See important guidance on the use of this record.

If you have any comments or new information about this record, please email us.

Summary

Church Living and Church Living Cottage, dating to the 18th century.

Location

Protected Status

• Listed Building (II*) 1104143: CHURCH LIVING AND CHURCH LIVING COTTAGE

Other References/Statuses

• National Monuments Record: 448896
• National Trust SMR: 100046

Monument Type(s) and Dates

• HOUSE (Early Medieval to XIX - 1066 AD to 1900 AD (Between))

Full description

Blaylock, S., 04/2013, Archaeological Watching Brief and Building Recording at Church Living Cottage, Branscombe, Devon, 2012-13 (Report - Watching Brief). SDV351641.

The most important results of this project are undoubtedly those that add to our knowledge of the phasing and features of the medieval phases of Church Living Cottage. We are now able to propose an early phase of construction, apparently antedating the fabric of the south gable wall with its double lancet window, which includes a buttress and window, and some more vestigial evidence that may be interpreted as the remains of a garderobe. The evidence recorded in the drain trench points strongly towards this as a primary phase of the building, which was subsequently modified once by rebuilding above (presumably because it had become dilapidated), and subsequently with a new roof in the later medieval period, since the jointed-cruckroof of the building should date to the late 15th or early 16th century, perhaps at the same time as the construction of the long range of Church Living to the east (listing description:Appendix, below). Although there is room for alternative interpretations
(discussed further below), these require arguments of re-use of early architectural features in a later phase, and seem over-complicated.

The obvious conclusion to be drawn here is that the lowest part of the masonry, including the quoin represents an earlier phase of construction to the phase visible in the south elevation, including the lancet windows and the chamfered plinth. Since these are the features which conventionally have led to a dating of the building to the late 13th or 14th century (above), it follows that this masonry must represent a still-earlier phase of work. If this seems improbable, the only possible alternative seems to be to suggest that the work in the gable belongs to the same phase as the re-roofing of the house, perhaps in the 15th century, but for this to be the case it would have to be argued that the lancet windows were re-used in this gable from its predecessor(or from elsewhere), since they seem inconceivable as a later-medieval architectural feature.

If the lowermost masonry, buttress and quoin together represent an earlier phase of the building, then what date can it be, given that the plinth and double lancet of the south elevation appear to belong to a later phase, and these features are traditionally used to ascribe a date of late 13th or early 14th century to the (erstwhile) first phase of the house? There are few clues as to an absolute date, other than the fact that this presumably must be significantly earlier than the next phase, in order for the building to have become sufficiently dilapidated for substantial demolition and rebuilding, rather than repair, to have been necessary. The buttress cut down to a low level, shows this. The variant alignment in lower and upper builds of the west wall also argues for a different phase. The form of the buttress also gives some clues of the most general nature: it is relatively deep, and not of the shallow pilaster buttress type that usually occurs in Norman and Transitional domestic architecture,insofaras it is known at this level of society (an example might be quoted in the shallow clasping buttresses
of the early 13th century great hall of the Deanery in Exeter, thought to have been begun as soon as the office of Dean was created in 1225: Allan and Thorp 1990, 45; Blaylock 2001). As such the most probable date might be sought in the mid-13th century, or exceptionally a little earlier, for the origins of the early phase of the house. This would mean that there was some flexibility to move the second phase into the early 14th century, and thus leave sufficient time for necessary decay and delapidation prior to this, and incidentally also perhaps to tally with the documentary evidence of a building in a poor state of repair by 1307.

The apparent absence of Beer stone in the earliest masonry may also be a factor: although Beer stone was in use from the 12th century onwards, its use and distribution (and, by implication, the scale of quarrying) increased greatly in the early 14th century

If the building dates from the mid-13th century this would be consistent with a general upgrading of ecclesiastical buildings in Branscombe at the time (I am grateful to John Torrance for this suggestion). The first recorded vicar was appointed in 1269 and given a vicarage and glebe. Transepts were added to the church, and the nave extended at about this time(Prideaux 1912, 7–12; Branscombe 2004, 14–17; 20–21). This is usually associated with the episcopacy of Walter BronescombeT(1258–80) who, although apparently an Exeter man(Oliver 1861, 39), may have had Branscombe ancestryand relations still resident in the parish (Chick 1906, 24–5).

The question of whether the blocked window in the west elevation belongs with this early phase is not easy to answer. No clear seam or masonry break was detected in the 1.2m or so of masonry between the buttress and the window, and so it would seem that the two features must be seen as a part of the same phase of work. While there is nothing to rule out this conclusion, a multiple light window would not necessarily be expected at such an early date; on the other hand so few examples of domestic architectural features of this date are known, especially locally, that there are very few precedents forwhat to expect. The window in other ways is very basic and simple: it has no provision for glazing, or apparently for shutters (although the possibility remains that it might have been shuttered further within, in the area obscured by the blocking); it has no hood mould or label; relatively narrow lights; and a simple chamfered frame. The nature of the heads of the lights (above) assumes an importance here, although this must remain unknown. As it stands if the window were viewed out of context it might be dated as late as the first half of the sixteenth century rather than any earlier. But again, there is no reason to think it had been inserted in this masonry, and little reason to doubt its association with the buttress and thereby the rest of the early masonry. The sill level lies level with the surviving top of the buttress, and it was not possible to trace any continuation of the offset/break in build to the north of the buttress, so it might also be argued that the window belongs with the later (?14th century?) phase of the rebuiltwest wall. Whichever is the case, the window is unusual, if only because so little is
known of the smaller domestic features and fittings of this period. Comparable windows in timber are not uncommon in mid and north Devonin the 15th century; the fact that it is stone here perhaps reflects (a) its relatively early date; (b) the ready availability of stone in this area; (related to (b)) a possible early tradition of stone windows in the Branscombe area?

