clay building rapid survey - arc architects · six types of clay-rich subsoil ... mudwall is a...

CLAY BUILDING RAPID SURVEY

V.2 September 2012

12004 1.33 TLP Clay Building Rapid Survey Report 2012 v2 Arc Architects

2

Revision Date Status Description Author Checked

V.1 27.08.2012 Internal Team Draft Working draft TM TM

V.2 25.09.2012 Final Issue TM TM

This report was written by Tom Morton and Heather Winship for the Tay Landscape Partnership,

with funding from the following organisations:

Perth & Kinross Countryside Trust Perth & Kinross Heritage Trust Heritage Lottery Fund

The Gannochy Trust

Perth & Kinross Council

Perth & Kinross Quality of Life Trust

Perth Civic Trust

Thomson Charitable Trust

The project was directed by a Steering Group comprising:

Andrew Driver, Perth & Kinross Heritage Trust

Vivienne Whyte, Perth & Kinross Council

Rebecca Little, Little & Davie Construction

Arc gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the many people who assisted in preparing this

report, including:

Donald Abbott, Mr Blyth, David Bowler Alder Archaeology, JA Crow, Greg Davidson

Graham & Sibbald, Mr Easton, Liz & Paul Eddy, Jim Farquharson, Glen Construction,

Derek Hall Archaeologist, Nicci Laing, Tom Laurie DM Hall, Janet Lynch, John Martin,

James McIntyre J & E Shepherd, Gordon Millar, Brian Murchie, Stephen Newsom,

Howard & Sonia Ray, Mrs Reid, Andrew Rodger, Mr Sangster, John Simpson, James &

Shelia Turner, Mr Forbes Winchester, David Woolliscroft The Roman Gask Project

Arc Architects

31a Bonnygate, Cupar, Fife KY15 4BU

www.arc-architects.com

e. [email protected]

t. +44 (0) 1334 659800


3

CONTENTS

SUMMARY 4

1 INTRODUCTION 7

1.1 Background 7

1.2 The Tay Landscape Partnership 7

1.3 Report Methodology 7

2 CHARACTER ASSESSMENT 9

2.1 Diversity of Techniques 9

2.2 Distribution of Clay Materials 10

2.3 Typology of Structures 12

2.4 Chronological Development 13

2.5 Significant Characteristics 16

3 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 18

3.1 The Heritage Record 18

3.2 Known Surviving Mudwall Buildings 20

3.3 Intangible Heritage 27

4 OPTIONS FOR ACTION 30

4.1 SWOT Analysis 30

4.2 Conservation Priorities 32

4.3 Recommended Actions 32

APPENDIX 1: SCHEDULES OF SITES 36


4

SUMMARY

The report documents a rapid survey of the clay building heritage within the Tay Landscape

Partnership (TLP) area, undertaken in the summer of 2012 as a preparatory study in the TLP’s

development stage to inform and direct future conservation and community initiatives during

the full project.

The survey correlated existing written sources with soil mapping and other technical data, and

corresponded with, and interviewed, a range of stakeholders. Key buildings were inspected in

detail and an overview survey of Errol was undertaken. This research was time limited, but

sufficient to identify key characteristics of the areas clay heritage and priorities for an emerging

strategy.

Clay Resource

Six types of clay-rich subsoil suitable for building were identified, comprising 44% of the TLP

area. The largest deposit is rather silty, and the other 5 are somewhat stony. The main deposit

runs through the Carse of Gowrie and across to the Earn valley, with smaller deposits around

Perth and on the edges of the hills.

Clay Building Traditions

Unfired clay has been used to create buildings in the area for thousands of years, from pre-

history through to the 20th Century. Clay has been used in diverse ways; as plasters and floors,

as wattle and daub walling, and extensively as clay mortar to stone masonry.

These materials and techniques are all typical of the ways that clay was used in traditional

Scottish construction and examples exist in the area that are similar to others throughout

Scotland, with the kind of local variation inherent to vernacular techniques.

One distinct tradition exists in the area that is much more rare, of which there are only a

handful of other identified examples in Scotland. This is mudwall. This method of constructing

monolithic walls of solid clay mixed with straw developed extensively in the Carse, in response

to an extensive natural resource and the difficulty of obtaining stone, lime and other alternative

materials. To protect the clay against the weather and to enhance their appearance, the walls

were sometimes faced with fired brick or stone.

40 confirmed examples of surviving mudwall properties were identified, along with 16 possible

examples. 65 confirmed lost buildings were identified, along with 5 possible lost examples.

The surviving buildings are mainly inhabited houses, focused in the village of Errol. The

buildings date from before 1745 to 1903.

This heritage is highly significant, because of its rarity, quality and the size and diversity of the

surviving examples. This is a distinct local tradition that expresses the bond between the

people of the area and their natural resources through the buildings that they inhabit. It is a


5

strong tradition, which endured into the 20th century and remains a resilient source of pride and

identity in the local community.

Identified Risks

The mudwall heritage is currently quite vulnerable and urgent positive intervention is required

to safeguard what survives for the future.

Four key buildings were identified as being at risk, with partial collapse of two and substantial

flooding of a third, during the last two years. The principal factors were redundancy of use and

inadequate maintenance.

Most of the buildings are the well-loved homes of owner-occupier. While generally sound, these

properties are vulnerable to inappropriate alterations and hindered by misconceptions among

external financial bodies. There is an extensive use of cement render as an external finish,

which promotes decay of the mudwall and conceals developing defects. None of the domestic

residences are listed, and the cost of appropriate traditional repairs and the lack of suitable

guidance are significant barriers to good conservation maintenance.

The record of this heritage is poorly documented, both surviving and lost sites, but also the

social context for them, which remains alive in local people 100 years after the last mudwall

home was built.

While a remarkable number of buildings survive, the lack of statutory protection and effective

guidance, together with the deteriorating condition of key buildings and unsupportive economic

circumstances, threatens significant loss within the next 5 years.

Proposed Actions

Two strategic conservation priorities are identified:

• Conserve and restoring what survives focusing on:

o Increasing knowledge of surviving buildings.

o Reducing risk of loss of buildings.

o Improving maintenance and repairs.

o Improving guidance.

o Documenting local knowledge.

o Fostering knowledge transfer.

• Fostering a Living Tradition focusing on:

o Increasing cultural and financial value attached to mudwall buildings.

o Spreading skills locally.

o Improving intellectual and local access.

o Promoting mudwall heritage to visitors and outside the area.

17 specific individual actions are proposed, to sustain and celebrate the area’s key mudwall

heritage, delivered through partnership activities over several years. If successful, this initiative

would mark a watershed in the recognition of and commitment to, the mudwall community and

the part of the nation’s heritage that they safeguard.


