REPORT ON A PROPOSAL TO RESTORE TANYRALLT HOUSE

Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor Tan yr Allt from the South, November 1987. Courtesy R.C.A.H.M.W. NA/CA/89/45 871463/25. REPORT ON A PROPOSAL TO RESTORE TAN­YR­ALLT HOUSE GLANRAFON HILL BANGOR Originally prepared by Bangor and District Buildings and Amenity Preservation Trust for the Architectural Heritage Trust December 1997 [amended and updated October2005]
Page 1 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................…….. 3 SUMMARY ..........................… John Nicholson 4 HISTORY OF THE SITE AND THE BUILDING ................................. Yvonne Loop 7 ARCHITECTURAL APPRAISAL STRUCTURAL APPRAISAL .............................. John Nicholson 12 .................. Dr.Jagjit Singh, John Nicholson 15 THE PROPOSED RESTORATION SCHEME ............................................................ 24 THE ECONOMIC PROPOSAL ................................................................................... 27 APPENDIX 1 .................................................. Important architectural features 31 APPENDIX 2 ........................................................ Estimated costing of works 32 APPENDIX 3 .................................. Summary of the report by Dr.Jagjit Singh 33 APPENDIX 4 .......................................................................................... Plans 35 APPENDIX 5 ................................................................ Maps and Illustrations 36 APPENDIX 6 .............. Other available supporting information and documents 38 APPENDIX 7 ................................................................................... The Trust 39 APPENDIX 8 ..................................... Risk Assessment and Safety Procedures 40
Page 2 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor INTRODUCTION Tan­yr­Allt House is a beautiful example of an early Georgian house, designed and built in 1755 specifically for John Ellis, the Archdeacon of Bangor. As an early example of formal Georgian architecture in Bangor it is rare. Although now surrounded by academic buildings of no architectural importance, the house was originally set within a large formal garden extending to the river Adda, with avenued paths leading to the Cathedral and Bishop’s Palace. 1 It is a Grade II* listed building, having been upgraded in September 1991. The property is now owned by the University of Wales, Bangor and has been unused for some ten years. 2 It has dry rot and minor structural defects prohibiting further use, and is badly in need of complete restoration if it is to be saved from complete dereliction. Various attempts to identify an economically viable future role for the building by both the University and local business have been unsuccessful. Concern has been expressed by members of the Bangor Civic Society, especially through the past chairman, the late Tony Perry, who has campaigned to see the building restored. Following the formation of a new Bangor Historic Buildings Trust, this report considers the feasibility of a conservation proposal in which the building will be used again within the University. The report examines the historic and architectural importance of the building, its potential for future use, the extent of works needed to put the structure into good repair, and the approximate costs of so doing. It does not include a full architectural specification, but is more the basis of a brief. Finally it looks at the economic viability of the proposal in which the building would be leased to the University. SUMMARY OF THE REPORT Tan­yr­Allt house is an important example of classical Georgian architecture, rare in this part of North Wales. It is also important historically because of its connections with the Penrhyn Estate and its family, the Cathedral, the University, and the development of local quarrying, It is remarkable that it has survived almost in its original state, despite various renovations and exterior rendering. The building can no longer be used by the University because of dilapidation. All attempts to find an alternative commercial use have failed. This proposal has been put forward by members of the Bangor Civic Society, under the inspiration of its Chairman, the late Tony Perry. Because of the unfortunate position of the building, away from the public and commercial areas of the city, it was felt that the best economic use was likely to be with the University. The building is not large enough for any academic department, but could house one of the independent academic or research institutions that operate within the University campus, or be used for a specific appropriate purpose by a particular department. It is important that public access is available, by prior arrangement, at least to the principal ground floor rooms. Structural and architectural surveys carried out in the 1980s took a very pessimistic view of the state of the original structure, and recommended almost total refurbishment. Most of the original quality and character of the building would have been lost. Fortunately, the cost of these proposals was prohibitive. Our proposal is to conserve and restore the structure, retaining as much as possible of the surviving original material, and restoring what is thought 1 2 Now Bangor Town Hall Written in 1997
Page 3 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor to be the original stone exterior. The cost of this approach is likely to be less than the 1987/88 estimates. Accordingly a trust has been formed, called The Bangor and District Buildings and Amenity Preservation Trust, which would acquire the freehold title of the building from the University in exchange for a contract in which the University will undertake to lease the building at a reasonable rent determined by the District Valuer, upon completion of repairs. The trust includes representation from both the University and the Civic Society. The trust will be able to access funding sources to help finance the restoration, and will be able to use any future revenue to fund future projects on a roll­over basis. The building has been thoroughly surveyed by specialists in conservation and repair, and their view is that, despite decay from dry and wet rot, the structure is well within the realm of economic repair. By using natural techniques as far as possible, the cost of eradicating both the dry and wet rot will be far less than through the use of chemicals, and the results are likely to be far more reliable. By using traditional reconstruction methods, the cost of renovation will also be reduced. The main costs will be in replacing the damaged timbers that have been lost as a result of lack of maintenance over the past ten years or more. The report recommends a period of drying out, followed by further scientific analysis. The structure can then be repaired and redecorated when it is considered safe to do so. Once restored, the building will be a useful additional facility for use by the University or one of its independent organisations. It will also greatly improve this corner of Lower Glanrafon Hill, which has become an eyesore. It will also provide Bangor with a splendid example of building conservation, and a genuine Georgian venue for certain civic or private functions. An early photograph of Tan­yr­Allt HISTORY OF THE BUILDING AND THE SITE by Yvonne Loop Tan­yr­Allt house, (sometimes called Tan­Rallt or even Tanrallt), is a secular building that was built for John Ellis, Archdeacon of Meirionnydd, in 1755. The name Tan­yr­Allt [in
