OWSTON’S WAREHOUSE and Navigation Wharf
It may reasonably be assumed that the River Derwent at least as far as Malton has been navigable
throughout the historic period. It is also likely that the north bank of the river, from Owston’s
Warehouse towards the island to the west of the roadbridge that links Castlegate in Malton with
Norton, has been the site of wharves serving river traffic since Roman times. The strategic importance of
Malton for the Romans had lain in the river being fordable upstream of the current road bridge. Any
wharves, therefore, had to be located downstream from this section of the river. The boundary of the
Roman settlement as recorded by Hudleston, Robinson and others included this area, as, of course, did
the Norman town. The location of Owston’s warehouse lies due south of the medieval market place and
is the area of the river bank closest to the market area. There having been an important house on the
site of York House since perhaps the early 15th century, at least, and another on the site of the Talbot
from perhaps the same period, and certainly since the 16th century, the area around Owston’s
warehouse was the first section of the river bank available at the westernmost and downstream part of
the town within the medieval walls. Both York House and the Talbot enjoyed private quays from
1
probably the earliest period and York House may be located where it is precisely because of an intimate
association with activities in the port area, although this association is as yet undemonstrated by
documentary evidence.
The Gilbertine Priory in Old Malton produced and traded wool, as well as investing in extensive
construction work within the borough. At the time of the Dissolution in 1539, “Forty-four houses, three
shops and a bakehouse had belonged to two chantries” of the priory. (Rushton 2008 285). This was an
extensive holding of property within the town. The equivalent of 10,000 fleeces a year were being sold
by the Priory to an Italian Merchant around the beginning of the 14th Century (Jennings 1999 p153) and
this quantity of wool can logically only have been exported on the river.
(Hudleston)
The petition to Parliament in 1702 for a Navigation Act was not to make the river navigable, therefore,
but to improve the navigation such that ships of 50 tons could pass, and so that tolls might be charged.
2
This was not how the petitioners presented the position at the time, claiming that
“Malton Is a great trading Market Town in Yorkshire, situate upon the River Darwent, which runs into
the River Ouse, and is capable of being made navigable; and will thereby be a great Ease and Advantage
to the Petitioners, and other neighbouring Towns; who are now forced , at very great Charges, to carry
and recarry their Goods many miles by Land...” (in Jones 2000 35)
There had been trade, using a system of flash-locks, which were still operative at the time of the
petition, for very many years before this. The barges were smaller, and slower, there being no dedicated
tow-paths, but trade undoubtedly went on. When not under sail, the barges were hauled by men, not
horses, in the earlier period. It required 4 men to do the work of one horse in the later period.
It was not until 1725 – by which time William Palmes had sold the majority of the Manors of Old and
New Malton, which had formed the Eure inheritance of Mary and Margaret Eure, to Sir Thomas WatsonWentworth – that the objective of the petitioners to improve (and to levy toll to pay for this
improvement of) the navigation as far as Malton was fully realised. Wentworth had entered into an
agreement with Joshua Mitchell and Mark Andrews ‘for making the river Darwent navigable between
New Malton and Scarborough Mills.’ This included a lease of the navigation rights which lasted until
1744 (Jones 2000 38-39).
In 1723, £150 was spent in building 50 bridges, 20 gates for horse-towing along the Yorkshire Derwent
and a list of works from around the same time is quoted by Hudleston as follows:
1 Kirkham Lock Dam
2 Howsham Lock and a bridge to the Mill
3 Buttercram Lock and a bridge for the highway
4 Stamford Bridge Lock with the bridges for hailers round the mill and a rock cutting for a channel
5 Sutton Lock with a new cut for the passage of boats
6 Two bridges raising below Sutton for the passage of boats
7 One warehouse at Malton
8 One warehouse at Darwin Mouth
9 Houses for lock keepers and staithes making for landing of goods in several places up the river as
common wharfs
10 Gates, stiles and bridges over becks for hailing
11 Hailing ways, clearing of rubbish and trees, etc, and cutting and making of banks for hailing ways”
(Hudleston 1962 139)
3
The warehouse mentioned at Malton was almost certainly the building shown alongside Owston’s
Warehouse on the 1823 etching above. It is now demolished, although the stone staith itself survives,
infilled, adjoining the garden of York House. There is another in-filled staith to the east of Owston’s
warehouse.
This building is sketched on Dickinson’s Estate Terrier Map of 1730, with masted barges in the river and
the yard alongside identified as a ‘Staith’.
4
It is included also in Settrington’s 1732 painting of Malton from the east, with barges moored alongside.
Owston’s Warehouse appears upon neither of these.
Upon the expiry of Mitchell and Andrews’ lease in 1744, the lease was taken by James Fenton, a corn
and coal merchant of Malton, whose family continued to hold it until the second Earl Fitzwilliam took
direct control of the Navigation in 1807(Jones 39). Owston’s Yard is first identified as such upon the
1809 Terrier Map, and included not only Owston’s warehouse itself, but all of the buildings to the north
of it. In the 1732 Terrier document that accompanies the 1730 map, the buildings to the north of the
staith and immediately east of York House were tenanted by Robert Mennill. The area to the east of
this, and to the north of the current location of Owston’s warehouse, a ‘house and yard’ were tenanted
by a Mr Lister. It is not clear if these leases included the wharves.
