CITY UNIVERSITY Sebastian Street London EC1
London Borough of Islington
Historic environment assessment
June 2013
© Museum of London Archaeology 2013 Museum of London Archaeology Mortimer Wheeler House 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London N1 7ED tel 020 7410 2200 | fax 020 410 2201 www.museumoflondonarchaeology.org.uk general enquiries: [email protected]
City University Sebastian Street London EC1
An historic environment assessment
NGR 531839 182635
Sign-off history: Issue Date: Prepared by: Checked by Approved by: Reason for Issue: No. 1 20.05.2013 Charlotte Bossick Jon Chandler George Dennis First issue Paul Riggott Lead Consultant Contract Manager (Archaeology) Juan Jose Fuldain (Graphics) 2 04.06.2013 Paul Riggott Chris Thomas Client requested (Archaeology) Director amendments
3 27.06.2013 Paul Riggott George Dennis Client requested (Archaeology) Contract Manager amendments
Y code: AA678
Museum of London Archaeology Mortimer Wheeler House, 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London N1 7ED tel 0207 410 2200 fax 0207 410 2201 email:[email protected]
Museum of London Archaeology is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales with company registration number 07751831 and charity registration number 1143574. Registered office: Mortimer Wheeler House, 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London N1 7ED
Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
Contents
Executive summary 1
1 Introduction 2 1.1 Origin and scope of the report 2 1.2 Designated heritage assets 2 1.3 Aims and objectives 2
2 Methodology and sources consulted 4
3 Site location, topography and geology 6 3.1 Site location 6 3.2 Topography 6 3.3 Geology 6
4 Archaeological and historical background 7 4.1 Overview of past investigations 7 4.2 Chronological summary 7
5 Statement of significance: buried heritage assets 13 5.1 Introduction 13 5.2 Factors affecting archaeological survival 13 5.3 Archaeological potential and significance 14
6 Impact of proposals 16 6.1 Proposals 16 6.2 Implications 16
7 Conclusion and recommendations 17
8 Gazetteer of known historic environment assets 19
9 Planning framework 23 9.1 Statutory protection 23 9.2 National Planning Policy Framework 23 9.3 Greater London regional policy 25 9.4 Local planning policy 26
10 Determining significance 28
11 Non-archaeological constraints 29
12 Glossary 30
13 Bibliography 32 13.1 Published and documentary sources 32 13.2 Other Sources 32 13.3 Cartographic sources 33 i P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
13.4 Available site survey information checklist 33
Figures
Cover: Faden’s revision of Horwood’s map of 1813
Fig 1 Site location Fig 2 Historic environment features map Fig 3 Location of boreholes and test pits (Harrison Group, April 2013) Fig 4 Agas’s map of 1562 Fig 5 A Plan of the City and Suburbs of London fortified by Order of Parliament in the Years 1642 & 1643 by Vertue (1738) Fig 6 Rocque’s map of 1746 Fig 7 Horwood’s map of 1799 Fig 8 Faden’s revision of Horwood’s map of 1813 Fig 9 Ordnance Survey 1st edition 5ft:mile map of 1871 Fig 10 Ordnance Survey 3rd edition 25’’:mile map of 1916 Fig 11 Ordnance Survey 1:1250 scale map of 1952 Fig 12 Goad Insurance map of 1957 (London Metropolitan Archive reference LCC/VA/GOAD/D) Fig 13 Ordnance Survey 1:1250 scale map of 1971 Fig 14 Ordnance Survey 1:1250 scale map of 1986 Fig 15 Existing ground floor, also shows extents of current basements (Ramboll, drg 61031253/SV/01, rev 0, date 12/02/13) Fig 16 Proposed ground floor (Curtins Consulting, drg CU030-102, rev P2, date 05/04/13) Fig 17 Proposed second level basement (identical footprint to first level basement) (Curtins Consulting, drg CU030-100, rev P2, date 05/04/13)
Note: site outlines may appear differently on some figures owing to distortions in historic maps. North is approximate on early maps.
ii P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
Executive summary
City University has commissioned Museum of London Archaeology to carry out a historic environment assessment (also known as a ‘heritage statement’) in advance of proposed development at City University, Sebastian Street in the London Borough of Islington. The scheme comprises the demolition of a 1970s building and a 1940s building in the southern half of the site, and the construction of a new six-storey building with a double basement and piled foundations. The two early 20th-century buildings in the northern part of the site, Goswell Place and Myddleton Building, would be retained and refurbished. The site lies in the south-eastern corner of the Northampton Square Conservation Area. This desk-based study assesses the impact on buried heritage assets (archaeological remains). It does not cover possible built heritage issues (eg setting), except where buried parts of historic fabric are likely to be affected. Heritage assets that may be affected comprise: possible remains of the mid-17th century Civil War defences. Although the exact line of the defences is uncertain, the site is thought to lie within or on the edge of the Mount Mill Fort, one of the first of the short-lived forts to be erected. Remains within unbasemented areas could potentially be untruncated and be of high significance, whilst truncated remains beneath existing basements would be of medium significance. possible post-medieval remains related to the urbanisation from the early 19th century when the site was first developed, including building foundations, rubbish pits, wells etc , and possibly earlier quarrying, of low heritage significance. possible later medieval remains associated with agricultural use of the site, of low significance. There is a low potential for previously unrecorded remains from other periods. The site is away from any known water courses that would have made it attractive for prehistoric settlement. Although the site was adjacent to the projected line of a Roman Road little evidence for Roman activity has been noted in the vicinity of the site. During the later medieval and early post-medieval period the site lay within open fields some distance from the main settlements. Archaeological survival varies across the site due to construction of basements and cellars in certain areas. There are current deep basements under the Parkes and Myddleton buildings on the site. However, the majority of the site currently has no basements although historic maps suggest that at least some of the previous domestic dwellings along Goswell Road and Sebastian Street had cellars. The proposed double-depth basement in the southern half of the site would entirely remove any presently surviving buried heritage remains from within the new basement footprint and reduce the archaeological significance to nil or negligible. The predicted significance of archaeological remains on the site is not considered sufficient to warrant field evaluation prior to the determination of planning consent. A pre-determination evaluation would also be difficult for practical reasons of continued use of buildings and car parks and possible asbestos contamination. However the site does have the potential for, in particular, remains of the Civil War defences. The results of geotechnical ground investigations have been considered in the report. Further archaeologically-designed field evaluation trial trenches may be required to clarify the nature, date and significance of any remains affected by the development. The results would allow an informed mitigation strategy to be drawn up in advance of development, in consultation with the LPA and English Heritage. Mitigation (if required) might comprise archaeological excavation and recording, and/or a watching brief during site preparation and ground reduction (preservation by record). Such work would normally be carried out in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation under the terms of a standard planning condition.
1 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
1 Introduction
1.1 Origin and scope of the report 1.1.1 City University has commissioned Museum of London Archaeology (MOLA) to carry out a historic environment assessment (also known as a ‘heritage statement’) in advance of proposed development at Sebastian Street, EC1 (National Grid Reference 531839 182635: Fig 1). On the southern side of the site the scheme comprises the demolition of the 1960s Health Centre building and a 1940s building and the construction of a new six storey building, with a double basement, along Sebastian Street. The existing buildings, from the 1900s and 1920s, on the northern side of the site would be retained and refurbished. 1.1.2 This desk-based study assesses the impact of the scheme on buried heritage assets (archaeological remains). It forms an initial stage of investigation of the area of proposed development (hereafter referred to as the ‘site’) and may be required in relation to the planning process in order that the local planning authority (LPA) can formulate an appropriate response in the light of the impact upon any known or possible heritage assets. These are parts of the historic environment which are considered to be significant because of their historic, evidential, aesthetic and/or communal interest. These might comprise below and above ground archaeological remains, buildings, structures, monuments or heritage landscape within or immediately around the site. This report deals solely with the archaeological implications of the development proposals and does not cover possible built heritage issues (eg setting), except where buried parts of historic fabric are likely to be affected. 1.1.3 The assessment has been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (DCLG 2012; see section 10 of this report) and to standards specified by the Institute for Archaeologists (IfA 2012), English Heritage (2008), and the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS 2009). Under the ‘Copyright, Designs and Patents Act’ 1988 MOLA retains the copyright to this document. 1.1.4 Note: within the limitations imposed by dealing with historical material and maps, the information in this document is, to the best knowledge of the author and MOLA, correct at the time of writing. Further archaeological investigation, more information about the nature of the present buildings, and/or more detailed proposals for redevelopment may require changes to all or parts of the document.
1.2 Designated heritage assets 1.2.1 The site does not contain any nationally designated (protected) heritage assets, such as scheduled monuments, listed buildings or registered parks and gardens. The site lies within the south-eastern corner of the Northampton Square Conservation Area. It does not lie within an archaeological priority area as defined by the local planning authority. 1.2.2 There closest listed buildings to the site are Grade II listed numbers 18,19, 21 and 21a Northampton Square and their attached railings, situated c 30m to the west of the site. These are terraced houses (now offices) constructed c 1810. Grade II listed numbers 11–18 (consecutive) Ashby Street, a row of terraced houses and shops built 1815–1818, lie c 30m north-west of the site.
1.3 Aims and objectives 1.3.1 The aim of the assessment is to: identify the presence of any known or potential buried heritage assets that may be affected by the proposals;
2 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
describe the significance of such assets, as required by national planning policy (see section 9 for planning framework and section 10 for methodology used to determine significance); assess the likely impacts upon the significance of the assets arising from the proposals; and provide recommendations to further assessment where necessary of the historic assets affected, and/or mitigation aimed at reducing or removing completely any adverse impacts upon buried heritage assets and/or their setting.
