Query about usage of Victorian railway worker's cottage

[LDNwaterloo]

Between Winchester and Shawford there is a Victorian railway worker's cottage next to a small bridge and Network Rail access point. The track is raised with the cottage lower down, at ground level.
The cottage has a door-shaped opening on the first floor. Does anyone know what the use of this door could have been when the house was built? Would there have been steps down from there? And if so, why?
I know that in the past this would have been a semi-rural location.
Would be great to hear if anyone has expertise in this area.
Thanks!

 

[Gloster]

I would doubt that it is of any railway significance, but two non-railway possibilities come to mind. Either it was intended to allow items to be lifted into and out of a road vehicle for storage on the upper floor, as in many warehouses, or at some time a small balcony was fitted and then later removed.

 

[Ducatist4]

The old maps I've found show that the cottage is relatively recent, it looks to have been built around 1910 ish.

 

[John Webb]

I've not been able to locate this cottage by looking at Google maps. Can you give a street name, please?

A high-level doorway usually implies storage of some sort, either hay for a stable underneath or timber or other weather-sensitive stock for a builder or carpenter or the like. I'm inclined to rule out the stable possibility as the lintel over the ground floor window looks too low to have allowed horse(s) in or out. So perhaps a carpenter or builder's house?

 

[Ducatist4]

110 Christchurch Road, Winchester, Hampshire SO23 9TG

 

[30907]

I am intrigued

The old maps I've found show that the cottage is relatively recent, it looks to have been built around 1910 ish.

It shows up clearly on this 1895 map (near the Allotment Gardens) as do a couple of others against the railway boundary to N and S.
https://maps.nls.uk/view/105985702
However, it does seem odd for the LSWR to have built single cottages in that area - the nearest location requiring staff is St Cross LC to the south which looks to have its own cottage(s).

 

[Rescars]

Do we know for certain that this cottage was built for use by railway workers?

 

[stuving]

Do we know for certain that this cottage was built for use by railway workers?

No, and I think it probably wasn't. There is an 1871 town plan that shows no buildings around there, and no Christchurch Road. By the 1895 25" map we see that road and big houses on more than half the plots. There are also a few smaller houses like 110 at the bottoms of their gardens. So it seems more likely that they were built for servants or at least for a service function.

The load handling door upstairs make me think of storing feed for horses, and of course mews behind big houses were common in cities long before that. However, there is no sign on the maps of stables or coach-houses, or buildings that could house them. So the exact use is still not clear.

One thing you can see in the pictures is that big pillar attached to the house - which could support a very big gate, but does not seem to have had a pair. The maps just show a fenced area (or a land boundary).

 

[swt_passenger]

Durnford Cottage in the 1951 1:1250 map. As @stuving notes, it is on the same plot as the main building on Christchurch Rd. I’d agree it’s unlikely to be railway related. In the 1966 OS map it’s numbered 50a, note the main property is 50.

Side by side georeferenced maps viewer - Map images - National Library of Scotland

 

[LDNwaterloo]

Thank you so much for these replies. Fascinating to see the older maps. I agree based on this information it's probably not railway related at all so thanks for clearing that up. (I also wondered about that oversized gate post. Another peculiar feature!)

 

[Rescars]

Thank you so much for these replies. Fascinating to see the older maps. I agree based on this information it's probably not railway related at all so thanks for clearing that up. (I also wondered about that oversized gate post. Another peculiar feature!)

Pure speculation, but perhaps the gatepost was part of a project which was never completed. If the estimated build date of c1910 is correct, then perhaps the owner's circumstances changed as a result of external events (eg WW1).

 

[Ghostbus]

Couldn't it just be a large window? Note the large ground level window. And this is the north elevation after all, so you'd want more light. Using wooden slats beneath a large non-load bearing window to save on bricks and mortar is a common building technique, but I've no idea when it started to happen.

 

[Prime586]

I think it may have been a bakery -old bakeries used to store the sacks of flour and salt on the upper floor, and would have a doorway facing the road to unload them from carts outside. As an example, this is the bakery from the Blists Hill victorian town at the Ironbridge museum, which originally stood in Dawley:

If you look at the wall facing the road on Street View, you can just about see an area of disturbed brickwork above the top of the arched brick lintel where a hoist beam like in the picture above would have been.

