WHITECROSS ESTATE London EC1
London Borough of Islington
Historic environment assessment
December 2015
© Museum of London Archaeology 2015 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]
Whitecross Estate Islington London EC1
Historic environment assessment
NGR 532443 182191
Sign-off history issue issue date prepared by reviewed by approved by reason for issue no. 1 09/01/2015 Jonathan Hutchings Jon Chandler Laura O Gorman First issue (Archaeology) Lead Consultant Contract Manager Juan Jose Fuldain Archaeology (Graphics) 2 04/02/2015 Jonathan Hutchings - Laura O Gorman Second Issue (Archaeology) Contract Manager With Peabody Juan Jose Fuldain Comments (Graphics) 3 10/12/2015 Craig Stewart Jon Chandler Christina Holloway Third Issue (Archaeology) Lead Consultant Contract Manager With impacts assessed Juan Jose Fuldain Archaeology 4 18/12/2015 Craig Stewart Jon Chandler Christina Holloway Fourth issue (Archaeology) Lead Consultant Contract Manager With revised text Juan Jose Fuldain Archaeology
MOLA code: P0436
www.mola.org.uk MOLA 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 Company registration number 07751831 Charity registration number 1143574 Registered office Mortimer Wheeler House, 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London N1 7ED
Contents
Executive summary 4
1 Introduction 5 1.1 Origin and scope of the report 5 1.2 Designated heritage assets 5 1.3 Aims and objectives 6
2 Methodology and sources consulted 7
3 Site location, topography and geology 9 3.1 Site location 9 3.2 Topography 9 3.3 Geology 9
4 Archaeological and historical background 11 4.1 Overview of past investigations 11 4.2 Chronological summary 11
5 Statement of significance 17 5.1 Introduction 17 5.2 Factors affecting archaeological survival 17 5.3 Archaeological potential and significance 18
6 Impact of proposals 20 6.1 Proposals 20 6.2 Implications 20
7 Conclusion and recommendations 22
8 Gazetteer of known historic environment assets 24
9 Planning framework 29 9.1 Statutory protection 29 9.2 National Planning Policy Framework 29 9.3 Greater London regional policy 31 9.4 Local planning policy 32
10 Determining significance 35
11 Non-archaeological constraints 36
12 Glossary 37
13 Bibliography 39 13.1 Published and documentary sources 39 13.2 Other Sources 39 13.3 Cartographic sources 39
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 1 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx Figures
Cover: Rocque's map of 1746.
Fig 1 Site location Fig 2 Historic environment features Fig 2a Areas surveyed by ground-penetrating radar (after Sandberg, dwg ref 55471-R-002, Rev -, dated October 2015) Fig 3 Agas map of 1562 Fig 4 Illustration of the Fortune Playhouse by C W Hodges Fig 5 Faithorne and Newcourt's map of 1658 Fig 6 Ogilby and Morgan's map of 1676 Fig 7 Rocque's map of 1746 Fig 8 Horwood's map of 1799 (Faden's 1813 revision) Fig 9 Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25”: mile map of 1877 Fig 3 Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 25”: mile map of 1896 Fig 4 London County Council (LCC) Bomb Damage Map of 1939–45 Fig 5 Ordnance Survey 1:2,500 scale map of 1951 Fig 6 Ordnance Survey 1:2,500 scale map of 1960 Fig 7 Photo of the plaque marking Edward Alleyn’s Fortune Playhouse on Fortune Street. Taken facing North. MOLA photo 2014. Fig 8 Photo of the existing mid-20th century Peabody Tower located immediately east of Golden Lane. Taken facing north. MOLA photo 2014. Fig 9 Photo of the existing mid-20th century Banner House to the south of Banner Street. Taken facing west. MOLA photo 2014 Fig 10 Photo of access ramp to the basement level beneath Banner House. Access to the basement level was not possible. Taken facing south. MOLA photo 2014 Fig 11 Photo of the existing late-19th century buildings, including Alleyn House, to the north of Dufferin Street. Taken facing west. MOLA photo 2014. Fig 19 Photo of the existing late-19th century and late-20th century buildings to the north of Chequer Street. Taken facing north-west. MOLA photo 2014. Fig 12 Photo of the existing late-19th century Dufferin Court, to the south of Dufferin Street. Taken facing south-west. MOLA photo 2014. Fig 13 Photo of the existing late-19th century Peabody Estate buildings along Dufferin Street showing the gradual slope in topography. Taken facing east. MOLA photo 2014 Fig 14 Photo of Fortune Street as existing. Taken facing east. MOLA photo 2014 Fig 15 Photo of the Green Centre, within the West Area. This is the location of the Cripplegate Poor Ground (1636–1877). Taken facing east. MOLA photo 2014 Fig 16 Photo of area of open ground located to the south of Banner House. Taken facing east. MOLA photo 2014. Fig 17 Photo of retaining wall and raised car park area at the rear of Dufferin Court, immediately north of Errol Street. Taken facing north. MOLA photo 2014. Fig 18 Photo of the existing late-19th century buildings and open courtyard in the eastern most area of the Peabody Estate. Taken facing south-west. MOLA photo 2014.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 2 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx Fig 19 Plan of proposed landscape and construction works – west (after Jan Kattein Architects, project no 060, dwg ref SK002, Rev B, 10/08/2015) Fig 20 Plan of proposed landscape and construction works – west (after Jan Kattein Architects, project no 060, dwg ref SK003, Rev A, 10/08/2015)
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 3 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx Executive summary
NPS Group has commissioned MOLA to carry out a historic environment assessment in advance of proposed development at the Whitecross Estate in the London Borough of Islington. The site comprises four parcels of land forming the Peabody residential housing estate. These are Peabody Court in the west (‘Area A’); Chequer Street in the centre (Area B); Dufferin Court in the south (Area C) and the Dufferin Street site in the east (Area D). The scheme comprises the construction of a small number of new residential buildings with piled foundations following demolition of existing structures (which date to the 20th century), and soft and hard landscaping of much of the currently open areas. No new basements are proposed; new services would be laid. The whole site lies within the Moorgate Archaeological Priority Area (APA), which defines an area of early post-medieval suburban expansion. Other than Peabody Court, the entire site lies within St Luke’s Conservation Area. This desk-based study assesses the impact on buried heritage assets (archaeological remains). Although above ground heritage assets (historic structures) are not discussed in detail, they have been noted where they assist in the archaeological interpretation of the site. Buried heritage assets that may be affected by the proposals comprise: Remains of the Fortune Playhouse (1600–56). Edward Alleyn’s Shakespearean playhouse lay between Golden Lane and Whitecross Street in the western part of the site (Area A): Fortune Street was laid out through the former ‘Playhouse Yard’. There is high potential for remains of the playhouse which, if extensive, might potentially be of very high significance. Post-medieval burials. A former burial ground, the Cripplegate Poor Ground lies entirely within the southern half of Peabody Court in the western part of the site (Area A). The north- eastern extent of Area B extends into the western part of a former Quaker burial ground. It is considered likely that human remains, of high significance, are still present in these areas. The footings of post-medieval buildings. The site was developed from the 16th century onwards for shops and tenements, and industrial activity. There is high potential for associated remains, probably of low or medium significance. Later medieval remains. Whitecross Street is of medieval origin, and led towards the city gate at Cripplegate. There is moderate potential for evidence of medieval settlement fronting the road, of medium significance, and of agriculture and quarrying, of low significance. The proposed infill buildings would be located outside the likely extent of the two known burial grounds and possible site of the Fortune Playhouse. The piled foundations for the new buildings would however have an impact of locally removing post-medieval any later medieval building remains within each pile footprint. The proposed landscaping is assumed to extend to a depth of 0.6m, and may be within the edges of the Cripplegate Poor Ground or the Quaker burial ground: it might therefore have an impact on burials, along with any late 19th century and later remains. It is unlikely to have an impact on surviving remains of the Fortune Playhouse as these are likely to be at a greater depth. Proposed hedge and shrub planting may have a similar localised impact up to 1.0m deep. New services and drainage are assumed to extend to a depth of 1.0–1.5m; their location is not currently known but these would remove remains to this depth, which might include burials, remains of the playhouse and other post-medieval remains. In view of the site’s location within an APA, and its archaeological potential, trial evaluation is recommended in order to clarify the presence and nature of any especially sensitive remains – ie the Fortune Playhouse and burials – and in particular the depth and extent of such remains below current ground level, so that the likely impact of the various proposals can be determined. The evaluation details would need to be designed to take into account the detailed proposal plans, including the proposed location of any new services and drainage and depth of excavation. Confirmed remains of the Fortune Playhouse would be likely to warrant preservation in situ. The removal of human remains, if this cannot be avoided, would require archaeological excavation and an exhumation licence. Outside these areas, for remains of lesser significance, a programme of watching briefs during intrusive ground works would be appropriate. All such work would need to be carried out in consultation with the archaeological advisor to the local authority and under an agreed Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI).
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 4 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx 1 Introduction
1.1 Origin and scope of the report
1.1.1 NPS Group has commissioned MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology) to carry out a historic environment assessment in advance of proposed development at the Whitecross Estate, EC1 (National Grid Reference 532443 182191: Cover: Rocque's map of 1746.
1.1.2 Fig 1). The Peabody housing estate comprises of four areas in the vicinity of Whitecross Street: Area A: In the west of the estate, the largest part of the site which includes Banner House/Street, Peabody Court Roscoe Street 1, Roscoe Street 2, Peabody Tower, Fortune Street, Green Centre, St Mary’s Tower; Area B: In the centre of the estate, the second largest area includes Main Square (N- V), Chequer Street, Alleyn House; Area C: A strip in the south of the site, south of Dufferin Street, includes Errol Street (D-F), Dufferin Dwellings; Area D: A small area in the eastern part of the site, comprising the Peabody Estate Blocks A&B 1.1.3 The scheme comprises landscaping of these four areas in addition to the demolition of upstanding structures and infill construction of new residential buildings supported by piled foundations. No basements are proposed. It is likely that new services would be installed during this programme of groundworks. 1.1.4 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. 1.1.5 This report deals solely with the archaeological implications of the development and does not cover possible built heritage issues, except where buried parts of historic fabric are likely to be affected. Above ground assets (ie, designated and undesignated historic structures and conservation areas) on the site or in the vicinity that are relevant to the archaeological interpretation of the site are discussed. Whilst the significance of above ground assets is not assessed in this archaeological report, direct physical impacts upon such assets arising from the development proposals are noted. The report does not assess issues in relation to the setting of above ground assets (eg visible changes to historic character) and views. 1.1.6 The assessment has been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (DCLG 2012, 2014; see section 10 of this report) and to standards specified by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA Dec 2014a, 2014b), Historic England (EH 2008, 2015), and the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS 2014). Under the ‘Copyright, Designs and Patents Act’ 1988 MOLA retains the copyright to this document. 1.1.7 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
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 5 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx scheduled monuments, listed buildings or registered parks and gardens. 1.2.2 The site lies within the Moorfields Archaeological Priority Area as designated by the London Borough of Islington. Although this is not described on the LPA website, it is likely to define an area of early post-medieval suburban expansion on the outskirts of the City of London. 1.2.3 Other than the West Area, the entire site lies within the LPA St Luke’s Conservation Area. This is characterised by Whitecross Street, originating as a medieval lane which ran from Cripplegate to Old Street, home of London’s oldest surviving street market and fronted by a number of domestic-scale properties from the 18th and 19th Century. Either side, the narrow side streets contain a wide range of 19th century commercial buildings and one of the largest late 19th century Peabody housing estates (LBI, 2007). The southern half of Area A lies within the former extent of a burial ground, the Cripplegate Poor Ground. Part of the north-eastern extent of Area B lies within the western part of a former Quaker Burial Ground (Friend’s Burial Ground). In an undated letter addressed to Peabody (appended to this document), provision was made prior to redevelopment of the West Area for the removal of human remains from the footprints of the proposed buildings. It is likely that outside these areas human remains are still present, particularly within the Green Centre in the centre of the site (Adrian Miles, MOLA Senior Archaeologist and burials specialist, pers comm). 1.2.4 The exhumation of any human remains should be notified to the Ministry of Justice which may also need to issue an Exhumation Licence. Where likely survival of human burials in ground consecrated under the rites of the Church of England has been identified in a Historic Environment Assessment it is possible that a 'Faculty' may need to be sought by the developer in addition to planning consent. Faculty is issued by the office of the Chancellor of the Diocesan authorities in accordance with the provision of the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure 1964 (as amended by the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1991).
