A PROVISONAL HISTORIC BUILDINGS ANALYSIS

OF THE FARMHOUSE AT CODNOR CASTLE, RIPLEY DERBYSHIRE

Background

Castle Farmhouse is situated on the east side of what was the Lower or South Court to
Codnor Castle.

To the best of the writer's knowledge, there has been no previous detailed analysis of the
farmhouse, in particular its interior.

This analysis is largely based on the writer's own site surveys in tvlay and July 2013, the
dendrochronological survey of 2014 and a site survey by the Derbyshire Archaeological
Society in July 2014.

A list of documents referred to appears at the end of the analysis

With the exception of the dendrochronology, the assessments have all been purely visual
No intrusive investigations have been carried out on this building.

Purpose of this Analysis

The purpose of this informal analysis is twofold. Firstly, it is hoped that that the information
will prove useful in any subsequent formal assessments of this building. Secondly, it is
intended to enable a better understanding of the development of the farmhouse to inform
the tours and talks presented by The Codnor Castle Heritage Trust.

A Summary of Findings

The farmhouse has traditionally been dated to circa 1640. lt has been described as re-
using materials from demolished earlier buildings from the castle site. The dendro-
chronological survey proved that the building contained timbers dating to the Tudor period
The writer is of the opinion that rather than being a later building, the farmhouse was first
built in the Tudor period and was part of the last expansion phase of the Lower or outer
court of Codnor Castle under the Zouches.

The original purpose of the farmhouse is unknown. However, it is suggested the building
was either a high status residential building, possibly a farmhouse for the tenant working
the estate or else a lodgings.

The following phases are suggested

Phase 1: Tudor Period 1539 -1560

Phase 2: 1561-1633
Phase 3: 1634-1860

Phase 4: 1860-Present
Phase 1: 1539-1560

The dating of this phase is based on the findings of the dendrochronology which gave
felling dates for the northernmost ceiling timbers to the living room of the late 1530's.

The second principal roof truss (numbered from north to south), has a distinct pattern of
diagonal close studding which suggests it was originally the southernmost external gable
end of a building which was later extended a further three bays. The truss aligns with a
joint in the first floor construction (later strengthened with an iron plate) further supporting
the idea that the original building comprised just the two northernmost bays. This was
confirmed by the dendro dating which gave a later felling date range of between 1560-
1585 to the first floor timbers and the roof trusses to the south of the close studded truss.

The close studding to the truss is a feature normally associated with higher status
buildings in the Derbyshire area (Hutton, page 36). lt only appears here in the gable. lt is
possible that the rest of the building was originally timber framed but later replaced or that,
as first built, only the gable was of timber, the rest of the walling being of stone or brick.

Close studding was a status symbol and it is probably no accident that the close studded
gable faced south, that is, towards the principal route into the castle from the south
(Nottingham).

The original building was of just two bays. The current entrance door to No 1 is probably a
later insertion (it seems to be too close to the adjacent window) as are the cross walls
which form two passages across the width of the building. The depressed brick arch on
the east side of the building (within the current ground floor wc) does not align with the
front door or adjacent cross passage. ln addition, the partition wall between the passage
and living room (with the fireplace), is situated directly beneath one of the exposed ceiling
beams suggesting it was a later insertion. Some opening up would be required to
establish the dividing line between the exposed ceiling timbers with run-out stops to the left
hand bay and the cruder, squared timbers seen in the living room.

Although the exposed ceiling timbers in the living room give a flavour of a period exposed
beam ceiling, the DAS surveyor pointed out that they are crudely cut and the joints
between them and the large bridging beam suggest they were not originally intended to be
seen.

Without there being any clear evidence of original cross walls, it is suggested that the
building had a direct entry into the hall (the current living room) with a separate parlour or
kitchen to its left (north).

The massive stone fireplace on the east wall of the living room, appears to be an original
feature (although there is no visible relationship between the stonework to the chimney
and the other earliest features of the building.). The coursing to the chimney is not aligned
with the stone courses to the plinth stonework on the west elevation which forms the base
of the southern extension. On the basis of this, it would seem that the chimney is later
than the plinth. The assertion that the chimney belongs to the fist phase of the building is
based on its visual appearance and location. lt looks late medieval in character and it is on
the long wall where it would be expected to be situated in a building of the late medieval-
early Tudor period in this region.

