After clearing the mortgage on my partner’s terraced house at No 23 Spa Buildings, we received a pack of documents through the post from the building society. At first sight this was impenetrable but given a little time it proved to be fascinating.
The earliest information we have about the property is from a 1857 document which accompanies the title deeds to 23 Spa Buildings.
The “Abstract of Title of Messrs Richard Whitton and Geo. Baily [sic], surviving devisees in trust under the will of Thomas Winn the younger deceased” relates to a “freehold close of land and the freehold part of another close adjoining in Monks Lane in the parish of St Swithin in the city of Lincoln sold in lots”. The cover is annotated “Mr Chester”.
The first entry notes the provisions of the will of John Winn of Lincoln, common brewer, married to Elizabeth Winn. John Winn and James Cooling had bought Philip Bullen's brewery on Waterside in 1800 (Stamford Mercury 1/8/1800 and 31/10/1800). In addition to a pecuniary legacy, his household furniture, plate, linen, china, and alcohol, Elizabeth was bequeathed an annuity of £200, secured on his estates which had been left to his son Thomas together with his business assets. The annuity was to be paid quarterly, on the 6th of January, 6th April, 6th July, and 11th October; if it remained unpaid, Elizabeth could enter the property and claim items to the outstanding value. Their daughter Elizabeth (wife of William Henry Brook of Lincoln, surgeon) received a legacy of £1000. John’s brothers Thomas (a draper) and Charles (a brewer) each received £4000. A freehold estate in St Mary le Wigford parish is also referred to but not detailed. John Winn died on 24/1/1843 and his will was proved 25/2/1843.
The next entry summarises Thomas Winn’s will, dated 18/3/1843, which left his wife Mary a pecuniary legacy and household contents. His land, houses and buildings were left to his uncle Frederick Winn (brewer), Richard Whitton (wine merchant) and George Bailey [sic] (ironmonger), with an obligation to call in and settle debts and sell the estate in lots, and then to invest the return. Thomas died less than six months after his father, on 11/7/1843.
Sale and development of The Spa Close
On 6/6/1856 the Stamford Mercury newspaper advertised the sale of land ‘nearly opposite the markets’. Spa Close, and the freehold part of the adjoining close (described as about half) lay to the east of Rosemary Lane. The lane was to be widened and improved. The Monks Lane frontage was to be divided into 7 plots, most 32ft wide and 100ft deep apart from a 40ft deep plot at the Rosemary Lane junction. The land to the south was to be divided by a 20ft wide east-west road, and divided into 12 plots 32ft x 68ft average, apart from larger corner or outside plots.
The City Corporation became involved when it was suggested that the northern and western edge of the advertised land offered an opportunity to widen Monks Lane. On 20/6/1856 the Stamford Mercury reported discussion at a council meeting where Mr Mortimer proposed the purchase of land. The Monks Lane stock market was very good but the approach to it was constricted and this caused problems when stock were being driven. The road was 21ft 6in wide (or 15.5ft allowing for the path) at that point, but it could be made 35ft wide if 410 yds were bought. Mr Carline said that the land was currently worth 5s/yd and it was agreed that an improved straight road would benefit everyone. A maximum figure of £50 was determined, and a committee was to approach Mr Carline’s client. A week later, the sale of Spa Close was delayed until mid July.
An entry from our title deeds dated 4/4/1857 records a tripartite indenture between Richard Carline (Gent.) and Frederick Shaw of Skellingthorpe (farmer), the widow Elizabeth Winn, and Richard Whitton and George Baily. Frederick Winn had died 10/7/1851, and Charles Winn had died 3/1/1855. Thomas Winn the older (brother of John Winn) also died on 3/1/1855, appointing Carline and Shaw as his executors. Richard Whitton and George Bailey wanted the close and piece of land released from the trust, and Carline and Shaw accepted that the remainder of John Winn’s estate was sufficient to fund the remaining obligations of his will.
The land was described as “All that close … called the Spa Close [extent omitted] bounded on the north by a road or lane called Monks Lane, on the west by another road or lane called Rosemary Lane, on the south by the new burial ground … and on the east by the close of land next mentioned
… And such part … as was of freehold tenure in the close of land adjoining …bounded by Monks Lane on the north, the burial ground and land of William Henry Brook to the south, and the leasehold part of the close on the east”.
On 6/11/1857 Lincs Chronicle noted the construction of a new road from Monks lane to St Rumbold’s Lane, across Mr Winn’s former land, and remarked that soon all the land as far as Baggerholme Lane would be built on.
Construction and occupation of Spa Buildings
Spa Buildings was at least partly constructed and inhabited by the end of September 1858 - one case of typhus fever had been recorded there during the previous three months.
