But this apparent consistency is something of an illusion. The building is a multi-period structure, accumulated and altered across different eras and then modernised into a semblance of unity, so that what reads as a single architectural statement is in fact several layers of construction wearing the same clothes.

The plan of the house gives the game away. Rather than the simple rectangular block typical of a straightforward 18th-century design, the structure is T-shaped, with a two-storey extension running to the south-west and a central three-storey hipped projection to the rear. That rear projection, where the roof slopes down on all sides rather than ending in a gable, is thought to be at least partly original, which raises the question of what exactly came first. Attic windows tucked into the gable ends of the entrance front add another layer of domestic pragmatism to a building that seems to have grown according to need rather than any single guiding plan. The result is a house that rewards a second look precisely because it refuses to be as straightforward as it initially appears.