It is obvious that the current fireplace opening in the living room is much smaller than the
original opening. lt would be wofthwhile removing areas of wall plaster to establish the
location and nature of the original bressummer. This would also establish the line of the
original floor which it is believed has been lowered. (see below).

lf the fireplace to the hall (living room) is indeed original, then this building was conceived
of as a two or three storeyed building. The first floor is not a later insertion into an open
hall.

This leads to the question of the location of the staircase.

It is possible that the stairs were located either within the parlour/kitchen or the hall.
However, two paintings of Codnor Castle dating to the early 19th century are of views
looking south and included in the background is what is most likely to be the rear outshot
or eastern projection of the farmhouse. Both paintings show this outshot to be timber
framed. One of the paintings depicts close studding. The present rear outshot is of brick
so is a later replacement of the original timber framed outshot. lf the pictorial evidence can
be relied upon, then the outshot was possibly part of the original building. Whether it
belongs to phases 1 or 2 is not clear. lt may have housed a staircase, functioned as a
services wing or housed garderobes.

The plan of a two bayed house with a rear outshot is characteristic of early 17th century
farmhouses in the tVlidlands. (l.e Ford Green Hall, Stoke-on-Trent dated to 1624).

The brick chimney to the north gable end is.a much later feature possibly belonging to
phase 3 or even 4. If the nothern bay was a parlour or kitchen, it is possible that the
chimney is on the site of an earlier external chimney stack.

How did the farmhouse relate to the rest of the site at this period?

There is no visible, direct relationship between the farmhouse and other features
associated with the occupation of the castle itself.

Physical and documentary evidence'suggest that the Chamber Block in Upper Court
provided the principal residence on the site in the 16th century and possibly into the first
quarter of the 17th century. The physical evidence is in the form of alterations to the west
wall of the Chamber Block carried out in Tudor brick. Also, there is a documentary
reference of 1540 which mentions a "mancyon with chapel attached". lt is considered this
is a reference to the Chamber Block rather than the farmhouse.

The farmhouse is not thought to have been the principal residence on the site at this
period.

The farmhouse is sited on the eastern edge of what is assumed to have been a moat to
Lower Court. The only clear evidence for a curtain wall surrounding and defining the limits
of Lower Court are the stone wall on its western side and the fragments of a stone and
brick wall on the eastern side and to the nofth of the farmhouse. This wall is about 0.7 m
thick and 2.5 m in height and is topped by what have been interpreted as brick and stone
crenellations (Stevesnson, 1920), pa9-50).

The Tudor wall is so named because it contains what has previously been identified as
Tudor bricks. The wall may have been built upon an earlier wall. lf extended southwards,
the Tudor Wall would meet the northwest corner of the farmhouse at a slight angle.
The current view is that the Tudor Wall is one of the features associated with a grandiose
(and un-finished) re-modelling of Codnor Castle by George Zouch as a Renaissance
garden surrounding the retained Chamber Block and possibly some of the other principal
buildings in Upper Court.

A plan dated to 1802-1809 shows the farmhouse with a numher of now lost buildings
forming a range to its west.
A possible intepretation of this plan is that is is showing buildings belonging to the castle
and, if so, might define the southern extent of Lower Court. This would place the
farmhouse at the south east corner of Lower Court.

This plan is very similar to the one suggested by Stevenson , 1920)

The farmhouse is sited right on the edge of the steep slope into what was possibly a moat
defining the lower court. The siting of the outshot on this slope has very probably led to
the structural instability of this part of the building.

The farmhouse enjoys panoramic views towards the east and the Erewash Valley. This
area formed part of the deer park surrounding Codnor Castle. The building, in its original
two-bayed form, is a two-storeyed narrow block. From its location and form , it is very
tempting to see the farmhouse as being first built as a stand or lodge. lt projects forwards
of the line of the Tudor Wall to afford a better line of sight . lf its sides were open these
would provide viewing galleries or a stand from which deer could be shot with crossbows.
(very similar to the surviving Tudor period hunting lodge at Chingford in Epping Forest).

However, the farmhouse frontage appears to be orientated towards the Lower Court, not
eastwards. Also, the outshot, if original, would seem to be an odd feature to place on the
main viewing side of this kind of building.

Another possible interpretation of the farmhouse's original use is as a lodge deliberately

sited away from the main residence in the Upper Court.

A more plausible explanation may be that the farmhouse was originally built as a house for
ta tenant farming the estate around the castle itself. Certainly it was DAS' view that the
building was not grand enough to be classed as a gentry house or lodge.

Phase 2: 1561-1633

The second phase is defined by the dendro dating of the first floor and roof timbers to the
south of those associated with phase 1 and also stone features in the west elevation.