6

Fig. 1: Cottown: single storey mudwall on a stone plinth, with lime harl and overhanging thatched roof.

Fig. 2: Errol, 2-storey cement rendered mudwall buildings, with cast iron gutters and slated roofs.


7

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Over the last 20 years, there has been increasing recognition of the vernacular tradition

of building with unfired clay in the Carse of Gowrie. This produced a variety of

academic studies that increased awareness and appreciation of this heritage. At the

same time, Historic Scotland and the National Trust for Scotland fostered the

development of technical understanding and conservation skills through a series of

research projects and conservation interventions on individual buildings.

1.2 The Tay Landscape Partnership

The Tay Landscape Partnership (TLP) is a broad-ranging initiative, which identified the

heritage of building with clay as something distinctive and significant to the people and

places of the Tay Landscape Area.

This study was commissioned during the development year of the TLP to assess the

quantity, quality and characteristics of this heritage and to propose measures that could

usefully be undertaken by this scheme and other initiatives.

1.3 Report Methodology

The report comprised desk-based research, tested by field surveys.

Desk-based research correlated a range of sources of existing information with subsoil

mapping and other technical information. Written work by Bruce Walker, Chris

McGregor, Vivienne Whyte and Stephen Wilson were notably relevant. Vivienne Whyte of

Perth & Kinross Council Conservation Dept. assisted with digital mapping.

160 archaeologists, architects, surveyors, builders and local historians active in the area

were contacted by email with some very useful responses.

Publicity was targeted in the area through local press, posters, mailshots and a series of

public events. There was a strong public reaction and, as a result, a large number of

individual members of the public contacted the team, as owners of clay buildings.

Field work focused on detailed assessments and interviews relevant to key buildings at

risk, and on a general survey of buildings in Errol.

This was a rapid survey intended to produce an overview of the heritage. The fact that a

large number of new buildings were identified during the survey is an indication of the

richness of the heritage. This report should be read as an overview identifying all key

issues, rather than a comprehensive study and the author apologises for any

information that has been missed or details that have misrepresented due to the rapidity

of the study.


8

Fig. 3: The mudwall process of layers of clay mixed with

straw, formed by hand tools into the shape of a wall

Fig. 4: Internal wall of clay between timber posts, plastered

Fig. 5: Clay daub on a wattle frame, west chimney, Cottown


9

2 CHARACTER ASSESSMENT

This chapter describes the character of the area’s clay-building heritage.

2.1 Diversity of Techniques

Within the TLP area, there are three principal methods of building walls using clay, and a

range of other ways in which clay was used in construction. Together, these comprise a

family of compatible techniques and an individual building would typically employ

several for different elements.

2.1.1 Mudwall

Mudwall is a monolithic form of walling in which clay is mixed with straw and built up in

layers, or lifts, 2-300mm high, on top of a stone base. This technique is known as cob in

some other cultures.

The face is subsequently dressed back to an even surface and usually finished with a

lime harl or wash externally. Internally, higher status rooms are usually plastered on the

hard, with mudwall commonly left exposed in domestic attic spaces, storage and

agricultural buildings.

Commonly, traditional finishes on mudwall have been renewed in non-traditional

materials during the 20th century.

2.1.2 Masonry-faced Mudwall

A refinement of mudwall is to face the wall with masonry with either brickwork or stone,

which produces a straighter and more climatically robust exterior surface.

2.1.3 Clay-mortared Masonry

This method uses clay as mortar in stone wall construction, usually externally finished

with a lime mortar pointing. Clay mortar provides a low bond strength and walls are

typically 450-600mm thick.

2.1.4 Stake and Rice

Stake and rice, also known as wattle & daub, is one of a range of methods where a

timber armature is encased in clay, usually incorporating straw or other fibres. A plaster

finish was generally applied.

Historically, this technique was widely used for walling and archaeological examples

have are documented, but surviving examples are rare, with the chimneys at Cottown

Schoolhouse from 1818 being a notable example of national significance.

2.1.5 Other Historical Techniques

Clay was used widely in building construction, though identification is often limited to

decaying buildings, or those undergoing alterations.

Clay was extensively used as a plaster, usually mixed with fine fibre and often with a

lime finish. This was gradually superseded by lime plaster. Clay was used in upper floors

mixed with straw as deafening. Clay was also used to surface ground floors, surviving

examples include Flatfield.


10

2.2 Distribution of Clay Materials

The clay used in construction is generally subsoil with clay content of more than 10%.

Research1 on Scottish earth construction, indicates that clay content and particle size

distribution are key characteristics of workable and durable soils.

Subsoils with clay contents below 10% do not have sufficient binding strength to form a

coherent material. Clay contents over 30% experience damaging amounts of shrinkage.

The best materials have a clay content of 12-25%, with a well-graded range of silt, sand

and gravel. Soils containing stones are less easy to work, while excessive silt produces

poor durability.

The Soil Survey of Scotland2 records 6 types of soil in the TLP area with characteristics

suitable for construction, totaling an area of approximately 88km2, or 44% of the TLP

area:

Name Area Grading Colour Location Best Use

Stirling 65km2 Silty,

stoneless

Grey with ochre

mottling

A broad swathe

along the Carse of

Gowrie & River Earn

Any, but

low

durability

Mountboy 9km2 good –

excellent,

but stony

Reddish brown East of Perth

North of River Earn

mudwall

Balrownie 7km2

good –

excellent,

but stony

dark reddish

brown

Earn Valley

Perth area

Carse of Gowrie

mudwall

Forfar 3km2 good –

excellent,

but stony

greyish brown Scone

Longforgan

mudwall

Carbrook 3km2 No data No data No data No data

Kippen 1km2 good –

excellent,

but stony

reddish brown Longforgan mudwall

Table 1: Soil Characteristics

Fig. 6 shows the correlation between identified sites for clay materials in buildings in the

area and the locations of the six subsoils with suitable characteristics for building.

It also identifies the three parishes where the term ‘mortar’ is recorded as being

commonly used for clay subsoil between 1790 and 1840, evidencing the prevalence of

the use of clay in building. ‘in a few spots, the soil is of a reddish colour, being a kind of

clay mixed up with gravel, and usually termed mortar’3. This suggests that there was a

good local understanding of the locations of subsoils with different properties and the

ability to selectively source, and subsequently modify, these for different uses.

1 Earth Structures Renders & Plasters, Historic Scotland Research Project, unpublished 2 Soil Survey of Scotland, Sheet 48/49, Perth & Arbroath, 1:63,680, Macauley Institute 3 New Statistical Account, 1834 –45, Longforgan Parish


11

Fig. ?: Soil Distribution

Fig. 6: Soil and Site D

istribution M

ap


12

While this, and the limited representativeness of identified sites, cautions against a

simplistic interpretation, the mapping does illustrate three key findings:

• There are identified sites that are not located on areas of good building clay.