Page 4 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor English 'below the hill' ] refers to the position of the house, the hill in this case being Glanrafon Hill which rises steeply behind the house to the north­east. It was built in the Georgian period, which ‘was in Wales a period of educational and religious revival, of literary renaissance and of economic revolution.’ 3 The Welsh gentry of this era were organising their way of life along English lines, engaging architects more often than not from England. These architects were mainly concerned with the interiors of buildings, producing fine stucco ceilings and graceful staircases. Owing to the publication of several pattern­books during the 18th century, many of the fine Georgian buildings were designed by 'Master builders', who did not call themselves architects. Tan­yr­Allt was built in the Palladian style, popularised at that time by Inigo Jones, and is thought to have been planned by one such Master builder. During the 16th and 17th centuries, the strip of land upon which the house was built belonged to the powerful and wealthy Brynkir family. This land was later divided between the families of Ellis, Williams and Greenfield, after the Brynkir family estate had been brought to complete ruin by William Brynkir in 1699. 4 The land south of what is now Deiniol Road was held by the Greenfield family and included the recently demolished Castle Hotel. This property is believed to have been the town house of the Brynkir family and was successively known as 'The Eagles' and 'The Mitre'. 5 During the first quarter of the 19th century James Greenfield also owned Llanllechid Quarry, which he managed along with his duties as manager of Penrhyn Quarry. Owning one quarry whilst trying to run the other proved too difficult, and he ran into financial difficulty. This resulted in the acquisition of his properties in 1819 by George Hay Dawkins Pennant, for the Penrhyn Estate. Shortly after the first strike at Penrhyn Quarry in 1825, Greenfield's body was found floating in the quarry pool. Mystery still surrounds his death, as no inquest verdict was ever recorded. The Williams estate was divided into large plots and put up for sale when Hephzibah Williams died in 1842. Edward Gordon Douglas Pennant (later created 1st Baron Penrhyn of Llandegai in 1886) bought the central section, including Penrallt House (which was later sold to the University), and a tract of land running from the eastern end of Garth Road westwards to Upper Penrallt Road, and north­west to Siliwen Road. Garth school, the Normal Collage and many University buildings,were erected on this land. Tan­y­Allt was constructed for the Archdeacon of Meirionedd on the portion of land belonging to the Ellis family, the area north of Deiniol Road and west of Glanrafon Hill. Archdeacon John Ellis (1721­1785), a descendant of Gruffydd ap Cynan, King of Gwynedd [c.1080­1137], was the son of the Rev. John Ellis of Caernarfon (Rector of Llanbedrog) and Catherine Humphrey of Hendre. His brother Robert died in infancy and his sister Jane died aged seventeen (records of her funeral expenses are still available). A portrait of John Ellis with a lady who is believed to be his sister Jane, hangs in the dining room at Glasfryn. John Ellis was originally an engineer and chemist, who later chose to enter the church, progressing from a living at Bangor to become the Archdeacon of Meirionedd. Archdeacon John Ellis married twice; his first wife, Ann Lloyd, was the daughter of the Rev. Hugh Lloyd of Trallwyn. In addition to Trallwyn, Hugh Lloyd also owned Glasfryn Uchaf, which John ap Cadwalader (parting with land his family claimed to have owned since time immemorial) had sold to him in 1728. 3 Hilling J.B. 1976 4 Gresham, C. 1973 5 White, S.E. 1994
Page 5 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor The gateway to Tan­yr­Allt with the lost ‘Reformers tree and seat’ in foreground Following the death of Hugh Lloyd, his eldest son William, then aged 28, inherited his father's estates. One of his first acts on coming into his inheritance was to convey to the Archdeacon the holding known as Glasfryn Uchaf, in payment of a debt of £300 (William owed Ellis £200 plus the £100 dowry that had not been paid). This holding occupied some fifty acres and became the country residence of the Archdeacon where he built a ‘handsome mansion house’, thus establishing himself in Glasfryn Uchaf at an early stage in his career. In the deeds of transfer William Lloyd is described as being of Penrallt near Bangor, which was his principle residence whilst acting as Precentor of Bangor Cathedral. The Archdeacon and Ann Lloyd had two children; the eldest son, John Ellis, was ordained into the church, and Hugh Ellis, their second son, became a solicitor in Caernarfon. The eldest son, the Rev. John Ellis (Rector of Llanystumdwy), is often confused with his father and is occasionally referred to as the Archdeacon of Meirionedd in Colin Gresham's book History of Eifionydd. He resided at Plas Hen before unexpectedly succeeding to the estate of his uncle William Lloyd in 1800 (Griffiths, J.E. Pedigrees 1914). According to the terms of his uncle's will, when Trallwyn passed into his possession he was supposed to take on the name Lloyd, and although his name was never officially changed, he is at times referred to as John Lloyd (Gresham, C. 1972). He was unmarried and, following his death in 1811, Trallwyn was inherited by his nephew John Ellis, the second son of his brother Hugh, the eldest son having being killed by a fall from a horse. On his inheritance, unlike his uncle, he did assume the name Lloyd according to the terms of the will The Archdeacon's first wife, Ann, died young, and he married again in 1749. The pedigree printed by J.E.Griffith becomes untrustworthy at this point with the death of Ann Lloyd, dated 1762, thirteen years after he remarried. His second wife was Ellen Williams of Pwllheli, by whom he had five more children. Two of their children died in infancy, Ellen in 1751 and William in 1753. There is little record of their fourth child Griffith, born in 1754, whilst their fifth child, Richard, was
Page 6 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor ordained into the church and became Rector of Aysgarth in Yorkshire, and afterwards of Llandwrog. Of their five children, the most important with regard to the history of Tan­y­allt, was their first son Thomas Ellis, born eight months after the death of their daughter Ellen, in 1751. The career of the Archdeacon spanned a period when many bishops, beginning with Bishop Benjamin Hoadly in 1716, viewed the See of Bangor as a mere stepping stone in their careers. He and his successors (eleven in total) hardly ever visited Bangor, and one outcome of this neglect was the rise of non­conformity. It was not until 1783, when Bishop John Warren was translated to Bangor, that attempts were made to lift the city and diocese out of its decline. John Warren was an upright, well­meaning man who resided at the Bishop's palace for at least half of each year. However, some of his appointments, though wise and appropriate, alienated many of the leading laymen. Furthermore, he offended many of Anglesey's gentry by accusing them of following French revolutionary political principles. These mistakes ultimately brought his episcopate to an end, and he withdrew from the diocese. 6 Until the early nineteenth century, cathedral clergy dominated the administration of the parish through its vestry, while the bishops had judicial powers, as lords of the manor, to hold courts. 7 This situation serves to elucidate the importance of the church and the sort of power that the Archdeacon held. A map of Penrhyn lands produced by George Leighin in 1768 shows Tan­yr­allt with a large landscaped garden, leading from the south east entrance of the house. The landscaping of the garden is of interest in that it is the very antithesis of the style of that period, when symmetry was avoided in landscaped gardens. It was a time when gardens were to be viewed as a natural extension of the countryside, in direct contrast to the formal layout of French gardens. The design of the garden is very interesting because the pattern resembles the ‘ruler and compasses’ insignia of the Freemasons. The Grand Lodge was founded in 1717, following the need for Jacobite societies to meet. As he was both powerful and wealthy, John Ellis may have been an important Mason. It would be interesting to know what role the Archdeacon adopted viz­a­viz the inferred political Jacobite stance of some of Anglesey's gentry. The Archdeacon died in 1785 and was buried at Bath. Following his death the house was sold in 1786 to the Penrhyn estate, through the land agents Watkin, Edwards, Wynne and Trustees. At that time (1783) Richard Pennant, following his marriage to Susannah Warburton, had been created Baron Penrhyn and having bought up the Yonge's share of the estate, was developing it extensively. The conditions of sale, however, required that the house be leased to the Ellis family ‘for three lives’, being those of the Rev. Thomas Ellis, his son and daughter. 8 The Rev. Thomas Ellis M.A. (1751­1833), Fellow of St.John's College, Cambridge, was also ordained into the church, and as Canon of Bangor Cathedral, he lived mainly at Tan­yr­ allt. He married late in life, aged 56. His bride was Jane Bulgin of Bath, heiress to Catherine Williams of Brondanw, Meirionnydd, whom he had christened as a child. .The marriage was arranged by Catherine Williams in order to prevent Brondanw passing to the Jones family of Ynysfor. A condition of the marriage was that the name of Williams would from thenceforth be included in the family name. They had six children. Their eldest son, Rev. John Williams Ellis, who was born at Tan­yr­Allt in 1808, became Rector of Llanaelhaearn and married Harriet, daughter of James Clough of Plas Clough. Eleanor Frances (1809­1885) was their 6 White, S.I. 1994. Ref: T.Roberts 7 White, S.I. 1994. Ref: W.P.Griffiths 8 Penrhyn Accounts, University of Wales Bangor Archives.