The conclusion must be that the window belongs with one or other of the two early phases, and is hard to interpret because of the utter absence of comparative material, i.e. it stands alone in East Devon as an example of early domestic fenestration at this social level.

The house had a slate roof with ceramic ridge tiles until quite a late date (perhaps sometime in the 18th century?), and the finds included a good range of ridge tile fragments. Slate in this context is a ‘prestige’ material, since it needed to be imported from a distance (the nearest sources of suitable roofing slate being in the Newton Abbot area), so this adds to the picture of a quality building already offered by other classes of evidence (above). The early date of the two type-‘A’ tile fragments supports the suggestion that Church Living Cottage was slated from the first. We know that such roofs needed regular replacements of both slates and ceramic crests as they were damaged by the weather, and that the ridge tiles, or ‘crests’, were often replaced individually resulting in ridges composed of tiles of very mixed dates (Allan 2004, 207). Where medieval building accounts survive they show that
scantle pegged-slate roofs needed maintenance and repair pretty much every year, as slates were loosened or dislodged by the weather.The thatch roof is therefore a relatively late addition to the house.

The evidence for a garderobe projecting at first-floor level from the west elevation adjacent to the buttress is slight, but fairly compelling. According to the interpretation proposed here this evidence belongs to the earliest phase of masonry, and thus may have been removed at the time of the reconstruction of the upper part of the west wall (which, in turn, seems to go with the south gable). But it should be noted that the area above the corbelled stones was very disturbed, by work related to the insertion of the present front door, as well as obscured by remains of the surface treatments of the two 20th-century ground levels, so it is possible that evidence had failed to survive at this point. In view of the reference to two chambers with garderobes in the visitation of 1330 (above), we might expect that this fabric was still standing at that time.

The early map depictions are consistent in showing the main house as a T-shaped plan (Alexander Law, 1793; Tithe Map, 1840; Figs 2 and 3), and the later maps chart the decline and disappearance of this element (Figs 4–6). This suggests that the original cross range extended further to the north (and thus perhaps that the second chamber lay in the vanished portion of the range?). The limited evidence in the fabric can only tell us that there was some medieval masonry in the base of the wall to the north, and that the very jumbled nature of the fabric of the north gable wall (which was really beyond the brief of the present work) could indicate later patching and alteration, perhaps to what was originally an internal party wall rather than an external gable. Detailed analysis of this elevation would undoubtedly repay the effort in terms of advancing out understanding of the structural history of the house.

The observation that nearly all of the built-up ground obscuring the west wall of the house probably post-dates c.1780, confirms anecdotal evidence of a relatively recent origin for the raised ground level here. This phenomenon may also go some way towards explaining the persistent description of what is clearly a two-storey building as a single storey, and perhaps to provide background to the various reports of landslip and/or quarry fill, of ‘houses beneath’, ‘hollow-sounding floors’ and the like (not to mention underground passages: accounts of which are a recurrent and persistent element of historic buildings lore, albeit rarely substantiated by factual investigation).

The nature of the subsoil observed during the watching brief was everywhere typical of the upper Greensand rather than the Keuper marls, and permits a small refinement to the geological mapping in the locality.

In addition to the possible medieval name of Hinenehalle of the 1307 visitation (above), the house has passed under a number of different names in the last two hundred years: ‘The Deans’, ‘The Clergy’, a ‘Priests’ House’, and ‘Church Living’. The Deans sounds suspiciously close to ‘La Dene’ which is the name by which the settlement of Street, further up the valley in the vicinity of Margells and The Fountain Head pub, was known in the Middle Ages (Torrance 2012, 40), so this may represent a confusion of names. However, since Henry de Somerset actually was Dean of Exeter (above), this name could also represent a lingering memory of his stewardship.

Exeter Archaeology, 2003-2004, East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Archaeological Survey, 162 (Archive - Survey). SDV351568.

Church Living and Church Living Cottage. House and cottage in former farmhouse. Said to have an underground passage to the church. Traditionally associated with the church but was never a vicarage. Late 15th-/early 16th cemtury with later improvements, some parts possibly 13th century. Listed Grade II*.

Pink, F., 2014-2015, South Devon Coast Rapid Coastal Zone Assessment Survey Desk-Based Assessment (Interpretation). SDV357736.

Sources / Further Reading

SDV351568	Archive - Survey: Exeter Archaeology. 2003-2004. East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Archaeological Survey. East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Archaeological Survey. Digital + Mixed Archive Material. 162.
SDV351641	Report - Watching Brief: Blaylock, S.. 04/2013. Archaeological Watching Brief and Building Recording at Church Living Cottage, Branscombe, Devon, 2012-13. Stuart Blaylock Report. N/A. Digital + A4.
SDV357736	Interpretation: Pink, F.. 2014-2015. South Devon Coast Rapid Coastal Zone Assessment Survey Desk-Based Assessment. AC Archaeology Report. Digital.
	Linked documents:1

Associated Monuments: none recorded

Associated Finds: none recorded

Associated Events

• EDV6188 - Archaeological Watching Brief and Building Recording at Church Living Cottage, Branscombe (Ref: N/A)

Search results generated by the HBSMR Gateway from exeGesIS SDM Ltd.