• There are substantial areas of good building clay with no identified sites.

• Many sites are located where the clay has poor weathering qualities.

Our interpretation of this suggests three characteristics:

• Building clay was not necessarily sourced on site, for example in excavating

foundations or creating a pond. People sometimes transported clay to build

with, at least 500m.

• Mass clay walling mainly occurred in places where stone was not readily

available. In locations, such as around Perth and north of the Earn, where hills

provided stone quarries and there was also good building clay, earth mortared

masonry was prevalent. Nonetheless there are border locations where mudwall

was used, indicating it was not considered inherently inferior.

• The relatively poor durability of the dominant Stirling series soil may have

encouraged decay in poorly maintained or disused structures. Poor inherent

durability would have encouraged the use of protective finishes, such as lime

harl or facing masonry, and the presence of stone and brick faced mudwall in

surviving buildings may be partly evidence of this.

2.3 Typology of Structures

The known sites comprise a range of typologies that reflect area characteristics. The

data on lost properties probably under-represents agricultural buildings.

2.3.1 Building Use

Total House Commercial Agricultural

Surviving Mudwall Properties 40 33 82.5% 4 10% 3 7.5%

Lost Mudwall Properties 65 61 94% 3 4.5% 1 1.5%

Total 105 94 89.5% 7 6.5% 4 4%

Table 2: Building Use.

The majority of the buildings are used as domestic residences, all owner-occupied. The

commercial premises are all shops in Errol, on the ground floor with flats above.

2.3.2 Building Location

Total Urban Rural

Surviving Mudwall Properties 40 34 85% 6 15%

Lost Mudwall Properties 65 39 60% 26 40%

Total 105 75 69.5% 32 30.5%

Table 3: Building Location.


13

The high proportion of urban buildings, and their better rate of survival, has an

association with the urbanisation that occurred in the 19thC. and the relative

depopulation of rural areas during the 20th C.

2.3.3 Building Height

Total 1 Storey 2 Storey

Surviving Buildings 40 5 12.5% 35 87.5%

Lost Buildings 65 61 94% 4 6%

Total 105 66 63% 39 37%

Table 4: Building Use.

The high proportion of 2-storey buildings is unusual for vernacular earth structures in

an essentially rural area. It is notable that the 2-storey buildings occur in rural locations

as well as urban, and this indicates an association with the wealth and growth that was

experienced during the period of agricultural improvements. The high proportion of

single storey buildings that have been lost, indicates that these were older structures

and that the ones that survive are important in representing a larger historic proportion.

2.4 Chronological Development

Evidence suggests that clay has been used in construction in the area from pre-history

to the modern era.

2.4.1 Roman Era

None of the Roman archaeological sites in the area have yielded remains of clay-

mortared masonry, such as has been found in substantial structures at Crammond. In

the TLP area, Roman structures were primarily of timber; though clay was used to form

road surfaces at sites such as Greenloaning, and to form revet features, such as at

Innerpeffery, where hundreds of tonnes were brought to the site for this purpose4.

This evidence suggests that the Romans had a good technological understanding of the

diverse potential for clay and sourced it within the TLP area for construction in

significant quantities.

2.4.2 Medieval Era

Excavations evidence suggests that most of the medieval structures in Perth were of

wattle and daub, using clay mixed with straw and other materials applied to timber

frames, with beaten clay commonly used for floors.

In higher status buildings, where masonry walls were constructed in lime mortar,

foundations were commonly mortared with clay, being cheaper, more flexible and more

resistant to damp than lime. Being below ground, the clay was not subject to surface

erosion. This practice continued widely well into the 19th C.

4 D. Wooliscroft, pers. comm. 2012


14

Clay was also extensively used for minor structures, such as bread ovens, malting kilns,

steeping tanks and water cisterns.5

Outside Perth, a number of possible medieval sites of complete or ruinous buildings

were identified, which would merit field investigation.

This evidence reinforces the general understanding that clay was widely used in the

medieval era, though substantial remains rarely survive. Field investigation of possible

sites would further inform this understanding.

2.4.3 18th, 19th & 20th Centuries

Of the 40 confirmed mudwall buildings that survive, 8 date from the 18th C, 31 from the

19th C. and one from 1903. The dominant period appears to be the last quarter of the

19th century.

The surviving buildings document the era following agricultural improvements, which

began in 1735, and which instigated a period of renewal of the building stock, changes

in building location and improvement in building quality.

The changes of materials associated with this process was commented on at

Longforgan, where clay mortared masonry gave way to lime ‘there are still remaining a

few old houses in Longforgan, which show what they were 20 years ago. They are very

bad, narrow, low roofed, and inconvenient; they are built of turf and stone or with clay

for mortar…not a vestige of lime was then to be seen in the village. Since that time, all

the houses capable of being made habitable have been repaired; between 50 and 60 new

houses have been built, besides 2 sets of farm offices for larger farmers, several barns

and byres, and 2 smithies. They are built with stone and lime. The floors are of earth or

clay’6

Through this period, descriptions, maps and occasional photographs also record the

loss of whole settlements. There were ‘evident vestiges of several hamlets or little

villages, which formerly were the residence of petty farmers, cottagers and tradesmen,

but are now either totally suppressed, or exist only in a state of visible decay’7

Longforgan is located where stone and lime were readily available and affluence allowed

them to be used to create improved new buildings. In the Carse, clay remained

dominant, but affluence allowed it to be fired to produce a stronger building material.

This could be done in a small scale on site, as at Flatfield Farm, or on an industrial scale,

at the Errol Brickworks, and these changes also influenced construction skills in Errol.

‘As there is no stone in the neighborhood, they [the houses] are mostly built of clay, and

huddled together, without much order or regularity. Excepting gentlemen’s seats, all

buildings in the Parish are of that substance, which, when properly cemented, is

5 All this section, pers comm. D. Bowler, 2012

6 Statistical Account 1791-99, Longforgan Parish

7 Statistical Account 1791-99, Dron Parish


15

reckoned the warmest and most durable of any; and there are some fabrics o its till in

tolerable repair, the date of which cannot be ascertained. In forming such edifices,

every man is his own mason, raising them by times, and putting on one layer as the

other is condensated; and to this cause it is certainly owing that there are so few

professional masons in the parish. It is thought that the people have now in some

measure lost the art of preparing the materials, and compacting them together, so as to

give the clay houses the solidity they had in past times. They are, however, adopting a

plan of a building much more agreeable to the eye, and certainly no less useful for

accommodation, moulding the mortar into bricks, and with these forming their

dwellings.’8

The process of improvement to, and replacement of, old buildings has carried on

periodically to the present day, but it is remarkable that traditional building with

mudwall carried on into the 20th century, long after improved road and rail gave ready

access to industrialised building materials and skills. Even in the 1970’s one old builder

in Errol would clearly recall the practice of building mudwall between timber formwork9.