3 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
2 Methodology and sources consulted
2.1.1 For the purposes of this report the documentary and cartographic sources, including results from any archaeological investigations in the site and a study area around it were examined in order to determine the likely nature, extent, preservation and significance of any buried heritage assets that may be present within the site or its immediate vicinity and has been used to determine the potential for previously unrecorded heritage assets of any specific chronological period to be present within the site. 2.1.2 In order to set the site into its full archaeological and historical context, information was collected on the known historic environment features within a 350m-radius study area around the area of proposed development, as held by the primary repositories of such information within Greater London. These comprise the Greater London Historic Environment Record (HER) and the London Archaeological Archive and Resource Centre (LAARC). The HER is managed by English Heritage and includes information from past investigations, local knowledge, find spots, and documentary and cartographic sources. LAARC includes a public archive of past investigations and is managed by the Museum of London. The study area was considered through professional judgement to be appropriate to characterise the historic environment of the site. Occasionally there may be reference to assets beyond this study area, where appropriate, e.g., where such assets are particularly significant and/or where they contribute to current understanding of the historic environment. 2.1.3 In addition, the following sources were consulted: MOLA – Geographical Information System, the deposit survival archive, published historic maps and archaeological publications English Heritage – information on statutory designations including scheduled monuments and listed buildings The London Society Library – published histories and journals London Metropolitan Archive – historic maps Landmark historic Ordnance Survey maps from the first edition (1860– 70s) to the present day; British Geological Survey (BGS) – solid and drift geology digital map; online BGS geological borehole record data City University – architectural drawings (Curtins Consulting/April 2013), engineering drawings, existing site survey (Ramboll/February 2013), geotechnical data (Harrison Group/April 2013). Internet - web-published material including LPA local plan, and information on conservation areas and locally listed buildings. 2.1.4 The assessment included a site visit carried out on the 26th of April 2013 in order to determine the topography of the site and existing land use, and to provide further information on areas of possible past ground disturbance and general historic environment potential. The buildings on the site were inspected internally and externally. Observations made on the site visit have been incorporated into this report. 2.1.5 Fig 2 shows the location of known historic environment features within the study area. These have been allocated a unique historic environment assessment reference number (HEA 1, 2, etc), which is listed in a gazetteer at the back of this report and is referred to in the text. Where there are a considerable number of listed buildings in the study area, only those within the vicinity of the site (i.e. within 100m) are included, unless their inclusion is considered relevant to the study. Conservation areas are not shown. Archaeological Priority Zones are shown where appropriate. All distances quoted in the text are approximate (within 5m). 4 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
2.1.6 Section 10 sets out the criteria used to determine the significance of heritage assets. This is based on four values set out in English Heritage’s Conservation principles, policies and guidance (2008), and comprise evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal value. The report assesses the likely presence of such assets within (and beyond) the site, factors which may have compromised buried asset survival (i.e. present and previous land use), as well as possible significance. 2.1.7 Section 11 contains a glossary of technical terms. A full bibliography and list of sources consulted may be found in section 13. This section includes non- archaeological constraints and a list of existing site survey data obtained as part of the assessment.
5 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
3 Site location, topography and geology
3.1 Site location 3.1.1 The site includes number 17–20 Sebastian Street and 167–173 Goswell Road (NGR 531839 182635: Fig 1). The site is bounded by numbers 12–13 Sebastian Street and a car parking area to the west, Goswell Road to the east, 11–20 Ashby Street to the north, and Sebastian Street to the south. The site falls within the historic parish of St James Clerkenwell and lay within the county of Middlesex prior to being absorbed into the administration of the Greater London Borough of Islington. 3.1.2 There are no known natural watercourses in the immediate vicinity of the site. The City Road Basin of the Regent’s Canal is c 450m to the north-east.
3.2 Topography 3.2.1 Topography can provide an indication of suitability for settlement, and ground levels can indicate whether the ground has been built up or truncated, which can have implications for archaeological survival (see section 5.2). 3.2.2 Within the site the ground is generally flat. Two Ordnance Survey spot heights are recorded on Goswell Road, just to the east of site at 21.5m above Ordnance Datum (OD) and just to the south at 21.7m OD.
3.3 Geology 3.3.1 Geology can provide an indication of suitability for early settlement, and potential depth of remains. 3.3.2 The geology comprises London Clay overlain by Thames Terrace gravels, known as Hackney Gravels (British Geological Survey sheet 256). These are believed to have been laid down during the Wolstonian period, 352,000–130,000 years ago. 3.3.3 A geotechnical investigation was carried out on the site by Harrison Group on from 10/04/13 to 11/04/13. A number of bore holes and test pits were excavated from ground level..They indicate a made ground sequence c 4-5m deep, although it is not clear how much of this consists of archaeological deposits (Fig 3). Test pit WS2 was abandoned due to contaminants being found. Table 1 differentiates between what is obviously modern made ground, containing identifiably modern inclusion such as concrete and plastic (but not brick or tile), and undated made ground, which may potentially contain deposits of archaeological interest. This differentiation was not apparent in the original report as it was commissioned for engineering purposes. In all likelihood, the undated made ground comprises deposits related to the post- medieval development of the site. Table 1: summary of geotechnical data Levels are in metres below ground level (mbgl) BH/TP Ground level Modern made Undated Top of natural ref. ground made ground (gravel) BH1 Not recorded <0.7mbgl 0.7–4.6mbgl 4.6mbgl BH2 Not recorded <0.1mbgl 0.1–5.2mbgl 5.2mbgl WS1 Not recorded <2.3mbgl 2.3–4.2mbgl 4.2mbgl WS2 Not recorded 0.3mbgl 0.3mbgl+ Not recorded WS4 Not recorded 0.2mbgl 0.2–5.1mbgl 5.1mbgl
6 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
4 Archaeological and historical background
4.1 Overview of past investigations 4.1.1 There have been no recorded archaeological investigations within the site itself, though 13 investigations have taken place within the study area. These have mainly been archaeological watching briefs. The majority of the archaeological evidence comes from the area south-east of the site, with some evidence from the north-west. Archaeological evidence dating to before the post-medieval period is sparse, with the earliest find being of Roman date and possibly a fake (HEA 23). The majority of the evidence exists in the form of cultivation or landscaping activity in the early post- medieval period, with increasing development in the 18th century. The closest investigation to the site (HEA 7) is situated c 160m south-east of the site. This watching brief uncovered 15th or 16th-century domestic refuse which may have been the product of the dumping of waste from the city outside of its walls. It is possible that these dumped deposits were part of the construction of a mound for a windmill which existed in the vicinity in the early 16th-century and is seen on Agas’ map of 1562 (Fig 4). 4.1.2 The results of these investigations, along with other known sites and finds within the study area, are discussed by period, below. The date ranges below are approximate.
4.2 Chronological summary
Prehistoric period (700,000 BC–AD 43) 4.2.1 The Lower (700,000–250,000 BC) and Middle (250,000–40,000 BC) Palaeolithic saw alternating warm and cold phases and intermittent perhaps seasonal occupation. During the Upper Palaeolithic (40,000–10,000 BC), after the last glacial maximum, and in particular after around 13,000 BC, further climate warming took place and the environment changed from steppe-tundra to birch and pine woodland. It is probably at this time that England saw continuous occupation. Erosion has removed much of the Palaeolithic land surfaces and finds are typically residual. There are no known finds dated to this period within the study area. 4.2.2 The Mesolithic hunter-gather communities of the postglacial period (10,000–4000 BC) inhabited a still largely wooded environment. The river valleys and coast would have been favoured in providing a predictable source of food (from hunting and fishing) and water, as well as a means of transport and communication. Evidence of activity is characterised by flint tools rather than structural remains. There are no known finds dated to this period within the study area. 4.2.3 The Neolithic (4000–2000 BC), Bronze Age (2000–600 BC) and Iron Age (600 BC– AD 43) are traditionally seen as the time of technological change, settled communities and the construction of communal monuments. Farming was established and forest cleared for cultivation. An expanding population put pressure on available resources and necessitated the utilisation of previously marginal land. There is currently no archaeological evidence of prehistoric activity on the site or within the study area. Just outside the study area to the south-east, Old Street may follow the line of an Iron Age trackway, but there is no direct evidence for this.
Roman period (AD 43–410) 4.2.4 During the Roman period the site was within the rural hinterland of Londinium (London), which was established in c AD 50 in the area of the City of London, 1.5km to the south of the site. Settlement and other activity in the general area would have been influenced by administrative and infrastructure factors associated with the establishment of Londinium as the provincial capital by the 2nd century AD. The 7 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
relationship of Londinium to the rural settlements in its hinterland was symbiotic. Small, nucleated settlements, typically located along the major roads leading to the capital, acted both as markets and producers for the capital. These hinterland settlements appear to have followed the general socio-economic trends that characterise the Roman period; prosperity in the early 2nd century followed by a general decline in the late 2nd–early 3rd century and a brief revival in the 4th century (AGL 2000, 150). 4.2.5 The projected line of a Roman road, which leaves the City at Aldersgate, runs along Goswell Road adjacent to the site on the eastern side. A second east–west projected Roman road, approximately aligned along Old Street lies c 450m south of the site. The GLHER notes a carved stone head of a man found in on Goswell Road, c 70m south of the site (HEA 23). This was thought to be of Roman date but may have been a post-medieval fake.
Early medieval (Saxon) period (AD 410–1066) 4.2.6 Following the withdrawal of the Roman army from England in the early 5th century AD the whole country fell into an extended period of socio-economic decline. The walled Roman city was apparently largely abandoned. In the 7th to 9th centuries the trading port of Lundenwic developed in the area now occupied by Aldwych, the Strand and Covent Garden, 1.8km to the south-west of the site (Cowie and Blackmore 2008, xv). 4.2.7 Archaeological investigations have revealed evidence for early Saxon activity in the Clerkenwell area on the eastern side of the River Fleet (this followed the route of modern Farringdon Road, in the form of dispersed settlement and small-scale industry or craft working. This has all been some distance from the site. Excavations around St John’s Square outside the study area, c 500m to the south-west of the site, revealed pits containing pottery dated to AD 450–550 (Cowie and Blackmore 2008, 21). In the 19th century, glass beads and a pair of glass earrings, dated to the later 6th or 7th century, were found near Farringdon Station, c 750m to the south- east of the site (Vince 1990, 109). There are known finds from this period within the study area, and the settlement appears to have been further south with the site likely situated within open land, which may have been used for farming. 4.2.8 In the late 9th century, the old Roman city was reoccupied in response to devastating Viking raids. Around the 9th and 10th century, the Saxon Minster system began to be replaced by local parochial organisation, with formal areas of land centred on nucleated settlements served by a parish church. The site lay within an area later known as Clerkenwell, which originally probably formed part of the manorial estate of Islington (Iseldone). The nature of the landholding in this period is unclear (Sloane and Malcolm 2004, 24). The closest settlement focus would probably have been the village of Islington, located at the junction of High Street, Upper Street and Lower Street, near the present Islington Green, 1km to the north of the site. In 1993, archaeological excavations revealed evidence of Saxon settlement here (Cosh 2005, 9).
