60 Sholebrook Avenue, Chapeltown, Leeds

Preliminary report into the condition of exterior masonry

60 Sholebrook Avenue is a detached building of brick construction of three stories over a full basement/cellar level. dating from the later Nineteenth Century. It is roofed with slate and has window heads and cills of painted carboniferous sandstone. It retains probably original decorative barge-boarding to its gable eave and probably original box gutters.

It was constructed as a house of some status, incorporating significant elements of decorative moulded brickwork, particularly at cornice level. Notably, all decorative and sandstone elements were restricted to the front, public elevation. To the side and rear elevations of the building, the masonry is much more functional. Stylistically, the ornament of the decorative brick elements is an eclectic mixture of classical, early English and later gothic detail, quite playful by comparison with the more academic practice of Victorian architects more inclined to impose one historical – and particularly Perpendicular – style upon their buildings, new and old.

The houses of Sholebrook Avenue are of a piece and to the same design where these survive and would have been speculatively constructed as residences for the

1

increasingly affluent middle classes of the city eager to confirm their status by relocation to purpose-built suburbs once-removed from the centre.

The building of Chapeltown

A map made of Leeds in 1834 shows the area that is now Chapeltown was pasture land between Chapel Allerton and Potternewton villages and Leeds. Through the centre of this farmland, which was already earmarked at this time as a planned 'New Town of Leeds' suburb, ran the Leeds-Harrogate Turnpike Road which would later become Chapeltown Road. Much of this land, called 'Squire's Pastures' was part of Earl Cowper’s estate. The Earl first sold this land for development in 1825, but planning and building was slow, and the sale was not completed until 1873. Before selling his land, the Earl also set out a Deed of Arrangement defining the residential character of any future building including the limitation of livestock, heavy industry and public houses in the area.[11]

Further north towards 'Potter Newton' work began in 1856 on Newton Grove. Work continued for the Lupton family on their Newton Park estate following the housing designs of Charles Chorley and John Connon. The development continued to expand, including the addition of Sholebroke Avenue south of the Newton Park Estate by the 1880s.

In the next decade, the popularity of Chapeltown appears to have waned, in favour of areas further from the city. The remaining empty plots were filled with smaller, cheaper, terraced housing. By the turn of the century, the area was almost completely filled with housing.

The Lupton family residence of Newton Hall was demolished in the 1920s and the grounds were replaced with streets of semi-detached housing. (Wikipedia).

2

The masonry of the house is in a generally sound condition. Built with pressed bricks the manufacturing of which allowed a consistency of dimension and eliminated the variation of earlier manufacturing processes, the mortar joints were relatively tight. Whilst there has been some slow erosion of this mortar, no structural necessity currently exists to repoint. Repointing with even like-for-like lime mortar would significantly alter the currently mellow and appropriate character of the front elevation and should only be considered – and executed in a lime mortar of similar colour and character to the original only – when this becomes necessary for the proper performance of the structure and fabric. This moment remains some way into the future currently.

The original pattern of the mortar jointing would seem, from residual in situ evidence, to have been that the bricks were bedded in a greyish lime mortar ( the greyness deriving from the addition of fire ash) which was pointed upon completion of the build with a white, extremely lime-rich mortar. It is this, probably soft putty lime pointing mortar of minimal depth,

which has eroded away over time, leaving the original bedding mortar exposed.

Front elevation brickwork, to right of bay window. Note tightness of joints, as well as remnants of decorative white, putty lime finish pointing

3

To the side and rear elevations, the mortar joints are somewhat wider as a general rule; the brick-laying slightly less meticulous, and the bedding mortar was likely simply struck and not over-pointed with putty lime ‘finish-pointing’.

Whilst the informed and researched re-instatement of lime putty surface pointing to the front elevation would be a legitimate restoration of this facade, and might be considered as part of future works to this building, it may not be described as necessary works at this stage.

Like the decorative brickwork and sandstone deployed upon this front elevation, it was an expression of aspired-for status.

More essential than repointing, but also part of a legitimate reassertion of the original pattern and performance of the building, would be the removal of modern, non-breathable paints from the stonework and from the entrance portico brickwork. This paint entraps moisture and salts and promotes decay over time.

As may be observed upon other houses in the street, the portico in particular, represents an important architectural feature of the building, incorporating ‘vermiculated’ bricks, as well as plain in its arches well as brick dog-tooth ornament, a moulded sandstone key-block and pilaster capitals. These are of alternating surface pattern and were clearly intended to be seen and not to be painted, which painting hugely diminishes and undermines the decorative intent of their designer as well as compromising the proper performance of these elements.