Fig. 7: Cottown, 1875, the Schoolhouse on the right survives, the two cottages in the center are

ruins and the others have all been lost.

8 Statistical Account 1791-99, Errol Parish. 9 Brian Murchie, Errol resident, pers. Comm.


16

2.5 Significant Characteristics

The record of unfired clay building in the area has two specific characteristics: general

diverse uses that are typically traditional and a specific tradition of mass clay walling

that is both substantial and unusual.

2.5.1 Typical Traditional Uses

The tradition of using clay to build with can be found across Scotland and the medieval

and geographically peripheral uses of clay mortared masonry, wattle and daub, clay

plasters and floors within the area are all typical examples consistent with a pattern of

use found in Scotland across a wide geographical area and chronological period.

Equally typical, is that this traditional use of clay is both poorly documented and

appreciated. The limited work to date indicates that further field investigations in the

area would allow a better understanding of this context to be developed.

2.5.2 Heritage of Special Significance

The tradition of mass clay walling in the Carse of Gowrie, and possibly the Earn River

mouth, is a substantial and distinctive heritage, with 4 key attributes:

• The tradition developed from a direct association between human settlement and

the physical geography of a specific area.

• It was the predominant construction technique over a long historical period.

• A high level of construction, skill and materials sourcing knowledge was developed

locally, specific to this technique.

• The local population held the tradition in affection, as a distinctive part of their

local identity.

The tradition of mass earth walling is one that occurs regionally in the U.K, where suitable

clay subsoils are present. The mudwall, or cob, technique is similar across these regions,

with only minor local variation (with the exception of Cumbria). In Scotland there are 3

main regions where the technique is found, Dumfrieshire and Angus being the others. In

this context, there are three characteristics of the Carse of Gowrie tradition that are of

special significance:

• Size. The dominance of the tradition over a long period has left a substantial heritage

of complete standing buildings within a small area, with over 40 recorded so far, and a

further 16 potential buildings identified. By comparison, in Dumfriesshire there are

two derelict barns and in Angus and there is one restored schoolhouse.


17

• Quality. The tradition survived several periods of building improvement and social

change, and has left a legacy of diverse building types, a large number buildings still

inhabited and some of unusually high refinement for vernacular clay construction. The

3 buildings in other areas are all single storey and rural, while the TLP area contains

28 two-storey buildings and 33 in urban settings.

• Social Significance. The survival of the mudwall technique as a living tradition into the

20th century is testament to the intensity of what is an unusual construction technique

in a very local area. The resilience of the tradition is a sign of the respect people felt

for it as a geographically rooted marker of their local identity. The pride people feel in

this cultural distinctiveness and the affection with which local people hold their clay

buildings, survives to this day, four generations after the last traditional mudwall

building was built.


18

3 CONDITION ASSESSMENT

This chapter describes the condition of the principle significant clay built heritage asset – the

mass clay wall building tradition.

3.1 The Heritage Record

3.1.1 Current Record

The record of the mudwall heritage in the TLP area is partial, unsystematic and difficult

to access.

Knowledge about traditional practice and individual sites has been accumulated

principally through the field work of Dr. Bruce Walker and several students at the

University of Dundee and this is documented in a number of reports, unpublished or out

of print, but available as paper documents held in some libraries. There is no electronic

or photographic record.

The Conservation Area Assessment for Errol by Perth & Kinross Council does not

document individual buildings.

Five of the sites are listed buildings, with individual listing descriptions by Historic

Scotland. These are Cottown Schoolhouse, Flatfield Barn, Sparrowmuir Cottage and

Horn Farmhouse.

Two sites, Cottown Schoolhouse and Flatfield Barn, are recorded in photographs and

survey drawings by the RCAHMS.

One ruin site has been documented by SUAT in a report published by Historic Scotland10.

3.1.2 Deficiencies in the Record

The current record is deficient in several respects:

• Extent. It does not document the extent of the tradition, which is one of its

principal significant features. In the course of this rapid survey, 33 new inhabited

clay buildings were recorded that were not previously known and the authors

believe a significant number of further sites would be identified through further

investigation. A similar improvement could be made in the documentation of lost

buildings, which would inform understanding of the wider social, economic and

environmental history of the area. During the survey, it was readily apparent that

there was local knowledge and photographic records held by local people dating

back over 100 years.

10 Guide for Practitioners 4: Measured Survey and Building recording, HS TCRE, p.62


19

•

Fig 8: Errol building locations


20

• Representativeness. There are measured and photographic records of only two

sites, Cottown Schoolhouse and Flatfield Barn. These are typical in their

construction, but not unusual in their typology. There is no drawn or

photographic record of the main concentration of buildings in Errol.

• Quality. There is no drawn or photographic record of the best quality and largest

single building, the Grade ‘ B’ listed Horn Farmhouse. There is no record of oral

history. The relatively late demise of this tradition, along with the strength of its

local association, suggests that a record of oral history would significantly improve

the context for understanding the physical heritage. It was noted in the survey

that local people had clear knowledge of several buildings as inhabited homes,

which were now severely ruined.

• Accessibility. The existing records are practically inaccessible, especially to local

people within the TLP area. Better access would enhance understanding,

appreciation and the ability of local people to sustain their heritage. For example,

during the rapid survey, it was apparent that the owners of Flatfield did not know

of the RCAHMS records. The authors provided copies, which will help the owners

to understand and maintain the buildings in their care.

3.2 Known Surviving Mudwall Buildings

There are 40 standing mudwall buildings known to the authors, with 33 of these having

been newly identified through the course of the survey. Prior to the survey these were

mainly classed as possible, although some were completely unknown. A further 16

buildings are currently identified as possibly clay built, but unconfirmed. It is the

author’s view that there could be up to 25% more as yet unidentified.

3.2.1 Buildings in Use

Of the 40 standing buildings, 37 are currently in use, predominantly as domestic

residences by owner-occupiers.

These buildings are generally in good condition, but commonly have had inappropriate

cement render applied during the 20th C.

The characteristic strengths of the mudwall homes are that they are cared for – kept

warm and dry, with defects attended to when they develop. The owners generally know

about their history and recognize the distinctiveness of their construction. These

buildings represent the living tradition, safeguarded often by people with both a

financial and emotional commitment to the buildings.

There are two characteristic weaknesses of mudwall homes – inappropriate alterations

and ill-informed attitudes by external organisations.

The surviving unlisted buildings are vulnerable to inappropriate alterations and repairs.

