Desk-Based Assessment Report

Asgill Lodge, Old Palace Road, Richmond, London Borough of Richmond

An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

For Mr and Mrs Reid

by Steve Preston

Thames Valley Archaeological

Services Ltd

Site Code ALR07/144

November 2007 Summary

Site name: Asgill Lodge, Old Palace Road, Richmond

Grid reference: TQ 1750 7490

Site activity: Desk-based assessment

Project manager: Steve Ford

Site supervisor: Steve Preston

Site code: ALR07/144

Area of site:

Summary of results: The site lies in an area of very considerable general and specific archaeological potential. The general potential springs from its location on the Thames in an area likely to have been favoured by prehistoric settlement, the specific potential relates to its location on or very near the sites of the medieval Sheen Manor House, Sheen Palace and Richmond Palace or their gardens/outbuildings.

This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder

Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford9 26.11.07

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47–49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading RG1 5NR Tel. (0118) 926 0552; Fax (0118) 926 0553; email [email protected]; website : www.tvas.co.uk

Asgill Lodge, Old Palace Lane, Richmond, London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

by Steve Preston

Report 07/144 Introduction

This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of a plot of land located at Asgill Lodge,

Old Palace Lane, Richmond, London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Iain Sherman, of Walters and Cohen, 2 Wilkin Street, London, NW5 3NL on behalf of Mr and Mrs Reid and comprises the first stage of a process to determine the presence/absence, extent, character, quality and date of any archaeological remains which may be affected by redevelopment of the area.

Planning permission is to be sought from the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames for redevelopment of the site. In light of the possibility that the development might have an adverse impact on archaeological remains, a desk-based assessment has been requested in order to inform the planning process.

Site description, location and geology

The site currently consists of Asgill Lodge, its gardens (lawns with mature trees), and a garage, all surrounded by a brick wall. The development area is centred on NGR, TQ 1750 7490. The site is located on First terrace river gravel (BGS 1981) in a bend of the Thames. It is at a height of approximately 5m above Ordnance Datum.

Richmond Old Deer Park, containing the Kew Observatory, is just to the north of the site.

Planning background and development proposals

Planning permission is being sought for the erection of a single new house on the site, which would involve removal of several trees. A previous application for the site has been withdrawn, but in response to this earlier proposal English Heritage had advised that a desk-based assessment would be required and it is assumed that this will also be the case for any new proposal.

Archaeology and Planning (PPG 16 1990) provides guidance relating to archaeology within the planning process. It points out that where a desk-based assessment has shown that there is a strong possibility of significant archaeological deposits in a development area it is reasonable to provide more detailed information from a field evaluation so that an appropriate strategy to mitigate the effects of development on archaeology can be devised:

Paragraph 21 states:

‘Where early discussions with local planning authorities or the developer’s own research indicate

that important archaeological remains may exist, it is reasonable for the planning authority to

request the prospective developer to arrange for an archaeological field evaluation to be carried

out...’

Should the presence of archaeological deposits be confirmed further guidance is provided. Archaeology and

Planning stresses preservation in situ of archaeological deposits as a first consideration as in paragraphs 8 and

18.

Paragraph 8 states:

‘...Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their

settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their

physical preservation...’

Paragraph 18 states:

‘The desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration in

determining planning applications whether that monument is scheduled or unscheduled...’

However, for archaeological deposits that are not of such significance it is appropriate for them to be ‘preserved by record’ (i.e., fully excavated and recorded by a competent archaeological contractor) prior to their destruction or damage.

Paragraph 25 states:

‘Where planning authorities decide that the physical preservation in situ of archaeological remains

is not justified in the circumstances of the development and that development resulting in the

destruction of the archaeological remains should proceed, it would be entirely reasonable for the

planning authority to satisfy itself ... that the developer has made appropriate and satisfactory

provision for the excavation and recording of remains.’