Later medieval period (AD 1066–1485) 4.2.9 Following the Norman Conquest of 1066, the area of Clerkenwell was acquired by the Bricett family. Clerkenwell is not specifically noted in Domesday Book (AD1086); the first known documentary reference to it is in a grant by Ralph de Bricett of the tithes (church taxes) of Clerkenwell to his religious foundation in Essex in 1112. The name probably derives from a spring (or ‘well’) where the parish clerks of the City of London performed religious plays (English Heritage 2008b, 4–5). The area lay just outside the medieval City of London, and provided a place of recreation, described at the end of the 12th century as ‘pleasant fields and pasture, with flowing streams, and springs and mills’ (Pinks 1881, 1). 4.2.10 The site lies just within the parish boundary of St James Clerkenwell which had 8 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
been previously part of St Mary Islington, and is just outside the parish of St Luke Old Street which lies to the east. The later medieval ownership of the fields of north Clerkenwell was split between the Convent of St Mary, which held an area across the middle of the parish and the priory of St John. The lands of St Mary’s nunnery included two large fields situated some distance apart. These fields are likely to have been in arable use during this period, and later pastoral (Temple 2008, 294– 304). The site lay within one of these fields, known firstly as Farncroft or Fernfield and by 1590 as Wood(s) Close (ibid). The other field was situated closer to the nunnery and was known as Hyelie Field or Lilliefield, and later as Northampton Field or Spa Field (ibid). The site was likely in arable use (English Heritage 2008b, 1). 4.2.11 Any early settlement seems likely to have been in the north-eastern corner of the parish, adjacent to the parish of St Mary, Islington, in the area now known as The Angel, c 630m to the north of the site. Here, on the route from Hertfordshire and the north to the City and Smithfield, on Islington High Street, was the first independent village north of London. Islington’s parish church was founded in the 12th century and rebuilt in the 15th-century before being demolished in 1751 (Weinreb and Hibbert 1995, 758); it can be seen in the distance at the edge of Agas’s map of 1562 (Fig 4), together with a few buildings, surrounded by fields. A strip of houses and inns had grown up by the 15th century, and the street continued to flourish into the post-medieval period. As a staging post for both travellers and drovers, in addition to inns there is likely to have been pens and other facilities for resting and grazing animals (English Heritage 2008b, 2). 4.2.12 The site lies to the south of this main settlement, and north of another settlement which grew around the Augustinian nunnery of St Mary Clerkenwell. This was founded by Jordan de Bricett and his wife shortly after the priory of St John, to the south, on land lying in a field adjacent to the Clerks’ Well (Sloane and Malcolm 2004, 24), around what is now St James Church in Clerkenwell Close, c 500m to the south-west of the site. Settlement here is likely to have grown up around Clerkenwell Green. 4.2.13 Within the study area medieval archaeology has been uncovered consisting of domestic refuse including pottery, animal bone and organic materials (HEA 1) c 300m south-east of the site. During a watching brief c 240m south of the site (HEA 8) agricultural deposits which are likely to have been later medieval in date were uncovered, and c 180m south-east of the site (HEA 11) dumped layers dating to the medieval period were also uncovered. At Seward Street (HEA 12), c 190m south- east of the site evidence for medieval gravel quarry pits was uncovered, Also, in Seward Street, c 150m south-east of the site (HEA 7), late medieval pottery was recorded. A possible medieval well is thought to have been situated at Lloyds Row (HEA 24), c 220m north-west of the site. St John’s Square (HEA 29), c 220m south of the site, was the site of several medieval features including houses, a yard and a garden, an abattoir, a school house, a fishpond and an orchard. At the former Allied Brewery (HEA 28), c 300m to the south-west of the site, an evaluation on land formerly owned by Charterhouse Priory revealed a church and Black Death graveyard.
Post-medieval period (AD 1485–present) 4.2.14 Following the Dissolution of the Monasteries (1536–61), Wood(s) Close, as the site was then known, was leased out by the Crown, and in 1599 it was bought by Sir John Spencer along with other land in the vicinity (Temple 2008, 294–304). Agas’ map of 1562 (Fig 4) shows the site within open land to the north of London. The Church of St Mary, Islington, is shown, with a hill with a windmill to the east of the site. This is possibly the windmill which was destroyed by a storm, the site of which was later used by Katherine of Aragon to establish a chapel, the Mount of Calvary (HEA 18). Goswell Road is shown as The Way to St Albans, becoming Aldersgate Street further south as it approaches the City, and is one of the main route northwards. The map also shows Charterhouse, Scymyt Fyeld (Smithfield) and 9 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
S.Bartholome (St. Bartholomew’s) to the south. 4.2.15 Archaeological investigations in Seward Street, c 150m south-east of the site (HEA 7), recorded a sequence of layered deposits around 5m thick. These were dark organic silts and contained leather fragments, animal bone, and ceramic building material from the Tudor period, dating them to the 16th century at the latest. A similar sequence of garden soils, dumping and levelling layers, also in Seward Street (HEA 1), c 310m south-east of the site. 4.2.16 During the Civil War (1642–46), the Common Council undertook a comprehensive scheme for protecting the City, Liberties and outlying parishes against the Royalist forces. This included the construction of a 17km line of defences, which may have passed through the site (HEA 2), although the exact location of a greater part of the circuit is uncertain (Sturdy 1975, 336). The resolution of the Common Council included the reference “At the windmill in Islington way, a battery and brestworke round about”. William Lithgow in his “The Present Surveigh of London and England's State” (published 1643) described a walk he took around the defences whilst they were still under construction. A trench enclosed Moorfields and ran to the fort at Mountmill. The station had two storeys and according to Lithgow was the first to be erected. Vertue’s map of 1738 (Fig 5), “A Plan of the City and Suburbs of London fortified by Order of Parliament in the Years 1642 & 1643”, shows the general location of the 17th-century defences, including the forts. Recent projections (Fig 2) by MOLA, based on the work of Smith and Kelsey (1996), suggest that one of the forts, known as “Mount Mill Fort”, was located just to the north of Seward Street and lay partly within the site. However, it is possible that the defences ran further to the south (Sturdy 1975). The exact line of the defences is uncertain and has only be definitively identified archaeologically in recent archaeological excavations beside the British Museum. 4.2.17 Plague hit this area particularly hard and it is believed that by 1665, 1377 residents of Clerkenwell had died from the disease, the majority of these people were buried in Mountmill pit (HEA 27) which was situated c 200m south-east of the site. 4.2.18 Spencer’s daughter married the 1st Earl of Northampton in 1599, and following Spencer’s death in 1610 the Northampton’s inherited Spencer’s land and property. The two Clerkenwell fields, which included the site, together became known as the Northampton Estate (Temple 2008, 294–304). By 1666, the 3rd Earl of Northampton had constructed himself a Dutch-looking brick lodge on Woods Close, on the site of an earlier vicarage, c 200m west of the site. This new manor house known as “Northampton House” (Temple 2008, 294–304). It was soon abandoned in c 1700 in favour of a house in Bloomsbury Square (ibid). The whole of Woods Close was leased to William Pym of Clerkenwell in 1686, for 62 years. During this period he made bricks and built houses, leading to a humble development along newly formed roads at the southern end of the field, beginning with Compton Street (Temple 2008, 294–304). A number of the new routes created are believed to have been to enable James I to reach London in 1603, but they may not have become streets until c 1700 (ibid). A route was created fairly early which ran along a diagonal across an open field which lay north of Northampton House and a sheepskin market, this later became Sebastian Street. 4.2.19 Rocque’s map of 1746 (Fig 6) shows the site situated at the junction of Islington Road and the unnamed diagonally running lane. Within the location of the site a mound is shown and this, along with the location of other mounds, suggests that they may be evidence either of earlier Civil War defences or of dumping of refuse and nightsoil material from London. A ditch or drain shown on Rocque’s map running east from near the eastern mound could also be the remains of a defensive feature. These markings could however represent mounds of deposits which were dumped here due to the site’s location on the northern fringes of the City boundary. Quarry pits are also shown on the map, evidence for which has been found within archaeological excavations (HEA 26). In the northern part of the site there is a pond which could be the infilled remains of quarrying. The area of the site is still generally 10 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
rural during this period, with a large built up settlement to the south and east. To the west of the site, across the open field a “skin market” and “mad house” can be seen. Charles and Richard Hore had been granted letters patent to hold this market for “the buying and selling of raw and undressed skins of sheep and lamb” in 1707. It was an open quadrangle lined by sheds and lasted until c 1815 when the area was redeveloped. The “mad house” shown had previously been the manor house, adapted c 1700 by Dr James Newton and his son who also laid out the grounds as a botanic garden. The asylum closed in 1802. Rocque’s map also shows the new river head to the west of the site, along with Tunbridge Wells (HEA 21) west of St John’s Street. The New River Company had constructed a major wooden water main from the New River Head towards the City in the 1740s (Temple 2008, 294–304). Two sections of a wooden water pipe were uncovered c 225m east of the site (HEA 5). 4.2.20 Horwood’s map of 1799 (Fig 7) shows that the area was still open fields at this date but the process of urbanisation was apparent in the vicinity of the site. The Goswell Road had been laid out by 1784, and in May 1791 a survey of Woods Close was carried out as the New River Company’s lease of the land was due to expire (Temple 2008, 294–304). By 1792 a “plan for improvement of the Woods Close Estate” had been devised, however numerous issues meant that development did not occur for a number of years. Northampton Square to the west of the site was laid out in 1797 on a diagonal alignment due to the presence of the water main, and the roadway was built over the pipes (ibid). Charles Street (named after the Earl) was constructed directly over the water main. A number of other streets surrounding the site were also laid out. 4.2.21 The area continued to be urbanised and Northampton Square began to be constructed upon by 1805. The area of pastoral fields between Goswell Street and St John Street had been built upon with rows of houses and squares, including the external part of Northampton Square. Sebastian Street was at this time called Charles Street. Faden’s revision of Horwood’s map of 1813 (Fig 8) shows a row of eight or nine terraced houses with back yards or gardens along Goswell Road on the north-eastern boundary of the site. Along Charles Street a row of six teraaced houses are shown on the southern boundary of the site. The centre of the site is shown as being an open area. 4.2.22 The Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25’’:mile map of 1877 (Fig 9) shows that by this period the general area had been completely developed. The site is shown as covered with terraced houses and gardens, and Sebastian Street is named Upper Charles Street. Islington Road had become Goswell Road by 1877, and a tramway is shown to have existed along the length of the street. The centre of the site had been built on with possible mews buildings in a new alley named Goswell Place, accessed in the north-east corner of the site. The skin market to the south-west of the site had been built over in 1816–21 with new roads lined with small houses (Temple 2008, 294–304), and the houses in the area were generally a mix of small houses and larger more grand residences (ibid). The area became densely built up due to the frequency of back building from 1820 which meant that all available space between larger houses were filled with small properties. However Northampton Square remained an “oasis”, thus meaning they remained empty for many years, likely due to high rents (ibid). Around the 1840s the area had become renowned for its artisan occupancy, meaning a number of the houses became subdivided between tenants who generally worked within the clock, watch and jewellery trades (Temple 2008, 294–304). As the trade declined a number of the residents moved away, and by 1870 the area was “mostly of the working classes and many very poor” and was slum-like in nature (RCHWC p.58). Redevelopment of the area was proposed in the 1870s in the form of pulling down some of the houses, though this was disregarded in favour of re-developing the open spaces which had been neglected, including Northampton Square, along with other redevelopments (Temple 2008, 294–304). 4.2.23 No changes are seen on the site on the Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 25’’:mile map 11 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
of 1896 (not reproduced) On the Ordnance Survey 3rd edition 25’’:mile map of 1916 (Fig 10) shows a large building had replaced terraced houses on the north of the site (the current Goswell Place building from 1909–11). The London County Council Bomb Damage map (not reproduced) shows that although buildings within the study area suffered damage during World War 2, those within the site only suffered minor blast damage. An aerial photograph from 1946 (not reproduced) shows that some of the houses on the north-eastern side of the site, fronting Goswell Road, had been replaced by a larger building. This is likely to have formed part of the re-building of factories and warehouses which occurred during the 1940s (Temple 2008, 294– 304). The Ordnance Survey 1:1250 scale map of 1952 (Fig 11) shows that part of the site contained an Engineering Works, and a number of the original terraced houses at 16–20 Sebastian Street had been demolished to make way for a factory (the current Parkes Building from 1947). In addition one of the buildings in the south-west corner of the site is labelled as “ruins”, possibly a result of bomb damage. Sebastian Street is known by this name by 1954. 4.2.24 Further changes are shown the Ordnance Survey 1:1250 scale map of 1971 (Fig 13), as the building which had previously been labelled as “ruins”, along with other buildings at the southern end of the site, had been demolished. On the Ordnance Survey 1:1250 scale map of 1986 (Fig 14) it is shown that a health centre has been built in this location. This formed part of the earlier redevelopment, with the densely packed houses continuing to be demolished. The north side of Northampton Square and south side of Spencer Street were redeveloped for the City University in 1966– 74, and in 1969–76 the Greater London Council built the Earlstoke Estate on the north side of Spencer Street, and other low-rise high-density developments followed (Temple 2008, 294–304). Industrial buildings which remained in the area were generally converted to residential use throughout this period and afterwards, as gentrification of the area occurred. The site is unchanged since this date. 4.2.25 Currently the site consists of a 1970s Health Centre building, a former clothing factory from 1947, a former workshop/factory from 1909–11 and a former factory from 1923 which are all used by City University.