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; 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 for 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.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 6 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx 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. This information 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 200m buffer study area around it, 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 Research Centre (LAARC). The HER is managed by Historic England 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, eg, 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; Historic England – information on statutory designations including scheduled monuments and listed buildings; The London Society Library – published histories and journals; London Metropolitan Archive – original annotated Ordnance Survey drawings from Mrs Basil Holmes’s survey of London’s Burial Grounds (1899). These have been digitised and incorporated into MOLA GIS and are shown on Fig 2; Dulwich College Archive – Estate Plans and documentation relating to the Fortune Playhouse; Groundsure – 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; Internet – web-published material including the LPA local plan, and information on conservation areas and locally listed buildings. 2.1.4 Julian Bowsher of MOLA, author of a recent book on Shakespeare’s playhouses, was consulted regarding the location and significance of the Fortune Playhouse. Adam Thomas of Barron and Smith architects was consulted regarding the nature of the existing buildings on the site and details of the proposed scheme. 2.1.5 Adrian Miles of MOLA, author of a monograph on the burial grounds surrounding Golden Lane and Bunhill Fields was consulted regarding the present status of the burial grounds on the site. 2.1.6 The assessment included a site visit carried out on the 10th of December 2014 in order to determine the topography of the site and existing land use, the nature of the existing buildings, and to provide further information on areas of possible past ground disturbance and general historic environment potential. Access to the existing buildings, particularly the associated basement levels was not possible during the visit. Observations made on the site visit have been incorporated into this report. 2.1.7 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. Only listed buildings within c 20m of the site are included, unless their inclusion is considered
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 7 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx relevant to the study. Archaeological Priority Areas and Conservation areas are not shown. All distances quoted in the text are approximate (within 5m). 2.1.8 Section 10 sets out the criteria used to determine the significance of heritage assets. This is based on four values set out in Historic England’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 (ie present and previous land use), as well as possible significance. 2.1.9 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.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 8 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx 3 Site location, topography and geology
3.1 Site location
3.1.1 The Whitecross Estate is formed of four areas of land currently in use as residential housing, which is collectively referred to as ‘the site’ (centrepoint NGR 532443 182191, Cover: Rocque's map of 1746.
3.1.2 Fig 1). The four areas comprise: ‘Area A’ is in the west of the Whitecross Estate, bounded to the west by Golden Lane, to the east by Whitecross street, to the south by Fortune Street, and to the north by Banner Street. It comprises Banner House/Street, Roscoe Street 1, Roscoe Street 2, Peabody Tower, Fortune Street, Green Centre, St Mary’s Tower; ‘Area B’ is in the centre of the Whitecross Estate, and is bounded to the west by Whitecross Street, to the north by Roscoe Street, to the east by Cahill Street and Chequer Court, and to the south by Dufferin Street. It comprises Main Square (N-V), Chequer Street, Alleyn House; ‘Area C’ is to the south, bounded to the north by Dufferin Street, to the south by Errol Street, to the west by residential buildings and to the east by an office building. It comprises Errol Street (D-F), Dufferin Dwellings; ‘Area D’ is in the east of the Whitecross Estate, bounded to the north by Chequer Street, to the south by Dufferin Street, to the west by Dufferin Avenue and to the east by Bunhill Row. It comprises Blocks A&B. 3.1.3 The site falls within the historic parish of St Luke Old Street, and lay within the county of Middlesex prior to being absorbed into the administration of the Greater London Borough of Islington. 3.1.4 The site is 1.4km north of the River Thames. The nearest major waterway to the site is the culverted River Fleet, 775m south-west of the site. The Walbrook Stream formerly ran from near Liverpool Street Station, 875m south-east of the site, southwards towards the River Thames, and would have provided an important source of fresh water for the Roman town of Londinium (London).
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 The site is generally flat. Banner Street immediately north of the site is at 19.6m above Ordnance Datum (OD), sloping down gently towards the east. At the junction of Banner Street and Bunhill Row, 195m to the east, ground levels descend gently to 17.6m OD. 3.2.3 Ground levels slope down more gently to the south of the site, with Fortune Street, immediately south of the site, at 18.3m 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 British Geological Survey (BGS) map sheet 256 indicates that the underlying geology comprises the Hackney Gravel formation. Nearby archaeological investigations suggest that there is a spread of brickearth (Langley Silt Complex) which may cover the site. This is a fine- grained silt believed to have accumulated across much of the Thames gravel terraces by a mixture of processes (eg wind, slope and freeze-thaw) mostly since the Last Glacial Maximum
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 9 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx around 17,000BP. As brickearth was used for building material much has been quarried away in the past. 3.3.3 At present, there is no geotechnical data for the site. The BGS records nine boreholes within the vicinity of the site, drilled for structural engineering (non-archaeological) purposes between 1961 and 1974. The information from the borehole logs has been compiled in Table 1. 3.3.4 Table 1 differentiates between modern made ground, containing identifiably modern inclusions such as concrete and plastic, and undated made ground, which may potentially contain deposits of archaeological interest. This differentiation was not apparent in the original logs as they were commissioned for engineering purposes.
Table 1: summary of geotechnical data (British Geological Survey) Levels are in metres below ground level (mbgl)
BGS Borehole Location Modern Undated Brickearth Top of Gravel Ref made made ground ground TQ38SW654/A N of Roscoe - 0.0–3.7 3.7–5.5 5.5 Street TQ38SW654/B N of Roscoe 0.0–5.6 - - 5.6 Street TQ38SW654/C N of Roscoe 0.0–4.3 - - 4.3 Street (a sandy layer) TQ38SW654/H N of Chequer 0.0–4.9 - - 4.9 Street TQ38SW654/I N of Chequer - 0.0–3.4 3.4–5.2 5.2 Street TQ38SW1965 E of - 0.0–3.8 3.8–5.4 5.4 Whitecross (unspecified) Street TQ38SW1964 E of - 0.0–2.6 2.6–5.2 5.2 Whitecross (unspecified) Street TQ38SW764/A Whitecross - 0.0–5.4 - 5.4 Street TQ38SW764/B Whitecross 0.0–0.5 0.5–3.2 - 3.2 Street TQ38SW764/C Whitecross - 0.0–3.4 - 3.4 Street TQ38SW764/D Whitecross 0.0–0.5 0.5–3.5 - 3.5 Street TQ38SW1995/D Peabody 0.0–4.7 - 4.7–5.9 5.9 Court
3.3.5 Across much of the surrounding area, the natural gravels are overlaid by a mid-brown grey silt clay, likely to be a brickearth deposit which, where untruncated, can provide a useful indicator of the original level of the ground surface. The top of brickearth is at 15.9–16.4m OD (2.6– 4.7m below ground level (mbgl). In areas where brickearth is not present, it is likely that it has been entirely removed by quarrying or development. 3.3.6 The historic boreholes show the top of natural gravels at 3.2–5.9mbgl. The area of Whitecross Street appears to lie on a higher gravel bank, with gravels at 3.2–3.5mbgl (14.8–15.1m OD). Within the area of Peabody Court, natural gravels appear to lie deeper at 13.7m OD (5.9mbgl) suggesting a depression in the underlying topography. 3.3.7 Overlying the brickearth is around 3.4m (but in places up to 5.4m) of undated made ground, in all likelihood representing 16th–17th century and later dumping and levelling deposits. In six of the boreholes, modern made ground was identified, in two of these it comprised a 0.5m thick reinforced concrete layer over existing undated-made ground.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 10 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx 4 Archaeological and historical background
4.1 Overview of past investigations
4.1.1 The archaeological character of the study area is relatively well understood. No archaeological investigations have been conducted within the four areas of the site, but there have been two investigations (HEA 27 and 28) adjacent to the site on Whitecross Street. One of these (HEA 27) took the form of a watching brief, which recorded no archaeological remains, suggesting the footings of the existing building had completely removed them. There is no information currently available for the other investigation (HEA 28), which was carried out in 2013. A further three investigations in the study area (HEA 1, 2 and 6) did not record archaeological remains, or have no further information. The remaining 23 investigations recorded evidence of post-medieval activity, overlying occasional later medieval quarry pits, with prehistoric remains (HEA 17) and Roman remains (HEA 8) at two locations. 4.1.2 A significant feature of the site is the possibility of it being the location of the Fortune Playhouse (1600–56). No remains associated with this building have yet been found. 4.1.3 A ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey was carried out on the site in October 2015 which identified a number of underground voids.. Four areas were identified and surveyed (Sandberg 2015, 1; See Fig 3). In Survey Area 1 (within the lawn north of Chequer Street in Area B) twenty possible arches were recorded, fifteen potential voids of indeterminate nature and a large reinforced concrete room. Survey Area 2 (a small open area south of Dufferin Street in Area C) included two anomalies at approximately 0.5mbgl. Survey Area 3 (the lawn immediately south of Peabody House, Area A) recorded three potential voids/cavities, and the results for Survey Area 4 (open area within the south of Area A) recorded one arch, three potential subsurface cavities and one anomaly in addition to evidence of subsidence. This investigation was not archaeological in its focus, but had been partially prompted by estate residents pointing out the potential locations of bomb shelters (Adam Thomas of Barron & Smith, pers comm 04/12/2015). The location of bomb shelters within the site is nevertheless uncertain. 4.1.4 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 (800,000 BC–AD 43) 4.2.1 The Lower (800,000–250,000 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 first 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 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. 4.2.4 The location of the site over Langley Silt (brickearth) and gravel formations between the River
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 11 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx Fleet, 775m south-west of the site, and the Walbrook Stream, 875m south-east of the site, would have been an ideal location for early settlement, with fast-draining gravel beds and the close proximity to water and wetland resources being suitable for farming and habitation. It has been suggested (Grimes 1968, 43–45) that Old Street 110m to the north of the site is on the line of a pre-Roman trackway which linked Celtic tribal centres in to the north-east and south- west of London. There is however currently no archaeological evidence to support this. 4.2.5 During a watching brief at the Honourable Artillery Company Sports Ground, 150m south-east of the site (HEA 17) deeply stratified deposits of Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age material were found. According to the GLHER, an Iron Age spearhead was found by chance close to Golden Lane. The exact location is unknown as the GLHER GIS data places the findspot at another location, north of Banner Street, 150m north-east of the site (HEA 38). The lack of prehistoric finds, despite the suitability of the area for early occupation, possibly reflects the intensive development of the area from the post-medieval period, which has probably removed much of the prehistoric landsurface. The finds at the sports ground (HEA 17), represent rare survival in an area that has remained free of past development.