The London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Unitary Development Plan (LBRUDP 1998, First Review, adopted 2005) also addresses the issue of archaeological sites. Several policies cover Scheduled Ancient

Monuments, Listed Buildings, Historic Buildings, and Buildings of Townscape Character; these policies would not affect development on the proposal site. The following policies are pertinent to the proposed development site:

‘BLT7: Archaeological Sites

‘6.29 The Council will seek to promote the conservation, protection and enhancement of the archaeological heritage of the Borough, including industrial archaeology, and will encourage the interpretation and presentation of sites, finds and research to the public. ‘6.30 The Council is committed to developing the potential of archaeological sites in terms of education, recreation and tourism. This will involve agreements with developers who will be expected to include design, land use and management safeguards for archaeological sites affected by their proposals. The term ‘archaeology’ may include industrial sites, buildings, machinery and artefacts of the 19th and 20th centuries where these are of historic or architectural interest.’

BLT 8: Evaluation of archaeological sites

‘6.33 Where development proposals may affect archaeological remains or areas of archaeological potential the Council will encourage early discussion of the implications with developers and specialist bodies where appropriate. The Council may require the applicant to arrange and make adequate provision, including funding, for an archaeological evaluation, according to a written specification agreed with the Council, before proposals can be considered. ‘6.34 Prospective developers should include as part of their research into the development potential of a site which they undertake before they make a planning application, an initial assessment of whether the site is known or likely to contain archaeological remains by consultation with the appropriate specialist bodies, normally English Heritage. Where this indicates that important remains may exist the Council may require an archaeological field evaluation to be carried out before any decision on the planning application is taken. This will probably involve a ground survey and small scale trial trenching carried out by a professionally qualified archaeologist. This evaluation will help define the character and extent of the remains and thus indicate the weight that should be attached to their preservation. It will also be helpful in identifying potential options for minimising or avoiding damage. The Council will normally expect developers to provide the results of such assessments and evaluation as part of their application: where necessary it will consider service of a direction under Regulation 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Applications) Regulations 1988 to require provision of information. The Council wishes to endorse the spirit of the Code of Practice already established by the British Archaeologists and Developers Liaison Group. Map 7 shows Archaeological Constraints in the Borough.

‘BLT 9: Development of Archaeological Sites

‘6.35 Where development affects sites of archaeological importance, the Council will normally require that the applicant satisfies the Council that appropriate provision, including funding, has been made for the remains to be preserved in situ, or in exceptional cases where preservation in situ is not appropriate or feasible, excavated and recorded. A condition will normally be attached to any consent granted requiring these works to be carried out. ‘6.36 The proposals map identifies scheduled ancient monuments. The archaeological constraints map identifies areas with archaeological potential where sites of importance could exist. Not all sites of archaeological importance will necessarily be on the constraints map. Established procedures of consultation and evaluation must be followed in preparing development proposals. On sites of archaeological importance the Council will ensure, wherever possible, that archaeological remains are preserved in situ. However, this need not prevent the development of the site providing that special attention is paid to the protection of remains through the careful design of buildings and their foundations. In considering such proposals the Council will liaise with English Heritage and other appropriate organisations. Where proposals will cause significant

damage to sites of acknowledged importance the Council will refuse planning permission. In exceptional circumstances, where the Council decides that preservation in situ is not justified and that development resulting in destruction of the remains should proceed, it will have to satisfy itself before granting planning permission that the developer has made appropriate and satisfactory provision for the excavation and recording of the remains. Such excavation and recording should be carried out before development commences, working to a brief agreed by the Council and with advice from archaeological consultants. To achieve this, a legal agreement may be sought, or a condition may be imposed. If, following the granting of planning permission, the site is found to contain previously undetected archaeological remains, the Council will seek to enter into negotiations and agreement with the developer to resolve any conflicts. Remains deemed to be of national importance can be scheduled by the Secretary of State in which case the developer would need to seek separate scheduled monument consent. Applications for financial assistance may be made to English Heritage in particular cases.’ The site lies within an Archaeological Priority Zone and next to a Registered Park/Garden (Fig. 2).

Methodology

The assessment of the site was carried out by the examination of pre-existing information from a number of sources recommended by the Institute of Field Archaeologists paper ‘Standards in British Archaeology’ covering desk-based studies. These sources include historic and modern maps, the Greater London Sites and Monuments

Record, geological maps and any relevant publications or reports.

