in a heritage asset if it holds, or potentially may hold, evidence of past human activity worthy of expert investigation at some point. Heritage assets with archaeological interest are the primary source of evidence about the substance and evolution of places, and of the people and cultures that made them. This is sometimes expressed as ‘evidential value’.

Cantilevered

An unsupported horizontal member projecting from a wall etc. and capable of supporting weight such as a staircase.

Carpenters marks

Marks made by the carpenter to aid the assembly of structural timber elements; often in the form of Roman numerals.

Coffer

A sunken panel in the shape of a square, rectangle, or octagon that serves as a decorative device, usually in a ceiling or vault.

Communal Value

Value deriving from the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory.

Architectural Interest

To be of special architectural interest a building must be of importance in its architectural design, decoration or craftsmanship; special interest may also apply to nationally important examples of particular building types and techniques and significant plan forms.

Architrave

Decorative lintel above a door or window. Also a moulded frame around a door or a window.

Conservation

The process of maintaining and managing change to a heritage asset in a way that sustains and, where appropriate, enhances its significance.

Ashlar

Masonry that has been worked to a smooth finish with sharp corners and narrow mortar joints.

Context

Any relationship between a place and other places, relevant to the values of that place

Baluster

A small moulded shaft, square or circular, in stone or wood, sometimes metal, supporting the coping of a parapet or the handrail of a staircase. A series of balusters supporting a handrail or coping is called a balustrade.

Corinthian

Classical style of architecture characterised by the use of acanthus-style leaf motifs on columns capitals (tops).

Cornice

Balustrade

A rail supported by vertical shafts (balusters).

Upper section of a Classical entablature. A horizontal projection, often moulded, along the top of wall or building. Also the horizontal moulding running along the junction of a ceiling or wall.

Bargeboard

A board fastened to the projecting gables of a roof.

Cottage Orne

Bay

Regular vertical division of a building, often through structural or other elements such as buttresses or windows and doors.

A late-18th century or early 19th century Picturesque architectural style, characterised by small country or park dwellings with fretted bargeboards, dormers, rustic timber verandas and tall chimneys. They were often thatched and had leaded windows.

678

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

TERM

DEFINITION

TERM

DEFINITION

Cupola

A small, most often dome-like, structure on top of a building.

Entablature

A band of moulded or carved features running horizontally across the top of a wall or under a pediment.

Curtail

On a stair it is the curving end of the handrail or the curving outer end of the lowest step.

Evidential Value

Value deriving from the potential of a place to yield evidence about past human activity. See archaeological value above.

Fabric

The material substance of which places are formed, including geology, archaeological deposits, structures and buildings, and flora.

Facade

An exterior side of a building, usually the front.

Frieze

The wide central section of an entablature which may be decorated or plain.

Gable End

Triangular area of wall at the end of a building with a pitched roof.

Galletting

The process in which small pieces of stone are inserted in the joints of coarse masonry to protect the mortar joints. They are stuck in while the mortar is wet.

Glover

Openings on dovecotes or pigeon houses for birds.

Gothick

An early and less archaeologically accurate form of ‘Gothic’ which was popular in the 18th century and early 19th century. The term is used to distinguish it from the later Gothic revival of the 19th century.

Harm

Change for the worse; generally inappropriate interventions on the heritage value of the place.

Heritage Value(s)

An aspect of the worth or importance attached by people to qualities of places, and include as archaeological, architectural, artistic, historic and communal.

Dado Rail

A moulded string course applied to the lower part of a wall.

Demesne

Enclosed land or park attached to a house which was farmed directly by the lord for his benefit. The demesne has been a dominant feature of the Irish landscape since the medieval period. During the 18th century the productive landscape was combined with the ornamental - with meadows, farmland and woodland interspersed with follies and other park buildings, meandering paths and carefully designed views.

Dentilled

A series of small rectangular blocks projecting from a moulding or beneath a cornice

Designated Heritage Asset

A World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument, Listed Building, Protected Wreck Site, Registered Park, Demesne and Garden, or Conservation Area designated under the relevant legislation.

Designation

The recognition of particular heritage value(s) of a significant place by giving it formal status under law or policy intended to sustain those values.

Dog grate

A movable metal frame or basket that is used for burning logs or coal in a fireplace

Doric

One of the three orders of Classical architecture, characterised by simple carved mouldings and clean lines.

Dormer

A structural element of a building that protrudes from the plane of a sloping roof surface. Dormers are used, either in original construction or as later additions, to create usable space in the roof of a building by adding headroom and usually also by enabling addition of windows. 679

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

TERM

DEFINITION

TERM

DEFINITION

Hipped Roof

A roof with sloped ends as well as sloped sides.

Maintenance

Routine work regularly necessary to keep the fabric of a place in good order.

Historic Environment

All aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through time, including all surviving physical remains of past human activity, whether visible or buried, and deliberately planted or managed flora.

Material

Relevant to and having a substantial effect on, demanding consideration.

Model Farms

Farmsteads or home farms on private estates from the 18th and 19th centuries which operated and showcased the latest scientific innovations in agriculture and rural industries in response to the Agricultural Revolution.

Neo-Classical

An architectural style more accurate to the Classicism of Antiquity in Italy and Greece. A Classical style produced through scholarship and archaeology.

Outshot

Projection beyond the main line of a building; usually an extension.

Parquetry floor

A floor laid with geometric mosaic of wood pieces for a decorative effect.

Patera

An ornamental circular or oval bas-relief disc. The patera is usually used to decorate friezes

Pediment

A triangular feature often found above entrances in classical style buildings.

Pilaster

A column attached to, but protruding from, a wall.

Pintle

A pin or bolt, usually inserted into a gudgeon, which is used as part of a pivot or hinge to a door or gate.

Italianate

A style of architecture derived from the palaces of Renaissance Italy.

Interpretation

The full range of potential activities intended to heighten public awareness and enhance understanding of cultural heritage site. These can include print and electronic publications, public lectures, on-site and directly related off-site installations, educational programmes, community activities, and ongoing research, training, and evaluation of the interpretation process itself.

Intervention

Any action which has a physical effect on the fabric of a place.

Jacobean

Style of architecture of the early 17th century which combined Flemish, French and Italian Renaissance influences. Characterised by strapwork, obelisks, emblems and heraldic devices. Curving Dutch gables were also favoured.

Jambs

Vertical sides of a door or window.

Keystone

A wedge-shaped stone at the apex of a masonry or brick arch.

Louvre

An opening fitted with horizontally fixed narrow boards sloping downwards and outwards, with each board lapping over the one below, but leaving a space between for the passage of air. Can be a structure on a roof or lantern.

Pitched/Monopitched Roof

A pointed roof with sloped sides (mono-pitched where only one side slopes).

Portico

A main entrance, often protruding slightly and under a pediment.

A half-moon shaped space, either masonry or void.

PRONI

Public Record Office of Northern Ireland https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/proni

Lunette

680

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

TERM

DEFINITION

TERM

DEFINITION

Roughcast

A traditional coarse render on the outside of buildings using gravels set in a cement or lime-based mortar.

Significance

Quinquennial

Lasting for or relating to a period of five years

The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.

Quoins

The cornerstones of brick or stone walls.

Splay

Tapering of the wall reveal to a door or window

Renewal

Comprehensive dismantling and replacement of an element of a place, in the case of structures normally reincorporating sound units.

String course

A narrow band of horizontal moulding projecting from a wall.