Reflecting the growth in trade on the river, the annual rental rose from £440 in 1723 to £3000 in 1799.
Net profits to the Fitzwilliam Estate after its assumption of direct control were£3, 069 in 1815; £4,400 in
1825; £4,000 in 1835 and £4,145 in 1845. It was in this year that the railway reached Malton. This did
not bring about the immediate demise of the Navigation, however, which continued to hold its own
against rail transport until in 1855 the estate sold control to the North Eastern Railway for £40,000. The
sale coincided with the gas company finding a source of coal cheaper and other than that from the
Wentworth-Fitzwilliam Estate near Rotherham, which fuel had been carried on the Navigation. The new
supply from County Durham was to be carried by rail. Thereafter, tolls were dramatically increased and
locks allowed to silt up (Jones 55).
Owston’s Warehouse forms a remnant now of what had been known as Navigation Wharf. This was the
head of the Navigation. Goods were carried into town via Water Lane, although other passageways onto
Yorkersgate from the port area remain evident, if blocked, today. These probably pre-date the Water
Lane access, which made most sense once the navigation itself had come to extend upstream after
1807. It is clear from both the Dickinson Terrier and the Settrington painting that, around 1730, there
5
were garths (market gardens) to the immediate east of the port area and no obvious egress in the
direction of Water Lane.
The locks along the navigation had been built to accommodate vessels up to 55 feet long and 14 feet
beam. In 1793 ‘two sloops (were) kept constantly employed in carrying goods of different descriptions
to Hull and return with different articles to Malton. These two vessels are supposed to make 48 or 50
voyages a year’ (Fitzwilliam Estate agent quoted in Jones 43). These were not the only boats, of course,
and “at that time 35 vessels were trading from Malton to destinations served by the Aire and Calder
Navigation, via the Selby Canal which had opened in 1778. Each vessel completed about 16 round trips
each year, carrying corn downstream and coal upstream” (Jones 45).
These were not the only goods. Copperthwaite’s statistical analysis of Malton, printed in 1843, records
– amongst much else- import and export figures from 1825 to 1840 of goods carried on the Navigation.
Primary imports were of oats, coal (around 38,000 tons a year), cinders, slack, clover and seeds, timber,
flags, stones, etc, bones, manure, iron and lead (an average of 50 tons a year).
Exports included wheat (28,000 quarters, 1825; 39,000, 1835; 13,000, 1840), barley, oats, beans, malt,
shelling, lime (802 chaldrons – 91, 107 litres – in total), timber, butter and wool (4,173 packs, 18251833). (Copperthwaite 1844 65-66)
There was also a stone wharf in the 18 th century, further downstream, carrying calcareous sandstone
from Brow’s Quarry on York Road. This was owned and worked by the Fitzwilliam Estate and supplied
stone, for example, for the construction of Stamford Bridge and, presumably, for other structures
consequent upon the Navigation Act.
By this time, and certainly by 1790, Owston’s Warehouse will have been built alongside the original
navigation warehouse. The housing sketched by Dickinson to the north, which occupied an earlier
burgage plot, will have been extended southwards, providing further warehouse space, which survives
today.
6
The Fitzwilliams not owning the land adjoining the river to the east at this time, a boat was sunk upriver
from the wharf to prevent the establishment of other wharves not under their control. This monopoly
position was finally broken when improvements to the navigability of the river as far as Yedingham were
completed in 1813.
The loosening of the Earl Fitzwilliam’s grip on the wharfage had been a direct response to a minor
rebellion against his authority by voters in the town in 1807, when they declined to elect his nominee
for Parliament, electing another instead. Fitzwilliam’s initial response had been to raise river tolls, for all
those who had voted against his interest. Eviction notices were served upon all tenants (and their
tenants) who had voted against Headley also. This had elicited a furious legal response: a submission to
the Solicitor-General which called into question the legitimacy of the Navigation itself and pronounced
the Fitzwilliam monopoly ‘ the exercise of what we conceive as (an) illegal, unjust and unconstitutional
stretch of power’ (in Jones 49). Headley’s election was challenged by the Earl Fitzwilliam and overturned
in 1808. In the subsequent election, Fitzwilliam’s candidate was returned and the punitive toll increases
rescinded. Eviction notices also – but rents were raised by 25%. (E Anthony-Smith 1965 51-69)
Chastened by this manifestation of discontent locally, and aware of having lost the ‘goodwill and
affection’ earned by his uncle, Thomas Watson-Wentworth, Marquess of Rockingham, the Earl
Fitzwilliam set about changing local perception. He took direct control of the Navigation, but also
allowed private individuals to extend this upstream from Navigation Wharf. He launched a programme
of ‘tenement’ building within the borough, to provide housing for voters whose loyalty might be more
reliable (the vote was automatically given to tenants of his – and other freeholders - within the borough,
meaning that, unusually for the time, Malton had a largely working class electorate); he built the
Subscription Rooms on Yorkersgate, completed in 1814, to provide public meeting and entertainment
space for the town.