Roman period (AD 43–410) 4.2.6 Conditions for the development of Londinium (London) were laid out during the Roman invasion of Britain in AD 43 (Merrifield 1983, 23). Whereas Julius Caesar’s campaigns into Britain halted at the River Thames, those under Claudius continued to the northern bank, with the construction of a bridge at a shallow point in the Thames, close to the current London Bridge (ibid. 25). Although it is likely a settlement existed in the area of the present City of London by AD 50, the earliest documentary evidence for Londinium dates the town to c AD 60 (ibid., 41), when it was considered a colonia (the highest category of Roman provincial town). The earliest remains place the centre of the town to the north of Lombard Street and Fenchurch Street 1.1km south of the site, where the main administrative buildings and market place (the Basilica and Forum) were established. 4.2.7 The site lies 110m south of Old Street, which follows the line of the main Roman road connecting the Roman towns at Colchester in the east with Silchester in the west, and 960m north-west of the city gate at Bishopsgate. Gravelled surfaces along the line of the road were revealed in 1867 during sewer excavations (Sankey 1994, 7). Aldersgate/Goswell Road 175m to the west of the site follow the line of a major north–south Roman road. There may also have been a smaller road parallel with this that passed along the route of the modern Golden Lane, immediately west of the site (Miles 2004, 10) although there is no archaeological evidence to confirm this. 4.2.8 Under Roman law it was a requirement that the dead were buried outside town limits and cemeteries were often located alongside roads. An excavation in 1990 at 7–21 Goswell Road (site code GSW90), 205m to the west of the site recorded a linear ditch dated to AD120–180 with residual human bone that may indicate the presence of a Roman cemetery. Other evidence for Roman roadside activity was found at Therese House at 29–30 Glasshouse Yard, 250m to the south-west of the site (site code GLY01) where a deposit of reworked brickearth was found to contain abraded Roman material. 4.2.9 The Moorgate area just east of the site was at this time a marshy landscape. The poor drainage is thought to have arisen after AD200 when the Romans enclosed the city with a massive wall. This impaired the flow of the River Walbrook, southwards from the Finsbury area to the Thames, roughly following the line of Curtain Road, 705m to the east of the site, which backed up on the north side of the wall to create the marsh that defined the nature of the area for many centuries. There are indications that the Moorfields marsh lay just east of the site but may have extended into the eastern part of it (Howell 2005, 9). 4.2.10 During this period the hinterland of Londinium, would have been settled with farms, and possibly occasional villas, particularly in the vicinity of the road network. It is possible that such settlement occurred around the site, although evidence for Roman occupation in the study area is sparse, comprising quarry pits, probably dug to extract brickearth for bricks and tiles, found during an evaluation at Cripplegate House, 105m south of the site (HEA 8), in 1990.
Early medieval (Saxon) period (AD 410–1066) 4.2.11 Following the withdrawal of the Roman administration from England in the early 5th century AD
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 12 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx the walled area of the Roman town is thought to have been largely abandoned. St Paul's Cathedral was however consecrated in AD 604, and in the 7th–9th centuries the trading port of Lundenwic flourished in the area now occupied by Aldwych, the Strand and Covent Garden, c 2.3km to the south-west of the site (Cowie and Blackmore 2008, xv). 4.2.12 Archaeological investigations have revealed evidence for early Saxon dispersed settlement and small-scale industry or craft in the Clerkenwell area on the eastern side of the River Fleet (this followed the route of modern Farringdon Road), 700m to the north-west of the site (Cowie and Blackmore 2008, 21). To the east, the tributaries of the upper Walbrook continued to silt up and form the wet, marshy area latterly known as Moorfields. 4.2.13 The Roman town walls and gates were re-built following its re-occupation by King Alfred in the 9th century in response to devastating Viking raids which forced the abandonment of Lundenwic. The site originally lay within the parish of St Giles without Cripplegate, which was served by a Saxon church located just outside the reoccupied city, probably on the site of the present church within the Barbican Centre, c 390m to the south of the site. ‘Cripplegate’ is a name of Saxon origin (Harben 1918, 178), it likely derives from the word Old English word crepel or ‘covered’, rather than the more obvious ‘cripple’ as it is unlikely that this one gate would have been frequented by beggars more than the others (Weinreb and Hibbert 2008, 217). The church probably formed the focus of a small settlement beside the gate and along Fore Street, a name that probably derived from an earlier Anglo-Saxon reference to a road running in front of (fore) the city wall (ibid, 295–6). There were other early settlements to the north of the city including Islington on Upper Street, c 1.7km to the north of the site. 4.2.14 It is likely that in this period the area supported a scattered agricultural population, presumably where the land was not made unworkable by the marsh in the area of the Walbrook. 4.2.15 No finds or features dating to this period have yet been identified within the study area. Given the proximity to the parish church, it is likely that the site lay in the immediate environs of the settlement. The land may have been used for cultivation or pasture.
Later medieval period (AD 1066–1485) 4.2.16 Throughout much of this period the site was located in open fields used for market gardening or dairy pasture and with scattered homesteads, to the north of the medieval city. Much of the area, at least east of the site, remained boggy and marginal. Aldersgate Street, on the western boundary of the parish, and Old Street, extending east-west through the centre of the parish, continued in use in this period (Weinreb and Hibbert 1995, 578) and are likely to have attracted roadside settlement. An area of monastic houses, including the Priory of St. John of Jerusalem and the monastery of Charterhouse grew up in the area of Clerkenwell, 600m to the west. 4.2.17 The main settlement in the parish during this period was located beside the parish church of St Giles Cripplegate, c 390m to the south of the site. The original church was built in the 11th century. It was rebuilt in 1390 and again 1545–50. It was reduced to ruins during the Second World War and the existing structure was built in 1960. (Weinreb and Hibbert 1995, 732). The earliest map consulted, Agas' map of c 1562 (Fig ) shows settlement beside the church, extending north of Cripplegate along Fore Street, which is first mentioned in c 1330 (Weinreb and Hibbert 1995, 295–6). 4.2.18 The GLHER locates the site of the medieval 'manor house of St Luke's’, on the site of the current 18th-century church of St Luke's, 250m to the north of the site. It is unclear on what evidence this is based, as there are no references to a manor house or a settlement here in the later medieval period, from either written or cartographic sources. The parish of St Luke's was created in 1733 with the construction of the church, and was formed out of part of St Giles Cripplegate. 4.2.19 In 1411, the first attempts were made to drain the Moorfields to the east, apparently with little success, with further attempts taking place between 1412 and 1415 (Tames 1999, 23). It was not until 1527 that the area was finally drained (Weinreb and Hibbert 1995, 542). The drier areas were used for recreation, including archery, for the grazing of stock on rough pasture, and as tenter-grounds (for stretching/drying newly finished cloth). There were also a number of windmills (Tames 1999, 24). Parts of Moorfields became a dumping ground for refuse from the city (ibid, 24) and also for plague pits. In 1414 the 'Moor Gate' was built through the city wall so the residents of the City could access the Moorfields more easily (Weinreb and Hibbert 1995, 285). A road from Moorgate extended northwards to Finsbury Court, on the southern boundary
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 13 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx of the parish. The dog kennels for the Lord Mayor's Hunt were located in the south-east corner of the parish, just north of Finsbury Circus, c 670m to the south-east of the site. Evidence of possible medieval animal pens and enclosures found at 122–28 Old Street, 115m north of the site (HEA 22). 4.2.20 Much of the archaeological evidence for this period within the study area takes the form of brickearth quarries, which have been found at a number of locations, largely to the south of the site (HEA 5, 7, 8, 10 and 25) and also to the east (HEA 18). Whitecross Street, which runs between Area A and Area B, is thought to be a medieval street (GLHER ref 080503; HEA 35), and would have extended northwards of the medieval city gate at Cripplegate. It is possible that there were buildings along the road (ie potentially within the site), although there is currently no archaeological evidence for this.
Post-medieval period (AD 1485–present)
Suburban growth in the 16th century 4.2.21 The Agas map of 1562 (Fig 3) is the earliest map consulted. It shows that the suburban expansion to the north of the city had extended as far at the north side of Old Street and included the area of the site. Houses are shown fronting Whitecross Street and a network of streets which have defined much of the current layout. Landscaped gardens are shown to the rear of the buildings, in the centres of each block. Although it is difficult to locate the four areas of the site accurately on this pictorial map, it is clear that the street frontages along the western and southern parts of the West Area are lined with buildings. There are buildings fronting the main thoroughfare, Whitecross Street, in the western part of the Chequer’s Lane site. Buildings are also shown in the eastern part of the Dufferin Court site and possibly in the Dufferin Street site. These areas also include landscaped gardens and yards.
The Fortune Playhouse (1600–56) 4.2.22 In 1600 the Fortune Playhouse opened on the site, in the area currently occupied by Peabody Court. This was funded by Edward Alleyn, lead actor of the Admiral’s Men troupe. Between 1600 and 1642, it was among the chief venues for drama in London. 4.2.23 No plans of the playhouse exist, although a good deal more is known about the Fortune than about the other outdoor theatres from contemporary documentary sources, including builders’ instructions (Gurr 1988, 15), preserved among Alleyn's papers. The theatre was built primarily of timber set on a foundation of lime and brick in a roughly square plot of land (127ft (39m) across and 129ft (39m) deep), the constraints of which led to the theatre’s unique shape in comparison to the amphitheatre style prevalent at the time (Bowsher 2012; 98). The plot of land was located between Golden Lane in the west and Whitecross Street in the east. It would have been set back from the buildings along the street frontages, and the northern extent would probably have been marked by the Cripplegate Poor Ground, which opened in 1636 and was still extant in 1676 (see Fig 6). Faithorne and Newcourt’s map of 1658 (Fig 5), produced two years after the Fortune was demolished, shows an open area that extends into the southern half of Peabody Court and the area to the south of it. The size and shape of the plot of land, combined with the alley to Golden Lane to the west suggests that this is the site of the Fortune. Ogilby and Morgan’s map of 1676 (Fig 6) shows a small lane named ‘Playhouse Yard’ along what is now named Fortune Street; it is likely that this ran through what had been the centre of the plot. 4.2.24 These indicate that the building measured some 80ft by 80ft along its external edges, and was three storeys in height, with three tiers of galleries. There is reference to some carved embellishment on the structure (Bowsher 2012, 101). The yard was 55ft by 55ft with the stage jutting out into the centre from a tiring-house (dressing room) front occupying 43 of the 55ft on the side opposite the entrance galleries (ibid, 18). Fortune was a ‘second generation’ playhouse with a more sophisticated system of admissions that earlier examples; access to the gallery did not entail passing through the yard; once in one of two entrance-ways you chose to enter the yard or mount the stairs, which rose in towers above the entrance-ways directly into the galleries (ibid, 17). The Tsubouchi Memorial Theatre Museum at Waseda University, Tokyo, was built in 1928 as a replica of the Fortune (Bowsher 2012, 100). 4.2.25 The first Fortune Playhouse burnt down in 1626 but was quickly rebuilt. There is no surviving contract for the second building, but some details are found in various papers. James Wright,
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 14 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx writing in 1699 refers to ‘a large round [probably polygonal] brick building’ (quoted in Bowsher 2012, 102). The London Encyclopaedia includes a picture of the frontage of the second theatre, in Golden Lane (Hibbert et al, 2008, 305). 4.2.26 In the 1640s the Puritan government closed theatres in London, and the Fortune did not escape this fate, although illegal performances continued. It was dismantled by soldiers in 1649 (ibid, 305). By 1656 it lay in a ruinous state: the estimated cost of repairs was £2000, and the quantity of sound material available was only rated at £80. The decision was made in 1661 to demolish the remains of the building and construct new tenement buildings (Bowsher 2012, 103).