Page 7 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor first daughter. She remained unmarried, as did Sidney Jane (1810­1893), and Catherine Dorothy Anne (1812­1864). Their other sons were:­ Thomas Roberts Ellis, M.A., Rector of Gyffin, William Hugh Ellis (1815­1898) and William Hugh Ellis (1818­1831). The Rev.Thomas Ellis died in 1833, having outlived his son who died in 1831. After his death, the house was leased by his daughter until 1890, when the Ellis family finally parted company with the house. Commencing with Donald Cameron, successive tenants of Penrhyn estate leased the house and accompanying field as a farm on an annual basis. Edward Evans held the lease from 1902, and Owen Hughes from 1926. Rents are recorded in the Penrhyn accounts for Tan­yr­Allt:­ Rev. Thomas Ellis (1798) £22; Miss Ellis (1844) £64.10s; Edward Evans (1914) £41; and Hugh Owen (1926) £34. In 1928 Tan­yr­Allt and the gardens extending down to the Deiniol Road were bought from the Penrhyn Estate as part of the land acquired by the University for its post­First World War expansion. The purchase of the house was incidental. It was merely acquired along with land which the University needed to build upon. Had events taken a different course at that time, the building could easily have been demolished. The main alterations that took place during the period were to the kitchen area, which was adapted for use as the Students Union, Later, the basement, rooms were partitioned into smaller units to accommodate the linguistics department. Other recent alterations include the formation of a fixed stud partition between the two north reception rooms. Tan­yr­Allt is exceptional in that so little alteration has been made to the original plan and structure. Most of the remaining doors, windows, fireplaces and plaster cornices are original. The staircase is an excellent example of the Chinese Chippendale style of the mid­ C18th period. In Bangor there are very few examples of such well­preserved early Georgian secular buildings. The Georgian buildings found in Friars Avenue, Garth Road and Ffordd Gwynedd are all representative of a later period, moving into the era of William IV. The house was first listed as Grade II in November 1987, and was subsequently upgraded to Grade II* in September 1991. A detailed architectural description is given in Appendix 1. The building ceased to be used by the University when the Linguistics Department was accommodated elsewhere. The temporary wooden extension was removed and the property secured. As a result of neglect, the leaded roof­valleys began to leak into the main internal wall structure, and dry rot broke out. Various attempts were made by the University to obtain funding to renovate the house on the grounds that it is an important listed building. However, the situation seemed to be incapable of resolution as only part of the estimated costs could be recovered on a retrospective basis, and the University had no reserve funding within its maintenance budget to undertake the necessary work. The University also found itself in a position where it did not have any perceived use for the building as an academic facility, and is not able to fund the restoration of listed buildings for which there is no planned academic use. Following suggestions from the late Mr. Tony Perry of the Bangor Civic Society, the Westminster Bank were encouraged to consider the building as a regional management office. A thorough structural survey was undertaken, and an architectural design submitted to renovate the house. However, the project did not succeed because of the costs involved. The basis of the proposal was to gut and replace most of the building, and a lot of the original character would have been lost. The present proposal to restore the building grew from suggestions by members of the Bangor Civic Society. The building could be saved if a new local Bangor Historic Buildings
Page 8 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor Trust could take title of the property, obtain funding to restore it, and then lease it back to the University. This could not be achieved by the University alone, as had been discovered, but a working partnership between the University, the Bangor Civic Society and other local interests could become an alternative way to resolve the problem and save the building in its original form. An added benefit is that such a trust would then be able to undertake similar conservation projects within the Bangor area. John Speed’s 1610 map of Bangor showing the Cathedral area. The Tan­yr­Allt land would be bottom­centre BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES GRESHAM, C.A. 1973, Eifionedd. UNIVERSITY OF WALES. Cardiff. GRIFFITHS, J.E. 1914, Pedigrees of Anglesey and Caernarfonshire Families. Reprint BRIDGE BOOKS, Wrexham. WHITE, S.I. (Ed.) 1994, Bangor ­ from a Cell to a City. ARCHITECTURAL APPRAISAL by John Nicholson Georgian buildings are generally characterised by a plain symmetrical form, with a strong axial accent on the entrance doorway. Most buildings follow this form through the interior having a front­to­back hallway passing through the middle of the house, containing the main staircase. The principal rooms of the house are then arranged each side of the hallway, with family and servants’ rooms to the rear. Unlike rural cottages that preceded them, formal Georgian houses were often very lightly constructed, using the cheapest
Page 9 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor materials. Emphasis was placed upon fine proportions, and restrained decorative detail. This practice can create problems when buildings are restored or renovated, as modern regulations require much heavier joist, purlin and rafter sizes. However, wholesale replacement can destroy original proportions and remove the feeling of resonant, springy floors that are such a characteristic of this period. Tan­yr­Allt house is a good example of this form of design, built with rough slate and stone rubble walls, but with fine interior details. It also has many additional features. The front door is approached by a delicate double stone staircase with a forged iron handrail. There is evidence that the present porch canopy was decorated, and once had an extensive trellis. The large front windows and the rear stairway landing window have Georgian sash windows from the early period in which quite thick glazing bars were used with plain mouldings. The window joinery was mainly pegged. The staircase is of a Chinese Chippendale pattern. The principle rooms have original decorated fireplaces, one with a broken pediment, and dentil ornamentation. The main front room has simple panelled boarding up to the dado. Ground floor rooms have interior fitted shutters to the main windows. A new bay­window was added to the south west of the house, similar to that on the north east. This has much later (19th c.) joinery details, and now poses a problem because the bay is falling away from the main structure due to inadequate footings. The cellar steps are covered with what is said to be Anglesey black marble [Carboniferous limestone] from either Benllech or Red Wharf Bay. At some stage in the history of the house the front elevation overlooking the garden was rendered. An early photograph shows the house with its original front of coursed dressed stone. This photograph shows that there were no landers on the front of the house, and also presents the present roof edge and gutter board in a better alignment. The photograph also shows clearly the form and construction of the original first floor windows, which were later removed and their openings widened to increase interior lighting levels for academic work. There are indications of inserted steel supports for the hallway floor, which would otherwise now be very springy. Windows have probably been replaced during the later C19th, but many original windows remain and are still in remarkably good condition. The outbuildings have been converted to provide toilet facilities, but otherwise they are probably very much as originally constructed, though of a C19th c. rather than C18th style. It is of interest that evidence was found of reed­rope plaster support within the first floor interior partition walls. This is an unusual technique sometimes found in old properties in the Arfon and Anglesey area, used as an alternative to wooden lath supports. The rough ropes were formed by twisting the stems of phragmites, reeds or straw. They were then woven into the timber stud­frames, and tensioned by twisting as a vertical two­ply strain. The whole structure was then coated with lime plaster. The technique is generally associated with buildings earlier than this period, and shows how a local custom has persisted. (PICTURE TO BE INSERTED HERE) Chimney Piece in the Entrance Hall Taken by Jean Williamson, August 1995, RCAHMW. 9500313/3 (PICTURE TO BE INSERTED HERE) Chinese Chippendale staircase balustrade. Taken by Jean Williamson, August 1995, RCAHMW. 9500313/1
Page 10 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor (PICTURE TO BE INSERTED HERE) Fireplace, overmantle and flanking interior doors of G1. Taken by Jean Williamson, August 1995, RCAHMW. 9500313/2 STRUCTURAL APPRAISAL by Dr. Jagjit Singh, and John Nicholson The University have used the building to house the Linguistics Department and previously to house a Students Refectory. However, since these functions have been moved into new custom built accommodation elsewhere, no new use has been made of the building except for storage of scientific equipment. The house has been locked and the windows secured. Leaks in the two leaded roof valleys have created ideal conditions for the spread of dry rot. The main conditions needed to propagate Serpula Lacrymans (dry rot) are dampness (but not actual wetness), very still air, and calcium carbonate (lime). The report by Dr. Jagjit Singh of Oscar Faber Ltd., deals specifically with the examination of dry rot and other decay, and the measures needed to treat it. The principles of treating dry rot are discussed elsewhere in this report, and emphasise the need for continuous ventilation. There will be a need to provide fresh air ducts within the building, reaching to all voids. This need not significantly increase the cost of heating, and should provide good air quality for office work, being neither too stuffy nor too draughty. One effective way of providing ventilation is by pumping dry warm air from the attic roof space, down an unused chimney to the basement. This would create a slightly positive pressure within the building, which stops drafts. Other vents may have to be placed in the valleys of the roof to ventilate the attic itself. There are numerous other structural problems, some of which may have been evident within the building for some while, as remedial measures can clearly be seen. Roof structure In general the roof structure appears to be in good condition considering its lightness of construction [by modern standards]. There are visible signs of wood­boring infestation by Anobium punctatum (woodworm), and fungal decay and wood­boring weevils can be found around the wall plate. It is hoped that complete re­roofing can be avoided, with simple repairs being undertaken where necessary. If replaced, the new timbering would have to be very much heavier in order to meet current building regulations, and this would spoil the present line of the original roof. It is suggested that at least 4” (100 mm) and preferably 6” (150 mm) of Rockwool insulation be laid over the attic floor, covering the ceilings. It is important that the roof void is well ventilated, and special venting apertures may have to be inserted to achieve this. However, the Robert Davies report strongly recommends the total replacement of the roof, and in the long term this will be necessary. It is therefore suggested that an accumulating budget is provided to cover the anticipated costs of this at a later date. Chimneys Early photographs show much more solid chimney stacks with overhanging covers, probably made of solid slate. The existing decorative fired­clay pots are later additions, and could be removed. The flashings around the base of the stacks will need to be thoroughly inspected and renewed as necessary. The chimney flues should be covered, but vented using low profile caps or hollow ridge tiles.
