This unique building is the only known two storey pole lathe and daub structure remaining in Australia. It is quite possible that it was the only one ever built but thorough research would be the only way to ascertain this – being a ‘soft’ material any others may have long since vanished and/or undergone complete dereliction over the years.
In terms of vernacular architecture, this is a supreme extant example remaining with us to demonstrate the high level that could be attained utilizing available materials to hand and also of the conceit in finishing it to look like a much grander building on the social scale.
Nowhere have I seen a building that combines the vernacular with the polite in such a manner as Mountain View. It is my view that this is so unique that it occurs nowhere else in Australia and should as a matter of urgency, be recorded and documented as professionally as possible before undertaking a program of stabilization, restoration and finally conservation for the future.
The architectural qualities evident in design are outstanding and the knowledge of French vernacular is quite extraordinary in the oversailing verandahs to the central core of the building at either end. The room sizes are very big, unlike most small early settlers houses that were small and had as a rule, lowish ceiling heights.
Of particular note are the various methods used to construct this building, most if not all, not used any more to build houses.
• pole, lathe and daub consisting of closely space poles of local hardwood of what seems to be high quality timber. These poles are approx. 150mm diam. and are spaced at approx 225mm apart centre to centre. These comprise the wall framing in between the main corner posts that are hand axed 300mm square. All are earthfast in construction and this in turn has seen many poles rot due to water ingress over recent years. The corner post appear to be sound.
• Lathes to the exterior and interior nailed to the timber as a key for the lime/sand render. N.B. some render is most likely mud and lime as well as it varies around the building. Lathes are riven from straight grained timber of quality which gives a better surface for the render to adhere to and riven timber outlasts sawn timber by a long time as it is split along the grain and does not sever the fibres as does sawn.
• Verandah posts squared out of small logs say, 150 – 170mm diam. Sapwood present or decayed away on some indicating the small size. Hand axed possibly with felling axe, but, not a broad axe. Marks still in evidence today. Simple chamfer applied that stops abruptly either end with no refinement and about 400mm (?) from the ends. Red oxide paint still in evidence at top of posts in protected areas.
• Floor joists to the verandahs were also axed from very small logs. Waney edged arrises on some show the size to be around say 100–125mm. Stringlines were no doubt snapped along the length and then axed down to.
• Mud mortar used to construct chimneys. Combination of poor masonry construction and failure of plaster/render over the years has allowed water ingress and subsequent erosion of mortar in places. Subsidence and lack of overlap of corner stones has allowed one chimney to develop a large crack from the ground going up nearly two thirds of the way. Chimney to living room has listed to one side in the stack and is resting on the house frame, crushing the ogee guttering.
• Plastering originally covered the whole façade and some lovely roundels were pargetted to the upstairs walls of the verandahs. Most unusual. I have only seen this in the UK.
• Attention to carved details on window archs, door archs, barge boards etc. indicates a level of artistic endeavour that is more in keeping with present day owner building than in 1895!
• Upstairs room above formal lounge unfinished allowing unrestricted view of construction of wall due to absence of plaster.
• Rude timber construction of roof timbers i.e. small poles in the round used but resting on imported sawn wall plates (termite ridden along length, but since gone)
• Use of three main colours in decoration – red oxide, green and yellow seen mostly on the doors. Hard to ascertain the full extent of painting.
Proposal for works to conserve building.
i Preliminary survey
ii Structural survey
iii Its execution
Generally, if a building is a dwelling, its internal arrangements and services must also be noted. The following may be used as a check list of things indicated on the survey plans.
• Room partitions, door movement and windows. Note any unusual mouldings or special features. Photos may be the easiest way.
• Ceiling heights, floor heights showing any changes of level.
• External cladding, plasterwork, styles etc.
• Fireplaces and their flue structures.
• Ceiling beams if visible (as in this case).
• Floorboards, noting size, thickness, age, direction, species of wood, finish, direction and nailing patterns.
• Construction of external walls and approx. thickness.
• Signs of damp and/or decay noting deflection in beams etc, loose plaster, testing with caution!
The general condition of the building visible externally and points to check are –
• Whether or not rot has occurred at sill level or below ground.
• Where guttering and down pipes have failed causing decay.
• The state of wall plates and rafters etc.
• Pointing of masonry.
• Damage to roof covering.
• How much original fabric remains.
• State of the framework to the building.
• The style, date and condition of windows and doors.
• Wall decoration i.e. wallpapers and/or painted design.
For the structural survey you will need
• Wrecking bar.
• Spirit level, minimum three feet in length.
• Plumb-bob.
• Profile gauge for mouldings etc.
• String, hammer, nails, staples etc.
• Short and long extension ladders.
• Quality dust masks and gloves.
This list is by no means exhaustive. Other things to consider are the gardens if any, out buildings (in this case the shearing shed/general store). Its social significance to the area and its cultural heritage. Changes over the years must also be considered as a building ages and new owners add/subtract in the current style of the day.
Mountain View has suffered primarily through neglect over the years. While lack of occupation has by and large preserved its authentic character and prevented much in the way of radical change to the fabric, it has allowed decay to occur unchecked. Missing guttering, clogged downpipes, leaking valley gutters and silted spoon drains created conditions favourable for termite activity to begin. Rat and rabbit runs were also found under the rotting floorboards helping funnel water from the spoon drain under the house.
This has resulted in some major decay, rot, and in the case of a kitchen wall, almost total collapse as rain flowed down the mud infill removing it and rotting the base allowing for subsidence of the wall posts.
All of these structural faults are repairable, they will take a long time and will require large amounts of funding to put into effect. This must happen sooner rather than later. Stabilisation is critical before any remedial works take effect.
For this building to be lost would be a loss of a major part of our early built environment. I feel very strongly about the preservation of our domestic housing stock rather than the grander houses of higher social standing. These domestic structures are what the country was founded on and by virtue of their simple construction methods and materials used, quite often of an ephemeral nature, they are most at risk.
Rob Hadden
Vernacular building specialist.
May 13, 2007