Development from the mid 17th century 4.2.27 Faithorne and Newcourt’s pictorial map of 1658 (Fig 5) is similar to Agas’s map with further development in the area. The eastern extent of the site is occupied by several buildings lining Whitecross Street and Bunhill Fields. Between these rows of buildings is open ground. The West Area of the site is occupied by further buildings; three are arranged perpendicular to Whitecross Street, the northernmost runs parallel to the street. On the western side, a further four buildings are shown, two running parallel to the adjacent street, and two at a right angles. These buildings are not labelled and may represent domestic properties. 4.2.28 Ogilby and Morgan’s map of 1676 (Fig 6) shows the site in more detail, in plan. The areas of the site had become heavily developed. The area of the present West Area is formed around a marked churchyard, centred roughly on the Green Centre in the centre of the site. Mrs Basil Holmes notes this as the Cripplegate Poor Ground, also known as the Cripplegate “Upper Churchyard”. It was first opened in 1636 but quickly became overcrowded due to the cheap burial fees, but is not marked on Faithorne and Newcourt’s map. The buildings lining Golden Lane, immediately west of this area of the site are punctuated by alleys connected to inner courtyard areas. Immediately south of this part of the site “Play House Yard” (now Fortune Street) bisects the rows of terraced buildings. The remaining three plots are occupied by further buildings with associated rear, formal gardens. Until the late 19th century, these tenement buildings were owned by Dulwich College, Dulwich and formed the larger part of the estate. It is unknown whether these buildings had associated cellar levels, as there is no explicit mention in the deeds. 4.2.29 Rocque’s map of 1745 (Fig 7) is less detailed and shows built up areas indicatively as hatched areas rather than individual buildings. The map shows that the areas of the site are still occupied by complexes of buildings. Around the West Area, there is a series of alleys labelled as “Rose Alley” and “Black Swan C[ourt]” in the north of this area, “Swan Alley” is labelled. The burial ground in the centre of the site appears to have been decreased in size, as a large building occupies the eastern extent of it and an area next to it is labelled “Bear and Ragged Staff Yard” indicating it may be an inn or public house. On the eastern side of Whitecross Street, in Area B, the site is similarly occupied by complexes of buildings arranged around alleys and yards. The north-west of this area is occupied by a large building labelled as “Sugarloaf C[ourt]”. “Chequer Alley” lies on a similar alignment to the present Chequer Street although terminates in a dog-leg connecting to Whitecross Street at this time. The north- eastern corner of this area is occupied by the western end of a large Quaker Burial Ground. The eastern most area of the site is occupied by buildings lining the east of Chequer Alley. To the south, in East Errol and Dufferin area, the site is occupied by small clusters of buildings to the west and a yard surface to the east. This yard appears to relate to the free school building shown on “Brown Street” (now part of Bunhill Row). The name of the school is obscured by other details on the map. 4.2.30 Faden’s 1813 revision of Horwood’s 1799 map (Fig 8) is a detailed map showing individual buildings. It shows little discernible change to the areas of the site, although the schematic nature of the map makes it easier to see elements on each area of the site. The area of burial ground shown on in the West Area is labelled as “Thomas’ Burial Ground”. The remaining buildings on this area of the site are terraced; many, lining Golden Lane and Whitecross Street have associated rear gardens, or are arranged around the inner yard areas. The pattern of building seems to be similar amongst the remaining three areas of the site. In the south-east of the site, the former yard possibly belonging to the school has been developed upon. The school building itself is no longer shown. 4.2.31 The Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25”: mile map of 1877 (Fig 9) shows little overall change to
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 15 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx the site. The west of the site is still largely dominated by terraced housing surrounding the now former graveyard (marked ‘disused’). In the north of the site, a large building labelled “Industrial Dwellings” is marked, and in the south an Iron Foundry is located. Significant changes to this part of the site comprise of St Mary’s National School, towards the north of the site. Adjacent to the disused grave yard, within Peabody Court site, is the new St Mary’s Church. St Mary’s Charterhouse was itself a parish from 1858. The remaining three components of the site are occupied by terraced houses.
The Peabody Estate (late 19th century) 4.2.32 In 1883, Peabody purchased the site for the construction of social housing buildings following clearance of the former Victorian slums in the area. The Trust was set up by London-based American banker and philanthropist George Peabody to help London’s poor (Hibbert et al 2008, 629) and was later constituted by Act of Parliament, stipulating its objectives to work solely within London for the relief of poverty. The buildings at the Roscoe Street (Whitecross) Estate were standard block flats with associated basement levels for laundry, a coal shed for up to 20 tons of coal and 32 pramsheds (peabody.org.uk/about-us/our-story/our- history/history-of-our-estates). 4.2.33 The Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 25”: mile map of 1896 (Fig 10) shows these significant changes to the site and immediate area surrounding it. The network of terraced buildings have been demolished and replaced with the large-scale Peabody residential blocks. St Mary’s Church has been expanded, with a rectangular extension off the apse. The graveyard has also been developed over with several residential blocks. Roscoe Street has been laid out on its present alignment, removing several terraced houses that had previously lined the alley there. To the east, Chequer Street has been laid out on its present alignment, along with Dufferin Street to the south. This area of the site comprises three groups of large-scale buildings arranged around central squares. Similar large-scale buildings can be seen to the south and north of Dufferin Street. 4.2.34 No significant changes are shown on the Ordnance Survey 3rd edition 25”: mile map of 1916 (not reproduced), although the buildings occupying the former graveyard are labelled as “Nicholl’s Court”. In an undated letter addressed to Peabody as part of the Roscoe Street Redevelopment scheme, the Home Office demanded the exhumation of the burial grounds in the West Area of the site (appended to this document). The project would have cost £34,000 and was considered unfeasible; instead, it was proposed the burials within the footprints of the new development were removed at a third the cost. Whilst no burials would be present within the footings of the buildings on the site, it is likely that they survive in the undeveloped Green Centre. 4.2.35 The London County Council (LCC) Bomb Damage Map of 1939–45 (Fig 11) shows majority of the buildings occupying the site were ‘damaged beyond repair’ (coloured purple). Although bombing apparently destroyed eight of buildings, the majority of Area B (Fig 18), Area D (Fig 26) and Area C (Fig 20) are still occupied by the original late 19th century buildings (Fig 21). 4.2.36 The Ordnance Survey 1:2,500 scale map of 1951 (Fig 12) labels the areas of the site as belonging to the Peabody Estate, as they exist today. In the east of the site, the buildings appear to be largely extant from pre-war conditions; it is only in the west where mass area clearance has occurred. The Church of St Mary’s has been destroyed and is labelled as ‘ruin’, it is at this time that the parish reverts to St Luke’s. Following the clearance of the church, the area remained in open ground (Fig 23). 4.2.37 The Ordnance Survey 1:2,500 scale map of 1960 (Fig 13) shows the site in much the same as its present layout. The West Area, is now occupied entirely by large-scale residential buildings: Peabody Towers in the centre of the site (Fig 15), Fortune House to the south, and Peabody Court to the east. Banner House was constructed in 1972 to the north (Fig 16).
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 16 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx 5 Statement of significance
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 19.6m–18.3m OD. Ground levels slope downwards from north to south. The top of brickearth lies at 15.9–16.4m OD but is generally at a depth of 3.4mbgl. The top of untruncated Gravel lies at 14.0–14.4m OD but is generally at a depth of 3.5–5.4mbgl. 5.2.2 Between the top of untruncated brickearth and ground level is modern and undated made ground. The latter potentially contains archaeological remains.
Past impacts 5.2.3 Given the apparent thickness of made ground deposits, archaeological survival across the site is expected to be high. The main impact on archaeological survival will have been the construction of the existing late 19th and mid 20th century buildings on the site. 5.2.4 During the site visit in December 2014, it was pointed out that many of the late 19th century buildings on the site have associated basement levels. Access to these basements was not possible at the time, although it was noted by Adam Thomas of Barron and Smith that the basements do not cover the entire footprint of the buildings. The mid 20th century Banner House, in the north of West Area has an associated basement level (Fig 17). Likewise access was not possible, although it is likely to cover most of the building footprint. 5.2.5 The formation levels of these basements are assumed to be at a depth of 3.5–4.0mbgl. This would have truncated remains cut into the underlying brickearth deposits. The bases of deeper cut features are likely to survive beneath the level of truncation. 5.2.6 Banner House is likely to have piled foundations, which will have completely removed any archaeological remains within their footprints, although remains may survive between piles, depending upon pile density. The smaller scale mid 20th century buildings and the late 19th century buildings are likely to have substantial pad foundations with an assumed depth of 0.5– 1.0m, which may have caused superficial truncation of any underlying archaeological remains.