Sustainable Repair

Work beyond the scope of maintenance, to remedy defects caused by decay, damage or use, including minor adaptation to achieve a sustainable outcome, but not involving restoration or alteration.

Capable of meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Tillage

Agricultural term where land is ploughed for crops.

Restoration

To return a place to a known earlier state, based on compelling evidence, without conjecture.

Turret

A small tower that projects vertically from the wall of a building. May contain a stair.

Reversible

Capable of being reversed so that the previous state is restored.

Value

An aspect of worth or importance, here attached by people to qualities of places.

Rickyard

A farmyard where hayricks are stored.

Rustication

Masonry at ground-level that has been left or deliberately treated to look rough and ‘strong’.

Veranda/ verandah

External open porch, gallery or covered way with sloping or lean-to roof carried by columns or posts.

Vernacular Sash

The horizontal and vertical frame that encloses the glazing of a window. Hung-sashes move up and down with the use of cords, chains, pulleys and weights built into the frame. Horizontally sliding sashes are also known as Yorkshire sashed.

A class of architectural styles which meet local needs, use local construction materials and reflect local traditions.

Voussoirs

Wedge-shaped or tapered stones between the springer and the keystone used to construct an arch

Setting

The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral. 681

APPENDICES CONTENTS A: List Descriptions B: Register of Parks, Gardens and Demesne of Special Historic Interest C: Planning Policy

682

APPENDIX A LIST DESCRIPTION Listed Buildings are those designated through listing as being of ‘special architectural or historic interest’ under Section 80 of the Planning Act (NI) 2011. A List of Buildings is maintained by Communities NI and can be found here: https://www. communities-ni.gov.uk/services/buildings-database BUILDING NAME: WEST GATE LODGES HB Ref No: HB24/04/054 Extent of Listing: Lodges, boundary wall, gates screen and gates. Date of Construction: 1800 – 1819 Grade: B2 Date of Listing: 20/12/1976 Evaluation: Pair of single storey, snecked rubble-built, octagonal Georgian Gothick ‘ink pot’ gate lodges of c.1810 set on either side of the gates to the western entrance to the Mount Stewart estate. Exterior Description and Setting: Pair of single storey, snecked rubble-built, Georgian Gothick ‘ink pot’ gate lodges of c.1810 set on either side of the gates to the western entrance to the Mount Stewart estate on the east side of the Portaferry Road roughly 2 miles north west of Greyabbey. West lodge - This N section of this lodge is basically rectangular but with octagonal gable ends; there is a rectangular section attached to the S side. The roofs of the two parts follow the plan forms and are of Bangor blue slates with ridge and hip cappings. The N section of the lodge has a tall brick chimney stack now painted a bluish grey colour. Cast iron rw goods. The N elevation of this lodge has two pointed arch windows with ‘Y’ tracery and stone surrounds. There is a similar window to each side of the canted bay to the W (which faces directly out onto the Portaferry Road). The N face of the canted bay to the E has a similar window, with a timber and glazed door set in similar styled opening in face to S. To the S elevation of this lodge is a smaller

hipped roof section. On the E face of this section is a window as before, but the wall itself is finished in roughcast render. The W face of this section (which faces directly unto the Portaferry Road) has rectangular window opening (which may not be original) now with modern frame. The estate wall adjoins the S side of this facade. There is a low circular rubble wall attached to the N facade of the lodge, containing a small plant filled garden. East lodge - This lodge is no longer inhabited and appears to used as a store and is largely obscured by greenery, so much so that it is difficult to see the N, S and E elevations. The lodge appears to match the plan of the N section of the west lodge, but has no section to the S. The roof has octagonal hipped ends and is of Bangor blue slates with stone ridge and hip cappings. The only opening now visible is a pointed arch window opening (with frame and surround as above) on the N face of the W canted bay. There is a wrought iron pedestrian gate attached to this face of the W bay also. There is an octagonal stone chimney in the centre of the roof. Between both lodges is a low wall in matching basalt rubble with a gently curving top. In the centre are simple Scrabo stone piers with chamfered caps. On each pier are decorative (electric) carriage lamps supported on wrought iron scrolls. The gates themselves have much fine detailed decoration and are now operated by hydraulic rams. Architects: Not Known

Historical Information Both of these lodges are shown on the OS map of 1834 and though there is no definitive evidence, they appear to have been built between 1804 and 1813. They may have been the work of George Dance, the architect responsible for the design of west wing of Mount Stewart House itself which also dates from this time, or of William Vitruvius Morrison, the man later responsible for redesigning much of the same house in c.1820-30. Alternatively, as both lodges share similar characteristics to the abbey gate lodge of nearby Rosemount House, they may simply be the work of well informed local craftsmen, familiar with the latest in Gothick taste. It is not clear whether the hipped roof section to the rear of the west lodge is original, however, as both lodges do not match, it could be argued that it is indeed a later addition. References: Primary sources: 1 PRONI D.654 Londonderry Papers. [The references concerning the Mount Stewart estate within this archive are numerous, however of particular interest are sections D.654/H1/1-7 (estate accounts 1781-1864), H/2/1-8 (estate ledgers 1781-1864) and M71 (estate maps). Section N2/24 also contains letters written by the 3rd Marquesses agent, John Andrews, concerning the demesne)] 2 PRONI OS/6/3/11/1 OS maps, Down 11, 1834 3 PRONI VAL/1B/33 First valuation, Greyabbey, c.1834-38 4 PRONI VAL/2B/3/4 Second valuation, Greyabbey, c.1859 5 PRONI OS/6/3/11/2 OS maps, Down 11, 1860 6 PRONI VAL/12B/23/16a-f Annual valuation revision books, Greyabbey, 1866-1930

683

LIST DESCRIPTIONS

Secondary sources: 1 J.A.K. Dean, ‘The Gate lodges of Ulster- a gazetteer’ (Belfast, 1994), p.85 2 G.C. Taylor, “Mount Stewart County Down I & II” in ‘Country Life’, Vol.LXXVIII, No.2020, 5 & 12 October 1935 3 ‘Archaeological Survey of County Down’ (Belfast, 1966), pp.374-376 4 Gervase Jackson-Stops, “Mount Stewart Co. Down Parts 1 & 2” in ‘Country Life’, 6 & 13 March 1980 5 ‘Mount Stewart’ (National Trust, 1986) 6 Patrick Bowe, ‘The gardens of Ireland’, pp.163-73 7 Anne Casement, ‘Mount Stewart landscape study’ (National Trust Northern Ireland Region, 1995) Criteria for Listing Architectural Interest A. Style B. Proportion C. Ornamentation H-. Alterations detracting from building J. Setting K. Group value Historic Interest X. Local Interest