Archaeological background

General background

Archaeological deposits and finds of all periods on the brickearth and gravel deposits of West London are well known, having come to light during observations carried out over many years during gravel and brick clay extraction (MoLAS 2000) and via aerial photography (e.g., Longley 1976). Recent and not so recent large scale developments especially in the vicinity of Heathrow Airport, which lies on the western part of Hounslow Heath, have revealed extensive deposits of both the prehistoric and historic periods (e.g., Grimes and Close-Brooks

1993; Barrett et al. 2000; FA 2006). As the site lies on the First Terrace gravel, it is important to note that this

(the latest of the gravel terraces cut by the Thames) is not generally as prolific a source of Palaeolithic finds as some of the higher terraces (indeed, it probably post-dates the Palaeolithic, so that finds of this period must be redeposited).

Palaeolithic flint flakes and several hand axes have been dredged from the bed of the present River Thames at Mortlake and Richmond, but these were in a very rolled condition suggesting that they were not in situ

(Wymer 1987, 27). Also, a Palaeolithic hand-axe was found on the surface of the gravel in Richmond Park, near

White Lodge, with a rolled flake nearby.

The numerous Mesolithic flint implements recovered from the foreshore of the Thames in Surrey and from dredgings indicate Mesolithic activity on the floodplain gravels, although these sites are now either eroded or submerged beneath alluvium (Ellaby 1987, 57). There is also considerable evidence of Mesolithic occupation on the higher terrace deposits, especially in nearby Richmond Park.

Evidence for the Neolithic is sparse for the whole of Surrey. However, significant concentrations of artefacts have been found on an area of gravel overlying the London Clay at Richmond Park and there is a heavy concentration of complete axes from the Thames between Ditton and Battersea (Field and Cotton 1987, 79).

Indication of Bronze Age activity in Surrey consists mainly of stray artefacts, with stone battle axes and flint daggers overwhelmingly concentrated along the Kingston-City reaches of the Thames (Needham 1987, 101).

Also, substantial numbers of bronze weapons recovered from the Thames begin from the middle Bronze Age

(Needham 1987, 114). By the 10th century BC a string of settlements had been established along the lower

Thames and its tributaries, including that at Runnymede Bridge (Needham 1987, 134). The possibility of another permanent floodplain settlement of Runnymede type has been suggested on the basis of finds from Syon Reach,

Brentford, across the river from nearby Kew Gardens.

Settlement distribution concentrates around the rivers in the Iron Age in Surrey and a collection of metal artefacts of this period have also been recovered from various parts of the Thames (Hanworth 1987, 142). There is little evidence of Roman occupation in this area.

The earliest Saxon site in Surrey is at Ham, south of Richmond, where a sunken-featured building, together with a 5th century carinated pedestal bowl, was revealed (Poulton 1987, 207). On the whole, however, there is less evidence for Saxon rural settlement in Surrey. To the south is the presumed Saxon royal residence at

Kingston where six kings were crowned between AD 902 and 958 (Poulton 1987, 211). Also, nearby Richmond

Palace may have a Saxon origin.

After the Conquest royal castles were built at key points, including the one at Kingston built by Henry II

(Turner 1987, 226) and in the 12th and 13th centuries Kingston was one of the few Surrey settlements in the

Medieval period with a true urban status (Turner 1987, 248). Moated houses or homesteads occur throughout

Surrey and a single example is known on the Thames at Richmond (Turner 1987, 231). Also, a Carthusian religious house was located at Sheen (Turner 1987, 239) and a house of the Friars Observant was located nearby

(Turner 1987, 225).