4

the acrylic painted portico of number 60 (top left) alongside neighbouring porticos, the lower of which has lost its original sandstone capitals. Both neighbouring properties have been unforunately repointed with ordinary portland cement mortars, which will damage individual bricks and overall performance of the buildings.

Whilst the overall condition of the mortar and brickwork of the building is in a generally sound condition, there has been localised degradation of both to all elevations, as well as a few minor structural issues to architectural elements of the rear elevation.

Front elevation

There is some significant staining to part of the decorative brick cornice of the front elevation. This is probably associated with blocked rainwater goods in the past leading to water run-off from above. This water has leeched lead carbonate from the lead sheeting above the brickwork which has stained the brickwork beneath. This may be cleaned with relative ease in the future. It is not structurally significant, only aesthetically so.

Lead carbonate staining to brick cornice and entablature beneath eaves junction. Associated probably with blocking in past of adjacent down-pipe and consequent overflow from box gutter.

5

There is some localised delamination of bricks and failure of original mortar to the lower levels of the bay window. This is a consequence of salt efflorescence just beneath the fire-skin of the bricks and within the body of the lime mortar. The source of the salts will be two-fold – from the ground, carried into the fabric of the wall by rising moisture and from the atmosphere, carried in rainfall which cascades from the impermeable surfaces of both window glass and painted sandstone cornice before being absorbed by the masonry below.

Softer bricks will be more vulnerable to such crypto-flourescence than harder ones. The propensity for rising moisture will be enhanced by the presence of hard landscaping against the building, especially where this is defective or bedded in an impermeable mortar. Cascading would itself be reduced if the sandstone cills were unpainted – some of the rainfall would be absorbed into the stone.

The failure of lime mortar in the presence of salts is inevitable over time. It is also one of the functions of lime mortar to carry the burden of such accumulations of salt and to fail preferentially/sacrificially in such circumstances, preventing much more expensive failure of the brickwork. Repointing with opc mortar in such circumstances would lead to the extensive delamination and failure of the brickwork, making the softer bricks the sacrificial element in the wall.

In this situation, therefore, the response should be to eliminate the causes of undue moisture passage through or retention within the masonry. In this instance, this would mean the provision of a vapour permeable surface immediately against the walls of the building; the removal of impermeable paints from the sandstone elements of the cill; the regular maintenance of rainwater goods, the removal of all opc mortar pointing and the repointing of the masonry with a compatible and vapour permeable lime mortar. This would arrest the localised decay of individual bricks which at this stage should require no replacement.

Some minimal repointing of the brickwork with opc mortar, between and to the side of the first floor windows, may have been carried out in the past. This should be left to loosen over time or removed during the careful repointing of the whole

6

elevation should restitution of its original putty lime facing mortar be considered appropriate as part of a refurbishment programme.

note the ‘special’ bricks of the window reveals – scalloped with simple ball-flowers. The appearance of the brickwork to the right of the window opening is an indicator of the appearance of the whole elevation should an aesthetic or restoration pointing scheme be adopted. The original surface pointing was white, however, which would give the elevation a very strident aspect somewhat shocking to modern taste.

Right-hand side elevation (left hand not inspected).

Defective rainwater goods or soil-pipes may account for the majority of concerns with the condition of the masonry to this elevation. Staining, efflorescence and localised brick decay display only in the immediate vicinity or below these drainage elements. Lime mortar lost or eroded in the past by excessive water ingress associated with such leaks has been repointed with incompatible and relatively impermeable ordinary Portland cement mortars. These are failing, but will have increased the concentration of salts in these areas and forced both moisture and salts to find egress through the relatively more permeable bricks.

7

8

It would seem that any defects in rainwater goods and soil pipes have been fixed. Salts will only crystallise so extensively upon the drying out of the masonry. The source of the salts largely eliminated, it should be sufficient to periodically brush any salt crystals that present on the face of the wall away, being careful to collect these and to dispose of them well away from the building. All residual opc mortar pointing should be removed and repointing in lime mortar carried out as necessary. As is so often the case, most of the opc seems to have been smeared over original lime mortar insufficiently eroded to justify repointing at all. It may be possible to tease off much of the opc without need for further repointing at this stage.

Ideally, the concrete path alongside the house will be removed and replaced with a more vapour permeable surface material. At the same time, below ground drain and sewage pipes should be checked for leaks. Any leakage will promote rising damp into the lower walls, also carrying salts.

Some bricks to this elevation have lost their fireskin to salt action. These bricks will have been softer parts of the batch, less highly fired than the others, and therefore more immediately vulnerable to degradation in the presence of moisture and salts. Whilst they might be replaced, their current levels of delamination do not constitute a structural risk.