Dendro dates were obtained from both the first floor timbers and the trusses above them.
This close alignment and the dating strongly suggest that the timbers were not re-used but
formed an extension of the original building to its south by a furtherthree bays.

The plans dating to'1802-1809 showthatthe building had reached its currentextent by
that time.

This phase spans the period of the final expansion of the castle under the Zouches up to
its sale to Richard Neile in 1634.
The current working hypothesis is that the principal castle dwelling remained the Chamber
Block and buildings attached to its south side until the Zouches vacated the site in 1634.
But, the later Zouches were increasingly impoverished and little if any re-building took
place at Codnor after about 1600.

The square, four-light cross window on the west elevation was dated by DAS to the first
quarter of the 17th century. The other two stone mullioned windows on the same elevation
have also ben dated to the first half of the 17th century. This clating was made on stylistic
grounds and the assumption that the farmhouse was a vernacular building, a successor to
the castle. lt also possible that the cross windows are of 16th century date and are co-eval
with the timber trusses and ceiling.

The ground floor to the farmhouse is about 0.7 m lower that the main ground level to
Lower Court which is retained by a brick walljust to the west of the front of the farmhouse
Even allowing for a building up of ground levels over the last 400 years, this difference in
ground levels us difficult to explain. lt is possible that the ground sloped downwards
towards the farmhouse when first built and was levelled later on. lt also conceivable that
the ground floor level to the farmhouse has been lowered. The 4 regular bottom-most
courses of stonework may be a later re-facing following the lowering of this floor.

Phase 3: 1634-1861

ln 1634, the Zouches sold Codnor Castle to Sir Richard Neile. Although Time Team, in
2006, found thatoccupation continued atCodnorcastle intothe 17th century, there is no
physical evidence in the principal castle buildings which is dlrectly attributable to this time

The story at the farmhouse is different. The square, four light, window on the west
elevation of the farmhouse was dated by DAS, on stylistic grounds, to the first quarter of
the 17th century. The other stone mullioned windows on the same elevation have also
been dated to the first half of the 17th century. Within the farmhouse, it is possible that the
strap hinges to one of the boarded doors is of 17th century dare. (This is the door that is
currently stored in oner of the first floor bedrooms).

The traditional view is that the farmhouse replaced the castle Chamber Block as the
principal dwelling on the site after the time of the Zouches. By 1690, Paule Neile is
recorded as living at Codnor Castle in a "house good enough for the estate it stands on
rising ground, hath many fine walks of Sycamore trees, bech trees, and Birch Trees, which
cover the house all but to the south". This could well be a reference to the farmhouse
rather than the Chamber Block.

The brickwork to the upper storeys is of possibly 18th century date. The continuous
projecting brick platbands at first floor level on the east elevation and at first and second
floor levels on the south elevation are features associated with early to mid 18th century
buildings in this region.

The windows to the east elevation are of classical, Georgian proportions beneath stone
lintels. They may belong to this period although they may also be part of the re-modelling
suggested in phase 4. The ground floor window lighting the living room to No1 certainly
post-dates the bricking up of an earlier door or window opening. The line of the masonry
partition on the south side of the living room runs across the line of this opening.

The style of the staircase in Castle farm No 2 suggests an early 19th century date.
The brick depressed arch and adjoining wall on the ground floor on the east side of the
house may belong to this period.

There is a brick lined arched vaulted cellar beneath the southern end of the house. lt
appears that there is a blocked opening in its northern end suggesting it may originally
have extended northwards. (The cellar can only be accessed now from an opening in the
southern gable end).

The owners of Codnor Castle in the 18th and early 19th centuries no longer lived at Codnor
Castle. lt seems extremely likely that its value increasingly lay in the minerals beneath the
ground and that the farmhouse was occupied by a series of farming tenants. By 1850, a
courtyard farmstead had been built against the south side of the farmhouse.

ln summary, this long phase sees a number of alterations to the internal fabric of the
house. lf, as seems likely, the occupants of the house in the 18th and 19th centuries, were
tenant farmers, the degree of re-modelling or alteration of the house itself may have been
very limited. Unfortunately, it is also quite possible that a number of period features have
been lost from the house due to a later lack of investment and in-appropriate alterations.