BUILDING NAME: CLAY GATE LODGE HB Ref No:  HB24/04/050 Extent of Listing: Lodge and curved walls. Date of Construction: 1800 - 1819 Grade: B2 Date of Listing: 20/12/1976 Evaluation: Single storey Gothick gate lodge of c.1810 with rubble built, pinnacled, ‘toy fort’ front facade. This building is somewhat extended and modernised at the rear in recent times.  Exterior Description and Setting: Distinctive single storey ‘toy fort’ Gothick gate lodge of c.1810 at the SE entrance of the Mount Stewart estate, extended at the rear in recent years. The building is set on the north side of the Portaferry Road roughly 2 miles NW of Greyabbey. The visible section of the roof is pitched with mineral fibre slates at its lower ends but flat and lead sheeted at the ‘apex’. Cast iron rw goods. Front S elevation is symmetrical and constructed in random, oddly shaped, basalt rubble with a pinnacled parapet and walls curving up to meet the E and W sides. This elevation has two marginally projecting outer bays, each with a pointed arch windows with casement frame with tracery to arch head. Each outer bay is topped with a parapet with two tall pyramidal pinnacles. The central bay has a central pointed arch door opening with plain sheeted timber door and tracery to pointed arch fanlight (similar to windows). Both door and windows have plain stone surrounds. To the left on the E facade is a section similar to that on the right of the W facade, with similarly placed rendered chimney stack, however, this section now has a small lean to extension. The section of the facade to the right of this appears to have been altered and extended and now has a modern glazed door and several small window openings (as W facade). The W facade looks as though it has been extended. To the left hand side is a

684

long rubble built section with a roof which is pitched and slated to begin with but flat and lead sheeted at the apex. To the far left of this section is a broad casement window, with two smaller sash window further to the right. Part of the facade surrounding the broad window to the far left has been rendered. The section of the facade to the far right appears largely original and has a small sash window and a parapet, with pinnacle (as front), which hides the roof. A rendered chimney now rises out of the parapet (directly to the left of the pinnacle) and part of the facade directly beneath the stack has been patched in modern brick. Curving rubble estate walls adjoin the E and W sides of this lodge.  Architects: Not Known Historical Information: This lodge appears to be contemporary with the other Gothick lodges within the Mount Stewart estate, all of which probably date from c.1810. It is shown on the OS Map of 1834. The building appears to have been extended and refurbished in recent times. For more historical information on the Mount Stewart estate and the Londonderrys see ref. HB24/04/052. References: Primary sources: 1 PRONI D.654 Londonderry Papers. [There do not appear to be any particular references concerning the Mount Stewart gate lodges however the following sections could prove of particular interest are sections D.654/H1/1-7 (estate accounts 1781-1864), H/2/1-8 (estate ledgers 1781-1864) and M71 (estate maps). Section N2/24 also contains letters written by the 3rd Marquesses agent, John Andrews, concerning the demesne)] 2 PRONI OS/6/3/11/1 OS maps, Down 11, 1834 3 PRONI

LIST DESCRIPTIONS

VAL/1B/33 First valuation, c.1834-38 4 PRONI VAL/2B/3/4 Second valuation, Greyabbey, c.1859 5 PRONI OS/6/3/11/2 OS maps, Down 11, 1860 6 PRONI VAL/12B/23/16a-f Annual valuation revision books, Greyabbey, 1866-1930 Secondary sources: 1 J.A.K. Dean, ‘The Gate lodges of Ulster- a gazetteer’ (Belfast, 1994), p.85 2 G.C. Taylor, “Mount Stewart County Down I & II” in ‘Country Life’, Vol.LXXVIII, No.2020, 5 & 12 October 1935 3 ‘Archaeological Survey of County Down’ (Belfast, 1966), pp.374376 4 Gervase Jackson-Stops, “Mount Stewart Co. Down Parts 1 & 2” in ‘Country Life’, 6 & 13 March 1980 5 ‘Mount Stewart’ (National Trust, 1986) 6 Patrick Bowe ‘The gardens of Ireland’, pp.163-73 7 Anne Casement ‘Mount Stewart landscape study’ (National Trust Northern Ireland Region, 1995) Criteria for Listing Architectural Interest A. Style B. Proportion C. Ornamentation H-. Alterations detracting from building J. Setting K. Group value Historic Interest X. Local Interest

BUILDING NAME: STABLES Building Name: Stables and Gate Screen HB Ref No:  HB24/04/053 Extent of Listing: Stable block and gate screen. Date of Construction: 1840 – 1859 Grade: B2 Date of Listing: 20/12/1976 Evaluation: Rubble-built U- shaped two storey gabled stable block of c.1846 by Charles Campbell, with mild Classical overtones and a domestic (as opposed to outbuilding) appearance. The building, which has been subdivided into flats, originally served Mount Stewart House. Exterior Description and Setting: Rubble built ‘U’ shaped two storey (mainly) gabled stable block of c.1846 by Charles Campbell, with Classical overtones and a domestic (as opposed to outbuilding) appearance. The building, which has been subdivided into flats, originally served Mount Stewart House and is situated a short distance to the SE of the house itself, cut into a small hill, giving a steep embankment to the north and south sides. Roofs all have Bangor blue slates and are gabled at front and hipped to the rear. Brick chimney stacks, cast iron rw goods, PVC soil drainage. The yard is bounded on the W side by a gate screen with rusticated sandstone pillars with pyramidal caps. The inner pillars have coach lamps. There are pedestrian gates between both outer and centre pillars, with low walls with spearhead railings to the outer sides of the outer most pillars. To the centre of the symmetrical W elevation is a slightly projecting bay with central timber sheeted double door, with stone canopy on stone brackets. To either immediate side of the door is a sash window, with small panes. To the first floor of the bay are three evenly spaced similar looking PVC windows (simulated sash). The bay is topped with a pediment with roundel

685

feature with Scrabo stone dressings (as all windows to courtyard) and decorative insert with star shape. To either side of the bay are single windows to each floor as before (PVC to first floor). Each side of the building is completed by large forward projecting symmetrical wings (the uprights of the ‘U’). The facades facing into the courtyard each have five evenly spaced windows (as before) to the first floor. To the ground floor of each are three large conjoined segmental arch openings, each with plain sheeted double timber doors with door/window to the inner side. The front (W) facing gables of the wings each have a window to the ground and first floors as before and a gable pediment with a recessed roundel feature. The N elevation has a partly blocked (or reduced) doorway and small blocks former window openings to the ground floor. To the right on the first floor is a casement window, a blocked window opening to the centre and glazed door to the right. This upper floor door is reached via a timber bridge which spans from an embankment on the N side over the enclosing path. The E elevation has a slightly projecting bay to each side, each with one window to the ground floor (as front) and one PVC window to the first floor (simulated sash). The centre bay has two small PVC windows to either side of a central timber doorway a door, at first floor level. The door is reached by way on a metal fire escape stair. A small segmental arch timber bridge spans from the half landing of the stair, over a pathway to the embankment on the E, which has a stone retaining wall. Either side of the stair is one ground floor window. The S elevation has a door to the first floor left which is accessed via a straight fire escape metal stair to the right of which are two PVC windows (as before). To the ground floor centre is a small blocked opening, with a window (as ground floor front) to the right. Stonework is random rubble with Scrabo stone dressings (‘in and out’) in openings and quoins to courtyard sides, with brick dressings to openings to rear sides. Architects: Campbell, Charles

LIST DESCRIPTIONS

Historical Information: This block was built in 1846 to designs by Charles Campbell. It was completed roughly at the same time as work was finishing on the rebuilding of the east wing of Mount Stewart House itself. References: Primary sources: 1 PRONI D.654/H2/7 Londonderry Papers Estate ledger 1828-50 2 PRONI VAL/2B/3/4 Second valuation, Greyabbey, c.1859 2 PRONI OS/6/3/11/2 OS maps, Down 11, 1860 Secondary sources: 1 ‘Mount Stewart’ (National Trust, 1986) 2 Anne Casement, ‘Mount Stewart landscape study’ (National Trust Northern Ireland Region, 1995) Criteria for Listing Architectural Interest A. Style B. Proportion C. Ornamentation H-. Alterations detracting from building K. Group value Historic Interest X. Local Interest V. Authorship

