The earliest records show a not particularly imposing building at the site of the former Sun, Moon and Stars Inn, this being for the year 1729.  The Duke of Grafton's rent records show that the building is his and that in 1740 a Cath Morris, too poor to pay much rent, lives in a partially collapsed building that was once a 'publick house of some note - the Chequers Alehouse'.  The woman died in 1749 and the next news about the place is when a Mr. Thomas Smith sells the building to John Linnett on 19 May 1797.  John Linnett rebuilt in brick using some stone walls that still stood.  He established a new inn to take advantage of the trade relating to the canal.  There was, of course, space in the field running down to the new canal which had been dug only two years earlier but we have no idea what outbuildings, if any, were built there.  Local lore has it, with not a single supporting fact, that workmen dealing with the tunnel lodged there until the tunnel was finished in 1805 and much later, a band of registered leggers lived there.  The latter assertion seems particularly dubious.  John Linnett called his new inn the 'Half Moon Inn' and, by 1841, the place was called 'The Half Moon Yard' in the census.
Fortunately the 1838 survey carried out by the Duke of Grafton provides much detail on the buildings established by then - see the left hand panel below.  The panels below just show the triangular patch of ground between the canal and the High Street.  The inn is the L-shaped section and it had two attached out-buildings and one small detached building nearer to the canal.  By then the inn was owned by Mr. Phipps, of brewing and ironstone mining fame, as was a small plot of land immediately to the east of the plot.  The Victorian censuses record that Half Moon Yard provided accommodation for a number of households but there is no indication whether they are in the outbuildings or in the main three storey building.  Interestingly, the 1970 ordnance survey shows the situation after there were four cottages established to the west of the main building and three more to the east in 1891.  These cottages were, of course, built by the Phipps family on their own land.  Note that the original outbuilding of 1838 behind the main building has evidently formed the shell for the four new cottages and that the other outbuilding provided at least the outline for the accommodation for kitchens in 1977.  This latter outbuilding survived until 1988 when a lorry from the High Street demolished it.   Even part of the outline of the little detached out- building seems to survive.

From some time in the 1840s the inn had two names; the original 'Half Moon' and the new 'Sun and Moon' or 'Sun, Moon & Stars' or even '...Seven Stars'.  As indicated on the website, the new names probably came from the logos used by the Oddfellows Society which was using the inn as their lodge.  Kelly's directories and the brewery adopted the new name(s) while many villagers at least until the WW I used the old name.

As mentioned above, John Linnett built in brick in 1797.  There is a date-stone displaying 'J L 1797' on the wall of the main building which faces south.  It appears to have been placed midway between the two prominent bay-windows that are shown on the 1838 map.  It has recently become evident that the date 'stone' is not made of stone but is instead a carefully flattened 1 inch layer of lime mortar into which the lettering was cut with a trowel.  The practice suggests that John Linnett was not a man to waste money on such detail.  The layer of mortar is becoming detached in places.  He also evidently did not waste much money on the employment of skilled brick-layers as the work, done in Flemish bond style, is not to a high standard.  Even the choice of brick seems suspect; on the north wall there is much seep-through of tar from chimneys that were built onto the interior of the outside wall.  This shows that the bricks are rather porous there.  If that is true for all the exterior walling then the mortar between the course of bricks must have been subject to some weakening by the percolation of rainwater over 200 years.

The walls of the building show some evidence of changes to brickwork and windows etc. over the years but little can prepare one for the riddle presented by the south wall of the main building.  This building was listed in 1989 and it must bear consideration that this wall be either rendered to cover the shame or left exposed to encourage us to explain the changes - a project for an architectural historian.  But there is a better option below.

This south wall is shown below, a good example of the result of a building being adapted purely for use with no regard for appearances.

Blue lines superimposed on the image draw attention to the most obvious re-bricking.  The two light blue bars are placed with reference to the 1838 map which shows a pair of bay windows on this wall.  There seem to be four openings that were once used. None have been re-bricked in Flemish bond and none seem to relate to the vestiges of such large bay windows.  The vertical panel to the right might have been where a flue had been once placed, built against the exterior wall.  The date-stone is shown centrally and seems to have been partially covered for a while by a pitch roof (though the precise detail of that pitch is questionable).  Slightly left of centre at ground level there is a section of wall (?) built as a block of concrete which suggests it is either a piece of wallplate (rustic!) placed there to stabilise a portion of the wall or part of a loading bay for beer barrels etc.   Parts of the wall have been re-pointed and this fact makes it appear, in a picture this small, that much has been rebuilt.  In fact the upper two storeys of brickwork appear to be mostly the original.

The adjacent wall does not appear to have received much attention from revisions.  Although the brickwork is in Flemish bond the decorative lintel arrangement is not identical to that over the three first floor windows facing south.  Should we attribute this difference to John Linnett and his work force?

A Proposal:   The fact is the south wall has most of its hideous patchwork at the ground-floor level.  Why not, in a process of restoration, re-build two large bay windows to recall the appearance of the building in 1838 and hide the hideous?  Then, why not incorporate these bay windows into a slightly elevated patio which provides the connection between the car-park area and the interior ground floor?  The patio could be fairly large and could offer an interesting outdoor area for a cafe/bistro business.  The removal from the whole building of every square inch of disfiguring black paint and magnolia wash along with the re-building of the two bay windows on the front elevation (re-establishing correct glazing rules there) would help obtain harmony for the overall exterior.  However, there's no need for a prescription at this stage; it's simple - cover up the hideous with restoration 19th century glazing!

A Personal View on Target priorities:
There is listed below some broad-brush possible outcomes of the present effort to 'save the building', with
the most desirable first and the bare minimum acceptable mentioned last.       Tony Marsh, August 2007

1.   A successful Community project with Affordable housing, some sort of bistro and some space for heritage presentation incorporated in the whole.
2.   Failing a community 'bid', an SNC sponsored project which provides Affordable housing.
3.   Commercial housing.

But, 'management' please note, whichever of the three come to pass let us have a building exterior that villagers can view proudly and say 'it has never looked more attractive in 210 years' - a slavish adherence to the rubbish accumulation in the intervening years would be unfortunate.