Two properties in Errol are known to have been lost through collapse following

inappropriate alterations. As they are all unlisted, these buildings have no statutory

protection and no grants are available to support appropriate works in compatible


21

materials. The cement renders will encourage degradation of the clay walling through

high moisture levels, but can conceal developing problems. They also disguise the

buildings traditional appearance. It was clear that the cement renders had been applied

with the intention of protecting the mudwall on the basis of advice from builders, and

that there was a growing awareness that this was now understood to be potentially

problematic. A key factor is that there is no guidance available to local people on how

best to care for their mudwall homes.

A less prevalent problem, but one that was reported by several owners and some

surveyors, are difficulties in obtaining mortgages and insurance because of a lack of

understanding about mudwall construction. Most have ultimately resolved the problems,

but it is indicative of a lack of understanding, and guidance information.

One example from a recent Home Report by a firm of surveyors stated ‘the main walls

are of clay construction. A large number of lending institutions are not prepared to

grant mortgage facilities on this type of property and some will only grant mortgage

facilities with a satisfactory Engineer’s Report. An Engineer’s Report should be obtained.

Large areas of cracked and bossed roughcast were noted’ Their valuation ‘figure reflects

the fact that the property is of non traditional construction and some lending

institutions are not prepared to grant mortgage facilities on this type of property.’

Another homeowner reported that he could not obtain insurance for a property when it

was described as being of clay construction, but could when the agent described it as

wattle and daub.

3.2.2 Sites at Risk

The survey identified four sites at clear risk. It is not insignificant that two of these are

redundant buildings that have been disused for several decades, three are cement

rendered, and three are not owner occupied.

The common characteristics are that the risks are generally from normal fabric decay

processes. While the buildings demonstrate a resilience that is perhaps surprising,

there is a risk of sudden loss of significant elements, through two key mechanisms:

• Decay of load-bearing timber elements causing loss of support or unusual thrust on

a material that has inherently low tensile strength.

• Defective rhones directing rainwater into wallheads, where moisture levels rise

behind impermeable cement render, leading inevitably to collapse of the clay wall

when it reaches a plastic state.

Both of these mechanisms are driven by rainwater goods not being maintained and lead

to defects that are accelerated and concealed by cement renders, and can cause sudden

and unexpected collapse.

The four standing buildings that are identified as being at risk are:


22

Fig. 9: Cottown, south elevation, 2011, with neighbouring ruin sites to left and rear.

a) Cottown Schoolhouse

Status: The Schoolhouse is Grade ‘A’ listed.

Use: Uninhabited since 1985.

Ownership: National Trust for Scotland.

Maintenance: Background heating & periodic inspections.

Record: The building is well documented.

Condition: The building condition is stable and weather tight, but internally

incomplete.

Repairs: Several phases of specialist professional repairs since 1985.

Risks: The building has flooded several times in recent years.

Risk Level: Low.

Prospects: The NTS plan to undertake drainage work to remove the flood risk in

2013. A recent application to fund restoration of the building to a

habitable condition was unsuccessful. There is not thought to be a viable

alternative route to safeguard the building by returning it to active

domestic and the NTS continue to seek financial support to realize this

aim. It is noted that the two adjacent cottage ruins, which were in a

habitable condition until the 1970’s, have now reached a condition where

they are beyond restoration.


23

Fig. 10: Flatfield Barn, Aug 2012, west gable, with timber protection over collapsed area of gable.

b) Flatfield Barn & Cattery (originally cartshed)

Status: The Barn is Grade ‘B’ listed.

Use: The Barn is lightly used as storage, the Cattery is commercially used.

Ownership: Mr & Mrs. Eddy (has been in family for several generations).

Maintenance: Ongoing small-scale sympathetic repairs by owners.

Record: Partial drawn & photographic survey by RCAHMS in 1971.

Repairs: The roof was partially replaced following storm damage on 23 May 2011.

There has been temporary timber protection to the upper gable.

Condition: The walls are generally cement rendered and show numerous minor

alterations. The Barn gable (the brick element) has suffered partial

collapse prior to 2010. Nonetheless the historic fabric substantially

remains. There is extensive decay of the timber structure in the Barn and

indications of cracking in the mudwall, which are buttressed by secondary

structures.

Risks: There is a risk of catastrophic loss of the Barn, initiated by failure of the

decayed timber elements.

Risk Level: High.

Prospects: The owners are keen to sustain the buildings through use and would

welcome financial and technical support to undertake appropriate repairs

to bring the buildings back to a sound condition. They would welcome

training in appropriate maintenance methods and may be willing to host

training for others.


24

Fig. 11: Horn Farmhouse, Aug 2012, north elevation showing area of local collapse.

c) Horn Farmhouse

Status: The Farmhouse is Grade ‘B’ listed. The upper floor rooms are of unusually

high quality.

Use: Divided into two residences, unoccupied since 1970’s.

Ownership: Mr Farquharson, c. 50 years.

Maintenance: No ongoing maintenance.

Record: Included in unpublished thesis by V. Whyte.

Repairs: There have been no repairs since the building ceased use.

Condition: The walls are generally cement rendered and show signs of local water

ingress associated with leaking rhones. On the North elevation this

caused a collapse of a section of wall around 3m2 in Spring 2012, leaving

a locally weak first floor. The roof generally appears sound and the

interior is generally dry and in relatively sound condition. At the west

gable, the first floor has suffered decay and there is a risk of local

collapse.

Risks: There is a risk of local collapse of further sections, with the west gable

likely to be next. If no action is taken, there will likely be progressive

collapse, leading to loss of the building within 5 years. There is also

significant risk of collapse in abutting stone steading buildings.

Risk Level: Urgent.

Prospects: The owner is keen to restore the building to use, though a wider

redevelopment of the redundant historic farm buildings. A recent

planning application of residential development was unsuccessful and the

residential market is unlikely to support the conservation deficit for

restoration. The owner is considering alternative redevelopment uses

and he would welcome support to develop viable proposals. In the

meantime, temporary measures to prevent further collapse would be

beneficial.


25

Fig. 12: Errol Fish bar, the left gable has multiple cracks in the render and a truncated chimney

d) Errol Fish & Chip Shop

Status: Unlisted, in Errol Conservation Area.

Use: Ground floor: Fish & Chip Shop.

First floor: flat.

Ownership: Private rented.

Maintenance: Little apparent.

Record: No known record.

Repairs: None known.

Condition: The walls show numerous cracks and signs of water ingress through

defective rainwater goods. The defects are notable on the east gable,

where neighbouring buildings do not buttress the walls and there is an

unusually weak NE corbelled corner.

Risks: There are signs of potentially significant problems developing in the east

gable, though nothing that suggests and urgent risk of collapse. However

the building is inhabited and located on Errol High Street, so any risk is

significant.

