LR 3773
The building was recorded in July 1994 by the Recording Unit of English Heritage London Region, at the request of EHLR Grants Section. The survey was very limited in scope, and produced a far from comprehensive record of the building's structural history and development. However, certain areas of the house were investigated in detail; these included the twin roofs and the attic accommodation within the rear roof space, the rooms on the 3rd (top) floor, and the basement. Certain constructional details were also noted, including the (currently exposed) timber frame of the ceiling over the 3rd floor, and the sash windows.
No.68 stands on the corner of Dean street and Meard street. The Survey of London informs us that Nos.67 and 68 Dean street were built by Thomas Meard in the early 1730's, as part of a speculative housing development which included the south side of Meard street. The S.o.L suggests that building work started at the west end of Meard street in the 1720's, and ended with the construction of Nos.67 and 68 Dean street in 1732. The two houses are acknowledged for their fine interiors, and for the fact that they are amongst the few houses known to have been built during the 1730's in London.
Nos.67 and 68 Dean Street were built as a matching pair of houses, with a mirrored plan and adjoining closet wings at the rear. The plan comprises a single front and rear room divided by a central spine wall. The front room on each floor was heated by a fireplace situated mid-way along the party wall. The rear room was heated by a corner fireplace at the rear end of the party wall; this was placed back-to-back with a corner fireplace heating the smaller room of the closet wing. The dog-legged staircase gave a half-landing between each floor, lit by a window in the rear wall. The houses are of four storeys, in addition to a set of full-height basement rooms beneath the main rooms and the closet wing.
In the adjoining house, No.1 Meard Street, a change in the pattern and type of brickwork in the gable end wall indicates that the roof and upper storey may have been rebuilt. Although far from certain, there is some evidence to suggest that Nos. 67 and 68 Dean street may similarly have been altered, perhaps during the late 18th or early 19th century. At No.68, there is a marked difference in the appearance of the brickwork of the external rear wall, between the dull yellow brick used up to the head of the upper floor window opening, and the lighter yellow brick of the rear parapet and the projecting chimney stacks. This change in appearance does not necessarily imply a change in construction, but may point instead to a fairly recent repointing of the brickwork of the upper parts of the house. Nevertheless it was noted that, unusually, neither the rear upper floor window opening, nor the uppermost window opening lighting the staircase, were constructed using closing bricks in the jambs.
Roof construction/attic accommodation within rear
The building has an M-shaped roof which is hipped towards Meard Street. Most of the front roof space was inaccessible; however, it can be seen that the roofs are of the same size and method of construction. Softwood appears to have been used throughout. Both roofs include a ridge piece, but no purlins. In the rear roof, each of the rafter couples has a carpenter's mark near its apex - a chiselled I; only one of the rafters in each pair is marked, and the marks are to be found on either side of the roof. Originally, each of the rafter couples was linked by a single plank-like collar, nailed to the face of the rafters. Only few collars survive in the front roof; and in the rear roof, nails and nail holes show that the collars were repositioned to provide extra headroom, when additional accommodation was provided in the roof space.
The rear roof space was converted for use as storage or living accommodation, perhaps during the later C18th or 19th centuries. The main part of the roof space is partitioned from the hipped end by a screen wall, which is constructed from a variety of small sections of wood panelling. The wall has a door, also made from wood panels, at its east end; the door has an early lock, and hinges fixed with screws, not nails. The screws appear to be contemporary with the door hinges, i.e. there are no obvious signs of repair or alteration. Access is gained into the attic via a trap door at the hipped (N) end, directly above the 3rd floor staircase landing; the position of an earlier opening is indicated by trimmed floorboards etc., to the north of present trap door. At the eaves of the rear roof space, in both parts of the divided attic accommodation, low walls have been formed from window shutters placed on edge between the floor and the rafters. Some of the shutters are painted, and are therefore probably re-used; some are decorated with a bead moulding. At the hipped end (i.e. to the north of the partition screen) the rafters are concealed behind a skin of lath and plaster. This plaster surface extends down to, but not behind, the re-used window shutters; and up to, and against, the partition screen wall.
Prior to the EH survey the plaster ceilings over the third floor rooms had been removed, thus making it possible to investigate in detail the method of construction of the supporting ceiling/floor frame.
The principal beam of the frame runs N-S, along the line of the valley between the twin roofs. The beam provides direct support not only to the ceiling/floor frame, but also to the rafters along each of the inner roof slopes. At the front, a secondary beam extends from the principal beam to the front wall. Empty mortices along the top face and the soffit of this beam indicate that the timber had a previous use as part of a floor frame in an earlier building. The mortices in the beam show that the intersecting floor joists of this earlier floor frame had a diminished haunch and soffit tenon; this was a refinement of the standard mortice and tenon joint, and was adopted widely in the London region from around the mid 16th century onwards. The joists did not extend to the full depth of the beam, and therefore the soffit of the beam would have projected below any plaster ceiling carried by the joists. It was noted that the mortices, although paired on opposite sides of the beam, are in offset alignment. The soffit of the beam was finished with a 30mm-wide crude plain chamfer on each side.
To judge from the construction of the ceiling/floor frame, the rear roof space may have been floored from the outset. Below the front roof, the uppermost face of the floor/ceiling beams project above the level of the common floor joists. Below the rear roof the upper face of the framing members are set flush, providing an even surface upon which to lay floorboards.
The front room has a fireplace along the party wall; the fireplace surround is missing. The rear room has a corner fireplace with 20th century tile surround. There is no fireplace to heat the small front room at the front. There are plain wood skirtings, of deep section. The window openings at the front have segmental arched heads, but unlike those of the floors below are constructed of plain, rather than rubbed, bricks. The window openings have plastered reveals; the window frames are of late 19th or 20th century date. The external brickwork of the front elevation has traces of earlier tuck pointing.
The partition walls throughout the 3rd floor are built of studwork faced with lath and plaster. The surviving areas of early wall plaster along the staircase partition contain much animal hair, used as a binder. The short section of wall directly opposite the head of the staircase may post-date the construction of the 3rd floor ceiling/attic floor frame, as fragments of plaster from an earlier ceiling remain trapped above it in situ. The frames of the door openings through the partition wall are of solid timber, and were constructed using pegged mortice and tenon joints.
The frames of the 1st and 2nd floor windows in the front wall are of solid timber, and were constructed with pegged mortice and tenon joints (the ground floor and basement windows were not investigated; the 3rd floor windows are of the 19th or 20th century). It is thought that this method of construction was common in the late 17th century, but that its use declined in the early 18th century following the introduction of composite window frames. (However, it is known that solid frames continued to be used, at least in industrial buildings, into the late 18th century; for example, at The House Mill, LB Newham, built 1776). On the front elevation, the window frames on each floor are partly concealed behind the face brickwork of the front wall. It became a legal requirement in London for window frames to be concealed behind brick only from 1774. On the rear elevation, some of the window frames also have solid frames; however, instead of being partly concealed as on the front of the building, these are simply recessed some 50-75mm behind the exterior face of the wall. It became a legal requirement in London to recess window frames 4" from the exterior wall face in 1709.
Richard Bond
Historical Analysis and Research team
English Heritage
May 2000