BUILDING NAME: HUNTING LODGE HB Ref No:  HB24/04/057 Extent of Listing: Lodge Date of Construction: 1800 - 1819 Grade: B2 Date of Listing: 20/12/1976 Evaluation: Small, single storey picturesque ‘toy fort’ Gothick hunting lodge of c.1810, situated in a clearing within a wooded area in the north of the Mount Stewart estate.  Exterior Description and Setting: Small, single storey picturesque ‘toy fort’ Gothick hunting lodge of c.1810, situated in a clearing within a wooded area in the N of the Mount Stewart estate, c.2 miles NW of Greyabbey. The roof is covered with Bangor blue slates with decorative barges and a finial. The roof of the main lodge lies behind the castellated parapet and is only visible from the rear N side. The front S facade is symmetrical has two slightly projecting outer bays each with a pointed arch window with casement frame with (now boarded) quatrefoil opening above. The outer wall of the bays are slightly battered. In the slightly recessed inner bay with gabled timber projecting porch. The porch has diagonally sheeted timber double doors with pointed arch sidelights and quatrefoil window in gable apex. The porch sides also have diagonal timber boarding. There is a quatrefoil opening (as outer bays) above the porch. The top of the facade is ‘castellated with stone pyramidal pinnacles to corners and inner edges of outer bays’. The E and W facades each have a similar arrangement as the outer front bays with castellations and pinnacles. Each side has a yellow brick chimney stack which rises from the castellations. The N edges of both the E and W sides each merge into a wall. The E wall joins on to a small single storey lean to outhouse. Its roof is covered in corrugated iron. The rear elevation is blank except for a small

686

square opening in the centre into which is set a wooden frame with quatrefoil opening. The S, E and W facades are finished in lined render with sandstone dressings to openings. The rear is finished in rough cast.  Architects: Not Known Historical Information: Though there is no concrete evidence relating to the date of construction of this building, it is believed to be contemporary with the other Gothick gate lodges within the estate, which have been provisionally dated to c.1804-13. This was a period which saw extensive developments within Mount Stewart in terms of building and plantation of the grounds themselves, work reflected in the estate account books and ledgers. The lodge is shown on the OS map of 1834, minus the front porch which is undoubtedly a late Victorian addition. The chimney stacks are awkwardly positioned and are probably late Victorian also. References: Primary sources: 1 PRONI D.654/H2/4 Londonderry Papers Estate ledger with loose index 1803-9 2 PRONI D.654/H2/5 Londonderry Papers Estate ledger with loose index 1810-19 3 PRONI OS/6/3/11/1 Ordnance Survey Maps, 1st Edition, 1834, Co. Down 11 4 PRONI VAL 1B/33 First valuation, Greyabbey, c.1834-38 5 PRONI OS/6/3/11/2 Ordnance Survey Maps, 1st Revision, 1860,

LIST DESCRIPTIONS

Co. Down 11 6 PRONI VAL/2B/3/4 Second valuation, Greyabbey, c.1859 7 PRONI VAL/12B/23/16a-f Annual valuation revision books, Greyabbey, 1866-1930

Secondary sources: 1 Anne Casement, ‘Mount Stewart Landscape Study’ (National Trust Northern Ireland Region 1995), pp.21-24, 52-53  Criteria for Listing Architectural Interest A. Style B. Proportion C. Ornamentation D. Plan Form H-. Alterations detracting from building K. Group value Historic Interest X. Local Interest

Evaluation: Large, sprawling, two and single storey mainly rubble-built but somewhat eclectic farmyard complex, dating from c.1816 but much added to in the 1870s with the addition of two large two storey stewards’ houses and the (probable) rebuilding of the dairy. The property serves the Mount Stewart estate.  Exterior Description and Setting: Large, extensive, two and single storey (mainly) rubble-built farmyard complex, dating from c.1816 but much added to in the 1870s with the addition of two large two storey stewards’ houses and the (probable) rebuilding of the dairy. The complex is located roughly in the centre of the Mount Stewart estate, about half a mile NE of Mount Stewart House. It is situated on either side of an estate road. The main section is on the E side of the road and is roughly ‘S’ shaped in plan and has two yards. Generally, the buildings are single storey, constructed in black stone rubble with sandstone dressings and a mixture of Bangor blue slated hipped and gabled roofs. To the N end is a gabled barn with a stone bell cote to its gable. 1. Houses To the S end are two storey dwelling houses mainly constructed in black stone rubble with brick dressings. The Bangor blue slated roof of the house to the W is gabled with its neighbour to the E hipped. The house to the E has two adjoining returns one of which has a felt flat roof. Windows are generally PVC.

687

2. Dovecote To the E (30m) of this grouping is a two storey snecked rubble built, brick dressed, octagonal, dovecote. The roof is hipped (8 sided) and alternate slopes have decorative ‘dormers’, with small openings for pigeons to enter. There is a tall decorative weathervane finial to the roof apex. 3. Dairy To the S and W of the main complex is a small circular dairy. The outer wall of the dairy to the S is circular and constructed in random rubble. It abuts the orchard wall which is straight. This gives an overall semi-circular plan form, however, internally the dairy proper is in fact circular. The entrance porch takes up the odd plan shapes. The N facade is incorporated into the orchard wall and is constructed in brick with sandstone dressings to openings. The dairy has a conical roof, recently reslated using ‘Tullycavey’ slate, with a large, gutterless overhang (c.60cm). 4. Cottages To the N of the dairy and within the orchard is a 3m high brick wall stretching almost the width of the orchard. To the N side of this wall are two lean to single storey (with ‘curved’ dormers) farm worker’s cottages. Architects: Not known Historical Information: This site appears to have been in use as a farmyard since at least the 1780s, its positioning probably chosen in accordance with Robert Stewart’s (ultimately unfulfilled) plans for the new house on nearby Bean Hill. In 1815 there was a fire in the yard. Robert wrote to his son, Castlereagh, describing the scene of devastation, “As to my dairy and cattle yard conflagration:- the whole of the sheds, both inside and out of the yard, were quite destroyed, as the lofts were full

LIST DESCRIPTIONS

round with hay and no separate partition wall, and had it not been for the presence of mind of Greenfield, the land steward, who cut off the communication by sawing the timber and making a part of the roof fall in, the barn, the thrashing machine, stabling, coach house and all the offices would have been burnt, to which I may add the whole of my [?haggard] containing all my grain, would have been in a blaze”.

References: Primary sources:

3 PRONI OS/6/3/11/1 OS maps, Down 11, 1834

Today the farmyard is still in use, but the dairy and orchard are largely derelict.

7 PRONI VAL/12B/23/16a-f Annual valuation revision books, 1866-1930

For more historical information concerning the Mount Stewart estate and the Londonderrys see ref. HB24/04/052.