It was after 1807, therefore, that the wharf building of Malton came to extend upstream from
Navigation Wharf to the bridge and beyond – a view that appeared in the London Illustrated News in
1867, in flood.
7
Owston’s warehouse is likely to date from the latter half of the Eighteenth Century. The acquisition of
the town of the Earl Fitzwilliam by inheritance from his uncle in 1782 may be significant. The
buildingexisted by the time of Nicholson’s engraving of Malton around 1790.
At this time, the earlier and probably original Navigation Wharf building survived alongside, and
remained in 1823. It was lost by 1850, when an engraving (see below) shows a train in the foreground of
the view of the town.
The bricks of Owston’s warehouse are 9 ¼” long by 4 ¼ wide by 2 ¼” high. The height dimension
particularly suggests a C18 date of manufacture. The bricks of the coach-house of the Talbot hotel –
built by the Estate between 1801 and 1809, for instance, measure 8 ½” by 4” by 2 ½”. Recent brickdating within nearby York House carried out by Durham University offers a date of 1750 for 9” long, 2”
8
high bricks in an introduced wall inside the west range. Bricks are difficult to date reliably by size, but
have tended to become larger in the bed over time.
Stylistically, Owston’s Warehouse is of the C18. Its lack of end walls at right-angles aside (which reflects
its being built alongside an existing building itself upon a medieval burgage plot), its south elevation is
symmetrical and quite elegant for so utilitarian a structure. It has two elliptical arches to the south
elevation; one, of brick, surviving to the north – the other having been lost to C20 alteration.
early C20?
9
Owston’s Warehouse from the south,2008
A provisional date range of 1750-1780 may be suggested, although the Earl Fitzwilliam’s inheritance of
the Estate in 1782 may provide a likely date of construction. The beams within are robust, but not of oak
– they are first growth Baltic Pine, imported along the Navigation, of course.
10
11
It is difficult to be sure of the earliest appearance of the north elevation. This has been hugely disrupted
by later alteration. The ground level to the town-side has been raised by some 6 feet in recent times –
buildings nearby having been demolished and the rubble used as fill. The earlier ground-level survives to
east and west of the site. The infilling has blocked all but the top 18” of the archway from the staith at
the west end of the building. The archway at the centre of the building survives to the south side, but
has been completely lost to the north, openings having been inserted that took account of the raised
ground level. All but one of these C20 openings have since been blocked with brickwork, the iron lintels
left in situ. The earlier roof has been replaced, probably in the 1960s, very few original purlins having
been recycled back into the new roof structure. The roof tiles are concrete. Original timber-framed
corner braces do survive within the top floor of the building.
All but the top floor windows of the south elevation are currently blocked. The lower storey windows
and the stone arch have been blocked for much of the 20th century. The probably stone jambs of the
arch were removed before the opening was blocked with brick.
The quay wall below the building is of calcareous sandstone, capped by 8-10” edging stones. Although
somewhat disrupted by the roots of Sycamore trees that have become established in recent years, the
retaining wall is in a generally sound condition with little stone decay evident. Pointing has been lost to
the upper courses only – that of the lower and most frequently saturated courses appearing to remain
quite sound. Where the wall very rarely dries out, salts have had little opportunity to crystallise and
thereby promote decay of either stone or mortar.
12
Probably at the same time that the groundfloor windows and central archway were blocked, towards
the beginning of the C20, the first floor timbering was dropped by 34”, the original beams retained but
lowered. The current floor cuts across the former openings, therefore, and the groundfloor space is now
too low in which to stand and is ventilated only at the east end through a small opening. The
groundfloor as a whole is completely below ground on the north side and the first floor is two steps
down from the artificially raised ground level to the north. As a consequence of this, water collecting
above has percolated into the groundfloor level for many years and dry-rot has come and gone during
this time. There is extensive active dry rot currently, to the beams and the underside of the timber floor
at the west end of the building.
A flat arch of cut brick remains beneath the earlier 2nd floor loading door. This lies between the door and
the lost arch and must have served a small window into the 1st floor.
13
The staith below the brick arch survives substantially intact, with steps from the river and up towards
the north archway.
Despite the extensive interference to the north elevation, it is possible to deduce that there were few
openings to the north elevation beyond those of the two archways. There is no evidence of change to
the north wall on the top floor, nor to that of the ground floor. It would seem that there might have
been openings of some kind on the first floor, but the size and extent of these cannot be known in the
absence of available archive material. It is logical, of course, given the purpose of the building, that
significant blank wall space was required – for the stacking and storage of goods. The interior seems
never to have been plastered, simply limewashed.
That two passageways through the building existed is clearly shown on the 1850 Ordnance Survey Map:
The steps of the now infilled staith to the west, that served the earliest wharf, are also shown, although
the ground above is by then a garth, and the site partitioned along earlier burgage plot boundaries. The
top-floor doorways of the north elevation were each served by exterior stairs.