12 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
5 Statement of significance: buried heritage assets
5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 The following section discusses past impacts on the site: generally from late 19th and 20th century developments which may have compromised archaeological survival, eg, building foundations or quarrying, identified primarily from historic maps, the site walkover survey, and information on the likely depth of deposits. It goes on to consider factors which are likely to have compromised asset survival. 5.1.2 In accordance with the NPPF, this is followed by a statement on the likely potential and significance of buried heritage assets within the site, derived from current understanding of the baseline conditions, past impacts, and professional judgement.
5.2 Factors affecting archaeological survival
Natural geology 5.2.1 Based on current knowledge, the predicted level of natural geology within the site is as follows: Current ground level lies at c 21.5m OD The top of untruncated Gravel lies at 17.3m–16.3m OD (4.2–5.2mbgl) 5.2.2 Between the top of the natural and the current ground level is modern made ground and undated made ground, which in all likelihood largely dates to the 19th century onwards, but which may potentially contain archaeological remains. Some of the material may be associated with a possible refuse mound or Civil War mound on the site.
Past impacts 5.2.3 Past impacts vary across the site due to the period and nature of the construction. Parts of the site including 167–173 Goswell Road (Myddleton Building) and 17–19 Sebastian Street (Parkes Building) are likely to have been most greatly affected upon due to the nature of the current buildings (Fig 15). The Myddleton Building and Parkes Building both have basements, the construction of which will have partially or completely removed all archaeological remains within their footprints. The bases of features cut into the gravel may survive beneath the basement although their archaeological context would have been lost. 5.2.4 The foundations of these buildings will have removed all archaeological remains within their footprint. The Parkes Building may have piled foundations. Associated pile caps and strip footings will have removed remains to maximum depth of their construction and truncated adjacent remains. Trenches for services will have had a similar impact. The foundations for the health centre are likely to be less deep, therefore these will have had less of an impact. The health centre does not have a basement. 5.2.5 It is believed that the earlier buildings on the site, constructed c 1784–1805 would have had basements. On the Goad Insurance map of 1901–57 (Fig 12) the buildings at 21–24 Sebastian Street and 159–161 Goswell Road, in the area of the current Health Centre, are marked as having basements. It is likely that they would have been half-basements or cellars rather than anything of great depth. Nevertheless, they would have partially or completely removed any early archaeological remains from within their footprint. The remains of such buildings would potentially be of some heritage interest and would form part of the archaeological record. 5.2.6 The northern part of the site may have been used for quarrying. Quarrying certainly occurred nearby and the location of the site on the fringes of London during the
13 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
city’s expansion suggests that it is possible. Quarrying within the site would have removed any archaeological remains to the depth of the extraction. 5.2.7 There are parts of the site in between the existing buildings which are currently not built on, or in which car parks are situated. These localised areas will have seen fewer past impacts. This is especially true if any of these locations correspond to the locations of the earlier gardens belonging to the late 18th-century to early 19th- century houses.
Likely depth/thickness of archaeological remains 5.2.8 Recent geotechnical investigations on the site indicate that made ground overlies natural gravel. The made ground has depth varying from 4.2–5.2mbgl. 5.2.9 In the areas of the site which do not have a basement, it is likely that made ground exists below the current ground/floor level which may contain archaeological remains, between and possibly beneath the existing building foundations. This may consist of anything ranging from evidence of the buildings shown within the historic maps, possible evidence of Civil War defences, and earlier evidence of cultivation and farming within the site. The results of past archaeological investigations (HEA 1, 7) indicate a substantial amount debris and levelling layers overlying the natural brickearth. 5.2.10 Other than possible Civil War defences, the area appears to have been under cultivation until the late 18th century, and so it might be assumed that domestic waste, manure or cess was being imported prior to this, thus increasing the depth of soil overlying the natural deposits. 5.2.11 The late-18th century to early-19th century buildings on the site had cellared areas. Evidence of these may remain beneath the current ground/floor level, in parts of the site which are un-basemented or within the current car park. These may be of archaeological interest. It is also possible that archaeological remains exist below these possible cellars as they are likely to have been of shallow construction. 5.2.12 In the area of the Parkes Building it is possible that deep archaeological remains exist below the current basement level c 3.5mbgl (c 18.0m OD). Prior to development, the area of the site consisted of open fields, either in cultivation or pasture. If features such as ditches, wells, or quarry pits had been cut into the subsoil or underlying gravel then these might be present below the basement level, extending to an unknown depth. Additionally, deep cut features relating to the residential and industrial use of the site may remain below the basement, including cess and refuse pits.
5.3 Archaeological potential and significance 5.3.1 The nature of possible archaeological survival in the area of the proposed development is summarised here, taking into account the levels of natural geology and the level and nature of later disturbance and truncation discussed above. 5.3.2 Archaeological survival across the site is likely to be varied and localised. Parts of the site which have been basemented are likely to have the least archaeological potential, while parts of the site which contain the car park areas are likely to have the greatest potential. Archaeological potential is also likely to be greater in areas of the site which are shown as gardens or yards on earlier maps, as opposed to those containing buildings. 5.3.3 The site has low potential to contain archaeological remains dated to the prehistoric period. The site is away from any known water courses, although its location on rising ground in an area known for springs might make it attractive for occasional exploitation. None of the archaeological interventions within the study area have produced any evidence for prehistoric activity, although most have been limited in scope. The significance of prehistoric finds is uncertain; it would range from low, for isolated finds, to high for well-preserved and extensive remains (unlikely). This is
14 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
based on their likely evidential value in enhancing understanding of past environments and human activity. 5.3.4 The site has low potential to contain archaeological remains dated to the Roman period. The location of the site on rising ground, and the proximity of the site to a Roman road, aligned with Goswell Road, raises the possibility of remains from this period, as does the recovery of a possible Roman carving from Rahere Street. However, no other evidence from this period has been found, though the site is closer to the Roman Road than other investigations. The significance of Roman remains, if found, is currently uncertain, but is likely to be low, for isolated finds, based on the evidential value. 5.3.5 The site has a low potential to contain archaeological remains dated to the early medieval (Saxon) period. Throughout this period the site probably lay within pasture or cultivated land, peripheral to the known centres of activity in Islington and Charterhouse. The significance of Saxon remains, if found, is likely to be low for isolated finds. This is based on their likely archaeological and historic value in providing evidence of past environments and human activity. 5.3.6 The site has a moderate potential to contain archaeological remains dated to the later medieval period. The site is adjacent to an established road in this period and late medieval dump deposits have been identified within the study area, some of which include well-preserved organic material. Such remains can provide evidence about the environment as well as human activity and diet during the period. The site would have been in agricultural use, between the settlements surrounding the church of St Mary Islington and the nunnery of St Mary Clerkenwell. Evidence of structures is unlikely, though the close proximity to an important road increases the likelihood. Buried soils or ditches would be heritage assets of low significance, and evidence of structures may be of medium significance depending on the nature and extent of their survival. 5.3.7 The site has a high potential to contain archaeological remains dated to the post- medieval period. The presence and depth of nearby dump and levelling deposits from within the study area suggest a high potential for archaeological survival from this period. Evidence for early post-medieval farming may exist, with possible organic remains as seen elsewhere. Documentary and cartographic sources suggest that Civil War defences were constructed very near the site, and traces of deep ditches or mounds could survive. The site is also likely to lie over the line of the New River Company’s water main and evidence for this may exist. Evidence for those buildings shown on the historic maps is likely to exist in parts of the site which have not been basemented, in the form of footings, foundations and possible basements. In addition features such as cess and refuse pits and wells may survive. The significance of evidence of civil war defences could to be of high significance depending on the nature and extent of survival, based on their historic value, as so little is currently known on their nature, extent and location. While evidence of the water mains, earlier buildings and residential use of the site are likely to be of low significance.