Richmond Palace was one of the most important buildings in England, one of eleven Royal houses in

Surrey, primarily associated with Henry VII and Elizabeth I. Sheen (the early name for Richmond) had already had a palace or palaces as well as a manor house: Edward III transformed a manor house at Sheen into a palace, but this was demolished in the late 14th century. Henry V began building a new palace at Sheen, in the garden of the first palace, and had a manor house (Byfleet-at-Sheen) rebuilt while he waited for the palace, which was not complete on his death, and which burnt down in 1497. Richmond Palace was then built by Henry VII, and triggering a spate of the building of other grand houses or palaces nearby by the great and the powerful (e.g.,

Hampton Court, Nonsuch, Oatlands)(Thurley 2004, 155–6). The court moved between these great palaces, rarely staying longer than 6 weeks at one place, and naturally producing a considerable impact on the local populations.

Recent publication of several archaeological investigations on the site of the palace(s) of Richmond/Sheen over several decades has demonstrated the survival of substantial Tudor remains, often no more than 0.8m below the modern surface, in places even shallower (Cowie and Cloake 2001). Among the earliest remains found, dating perhaps from the 15th century, were those from the site of the Trumpeters House, next to the present proposal site. No remains of the earliest palaces have yet been identified, but Cowie and Cloake (2001, 33) propose (entirely reasonably, given the cartographic details available) that remains of the earliest of the medieval palaces ‘may lie beneath the gardens of Trumpeter’s Lodge and Asgill House’.

Greater London Sites and Monuments Record

A search was made on the Greater London Sites and Monuments Record (GLSMR) on 7th November 2007 for a radius of 500m around the proposal site. This revealed 225 entries within the search radius, including a number of duplicates. These are summarized as Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 1. Around 150 of the entries are for post-medieval and modern buildings, either statutorily or locally listed; only the more significant of these have been plotted on Figure 1. Sixteen archaeological investigations are included in the list.

Prehistoric Prehistoric finds from the vicinity, on the face of it quite a varied collection in terms of types and dates, have mostly come from the River Thames [Fig. 1: 1–3] and mostly at Richmond Lock [2]; the value of these for reconstructing the prehistory of the area is very limited as they could have come from anywhere upstream. Once these are removed, the remaining prehistoric finds amount to just one undiagnostic struck flint from a later feature, found during evaluation trenching to the south-east of the site [4].

Roman Entries for finds from the Roman era are only slightly more plentiful, and again include several Thames jetsam finds [2]. Evaluation and excavation to the south, across the river [5] revealed a few settlement features datable to the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. Close to the site, to the south-east [6] is the findspot of a single early Roman coin (although details of the circumstances of finding are unknown). An entry for a Roman dugout canoe [2] is almost certainly to be disregarded, as almost certainly relating to a Saxon boat and if so it is almost certainly not from Richmond at all but Molesey, some considerable distance away.

Saxon Again, apart from a Thames metalwork find, [1], there is no archaeological evidence for this period in the immediate vicinity. Documentary sources note a Saxon origin for Sheen [8].

Medieval There is some more Medieval evidence, and it is hardly plentiful, but it is very significant. Finds of various types have come from the Thames [1, 2, 3]. Evaluation to the south-east of the proposal site [4] revealed a 12th- to

13th-century ditch, and other features that could perhaps be associated but could also be as late as 17th century.

There are numerous documentary references to Sheen Manor House, adjacent to the proposal area, [8] from the

12th century onwards (see below). Richmond Palace (on the same site) provides several more entries [8], with elements dating from its building in 1498–1501 and extensive later history including use by Carmelite friars.

Byfleet Manor House, also very close by, is also known from documentary sources [11], and became a

Franciscan friary. It seems to have been built, or at least refurbished, by Henry VII while he waited for

Richmond Palace to be completed. Results of excavations and other investigations on these sites have are discussed in more detail below. Worked structural stone from the Thames foreshore might be medieval [3].

Surviving medieval buildings (although with variable actual medieval fabric survival) include Old Palace Place

[12], the Old Palace and Gatehouse [9], the Church of St Mary Magdalene [30] (it is not clear that the latter actually is medieval). Very close to the site is the projected location of the Middle Palace Gate [23], now occupied by the Trumpeter’s House.