Risk Level: Moderate.

Prospects: The owner has not responded to attempts to contact him. It would be

prudent to undertake a detailed inspection and appropriate repairs.


26

Fig. 13: Ruins, Leetown, 2006, brick-faced mudwall with fireplace and chimney.

3.2.3 Lost Mudwall Buildings

60 definite and 5 possible mudwall buildings were identified, which are either ruinous or

completely lost.

These buildings have been lost for six reasons:

• Demolition for agricultural improvement.

• Abandonment of settlements.

• Demolition for housing improvement/ urban renewal.

• Dereliction through redundancy.

• Destruction through fire.

• Collapse consequential to inappropriate alterations.

It is difficult to assess the significance represented by this lost heritage. Certainly little

remains of the medieval heritage and many early structures were lost as a consequence

of the agricultural improvements that began in 1735, but buildings have continued to be

lost for the same reasons up to the current time. The most recent notable period of loss

associated with improvements to the housing stock was during the 1970’s.

There are two aspects to note:

• Recording of lost buildings is practically non-existent.

• Most surviving buildings are not safeguarded against the factors that led to loss of

previous buildings.


27

3.3 Intangible Heritage

Alongside the physical artifacts of surviving buildings that are the inherited products of

the mudwall tradition, stand the skills and capacity to build enduring, elegant and

comfortable structures from earth and knowledge and appreciation to sustain them for

the future. These are the intangible aspects of the areas mudwall heritage.

3.3.1 Practical Building Skills

It is clear from the OSA description of Errol quoted in 2.4.3, that skills of building

mudwall were traditionally widely held in a very local community, where mudwall was

the main form of construction for several centuries and a high level of skill in materials

sourcing and building construction developed relating to the local mineral resource.

These practical skills and knowledge died out during the 20th C. following the end of

traditional mudwall construction. Since the 1980’s a series of research, restoration and

new build projects, supported by Historic Scotland and the NTS, have led to the revival

of these practical skills, providing the ability to repair and conserve the surviving

heritage, as well as to build new buildings in traditional methods.

The technical quality of these skills is high, supported by technical materials research

and a wider conservation capacity, and the repairs at Cottown Schoolhouse have

provided a key forum for development. The skills quality is recognized in the Award of

National Craftsperson of the year in 2009 to the contractors for the restoration of the

mudwall Schoolhouse at Logie in Angus.

However, the demand for these skills has been small, with around one mudwall project

in Scotland each year and capacity of this skills base is in one specialist company, Little

& Davie Construction in Fife. This firm has undertaken all the repairs at the Cottown

Schoolhouse and repairs to one house in Errol.

The vast majority of repairs and alterations to the surviving mudwall buildings have

been undertaken by companies without specialist training in mudwall materials. While

the standard of the works has generally been good, some of the materials and

techniques used in these works, notably the application of cement renders, have been

inappropriate and detrimental. One company, Glen Construction, has undertaken works

to 6 houses. There is the opportunity for targeted training to increase the local skills

base, improve the quality of repairs and maintenance and foster appropriate

procurement.

Some owners undertake minor repairs themselves, and this offers another good

opportunity to target training to increase building skills capacity in key stakeholders.

3.3.2 Professional Skills & Knowledge

The skills base among consultants is comparable to that among builders, with one firm

of Architects (Arc Architects), Structural Engineers (David Narro Associates) and Quantity

Surveyors (Ralph Ogg & Partners) having specialist expertise in mudwall construction.

This has been developed through practical projects and informed by recent research

within an international context.


28

There is a range of technical guidance documents available, such as Historic Scotland’s

TAN 6, but these are inadequate in themselves to ensure good practice, which relies on

an understanding of individual materials and structures developed from practical

experience.

Such specialist consultants have guided the conservation of the Cottown Schoolhouse,

but it was notable that the development proposals for the Horn Farmhouse, prepared by

non-specialists, did not give recognition to the mudwall construction.

3.3.3 Technical Support

Several Universities have been involved in researching the physical properties and

behaviour of mudwall structures, with the Cottown Schoolhouse providing a case study.

This currently includes:

• AHRC-funded research into the effects of flooding and rainfall, led by Bath

University.

• Mineralogy work by Stirling University.

The University of Dundee architectural conservation course, which had provided a

research base for many years, closed in 2011.

Staff at Historic Scotland, Perth & Kinross Heritage Trust, and Perth & Kinross Council

hold expertise and have capacity to advise building owners.

The Scottish Lime Centre Trust holds expertise in compatible finishes and has the ability

to provide advice and training.

3.3.4 Materials Availability

While some residents of Errol hold fue right to dig clay, the traditional practices of

sourcing materials, and the knowledge that goes with them have long passed.

The Errol Brickworks, which had provided a source of local clay from the Gallowflat

claypit, as well as a location for processing materials, closed in 2010.

This means there is currently no established source of local clay for building. Materials

have to be either sourced individually for a project, or sourced commercially from

England.

The lack of a reliable source of compatible materials is a key weakness in capacity to

sustain the areas mudwall heritage.


29

3.3.5 Understanding & Appreciation

Understanding and appreciation of the areas distinctive clay building heritage is limited,

poorly disseminated and vulnerable.

There is a good level of technical understanding among a small community of

conservation professionals, but this is not fully informed by the knowledge of local

people and it is disseminated through professional forums that are inaccessible to local

stakeholders.

There is a good appreciation of the mudwall heritage among local stakeholders, in

particular owner/occupiers of long standing, but this is not well informed by a good

level of technical understanding and it is a sustained inherited appreciation that is not

disseminated, leaving it vulnerable to gradual weakening. There is no local organisation

that champions the cultural value of the tradition and connects owners of mudwall

buildings, and no inter-generational work, for example through schools, to sustain

appreciation. There are no links to relevant charitable organisations, such as Earth

Building UK, and no links to other vernacular communities.

There is little understanding or appreciation outside those with a specialist interest or

local stake holding. There is no promotion of the mudwall tradition as part of the area’s

distinctive character, either culturally or commercially. This misses opportunities to

derive income from tourism that could help sustain the tradition and increase the

cultural and financial value associated with the surviving mudwall buildings.

Appreciation by visitors is also hindered by the concealing effect of modern finishes.


30

4 OPTIONS FOR ACTION

This chapter considers what actions could be taken to sustain the areas clay building heritage

and to foster its appreciation, making specific recommendations for activities.

4.1 SWOT Analysis

The following analysis demonstrates that the mudwall heritage is weak and vulnerable, but

there are key strengths and opportunities that can be built upon to safeguard and sustain it.