Page 11 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor Valleys The lead work in both roof valleys has now perished, and the ingress of rain water is the cause of most of the subsequent problems of decay. 9 It is anticipated that most of the lower slates, lead­work, and underlying timber structure will have to be lifted and removed. New supporting woodwork will have to be inserted, and the valleys re­leaded on a flat graded plywood deck. Damp monitoring should be inserted to alert if conditions re­occur that would encourage wet or dry rot. Gutters The Williams Ellis photographs show that there were no landers on the front of the building, which makes good sense, as this reduces the amount of water pouring into the drainage trench along the footings. It is suggested that a new wide cast iron ogee gutter is fitted, with landers to new drains at the rear of the house. Skylights The existing skylights are now corroded and cannot be opened. New double glazed opening skylights should be provided so that there is easy access to inspect the valleys. Bulging walls The rear elevation shows considerable non­vertical alignment, due to the separation of the outer skin of the exterior wall, and general lack of tension provided in places by internal timbers, but not present in the stairwell. This would seem to have been a problem for some time, as the plaster details in the stairwell have been extended to accommodate the movement in the past. However, large cracks around the landing window indicate that this is a continuing problem. It appears that the issue is now more of wall separation than of collapse. Extensive investigations could be carried out, but the solution to the problem ultimately can take one of two forms:­ 1) insertion of tensioned steel ties hidden within the floor voids, and attached by steel cross plates to the exterior of the north wall, or 2) provision of one or two external buttresses to the north wall. Both of these measures would secure the wall from any further movement, and would avoid total rebuilding. However, the rear wall does not of itself have any great architectural or historical merit, and is presently rendered. If the rear elevations are to be rendered as part of the conservation of the building, then a third alternative of total reconstruction would not be an unthinkable option. Separating south­west bay This was added, probably in the later C19th., matching the original bay to the north east. Inadequate footings and the lack of a key to the main structure, have resulted in a separation of about 30 mm. in places. The windows and wooden features can easily be removed, and the whole structure rebuilt, possibly in block­work on standard concrete strip foundations, and rendered. Care should be taken to retain and re­use the original slate details to the roof and the windows. 9 Since repaired by the University [2005]
Page 12 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor Weak floor structure Typically of Georgian buildings of this period, the floor joists are of considerably less than present day standard. However, there are indications that the main floors of the ground floor hall and reception rooms have in the past been strengthened by the insertion of steel beams. This has helped overcome the common problem of springy floors. The problem may remain in the first floor, but is disguised at presence by the recent stud partitioning. If necessary, additional steel span beams may also need to be inserted in the first floor space to secure joisting over voids. Damp penetration One third of the potential floor space is below ground level, and subject to intrusive damp penetration. Only the rear external wall is actually in contact with the ground, and investigation may reveal that a French ditch or slate damp course was originally provided. The footings to all other walls have been provided with wide ventilated ditches, largely now filled with rubbish and creeper growth. The removal of debris, and careful pruning should reduce the problem to insignificance. Rising damp This is not considered such a serious structural problem and scourge of older buildings as it was in the past, when property surveyors and valuers often misdiagnosed the condition, mistaking rising damp for simple condensation. In fact rising damp is only evident in about 10% of investigated cases, and then is generally easy and cheap to cure. For water to rise within an exposed outside wall, the footings have to stand in a soil with a moisture content of over 20%, which is almost swamp­like. It is often found that old buildings such as water mills are completely dry a short distance above running water. It is far more likely that surface damp problems are caused by condensation or penetrating damp from chimneys, rendered wall surfaces, or horizontal permeation when the walls are below ground level. This occurs only along the rear wall, and a new French ditch is suggested as a means of correcting problems of penetrating damp along the rear of the house. Condensation is more likely to become a problem once the building is occupied, as moisture laden air is cooled in contact with cold external walls. This happens especially at ground level, and the effects can be seen in parts of the basement. This could show itself as mildew on walls, clothes and books, and would be a nuisance if the basement floor were to be used for office purposes. However these problems can easily be overcome by good practice, for example the avoidance of water­producing processes, and the placing of a central heating pipe along the lower part of all external walls. External render Early photographs show the house facade without any rendering. Large coursed dressed stone blocks can be seen. The existing render is of a hard Portland cement type, suggesting that it is of a later date than the construction of the original walls using lime mortar. The hard render is falling from the wall in places. Investigations have not revealed any form of struck detailing of the quoins or lines suggesting imitation masonry, which might be expected if the original facade was rendered. It is therefore thought that the original facade will be revealed when the render is removed. The effect of this non­permeable covering over such a long period of time will be to increase the contained water levels within the wall mass. The sooner the render is removed and the building is allowed to dry out, the better. The side and rear walls may have been
Page 13 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor originally rendered, and consideration should be given to re­rendering with a more suitable lime based render, if the quality of the underlying masonry suggests that rendering is necessary. The mortar on any newly exposed stone work should be raked out, and re­pointed with matching lime mortar, washed back to about 5mm behind the stone surface. This will ensure that the walls continue to breathe, and any included moisture will be lost to the atmosphere. The existing render on the rear and sides of the house should also be stripped, as it is of a quality not used at the time of construction and will have caused retention of moisture within the wall mass. This could be the cause of the rear wall bulging, or contributory to it. If the underlying stonework is not of a good quality, and a new rendered external surface is required, then this should be applied using a soft lime­based mortar using a wooden float. Bell render stops should not be used in any situation including at footings or over lintels. Non­breathing interior finishes At some time the Southern rooms on the ground and first floors have been redecorated using gypsum plaster, and this has inevitably parted from the wall structure. All non­lime­ based finishes should be removed and replaced by suitably mixed lime­based plasters which will allow the walls to breathe. Porous, non­vinyl paints should be used as interior wall finishes; for example Hoskins distemper, ‘Walpamur’ or lime­wash should be used. Drainage Most of the water run­off will be to the rear of the house, and it is suggested that the new front gutters be arranged to drain to the rear. The drainage of the rear walls at basement level could be improved by the excavation of a French ditch to below floor level with adequate drains. It is suggested that new large surface­water drains be placed within this cavity to receive the roof water from the landers. Woodwork Much of the structural woodwork has been damaged by wet and dry rot decay. New timbers can be fitted once the building has dried out and has been tested. In most cases it is hoped that joists can be spliced into the remaining timbers, but in some areas wholesale replacement will be necessary. Most of the first floor floorboards will have to be replaced because of attack by woodworm. It is hoped that the interior painted woodwork can largely be saved. Although there are signs of dry rot attack there is no extensive decay, and ventilation should prevent any further damage. Some of the cupboards on the ground floor are damaged by wet rot. Most of the painted woodwork can be stripped, and repainted using traditional lead­based oil paint. Windows Most of the windows can be restored or repaired. Although there are examples of window designs from different periods there are not any glaring inconsistencies, excepting the widened first floor windows, which will be replaced with new facsimile windows made in pine. It is hoped that most of the repair replacement work can be done in situ, avoiding the removal of the fragile window frames. This is especially important because much of the original thin Georgian glass remains. The existing painted woodwork can be stripped and repaired as needed and new hardwood sills inserted. The whole can then primed and re­ painted using traditional lead­based oil paint.