Post-medieval The vast majority of the GLSMR entries for the search radius consist of 17th-, 18th- and 19th-century listed buildings. Few of these are individually worth mentioning here (but see below) but the overall historic character of the area is well-established. Of most immediate relevance, of course, is Asgill House [17] the Grade I listed country retreat (built 1767) of Sir George Asgill, Lord Mayor of London. It was much altered during the 19th century but has since been restored to its original appearance. Also worth noting here, Trumpeter’s House and other listed buildings on Old Palace Yard; and a number of buildings along the west of Richmond Green,

including Wentworth House and the Old Court House [8]. Archaeological investigations into the site of the ‘Old

Palace’ have recovered evidence of some 16th-century, but mainly 17th-century and later structures, demolition and garden features [8 and 9, 24] (Cowie and Cloake 2001).

Other entries relating to the post-medieval period include those for documentary references to Sheen Manor house [8], numerous structures along the Thames foreshore [1, 2, 3, 14, 15, 21] and records of mainly 19th- century features such as garden features and cellars, etc [4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 18, 20]. Finally there are two entries for the late 19th-century Richmond footbridge, with associated structures, one for its listing as a Grade II* structure and one for de-listing [10].

Modern, undated, negative evidence Apart from modern listed buildings (see below), entries relating to the modern period include those for numerous structures recorded in the Thames foreshore survey [14, 15, 21, 32] and records of 20th-century features such as garden features and cellars, etc [4, 7, 8, 9]. The only record of an archaeological investigation producing negative evidence in the area searched has come from a watching brief on the opposite bank of the river, well to the south [16] although the results from two other investigations were not as productive as hoped [18, 20, 24].

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

No Scheduled Monuments are present within the search area.

Cartographic and documentary sources

Richmond is a fairly recent place name, first recorded in the 16th century. It had earlier been known as Sheen or

West Sheen, which is an Old English (Anglo-Saxon) word, first recorded from AD950, meaning ‘sheds’ or

‘shelters’ (Mills 1998, 308). The manor was not recorded in Domesday Book (AD1086) under any of its names.

Edward I is recorded as having resided at Sheen for part of the year 1299 but there is no indication of when the first palace may have been built (VCH 1911, 523). There seem to have been at least two palaces and a manor house at sheen before Henry VII had Richmond Palace built (or renamed one of the earlier ones). This has led to some confusion in the mapping of the area, as detailed further below. It is likely that Edward III built the original palace, as he died at Sheen and Richard II was already there on Edward’s death. Details of the history of the several palaces are readily available (VCH 1911; Cowie and Cloake 2001) and are not repeated extensively here, while the cartographic evidence is summarized below, but it is important to note that the area has seen several phases of royal palace buildings, demolitions, rebuildings, destructions by fire, repairs, remodellings and redevelopments, and that at least one Tudor palace was still standing and in good repair in the 17th century. By

the late 17th century, however, the palace was in decay and the lodge in the Little (royal) Park at what is now

Kew became the favoured royal lodging. A plan to turn this into a more formal palace (around 1770) was never realized, but the lodge, and all that remained of the hamlet of West Sheen, had been demolished in preparation for this.

Richmond Park was enclosed by Charles I, originally as a deer park, and hunting in the park was only abolished in 1904.

The growth of the rest of Richmond primarily dates from the 19th century, the population in 1785 (apart from inmates of the workhouse and almshouses) was 815, but even by the middle of the 19th century it was no more than a village. It was as a result of the growth in population that a bridge was finally built between 1774 and 1777, but only with the coming of the railway in the 1840s did its proximity to London lead to rapid growth, with a population of 9,255 by 1851, over 22,000 in 1891 and 25,000 by 1901.

Asgill House’s unusual structure is thought to have resulted from is having been built upon the hexagonal foundations of one of the towers of the palace (as is known to have happened at Garrick House) (VCH 1911,

535).

A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at Wandsworth Record Office in order to ascertain what activity had been taking place throughout the site’s later history and whether this may have affected any possible archaeological deposits within the proposal area (see Appendix 2).

The earliest map available of the area is Saxton’s large map of Surrey, Sussex, Kent and Middlesex (Fig.

3). Apart from the placename, this map shows no detail for the area. Near-contemporary maps such as those of

Norden and van der Keere are largely similar (not illustrated). Speed’s map of 1611 is also lacking in detail, but does include a view of the Palace, which shows a wealth of architectural detail (Fig. 4), and emphasizes the sheer size of the buildings.