If the leaks to pipes on this elevation was long-standing before repair, the possibility of wet-rot to internal timbers in the vicinity of these leaks and of the masonry saturated by these, such as joists and floorboards that contact these areas, should be investigated.

It should be remembered, however, that both wet and dry rots can only thrive and significantly advance when moisture levels allow. When these dysfunctional conditions cease or are removed, both rots will fade and die. The presence of localised wet or dry rot decay in areas that have become damp for clear and demonstrable reasons, therefore, should not be a cause for panic or alarm. The regaining of proper performance in the building, locally and as whole, and the localised replacement of decayed timbers will be sufficient to eliminate any perceived danger of rot.

Rear elevation

9

The rear elevation of the house is altogether more plain than the front, with steps down to the cellar level alongside an original off-shoot that will probably have been the laundry. All basement level windows are blocked and opc rendered. A window was added to the right of the elevation in much more recent times. This has itself been blocked, with bricks quite unlike the originals. Its concrete lintol remains in place. All original openings to this elevation have simple, segmental brick arches over. The windows have sandstone cills, currently painted.

opc repointing, rear elevation

Delamination of softer, opc repointed brick

10

There has been extensive repointing of this elevation with a hard cementitious mortar which has promoted decay and delamination in some softer bricks.

There are slight structural issues with the brick arch of one window and the doorway below the off-shoot.

lower off-shoot window; key-brick has dropped. This may be readily re-positioned and the joints to either side repacked with lime mortar. Note delaminated brick, top-left. This is more severe than most but does not need to be replaced as yet.

Very slight deflection vertical above basement level window of offshoot. Careful repacking of joints of arch will stabilise this.

Opc repointing would seem to have been carried out to the upper six courses of brickwork of this elevation in the past as well as below the level of the groundfloor window heads in the past. It would appear to be quite old, incorporating sharp sand. It is generally well-attached. At this stage its removal would be likely to cause damage to the arrisses of the bricks. Unless closer inspection reveals extensive damage to bricks outside, and particular damp-related decay to timbers within the building this mortar should be left. Being too hard and rigid and essentially incompatible with the softer lime mortars behind, it will begin to loosen in time. At this moment, its removal will be relatively easy and much less mechanically damaging to the brickwork. The elevation should then be repointed with a lime mortar similar to the original.

11

Recently imposed and then insensitively blocked window or door opening. This work should be revisited in future, and the sand and lime bricks replaced with bricks of the same size and character as those of the building as a whole. Note the small cellar window below, blocked somewhat longer ago. All former openings at this level are currently blocked but will be easily and quite properly re-opened.

Whilst an external inspection of the fixings and an internal inspection of the condition of its timbers should be carried out, the overall condition of the slate roof appears to be good, exhibiting no deflection to suggest structural failure. Nails in individual slates may have rusted away. The slates themselves appear sound and still fit for purpose.

As at the front and side of the building, the removal of impermeable concrete paths against the base of the building, and their replacement with breathable and free-draining hard landscaping would be an overall and long-term benefit to the health of the fabric.

12

In summary, the overall structural condition of the exterior masonry of 60 Sholebrook Avenue is good. There are localised and minor issues of decay. These are residual consequences of lack of regular maintenance of rainwater goods or soil pipes in the past, or else the result of the use of inappropriate, incompatible materials, such as opc mortars or acrylic paints. Indeed, for the most part, number 60 has escaped the extensive use of inappropriate materials and is likely to be in a happier overall condition than most of its neighbours which have been almost universally repointed with opc mortars in the recent past, the consequences of which – in terms of ongoing loss of bricks and internal decay of timbers – will unfold with increasingly damaging effect as time goes by.

The houses of Sholebrook Avenue have group significance as architectural indicators of a particular moment in the social and architectural evolution of Leeds and Chapeltown. In the decorative detailing of the front elevation, they have considerable aesthetic merit and show good examples of the decorative deployment of brick during the later C19. Such modelled brickwork and attention to detail is rarely produced today. It is the product of an –albeit industrialised – craft practice that has been all but lost.

None of these localised decay issues at number 60 are structurally threatening and may be appropriately dealt with in the near future as part of an informed refurbishment programme or by the regular attentions in the future of an attentive custodian. Similarly part of an informed refurbishment programme should be the removal of modern paints from the sandstone and decorative brickwork of the windows and portico.

Nigel Copsey, June 2009.

the earth stone and lime companybuilding conservation consultancy and practice

Estate Office Stables 90 Old Maltongate Malton North Yorkshire YO17 7EG nigelcopsey@hotmail.com +44 01653 690115 www.nigelcopsey.com

13

14