No. 1 Spa Buildings was occupied by June 1859. In October 1859 the street name Spa Buildings was acknowledged by the council, as was the name Spa Cottages given to two houses on the south side of Monks Road (SM 14/10/1859). Excavation of the house foundations along the Monks Lane frontage revealed stone coffins, burials, and a charnel pit (Stamford Mercury 13/11/1857). These were interpreted as the remains of the lost churchyard of St Peter by the Pump; an ‘ancient’ well surviving at the southern end of the field is probably the ‘spa’ of the field name. Further medieval human remains were found more recently and an archaeological excavation was conducted.
Construction of No. 23, before 1867
Another document in our deed bundle is a conveyance dated 6/4/1857, when Thomas Winn’s executors sold land to William Chester for £82-2-6 with the involvement of commission agent Henry Clarke (who was paid a further £7).
The 368sq yd plot is shown on a small inset plan, to the south of the new road [Spa Buildings] and east of Rosemary Lane. The northern frontage was 41ft 4”, and the western frontage 98ft. The plot immediately to the east was owned by a Mr Reeve.
In January 1867, an inquest was held on Lucy Starkey, aged 3 months, daughter of Samuel and Caroline Starkey, who had been found dead in bed (SM 11/1/1867). A week or two after her birth she had declined, with breathing difficulties and an enlarged tongue. She had been diagnosed with “spurious croup” by Mr Glazier about a month before her death, and prescribed Dolby’s carminative. Lucy was not the first of their children to have died. The coroner recorded natural death but regretted that medical treatment had not been continued. Another source added that Samuel Starkey was a fitter at the Wellington Iron Works (Lincs Chronicle 12/1/1867). The 1871 and 1881 censuses record the Starkey family in residence at 23 Spa Buildings; Sam (32 in 1871, foreman at engine works, born in Leeds), his wife Caroline (32, no occupation given), James (8; 1881 engine fitter), Richard C. ( 1881 12), William H. (1881 9), Eliza ( 1881 6).
Chester’s Iron and Brass Works were in operation in Rosemary Lane in January 1868 when Richard Chester’s widow Elizabeth announced that the business would continue. Ginger beer and soda water machinery were specialities of the business (SM 31/1/1868).
William Chester (engine fitter) obtained a £192 mortgage from the Fourth Lincoln and Lincolnshire Mutual Benefit Building Society in August 1877 (Document 3) in respect of Nos. 22 and 23 Spa Buildings (with yards, gardens and outbuildings) and an adjoining ’messuage or shop’. The shop must represent the two-storey brick workshop formerly known as Chester Lodge or the Chester Works which separates the rear of No.22 from the churchyard.
Document 4 is another conveyance, from Edward Foster Sandon (Gent.) to William Henry Chester, dated 18/7/1882. It details how William Chester’s will of 16/1/1868 divided his estate between his widow Martha and Edward Foster Sandon. In addition to naming Nos. 22 and 23 Spa Buildings, and the adjoining Rosemary Lane ‘shop’, the conveyance names No. 19 Rosemary Lane and locates it to the east of that road [now known as No. 8 Rosemary Lane].
An undated (but c. 1885) document at Lincs Archives (Lincoln City Engineering Box 18 Roll 204) lists over 200 Lincoln ratepayers and householders who petitioned the council to call a public meeting. They hoped to seek support to remove the Stonebow as it was supposedly causing an obstruction and was a financial liability. The second signature on the list is that of H Pepperdine of 23 Spa Buildings. No Pepperdine is recorded on the 1871 or 1881 Census at No. 23, but the 1891 Census lists Elizabeth Pepperdine (widow, 85, born Dunsby Lincs), her grandson Edward J Pepperdine, 15, clerk, Arthur Ernest her son in law, tailor, from Leeds, Eliza Ernest (his wife and Elizabeth's daughter) and their child Beatrice E Ernest, 8. Some detective work in the Census and Deaths records and British Newspaper Archive identifies the individual as Henry Pepperdine, a time keeper, died 1886 (death registered Jul-Sept). In 1855 Henry had an aggressive nature when under the influence of alcohol. Henry Pepperdine is recorded elsewhere as having previously been a sawyer, becoming a timber merchant dealing in building materials who was bankrupt in 1865. He was then a cow keeper and finally worked 'for many years' for W Foster & Co. He died 30th Aug 1886, aged 61 (Lincs Chron 3/9/1886). I think that I've identified the date of the petition - Stamford Mercury 4/6/1886 p5 c3 reports Mr Shepherd at a meeting of the Urban Sanitary Authority: 'A requisition was now being numerously signed against the expenditure'. It seems that signing this petition was about the last thing than Henry Pepperdine did!
Arthur Ernest, Henry Pepperdine's son-in-law, donated books and papers to Lincoln County Hospital in June 1899 (LC 27/6/1899). He was still listed in the 1911 census at No. 23 (58, journeyman tailor, born in Leeds), together with his wife Eliza (58).