Likely depth/thickness of archaeological remains 5.2.7 Archaeological remains are likely to survive within undated made ground, from as shallow as 0.5m below ground level. The footings of former post-medieval buildings are likely to lie within these deposits. Beneath made ground levels, archaeological remains may be cut into brickearth deposits to an unknown depth.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 17 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx 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 The site has a low potential to contain prehistoric remains. The site would have been ideally suited for early settlement, on fast-draining gravel terraces within relatively close proximity to two water sources: The Walbrook Stream to the east and the River Fleet to the west. Despite this, archaeological evidence for prehistoric remains in the study area is scarce, comprising of deeply-stratified Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age deposits 150m south-east of the site (HEA 17). These were however found in an open area that has not previously been developed. Across much of the vicinity, suburban development from the mid 16th century onwards will have heavily truncated or removed much of the prehistoric landsurface. 5.3.3 The site has a low potential to contain Roman remains. The site lay in the open fields beyond the Roman city, 960m north-west of the city gate at Bishopsgate. It lay 110m south of the Roman road connecting Colchester with Silchester (followed by the line of Old Street) and 175m to the west of a north-south Roman road (Aldersgate/Goswell Road). There may also have been a smaller road parallel with this that passed along the route of the modern Golden Lane, immediately west of the site. The site would have lain on the edge of marshland associated with the Walbrook Stream, although this may have been more suited to farming activity. Evidence for Roman activity within the study area is restricted to quarry pits 105m south of the site (HEA 8). 5.3.4 The site has a low potential to contain early medieval remains. The site lay beyond the main areas of settlement in the Covent Garden area and later the old Roman city. Towards the end of this period, it lay within the parish of St Giles without Cripplegate that was served by a church, 390m south of the site in the area of the Barbican. The site may have been put to agricultural purposes during this period, or was woodland. 5.3.5 The site has a moderate potential to contain later medieval remains. The site would have lain in open fields, immediately north of the City of London. During this time these fields were used as areas for market gardens and pasture land. The main area of extramural settlement during this period would have been located near the church of St Giles Cripplegate, 390m south of the site. A medieval manor house is noted on the GLHER, 250m north of the site, although no further documentary evidence for the manor is available. Other than possible animal enclosures uncovered 115m north of the site, much of the evidence comprises quarry pits to the south and east of the site, as well as some evidence of agricultural soil horizons. Whitecross Street, which runs between Areas A and B, headed north from the medieval city gate at Cripplegate, and probably has medieval origins. By at least the mid-16th century the frontages of this street were developed, along with Bunhill Fields to the east (Dufferin Street), and it is possible that there were buildings here, within parts of the site, in the later medieval period. Quarry pits and agricultural remains would be considered of low significance derived from their evidential and historical values. Remains of agricultural buildings or settlement evidence may be considered to be of medium significance. 5.3.6 The site has a high potential to contain post-medieval remains. Historic mapping shows continuous development on the site from at least the mid-16th century. From 1636, the present Green Centre, in Area A was occupied by a burial ground: The Cripplegate Poor Ground, or Cripplegate “Upper Churchyard”. Despite becoming overcrowded quickly, the burial ground diminished in size, as the site became more developed with series of interconnected buildings, often arranged around courtyards or spaced by alleys. The burial ground became attached to the Church of St Mary, forming a new parish, which remained in existence until the 1940s. In the late 19th century, the area of the site lining Golden Lane was occupied by industrial accommodation to the north and an iron foundry to the south. Although its use was short-lived as by the end of the century the present road layout had been established, bisecting many buildings. During the Second World War, the western extent of the site was heavily bombed, and the former buildings, including St Mary’s, removed to make way for the existing late-20th century flats. The footings of former residential buildings are considered to be of low significance derived from their evidential value. Industrial remains relating to the iron foundry may be considered of up to medium significance derived from its evidential and historic value. Human remains would be considered of high significance derived from their evidential and
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 18 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx historic values. It is not known whether there are burials are in situ or whether these have been removed. 5.3.7 The site has a high potential to contain the remains of the Fortune Playhouse (1600–1656). Edward Alleyn’s playhouse was first constructed in a large yard between Whitecross Street and Golden Lane in 1600, within Area A in the west of the site. A fire in 1620 saw the playhouse destroyed, but it was quickly rebuilt and continued to operate for another 20 years, until it was closed under the Puritan government and left to fall into such disrepair that it was demolished in 1656 and a new road, Playhouse Lane was laid out along with 24 new tenement buildings. To date no remains of the Fortune have been uncovered; its exact location is unknown although rather detailed descriptions of the building survive. It is uncertain whether the subsequent buildings on the site had basement or cellar levels, which would have truncated remains of the Fortune. The contemporary playhouses comprising The Theatre (1576) and The Curtain (1577) are considered to be highly significant, possibly of national (ie very high) significance. It is possible therefore that remains of the Fortune, if extensive, would also be considered to be of very high significance.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 19 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx 6 Impact of proposals
6.1 Proposals
6.1.1 The proposed scheme comprises ground works including soft and hard landscaping within all areas of the site in addition to infill development in parts of Areas A, B and C (See figs 27 and 28 for highlighted areas of new-build and landscaping). 6.1.2 The infill development comprises the construction of a small number of new residential buildings following demolition of existing 20th century structures throughout the site. These would be located away from the likely areas of burial grounds and the possible site of the Fortune Playhouse. No new basements are proposed. Foundations for the new buildings would be piled (Jan Kattein Architects, Urban Realm - West project ref 060 dwg ref SK 002, Rev B, dated 10/08/2015 Urban Realm - East project ref 060 dwg ref SK 003, Rev A, dated 10/08/201; pers comm Gabriel Warshafsky of Jan Kattein Architects, 08/09/2015). 6.1.3 The proposed soft and hard landscaping is assumed here to extend to a maximum depth of 0.6m. Some existing landscape features such as lawns and hedges would be retained within Area A. 6.1.4 The depth of impact for the proposed hedges and shrub planting is assumed here to be up to 1.0m, taking into account the bedding trench and also subsequent root growth. 6.1.5 New services and drainage are assumed here to extend to a depth of 1.0–1.5m; their location is not currently known.
6.2 Implications
6.2.1 The identification of physical impacts on buried heritage assets within a site, takes into account any activity which would entail ground disturbance, for example site set up works, remediation, landscaping and the construction of new basements and foundations. As it is assumed that the operational (completed development) phase would not entail any ground disturbance there would be no additional archaeological impact and this is not considered further. 6.2.2 It is outside the scope of this archaeological report to consider the impact of the proposed development on upstanding structures of historic interest, in the form of physical impacts which would remove, alter, or otherwise change the building fabric, or predicted changes to the historic character and setting of historic buildings and structures within the site or outside it. 6.2.3 The entire site has potential for post-medieval suburban development, of generally low significance. There are areas however that are much more sensitive; these comprise the site of the 17th-century Fortune Playhouse, potentially of very high significance, and post-medieval burials in two separate burial grounds, of high significance.
Demolition works 6.2.4 Breaking out of the existing foundation/floor slabs in the areas of new build would potentially have an impact, truncating or removing entirely any late 19th century and later remains where it lies directly beneath the slab. It is possible that only modern made ground would be affected, with no archaeological impact. 6.2.5 The impact of pile probing and the removal of other buried obstructions such as foundations would depend on the size and density of the existing intrusions, which is currently uncertain, but such work can have a considerable archaeological impact of remains of all periods in disturbing adjacent remains.
Piled foundations 6.2.6 Any archaeological remains within the footprint of each pile would be removed as the pile is driven downwards. The severity of the impact would therefore depend on the pile size, type and pile density. Where the piling layout is particularly dense, it is in effect likely to make any surviving archaeological remains, potentially preserved between each pile, inaccessible in
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 20 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx terms of any archaeological investigation in the future. 6.2.7 The pile type is not currently known. Augered piles/continuous flight auger (CFA) piles would minimise the impact upon possible archaeological remains whereas vibro-compacted piles may cause additional impact through vibration and deformation of fragile surrounding remains, in particular at the level of the water table. 6.2.8 The insertion of pile caps and connecting ground beams, along with the excavation of a pile guide trench, typically extend no more than 1.0–1.5mbgl and would remove any archaeological remains within the footprint of these works to this depth. This would include undated made ground which may contain the footings of post-medieval buildings. 6.2.9 The areas in which the known extents of burial grounds and the suspected location of the Fortune Playhouse are located have been marked for ‘retention and improvement’ of existing lawns. This may have no impact on any archaeological remains.
Landscaping 6.2.10 Much of the landscaping is unlikely to be deep enough to affect archaeological remains located beneath modern made ground. 6.2.11 Small areas of landscaping may fall within the fringes of the Cripplegate Poor ground area or the south-western limit of the Quaker burial ground as their extents are undefined, and might potentially have an impact on burials, along with any late 19th century and later remains. It is unlikely to have an impact on surviving remains of the Fortune Playhouse as these are likely buried at greater depth.
Hedges and shrub planting 6.2.12 The proposed hedges and shrub planting to an assumed depth of up to 1.0m and would locally remove post-medieval remains. 6.2.13 Retention of existing hedges and lawn areas is proposed in much of the centre and south of Area A, indicating little archaeological impact in these areas and a low likelihood of impacts on suspected remains of the Fortune Playhouse and within the footprint of the Cripplegate Poor Ground.
New services 6.2.14 The proposed excavation of new service trenches and drains would entirely remove any archaeological remains within the trench footprint. Based on available geological data, this will likely be contained within made ground deposits. The upper part is likely to be modern. Some of the lower deposits may have archaeological remains, such as footings of post-medieval buildings. 6.2.15 Depending on their location the impacts might be on sensitive remains such as burials and remains of the Fortune Playhouse.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 21 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx 7 Conclusion and recommendations
7.1.1 The site is the Whitecross Estate, Islington. It comprises four areas of land centred on the present Peabody Estate: Area A: Banner House/Street, Roscoe Street 1, Roscoe Street 2, Peabody Tower, Fortune Street, Green Centre, St Mary's Tower; Area B: Main Square (N-V), Chequer Street, Alleyn House; Area C: Errol Street (D-F), Dufferin Dwellings; Area D: Blocks A&B. 7.1.2 The site contains no statutorily listed buildings, but it does lie within the Moorgate Archaeological Priority Area, and St Luke’s Conservation Area. A plaque on the side of 123– 127 Fortune Street, in the south-east corner of Peabody Court, marks the suspected location of Edward Alleyn’s Fortune Playhouse (1600). The theatre stood in a yard along what is now Fortune Street, although its exact location is unsubstantiated. 7.1.3 During the post-medieval period, parts of the west and north of the site were occupied by the Cripplegate Poor Burial Ground, and Quaker’s (Friends) Burial Ground respectively. The burial grounds were disused by the mid 19th century, although it is unknown whether they were disinterred. The rest of the site was heavily developed from the 16th century onwards. Majority of these buildings were likely tenements or shop frontages along Golden Lane and Whitecross Street, although in the late 19th century the south-west corner of the site was occupied by an iron foundry. 7.1.4 There is considered to be a low potential for prehistoric, Roman and early medieval remains. Although the site lay on fast-draining gravels, close to the resources of the Walbrook Stream and River Fleet, no evidence for prehistoric settlement has been recovered in the vicinity of the site. By the Roman period, the site lay in the immediate hinterland of Londinium (London), close to the road connecting Colchester and Silchester, and may have been put to agricultural and pastoral purposes. The agricultural use for the site probably continued into the early and later medieval periods. Remains of later medieval field systems have been uncovered within the vicinity of the site. 7.1.5 Archaeological survival within the areas of the site is expected to be high. There are considerable made ground deposits across the areas of the site. During a site visit in December it was confirmed that many of the late 19th century buildings on the site have associated basement levels. These do not extend across the entire footprints of the buildings, although access to confirm the extent was not possible. The mid 20th century Banner House in the north of Peabody Court has an associated basement level, likely across much of its footprint, although access was likewise not possible. It is likely that the mid 20th century Peabody Court has piled foundations; these would have removed any archaeological remains within the footprint of each pile although remains may survive between each pile. 7.1.6 Much of the proposed ground disturbance lies outside the more sensitive assets, of the possible site of the Fortune Playhouse (high or very high significance) and burial grounds (high significance). Outside these areas, infill development of new residential buildings with piled foundations in addition to hard and soft landscaping, new hedgerows and services, would potentially have an impact on remains of post-medieval suburban development, of low significance. New hedgerows may extend into the edge of the burial grounds however, whilst the main risk is from new services and drainage – the location of which is not known currently – which could have an impact on both remains of the Fortune Playhouse and the burial grounds. Any remains would be removed to an assumed depth of 1.0–1.5m.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 22 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx 7.1.7 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 Significance Impact of proposed scheme Footings of the former Fortune High – Very High Impacts to archaeological Playhouse (1600) remains would depend upon the extent of (High potential) proposed landscaping. The Post-medieval burials from Cripplegate High Excavation of new service Poor Burial Ground and Quakers trenches would likely (Friends) Burial Ground remove any remains within their extent. (High potential) Post-medieval industrial remains in the Medium Ground works related to south-west of the site landscaping would remove any surviving remains to (High potential) depth. Footings of former post-medieval Low – Medium buildings (depending upon preservation Piled foundations would and date of buildings) remove all archaeological (High potential) remains within footprints, Later medieval remains, in the form of Medium pile caps would remove any settlement along the street frontages, (settlement) surviving remains to depth. and agricultural/garden features, Low rubbish and cess pits to the rear. (quarrying and agriculture)
(Moderate potential)
7.1.8 In light of the site’s location within an archaeological priority area, the nature of the proposals and the potential for remains of high or very high significance in the area of Peabody Tower and Fortune Street in Area A, it is likely that the local authority would request a site specific evaluation in this area to determine the presence and depth of such remains and to establish the level of preservation. Confirmed remains of the Fortune Playhouse would be likely to warrant preservation in situ. Evaluation in this area would also be used to confirm the presence of human remains beneath Peabody Court, and also to the north of East Chequer and Alleyn area, within the vicinity of the Quaker (Friends) burial ground. This would clarify the presence and nature of such remains and in particular the depth and extent below ground level, so that the likely impact of the various proposals can be fully assessed. 7.1.9 Elsewhere, outside these sensitive areas, in Area B, Area C, and Area D, a programme of watching briefs during intrusive ground works would be appropriate, for remains of lesser significance. All work would need to be carried out in consultation with the archaeological advisor to the local authority under an agreed Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI).