8 PRONI OS/6/3/11/3 Ordnance Survey Maps, 1901

1 PRONI D.3030/H/31 Castlereagh Papers Letter from Viscount Londonderry to Castlereagh 1815 2 PRONI D.654/H1/5 Londonderry Papers Estate ledger 1810-19

4 PRONI VAL/1B/33 First valuation, Greyabbey, c.1834-38 5 PRONI VAL/2B/3/4 Second valuation, Greyabbey, c.1859

BUILDING NAME: MOUNT STEWART SCHOOL  Building Name: Mount Stewart School HB Ref No: HB24/04/059  Extent of Listing:  Former School building Date of Construction: 1800 - 1819 Grade: B1 Date of Listing: 20/12/1976 Evaluation: Long, mainly single storey hipped roof schoolhouse of 1813 building with late 19th/early 20th century, somewhat Orné, additions including a central gabled two storey section, open gabled porch and fleche. The building now contains a dwelling house and artist’s studio.

6 PRONI OS/6/3/11/2 OS maps, Down 11, 1860

Secondary sources: 1 Anne Casement, ‘Mount Stewart landscape study’ (National Trust Northern Ireland Region, 1995) Criteria for Listing Architectural Interest A. Style B. Proportion C. Ornamentation D. Plan Form H-. Alterations detracting from building K. Group value Historic Interest X. Local Interest

688

Exterior Description and Setting: Long, mainly single storey hipped roof schoolhouse of 1813 construction with late 19th/early 20th century additions including a central gabled two storey section, open gabled porch and fleche. The building is located roughly three miles north west of Greyabbey on the north east (inland) side of the Portaferry Road, and now contains a dwelling and an artist’s studio. The single storey roofs are hipped while the two storey section is gabled. To the roof ridge directly behind the entrance porch is a timber framed fleche which has a tall square lead clad pyramidal roof with metal finial. To the ends of the hipped roof are lead clad triangular dormers, also with metal finials. All sections of the roof are slated. There are two rendered and corbelled chimney stacks to the two storey section with two to the SE on the main roof and one to the NW. The front (SW) elevation is asymmetrical. To the left of centre is a (relatively) large open decorative timber framed gabled porch with Bangor blue slate roof with metal finial. Within this there is a double panelled and glazed door set within an equilateral arched opening (which leads into the artists’ studio). To the left of the porch are two equilateral arch window openings

LIST DESCRIPTIONS

(belonging to the studio) with casement windows. To the right are two matching but more widely spaced windows. To the right again is a timber sheeted door (house main entrance) with a triangular fanlight over. Above the door and left hand window rises the two storey gable with decorative barges. The paired sliding sash and case windows have triangular heads with a circular commemorative plaque underneath the cill. The overhang of the main roof continues across the front of the gable. To the right of the house doorway are five similar windows. The NW elevation is blank. The right of the NE elevation is a plain sheeted timber door with rectangular fanlight over. To the left of this is an equilateral arched window opening as front. Immediately to the left of this is a small flat roofed entrance porch with modern window and door. To the left of this is a large hipped roof return, with a window to its NW side and two to the NE. The SE face of the return has a plain sheeted timber door with an equilateral arched fanlight. This single storey extension abuts a two storey gabled projection which has two windows to the ground floor of its NW facade, and one to the first floor, all as front. The gable has shaped barges. To the left of this projection is an equilateral arch window opening, as before, to the left of which is a second hipped roof section, identical to that at far right, but handed. Left again of this is a timber panelled and glazed door with two arched windows as before. The SW gable is blank.

Stewart.

Secondary sources:

In the post war years it was used as tea rooms. It now incorporates a large studio for artists and a dwelling house and is the property of the National Trust.

1 Anne Casement, ‘Mount Stewart landscape study’ (National Trust Northern Ireland Region, 1995), pp.23, 52-53

Architects: Not Known

5 PRONI OS/6/3/11/2 Ordnance Survey Maps, 1st Revision, c.1860, Co. Down 11

Historical Information: This school is said to have been built by Viscountess Castlereagh in 1813 and was originally a charity school belonging to the Erasmus Smith foundation.

6 PRONI VAL/2B/3/4 Second valuation, Greyabbey, c.1863

It is noted in the 1830s OS Memoirs as a ‘neat schoolhouse’ with an attendance of 45 pupils, both male and female. The school closed sometime in the 1920s and during World War II the building served as a canteen for the soldiers billeted at Mount

8 PRONI OS/6/3/11/3 Ordnance Survey Maps, 1901

The building is shown on the OS maps of 1834 and c.1860 as purely rectangular in plan. Much of the building we see today, including the porch, the returns, the fleche and, undoubtedly, the two storey section is probably late 19th or early 20th century. References: Primary sources:

Criteria for Listing Architectural Interest A. Style B. Proportion C. Ornamentation D. Plan Form H-. Alterations detracting from building J. Setting K. Group value Historic Interest Y. Social, Cultural or Economic Importance X. Local Interest

1 ‘Ordnance Survey Memoirs of Ireland Vol.7: Parishes of County Down II’, ed. Angelique Day and Patrick McWilliams (QUB 1991), pp.69-70 [1834] 2 PRONI OS/6/3/11/1 Ordnance Survey Maps, 1st Edition, 1834, Co. Down 11. 3 PRONI VAL/1B/33 First valuation, Greyabbey, c.1834-38 4 Samuel Lewis ‘A topographical dictionary of Ireland’ (1837)

7 PRONI VAL/12B/23/16a-f Annual valuation revision books, Greyabbey, 1866-1923

689

LIST DESCRIPTIONS

BUILDING NAME: THE TEMPLE OF THE WINDS HB Ref No: HB24/04/051 Date of Construction: 1780 – 1799 Extent of Listing: Temple and service passage Grade: A Date of Listing: 20/12/1976 Evaluation Octagonal, two storey hipped ‘banqueting house’ of c.1782-5 by James ‘Athenian’ Stuart, based directly on the 1st century BC Tower of the Winds in Athens, a design made popular in the British Isles by Stuart through the publication of his Antiquities of Athens in 1762. This building is aesthetically the most important and the most beautiful structure within the Mount Stewart estate, surpassing even the house itself. In terms of design, authorship and the quality of its interior it is also one of the most important single pieces of architecture within Northern Ireland. Exterior Description and Setting Octagonal, two storey hipped banqueting house of c.1782-5 by James ‘Athenian’ Stuart, based directly on the 1st century BC Tower of the Winds in Athens, a design made popular in the British Isles by Stuart through the publication of his Antiquities of Athens in 1762. The building is set on a promontory to the east of Mount Stewart house, affording commanding views over Strangford Lough. The main roof is pitched and has a central octagonal chimney. Both the main roof and that to the stair projection are slated. The building is octagonal and constructed in fine Scrabo sandstone. To the SE and SW faces are porticoes with entablature with dentilled cornice supported on two fluted Corinthian columns with respondent pilasters without bases, but with leaf capitals. Over the porticoes are balustrades which enclose small balconies. To the N face is a three-quarterround stair projection which is slightly shorter than the main building and has a domed roof. Each face of the main section

of the Temple has a sash window, with Georgian panes, to the ground and first floors. The portico entrances are filled with similar window frames. There are pediments to the windows above the porticoes, but the rest of the windows have narrow plain surrounds. At the base of the stair tower there are three openings with that to the E filled with a timber panelled double door and windows (as before) in those to the N and W. To the corresponding positions on the upper level are windows as before. There is a string course between the floors, an eaves cornice and the whole building rests on a stepped base. There is a basement level which can be glimpsed via light wells set into the stepped base above each of the basement windows. The basement is accessed via a subterranean passage the entrance to which is a few metres to the N.

from London and ‘orniments executed at Birmingham’ were also acquired. The Temple was given to the National Trust by Lady Mairi Bury in 1962 and was extensively restored soon afterwards with both main rooms redecorated. Further restoration wok was carried out on the building in 1994.