The remarkable map of Isleworth by Moses Glover (1635) (Fig. 5) also shows both Richmond Palace and

Sheen Manor to its north, although with a notation for the latter that it is mainly ruinous and now used as stabling for the King’s horses. There is also a depiction of a crane on the riverfront, which might suggest that construction of the palace is still in progress, although it might also just be fanciful. If the depiction of the palace and its grounds can be relied on (and it seems to be rather more imaginative than some contemporary depictions) then the proposal site lies within the precinct and may well include some of the outbuildings. If Glover’s location

for Sheen manor is correct, it is much further north than the supposed or reputed location for it depicted on other maps (Rocque excepted).

Contemporary views of the palace were recorded by several artists, including Hollar, Wyngaerde, and later alterations by, among others, Gasselin, Shaftoe. The recent discovery of a plan attributed to Costantino de’ Servi, showing the Privy Lodgings (the main palace range) in some detail, and showing plans for alterations to one façade and to the gardens, confirms the accuracy of the extant pictures. The plans for the gardens would have necessitated considerable land reclamation from the Thames, which never seems to have taken place. The recent composite reconstruction plan, drawing on all available evidence (Cowie and Cloake 2001, fig. 6- Fig. 15), places the site firmly within the palace grounds, in the area marked as ‘Clerk of the Works yard’.

Maps by Seller and Moll add nothing to earlier depictions (not illustrated). Senex’s map of 1729 is a little difficult to interpret (Fig. 6), as the only large buildings he shows are not named. There is still one roughly where

Richmond Palace had been, and two at Sheen; but perhaps the locations for these are merely convenient rather than accurate. He has, however, depicted the road network recognizably, and shows clearly the development of buildings around Richmond Green. Rocque’s county map adds nothing to this but his plan of London from 1766

(originally drawn to compare it to Paris) provides more detail (Fig. 7). What will become Old Palace Road can now be discerned, and so the location of the site can be established more accurately. What appears to be Sheen manor is in the location given for it by Glover, well north of where the Ordnance Survey will subsequently show it. Richmond Palace itself is now quite definitely not shown. The extent of the Royal gardens, however, is the dominant feature in the area.

By 1823, the Greenwoods the area very similar to its present broad layout, with Kew Observatory and gardens in place, and the site’s location is reasonably clear. Richmond Bridge appears for the first time, replacing the earlier ferry.

More detailed mapping comes with the preliminary Ordnance Survey of 1863 (Fig. 9). The site is now shown in detail, to the extent that a building on the site of the Lodge is present, and formal gardens have been laid out. The site has maintained more or less this layout from this point until the present. The location given on this map for the remains of Sheen palace is south-east of the site. The Ordnance Survey First Edition proper of c.

1867 shows more detail but is to all intents identical (Fig. 10). There is no change (apart from different mapping style) in the Second Edition of 1894. Only minor changes are shown for the site itself in the 1913 Ordnance

Survey (Fig. 11), which shows a subdivision in the garden, a garden feature where the current brick flower bed is

(presumably the same feature) and possibly the lodge extends slightly further north; it is just as likely that this is

an increase in accuracy rather than indicating a new building or an actual extension. This map now gives a location for remains of Richmond Place, where Sheen had previously been shown. The 1933 map is identical

(Fig. 12). By 1960, changes include the addition of greenhouses and removal of the garden subdivision (Fig. 13).

Subsequent maps show the site as it is today (Fig. 14).

Listed buildings

The south and east sides of Richmond Green are ringed by Listed Buildings, and there are many further listed buildings in the vicinity (see Appendix 1). Asgill House is Grade I listed, although the lodge is not listed. The historic character of the area generally would also be a material consideration in the planning process.

Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields

The Old Deer Park (incorporating Kew Observatory) is a Registered park/garden and development of the site would need to be sympathetic to the setting of the park and would need to maintain the integrity of views to and from it. The registered area extends right up to the north side of Old Palace Lane, but between the proposal site and the interior of the park are the embankment of Twickenham Road, the railway viaduct, and the houses on the north side of Old Palace Lane. It seems unlikely that sight lines would in themselves be an issue for the development.