15 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
6 Impact of proposals
6.1 Proposals 6.1.1 On the southern side of the site the 1960s Health Centre and 1940s Parkes Building would be demolished. These would be replaced by a proposed six-storey building with a double basement (Fig 16). The double basement would extend under the entire footprint of the new building (Fig 17).The slab surface level (SSL) of the double basement would be at 6.15mbgl. Piled foundations would be used for the new building. The pile caps would be 1.2m thick (Curtins Consulting, drg CU030- 100, rev P2, date 05/04/13). The pile size and density is not currently known. 6.1.2 On the northern side of the site Goswell Place and Myddleton Building would be retained and undergo interior refurbishment. The structural frames of these buildings would not be significantly impacted by the proposed refurbishment (Wilson Eyre Architects 2012, 40).
6.2 Implications 6.2.1 Archaeological survival potential is variable across the area of the site affected by the proposed demolition and construction. The main potential is for post-medieval remains of low significance, with the potential for Civil War defences of high significance. 6.2.2 Demolition and site preparation, including the removal of the current floor slabs and/or foundations of the Health Centre and the Parkes Building might, if it extended beyond modern made ground, truncate or remove entirely any archaeological remains adjacent. 6.2.3 The proposed basement would involve excavation to depth of c 6.5mbgl. This would entirely remove any archaeological remains within the basement footprint to its maximum depth, reducing asset significance to negligible or nil. The bases of any very deep features such as wells or cess pits might survive beneath this level, but their context would be lost. 6.2.4 The proposed piled foundations could impact on buried heritage assets. Any archaeological deposits within the footprint of each pile would be removed. The severity of the impact would therefore depend on the pile size and pile density. In addition, where the piling layout is particularly dense, it is likely to make the surviving archaeological resource (potentially preserved between each pile) effectively inaccessible in terms of any archaeological investigation of the resource in the future.
16 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
7 Conclusion and recommendations
7.1.1 The site does not contain any nationally designated assets, such as scheduled monuments, listed buildings or registered parks and gardens. The site lies within the Northampton Square Conservation Area; it does not lie within an archaeological priority area as defined by the local planning authority. 7.1.2 Archaeology survival potential varies across the site, due to presence and extent of basements and cellars. In the areas that have not had basements survival potential could be high. 7.1.3 Table 2 summarises the known or likely buried assets within the site, their significance, and the impact of the proposed scheme on asset significance.
Table 2: Impact upon heritage assets (prior to mitigation) Asset Asset Impact of proposed scheme Significance Remains of the 17th-century Medium Demolition, site preparation, piling and Civil War defences (truncated construction of a double basement (high potential) remains) to would entirely remove or severely High truncate any remains (untruncated remains) Significance of asset reduced to nil or negligible Post-medieval remains related Low Demolition, site preparation, piling and to the urban development of the construction of a double basement site, including building would entirely remove or severely foundations, rubbish pits and truncate any remains water mains (high potential) Significance of asset reduced to nil or negligible Later medieval agricultural Low to Demolition, site preparation, piling and remains medium construction of a double basement (moderate potential) would entirely remove or severely truncate any remains
Significance of asset reduced to nil or negligible Previously unrecorded remains Uncertain Demolition, site preparation, piling and dating to the prehistoric, Roman (Low for construction of a double basement and early medieval periods isolated would entirely remove or severely (Low potential) artefacts) truncate any remains
Significance of asset reduced to nil or negligible
7.1.4 The predicted significance of archaeological remains on the site is not considered sufficient to warrant field evaluation prior to the determination of planning consent. However, the site does have the potential for, in particular, remains of the Civil War defences. Geotechnical ground investigations have taken place and been considered in this report. Further archaeologically designed field evaluation trial trenches may be required. These would clarify archaeological potential and the nature, date and significance of any remains which would be affected by the development. The results would allow an informed mitigation strategy to be drawn up in advance of development, in consultation with the LPA and English Heritage. Mitigation (if required) might comprise archaeological excavation and recording, and/or a watching brief during site preparation and ground reduction (preservation by record). Such work would normally be carried out in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation under the terms of a standard planning condition.
17 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
7.1.5 Although this report has concluded that a pre-determination evaluation is not necessary it is possible that one is requested by the LPA’s archaeological advisor. There are practical reasons why a pre-determination evaluation will be problematic. All buildings on the site are in use until the end of 2014/start of 2015. The Parkes Building, in particular, has class and meeting rooms that are heavily booked throughout the year. Also, ground investigations have highlighted contaminated land (asbestos infill) between the Parkes Building and the Health Centre Building. The open area to the west of the Parkes Building is also in constant use for car parking.
18 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
8 Gazetteer of known historic environment assets
8.1.1 The table below represents a gazetteer of known historic environment sites and finds within the 350m-radius study area around the site. The gazetteer should be read in conjunction with Fig 2. 8.1.2 The GLHER data contained within this gazetteer was obtained on 16/04/2013 and is the copyright of English Heritage 2013.
Abbreviations DGLA – Department of Greater London Archaeology GLHER – Greater London Historic Environment Record ILAU – Inner London Archaeological Unit MoLAS – Museum of London Archaeology Service (now named MOLA) PCA – Pre-Construct Archaeology
HEA Description Site code/ No. HER No. 1 15-29 Seward Street, EC1. SDT99 Evaluation trenches dug by MoLAS in 1999 found dumped deposits containing domestic refuse (pottery, animal bone and other organic material) of a late-medieval date overlying brickearth at 16.9m OD to 17.3m OD 2 West end of Seward Street. Possible Civil War defences, noted on the 080549 GLHER and in projections by MoLAS based on documentary evidence and the work of Smith and Kelsey (1996). 3 Pear Tree Street, EC1V PEA11 This site was subject to an evaluation and watching brief excavated by PCA in 2011. The results of both the evaluation and watching brief suggest that any deposits pre-dating the later post-medieval period would have been truncated by the construction and demolition of the 19th century Chartered Gas Works, although natural deposits were not observed during any of the archaeological investigations. The earliest deposits encountered were masonry structures associated with the two Retort Houses of the Chartered Gas Works located towards the north and south of the site, as well as a small portion of the largely removed gasometer and associated wells. Following the demolition of the Gas Works a single line of timber piles in the eastern area of the site may represent an intermediary phase of development on the site prior to the construction of a large building. 4 Former Transport Depot, Central Street/Seward Street, EC1 TDI09 An evaluation was undertaken by PCA in 2009. Natural sands, clays and gravels were sealed by 19th century garden soil. With the exception of the south-west, garden structures associated with the 19th century terraced housing that fronted Seward and Central Streets were recorded, cutting both the natural deposits and horticultural layer. Masonry structures pertaining to the 1815 Chartered Gas Works were recorded in the south- west. Natural sands and gravels were observed between 12.74m–16.71m OD. 5 St John Street, EC1 SNJ05 A watching brief was undertaken by MoLAS in 2005. Two sections of a wooden water pipe made from elm were discovered during the excavation of tree pits along the pavement of the west side of the street. Its construction dated to the 17th-century, suggesting that it was associated with the 17th-century New River Head water works.
19 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
HEA Description Site code/ No. HER No. 6 City University, St John Street/Wyclif Street, EC1 CUV04 A watching brief was undertaken by MoLAS in 2004. An 18th-century circular brick-lined soakaway, backfilled during the late 18th or early 19th- century, was located. It was sited in the backyard of one the houses which occupied the site before the construction of the Northampton Institute (1893-97), the forerunner of City University. Natural strata consisted of brickearth. 7 1–13 Seward Street, EC1 SDS99 A watching brief was undertaken by MoLAS in 1999. Organic dumped deposits up to 5m thick overlay the natural brickearth. They contained 15th or 16th century domestic and industrial refuse, including leather offcuts, leather shoes, straw and plant remains, tools, clinker and metal offcuts. Dumping seems to have occurred over a relatively short period and, lying beyond the northern fringes of the City boundary, may have been bought from within the City to this site. The ground level rose up towards the centre of the site and this, together with the sloping deposits that are evident, suggests that by the 16h century the site was a good deal higher than its surrounds. It is therefore possible that these dump deposits were part of the construction of a mound for a windmill that is documented as being in the vicinity of Mount Mills until the early-16th century. 8 Dallington Lofts, 1–7 Dallington Street, 73–81 Goswell Road, EC1 DLL97 MoLAS undertook a watching brief in 1997. Natural brickearth or gravels 083806 were overlaid by similar deposits, possibly representing agricultural use 083807 prior to its development in the 17th century. At the north end of the site 084770 deeper deposits may indicate pitting. 9 1–3 Rawstorne Place, EC1 RTP01 MoLAS undertook a watching brief in 2001. Fills of a pond or waterlogged deposits were revealed in the east of the site; a pond here may have been for watering livestock being driven to Smithfield along the route now taken by St John Street to the west of the site. Above the fills were the remains of a brick path, and a wall, both probably of late 18th or early 19th-century date and relating to buildings documented in the late 18th-century. They may have been contemporary with The Barn, a three-storey brick building with some timber framing and a slate roof, apparently documented as existing in 1790 and still standing in the centre of the site. A brick-lined drain was laid across the brick path, at the same time as the ground was raised with extensive dumps, inside as well as outside The Barn. The wall was superseded by an open area and late-19th century/20th century floors and other commercial and light industrial buildings. The Barn is Grade II listed. 10 1 Pear Tree Street, EC1 PTR97 A watching brief was undertaken by MoLAS in 1997. A thick peaty horizon was observed above the natural gravels in three geotechnical test pits. Material within these layers was dated to the 17th century and it is possible that they represent the fills of a deep feature or features associated with Civil War defences of 1642–3. 11 150-164 Goswell Road, 2-14 Seward Street, EC1 GSL01 A watching brief was undertaken by PCA in 2001. Dumped layers dating to the late medieval period were uncovered, forming the surface of an 18th- 19th century burial ground, used for the interment of unclaimed bodies from St Bartholomew's Hospital. Four phases of burial were recorded, as well as part of the cemetery's western boundary wall. The first phase consisted of three mass burial pits, superseded by rows of burials identified with stone markers. The third phase was represented by a small group of graves each containing a number of burials and/or charnel remains. Possibly contemporary with this was a final phase of burials broadly on the same alignment as the primary rows of burials. This phase was marked by a large number of burials (550) densely packed together, both horizontally and vertically, and showing obvious signs of slumping; clearly the burial ground was overcrowded at this stage. Evidence of post-mortem activity was found on a number of the skeletons. 20 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
HEA Description Site code/ No. HER No. 12 Seward Street, Lever Street, EC1V LVS10 An evaluation was undertaken by PCA in 2010. It recorded a sequence of natural terrace gravels cut by possible medieval gravel quarry pits sealed by post-medieval made ground, potentially dating to the 16th and 17th centuries. A 19th century brick basement was also recorded cutting through the post-medieval sequence of made ground. Modern deposits, overlain by concrete, sealed all post-medieval and 19th-century activity. 13 High Myddleton School, Myddleton Street, St John Street, Lloyd's Row MDJ09 (bounded by), EC1 MoLAS conducted an evaluation here in 2009. A single trench revealed natural brickearth cut by a square pit of unknown function and overlain by a probably make-up or levelling dump of early to mid-17th century date. The dump was cut by two small brick wall stub foundations and a post pad of early 18th to mid-20th century date. In the north west corner of the trench, the south-west corner of a c 18th century building was represented by a brick wall and brick lined cess pit or soakaway of late 17th or mid-18th century date. Elsewhere a second brick lined cess pit was recorded, containing a large number of artefacts including mid-18th century to mid- 20th century clay pipes. A range of tea and dining wares were also found dated to 1820–30 representing a deliberate clear out of apparently useable material. The entire trench was truncated by 20th century buildings. Natural brickearth was uncovered at 22.03m OD. 14 18, 19, 21, 21A Northampton Square and attached railings 1195694 Grade II listed terraced houses, now offices. c 1810 15 5–10 Sebastian Street (consecutive) and attached railings 1297975 Grade II listed terraced houses, c 1815–1818 16 22–25 (consecutive) Northampton Square and attached railings 1293268 Include no.11 Sebastian Street. Terraced houses, now partly offices. c 1810 17 11–18 (consecutive) Ashby Street and attached railings 1204415 Grade II listed terraced houses and shops, c 1815–1818. 18 West end of Seward Street (Mount Mill) The site of a windmill, destroyed 080546 by a storm (080546). The site was used by Katherine of Aragon to establish 080547 a chapel, the Mount of Calvary, later dissolved by Henry VIII (080547). 080548 Another windmill would replace the chapel (080548). 19 St John Street. GLHER entry for the site of Stowesmylle, a mill owned by 080461 Clerkenwell Priory, in the ‘nun’s field’. 20 Peartree Street, EC1 Site of 19th-century Great Gas Manufactory 084035 21 Roseberry Avenue, EC1. Site of Islington Spa, also known as Sadler's 080508 Well. Discovered in 1683 by a Mr. Sadler, a surveyor of the highways, in a pleasant, retired, and well-wooded garden of a music-house he had just opened. 22 Seward Street playground, EC1. Site of St Barts Hospital burial ground. 082262 23 Goswell Road, EC1. A Roman carved stone head of a man found in 1936 080366 on what was Rahere Street, possibly a post-medieval fake. 24 6 Lloyds Row, EC1. The GLHER notes that one photograph showing a 044414 well, possibly medieval, is held in the archive. 25 394-416 St John Street, EC1. An evaluation was undertaken by DGLA in JOE90 1990. This recorded brick walls and square pits with straight sides dug 082313 through the brickearth, thought to be post-medieval gravel quarry pits. These were backfilled with soil and some domestic refuse 26 City Road, EC1 083401 A watching brief undertaken on behalf of ILAU on the excavation of a lift No site shaft in 1979 recorded a mixed rubbly soil to the full depth of the excavation code (2.5m). It contained 19th century pot sherds, tobacco pipe bowls and some animal bones and was thought to be a back filled clay or sand and gravel pit.