Architects: Stuart, James ‘Athenian’

2 W. Wilson ‘The post-chaise companion or traveller’s directory through Ireland’ (Dublin, 1786), pp.16, 488

Historical Information: The Temple of the winds is based on the Tower of the Winds, a Classical Greek building of the 1st century BC. It is the work of James ‘Athenian’ Stuart, one of the pioneers of Neo-Classical architecture in Europe. Stuart rose to fame through the publication of ‘Antiquities of Athens’, the earliest accurate survey of Classical Greek buildings which he wrote with Nicholas Revett and the first volume of which appeared in 1762. As an architect, Stuart was never prolific and probably only came to the attention of the then owner of Mount Stewart, Robert Stewart, through either James Gandon or through Robert’s brother in law, Lord Camden. From Robert’s account book for this period [PRONI] we know that Stuart was paid £54 3s 4d in June 1783 for the ‘Temple of the Winds for cost of the plan & designs for furnishing it’. The accounts also reveal that the chief masons were David McBlain and Michael Campbell, the carpenter, John Campbell, the plasterer William Fitzgerald, and that a chimney piece was sent

3 A. Atkinson ‘Ireland exhibited to England’, Vol.I, (London, 1823), pp.222-229

690

For more historical information on the Mount Stewart estate and the Londonderrys see ref. HB24/04/052. References: Primary sources – 1 PRONI D.654/H1/1 Londonderry Papers Robert Stewart’s account book 1781-89

4 ‘Ordnance Survey Memoirs of Ireland Vol.7: Parishes of County Down II’, ed. Angelique Day and Patrick McWilliams (QUB 1991), pp.69-70 [1834] 5 PRONI OS/6/3/11/1 OS maps, Down 11, 1834 6 PRONI VAL/1B/33 First valuation, Greyabbey, c.1834-38 7 Samuel Lewis ‘A topographical dictionary of Ireland’ (1837) 8 Mr. & Mrs. S.C. Hall ‘Ireland its scenery and character’ (London, 1843), pp.14-15 9 PRONI ‘Parliamentary gazetteer of Ireland’ Vol.2 (1844-45)

LIST DESCRIPTIONS

10 J.B. Doyle ‘A tour in Ireland’ (Dublin, 1854), p.91 11 Durham County Record Office D/Lo/C/543. [This collection contains letters dating between July 1854 and March 1855 from the 4th Marquis to his step-mother Frances Vane-Tempest, in which he describes the poor state he found Mount Stewart upon his inheritance of the property in 1854.]

8 Sir Banister Fletcher (ed. John Musgrave) ‘A History of Architecture’ [19th ed.] (London 1987), pp.144-45 Criteria for Listing Architectural Interest A. Style B. Proportion C. Ornamentation D. Plan Form I. Quality and survival of Interior J. Setting

12 PRONI VAL/2B/3/4 Second valuation, Greyabbey, c.1859 Historic Interest 13 PRONI OS/6/3/11/2 OS maps, Down 11, 1860 14 PRONI VAL/12B/23/16a-f Annual valuation revision books, Greyabbey, 1866-1930

V. Authorship X. Local Interest W. Northern Ireland/International Interest Z. Rarity

BUILDING NAME: FARMYARD AT MOUNT STEWART: BARNS, DOVE COTE, COTTAGE AND DAIRY HB Ref No: HB24/04/055 Extent of Listing: Barns, dove cote, cottage and dairy Date of Construction: 1800 - 1819 Grade: B2 Date of Listing: 20/12/1976 Evaluation: Large, sprawling, two and single storey mainly rubble-built but somewhat eclectic farmyard complex, dating from c.1816 but much added to in the 1870s with the addition of two large two storey stewards’ houses and the (probable) rebuilding of the dairy. The property serves the Mount Stewart estate. Exterior Description and Setting: Large, extensive, two and single storey (mainly) rubble-built farmyard complex, dating from c.1816 but much added to in the 1870s with the addition of two large two storey stewards’ houses and the (probable) rebuilding of the dairy. The complex is located roughly in the centre of the Mount Stewart estate, about half a mile NE of Mount Stewart house. It is situated on either side of an estate road. The main section is on the E side of the road and is roughly ‘S’ shaped in plan and has two yards. Generally, the buildings are single storey, constructed in black stone rubble with sandstone dressings and a mixture of Bangor blue slated hipped and gabled roofs. To the N end is a gabled barn with a stone bell cote to its gable.

Secondary sources – 1 G.C. Taylor, “Mount Stewart County Down I & II” in ‘Country Life’, Vol.LXXVIII, No.2020, 5 & 12 October 1935 2 ‘Archaeological Survey of County Down’ (Belfast, 1966), pp.37677 3 PRONI D.3084/C The H. Montgomery Hyde Papers 4 Grease Jackson-Stops, ‘Mount Stewart Co. Down Parts 1 & 2’ in ‘Country Life’, 6 & 13 March 1980 5 H. Montgomery Hyde, ‘The Londonderrys’ (London, 1979)

1. Houses To the S end are two storey dwelling houses mainly constructed in black stone rubble with brick dressings. The Bangor blue slated roof of the house to the W is gabled with its neighbour to the E hipped. The house to the E has two adjoining returns one of which has a felt flat roof. Windows are generally PVC.

6 ‘Mount Stewart’ (National Trust, 1986) 7 Anne Casement, ‘Mount Stewart landscape study’ (National Trust Northern Ireland Region, 1995).

691

LIST DESCRIPTIONS

6 PRONI OS/6/3/11/2 OS maps, Down 11, 1860 7 PRONI VAL/12B/23/16a-f Annual valuation revision books, 1866-1930 8 PRONI OS/6/3/11/3 Ordnance Survey Maps, 1901 Secondary sources:

In 1816-17, the account books reveal that much of the complex “being burned” was rebuilt. Much of the ‘S’ shaped section along with the dovecote is shown on the OS map of 1834, a form which appears to have remained largely the same until the 1870s, when much of the Mount Stewart farm land was let, and Stewards’ houses built in the SW corner by the tenant. The dairy may have been [re]built during this period also. Today the farmyard is still in use, but the dairy and orchard are largely derelict. For more historical information concerning the Mount Stewart estate and the Londonderrys see ref. HB24/04/052.

1 Anne Casement, ‘Mount Stewart landscape study’ (National Trust Northern Ireland Region, 1995)

Criteria for Listing Architectural Interest A. Style B. Proportion C. Ornamentation D. Plan Form H-. Alterations detracting from building K. Group value Historic Interest

Architects: Not known

References: Primary sources:

Historical Information: This site appears to have been in use as a farmyard since at least the 1780s, its positioning probably chosen in accordance with Robert Stewart’s (ultimately unfulfilled) plans for the new house on nearby Bean Hill.