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 23 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx 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 200m-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 28/08/2015 and is the copyright of Historic England 2015. 8.1.3 Historic England statutory designations data © Historic England 2015. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2015. The Historic England GIS Data contained in this material was obtained in September 2015. The most publicly available up to date Historic England GIS Data can be obtained from http://www.historicengland.org.uk.
Abbreviations AS – Archaeological Solutions ASE – Archaeology South East MoLAS – Museum of London Archaeology Service (now named MOLA) DGLA - Department of Greater London Archaeology (Museum of London) HER – Historic Environment Record KARU – Kent Archaeological Rescue Unit PCA – Pre-Construct Archaeology
HEA Description Site code/ No. HER No. 1 10–15 Bridgewater Square BDW95 Watching brief. MOLAS, 1995. Natural brickearth was cut by the foundations of the modern building. 2 Postmans Park, Bunhill Fields Burial Ground BFJ09 Watching brief. MOLA 2009 The central path is partly composed of tomb slabs which are known to cover burial vaults; one of these slabs had become loose and was lifted during repair works, exposing intact modern concrete beneath. 3 Bunhill Fields Burial Ground, Vaults BFV04 Watching brief. MOLAS 2004 Two burial vaults in the burial ground at Bunhill Fields, a listed building, were recorded. One, containing four lead coffins, belonged to the Maitland family and dated from c.1775-85. The occupants of a second vault, which contained six wooden coffins, were not identified. 4 Honourable Artillery Company (Health Club), Bunhill Row BRV98 Watching brief. MOLAS 1998 A series of soil or dump deposits that contained 17th century and later material was recorded above the natural gravels. 5 City and Islington College, Bunhill Row, Chiswell Street (land bounded by) BUW98 Evaluation. MOLAS 1998 ELO2914 Above the natural brickearth there was evidence of medieval brickearth or gravel MLO73125– extraction and structural features, including brick walls and two wells which relate 7, 9 to documented backyards or gardens of the 17th and 18th century. Dumped deposits were presumably levelling and probably part of garden activity of the 18th-19th century. They contained much domestic refuse, including, from one area, a considerable amount of English tin-glazed ware and rare Chinese porcelain which suggests the clearance of a middle-class household(s) at some time in the mid-18th century. Of particular note is a sherd from a tin-glazed vessel with a painted fish design derived from Chinese ceramics; this is usually found on dishes used for serving the fish known as char, but this piece appears to be from a bowl or jar so was perhaps used for an accompanying sauce. 6 Bunhill Cemetery Memorial Survey BZF05 A memorial survey was conducted by MOLA in the Bunhill burial ground in 2005. No further information is available.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 24 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx HEA Description Site code/ No. HER No. 7 Chiswell Street, Whitecross Street CET86 Watching brief, DGLA 1986 ELO2970 Site watching in 1986 showed that the site had been quarried for sand and gravel MLO63127, 9 to varying depths in the medieval period. The area was truncated by basements, except along the northern edge of the site where stratigraphy survived to ground level, over the medieval quarry pits, and produced pottery sherds of the 16th-18th century. 8 Cripplegate House, Golden Lane, Brackley Street, Viscount Street CPG90 Evaluation, watching brief. DUA 1987 Roman quarry pits and medieval rubbish pits were recorded during ground reduction, work being funded by Golden Lane Properties Ltd. 9 23–45 Fann Street FNN98 Evaluation, Watching brief. MOLAS 1998 A single gravel extraction pit was recorded in the truncated natural gravels. 10 City Bunhill Burial Ground GDA06 Excavation, MOLAS 2006 ELO14452 Evidence for the earliest activity consisted of medieval pitting and quarrying, ELO14453 dating from the 13th century. Pitting and quarrying activity continued, dating mainly to the late 15th–18th century. It was succeeded by the burial ground of 1833-54, where a total of 248 burials were excavated. These were all aligned east–west and were in wooden coffins, though not laid out in any clearly definable rows; however, no intercutting of burials was found. From the few coffin plates which were recordable it seems that the graves represent a day’s burials, rather than family plots. A total of 20 burials provided at least some information from the coffin plate inscriptions recorded. 11 5 Garrett Street GET97 Watching brief, MOLAS 1997 A substantial deposit of late medieval - post-medieval garden soil was recorded above reworked brickearth sealing natural brickearth. 12 Golden Lane Estate (between Great Arthur House and Goswell Road) GM407 Unidentified fieldwork, GM, 1959 Workmens' finds on building site between Great Arthur House and Goswell Street (presumably Goswell Road), at northern end of site. 17th century clay pipes, 18th century chamber pot, early 19th century glass jar and jug containing broken 18th century pipe. 13 80–84 Old Street GM408 Unidentified fieldwork, GM 1958 Workmens' finds including stoneware jugs c1600, coins, 19th century pottery, bronze tubes, rings, clay tobacco pipes and textiles including ?coconut matting found in brick-lined cesspit. The pit had been closed by a thick layer of lime (AA from excavation day note book). 14 Cycle Hire Scheme Dropshaft (Golden Lane) GOH09 Watching brief. MOLA 2009 A single dropshaft, located on the W side of Golden Lane close to the junction with Brackley Street, was monitored. Natural sand was overlain by brickearth, which was cut by a small pit containing 18th century building material. Above this, three walls and the remains of a possible brick floor were recorded, probably representing an 18th century cellar. Modern deposits and services completed the sequence. 15 125 Golden Lane GOL90 Evaluation. DGLA 1990 An evaluation excavation in 1990 located a block of dressed sandstone, possible Tudor pottery and a post-medieval yellow-glazed tile, as well as layers containing small Reigate stone fragments. 16 15 Garrett Street GTS12 Evaluation AS 2012 Deep deposits of 16th–17th century made ground, containing one sherd of residual c 12th–15th century pottery were revealed above the natural clay. The northern end of the site formed the southern part of the Goat Brewhouse, the original brewery of the Samuel Whitbread Brewery. Two brick circular features related to the brewery were revealed, cut into the made ground and natural gravels, one probably a soakaway with an associated wall, the other the remains of a mash tun or kiln.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 25 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx HEA Description Site code/ No. HER No. 17 Honourable Artillery Company Sports Ground HAC95 Watching brief KARU 1995 Examination of sections of trench dug for an underground car park revealed deeply stratified deposits of late Bronze Age/ Early Iron Age, medieval and 17th century dates. Relatively large amounts of 17th century pottery were recovered. 18 Honourable Artillery Company HNA04 Evaluation; Watching brief. WA 2004 2004: Evidence for 16th-century activity, represented by dumped deposits, was found above the natural gravels. Possible extraction of brickearth was indicated by the presence of redeposited natural brickearth which is considered to date to the medieval period at the latest. Fragments of iron slag and crucible were found and may represent iron smelting of munitions on or near to site in the 18th century. A cellar, dated to c.1780–1865, was also recorded. 2005: A watching brief followed an evaluation in 2004 (LA 11 supp. 1 (2005), 11). A series of brickearth and gravel extraction pits were recorded, sealed by a series of levelling deposits which contained large quantities of ashes and coal, probably from domestic fires. Several layers contained iron slag but no other evidence for iron working was observed. A 19th-century rectangular brick structure and brick- lined drains and culverts were recorded. 19 Lamb’s Club, 1 Lamb’s Passage LPG08 Evaluation. MOLAS 2008 Five trenches were excavated, two in the area of the existing basement, the other three spaced evenly across the remainder of the site. Natural gravel was overlain by a substantial homogenous deposit that appeared to be fill from an earlier (but undated) period of gravel extraction. The nature of the layer suggested that the site had been open land between the 17th and 18th centuries when it was levelled prior to construction. A brick culvert and several brick walls of 18th-c date were observed cutting the homogenous layer, and were sealed by modern demolition deposits. At the northern end of the site, inside the existing basement, the remains of a brick tank with a rendered interior were found, possibly associated with one of the manufacturers documented on the site during the late Victorian period. 20 Old Moorfields School, MFE09 Evaluation. PCA 2009 In the south of the site the remains of late 19th to early 20th century industrial structures were uncovered below modern hard standing. They comprised a brick floor surface, below which was a vaulted structure, a series of walls and a north– south flue running parallel to the modern boundary wall. In the north of the site, beneath a demolition layer, part of a north-east–south-west wall or plinth was recorded built above a narrower foundation. A linear north-west–south-east cut was also recorded, which might have formed through the grubbing out of a below- ground structure such as a coal bunker. A series of 17th–19th century dump layers were recorded below the structures in the north and west of the site. Natural strata were not reached. 21 Moorfields School (Former) MFS12 Evaluation ASE 2012. Five trenches were excavated across the site. Natural gravels, with a thin capping of brickearth in one trench, were recorded. The earliest activity identified on the site dates to the late15th–16th century and incudes a series of large quarry pits, backfilled with domestic refuse and sealed by dump deposits, the latter indicating reclamation of Moorfields Marsh. Further pitting and reclamation dumping took place in the 17th century. Little activity of 18th century date was identified, though a series of 19th century concrete and brick foundations and backfilled basements attests to the built-up nature of the site.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 26 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx HEA Description Site code/ No. HER No. 22 122–128 Old Street ODI06 Evaluation; Watching Brief. MOLAS 2006 2006: The natural and redeposited brickearth was cut by a number of stakeholes and postholes which appeared to form small enclosures. One such structure showed evidence of a trampled ground surface, suggesting that it formed a pen or enclosure, whilst another showed some evidence for a roof. These are likely to relate to agricultural or pastoral use of the land during the medieval period. Intercutting pits dated to the 17th century truncated these features and in turn were overlaid by landfill of late 17th - early 18th century date which appeared to have been reworked in modern times. Remains of a 17th-18th century cellar wall survived above underpinning associated with a 20th century basement. 2007: Following an evaluation in 2006 (LA 11, supp. 3 (2007), 73), a watching brief was carried out on piling. Dumped deposits of 17th-18th c, Victorian and modern date were recorded overlying natural brickearth. Some evidence of the 17th-c pitting recorded in the evaluation was found.