14
The buildings to the immediate north of Owston’s warehouse were wharf buildings also and contain
Baltic pine floor beams very similar in girth to those within Owston’s warehouse. These survive. They are
mainly constructed of calcareous sandstone, the construction stone of choice of the Wentworth
Fitzwilliams. In the middle of this range of probably later C18 construction, and incorporated into it,
there is, however, a building of very much earlier construction – one gable wall of Malton oolitic
limestone and one of apparently very early brick. The whole of the groundfloor of this building is below
current ground level. Excavation in 2006 revealed a limestone flagged floor to this building. Its footprint
is identified on the above map, with larger warehouse buildings to either side.
The floor of the building above (Unit 8) is of rammed earth and brick. A forge was installed at
the south end during the later C18.
15
The exterior of this building is of coursed calcareous sandstone to the east, of the same in part to the
west but incorporates older walls of coursed malton oolite also.
Specification for necessary masonry repair works,
Buildings behind 31-39 Yorkersgate
The buildings behind 31 to 39 Yorkersgate occupy the boundaries of the original burgage plots set out
on Yorkersgate during the medieval period. In recent times, the whole site formed part of a builders
merchants, but was formerly associated with wharves on the Derwent Navigation, which was much
improved by Act of Parliament in 1725. Between this date and 1810, this area represented the head of
the Navigation. After 1810, the river was improved as far as Yedingham and more wharves and
warehouses constructed further upstream. Most of these have since been demolished so that Owstons
warehouse on the riverside and other buildings in this immediate area are some of the last surviving
16
warehouses associated with the Derwent Navigation, itself notable for being one of the earliest such in
Britain. The Navigation fell largely into disuse after its purchase by the North Eastern Railway in 1855.
(See Owston’s Warehouse report, 2008, Copsey)
Most of the buildings that remain upon the burgage plots are of early construction, at least in part.
There are remnants of probably late medieval buildings. Whilst some of these have been residential,
most were industrial. The buildings of the most architecturally intact burgage plot (Units 8, 9 and 10) are
illustrated on both the 1730 Terrier map by Dickinson and Settrington’s 1728 painting of the town. Unit
10 retains an early roof the pitch of which was clearly designed for thatch. The majority of buildings in
the town were thatched in 1728; most roofs were later altered to receive pantiles. Unit 8 is clearly a
purpose built warehouse, and probably dates from around 1725 in its current form. Unit 9 occupies the
site of an earlier, possibly C15, house the walls of which were built onto to create the elevations visible
today above ground. Ground levels in the area were artificially raised in the past, however. The ground
floor of the original building is now entirely below ground and was infilled in the past, but partial
excavation has demonstrated that it retains its original Hildenley limestone floor.
Needless to say, all of these buildings are of group value for having been so closely associated with the
Derwent Navigation. Each of the buildings has some importance of its own. Unit 8, for example, retains
its early rammed earth floor at ‘basement’ level. An internal wall between units 9 and 10 is perhaps one
of the earliest brick walls in Malton.
In recent times, the buildings have received significant expedient repair, especially with ordinary
Portland cement. This material has compromised the proper performance of the buildings, has caused
damage and has induced accelerated decay of their fabric.
It is the objective of this repair programme, therefore, to reverse these most damaging interventions
and to address the decay issues by limited but necessary stone replacement and repair and to repoint
the external elevations as necessary with an appropriate lime mortar.
Repointing mortar will be: 4 parts Jewsons sharp sand: 1 part Guiting stone dust: 2 parts Singleton Birch
Natural Hydraulic Lime 2.0.
Necessary stone replacement will be carried out ‘like-for-like’ or will be an ‘honest’ repair in hand-made
clay plain tile, with or without localised render in a lime mortar of similar hue to the host stone (typically
3 parts Jewson’s sharp sand: 2 parts Guiting limestone dust: 2 parts NHL 2.0 for calcareous sandstone or
3 parts Jewsons sharp sand; 2 parts oolitic limestone dust from Whitewall quarry: 2 parts NHL 2.0 for
Malton oolite).
Replacement oolitic limestone will be either recycled local material or Tetbury oolitic limestone.
All new stone to be dressed to match the original in character and finish.
UNIT 8
17
Former warehouse building with C19 single-storey stable addition to western side.
Stable building:
The masonry of this building is generally sound and in good condition.
North wall: mixed Malton oolite and calcareous sandstone squared rubble elevation. This should be
repointed. 2 number tile repairs at low level.
East wall: finely jointed calcareous sandstone ashlar; original lime mortar generally sound – repoint any
open joints. ½ metre square mortar repair beneath sign, north end.
18
South wall: repoint open joints
East wall, main building:
Partly of oolite, remains of an earlier building, with extensions and upward additions of calcareous
sandstone and brick.
Clean down oolitic limestone section, reducing sulphation deposits. Replace lost stones with tile or
stone. Render repair decayed oolite section above brick and below calcareous sandstone sections.
Repoint whole as necessary. Remove remnant ordinary Portland cement repointing from calcareous
sandstone and repoint all open or defective joints. The calcareous sandstone elevation above and to the
south of stable building requires very little attention.