Page 14 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor Access
The house originally had three entrance points: the formal front door, approached by narrow stone steps; the back door, leading to the rear driveway on the level, and the basement door, approached down steps from the rear drive. When the building was used by the University, a modern wooden prefabricated style extension was built, with a ramped communicating corridor from the ground floor at G2. This extension has now been removed, but the enlarged opening at G2 has not been restored to its original window size. There are problems with all of the original access points of one sort or another. The formal front door is too heavy and the access up the curved (and by modern standards, too awkward) stone steps is restricting. People will not want to approach the house directly from the service road, especially having parked in the main car park area at the side of the house. The front door is therefore considered suitable for occasional and formal use, perhaps for special events or public open days. The back door can be entered on the level, but it is first necessary to go up a flight of steps in the garden from the main car park. This is an informal entrance and does nothing to reveal the full architectural splendour of the house. This will be the only convenient access available for wheel chairs. The basement door is even more informal, and the access to the rest of the building will be via dark corridors and utility service areas. This approach will still be maintained, but with the expectation that it is only used for deliveries to the basement level, and utility functions, and as a means of access to the annex. The proposal put forward by the Westminster Bank proposed a new entrance to G2, with steps to the car park area, flanked by low stone walls. Room G2 could therefore be used as a reception area. One problem with this is that G2 and G1 are at present separated only with a recent stud partition wall, which would very likely have replaced panelled wooden folding shutters. There is great value in the potential of including G1 and G2 for exhibitions, conferences, seminars, and functions, where a large formal room is required. However, it is not desirable to enter directly into a formal function space. This matter of detail should be discussed with the future users. A drawing of this proposal with a ramp to the car park area can be found in Appendix 4. Another alternative would be to replace the now failing South West bow with a new entrance, approached by steps from what is now a lawn area. The second function room G5, could be extended and the annex included within the building. The design of the present bay window could be incorporated. This has the disadvantage that the entrance to the house is not visible from the main car park area, and signs would be necessary to guide visitors around the front of the house. Drawings of these proposals can be found in Appendix 4. It is anticipated that there will be public access to the main reception rooms G1 / G2, G6 and G5, and also to the toilet facilities on the ground floor on all occasions when these rooms are not in use by the University Department. It is expected that access to other parts of the building will be restricted to those engaged in the Department as students, staff or employees. However, because of the importance of the building, and its suitability for use as a venue for public functions, it is hoped that the principal rooms will be available on hire to the public, by arrangement through both the Department and the Trust. Disabled Access The only means of access into the building for wheel chairs will be through the back door, from which there is access throughout the ground floor. There is now great pressure to ensure that disabled access is provided to all parts of all public buildings. Finding a suitable
Page 15 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor site for a service lift to all three floors within Tan­yr­Allt is no easy matter. Whilst there may not at present be a legal requirement upon the University for the provision of full disabled access, there is a need if the building is opened for public use, and this is one of the aims of the project. It would be a great advantage if it can be said that the building does provide full disabled access, and this could help provide further opportunities for the local employment of disabled people. The only solution which will not impinge onto one of the main decorated reception rooms, and will give access to all floors at a corridor position, would require the part demolition of the main chimney stack serving the present kitchen. This would provide a service lift from within the toilet space on the ground floor, arriving at the present storage cupboards on the first floor, and descending to the position in the basement where the Sadia water heater is situated, which would have to be dug lower to align with the floor of B1, B5, B6, & B7. The only disabled toilets would be on the ground floor. There will be a need to use this chimney as the vent for the central heating boiler if situated as suggested within B4 or the void under the kitchen area. The cost of this work would be very considerable, and must be considered against current University policy with regard to the provision of disabled access. Heating A new central heating system will be necessary with a gas or oil­fired boiler, probably situated at B4 or within the unaccounted void under the kitchen area, supplying radiators to all frequently occupied rooms. Rooms used only occasionally could be heated as needed with electric radiant heaters. Heating levels should not be unnecessarily high. It is important to maintain air circulation and ventilation throughout the building. The insulation of the first floor ceilings will reduce heat losses, and the other windows can be protected with lined curtains fitted within pelmets. The ground floor rooms have full length wooden shutters which should be repaired and used to conserve heat. Toilets
The present large and unheated toilet block may exceed future needs, and the route down through the basement is not very suitable for visitors. The aim is to provide an attractive and impressive new building. New toilets could be provided within G4, the present kitchen area, with access directly from the main hall to both male and female toilets. Consideration should be given to the provision of facilities within each toilet for disabled users. Kitchens It is not anticipated that there will be a need for extensive kitchen facilities, as there are good food services already available in the Students Union near by. It is unlikely that there will be a need to duplicate this provision, and cover the considerable costs of permanent kitchen staff. There will however be a need for coffee and tea making facilities, and this should be achieved within the staff lounge areas, and adequate ventilation fitted to prevent unnecessary water vapour which could condense in the lower areas. For this reason the lounge area is suggested on the first floor. Outbuildings The outbuildings may need to be completely re­roofed as dry rot seems to have penetrated the main timbers. This creates an opportunity to develop this area as an independent unit, comprising an entrance lobby, toilet, a lower office and a higher committee or seminar room on a new first floor. This could be leased out separately, or joined on to the main building. One possibility is that this area could be used as a committee room and offices by the new Bangor Historic Buildings Trust.
Page 16 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor The annex could also be developed to include a new entrance into G5, and this would provide a large reception and function room. Drawings of these proposals can be found in Appendix 4. Parking The existing car park area could be re­arranged to provide an accessible temporary visitors car park, and also specific parking for the users of the house. A new access to the house by a ramp to a reception room in G2 has already been discussed. The rear entrance way to Penrallt and Glanrafon hill could also be improved and used as a car park, and will be the only means of access for disabled drivers. Orange badge parking facilities will have to be provided in the area immediately to the rear of the house. Curtilage and gardens The precise extent of the curtilage described by the title to be transferred to the care of the trust has not yet been defined, but the probable area is that indicated in the map in Appendix 4. It is assumed that the existing garden and car park, rear access road and gateway to Glanrafon Hill will fall into the care of the trust. At this stage, the steeply inclined area of woodland behind the house is not considered. The proposal is to enhance and develop the garden area immediately around the house, thereby improving the architectural setting, and the public enjoyment of the area. This could be achieved with careful planting of formal hedges and clipped bushes, preferably of box and yew, along the frontage, to help place the building in a better context with the service road. It is hoped that the negative effect of the concrete kerb stone can be overcome. There is now a well established Wisteria Floribunda growing up the front and right side of the house, its branches twisting around the landers (fall pipes) and iron railings. This should be carefully removed from the render, and given temporary support whilst the exterior wall is attended to. Other surviving plants should be identified and protected during the period of restoration work. Members of the Civic Society have expressed an interest in preparing yew and box hedging plants ready for the front garden, which could be inserted into wooden or low rustic masonry walls, at each side of the front door. The back door to the house could also be improved with sturdy tubs containing clipped bushes and Camellia. A free standing wooden trellis could also make the area more attractive, and prevent access by vehicles from Glanrafon hill to the restricted University car park. The rear entrance driveway could be further improved with suitable natural screening, by placing a wooden trellis upon which climbing plants are supported. The other area of garden around the lower car park also contains many interesting plants, which could be salvaged and improved to form a self­managing garden. It is suggested that a simple paved walkway with some seats, be placed within this garden area, to encourage use as a quiet place for a sandwich, rest or study. It is unfortunate that the automated traffic barriers are placed right in front of the house, where they have the most visual impact upon the best view of the house from Bangor. The noise of the barriers is also a nuisance to the use of the house. Accepting that this costly equipment is now well embedded into the road structure, priority should be given to finding a better position (probably simply further along the service road), at the earliest opportunity. Co­operation with Departments within the University, including the Students Union in propagation of plants around the house would be very much appreciated.
Page 17 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor THE PROPOSED RESTORATION SCHEME This proposal differs from the previous proposals in its whole approach. Instead of modernising the building, and destroying its original character and typical Georgian qualities, this proposal retains and enhances the surviving material, putting back many details that have been lost or covered over. Instead of gutting much of the interior, and rebuilding it anew, this proposal retains as much as possible of the existing structure, and replaces only as much as is absolutely necessary to recover that which is damaged by decay. It is tempting to suggest extensive reconstruction of unique details now damaged by weathering or abuse. For example the front stone steps are now damaged by hard cement repairs, and worn or splitting stone. However, another view is that the building need not be restored to look as it was when new, but can be economically repaired as is, and allowed to remain as an “old building”. The house has been inspected by Douglas Hogg of Cadw, to discuss the restoration scheme, and ensure that our intentions will be supported by the Cadw grant. It is agreed that the basic approach should be to “repair as found”. This would allow us to retain most of the later windows, and accept some details that may not have been quite original, but are not considered offensive. Everyone agrees that the first floor windows in the façade should be reduced in width to match early photographs. The wide internal reveals and window seats can be retained. If it is decided not to render the front, then new window openings will have to be made in matching masonry with suitable quoins and stone lintels. Dry rot treatment Because the building is not at present in use, and is not subject to Council tax or any other known administration or running costs, there is not a pressing need to regain economic use. There is therefore time to eradicate the dry rot without the use of poisonous chemicals, but simply changing the conditions needed for dry rot to grow. This can be achieved by providing the maximum natural ventilation to the building, and removing any water leaks. Dry rot cannot survive in ventilated conditions. This is the cheapest and most effective way of treating dry rot, but it will not redeem the damaged woodwork. By comparison, the effectiveness of chemicals cannot be guaranteed as it is impossible to ensure that all areas are adequately covered. It is particularly difficult and expensive to treat large rubble walls which may contain cavities. Buildings treated by chemicals retain the smell of the material for many years, and the effect can cause health risks. The combination of drying out the structure followed by careful scientific monitoring of the environmental conditions does ensure that dry rot will never return to devour the new timbers. For these reasons this is recommended as the best approach in this case, and Dr. Jagjit Sing was contacted in the first instance being a leading consultant in the use of this technique. His full report is available, and is summarised in appendix 2. Site preparation Steps have already been taken by volunteers to clear the ground floor of debris, and pierce the plywood shutters that have been placed in all the windows. This will increase the natural ventilation. The lino flooring material has been lifted, and the floor boards removed where ever they have become infected by dry rot. The covers providing access to the attic space have been opened. All interior doors have been secured open. The under floor voids have been ventilated wherever possible. The University Estates Department have now carried out remedial repairs to the two valleys, preventing any further water ingress. The requirements set out in Dr. Singh’s report have therefore been met, and the building should now be able to dry out naturally.