The property was listed for sale recently, and it certainly has an odd floorplan. One thing of particular note is that there are no fireplaces or chimneys present, and there doesn't look like anywhere where one may have been removed.

According to the Winchester Conservation Area Project,

The area was largely developed in c.1830-70 in response to a growing demand for middle-class housing in a suburban environment. Throughout the country detached and semi-detached villa-type housing became increasingly popular during this period, especially because it was regarded as being healthier and more appropriate for family life. In Winchester this preference was met by the release of land for development between St Cross Road and the newly-opened railway. Some of the housing, notably in St James’ Villas, was purpose-designed for officers from the nearby barracks

Bullding a bakery on some land round the back by the noisy railway to serve all the new large villas (which were nowhere near any shops at the time) would seem to be a sensible idea.

The main house, 114 Christchurch Road, is called Bethany House. I think this was the retreat operated by the Sisters Of Bethany convent in Winchester between 1980 and 1993.

 

[Speed Whiskers]

I've been doing a bit of digging on census data to see if that would help with the users of the cottage, using the house number 50 as on the map from 1950.

The 1911 census has entries for 48 Christchurch Road (Southfield Lodge) and 50 Christchurch Road (Heathfield, occupied by Lady Madeline Brandreth). Lady Brandreth died in 1916 and the contents of the house were sold in August that year. Census entries for 1901 and 1911 do not list any staff such as coachmen or gardeners that may have used the building shown on the maps.

The 1921 census has an entry for 48 Christchurch Road, but the property that follows is for Lyon Cottage which is occupied by William Johnson, an agricultural laborer.

In the 1939 register there are entries for 48, 50 and 50a Christchurch Road, all of which are empty.

 

[Ghostbus]

Bullding a bakery on some land round the back by the noisy railway to serve all the new large villas (which were nowhere near any shops at the time) would seem to be a sensible idea.

The large lower window could have even been a shop window display, with the strange single pillar being for a nice large company name to be visible from the main drag.

 

[Prime586]

The 1911 census has entries for 48 Christchurch Road (Southfield Lodge) and 50 Christchurch Road (Heathfield, occupied by Lady Madeline Brandreth). Lady Brandreth died in 1916 and the contents of the house were sold in August that year. Census entries for 1901 and 1911 do not list any staff such as coachmen or gardeners that may have used the building shown on the maps.

There is a Wikitree page for Dame Madeline Brandreth (nee Colvin). Of passing local history interest to me is that she married Captain (later Admiral) Thomas Brandreth of Liverpool. They lived in Fulgrove (actually Firgrove) House in Farnham (now the site of the Trafalgar Court housing estate). It looks like she moved to 50 Christchurch Road after Thomas died in 1894 ('Heathfield' is a village about 10 miles west of Farnham), where she maintained a house with 4 servants. It seems she was a bit of a philanthropist, and was also involved in womens rights through the Girls Friendly Society (through which she met novelist and fellow Hampshire resident Charlotte Mary Yonge);

I wonder if that connection was not lost on the Sisters of Bethany, whose main charitable work is the provision of women's refuges.

 

[stuving]

In 1891 number 50 (Heathfield) was occupied by Edmond Wodehouse, an army general - presumably retired, as he was 72 - and his wife Louisa. They had three female domestic servants, and also William Lee, 26, coachman. He's shown as residing in the house like the others. So, did the general own a coach of some kind? You'd think so, if he employed a coachman.

In 1881, there are numbered houses in Christchurch Road but only up to 22 and 22a. Then there are some named villas, but there's no way of knowing where they are on the map. The numbering seems not to correspond to that in 1891, and in any case 50 and those around it most likely were not yet built.

 

[judethegreat]

Could there have been steps or a ladder leading up to it? Possibly two separate flats or whatever?

 

[Speed Whiskers]

Good detective work @stuving with the 1891 census - it does suggest that the building could be a coach house and stables with a hay loft above.
Looking at Google maps, it would appear that number 50 (Heathfield), now number 114 (Bethany House), was built in 1890.

Edited to add:
A bit more searching of newpaper archives has found an advert for the letting of Heathfield from the Hampshire Chronicle in May 1898. The property is described as having “stabling for three horses, coach house, and harness room with loft, and man’s room over".