Unit 8, east elevation
19
Remove opc mortar pointing and repoint with lime mortar.
Top step to door at north end of building is of concrete over brick and is in a state of disrepair. This
should be replaced in sandstone to match lower steps of this flight.
Unit 9
20
West wall:
Extensively ‘repaired’ during late C20 with London Brick. This will not be replaced at this time. Opc
pointing has caused significant erosion to stone in some areas. This erosion may be ‘brought up’ with
lime mortar repair. All opc repointing should be removed and lime mortar reinstated.
Consideration should be given to limewashing this elevation with copperas pigmented limewash made
with quicklime. This would reduce the visual impact of the brickwork repairs, distinguish this elevation
whilst being of similar hue to the stonework. Limewash should be applied in 5 thin coats to a previously
wetted substrate.
East wall:
This elevation has been thoroughly repointed with opc mortar. Nonetheless, this should be carefully
removed, to be replaced with lime mortar. The brick blockings should be pointed as necessary but are
essentially sound.
21
Limewashing should be considered as per west elevation.
Unit 10
East wall:
Warehouse building, attached to adjoining house; currently roofed with corrugated asbestos, formerly
thatched. Partly below ground at lower levels. Oolite within, calcareous sandstone ashlar without. The
whole elevation was rendered with a hard, cementitious mortar in more recent past. This has failed
across 50% of the elevation and has caused damage to the stonework, which damage will be ongoing
beneath surviving render.
Remove all render and remnants of opc repointing. Brush down stonework with stiff bristle brushes to
defrass. Repoint as necessary with lime mortar.
22
An area of stonework, which includes the head of a currently blocked window, is seriously decayed.
The lintol should be reformed to the same pattern: a keystone between two sections of lintol. It is
important that this should be executed in calcareous sandstone, currently hard to find. The possibility of
removing and reversing the ashlar stones above should be explored. Repair of this section may need to
be deferred until the probable reopening of Brow’s Quarry.
A previously brick-repaired quoin at the north east corner of the building requires consolidation and
repointing.
23
South wall
The lower section was refaced in brick, later C20. The double doorway was probably introduced at the
same time, or was an enlargement of a smaller original doorway. Concrete platforms within were
associated with the use of the site as a builders merchants. Their future removal should be considered.
The hard cementitious render is damaging as well as poorly attached. It should be removed. The
calcareous sandstone ashlar beneath should then be consolidated and repointed as necessary.
East elevation, unit 9 after repointing,
March 2009
24
west Unit 9 after repointing
unit 10 during repair
25
Repairs to one further building on the site should be considered.
This building is behind and adjoins 31 Yorkersgate. The buildings that occupied the remainder of the
burgage plot were lost during the C20, demolished and tipped into the riverside wharf area, raising its
level by some 6 feet.
The building that survived is a wonderfully honest expression of evolution and change: repairs have
been executed in brick; former windows have been blocked in the same and there have been two
separate raisings of the gable in brick, at first mirroring the ‘thatch pitch’ and then lowering the pitch to
receive pantiles. Most of these changes are of considerable age. The main building, of Malton oolite, is
of some antiquity and had an entrance doorway from the currently blocked passageway on the east
side. This has been long-blocked. The building has a cellar with surviving sinks.
All exterior elevations have been repointed in the more recent past with a hard opc mortar. This has
seriously compromised the breathability of the building, promoting the decay of structural timbers
within and of the stonework without, as well as sullying the appearance and historic character of,
particularly the south elevation.
26
All opc mortars should be removed; seriously decayed limestone should be replaced like for like, or else
tile-repaired. The whole should be repointed with an appropriate lime mortar.
east elevation
West elevation
27
These works will dramatically improve the visual appearance of these buildings and reinstate much of
their historic character, as well as that of the site as a whole, complementing imminent works to the
riverside Owston’s warehouse.
warehouse from the north
28
arch from staith blocked by ground
29
from the east
The significance of Owston’s warehouse lies mainly in its being a scarce physical remnant of Navigation
Wharf. There are other buildings associated with the important economic activity that took place on the
site, but none on the riverside itself. It is an important example of ‘polite’ industrial architecture. As is
demonstrated by the relative abundance of images of Malton from the south, from at least 1730, this
aspect of the town was accorded some importance in the past. Research into York House has raised the
theory that the architectural boldness of its south elevation might be explained in part by its visibility
from Langton Wold Racecourse.
These works were executed by Sir William Strickland, MP, who was heavily involved in horse-racing
locally. York House was sold to Sir Thomas Watson-Wentworth in 1739. Strickland’s ‘Hunting Lodge’ had
probably been sold to the Wentworths somewhat earlier, in 1713. By probably 1750, this had been
transformed and was a high status hotel serving the local racing fraternity. Owston’s warehouse formed
a part of the vista of the Brow upon which York House and the New Talbot Hotel stood. The racecourse
30
was ploughed in 1862, but had been active and a central element of polite society in Malton since at
least 1692.