Page 18 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor Structural repairs As soon as a funding commitment can be made, the exterior render, and interior gypsum plaster should be removed. The chimneys could be capped with lead or zinc covers placed over the existing pots, with openings at the sides to allow ventilation. This will allow further drying out of the wall mass and could be hastened by the use of dehumidifiers. Before undertaking the replacement of decayed timbers, the moisture levels should be re­ checked, and the remaining timbers inspected for active decay. An estimated costing of the works programme is included in Appendix 2. Further Development Suggestions have been made for alterations to the toilet wing to provide an annex, and also to an extension to the South West which could incorporate the existing bay details, and provide a new entrance, a large reception room, and access to the rear annex. The provision of an internal service lift is also discussed. These alterations may fall outside the scope of funding from Cadw and The Heritage Lottery Fund, but could be considered by the WDA and the Millennium Fund. Tenders It is anticipated that the majority of reconstruction work can be tendered to local contractors, selected on the basis of previous experience in this type of work. The job would be particularly suitable for a smaller local contractor, as there are not any major construction problems. It may be necessary to engage freelance specialists for the internal re­plastering, and decorative plaster work repairs. Other local active groups may also be prepared to support this project, especially with the landscaping and gardening, for example Conservation Volunteers, The Prince of Wales Trust, and the Civic Society. A great deal of preparation work has already been done by volunteers operating informally as the “Tan­yr­Allt Action Group”, comprising mainly of Bangor Civic Society members. It is not expected that the interest and enthusiasm of the Civic Society will dwindle as the project progresses. It is hoped that a continuing volunteer support will be possible, helping under supervision on tasks that can reduce labour costs, i.e. stripping paint work, plaster and render, re­painting, repairing floors and woodwork etc. This contribution may well reduce the eventual costs of the project, and will help develop a greater local understanding of the various skills in restoration and conservation work. THE ECONOMIC PROPOSAL The basis of the proposal put forward by the Bangor Civic Society was that a new Historic Buildings Trust be established in the Bangor area, and this is now in being.. The Trust includes as trustees representatives from the Bangor Civic Society and the University, and has a constitution following in all respects the model provided by the Architectural Heritage Trust. The Trust will also include local people with personal skills, knowledge or proven commitment to the care of the local historic built environment. The trust will investigate the practical feasibility of conserving the structure of the house, and also the economic basis upon which the building will subsequently be used. Tony Perry’s vision was that the house could be used as a venue for the arts. Its fine lighted rooms would certainly provide an excellent exhibition space for paintings, wall hangings and smaller sculptures. However, it was difficult to see how such a venture could economically sustain the burden of cost that would inevitably be involved in the restoration
Page 19 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor of the house. There are also other facilities in both the Bangor City Museum and Theatre Gwynedd already available for the exhibition of art work. The prospect of covering the costs of running such a venture was daunting. The other problem is that because the building is now surrounded by nondescript academic buildings, the public do not readily venture in to this area. It would be difficult to attract passers­by to call in and view any exhibition. Other commercial uses of the building are unlikely to be financially sustainable because of its position so far from the active High Street. An alternative approach was therefore suggested, in which the reality of the building’s present situation is accepted. The most likely economic future use will be for the building to remain within the University use. The concept is therefore that the Trust take over the freehold charge and title of the property from the University, thereby relieving the University from any further responsibility or burden for the costs of repairs. In return the University will contract to lease the house when restored at a rent determined by the District Valuer. The Trust will then be able to attract funding from Cadw, the Architectural Heritage Fund, the Lottery Heritage Fund, the Prince of Wales Trust, Business in the Community, and other local funding sources like the Old Bangorians. A funding package would enable the Trust to proceed with the restoration, the major part of the work being carried out by a suitable contractor. Upon completion, the University would then lease the premises for its own use at a rent decided in consultation with the District Valuer. There would not be any restriction on the University sub­letting to other tenants so long as there are adequate protection clauses prohibiting any alterations to the property. Independent sections of the University or other academic interests could be housed in the building. The main reception rooms could also be made available to the public, for receptions or exhibitions in the way that Tony Perry envisaged. Negotiations have taken place with Cadw, who are prepared to meet up to a maximum of 50% of conservation costs. Normally this is arranged retrospectively by payment against invoices for work completed. However, in the circumstances, Cadw has offered to fund a proportion of costs of urgent remedial works which could not otherwise be achieved. So far, the cost of all work has been covered by volunteers, the Bangor Civic Society and the University Estates Department. Discussions have also taken place with the Lottery Heritage team visiting Caernarfon, and the impression was that this would be considered a very promising project for support funding. The suggestion was made that a bid to the Lottery Heritage should be presented as a first option, before entering into a loan agreement with the Architectural Heritage Fund, as the Lottery money could be used to cover the cost of immediate repairs. However, it is anticipated that a temporary loan from the Architectural Heritage Fund may well be an important part of the cash flow to cover costs that would ultimately be re­paid through Cadw. As a rough estimate, the cost of basic repairs is likely to be about £86,000, including professional fees and contingency costs for works that may not have been accounted for. This includes the contractor’s profit. (Appendix 2). Many of these costs could be reduced by voluntary contribution. Assuming costs in this range, then the contributions from other funding sources might be as follows:­ Possible breakdown for essential works Cadw Lottery Heritage Fund Local Authority 40% £ 34,400 40% £ 34,400 10% £ 8,600
Page 20 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor Local fund raising and gifts 10% £ 8,600 Possible breakdown for additional works Cadw Lottery Heritage Fund Local Authority Local fund raising and gifts 40% 40% 10% 10% £ 11,320 £ 11,320 £ 2,830 £ 2,830 A loan from the Architectural Heritage Fund would be required if the other sources are not able to contribute enough to cover the full costs, or if repayments can only be made retrospectively. Such a loan is normally available for repayment over a two year period. When restored, Tan­yr­Allt could provide the following accommodation:­
Page 21 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor Floor First floor Ground Room Number 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 G1 Floor area (Sq. Ft) 252 140 48 27 40 72 64 182 128 314 G2 G3 G4 154 50 176 G5 G6 222 152 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 & 9 240 28 117 18 112 64 180 104 Potential use Office/reception area Staff common room/ interview room Landing area, photo copier, information Staff toilet Corridor, storage cupboard/ lift space Office Office Office Office Main reception room, seminar room/ exhibition space Extension to G1 with folding partition Rear hallway, notice board Toilets, lift space/ kitchen facility/ office/ laboratory Secondary reception room, seminar room Main entrance hall, exhibition / information basement Office / laboratory Store room / printing Storage (restricted ceiling height) Storage / boiler Hall / passageway Office (could extend into B5) Office / laboratory Boiler room / maintenance and lift space Separate annex facility, suitable for outside user Annex B10 B11 B12 60 198 28 Reception area Seminar room (could have a room over) Maintenance store / tool shed This could be used by several different non­academic functions, or the whole area could be leased to one of the independent academic units that are affiliated to the University, such as the Centre for Arid Zone Studies. Either or both of these options could be used. The approximate floor areas of Tan­yr­Allt house are as follows:­
