NHER 34316 (Building record) - 160 King Street

160 King Street.

August 1974. Listed Grade II.
Listing description:
"Shop. Early 19th-century brick façade added to a late 16th-century timber-framed house. Pantiled roof.
EXTERIOR: Three storeys; single bay window range. Facade has a 20th-century shop front. Above is a canted bay window rising through two storeys...To left is a tie iron in form of letters TH. Mutulated eaves cornice. Steeply-pitched hipped roof. Row 90 to south with flint and brick lower walls. Jettied south return, the jetty lath and plastered under the arch. Brick infill between the first-floor studs. Various blocked openings. Rear gable whitewashed and with a late 20th-century brick addition of one storey. Row 89 to north has all late 20th-century brick to ground floor. Full-length jetty to first floor with brick infill between the timber studs. Various blocked openings. Rebuilt wall stack to north of front range.
INTERIOR: the ground floor largely reconstructed. First and attic floors reveal house has six bays of framing. First floor retains four sunk-quadrant bridging beams with triple-necked tongue stops. Tie plate raised above level of attic floor. Roof of principals and collars, the collars either reduced or shaved for headroom or replaced in 20th century. Two 18th-century plank doors in attic. 19th-century stick-baluster staircase. Various 20th-century partitions."
Information from (S1).
E. Rose (NLA) 22 March 1999. Amended by P. Watkins (HES), 10 March 2020.

This building is noted in (S2). See also (S3).

2018. Building Survey.
Measured survey by Great Yarmouth Preservation Society.
This work raised the possibility that some of the timber frame could be earlier than the previously suggested late 16th-century date.
Report awaited. Survey noted in (S4).
P. Watkins (HES), 10 March 2020.

2019. Dendrochronological Survey.
Analysis requested in response to results of 2018 survey.
Fifteen oak timbers from floor-framing, wall-framing and roof sampled, of which 12 were suitable for further analysis. These measured samples cross-matched each other and appear to form a single group of timbers likely to have been felled during either the winter of AD 1654/1655 or spring AD 1655. As the dated timbers are assumed to be associated with the primary phase of construction this suggests that the building is actually more recent than had originally been thought.
Photographs were also taken of the end-grain of four conifer boards from doors in the attic but unfortunately no consistent cross-dating was found.
See report (S4) for further details.
P. Watkins (HES), 10 March 2020.