For all that it was an industrial building, therefore, Owston’s warehouse reflected the high status of its
owner and of a ‘grand scheme’, a vision even, for the town made possible by the relatively unique
circumstance of its being almost entirely owned by one family.
The former site of Navigation Wharf has been much molested by later C20 activity associated with its
use as a builder’s merchants. Much value and potential remains, however, to be sensitively developed
for the enhancement of this important historic site and of the town as a whole.
nigel copsey march 2008
References
Hudleston N A History of Malton and Norton Pindar Scarborough 1962
Jones P Navigation on the Yorkshire Derwent Oakwood Press Usk 2000
Anthony-Smith E Earl Fitzwilliam and Malton: A Proprietory Borough in the Early Nineteenth Century The
English Historical Review Vol 80 # 314 January 1965 (via JSTOR)
Copperthwaite N Malton in the Early Nineteenth Century North Yorkshire County Council 1981
Rushton J Yorkshire in the Reign of Elizabeth I Blackthorn Pickering 2008
Jennings B Yorkshire Monasteries, Cloister, Land and People Smith Settle Otley 1999
March 2009:
Owston’s Warehouse
Preliminary off-scaffold survey. 23.03.2009
All ivy has been removed, allowing a proper inspection of the external fabric from the scaffold.
Pointing:
To the south elevation, 100% repointing will be required.
To the north, repointing is only required at low level and subsequent to reconstruction of agreed areas.
To east and west elevations, no more than 40-50% repointing should be necessary.
31
.
It is important to note that original window frames survive as a whole or in part to first and second
floors of the south elevation. Those that survive at first floor level are visually intact, but have rotted in
places and have been subject to some attack by dry-rot in the past. Two of the three retain probable
internal shutters. The presumption must be made, therefore, that these windows will be repaired where
possible and replaced like-for-like where repair is not possible. Very accurate details can be taken from
the existing material. There can be no justification for their removal and displacement by the temporary
windows proposed in the schedule. Any removal for other than repair – and perhaps even for like-forlike replacement will require specific Listed Building Consent. To the second floor, sufficient elements of
the original windows survive to demonstrate that the same pattern of window existed at this level also.
The windows are of pitch pine. An early meeting on site with Emma Woodland, RDC Conservation
Officer would be advisable.
first floor windows
32
remnant of second floor window
Owstons 3
Investigation of the lintels and brickwork at the eastern end of the north elevation confirmed the
advanced state of decay of the lintels, which were entirely cubed by dry-rot (which has since moved on)
and robbed of all structural integrity. The completeness of this decay to substantial structural and loadbearing timbers was previously masked by a plank of wood fixed across the face of the outer lintol.
Downward deflection of the outer skin of brickwork was evident, of course, as well as the likelihood that
this outer skin had been rebuilt in the past. In the area of the slump, the header courses of the English
Garden Wall bond of the rest of the building disappears, exhibiting stretcher bond only.
Removal of this outer skin confirmed this, but also indicated that the whole section had been rebuilt in
the past – and that this rebuild was improvised, to say the least. Although some of the hearting is
mortared, much of it is not, and is loose.
33
The innermost leaf does not appear deflected, although the area in question is cut across by the floor.
The lintol, too, appears to be in a reasonable condition on this side, although it is dry-rot cubed within.
It would seem structurally necessary to remove this section of wall to full depth; to install the new pitch
pine lintels and to then rebuild the whole to the original bonding pattern. This is clearly a more
extensive intervention than anticipated.
At this stage, the outer skin and the loosest core material of the wall has been removed to the upper
limit of the deflection and shoring has been installed to both sides of the wall. The hole includes the
ends of two beams, at least one of which will be replaced in the course of the works.
It is proposed that once the internal bird-cage scaffold is erected, the area of deflection will be
completely removed and new pitch pine lintels will be installed. The wall will then be propped once
more until the new beam or beams in this area have been installed, at which time the wall will be
reinstated, fully bonded as originally.
34
If there is a clear intention to remove the engineering brick and concrete block closure of the former
doorway beneath the deflection (and the introduction of which in the past probably led to the original
collapse and improvised reconstruction of this section, an opportunity exists in the context of this more
extensive intervention to remove this blocking now – either to introduce more sympathetic brickwork to
the face, or to do this in association with the introduction of a window. Whilst this will, of course,
remain an option in the future, future alteration will likely entail the retention of the lintels which will
rot in their turn. The opportunity exists, therefore, to reconstruct this whole section now and to
dispense with the timbers altogether and to remove from this section of the building the likelihood of
future disruption and deflection, as well as greater long-term cost. There would seem to be no doubt
that the opening in this part of the building that was subsequently, and quite recently, blocked, is not
original.