21 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
HEA Description Site code/ No. HER No. 27 Seward Street (Mount Mill). A large plague pit is documented as being on 082262 this site. According to William Pinks, by December 19th 1665 it was 080520 estimated that 1377 residents of Clerkenwell had died of the plague and the majority were buried in the Mountmill pit. 28 Allied Brewery, 148–180 St John Street SJO95 An archaeological evaluation was conducted in 1995 by MoLAS. The site MLO62766 was close to or within enclosed land owned by Charterhouse priory from 1370, but was formerly occupied by a church and Black Death graveyard founded in 1348. Changes in land use, dated to the period of the establishment of the graveyard, were revealed as well as the north boundary of the Charterhouse land; the latter became disused and was backfilled at the time of the Dissolution. Ploughsoils post-dating the Dissolution were recorded above the natural gravel and features relating to mid-17th century buildings were also observed. 29 St John’s Square 08043601– GLHER data spot marks the location of Medieval houses, yard and garden, 09 abattoir, school and school house, fishpond, and orchard MLO56664
22 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
9 Planning framework
9.1 Statutory protection
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 9.1.1 The Act sets out the legal requirements for the control of development and alterations which affect buildings, including those which are listed or in conservation areas. Buildings which are listed or which lie within a conservation area are protected by law. Grade I are buildings of exceptional interest. Grade II* are particularly significant buildings of more than special interest. Grade II are buildings of special interest, which warrant every effort being made to preserve them.
9.2 National Planning Policy Framework 9.2.1 The Government issued the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in March 2012 (DCLG 2012). One of the 12 core principles that underpin both plan-making and decision-taking within the framework is to ‘conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations’ (DCLG 2012 para 17). It recognises that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource (para 126), and requires the significance of heritage assets to be considered in the planning process, whether designated or not. The contribution of setting to asset significance needs to taken into account (para 128). The NPPF encourages early engagement (i.e. pre-application) as this has significant potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of a planning application and can lead to better outcomes for the local community (para 188). 9.2.2 NPPF Section 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment, is produced in full below: Para 126. Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance. In developing this strategy, local planning authorities should take into account: the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring; the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place. Para 127. When considering the designation of conservation areas, local planning authorities should ensure that an area justifies such status because of its special architectural or historic interest, and that the concept of conservation is not devalued through the designation of areas that lack special interest. Para 128. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to
23 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013 submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. Para 129. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal. Para 130. Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of or damage to a heritage asset the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision. Para 131. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of: the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Para 132: When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. Para 133. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply: the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. Para 134. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. Para 135. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. Para 136. Local planning authorities should not permit loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred. Para 137. Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites and within the 24 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably. Para 138. Not all elements of a World Heritage Site or Conservation Area will necessarily contribute to its significance. Loss of a building (or other element) which makes a positive contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site should be treated either as substantial harm under paragraph 133 or less than substantial harm under paragraph 134, as appropriate, taking into account the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site as a whole. Para 139. Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets. Para 140. Local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from those policies. Para 141. Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development management publicly accessible. They should also require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.
9.3 Greater London regional policy
The London Plan 9.3.1 The overarching strategies and policies for the whole of the Greater London area are contained within the London Plan of the Greater London Authority (GLA July 2011). Policy 7.8 relates to Heritage Assets and Archaeology: Strategic A. London’s heritage assets and historic environment, including listed buildings, registered historic parks and gardens and other natural and historic landscapes, conservation areas, World Heritage Sites, registered battlefields, scheduled monuments, archaeological remains and memorials should be identified, so that the desirability of sustaining and enhancing their significance and of utilising their positive role in place shaping can be taken into account. B. Development should incorporate measures that identify, record, interpret, protect and, where appropriate, present the site’s archaeology. Planning decisions C. Development should identify, value, conserve, restore, re-use and incorporate heritage assets, where appropriate. D. Development affecting heritage assets and their settings should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail. E. New development should make provision for the protection of archaeological resources, landscapes and significant memorials. The physical assets should, where possible, be made available to the public on-site. Where the archaeological asset or memorial cannot be preserved or managed on-site, provision must be made for the investigation, understanding, recording, dissemination and archiving of that asset. LDF preparation F. Boroughs should, in LDF policies, seek to maintain and enhance the contribution of built, landscaped and buried heritage to London’s environmental quality, cultural identity and economy as part of managing London’s ability to accommodate change and regeneration. 25 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
G. Boroughs, in consultation with English Heritage, Natural England and other relevant statutory organisations, should include appropriate policies in their LDFs for identifying, protecting, enhancing and improving access to the historic environment and heritage assets and their settings where appropriate, and to archaeological assets, memorials and historic and natural landscape character within their area.
9.4 Local planning policy 9.4.1 Following the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Planning Authorities have replaced their Unitary Development Plans, Local Plans and Supplementary Planning Guidance with a new system of Local Development Frameworks (LDFs). UDP policies are either ‘saved’ or ‘deleted’. In most cases archaeology policies are likely to be ‘saved’ because there have been no significant changes in legislation or advice at a national level. 9.4.2 Islington's Development Plan is made up of the London Plan and local planning policies. They are currently in transition from the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (2002) to a new set of planning policy documents. They have adopted their Core Strategy (2011), and are in the final stages of preparing three other emerging planning policies documents - Development Management Policies, Site Allocations and the Finsbury Local Plan. 9.4.3 The following policies have been saved: D43: Archaeological Heritage. The Council will promote the conservation, protection and enhancement of the archaeological heritage of the borough and its interpretation and presentation to the public. In particular it will seek to ensure that the most important archaeological remains and their settings are permanently preserved. D44: Important Archaeological Remains. The Council will ensure the preservation of locally and nationally important archaeological remains and their settings within the borough, whether these are designated as 'Scheduled Ancient Monuments' or not. It will take the necessary steps to safeguard the borough's archaeological heritage through the planning process and will normally refuse planning permission for applications which adversely affect important archaeological remains or their settings. D45: Archaeological Assessment and Evaluation. Within the ‘archaeological priority areas’ shown on the Proposals Map, all planning applications likely to affect important archaeological remains must be accompanied by an archaeological assessment of the impact of the scheme on the borough's archaeological heritage. This should be commissioned by the applicant from a suitable archaeological organisation acceptable to the Council. The Council may also require an assessment to be submitted for other development proposals, where it is considered that important archaeological remains may be present. Small scale archaeological fieldwork to determine the actual degree of archaeological survival on a site, (an ‘evaluation’) may be required as part of the assessment. D46: Preservation in situ of Archaeological Remain. Where an archaeological assessment and / or evaluation has demonstrated the survival of important archaeological remains, there will be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation in situ. The Council will require applicants to demonstrate how this will be achieved, and will control development layout and foundation design accordingly. D47: Archaeological Excavation and Recording. Where physical preservation of archaeological remains is not justified, the Council will ensure that necessary measures are taken by the applicant to mitigate the impact of their proposals, through archaeological fieldwork to investigate and record remains in advance of development work, and subsequent analysis and publication of the results. This will usually be secured through section 106 agreements. 9.4.4 The following policies within the Core Strategy are relevant to the proposed scheme: Policy CS 9 Protecting and enhancing Islington’s built and historic environment 26 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
High quality architecture and urban design are key to enhancing and protecting Islington’s built environment, making it safer and more inclusive. A. The borough’s unique character will be protected by preserving the historic urban fabric and promoting a perimeter block approach, and other traditional street patterns in new developments, such as mews. The aim is for new buildings to be sympathetic in scale and appearance and to be complementary to the local identity. B. The historic significance of Islington’s unique heritage assets and historic environment will be conserved and enhanced whether designated or not. These assets in Islington include individual buildings and monuments, parks and gardens, conservation areas, views, public spaces and archaeology. Active management of conservation areas will continue, through a programme of proactive initiatives for the conservation-led regeneration of historic areas, and potential designation of new conservation areas. Archaeological Priority Areas will continue to be defined on the proposals map to assist in the management of these historic assets. C. Where areas of Islington suffer from poor layout, opportunities will be taken to redesign them by reintroducing traditional street patterns and integrating new buildings into surviving fragments of historic fabric. Reconfiguration based on streets and a perimeter block approach will be a key requirement for new developments, in particular housing estate renewal. D. All development will need to be based on coherent street frontages and new buildings need to fit into the existing context of facades. Housing developments should not isolate their residents from the surrounding area in 'gated' communities. E. New buildings and developments need to be based on a human scale and efficiently use the site area, which could mean some high density developments. High densities can be achieved through high quality design without the need for tall buildings. Tall buildings (above 30m high) are generally inappropriate to Islington's predominantly medium to low level character, therefore proposals for new tall buildings will not be supported. Parts of the Bunhill and Clerkenwell key area may contain some sites that could be suitable for tall buildings, this will be explored in more detail as part of the Bunhill and Clerkenwell Area Action Plan. F. New homes need to provide dual-aspect units with clear distinction between a public side and a quieter private side with bedrooms. G. High quality contemporary design can respond to this challenge as well as traditional architecture. Innovative design is welcomed, but pastiche will not be acceptable. The council will establish new advisory mechanisms to ensure the highest standards of architecture and environmental design. H. The Development Management Policies and other documents will provide further policies in relation to urban design and heritage. Detailed guidance on urban design in Islington is provided in the Islington Urban Design Guide (IUDG) Supplementary Planning Document.