Phase 4: 1861-Present

ln 1861 , The Butterley lron and Brick Company purchased the castle site. As this
company was one of the principal industrial companies in the area, it is possible that they
invested considerably in the renovation of the farmhouse. The stone and brick, including
the door surround on the east elevation, appear to be relatively recent or at least recent re-
facings of older work. ln the style of this work, there seems to be a recognition of the
building's ancient origins. lt may also have been carried out to disguise what may have
been the evidence of progressive extensions and alterations to the original house and to
provide a more coherent appearance to the house as a whole. lt is also more than likely
that the timber framed outshot was replaced in brick (with iron window frames to the lower
storey) around this time.

The farm itself was important. In the 1950's one of the earliest industrial scale milking
parlours in Europe was built to the east of the farmhouse

According to local people, the farmhouse and its garden in the Lower Coutl were well
looked after until the 1960's. After that, the house seems to have gone into steep decline.
ln 1969, the dovecote (which may have been medieval), located to the south and west of
the farmhouse was demolished as it had become unsafe. The farm passed to the National
Coal Board in 1978 and remained in the hands of their successors, UK Coal, until it was
sold to in 2011-2012 to Harold lMartin, the current owner.

An attempted Visual Reconstruction of the Original Building

The sketch accompanying this assessment is an attempt at a reconstruction of the

farmhouse as it may have appeared in its first phase (Phase 1: 1539-1560.).

The external walls of the farmhouse may either have been timber framed or else masonry
(either brick or stone) or a combination of all three.
The "Tudor Wall" extends only about 4 m now. To its south, it is succeeded by a stone wall
topped by half-round copings which is considerably narrower (400 mm as opposed to 690
mm). This wall is considered to be of later construction.

The building at right angles to the farmhouse follows what is thought to have been the
southern curtain wall to Lower or outer court. It is based purely on the plan dating to 1802-
1809 which may show the outlines of castle buildings in Lower Court, now lost.

Conclusions

Codnor Castle Farmhouse is an extremely interesting building which incorporates the only
reliably date-able, in-situ components of the castle itself.

The character of the living room, in particular, gives the visitor an impression, albeit on a
smaller scale, of the appearance of the rooms in the principal castle buildings.

Because of the building's age and significance, it is assumed an archaeological building

survey would form an integral part of any works to this house. Because the building is
partially derelict and un-inhabited, there is a unique opportunity to undertake some limited
opening up to try to understand some of the development of the building.

Appendix: Notes on The Farm Building (Barn)

The farm building forming the west range of the farmstead located to the south of the
farmhouse was also the subject of dendro-dating in 2014. lt was referred to in that survey
as "The Barn".

The building comprises two storeys with the upper floor being a grain or hay loft over a
cowshed on the ground floor.

ln style, the building appeared to date to the late 18th or early 19th centuries (The building
was certainly in existence by the timd of the plan of 1802-1809) but its roof timbers
seemed to be of a much earlier date.

The dendro dating showed that the roof timbers belonged to three date ranges, 1537-1563,
1560-1585 and 1727-1728. Some of the roof timbers from the first period had been re-
used. The floor timbers, some of which also appeared to be re-used, were dated to 1599,
1617-39 and 1727.

It is likely that the Barn is a later building on a new site but incorporating re-used timbers
from 16th century buildings. These timbers may have come from demolished 16th century
farm buildings associated with the farmhouse's first phases or they could have come from
other castle buildings, most likely located in Lower Court.

The Barn was later incorporated into the courtyard farmstead which appeared on the plan
of 1850.
Illustrations

(1) A Conjectural Reconstruction of the Farmhouse in Phase 1 (153e-1560).

(2) Farmhouse-Ground Floor Plan-As Existing
(3) Farmhouse-First Floor Plan-As Existing.
(4) Three-Dimensional Drawing Showing Roof Trusses
(5) Three-Dimensional Drawing Showing Living Room to No1.
(6) Watercolour of Condor Castle Looking South
(7) Watercolour of Condor Castle Looking South
(8) Plan of Codnor Castle 1802-1809.
(e) PIan of Codnor Castle 1850.
(10) Plan of Codnor Castle from the Guide Book, 2013

References

Stevenson ,W, The South Court of Codnor Castle, Derbyshire Archaeological Journal,42
(1e20).

Kerry, C, Codnor Castle and its Ancient Owners, Journal of the Derbyshire Archaeological
and Natural History Society, 14 (1892), p.16-33.

Alexander, [/l & N/ilward, J., Codnor Castle, Derbyshire, Earthwork Analysis: Survey
Report, Dent Report Series, No 82-2008, English Heritage, 2008.