Removal of the floorboards and joists to the groundfloor has allowed a proper understanding of the
method by which the joists were tied to the beams. Six inch iron brads were driven through pre-drilled
holes in the joist ends into the beams. These are brads of wrought iron, probably locally made. This
method avoided – or got around – the absence of cogging in the beams – it was cheaper and more
appropriate to an industrial building. Both the methods and materials are an important aspect of the
building, therefore, and every effort should be made to reproduce both in any reinstatement. The use of
more ‘modern’ methods must be carefully considered and the loss of historic fabric and character
should these be chosen carefully weighed.
framing for stair or hatch, current g/f
35
Removal of defective beams currently intended will entail the cutting and loss of these original fixings to
the first floor – they were obviously reused on the ground floor when it was relocated. This would be
avoided by the lifting of the floorboards above the beams to be replaced so that the joist fixings may be
removed from above and salvaged for reuse. Any lost fixings should be replaced like for like with
similarly handmade brads. This would be so even if the originals are cut to remove and reinstate the
beams without lifting the floorboards or joists above.
Owstons repointing mortar
The original pointing/bedding mortar is robust and relatively hard. It does not have the ‘fluffiness’ of
some of the historic mortars locally which indicates the inclusion of either limestone or calcareous
sandstone dust. There is no evidence of repointing having occurred since the original construction of the
warehouse, nor any suggestion that the mortar has been too hard for the brickwork. No repointing with
ordinary Portland cement mortars has occurred. There is every reason, therefore, to design a repointing
and repair mortar possessing similar characteristics.
A sample was disaggregated using dilute hydrofluoric acid to remove lime content. The sand of the
original mortar was sharp and well-graded with about 50% finer material. For colour and geological
variety of aggregate, sharp sand as currently supplied by Travis Perkins is a good match. It does not,
however, have the same relative volume of fines. The likely repointing mix, therefore, will be largely of
TP sharp sand (which is itself a very good M-grade material), with perhaps 25% by volume of Cook’s
sand added. Cooks sand is a fine ‘building sand’ much used locally in association with opc. There is some
slight variation in particle size, as well as some angularity in the particles, unlike other ‘soft’ or ‘building’
sands. It would not deliver a good lime mortar alone, but should be acceptable in association with a
good sharp sand, especially as a relatively small proportion of the mortar. The likely mortar, therefore,
will be 4 parts TP sharp sand: 1 part Cook’s sand: 2 parts NHL 2.0. This may otherwise be 3:2:2.
36
The original mortar in situ and after disaggregation does show small flakes and particles of brick. These
are not in sufficient quantity to support the use of brick dust as a pozzalanic additive and there is none
of the pinkness in the mortar to indicate this purpose. The likely provenance of these inclusions,
therefore, is from the new bricks that were being laid up. There is no reason, therefore, to include brick
dust in the mortar except by similar accident.
Three sample panels of repointing mortar were executed on the east elevation of the warehouse:
1) 3 parts sharp sand (Travis Perkins): 2 parts Cooks building sand: 2 parts NHL 2.0 (Singleton Birch)
2) 4 parts sharp sand(TP): 1 Cooks: 2 NHL 2.0
3) 4parts sharp sand (TP): 1 Cooks: 1 NHL 2.0: 1/3 Quicklime.
The sample selected was # 1).
Owstons Warehouse, Navigation Wharf
Analysis of former and original arrangement of openings, north elevation
Although the north elevation of Owston’s Warehouse has been much altered and abused in recent
times, removal of the lowered floor and the start of repairs to areas of disrupted brickwork, along with
reference to archive maps, has allowed an accurate reconstruction of the pattern of original openings
sufficient to inform current and future works to this building.
Analysis of the north elevation has been hampered physically and in the imagination by the artificially
raised ground levels in the area, which raising has consumed the ground floor of the building on the
north side. The subsequent introduction of wide openings the bottom of which cut through the upper
37
level of the ground floor and obliterated most diagnostic evidence to the first floor has also hindered
clear insight.
At first floor level on the north side, only one original window head remains in situ, of minimally arched
brick. Another such head survives over the doorway to the top floor at the east end of this elevation.
The current head over a central top floor doorway is of concrete, though of such depth that it is very
likely that this replaced a similar brick head and that this opening, therefore, is also original. Even this,
however, was more window than door, in all probability. As the photo above shows, there is new
brickwork to the lower level, but also this part of the opening cuts through earlier painted lettering,
strongly suggesting that the opening as doorway is a recent evolution of an original window or hatch.
There are no indications either inside or out of the north elevation that there were ever any other
openings at this level, consistent with its having been a storage floor requiring significant blank wall
space. To the south, there are three windows, of course.
At groundfloor level – the level currently lost below ground on the north side – there seem to have been
no windows, but two wide arched openings: one from the wharf and one from the quay-side. To north
and south, the brick arches over the wharf survive intact. The central archway to the south is also
substantially intact, although the stone jambs to the outside were dressed back to receive bricks when
this opening was blocked. This blocking was carried out before 1949, when a postcard shows the
blocking of archway and windows at this level. Before this, and certainly by 1913, the opening had been
partially blocked to around waist height on the quay, providing a loading platform for goods thrown up
or from shoulders. Doors remained after this, held on the original pintels of the originally full depth
opening. These pintels survive in situ today, to the east jamb.The arch is intact, projects 1” from the
wall-line and passes the full 19” depth of the wall. The stone jambs did likewise and were keyed into
buttresses that project into the interior of the groundfloor.