 

[Ghostbus]

So a hay loft then? Tack room and coachman quarters.

Still doesn't remotely look like a coachouse or stable though.

I suppose the horses could have been in the left half facing the field, and the porch like to window has been built where the coachouse door and tackroom was. Then the front door leads up to the quarters over the stable.

He still has to lug bales of hay out the loft on the regular. Maybe down a chute at the rear inside the floor plan, to an interior run in the stable block.

 

[stuving]

Looking at the building now, I think you just have to accept that it has been much modified (probably in several stages) and many original features have vanished. For a start, the kitchen with bathroom over is obviously new. In earlier maps that range is longer, and could have been the stables. The coach-house was presumably close to the road, but may have opened onto the road or the yard. (I think it would have to be something smaller than a proper "coach".) The bay window is likely new. Of course it would have been more ergonomic to have the hay loft over the stables, so perhaps it was that ... but there really is too little left visible to be sure.

Having said that, the current kitchen and bathroom are the only rooms with chimney breasts! What I meant was that I don't believe that the original building had either. A male servant like a coachman could hardly be expected to cook for himself. But some washing and toilet facilities, and a heated sitting room, perhaps? As to what a "man's room" might be, having to sleep in an outbuilding to keep an eye on the horses sounds plausible enough.

Even if that part of the building is original, it leaves the question of where the horses and coach were kept.

 

[30907]

Slightly OT, but upthread I commented on other similarly-located properties.

It shows up clearly on this 1895 map (near the Allotment Gardens) as do a couple of others against the railway boundary to N and S.
https://maps.nls.uk/view/105985702.

I wonder if those will turn out also to have started life as coach houses?

 

[Speed Whiskers]

Slightly OT, but upthread I commented on other similarly-located properties.

I wonder if those will turn out also to have started life as coach houses?

I've had a look at the pages of the 1891 census which cover 26 to 52 Christchurch Road and the only equestrian-related servant I can spot is a groom and his family in the "cottage behind Kinwasdine" which was a house at number 44 (as given on the 1950s map).

There appears to be a large structure in the garden at 56 Christchurch Road but I can't find with any certainty a house which corresponds to this address in the 1891 or 1901 census. On the 1901 census, the property listed after 52 Christchurch Road is "Merryfield, Barnes Close" which might be the correct house as the 1890s map shows the road now called Barnes Close as being called De Blois Road. If this is the correct property, there is a groom listed as a servant in the household.

 

[stuving]

If you look at the 25" maps of 1895, and the later larger-scale ones, they do mark carriage roads and wider paths, even in gardens. On that basis you'd say there are probably coach-houses at 56, perhaps 36, but not 44. At 50, the lane at the side provides access, and the same is true of 26 and 32. There is also a lane at the rear of 34, 36, and 38, but no sign of any buildings making use of this.

Even given that, Kinwardine is a bit puzzling, if it is the same no. 44 as on the later map. In 1885 Kinwardine was put up for sale by its occupier Mrs Cosway.

Hampshire Chronicle 10 October 1885

There's no sign of the house in 1881, so presumably she had it built for her. (It was still for sale the next year, but with nine bedrooms rather than eight.) That sounds bigger, both the house and the grounds, than the later 44 looks on the map.

In 1901 number 44 was not named, and was a school. Listed were the head (her husband was presumably away that night), a friend, two teachers, two servants, and eleven girls aged 8-17. But this house too was marketed in 2020 (it's now no. 100) and its particulars are still on line here.

It looks to me as if the internal walls have hardly been changed, just a ground-floor extension at the rear. By normal standards it's a huge house on a big plot, but relative to its neighbours it's a narrow plot with a moderately big house squeezed in. A carriage road to the back has to pass at the north side, and I reckon that's a bit less than 2m wide. I have no idea if that was enough for the calibre of coaches, drivers, and horses available then!

 

[Prime586]

The coach used in the period by the class of people who could afford to live in these houses and had a coachman would most likely have been a Brougham - a two seat (four in a Double Brougham), four wheeled light weight 'city coach' with the coachman sat out in front:

They could be drawn by either one or two horses and were typically around 6ft high, 10ft long and between 5 and 6ft wide. The shafts could uusally either be detached or folded upwards for storage in a coach house.