There are no registered battlefields within close proximity of the site.

Historic Hedgerows

There are no hedgerows, historic or otherwise, on the site.

Aerial Photographs

The site areas lies within an urban area which has been developed since before the advent of aerial photography.

No photographic collections have therefore been consulted.

Richmond Palace Investigations

The site falls within the projected precinct of Richmond Palace, as seen in various contemporary maps (above), and a number of investigations into the Palace buildings and grounds, from the 1970s onwards, have recently been published (Cowie and Cloake 2001; including a summary of previously published results, chiefly Dixon

1975). The evidence shows that the Tudor palace has three courts, the main royal residence being the Privy

Lodgings, facing the Thames and surrounded by a moat; to the north-east was the Fountain Court, flanked to the west by the Great Hall and a chapel; and beyond this the Great Court, with the main (east-facing) gate house, the

Privy Garden to the south and the Clerk of the Works yard to the north (Fig. 15). East of the palace was a friary.

The proposal site lies at least partly within the Clerk of the Works yard, as depicted by Cowie and Cloake (2001, fig. 6); this can be shown to be reasonably certainly accurate, but the precise details should not be taken as established, nor is it yet established whether any physical remains of the early palace will have survived in this location.

Evidence for the reconstruction overall is based on maps, paintings, a parliamentary survey of 1649 (which gave dimensions for the buildings), and a recently re-discovered plan by Florentine architect Costantino de’

Servi, supplemented by the results of a number of small-scale archaeological investigations. These latter, significantly, show that substantial remains of the early post-medieval period survive, along with some remains that must relate to the earlier phases of building.

Discussion

In considering the archaeological potential of the study area, various factors must be taken into account, including previously recorded archaeological sites, previous land-use and disturbance and future land-use including the proposed development.

The area in which the site is located is one of undoubted archaeological significance, as is reflected in its designation as an Archaeological Priority Area. The banks of the Thames have been favoured for occupation in all periods from the very earliest human occupation of Britain, and although this particular area has not yielded any recorded archaeological evidence for occupation in prehistory, nor indeed in Roman or Saxon times (stray finds from the river Thames not being good indicators for occupation at a particular spot), there is little reason to doubt that it too would have been a favoured location for settlement. There is therefore only a generalized potential for archaeological remains to be present pre-dating the Medieval period. For the Medieval and early

Post-medieval periods, however, the site has a very high and very specific potential for significant archaeological

finds or deposits, namely those relating to the manor houses and especially to Richmond Palace, and possibly also to its predecessors. Any surviving remains of any of the phases of royal palaces, or of the medieval manors pre-dating them, would be of considerable significance.

The self-evident historic character of Richmond Green, with its wealth of listed buildings mainly dating from the 18th century argues against extensive modern truncation of the archaeologically relevant horizons in modern times, even without the specific cartographic evidence for the site itself. It is therefore likely that any archaeological remains which were ever present on the site will not have been extensively removed or damaged and will have survived substantially intact.

Without specific development proposals, it is impossible to predict in detail the effects of the proposed development on any below-ground archaeology that might be present, but it must be presumed that it will be destructive to a greater or lesser degree and that mitigation of some sort will be required if any archaeological features are indeed present.

It will be necessary to provide further information about the potential of the site from field observations in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits if necessary. A scheme for this evaluation will need to be drawn up and approved by the archaeological advisers to the Borough and implemented by a competent archaeological contractor, such as an organization registered with the Institute of Field Archaeologists