27 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
10 Determining significance
10.1.1 ‘Significance’ lies in the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest, which may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Archaeological interest includes an interest in carrying out an expert investigation at some point in the future into the evidence a heritage asset may hold of past human activity, and may apply to standing buildings or structures as well as buried remains. Known and potential heritage assets within the site and its vicinity have been identified from national and local designations, HER data and expert opinion. The determination of the significance of these assets is based on statutory designation and/or professional judgement against four values (EH 2008): Evidential value: the potential of the physical remains to yield evidence of past human activity. This might take into account date; rarity; state of preservation; diversity/complexity; contribution to published priorities; supporting documentation; collective value and comparative potential. Aesthetic value: this derives from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from the heritage asset, taking into account what other people have said or written; Historical value: the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through heritage asset to the present, such a connection often being illustrative or associative; Communal value: this derives from the meanings of a heritage asset for the people who know about it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory; communal values are closely bound up with historical, particularly associative, and aesthetic values, along with and educational, social or economic values. 10.1.2 Table 2 gives examples of the significance of designated and non-designated heritage assets.
Table 2: Significance of heritage assets Heritage asset description Significance World heritage sites Very high Scheduled monuments (International Grade I and II* listed buildings / English Heritage Grade I and II* registered parks and gardens national) Protected Wrecks Heritage assets of national importance English Heritage Grade II registered parks and gardens High Conservation areas (national/ Designated historic battlefields regional/ Grade II listed buildings county) Burial grounds Protected heritage landscapes (e.g. ancient woodland or historic hedgerows) Heritage assets of regional or county importance Heritage assets with a district value or interest for education or cultural Medium appreciation Locally listed buildings (District) Heritage assets with a local (ie parish) value or interest for education or Low cultural appreciation (Local) Historic environment resource with no significant value or interest Negligible Heritage assets that have a clear potential, but for which current Uncertain knowledge is insufficient to allow significance to be determined
10.1.3 Unless the nature and extent of buried archaeological remains has been determined through prior investigation, significance is often uncertain.
28 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
11 Non-archaeological constraints
11.1.1 It is anticipated that live services will be present on the site, the locations of which have not been identified by this archaeological report. Other than this, no other non- archaeological constraints to any archaeological fieldwork have been identified within the site. 11.1.2 Note: the purpose of this section is to highlight to decision makers any relevant non- archaeological constraints identified during the study, that might affect future archaeological field investigation on the site (should this be recommended). The information has been assembled using only those sources as identified in section 2 and section 14.4, in order to assist forward planning for the project designs, working schemes of investigation and risk assessments that would be needed prior to any such field work. MOLA has used its best endeavours to ensure that the sources used are appropriate for this task but has not independently verified any details. Under the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 and subsequent regulations, all organisations are required to protect their employees as far as is reasonably practicable by addressing health and safety risks. The contents of this section are intended only to support organisations operating on this site in fulfilling this obligation and do not comprise a comprehensive risk assessment.
29 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
12 Glossary
Alluvium Sediment laid down by a river. Can range from sands and gravels deposited by fast flowing water and clays that settle out of suspension during overbank flooding. Other deposits found on a valley floor are usually included in the term alluvium (eg peat). Archaeological Areas of archaeological priority, significance, potential or other title, often designated by Priority Area/Zone the local authority. Brickearth A fine-grained silt believed to have accumulated by a mixture of processes (eg wind, slope and freeze-thaw) mostly since the Last Glacial Maximum around 17,000BP. B.P. Before Present, conventionally taken to be 1950 Bronze Age 2,000–600 BC Building recording Recording of historic buildings (by a competent archaeological organisation) is undertaken ‘to document buildings, or parts of buildings, which may be lost as a result of demolition, alteration or neglect’, amongst other reasons. Four levels of recording are defined by Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (RCHME) and English Heritage. Level 1 (basic visual record); Level 2 (descriptive record), Level 3 (analytical record), and Level 4 (comprehensive analytical record) Built heritage Upstanding structure of historic interest. Colluvium A natural deposit accumulated through the action of rainwash or gravity at the base of a slope. Conservation area An area of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. Designation by the local authority often includes controls over the demolition of buildings; strengthened controls over minor development; and special provision for the protection of trees. Cropmarks Marks visible from the air in growing crops, caused by moisture variation due to subsurface features of possible archaeological origin (i.e. ditches or buried walls). Cut-and-cover Method of construction in which a trench is excavated down from existing ground level [trench] and which is subsequently covered over and/or backfilled. Cut feature Archaeological feature such as a pit, ditch or well, which has been cut into the then- existing ground surface. Devensian The most recent cold stage (glacial) of the Pleistocene. Spanning the period from c 70,000 years ago until the start of the Holocene (10,000 years ago). Climate fluctuated within the Devensian, as it did in other glacials and interglacials. It is associated with the demise of the Neanderthals and the expansion of modern humans. Early medieval AD 410 – 1066. Also referred to as the Saxon period. Evaluation A limited programme of non–intrusive and/or intrusive fieldwork which determines the (archaeological) presence or absence of archaeological features, structures, deposits, artefacts or ecofacts within a specified area. Excavation A programme of controlled, intrusive fieldwork with defined research objectives which (archaeological) examines, records and interprets archaeological remains, retrieves artefacts, ecofacts and other remains within a specified area. The records made and objects gathered are studied and the results published in detail appropriate to the project design. Findspot Chance find/antiquarian discovery of artefact. The artefact has no known context, is either residual or indicates an area of archaeological activity. Geotechnical Ground investigation, typically in the form of boreholes and/or trial/test pits, carried out for engineering purposes to determine the nature of the subsurface deposits. Head Weathered/soliflucted periglacial deposit (ie moved downslope through natural processes). Heritage asset A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape positively identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions. Heritage assets are the valued components of the historic environment. They include designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing). Historic environment A written document whose purpose is to determine, as far as is reasonably possible from assessment existing records, the nature of the historic environment resource/heritage assets within a specified area. Historic Environment Archaeological and built heritage database held and maintained by the County authority. Record (HER) Previously known as the Sites and Monuments Record Holocene The most recent epoch (part) of the Quaternary, covering the past 10,000 years during which time a warm interglacial climate has existed. Also referred to as the ‘Postglacial’ and (in Britain) as the ‘Flandrian’.
30 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
Iron Age 600 BC – AD 43 Later medieval AD 1066 – 1500 Last Glacial Characterised by the expansion of the last ice sheet to affect the British Isles (around Maximum 18,000 years ago), which at its maximum extent covered over two-thirds of the present land area of the country. Locally listed A structure of local architectural and/or historical interest. These are structures that are not building included in the Secretary of State’s Listing but are considered by the local authority to have architectural and/or historical merit Listed building A structure of architectural and/or historical interest. These are included on the Secretary of State's list, which affords statutory protection. These are subdivided into Grades I, II* and II (in descending importance). Made Ground Artificial deposit. An archaeologist would differentiate between modern made ground, containing identifiably modern inclusion such as concrete (but not brick or tile), and undated made ground, which may potentially contain deposits of archaeological interest. Mesolithic 12,000 – 4,000 BC National Monuments National database of archaeological sites, finds and events as maintained by English Record (NMR) Heritage in Swindon. Generally not as comprehensive as the country SMR/HER. Neolithic 4,000 – 2,000 BC Ordnance Datum A vertical datum used by Ordnance Survey as the basis for deriving altitudes on maps. (OD) Palaeo- Related to past environments, i.e. during the prehistoric and later periods. Such remains environmental can be of archaeological interest, and often consist of organic remains such as pollen and plant macro fossils which can be used to reconstruct the past environment. Palaeolithic 700,000–12,000 BC Palaeochannel A former/ancient watercourse Peat A build up of organic material in waterlogged areas, producing marshes, fens, mires, blanket and raised bogs. Accumulation is due to inhibited decay in anaerobic conditions. Pleistocene Geological period pre-dating the Holocene. Post-medieval AD 1500 – present Preservation by Archaeological mitigation strategy where archaeological remains are fully excavated and record recorded archaeologically and the results published. For remains of lesser significance, preservation by record might comprise an archaeological watching brief. Preservation in situ Archaeological mitigation strategy where nationally important (whether Scheduled or not) archaeological remains are preserved in situ for future generations, typically through modifications to design proposals to avoid damage or destruction of such remains. Registered Historic A site may lie within or contain a registered historic park or garden. The register of these Parks and Gardens in England is compiled and maintained by English Heritage. Residual When used to describe archaeological artefacts, this means not in situ, ie Found outside the context in which it was originally deposited. Roman AD 43 – 410 Scheduled An ancient monument or archaeological deposits designated by the Secretary of State as Monument a ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’ and protected under the Ancient Monuments Act. Site The area of proposed development Site codes Unique identifying codes allocated to archaeological fieldwork sites, eg evaluation, excavation, or watching brief sites. Study area Defined area surrounding the proposed development in which archaeological data is collected and analysed in order to set the site into its archaeological and historical context. Solifluction, Creeping of soil down a slope during periods of freeze and thaw in periglacial Soliflucted environments. Such material can seal and protect earlier landsurfaces and archaeological deposits which might otherwise not survive later erosion. Stratigraphy A term used to define a sequence of visually distinct horizontal layers (strata), one above another, which form the material remains of past cultures. Truncate Partially or wholly remove. In archaeological terms remains may have been truncated by previous construction activity. Watching brief An archaeological watching brief is ‘a formal programme of observation and investigation (archaeological) conducted during any operation carried out for non–archaeological reasons.’