1 PRONI D.3030/H/31 Castlereagh Papers Letter from Viscount Londonderry to Castlereagh 1815

X. Local Interest

2 PRONI D.654/H1/5 Londonderry Papers Estate ledger 1810-19 3 PRONI OS/6/3/11/1 OS maps, Down 11, 1834

In 1815 there was a fire in the yard. Robert wrote to his son, Castlereagh, describing the scene of devastation, “As to my dairy and cattle yard conflagration:- the whole of the sheds, both inside and out of the yard, were quite destroyed, as the lofts were full

4 PRONI VAL/1B/33 First valuation, Greyabbey, c.1834-38 5 PRONI VAL/2B/3/4 Second valuation, Greyabbey, c.1859

692

APPENDIX B REGISTER OF PARKS, GARDENS AND DEMESNE OF SPECIAL HISTORIC INTEREST The Mount Stewart is included on the list significant ornamental parks and gardens within Northern maintained by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA)01. The list includes 154 sites – their inclusion is a material consideration in applications for planning permission. MOUNT STEWART, County Down REGISTERED SITE – AP ARDS AND NORTH DOWN 02 D/037 One of the most outstanding gardens of the British Isles and proposed as a World Heritage Site. It was formulated within an already established walled demesne on the shores of Strangford Lough, with mature shelter tree cover some two hundred years old. The site benefits from an excellent climate in which a vast range of plants can thrive. The climatic conditions, the plant collection and the design all combine to make this an outstanding garden in any context and it is rightfully renowned throughout the Europe. The demesne owes its origin to Alexander Stewart M.P. (1699- 1781), a minor Donegal landowner and successful linen merchant, who, having married his cousin, Mary Cowan, a rich heiress [in 1737], purchased the Colville manors of Comber and Newtownards in 1744 and resolved to build a seat on the present site, then known as Templecrone. This building, which he initially called Mount Pleasant, was a large long low two storey building, originally painted blue and occupying much the same ground as the present William Morrison house. Just south of this house facing the Portaferry Road, then running close to the house, he built a small settlement known as Newtown Stewart, which Young described in 1776 as ‘a row of neat stone and slate cabins’ and shown on David Geddas’s Demesne map of 1779 [presently in the house]. Young also mentioned ‘some new plantations, which surround an improved lawn, where Mr. Stewart intends 01

https://www.communities-ni.gov.uk/articles/historic-parks-gardens-anddemesnes

building’ - a reference to landscaping around a planned new house that Alexander Stewart intended to build on the hill lying just south-west of the present walled garden. His son, Robert, later 1st Marquess of Londonderry (1739-1821), advanced his father’s plans once he inherited in 1781. In June 1783 the architect James Wyatt was paid for providing plans for ‘New Offices’ and ‘Mansion house intended at Mount Stewart’, the latter was never built, but evidently intended for the same location on Bean Hill near the walled garden. The walled garden itself was probably completed by 1780-1 for in July 1781 there are payments for the ‘freight for tiles for hothouse’, while in 1780 the head gardener replanted a vine ‘in the west pine stove’ – apparently the same ancient vine that occupies the west end of the glasshouse today. The adjacent sprawling farm yard complex, which includes a hexagonal dovecote, were also built around this time, possibly in 1784-5, with the yard being repaired in 1816-7 following a fire (Listed HB 24/04/055). Further additions were put up here in the 1870s. The landscape gardener William King, who may have been already involved in landscaping here in the 1770s, was paid for work in July 1781, May and November 1782. The park layout as shown on the 1834 Ordnance Survey map is probably largely King’s work, and was laid down sympathetically to the drumlin country, probably assuming the house to be located near the walled garden. However, most of the demesne plantations were put down over the much longer period, with payments being made in 1785, 1787, 1789, 1789-91 and 17921801. An important focal point in the park was The Temple of the Winds, reckoned by some to be the finest garden building in Ireland (Listed HB 24/04/051). Located on a hill on the south side of the park, overlooking the lough, this was begun in 1782 to designs of James ‘Athenian’ Stuart, who was paid for his work in June 1783. His plans were based the 1st century BC building of the same name in Athens and sourced from illustrations in the second volume of Stuart and Revett’s Antiquities of Athens (1763). It’s a

693

two storey over basement, hipped, octagonal banqueting house, constructed in Scrabo stone and was completed in late 1785, as is evident form payments made to the stone mason David McBlain, the joiner John Ferguson and others [refurbished in 1965 and again in 1994]. It is evident that the temple was formerly a very striking feature in the parkscape for the plantations around it do not appear to have been put down until fifteen or twenty years after its completion. In the 1790s there was little building activity at Mount Stewart, following the expense of electing Robert’s son Castlereagh into Parliament in 1790. However, in 1802 he decided to modernise part of his existing house and so engaged George Dance, the Younger (1741-1825), who produced plans in 1804 for a Classical Regency replacement of the west wing, which was completed around 1806. This incorporated grand new reception rooms, complete with a Grecian Port-cochère and gravel sweep on the north front; the wing survives in modified form as the end elevation of the present house (Listed HB 24/04/052). In the period 1804-18 new approaches were laid down to the house and three gate lodges added. The new western approach was entered via the Georgian Gothick ‘ink pot’ twin lodges (1808-09), placed on the very recently re-aligned Portaferry Road [the road originally ran much closer to the house]. These single-storey twin lodges, notably for their distinctive canted elevations, are probably also the work of George Dance (Listed HB 24/04/054) as is also the nearby contemporary ‘toy fort’ Gothic Clay or Greyabbey gate lodge, notable for its hornlike pinnacles. At the rere entrance, Hamilton’s Lodge, was built in 1817 as part of laying down the new Donaghadee Approach; it was later remodelled. Other buildings at this time include a single-storey picturesque toy-fort hunting lodge of c.1810, probably by Dance, lying in a wooded area on the north side of the park (Listed HB 24/04/057), and a demesne school house in 1813, formerly a charity school belonging to the Erasmus Smith Foundation; now a house and

artist’s studio (Listed HB 24/04/059). Charles William Stewart (1778-1854), succeeded as the 3rd Marquess of Londonderry in 1822 after the suicide of his elder half-brother Castlereagh (who had become Marquess the previous year), and during the 1820s the family’s resources were focused on building work at Wynyard & Seaham in Co. Durham & Holdernesse in London. Eventually, in 1835, the 3rd Marquess and his wife, the heiress Frances Anne Vane-Tempest, invited William Vitruvius Morrison to prepare plans to knock down the old house to the east of the Dance wing at Mount Stewart, with a scheme to rebuild and enlarge the mansion. Morrison’s plans were not actually implemented until after the architect’s death [in 1838], when work was undertaken between 1845 and 1849, supervised by the Newtownards builder Charles Campbell. The new block, as wide as the old house was long, created a new south entrance of 11 bays with an Ionic porte-cochère as its central feature; the old port-cochère on the north was removed and replaced with a tripartite window. As work was being completed on the house, a U-shaped rubblebuilt stable yard was added in 1846 to a design of the architect Charles Campbell (Listed HB24/04/053), while at the same time improvements were being made in the park, most notably work on digging a ‘new lake’ between 1846-51 in what was formerly a gravel pit to the north of the house. Water from this lake was subsequently used to supply the house via McComb’s Hill, through the use of a horse-drawn pump and later a hydraulic ram. A boat house was built on the south shore, whose waters were linked to the house by a ‘lawn’ meadow dotted with trees. A gas works was built c.1859 in south side of demesne (not Listed HB 24/04/099). During the second half of the 19th century the house was only occasionally used by its owners, the 4th Marquess (1805-1872), his half-brother the 5th Marquess (1821-1884) and Charles Stewart. The 6th Marquess (1852-1915), the latter spending much of his time in London. The parkland consequently remained relatively unchanged, with some minor alterations, such as the extension of the enclosing screen to encompass the whole perimeter in 1901.