38
Owstons 1949, quayside openings blocked as 2009
39
To the north, the arch was lost to the introduced C20 openings. However, the buttresses, with stone
returns from former jambs remain, very strongly indicating that the door and archway were the same as
that to the south and that they were of stone. The stone jambs may remain behind the later brickwork
blocking.
East return of north opening
Between these wide arched doorways, the floor was of stone flags, most
of which remain, albeit disrupted by sycamore roots. The stone
thresholds survive in situ to north and south. The floor of the rest of this
level is of earth. This may be the original surface, which may have been
of rammed earth; it may be what was left when flagstones were
removed in the past.
40
To the east of the central archway, there would seem to have been no window at this level in the north
elevation. There is, however, a window in the east wall, now blocked with concrete blocks and beneath
the raised ground level outside. It is at the north of the east wall. Early plans show that there were
exterior steps outside at the east end of the north elevation, rising to the doorway into the second floor.
These would have allowed no window east of the central arch – hence the window in the east wall.
Steps rising from immediate east of central archway, 1850. Owston’s warehouse to right of image.
Note passageway to Yorkersgate from Owston’s Yard, as well as another (which survives) beneath 29
Yorkersgate, serving another warehouse and wharf to the east of Owstons. The latter, at least, remains,
albeit in-filled.
blocked window, north end of east wall, groundfloor
The north elevation of the first floor clearly did have windows, however, and these were of the same
size and pattern as those on the south, similarly distributed.
41
These windows – as the two arches to the north side – were not exactly opposite those on the south,
but were opposite on an eastward skew due to the fact that the building as a whole is not square on
plan, it is a parallelogram.
To the west end of the elevation, a single reveal of the original window survives; the window being
partly blocked, partly absorbed into the later double-width opening at this end.
The cracking and slight movement in the wall at this point is probably due to the brutality with which
this opening was forced through, and the relative laziness with which it was made good. Repairs to the
crack have shown the core to be loose and unmortared. The upward extent of the rebuild is at the top of
what would previously have been the brick window head. Above this point, the brickwork returns to
soundness and reads as original and undisturbed.
42
The brick head of the central window remains in situ, above an introduced doorway. Its level and
location, as well as its span, confirms that this window was a skewed reflection of its opposite on the
south side.
The east window head has been lost. It would have been above the timber lintels of the wide but quite
recently blocked opening towards the west of the elevation. The lintels have rotted and the brickwork
above, to a height of more than a metre, was slumped when works began. More than this, it had clearly
been rebuilt in the past – a patch of stretcher bond within an elevation – and building – built of English
garden wall bond. Removal of this outer face revealed that much of the brickwork of the core was loose
and that bricks had been stacked without mortar within the wall, confirming the rebuild, as well as,
again, the brutality with which the opening had been made. There is cracking from groundfloor to eave
in the internal wall to the east of this opening consequent upon this intervention.
These openings would have been of similar dimensions to those on the south and would have held the
same joinery windows as have been found to survive on the south. The frames of these, at least, are
original to the build with probably early C19 glazed lights added, perhaps displacing simpler shutters.
The current schedule is to rebuild the brickwork in this location above new lintels over the engineering
brick blocking of the opening below. Already this has become more of a task than might have been
anticipated due to the poor quality of the making good of the disruption caused by the expedience of
the doorway’s introduction.
The informed deduction of the original arrangement of the windows at this level will allow the accurate
and non-speculative restoration of the original openings during a second phase of works. It would not
make sense in this context, however, to rebuild the wall over the new lintels as planned – since the later
re-introduction (with LBC) of windows would then entail the removal of this brickwork once more, as
well as the removal of the lintels. The late C20 blocking of the doorway would also be cut into at this
stage.
At the very least, therefore, it would seem logical and economic to anticipate probable later works at
this stage and to vary the current schedule accordingly.
The expense of removing the engineering brick blocking, building this section of wall back in keeping
with the rest of the elevation and forming a window beneath a brick arch would be mitigated to some
extent by quitting the new timber lintels from the equation, and to a large extent by the future cost of
43
undoing all of the works carried out in this area in this phase in order to reintroduce an original window
opening in the next phase. It is already the case that some of both leaves of this blocking will have to be
removed to facilitate the introduction of new beams, and a new wall formed in the lower half of the
blocking to receive a new beam.
Whilst speculative restoration of this elevation would be of dubious merit, the evidence of the building
would seem clearly to suggest the possibility of an accurate restitution of the original form and
appearance of this elevation, and one hopes that this opportunity will not now be ignored. Along with
the dropping of the ground level to the north side, back to its original level, this restoration would
greatly enhance not only the aesthetic but the practical usefulness of this building and would enhance
the likelihood of its finding an economic use consistent with its historic importance and long-term
survival.
Consideration should also be given to the reinstatement of the stone arch and missing upper jambs of
the north doorway in the future – particularly to the design of works necessary for the reinstatement of
the beams to either side of this during the current phase so that the arch may be readily installed in the
future, should this be required. It is my opinion that it should be, of course.
44