4.1.1 Strengths

The key strengths that action can build upon are:

• Significant Heritage - The heritage is rare and unusual.

- There are a significant number of surviving buildings.

• People Care - There is a local pride in the tradition.

- There is financial interest for owner/occupiers.

• Supporting Stakeholders – The local authority and heritage agency (Perth & Kinross

Heritage Trust) recognize mudwall as a conservation

priority.

- The national heritage agency (Historic Scotland) and

charity (National Trust for Scotland) see mudwall as a

heritage priority.

- The UK earth heritage charity (EBUK) is supportive.

• Established Capacity - 20 years of work has developed the technical knowledge

and practical skills to deliver.

• Geographic Focused – The heritage is contained in a specific geographic area,

which has a strong focus in Errol that could support the

outlying buildings.

4.1.2 Weaknesses

The key weaknesses to be addressed include:

• Poor Recording – There may be vulnerable heritage we are unaware of.

- Understanding of the context of known sites is partial.

• Weak Statutory Protection – Only exceptional buildings are listed.

- Owners view listing as a disadvantage to be avoided.

• Ineffective Guidance – Poor dissemination of knowledge to building owners.

- Lack of a local support forum for exchange of

experience.


31

• Vulnerability to Poor Maintenance - Inappropriate repairs and lack of basic

maintenance can lead to catastrophic loss.

• Low Presence – Mudwall buildings can be hard to recognize, concealed behind

modern finishes and some having lost thatched roofs.

- Notable buildings are in remote locations.

- Mudwall heritage is not promoted.

• Commercial Decline – Since the recent closure of the Errol Brickworks, there is

no commercial activity relating to clay within the area.

- This parallels the recent closure of the Tay Reed

Company and demise of thatching as a local tradition.

- Recession in construction led to staff cuts at key specialist

builder and Architect firms in 2011.

4.1.3 Opportunities

The current situation presents two strategic opportunities:

• Saving Key Buildings – The 3 listed buildings at risk, all have owners who wish to

restore the buildings and recognize the need for support

to achieve this.

• Growing Local Capacity – There is a community of interest among local

stakeholders that values their heritage and would

welcome help to sustain and promote it.

4.1.4 Threats

There are several specific current threats:

• Loss of Key Buildings – The condition of 2 key buildings makes them vulnerable

to loss through collapse within 5 years.

- Redundancy threatens the remaining rural and non-

domestic buildings, reducing diversity of the heritage.

• Gradual General Loss – There is a risk of loss of individual buildings through

inappropriate repairs and alterations.

- Defects may be concealed behind modern finishes until

decay is advanced.

- Local awareness of dangers is low.

• Financial Insecurity - Lack of grant support makes repairs in appropriate

traditional materials unaffordable for many building owners.

- Difficulties in obtaining mortgages and insurance reduces

the financial value of mudwall buildings.

- Rising energy costs reduces affordability of traditional

buildings, and increases fuel poverty.

- Closure of the Errol Brick Company and the recession has

reduced local incomes.

- Recession in construction is shrinking the specialist skills

base.


32

• Dilution of intangible heritage – Traditional local knowledge is reducing as inter-

generational transfer declines.

- Practical skills base is dwindling through low

level of activity.

4.2 Conservation Priorities

There are 2 key conservation priorities:

• Sustaining What Survives focusing on:

o Increasing knowledge of surviving buildings.

o Reducing risk of loss of buildings.

o Improving maintenance and repairs.

o Improving guidance.

o Documenting local knowledge.

o Fostering knowledge transfer.

• Fostering a Living Tradition focusing on:

o Increasing cultural and financial value attached to mudwall buildings.

o Spread skills locally.

o Improve intellectual and local access.

o Promote mudwall heritage to visitors and outside the area.

4.3 Recommended Actions

There is a timely opportunity for targeted partnership intervention. Recognising that

resources are limited, the proposed actions are designed to be carefully targeted for

optimal benefit across the range of conservation priorities and build on established

strengths and opportunities.

If action is not taken, the next five years is likely to see a significant reduction in the

area’s mudwall heritage. There is a potential in the proposed actions to instigate a local

and institutional resilience that will sustain this heritage in the long term.

4.3.1 Improving the Record

Action 1: Further field work

Work should be undertaken to identify and assess surviving buildings (priority) and lost

sites, building on the rapid survey. This should comprise:

o Limited field investigation of possible sites.

o Identification and mapping of new sites by local volunteers.

Action 2: Better Recording

Work should be undertaken to record the extent and quality of surviving and lost sites

and to collate an integrated record that is locally and remotely accessible. This should

comprise:

o Standardized recording of sites, by local volunteers, the rapid survey team and

possibly RCAHMS.


33

o Documentation or an oral history archive, by local volunteers, local schools and

possibly RCAHMS or Edinburgh University School of Scottish Studies.

o Establishing a local archive, possibly located at Errol Library or Community

Centre, linked to RCAHMS

o Disseminate guidance on good practice and to raise awareness among

archaeologists, land managers and surveyors.

4.3.2 Fostering Appreciation

Action 3: Public Exhibition

There should be a public exhibition within the area to celebrate mudwall heritage in its

national and international context and highlighting projects. Organised by the team,

but with contributions to this by local stakeholders and organisations such as the

schools, a priority.

Action 4: Exemplar New Building

A small new building should be constructed as a practical demonstration of the

traditional technique. This should have a community purpose and be located in a

prominent public place in Errol. It could be a bus, park or school playground shelter.

This should be built by specialist contractors with involvement from community

volunteers.

Action 5: School Project

Support should be given to the local schools for a local history project about their

distinctive built heritage.

Action 6: Foster Local Links

A supportive network should be fostered within the area, with external links.

o A forum should be facilitated for local owners of mudwall buildings to come

together to discuss their heritage and inform priorities.

o Links should be encouraged to relevant external bodies. Earth Building UK plan

to hold their annual conference in Scotland, probably in 2014, and this should be

encouraged to be held or visit the area. The 2013 EBUK conference is to be held

in Devon, a comparable region of traditional cob construction, and local people

should be facilitated to attend.

Action 7: Increasing Distinctiveness

Opportunities should be promoted to increase the distinctiveness of mudwall buildings.

This could be through

o Replacement of cement renders with traditional lime harl and wash.

o Reinstatement of traditional windows and roof coverings.

o Appropriate signage, both individual buildings and groups (Errol- Clay Capital of

Scotland).

Action 8: Promotion

The distinctiveness of the areas mudwall cultural heritage should be promoted outside

the area and to visitors, through established networks and events, such as Doors Open

Day, TLP and other events.


34

4.3.3 Safeguarding Key Buildings at Risk

Action 9: Cottown Schoolhouse

There should continue to be liaison with and support for the work of the National Trust

for Scotland to restore Cottown Schoolhouse.