Evaluation. MOLAS 1994 OLS94 In the area of the basement natural brickearth was truncated by the basement; to the east was a large late 17th or early 18th century landfill dump. 23 76–78 Old Street OLD89 Test pit survey, DGLA 1989 MLO63136— Post-medieval dumping noted in several of the pits may be related to the removal 7 of waste from the City after the Great Fire of 1666. One pit which was dug down to natural revealed medieval stratigraphy above brickearth and below the dumping. 24 Pegasus House, 116–120 Golden Lane PGH07 Watching brief, MOLAS 2007 Six geotechnical pits were monitored in the basement of the building, each up to 0.60m deep, the thickness of the steel reinforced slab. Beneath the slab silty gravel was recorded. No archaeological deposits were recorded. 25 Prior Western Nursery School, Golden Lane PWN92 Evaluation, MOLAS 1992 ELO4350 Evidence for medieval or post-medieval pitting which cut into the truncated natural MLO64268 sand was found some 15m east of the modern street frontage. Near the street frontage natural sand was truncated by an infilled Victorian basement. 26 TA Centre, Finsbury Barracks SWH13 Evaluation, Watching brief. MOLAS 1993 1992: The earliest recorded clay deposit was cut by a 17th century arched brick drain which was sealed by a metalled yard or road and overlain with modern make-up. 14th and 18th century pottery was noted in the spoil. 1993: Redeposited brickearth was noted above natural gravels in foundation trenches for the standing building. A fragment of a possible 17th century foundation was recorded in the basement and, beneath the party wall to the north, a large post-medieval rubbish pit. 27 141–154 Whitecross Street WCR12 Watching brief L-P 2012 ELO14379 Monitoring of demolition works and the removal of footings was undertaken. As yet the below-ground work has been minimal and no archaeologically significant material has been exposed. 28 141–147 Whitecross Street WCS13 No further information is available at this time. 29 Bunhill Row (Bunhill Fields Burial Ground) Watching brief, MOLA, 2011 ELO14457 Work to create a ramped access at the Bunhill Row entrance was monitored. A trench up to 2.7m by 2.4m by 0.2m deep was excavated between and beyond the entrance gates. Below the paving slabs was a thin bed of soft sandy mortar laid over a loose layer of topsoil. Two broken stone slabs (possibly ex-situ gravestones) were in this deposit. In the west edge of the trench a section of red brick wall 1.6m by 0.6m wide was recorded, part of the boundary wall for the burial ground. No other archaeological deposits or structures were found and no human remains were encountered.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 27 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx HEA Description Site code/ No. HER No. 30 Whitbread’s Brewery, Garrett St ELO12973 An archaeological evaluation was undertaken at 15 Garrett Street in December 2012 by Archaeological Solutions Ltd. The evaluation comprised two trenches: one 7.0m x 1.6m and the other 16.0m x 1.6m. The evaluation revealed two brick circular features probably related to the 17th century Goat Brewhouse, the original brewery of Samuel Whitbread. One of the features was probably a soakaway, and the other a mash tub or kiln. The evaluation also recorded deep deposits of post medieval and modern made ground and two residual sherds of medieval pottery. 31 Stanley Cohen House, Including retaining walls, Golden Lane 1021946 Grade II listed block of flats dating to 1952 32 Monument to David Nasmith, South Enclosure 1396495 Grade II listed monument to David Nasmith, 1839, restored 1935 33 Monument to John Rippon 1396496 Grade II listed chest tomb of John Rippon, 1836 34 Group of Five Chest Tombs, West Enclosure 1396533 Five Grade II listed tombs dating to early 19th century. 35 Monument to William Broadfoot 1396534 Grade II listed obelisk monument to William Broadfoot. Late 19th century 36 Fortune Playhouse – Site of MLO1462 The GLHER marks the approximate location of Edward Alleyn’s theatre 080483/00/00 37 Whitecross Street MLO1450 Line of the medieval street. 080503/00/00 38 Golden Lane MLO514 The site of a medieval tenement building first mentioned in 1415, owned by Henry 080391/00/00 Rokulf. 39 City Road- Parade Ground Parade ground for the Royal Honourable Artillery Company 080478/00/00 40 Commemorative monument – Roscoe Street MLO7153 The recreation ground was formerly a Quaker Burial Ground. An inscribed stone marks the grave of George Fox (b.1612 - d.1690) who was the founder of the Society of Friends
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 28 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx 9 Planning framework
9.1 Statutory protection
Scheduled Monuments 9.1.1 Nationally important archaeological sites (both above and below-ground remains) may be identified and protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. An application to the Secretary of State is required for any works affecting a Scheduled Monument. Prior written permission, known as Scheduled Monument Consent (SMC) is required from the Secretary of State for works physically affecting a scheduled monument. SMC is separate from the statutory planning process. 9.1.2 Development affecting the setting of a scheduled monument is dealt with wholly under the planning system and does not require SMC. Geophysical prospection (including the use of a metal detector) on a scheduled monument requires prior consent from Historic England.
9.2 National Planning Policy Framework
9.2.1 The Government issued the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in March 2012 (DCLG 2012) and supporting Planning Practice Guidance in 2014 (DCLG 2014). 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 be 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
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 29 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to 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 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.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 30 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx 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 March 2015). Policy 7.8 relates to Heritage Assets and Archaeology: 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. 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. 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. G. Boroughs, in consultation with English Heritage [now named Historic England], 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. 9.3.2 Para. 7.31 supporting Policy 7.8 notes that ‘Substantial harm to or loss of a designated heritage asset should be exceptional, with substantial harm to or loss of those assets designated of the highest significance being wholly exceptional. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimal viable use. Enabling development that would otherwise not comply with planning policies, but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset should be assessed to see of the benefits of departing from those policies outweigh the disbenefits.’ 9.3.3 It further adds (para. 7.31b) ‘Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of and/or damage to a heritage asset the deteriorated state of that asset should not be taken into account when making a decision on a development proposal’. 9.3.4 Para. 7.32 recognises the value of London’s heritage: ‘…where new development uncovers an archaeological site or memorial, these should be preserved and managed on-site. Where this is not possible provision should be made for the investigation, understanding, dissemination
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 31 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx and archiving of that asset’.
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 The London Borough of Islington adopted their Core Strategy in February 2011. 9.4.3 http://www.islington.gov.uk/services/planning/planningpol/local_dev_frame/pol_corestrat/Page s/default.aspx 9.4.4 Core Strategy Policy CS9 covers the built and historic environment and states: Policy CS 9 Protecting and enhancing Islington’s built and historic environment 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.
9.4.5 This policy is supported by the Development Management Policy Document (adopted July 2013). Policy DM 2.3 addresses archaeology and other heritage issues: Policy DM2.3 Heritage A. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Islington's historic environment is an irreplaceable resource and the council will ensure that the borough's heritage assets are conserved and enhanced in a manner appropriate to their
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 32 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx significance. Development that makes a positive contribution to Islington's local character and distinctiveness will be encouraged. B. Conservation areas i) The council will require that alterations to existing buildings in conservation areas conserve or enhance their significance. Similarly, new developments within Islington’s conservation areas and their settings are required to be of high quality contextual design so that they conserve or enhance a conservation area’s significance. Harm to the significance of a conservation area will not be permitted unless there is a clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to the significance of a conservation area will be strongly resisted. ii) The council will require the retention of all buildings and structures which make a positive contribution to the significance of a conservation area. The appropriate repair and re-use of such buildings will be encouraged. The significance of a conservation area can be substantially harmed over time by the cumulative impact arising from the demolition of buildings which may individually make a limited positive contribution to the significance of a conservation area. Consequently, the loss of a building which makes a positive contribution to a conservation area will frequently constitute substantial harm to the significance of the conservation area. iii) The council will resist the loss of spaces, street patterns, views, vistas, uses, trees, and landscapes which contribute to the significance of a conservation area. iv) The council will use its statutory powers to ensure that buildings and spaces within conservation areas that are at risk from neglect or decay are appropriately maintained and repaired. v) Planning applications are required to include a Heritage Statement which demonstrates a clear understanding of the significance of any heritage assets affected by proposals and the impact on their significance. C. Listed buildings i) The significance of Islington’s listed buildings is required to be conserved or enhanced. Appropriate repair and reuse of listed buildings will be encouraged. ii) The significance of a listed building can be harmed by inappropriate repair, alteration or extension. Proposals to repair, alter or extend a listed building must be justified and appropriate. Consequently a high level of professional skill and craftsmanship will be required. Proposals to repair, alter or extend a listed building which harm its significance will not be permitted unless there is a clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a listed building will be strongly resisted. iii) New developments within the setting of a listed building are required to be of good quality contextual design. New development within the setting of a listed building which harms its significance will not be permitted unless there is a clear and convincing justification, and substantial harm will be strongly resisted. iv) The best use for a listed building is usually that for which it was designed. However, where the original use of a listed building is demonstrably unviable other uses may be permitted provided they do not harm the significance of the listed building. v) The council will use its statutory powers to ensure that listed buildings at risk from neglect or decay are appropriately maintained and repaired. vi) Applications for listed building consent must be accompanied by a Heritage Statement which demonstrates a clear understanding of the significance of the affected listed building and of the impact on its significance. D. Registered historic parks and gardens, London squares and other heritage landscapes Spaces identified in the London Parks and Gardens Trust's Inventory of Historic Green Spaces are included in this section. Appendix 9 lists these historic green spaces, registered historic parks and gardens and London squares in Islington. i) Developments must ensure the conservation or enhancement of historic parks and gardens/ London squares, and their settings. ii) The council will, and development must, safeguard features which contribute to the significance of the park, garden or square. iii) Developments must not detract from the enjoyment, layout, design, character, appearance or setting of historic parks, gardens or squares and key views out from the landscape, or prejudice future restoration. iv) The council will undertake to prepare conservation statements or management plans and to implement appropriate enhancement schemes for these spaces, or support relevant organisations to do so.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 33 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx E. Non-designated heritage assets Non-designated heritage assets, including locally listed buildings and shopfronts, should be identified early in the design process for any development proposal which may impact on their significance. The council will encourage the retention, repair and reuse of non-designated heritage assets. Proposals that unjustifiably harm the significance of a non-designated heritage asset will generally not be permitted. F. Archaeology and scheduled monuments i) The council will ensure the conservation of scheduled monuments and non-designated heritage assets with archaeological interest which are of demonstrably equivalent significance. ii) Archaeological priority areas and scheduled monuments are identified on the Policies Map and in Appendix 7. All planning applications likely to affect important archaeological remains are required to include an Archaeological Assessment. iii) Archaeological remains should be retained in situ. Where this cannot be achieved measures must be taken to mitigate the impact of proposals through archaeological fieldwork to investigate and record remains in advance of works, and subsequent analysis, publication and dissemination of the findings. G. Climate change i) Proposals that aim to mitigate, and adapt to, the effects of climate change should in the first instance explore all opportunities of enhancing energy efficiency and forms of providing renewable energy and improved adaptation to climate change without harming the significance of heritage assets. ii) Where conflict between climate change objectives and the conservation of heritage assets is unavoidable the public benefit of mitigating the effects of climate change will be weighed against any harm to the significance of heritage assets, in accordance with the development management principles in national, London and Islington planning policy.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 34 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx 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 3 gives examples of the significance of designated and non-designated heritage assets.