Page 22 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor Floor Area in square feet First floor Ground floor Basement (excluding annex) Total rentable area of main house Annex ­ as existing Annex if extended with two floors 825 916 759 2500 258 505 An average rental for office floor space in Bangor is about £15.00 per square foot per year. If this was considered a reasonable charge for rented maintained space within a newly restored prestige building within the University site, then this could provide an income of £37,500 per year. At £10.00 per square foot this figure would be £25,000 p.a. The costs of routine maintenance should be covered at the rate of £3,500 p.a. In addition, a figure should be set aside for any other structural alterations or improvements that may be necessary in the course of time, for example the re­roofing. Assuming a roll­over contingency of £3,000 per year, this would still provide an income to the trust of £30,000 per year. The first two years’ income would be needed to repay the loan to the Architectural Heritage Trust, and thereafter would provide a revenue to plough back into other projects. The essential works estimate does not include the costs of a service lift, disabled toilets or the suggested extension to G5 and the annex, which are considered separately. Value Added Tax VAT is charged on all building work except new domestic housing, which is zero rated. The threshold for registration for VAT is £47,000 in any 12 month period. The cost of materials in the project is comparatively low, the main resources being timber, lime, and sand. It is suggested that special terms could be arranged for the local supply of these materials through the trustees. Much of the work involved is of a high­labour low­skill content, and would be suitable for smaller subcontracting local companies, and self­ employed. This would benefit the local economy, and encourage the development of conservation skills within this area. The highly skilled tasks like plaster­work repairs etc. could also be undertaken by smaller specialist companies, hopefully on an understanding that an element of local training will be incorporated into their contract. It is suggested that this would reduce to a minimum the liability for VAT on the project as a whole. (INSERT PICTURE HERE) Front of the house from the South, showing the trellis porch placed around the front door. RCAHMW
Page 23 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor APPENDIX 1 Important architectural features. Date first listed: Grade II 9th November 1987 Date upgraded: Grade II* 24th September 1991. Cadw Ref. No: 37/34/74NG Ref.: SH 578 721 Built in 1755 for John Ellis, Archdeacon of Bangor. Georgian square plan with 2 storeys and basement, on steeply sloping ground, now set among modern University buildings. Some C19th and C20th alterations. Symmetrical 3 window, painted and rendered front (thought to have been dressed coursed local stone), hipped slate roofs with rendered chimney stacks. 12­pane sash­windows to ground floor; sliding sash­windows to basement at front. Central entrance with timber hood and half­glazed door, reached by twin flights of stone stairs, curved forward to each side; previously had a wooden trellised porch. The building is formed of three parallel cross ranges. Original splayed bay­window to the right, and a similar one added to the left in C19th; small pane sash glazing. Later C19th outbuilding to left, partly attached. Rear elevation is set with basement below ground level and back door level with driveway. 2­storey, 4­window rear elevation; central 12­pane sash stair­well window, with broad glazing­bars, and offset. Below is a 6­panel door with a later slate mitred hood; other sash­windows of probably later style. Interior retains especially fine Georgian detail including a Chinese Chippendale style staircase with carved tread­ends, and fluted reveals to the stairwell window. The entrance hall and right­hand main room have fireplace over­mantles, lugged to the former and broken pedimented with bolection moulding to the latter. Other detail includes lugged architraves to the doorways, 6­panel doors, panelled shutters (some original, others C19th) to the ground floor reception rooms, dado rail, dentil cornices etc. The first floor rooms are reached under a landing arch with fluted pilasters and keystone. One Georgian fireplace remains. The internal steps to the basement are said to be finished in Anglesey black marble. Based upon the listing specification, written by Mr R W Hughes. APPENDIX 2 Estimated costing of the works program. ESSENTIAL WORKS ESTIMATE Supply and hire of scaffolding £ 2,500 Hack off and remove all external render, and internal gypsum plaster £ 3,500 Dig French ditch and lay new surface water drains to the rear £ 3,000 Insert steel ties £ 3,000 OR build rear buttress £ 2,500 OR support and rebuild faulty section of north wall £ 3,500 Average £ 3,000 Demolish south west bay, and rebuild on strip foundations £ 4,000 Repair roof, chimneys and valleys £ 4,500 Wood worm treatment to roof timbers £ 1,700 Insulate and ventilate roof void £ 1,500 Fit new gutters and rainwater goods £ 1,700 Replace decayed floor timbers £ 4,000 Repair or replace window lintels where necessary £ 2,500 Rebuild first floor window openings, and insert new facsimile windows £ 4,500 Strip and repair all interior painted woodwork and window frames £ 5,500 Fit heating system, water supply and associated wiring £ 4,500 Re­wire throughout the house £ 3,500 Repair and re­point all external walls with lime mortar £ 5,500 Specialist decorative repairs £ 3,000
Page 24 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor Re­plaster interior walls with lime plaster, and Auro distemper £ 2,500 Fit monitoring system, and lightning conductors £ 2,000 Attend to garden and cartilage £ 2,100 Contingency at 20% £13,000 Consultants and Professional fees £ 8,000 ESTIMATED COST OF ESSENTIAL REPAIRS: £86,000 * = tasks that would not be included if additional works are undertaken. ADDITIONAL WORKS TO BE CONSIDERED_ESTIMATE__ Re­render exterior side and rear walls with lime based mortar Paint exterior walls with microporous paint Strip & re­slate entire roof on new battens & microporous underlay Construction of an entrance ramp to G2. Provide new toilets within kitchen area £ 5,500 £ 3,500 £15,000 £ 800 £ 3,500 ESTIMATED COST OF ADDITIONAL WORKS: £28,300 OPTIONAL DEVELOPMENT WORKS_ESTIMATE Development of B10 & B11 area as separate 2 floor annex Provide service lift, and structural alterations Include toilet facilities for disabled Extension of G5 as an entrance seminar room &connection to tannex £ 8,000 £32,000 £ 4,000 £35,000 APPENDIX 3 Summary of the report by Dr. Jagjit Singh,of Oscar Faber Ltd. (1996) The structural shell of Tan­yr­Allt house is generally in remarkably good condition, despite long term water penetration through roofs, lack of maintenance, and general neglect. That there is so little deterioration is a tribute to the basic fundamental design which allowed adequate ventilation into the fabric of the house, rather than to continual maintenance.. The major water penetration and associated deterioration problems are due to poor roof and chimney finishes, defective roof drainage, and leakage from poor pointing. The severe timber­decay problems are mainly the result of extensive floor­covering, which allowed very little air­movement within the floor voids. Correction of these building defects, combined with measures to protect sensitive ornate structures, and to allow ventilation of the wet areas, will prevent further decay. The dry­rot infection has occurred because the building was left in a situation in which it provided the ideal conditions for propagation. There is not anything about the design or construction of the building itself that is at fault. Had the building remained in normal use, or adequate ventilation and maintenance been provided, then the problem would not have arisen. A range of timber­decay organisms were found, including Serpula lacrymans (dry rot), Coniophora puteana (wet rot), Asterostroma sp. (wet rot), surface rot and Anobium punctatum (woodworm), Pentarthrum huttoni and Euophryum confine (wood boring weevils). The timber elements which are completely decayed will require eventual replacement. There are two main centres of infection, one in the floor of the kitchen area, the other just inside the hallway nearest the front door. There are other minor outbreaks, especially in the outbuildings. It would appear that there is not any serious outbreak on the first floor, except
Page 25 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor over the lavatory water­cistern. Both major centres are now at an advanced stage, and show healthy fruiting bodies. There is therefore a very large number of spores in the air, and breathing protection should be used if material is disturbed. The rot has spread from the primary centres, along the protected floor­space voids, and under the lino. Indeed, the lino provided a useful source of moisture and protection from moving air. As well as dry rot there is wet­rot damage, especially in the timbers directly under each of the two leaded roof­valleys. This has caused damage to interior joinery work on both the first and ground floors. The wet rot will stop spreading as soon as the roof leaks can be repaired. The dry rot can easily be killed by increasing ventilation levels, and removing the source of water penetration from the leaking roof. The sooner this work can be done the better. For conservation and preservation of Tan­yr­Allt house, various building works are required. Firstly , emergency repairs are necessary to reduce further moisture penetration, to dry down wet areas and protect sensitive structures by strategic ventilation. The second stage is the repair and restoration of damaged structures and the establishment of details for the long­term conservation policy. The third stage is the monitoring and preventative maintenance of the house for the future. Provision should be made for fire suppression and lightning protection. Any property of this age and type will require on­going maintenance and repair, and a budget for such works must be allowed for, to ensure the building remains in good condition. Urgent works are required to make the house watertight and to ensure that there is no further water penetration. Exposure of various roof, ceiling and floor voids and wall voids must also be done as a matter of urgency. The only other structural work required is the repair or replacement of the (later) drifting bay extension, and the bulging of the rear wall.