Arnold, A. & Howard, R. , Codnor Castle, Castle Lane, Derbyshire: lnterim Summary of the
Dendrochronological Analysis, Historic England Scientific Dating Team, April 2015.

Codnor Castle Guide Book, Codnor Castle Heritage Trust, 2013

Girouard, ltl., Life in the English Country House, Yale, 1978

Wood, I'4., The English MedievalHouse, 1965

Charles Glenn, BA (hons) IHBC

28t01t2018
 44bts
CODNO ? #,ll.E F+#,MHOUSE. .

Yta,ues pport Noeil{ -WF=sr

 I

<Eq 2ote
cobMo z &sr12 F+ztUHALSe-, A coNlaug4-
v rero*tstleuatof.(. ?HpOe t .

Vr e{,Veo FPom Noeft{ -EA,ST;

 I

c^oDr.lot cr,dfitE Fftpn*lotlgt . k eyuuext,-, EEe'.(srpcrqtoN ftrpse. 1

Vraru=O trfalt tlo:.X l.9urH-Ep\s-r:
 t{

C.€n ?otZs

copNo<_ c}'sllF- utsL A A/=4f., pt4- K;ErriNsrrg.)qtoN.( . pN,tsE j,.

Vrzweb koy !,orrrr wEsfi
 I
I

7 \
-/
7
a
(

L
( il
2

-l

t B|$ENT OF
tultAth{a-
Pl+frsE f
f
.

h
1

*
C,c>rloY-4SttE WZ
L, lNirgg*-OF flfflC-'.
7

eqbte
 losstBtE UNe.r
Sorrttl q?,Eita Et{b
oF PrlrdEl,

I
I
I
t

L&TEF.
ttlffiiw ,
nilfl?lol(( a

t--------l

'r - -a
-
-T
I

I
I

C4 2otb ?eo BFETE LQ*Y{rEP,

c,,LNote-esrlE F-+*,JylHoUS?-. uvlNq aoM ,MlERlota- VIEUTED reorA V,lESf

(F@rtr €ta!ftnoN ).
I Existing Masonry
Godnor Gastle
I

..:
Suggested lines of Missing Walls A Representation Of Ttre Possible Castle Layout

Buried Masonry,Time Team trench

I ITth Century - Modern N

30m
FARIVIHOUSE

CASTI,E FARM

Moat

CHAMBER

I
ll
t BLOCK

t
tt
It .:,
ti BARTISA}T

t
ll
---,1 tt

I lSth & l4 CEI\IIURY ISth CEMURY

SOUTH COIIRT

t
tl NORTH COURT
ll
1l
It
ll
It
tl
tl
I
lr
lr
I
(
lr

It
t, It
---l
lt
lr
a_
t
tt
I
: l,'.:li.'.: ffii arl D(

CONJECTURAL LINE OF
WALL TO LOWER COURT CONJECTURAL LINE OF
WALL TO LOWER COURI
 f T t//
f {
{ f (i I
,,

fi, f-.i# \
It

I-

,i#=-"1g+*.
rf

'I 'I frmhat*-

fl 3I
,-. t: d
i*. r +-'*J
.l
i,.r
.
,d*
s$

4*J
I
?
bulldings showing the \
extent of thg Sauth Court. T

{, t)
I {}
\

wtch 'buildings are Vtgtarian additions,

ii

C9DMOL WnE-; leso Mgdieval Track and original entrance to Codnor C

 I

o
,

@NoE-cr6n1E ruor:nfiE Noe,H. lq+h /E'fi)

Y ?
 r lE{

*
' 4.,
1 a
j "'-
t 1)r*,..' i}m,
\ I .!l

t{
rl ' )il
rl
$r:?
#, ,Tt)

* ?
r
F{
j
B
4
d

,,.,.

I
"r"
,ril
,t
I
!'* |,. ,!
'4!

l ;F, ?

."; n,
,
I

I
'1itr'
S1

lr
I

b _-1 ,;,,

DgY*lt-oF DilE l"+1A-4P14 19 +h%+'ff Wk-,oF

&eDNoLel6:10.VI HlE#,fre'I1A MAETPI
 'i/ ,'i l' {' ' ,/'

{ t f /'

\ r.\
I

.. -t Toot

T ,N
$\\

Unknown Medteval buildings showing the

Southern extent of the South Court.
t-t-t-
l-I

Red hstch baildings nre Victorian sddittons.

Medieval Track *nd origifial efitrance to Codnor Castle

1 1
i

I
I
I
I
I

I
t-z'
i
I
I
I

I
J