Table 3: Significance of heritage assets Heritage asset description Significance World heritage sites Very high Scheduled monuments (International/ Grade I and II* listed buildings national) Historic England Grade I and II* registered parks and gardens Protected Wrecks Heritage assets of national importance Historic England 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 appreciation Medium Locally listed buildings (District) Heritage assets with a local (ie parish) value or interest for education or cultural Low appreciation (Local) Historic environment resource with no significant value or interest Negligible Heritage assets that have a clear potential, but for which current knowledge is Uncertain insufficient to allow significance to be determined
10.1.3 Unless the nature and exact extent of buried archaeological remains within any given area has been determined through prior investigation, significance is often uncertain.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 35 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx 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 If you have a medieval or later burials include the following: 11.1.3 Where likely survival of human burials in ground consecrated under the rites of the Church of England has been identified in a Historic Environment Assessment it is possible that a 'Faculty' may need to be sought by the developer in addition to Planning Consent. Faculty is issued by the office of the Chancellor of the Diocesan authorities in accordance with the provision of the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure 1964 (as amended by the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1991). 11.1.4 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.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 36 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx 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 Historic England. 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’. Iron Age 600 BC – AD 43
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 37 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx 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 Historic Record (NMR) England 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 Historic England. 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.’
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 38 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx 13 Bibliography
13.1 Published and documentary sources
AGL, 2000 MoLAS, The archaeology of Greater London: an assessment of archaeological evidence for human presence in the area covered by modern Greater London, London Basil Holmes, 1899 The London Burial Grounds. Bowsher J 2012 Shakespeare’s London Theatreland: Archaeology, History and Drama Museum of London Archaeology CIfA [Chartered Institute for Archaeologists] Dec 2014a, Standards and guidance for commissioning work or providing consultancy advice on archaeology and the historic environment, Reading. CIfA [Chartered Institute for Archaeologists] Dec 2014b, Standards and guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment, Reading Cowie R and Blackmore L, 2008 Early and Middle Saxon rural settlement in the London region. Museum of London Archaeology Service DCLG [Department of Communities and Local Government], March 2012 National Planning Policy Framework DCLG [Department of Communities and Local Government], March 2014 Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment: Planning Practice Guide EH [English Heritage], 2008 Conservation principles, policies and guidance EH [English Heritage], 2015, The setting of heritage assets. Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3. GLA [Greater London Authority], March 2015 The London Plan. Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. Consolidated with Alterations Since 2011 GLAAS [Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service], 2014: Standards for Archaeological Work London Region. Grimes, W, F, 1968 The excavation of Roman and Medieval London Gurr A 1988, Playgoing in Shakespeare’s London. Cambridge University Press. Howell I, 2005 Lamb’s Club, Lamb’s Passage London EC1 – archaeological impact assessment, unpub MoLAS report LBI, 2007, St Luke’s Conservation Area Leaflet London Borough of Islington Merrifield R, 1965 The Roman city of London, London Sandberg, 2015 Whitecross Estate, GPR Underground Void Estate Report 55471/R/1 Tames R, 1999 Clerkenwell and Finsbury Past. London. Weinreb B and Hibbert C, Keay J, Keay J (eds), 2008 The London encyclopaedia. Macmillan. London
13.2 Other Sources
Groundsure historic Ordnance Survey mapping British Geological Survey online historic geology borehole data and digital drift and solid geology data Greater London Historic Environment Record London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre National Monuments Record, Swindon Dulwich College Archive
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 Faithorne and Newcourt 1658 ‘An Exact Delineation of the Cities of London and Westminster and the suburbs thereof together with the Borough of Southwark’, reproduced in Margary, H, 1981 A collection of early maps of London, Margary in assoc Guildhall Library, Kent
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 39 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx Ogilby and Morgan, 1676 ‘Large and Accurate Map of the City of London’, reproduced in Margary, H, 1976, ‘Large and Accurate Map of the City of London’ by John Ogilby and William Morgan, 1676, Margary in assoc Guildhall Library, Kent Rocque, 1746 ‘A Plan of the Cities of London Westminster and Southwark with contiguous buildings from an actual survey’ by John Rocque, reproduced in Margary, H, 1971 ‘A Plan of the Cities of London Westminster and Southwark’ by John Rocque, 1746, Margary in assoc Guildhall Library, Kent
Ordnance Survey maps Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25” map (1877) Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 25” map (1896). Ordnance Survey 1:2,500 scale map. (1951) (1960)
Engineering/Architects drawings Jan Kattein Architects project ref 060 Urban Realm – West, dwg ref SK 002, Rev B, dated 10/08/2015 Urban Realm – East, dwg ref SK 003, Rev A, dated 10/08/201;
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 Y CAD Y buildings) Contamination survey data ground and buildings (inc. not known - - asbestos) Geotechnical report not known - - Envirocheck report not known - - Information obtained from non-client source Carried out Internal inspection of buildings Site inspection Y N
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 40 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2015
Greater London
the site
Borough of Islington 0 10km 0 250m
532200 532300 532400 532500 532600
MITCHELL STREET ST LUKES'S CLOSE MARTHA'S BUILDINGS HELMET ROW 182400
Tilney Court
OLD STREET
Place East Chequer and Alleyn 182300 GARRETT STREET East Blocks A & B West Area BANNER STREET HONDURAS STREET BAIRD STREET
Nags CHEQUER STREET
CAHILL ST DUFFERIN AVENUE
DUFFERIN STREET BUNHILL ROW 182200
WHITECROSS STREET
GOLDEN LANE
ERROL STREET LAMB'S BUILDINGS
FORTUNE STREETCourt
182100 Lane East Errol and Dufferin LAMB'S PASSAGE
FANN STREET (below)
BRACKLEY ST Breton Highwalk SQUARE 182000
STREET BEECH ST
Cromwell Place South Yard Ben Jonson Place
MOOR LANE 181900
Contains Ordnance© Crown Copyright Survey data 2015. All rights reserved. 0 150m © Crown copyrightLicence and database Number right 100047514 2014 scale 1:3,500 @ A4
Fig 1 Site location
ISLI1261HEA15#01 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2015
)"22 (!37 )"21)" 20 )"13 )"16 )"15 (!40 )"11)"23 )"6 )"24 *#32 )"2 *#)"33 )"3 *#30 "27 ) *#31 )"18 )"26 "4 )"28 ) (!38 (!36 17 *#29 (!39 )"
)"5 )"12 10 )"25)" )"1 )"14 )"30 )"19 )"9 )"7 )"8
KEY
*# Listed Buildings within 20m burial ground (Basil Holmes 1899)
Registered Parks and Gardens )" past archaeological investigation (! archaeological feature/findspot study area
site outline Conservation Areas and Archaeological Priority Areas not shown
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2015 scale 1:5,000 @ A4 0 200m
Fig 2 Historic environment features map
ISLI1261HEA15#02
Fig 2a Areas surveyed by ground-penetrating radar (after Sandberg, dwg ref 55471-R-002, Rev -, dated October 2015)
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 41 P:\ISLI\1261\na\Assessments\Whitecross Estate HEA_17-12-2015.docx Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2015
the site
Fig 3 Agas map of 1562
Fig 4 Illustration of the Fortune Playhouse by C W Hodges
ISLI1261HEA15#03&04 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2015
the site
Fig 5 Faithorne and Newcourt’s map of 1658
ISLI1261HEA15#05 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2015 the site Fig 6 Ogilby and Morgan’s map of 1676 Fig 6 Ogilby and Morgan’s
ISLI1261HEA15#06 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2015
the site ISLI1261HEA15#07
Fig 7 Rocque’s map of 1746 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2015
the site ISLI1261HEA15#08
Fig 8 Horwood’s map of 1799 (Faden’s 1813 revision) Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2015
the site ISLI1261HEA15#09
Fig 9 Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25":mile map of 1877 (not to scale) Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2015
the site
Fig 10 Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 25":mile map of 1896 (not to scale)
the site
Fig 11 London City Council (LCC) Bomb damage map of 1939–45
ISLI1261HEA15#10&11 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2015
the site
Fig 12 Ordnance Survey 1:2,500 scale map of 1951 (not to scale)
the site
Fig 13 Ordnance Survey 1:2,500 scale map of 1960 (not to scale)
ISLI1261HEA15#12&13 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2015
Fig 14 Photo of the plaque marking Edward Alleyn's Fortune Playhouse on Fortune Street. Taken facing North. MOLA photo 2014
Fig 15 Photo of the existing mid-20th century Peabody Tower located immediately east of Golding Lane. Taken facing north. MOLA photo 2014
ISLI1261HEA15#14&15 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2015
Fig 16 Photo of the existing mid-20th century Banner House to the south of Banner Street. Taken facing west. MOLA photo 2014
Fig 17 Photo of access ramp to the basement level beneath Banner House. Access to the basement level was not possible. Taken facing south. MOLA photo 2014
ISLI1261HEA15#16&17 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2015
Fig 18 Photo of the existing late-19th century buildings, including Alleyn House, to the north of Dufferin Street. Taken facing west. MOLA photo 2014
Fig 19 Photo of the existing late-19th century and late-20th century buildings to the north of Chequer Street. Taken facing north-west. MOLA photo 2014
ISLI1261HEA15#18&19 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2015
Fig 20 Photo of the existing late-19th century Dufferin Court, to the south of Dufferin Street. Taken facing south-west. MOLA photo 2014
Fig 21 Photo of the existing late-19th century Peabody Estate buildings along Dufferin Street showing the gradual slope in topography. Taken facing east. MOLA photo 2014
ISLI1261HEA15#20&21 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2015
Fig 22 Photo of Fortune Street as existing. Taken facing east. MOLA photo 2014
Fig 23 Photo of existing open ground in Peabody Court. This is the location of the Cripplegate Poor Ground (1636–1877). Taken facing east. MOLA photo 2014
ISLI1261HEA15#22&23 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2015
Fig 24 Photo of area of open ground located to the south of Banner House. Taken facing east. MOLA photo 2014
Fig 25 Retaining wall and raised car park area at the rear of Dufferin Court, immediately north of Errol Street. Taken facing north. MOLA photo 2014
ISLI1261HEA15#24&25 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2015
Fig 26 Photo of the existing late-19th century buildings and open courtyard in the eastern most area of the Peabody Estate. Taken facing south-west. MOLA photo 2014
ISLI1261HEA15#26