Action 10: Flatfield Barn & Cattery

Grant and technical assistance should be given to the owners to undertake suitable

repairs to their buildings. There should be opportunities for the owners to contribute

voluntary labour and receive training in appropriate repairs and maintenance

techniques.

Action 11: Horn Farmhouse

Facilitate the safeguarding and restoration of the building.

o Technical and grant assistance should be provided to undertake urgent works to

prevent further collapse.

o Technical assistance should be provided to develop a framework plan for

redevelopment of the site with the owner and local authority.

Action 12: Errol Fish & Chip Shop

The needs of this building or wishes of the owner are currently unclear.

o A condition survey should be undertaken as a priority action.

o Grant assistance should be provided for appropriate repairs.

o The location of this project could be a local exemplar within Errol.

4.3.4 Sustaining Survivors

Action 13: Facilitating Mortgages & Insurance

o Guidance should be provided to local surveyors, insurance companies, etc to

remove financial barriers.

o A local forum for discussion between home owners should be facilitated.

o Contact could be facilitated with specialist insurance and mortgage providers.

Action 14: Promoting Good Repair Practice

This is a key action.

o Good, locally relevant guidance should be made readily available to local

building owners.

o A basic free ‘health check up’ should be provided to local mudwall building

owners.

o Grant support should be provided to repair mudwall structures with appropriate

methods, with the replacement of cement render with traditional lime harl

promoted.


35

Action 15: Statutory Protection

The community and statutory stakeholders should be consulted about the potential

merits and disadvantages of Listed Building and Conservation Area status.

4.3.5 Building Skills & Capacity

Action 16: Sustaining Specialists

The use of suitably experienced contractors and consultants should be promoted, with

building owners advised on appropriate procurement.

Action 17: Spreading Skills

There should be high quality targeted skills training for small numbers of key people,

including the dominant local contractor and for owners who wish to undertake their own

repairs.


36

APPENDIX 1: SCHEDULES OF SITES

SCHEDULE OF CONFIRMED SURVIVING MUDWALL BUILDINGS

ADDRESS Date

Listed Building

Conservation Area

One storey

2 storey

Cement render

Lime Render

Owner occupied

Tennant

Domestic

Commercial

Agricultural

Braeknowe, Gas Brae, Errol

pre

1745 CA y y y y

Ashbank, Errol

pre

1745 CA y y y

Cottown Schoolhouse 1766 A y y? y

Flatfield Barn, Errol 1785 B y y y y

Flatfield Cattery, Errol 1785 B y y y y

Braehouse, Church Lane, Errol 1792 CA y y y

Sparrowmuir Cottage, St Madoes 18 thC C(s) y

The Horn Farmhouse & Steading 18 thC B y y

Rustic House, Church Lane Errol, 1860 CA y y y y

Morar, Church Lane, Errol, PH2 7PX. c.1862 CA y y y y

Oakbank, 7 High St, Errol, PH2 7QQ 1870 CA y y

West Craig, Southbank, Errol 1872 CA y y y

East Craig, Southbank, Errol 1872 CA y y y

1 Keirs Villa, High Street, Errol 1880 CA y y y? y y

2 Keirs Villa, High Street, Errol 1880 CA y y

Top Flat, Cobbler Brae, Errol 1880 CA y y y y

Gnd Floor Flat, Cobbler Brae, Errol 1880 CA

Muiredge Farm Cottage, by Errol 1892 y y y y

The Fish Bar, High Street, Errol 1897 CA y y y y

Flat above Fish Bar, High St, Errol, 1897 CA y

Kimberley, Church Lane, Errol, PH2 7PX 1903 CA y y y

Cottage on Grange of Elcho Farm. 19 thC? CA y

Cuba Terrace, Gas Brae, Errol 19 thC? CA y y y

Post Office, High Street, Errol 19 thC? CA y y y

Neighbour to P O, High Street, Errol, 19 thC? CA y y y

Flat over Chemist, High Street, Errol, 19 thC? CA y y y y

Carse Chemist, High Street, Errol, 19 thC? CA y y y

Rose Villa, High Street, Errol, PH2 19thC? CA y y y

Magpie Cottage, Cowgate,

Southbank, Errol 19thC? CA y y y


37

Ardenlea, Cowbank, Southgate,

Errol 19thC? CA y y

Arthurlea, Cowbank, Southbank,

Errol 19thC? CA y y

Ormlie, Cowgate, Southbank, Errol 19thC? CA y y

Froghoop, Southbank, Errol 19thC? CA y y

Ar Bothan, Gas Brae, Errol 19thC? CA y y

Craigdallie House, Craigdallie, PH14 19thC? CA y y

Lime Green Cottage, Gas Brae, Errol 19thC? CA y y

Riverview, Gas Brae, Errol 19thC? CA y y

Ingleneuk, Southbank, Errol 19thC? CA y y y

Wirribeg, Errol 19thC? CA y y

Greenbank, Gas Brae, Errol 19thC? CA y y y

Total 40 5 34 5

28

23 3 13 1 31 4 3


38

SCHEDULE OF CONFIRMED LOST MUDWALL SITES

ADDRESS

Date

Built

Date

destroyed

One

storey

Two

storey House Commercial Agricultural Urban Rural

Southbank,

Cowgate, Errol 18thC 1970 1 1 1

Drums of Ardgaith 20 20 20

Murie Estate, Errol after 1948 3 3 3

A hamlet near

Leetown c.1945 3 3 3

Leetown

at least

1863. 7 7 7

Victoria Hall,

Leetown 19thC. after 1960 1 1 1

Halfway House, just

north of A90 on the

road to Balchalum

at least

1876 1960s 1 1 1

A row of cottages,

Newlands, St

Madoes

at least

1866

1959

abandoned 3 3 3

4 cottages in Errol 4 4 4

North Grange 1 1 1

former barn north of

Chapelhill 1 1 1

Old Steading at

Whiteriggs 1 1 1

Westown 19thC. c.1980 3 3 3

Clay biggings Rhynd pre1856 no data

Clayton, Bridge of

Earn pre1886 no data

Pitfour, Cairnie Farm 18thC 1 1 1

Flatfield Cottage 19thC. 1950's 1 1 1

Hallburn, Errol 1 1 1

Carselea, Errol 1 1 1

Gray House, School

Wynd, Errol 1 1 1

Row of 3 cottages

beside Rustic

House, Errol c.1800 1970s 3 3 3

Corner of Church

Lane & High St,

Errol 7 7 7

Cottown North Ruin c.1766 c.1970? 1 1 1

TOTAL 62 3 61 3 1 38 27

clay building rapid survey - arc architects · six types of clay-rich subsoil ... mudwall is a...

Documents