William Chester’s son, also a William Henry Chester (engineer), obtained a £350 mortgage on the combined premises in 1907 from Ada Trevor of Ingham. At that date the property was occupied by William Burley (No. 19), Charles Chester (No. 22) and Arthur Ernest (No. 23). The ‘engineer’s workshop’ was occupied by Charles Chester.
In 1928 three documents were produced for Henry Herbert Layton. An Abstract of Title adds no relevant detail, but a conveyance dated 21/7/1928 sold No. 22 and 23 Spa Buildings and No. 8 Rosemary Lane “formerly No. 19” to Layton. It records the right of Nos. 22 and 23 Spa Buildings to use the passage on the south side of the sold houses “on paying a proportionate part of the expense of maintaining and repairing the same” and subject to a right of drainage from the workshop through the back yards of the properties and a right of access of air and light to the north-facing windows of the workshop. The document was witnessed by a Circus Manager from Vine Street.
An agreement dated 10/12/1928 between Layton and the City of Lincoln once again pulls the property into a City context. The agreement concerned the “fixing of a metal band with insulator to the chimney of No.23 Spa Buildings and No. 8 Rosemary Lane”. Layton lived at 5 Rosemary Lane. The band was needed to suspend a wire carrying an electric cable between Lincoln Corporation’s fire station (on the north side of Monks Road) and the houses occupied by firemen in Spa Buildings. In return, the Corporation paid 1s a year. An attached letter dated 22/7/1960 reports that the City Treasurer can find no trace of the agreement and it is no longer in force.
Henry Layton’s widow Maggie inherited the houses in 1948. On Christmas Day 1950 the house suffered a fire which produced "a huge gaping hole where the mantelpiece and hearth had been" (Lincs Echo 26/12/1950, p3). Firemen quickly brought the blaze under control but householder Mr C. Drayton remarked that it had rather spoilt Christmas evening. This suggests that it may have occurred in the afternoon, possibly after a midday meal, and it could have been the result of too much fuel being used. Amazingly, one of Mr Drayton's friends living elsewhere in the city had exactly the same misfortune on the same day. We can identify the damaged fireplace as that in the downstairs backroom, the kitchen. This has glazed tiles (which must date from 1951) and a back boiler, no longer used. In the front room the original cast iron fire surround survives.
Maggie Layton sold No. 8 in 1953 for £570, declaring its east boundary wall a party wall, and No. 22 in September 1959 for £550, with similar party wall status for the intervening boundary and house wall. No. 23 was sold in August 1960 to Hazel Annie Wright of Goldsmith Walk for £425.
Florence Gladding, a widow, resided at No. 23 in January 1964, and bought the property in February 1964 for £500.
A search document dated 14/9/1965 notes that No. 23 was included in a contemporary Development Plan Review as being within a proposed redevelopment area but that the intention no longer remained active. This probably relates to slum clearance proposals which resulted in demolition of properties along the north side of Rosemary Lane. Other schemes may have existed; in May 1963 Lincoln’s Junior Chamber of Commerce produced a report from a committee that had been considering proposals for a Civic Centre [on the site occupied by the bus station until 2016] (Lincs Echo 3/5/1963, p7). The report acknowledged that that site had ‘a great deal to commend it’ but the authors considered that it was an outdated location which would affect established businesses and that there was an alternative site.
Their alternative was a huge area of land bounded by Monks Road, Rosemary Lane, Montague Street and the River Witham. It had recently been suggested as a site by an un-named chartered surveyor in a letter to the Lincs Echo (not traced). As this was mostly ‘undeveloped land, obsolescent buildings, Duckering’s old mill and the Road Transport offices’ the land would be lower in cost and so a larger site could be afforded. Developing the area for a civic centre would encourage an eastward redevelopment of the city centre. The sloping ground would offer opportunity for an architect to create an interesting complex, complemented by the open space of the river. Unlike the City Council’s designated site, it could be developed gradually.
The Chamber’s report was discussed by the Lincoln Trades Council whose members were not particularly supportive. RE Leverington noted that the alternative site’s surroundings were ‘a lot of slums’, and WH Lincoln remarked that the undeveloped land must have something wrong with it to have remained undeveloped. The only reported support was from LR Mitchell and it was pointed out that the area east of Broadgate was gradually being improved (Lincs Echo 9/5/1963, p8).
In October 1965 No. 23 was bought by Mohammad Sharif (draughtsman) for £800. A £650 mortgage was raised from Mrs Gladding, the vendor. Prior to a subsequent sale to Nemesio Lopez Franco and Antonio Lopez Barcon for £1600 in January 1973, it was noted that the bathroom of No. 23 was built in 1970-71 but the vendor had no copies of the obtained planning permission. A sketch accompanying a conveyance of No. 22 dated 3/9/1959 shows the kitchen extension which may pre-date the 1970s.
...
Last revised 6/9/2016