Page 26 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor APPENDIX 4 Plans (INSERT PLANS HERE) As existing: Plans: Roof structure First floor Ground floor Basement Elevations: South East North West South West and North East Sections Proposals: Proposed curtilage Suggested reconstruction of gents’ toilet to provide a separate two storey annex Suggested improvements to the car park area and garden Suggested redevelopment of the South West lawn, to provide an entrance, and extension to G5 and the annex. Suggested alterations to the kitchen area to provide male and female toilets. Suggested position for a service lift, and structural alterations. APPENDIX 5 Maps and Illustrations Page 2 From a photograph of Tan­yr­Allt house, showing original stone front. Obtained from Mr William Ellis, Glasfryn Page 2 The present front of the house from nearly the same position. John Nicholson 1997 Page 4 The Wood map of Bangor, 1834, showing Cathedral, Bishop’s Palace, Penrallt, Bridge Street, and Tan­yr­Allt house, with formal gardens and avenues. Page 6 View from the east. November 1987 RCAHMW. NA/CA/89/45 871463/35 Page 6 View from the south. November 1987. RCAHMW. NA/CA/89/45 871463/25
Page 27 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor Page 11 Fireplace, overmantle and flanking interior doors of G1. Taken by Jean Williamson, August 1995, RCAHMW. 9500313/2 Page 11a Chinese Chippendale staircase balustrade. Taken by Jean Williamson, August 1995, RCAHMW. 9500313/1 Page 11a Chimney Piece in the Entrance Hall Taken by Jean Williamson, August 1995, RCAHMW. 9500313/3 Page 25 Front of the house from the south, showing the trellis porch placed around the front door. RCAHMW Next page Map of Bangor, 1834, showing Cathedral, Bishop’s Palace, Penrallt, Bridge Street, and Tan­yr­Allt house, with formal gardens and avenues. John Speed’s 1610 map of Bangor, showing the area around the Cathedral. Ground Floor Plan, from “A Survey and Inventory by The Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments in Wales”, Central Caernarvonshire Inventory, Volume II. Part of the Wood Bangor map showing Bangor Cathedral precinct and Tan­yr­Allt house.
Page 28 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor APPENDIX 6 Other available supporting information and documents Correspondence from the University, investigating resources available for the repair of Tan­yr­Allt house. Correspondence from Mr. Tony Perry, and Bangor Civic Society. Correspondence with National Westminster Bank. Structural engineer’s report. Architectural specification by Robert Davies Partnership for J J Kenyon , National Westminster Bank, August 1987. Budget cost report for refurbishments by George Corderoy & Co., Quantity Surveyors, September 1987. Report by Dr. Jagjit Singh, Oscar Faber Heritage Conservation Ltd., ­ Preliminary environmental survey for moisture and timber decay. May 1996. Memorandum and Articles of Association for the Trust. Details of Trustees and committee members. Certicicate of Incorporation as a Private Limited Company, number 3289877, on 10th December 1996. APPENDIX 7 THE TRUST The function and objective of the trust is to facilitate the care, repair and enhancement of important buildings and public spaces within the Bangor area. Formed in May 1996, it will be registered as a Company, limited by guarantee, and as a charitable trust. The working groups within the trust, and their constitution are explained as follows:­ THE TRUSTEES These are:­ Edmund Douglas Pennant, (chairman), Penrhyn Park, Llandegai, Bangor. 01248 370286 Geoff Drake, Castell Mai, Caeathro, Caernarfon. 01286 678881. June Marshall, The Willows, Holyhead Road, Bangor, 01248 370955. Sidney Whitaker, Plas Canol, 172, Penrhos Road, Bangor 01248 364615. Richard Cuthbertson, Plas Penmynydd, Llangefni, Ynys Mon, LL77 7SH. 01248 750752. Malcolm Swann, Director of the Estates Department, Bangor. Roy Evans, Vice Chancellor, The University of Wales Bangor. THE COMPANY SECRETARY is:­ John Nicholson, Tanrallt, Rhostryfan, Caernarfon, LL54 7NT. 01286 830312. THE HONORARY TREASURER is:­ Sidney Whitaker, Plas Canol, 172, Penrhos Road, Bangor 01248 364615. THE REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE TRUST is:­ Plas Canol, 172 Penrhos Road, Bangor.
Page 29 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor THE ADDITIONAL MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE are:­ Terry Williams, 5 Cae Ffynnon, Llandegfan, Ynys Mon. 01248 382417. Mrs. Yvonne Loop, 69 Queens Avenue, Bangor. 01248 364261. Mrs Pat Hunter, (chair of the Bangor Civic Society), 14 College Road, Upper Bangor, 01248 351355. APPENDIX 8 Risk Assessment and Safety Procedures The main causes of risk to any persons entering the building are:­ 1) Falling through rotten or unsupported floor areas, believing the floors to be safe. 2) Falling through voids where floor boards have been removed either because of severe dry rot damage, or to allow ventilation. 3) Head injury from low doorways or lintels in basement area. 4) Sickness from breathing dry rot spores, and dust from floors. 5) Injury from broken glass or other debris within the building. 6) Injury from collapse of any structural part of the building. The building has until recently been kept locked, and no admittance given except to University staff in the estates management or security departments. This has now changed as a result of voluntary actions proposed by the Tan­yr­Allt Action Group. Access is required to enable various inspectors to view the interior to provide technical or structural information and reports. There is also a need to carry out simple works to kill the dry rot, and stop further damp penetration. Basically this can be achieved by adequate ventilation by opening windows, lifting and clearing floor voids, and removal of debris. The effect of this also needs to be monitored. The whole interior should also be cleared and cleaned.. It is desirable to implement this work as quickly as possible. To date access has been obtained by obtaining the key from the caretakers’ cabin, by prior appointment. The caretakers now know the members of the team who have collected the key and been present at all times whilst work is being done on site. We suggest the following code of practice for the safe conduct of the workers on site, and the general safety of the building:­ 1. Any work undertaken by volunteers on the site will first be specified and agreed with the University or the Trust 2. A limited number of people shall be designated as ‘Responsible Persons’, acting on behalf of the Trust, by whom the keys may be obtained from the caretakers. Initially there would be two named Responsible Persons, namely Terry Williams, and John Nicholson. No activity on the site would take place without a responsible person being present and in charge. They would sign for the keys and remain on or within reach of the site at all times when there is active occupation. Only volunteers known as members of the TAG and supporters will otherwise be engaged on the site in a voluntary capacity. A written record will be kept of all volunteers, helpers and visitors allowed on the site. The building will at all other times be closed and secured, and the key returned to the caretakers. This will ensure that there is no entry by unauthorised persons whilst the building is open. 3. All TAG members, volunteers and visitors to the site will be verbally warned about the dangers before entering the building. 4. Where necessary, safety goggles, gloves and breathing masks will be provided to workers engaged in activities that may endanger health. 5. A normal site accident book will be maintained. 6. All openings made to the exterior will be secured and made safe to prevent unauthorised entry except by break­in. The opened upstairs windows will be covered with wire netting to prevent occupation by birds or bats.
Page 30 Report on a proposal to restore Tan­yr­Allt House, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor 7. All floor areas where there is a danger of internal collapse should be removed, i.e. the floors of the kitchen, and further parts of the hallway, so that all remaining floors can be considered safe enough to bear weight, albeit not entirely dry rot free. 1. All areas where floor boards are removed will be marked using red plastic tape barriers, drawing attention to the potential danger. 2. All the interiors and the curtilage will be cleared and the debris removed. This will reduce risk of injury or sickness from the effects of dry rot. 3. Whilst the building is occupied, a notice will be displayed at any opened entrance to the site stating that there is a danger due to dry­rot, and there is to be no admittance by unauthorised persons. 4. Following a structural engineers report, measures may be taken to secure and protect any areas or parts of the building which are considered to be in danger of collapse. A full specification of any works will be submitted to the University for prior approval.
Page 31