The townland boundary was changed in 1906 to encompass the whole demesne of 948 acres. In 1921 Charles, the 7th Marquess and his wife Edith, moved to Mount Stewart, having inherited the property in 1915. She had once remarked, on a visit prior to 1921, that the property was ‘the dampest, darkest and saddest place I had ever stayed in’; so, as soon as she arrived there to live, Lady Londonderry undertook to transform the grounds around the house. She took advice from expert plantsmen and was fortunate to have been able to employ workmen from a post-war labour scheme. She used her resources skilfully. The result is a lay-out that includes both formal and informal areas, each with their own style and atmosphere. Compartments are arranged in close proximity to the house around three sides and are separated into differing formal gardens, such as the Italian Garden, the Spanish Garden, the Mairi Garden and the Dodo Terrace. The latter is decorated with specially made statuary of creatures representing early 20th century British political figures, most of whom formed part of her ‘Ark Club’; these figures were made of moulded chicken wire and cement by Thomas Beattie of Newtownards. Gertrude Jekyll planned some of the planting for the Sunk Garden. The north/ east front of the house has a rectangular balustraded carriage sweep but further afield paths wind past informally planted shrubs, specimen trees and woodland, carpeted with bulbs and drifts of naturalised plants. These areas contain a great variety of outstanding plant material, particularly of Australasian origin. Paths and a great deal of planting was focussed round the large artificial lake, with the family burial ground, Tir-na-nOg, built in the 1930s at the north end on high ground (HB 24/04/052 B). Like most other demesnes, Mount Stewart was requisitioned by the troops during the war and in the years that followed (until c.1965) many of the original beech and oak demesne woods were sadly felled and replaced with unsightly conifers. In 1949 the 7th Marquess died and left the property to his wife for her lifetime and then

694

to his youngest daughter, Lady Mairi Bury. In 1955 the gardens were transferred to the care of the National Trust and two years later in 1959 Lady Edith died. The Temple of the Winds were acquired in 1963 and in 1977 the house plus and endowment were accepted by the National Trust as a generous gift from Lady Mairi Bury. Tir-na-nOg was acquired by the Trust from lady Bury in 1986. During his many years as head gardener, the late Nigel Marshal, (retired 2002) continued successfully to build up the garden’s important plant collections. In 2016 the National Trust acquired through purchase around 800-acres (c.325ha) of the parkland, together with the walled gardens and the Farm Yard. In 2018 the rose garden, with its enclosing pergola, in the main walled garden, was restored, together with the adjacent ornamental dairy. There are plans to rejuvenate the rest of the main walled garden and the farm building, with plans to transform the latter into a visitor reception centre. Visitor access to the SeaPlantation adjacent to the lough is currently being planned.

APPENDIX C PLANNING POLICY NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland The Department of the Environment’s ‘Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland’ - Planning for Sustainable Development (SPPS), was published in September 2015. The document sets out the Department’s regional planning policies for securing the orderly and consistent development of land in Northern Ireland under the reformed two-tier planning system. The provisions of the SPPS must be taken into account in the preparation of Local Development Plans and are also material to all decisions on individual planning applications and appeals.01 Planning Policy Statements and Supplementary Planning Guidance Beneath the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland sit Planning Policy Statements and Supplementary Planning Guidance.02 The Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) set out the policies of the Department of the Environment on particular aspects of landuse planning and apply to the whole of Northern Ireland. Their contents must be taken into account in preparing development plans and are also material to individual planning applications and appeals.

Within this document and of particular relevance to the Mount Stewart demesne and the next stage of the National Trust’s project are the following policies: Policy BH6 The Protection of Parks, Gardens and Demesnes of Special Historic Interest The Department will not normally permit development which would lead to the loss of, or cause harm to, the character, principal components or setting of parks, gardens and demesnes of special historic interest. Where planning permission is granted this will normally be conditional on the recording of any features of interest which will be lost before development commences. Policy BH 7 Change of Use of a Listed Building The Department will normally permit the change of use of a listed building where this secures its upkeep and survival and the character and architectural or historic interest of the building would be preserved or enhanced. Proposals for a change of use should incorporate details of all intended alterations to the building and its curtilage to demonstrate their effect on its appearance, character and setting.

Supplementary planning guidance (SPG) support, clarify and/or illustrate by example planning policy statements and plans. Appropriate are PPS6: Planning, Archaeology and Built Heritage March 1999.03

https://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/policy/spps.htm

https://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/policy/planning_statements_and_ supplementary_planning_guidance.htm

https://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/policy/planning_statements_and_ supplementary_planning_guidance/pps06-archaeology-built-heritage.pdf

695

Policy BH 8 Extension or Alteration of a Listed Building The Department will normally only grant consent to proposals for the extension or alteration of a listed building where all the following criteria are met: a

the essential character of the building and its setting are retained and its features of special interest remain intact and unimpaired;

the works proposed make use of traditional and/or sympathetic building materials and techniques which match or are in keeping with those found on the building; and

the architectural details (e.g. doors, gutters, windows) match or are in keeping with the building.

Policy BH 10 Demolition of a Listed Building There will be a presumption in favour of retaining listed buildings. The Department will not permit the demolition of a listed building unless there are exceptional reasons why the building cannot be retained in its original or a reasonably modified form. Where, exceptionally, listed building consent is granted for demolition this will normally be conditional on prior agreement for the redevelopment of the site and appropriate arrangements for recording the building before its demolition.

PLANNING POLICY

Policy BH 11 Development affecting the Setting of a Listed Building The Department will not normally permit development which would adversely affect the setting of a listed building. Development proposals will normally only be considered appropriate where all the following criteria are met: a

the detailed design respects the listed building in terms of scale, height, massing and alignment;

the works proposed make use of traditional or sympathetic building materials and techniques which respect those found on the building; and

the nature of the use proposed respects the character of the setting of the building.

Policy BH 15 The Re-use of Non-listed Vernacular Buildings The Department will normally permit the sympathetic conversion of non-listed vernacular buildings to other appropriate uses where this would secure their upkeep and retention. In the countryside conversion to residential use will normally only be considered appropriate where the building to be converted is an important element in the landscape and of local architectural merit or historic interest. All proposals for conversion will normally be required to meet all of the following criteria: a

the scheme of conversion will not have an adverse effect on the character or appearance of the locality and safeguards the form, character and architectural features, design and setting of the existing building. This will involve retention of existing door and window openings and minimising the number of new openings. Details such as door and window design, external surfaces, rainwater goods and means of enclosure should be of traditional or sympathetic design and materials;

the new use would not cause unacceptable adverse effects on the amenities of nearby residents or other land uses;

normally no new extensions are involved; and

access and other necessary services are provided without adverse impact on the character of the locality.

Also of consideration are guidance ‘PPS 21 Building on Tradition’: https://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/policy/planning_statements_ and_supplementary_planning_guidance/guides/building_on_ tradition__amended_.compressed.pdf In addition, PPS 23 is of relevance: ‘PPS 23: Enabling Development for the Conservation of Significant Places’: https://www.planningni. gov.uk/index/policy/planning_statements_and_supplementary_ planning_guidance/pps_23_final.htm

the building is structurally sound and capable of conversion;

696

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY The Local Development Plan for Ards and North Downs Borough Council are currently under review. During this period the existing planning policy is still relevant. The Ards and Down Area Plan of 2015 is therefore applicable: https://www. planningni.gov.uk/index/policy/development_plans/devplans_az/ ardsdown_2015.htm

[This page has been left intentionally blank]