31 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
13 Bibliography
13.1 Published and documentary sources AGL, 2000. The archaeology of Greater London: an assessment of archaeological evidence for human presence in the area now covered by Greater London. MoLAS; London Basil Holmes, 1899 The London Burial Grounds. Brett-James, NG. 1928. The Fortifications of London in 1642–3. London Topographical Record xiv. Cosh, M. 2005 A History of Islington. Historical Publications, London Cromwell, T, 1828. History and Description of the Parish of Clerkenwell. Sherwood & Co; London DCLG [Department of Communities and Local Government], March 2012 National Planning Policy Framework. DCLG [Department of Communities and Local Government], EH [English Heritage] & DCMS [Department for Culture, Media and Sport], March 2010 PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide. EH [English Heritage], 2008 Conservation principles, policies and guidance (Swindon: English Heritage) EH [English Heritage], 2011, The setting of heritage assets. Gibbard PL, 1994 The Pleistocene history of the lower Thames valley, Cambridge GLA [Greater London Authority], July 2011 The London Plan. Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. Gray R, 1978 A history of London, London Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service, 2009. Standards for Archaeological Work London Region, External Consultation. Harben HA, 1918 A dictionary of London, London IfA [Institute for Archaeologists] Nov 2012, By-laws, standards and policy statements of the Institute for Archaeologists, standard and guidance: historic environment desk-based assessments, rev, Reading MoLAS [Museum of London Archaeology Service], 2000 The archaeology of Greater London: an assessment of archaeological evidence for human presence in the area covered by modern Greater London. London Museum of London, 2003 A research framework for London archaeology 2002, London Pinks, WJ, 1881. History of Clerkenwell. (ed Wood, EJ) RCHWC, 1884-5.Royal Commission for inquiry into Housing of the Working Classes, First report, mins of evidence, p.58. (Evidence of the Rev. B.O.Sharp) Smith V and Kelsey P, 1996 The Lines of Communication: The Civil War Defences of London. In Porter S, London and the Civil War 117–148, London. Sturdy, D 1975. ‘The Civil War Defences of London’ London Archaeologist Vol 2 No 13 Temple, P (ed) 2008 Survey of London: Vol 46: South and East Clerkenwell. pp.294–304. Weinreb B and Hibbert C (eds), 1995 The London encyclopaedia. Macmillan. London Wheatley HB and Cunningham P, 1891 London past and present: its history, associations, and traditions, 3 vols, London Wilson Eyre Architects, 2012 Sebastian Street Stage A/B Feasibility Report
13.2 Other Sources Landmark historic Ordnance Survey mapping British Geological Survey online geology borehole data Greater London Historic Environment Record Internet – web-published sources London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre London Metropolitan Archive MOLA Deposit Survival Archive
32 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment MOLA 2013
National Monuments Record, Swindon
13.3 Cartographic sources Agas c 1562 ‘Civitas Londinum’, reproduced in Margary, H, 1981 A collection of early maps of London, Margary in assoc Guildhall Library, Kent Margary H, 1979 The A–Z of Elizabethan London, Margary in assoc Guildhall Library, Kent Margary H, 1981 The A–Z of Georgian London, Margary in assoc Guildhall Library, Kent Margary H, 1985 The A–Z of Regency London, Margary in assoc Guildhall Library, Kent Rocque, 1746 ‘Exact Survey of the City of London Westminster and Southwark and the Country 10 Miles Round’, reproduced in Margary, H, 1971 ‘Exact Survey of the City of London Westminster and Southwark and the Country 10 Miles Round’ by John Rocque, 1746, Margary in assoc Guildhall Library, Kent Vertue, W, c 1738. ‘A Plan of the City and Suburbs of London fortified by Order of Parliament in the Years 1642 & 1643’
Ordnance Survey maps Ordnance Survey 1st edition 5ft:mile map (1871) Ordnance Survey 3rd edition 25”:mile map (1916) Ordnance Survey 1:1250 scale map. Sheets (1952) (1971) (1986)
Geology map British Geological Survey map sheet 256
Engineering/Architects drawings Curtins Consulting, drg CU030-102, rev P2, date 05/04/13 Curtins Consulting, drg CU030-100, rev P2, date 05/04/13 Ramboll, drg 61031253/SV/01, rev 0, date 12/02/13
13.4 Available site survey information checklist Information from client Available Format Obtained Plan of existing site services (overhead/buried) not known Levelled site survey as existing (ground and buildings) Y pdf Y Contamination survey data ground and buildings (inc. not known asbestos) Geotechnical report not known Envirocheck report N Information obtained from non-client source Carried out Internal inspection of buildings Site inspection Y Y
33 P:\ISLI\1235\na\Assessments\City_University_HEA_27-06-2013.doc Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2013
Greater London
the site
Borough of Islington 0 10km 0 500m
531700 531800 531900
14 to 61
Moorgreen House 33 8 182800
1 to 12
18 GOSWELL ROAD 39 Mason's Yard
254
258
1 1 to 7 Mason's Place
252 13 1 to 29
250
Moreland Primary School
SPENCER STREET
1 to 94
President House
The City 182700 Bank
181
20 19 ASHBY STREET18 Square 17 177 14 the site 12 Posts 11
18
GOSWELL PL 167 to 173
19 Building 1 2 12 to 163
21 Turnpike 12 13 Bandstand House 3 17 18 19 Health Centre Posts SEBASTIAN STREET 20 11 11
22 35 5 7 2 to 4 8 Inst 32 SQUARE 182600 25 26 STREET 1 19 18
151
BERRY PLACE
137 to 149 Emberton 1 to 71 LEVER STREET Court 1 to 37 Harold Laski 19 17 15 21 to 25 House 9 11 13 1a to 6a 3 1 1 to 72 Mulberry Court 194 1 to 24 3 1
135
The Triangle Brunswick 1 to 7 133 184 186 Court 46 131 MILLS PERCIVAL STREET
to CYRUS STREET 176
MOUNT MILLS Earnshaw House 1 to 10 Tompion 174 1 to 3 40 1 to 20 182500 8 to 36 170 Hall Earnshaw House Surgery
166 2 SEWARD STREET Springwell Court 37
94 to 130
Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead Scale 1:2,000 @ A4 0 100m to prosecution or civil proceedings. City of London 100023243 2013. Fig 1 Site location
ISLI1235HEA13#01 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2013
531500 532000 183000
)"26
)"9
)"25
)"13 (!21 (!24
*#17 (!19 *# #14 *16 *# )"5 )"6 15
(!23 )"1
)"7 )"12 )"4 2 (!27 182500 (! (!22 (!20 (!18 )"11 )"3 )"10
(!29
)"8
)"28
KEY
)" past archaeological investigation
*# Listed Building close to the site
(! archaeological feature/findspot
study area
site outline
projected line of Roman road
projected line of Civil War defence (based on Smith and Kelsey) 182000 Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead Scale 1:5,000 @ A4 0200m to prosecution or civil proceedings. City of London 100023243 2013. Fig 2 Historic environment features map
ISLI1235HEA13#02 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2013
1 8 T 1 REE ST BY 20 ASH
19
18
17
1 7
7
14
12
WS4 E GOSWELL PL
Goswell Place
1 6 Building 7
t o
1 7 WS2 3 E
BH1 WS1 E E
lth Hea 17 1 8 19 tre Cen
20 BH2 E
SE BAS TIAN STR EET
5
2 to 4
1
E
C KEY A L
P
Y
R
R E borehole/test pit E B site outline
Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead Scale 1:500 @ A4 025m to prosecution or civil proceedings. City of London 100023243 2013. Fig 3 Location of boreholes and test pits (Harrison Group, April 2013)
ISLI1235HEA13#03 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2013
the site
Fig 4 Agas’s map of 1562
the site
Fig 5 A Plan of the City and Suburbs of London fortified by Order of Parliament in the Years 1642 & 1643 by Vertue (1738) (Note: the site is in the vicinity of Fort 6 – Mount Mill Fort)
ISLI1235HEA13#04&05 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2013
the site
possible Mount Mill Fort
Fig 6 Rocque’s map of 1746
the site
Fig 7 Horwood’s map of 1799
ISLI1235HEA13#06&07 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2013
the site
Fig 8 Faden’s revision of Horwood’s map of 1813
the site
Fig 9 Ordnance Survey 1st edition 5ft:mile map of 1871 (not to scale)
ISLI1235HEA13#08&09 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2013
the site
Fig 10 Ordnance Survey 3rd edition 25'':mile map of 1916 (not to scale)
the site
Fig 11 Ordnance Survey 1:1250 scale map of 1952 (not to scale)
ISLI1235HEA13#10&11 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2013
the site
Fig 12 Goad Insurance map of 1957 (London Metropolitan Archive reference LCC/VA/GOAD/D)
the site
Fig 13 Ordnance Survey 1:1250 scale map of 1971 (not to scale)
ISLI1235HEA13#12&13 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2013
the site
Fig 14 Ordnance Survey 1:1250 scale map of 1986 (not to scale)
ISLI1235HEA13#14 the site
itrcevrnetassmn OA2013 Historic environment assessment MOLA
ISLI1235HEA13#15
early 20th century buildings to be retained and refurbished
mid to late 20th century buildings to be demolished
extent of existing basements 0 1:500 25m
Fig 15 Existing ground floor, also show extents of current basements (Ramboll, drg 61031253/SV/01, rev 0, date 12/02/13) Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2013 20m
1:400 STEP
0
STEP
CU030-100 A the site extent of proposed building Proposed ground floor (Curtins Consulting, drg CU030-102, rev P2, date 05/04/13) Fig 16
ISLI1235HEA13#16 the site
itrcevrnetassmn OA2013 Historic environment assessment MOLA
ISLI1235HEA13#17
extent of proposed basement 0 1:400 20m
Fig 17 Proposed second level basement (identical footprint to first level basement ) (Curtins Consulting, drg CU030-100, rev P2, date 05/04/13)