References

Barrett, J C, Lewis, J S C and Welsh, K, 2000, ‘Perry Oaks – a history of inhabitation Part 2’, London Archaeologist, 9, 221–7 BGS, 1981, British Geological Survey, 1:50,000 Sheet 270, Solid and Drift Edition, Keyworth Cowie, R and Cloake, J, 2001, ‘A archaeological survey of Richmond Palace, Surrey’, Post-Medieval Archaeol 35, 3–52 Dixon, P, 1975, ‘Excavations at Richmond Palace, Surrey’, Post-Medieval Archaeol 9, 103–16 Ellaby, R, 1987, ‘The Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic in Surrey’, in J Bird and D G Bird (eds), The Archaeology of Surrey to 1540’, Guildford, 165–96 FA, 2006, Landscape Evolution in the Middle Thames valley, Framework Archaeology, monogr 1, Oxford/ Salisbury Field, D and Cotton, J, 1987, ‘Neolithic Surrey: a survey of the evidence’, in J Bird and D G Bird (eds), The Archaeology of Surrey to 1540’, Guildford, 71–96 Grimes, W F and Close-Brooks, J, 1993, ‘The excavation of Caesar’s Camp, Heathrow, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1944’, Proc Prehist Soc 59, 303–6 Hanworth, R, 1987, ‘The Iron Age in Surrey’, in J Bird and D G Bird (eds), The Archaeology of Surrey to 1540, Guildford, 139–64 Longley, D, 1976, ‘The archaeological implications of gravel extraction in north-west Surrey’, Surrey Archaeol Soc Res Vol 3, 1–35 Guildford Mills, A D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford

MoLAS, 2000, The archaeology of Greater London; an assessment of archaeological evidence for human presence in the area now covered by Greater London Museum of London Archaeology Service Monogr Needham, S, 1987, ‘The Bronze Age’, in J Bird and D G Bird (eds), The Archaeology of Surrey to 1540’, 97–137 Poulton, R, 1987, ‘Saxon Surrey’, in J Bird and D G Bird (eds), The Archaeology of Surrey to 1540’, Guildford, 197–222 PPG16, 1990, Dept of the Environment Planning Policy Guidance 16, Archaeology and Planning, HMSO Turner, D J, 1987, ‘Archaeology of Surrey, 1066-1540’, in J Bird and D G Bird (eds), The Archaeology of Surrey to 1540’, Guildford, 223–61 VCH, 1911, Victoria History of the Counties of England: Surrey, iii, London Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London Wymer, J J, 1987, ‘The Palaeolithic period in Surrey’, in J Bird and D G Bird (eds), The Archaeology of Surrey to 1540, Guildford, 17–30

APPENDIX 1: Sites and Monuments Records within a 500m search radius of the development site

No SMR Ref Grid Ref (TQ) Type Period Comment 1 ELO5275 17604 74604 Findspot Palaeolithic Levallois scraper, another Flint scraper, barbed flint MLO21301 1760 7460 Documentary Bronze Age arrowhead, Saxon spearhead, circumstances of these finds MLO3114 17614 74655 Survey Prehistoric not recorded. MLO21300 17635 74684 Listed Building Saxon Documentary evidence for a small timber framed building, MLO21299 17645 74655 Medieval used by Richard II, on an island in the Thames assumed to MLO19135 17655 74655 Post medieval be Corporation Island. MLO69713 17655 74684 Several wharf structures, slipways, drains recorded in MLO69714 17663 74673 Thames foreshore survey, all post-medieval. MLO69715 17624 74688 18th century Warehouse, Water Lane and Riverside; White MLO69718 17665 74645 Cross Hotel, 19th century MLO69717 17665 74684 MLO69716 MLO91295 MLO91193 MLO69723 MLO69724 MLO69725 2 MLO21306 17004 75004 Findspot Neolithic Two Neolithic axes, Bronze Age scabbard chape, Roman MLO21307 17 75 Bronze Age antler (or bone?) knife handle, Iron Age and Roman pottery, MLO21311 Iron Age and loomweights, 13th century pewter brooch, medieval MLO21310 Roman copper alloy seal, undated iron ‘lance head’, possibly post- MLO21308 Medieval medieval, circumstances of these finds not recorded, MLO21305 Post medieval presumably all from the Thames at Richmond lock. MLO26808 Unknown Also a very confused listing that seems to refer to the MLO21312 Molesey boat, a dug-out canoe given a dendro- MLO21309 chronological date of AD870–1000 but might refer to an MLO25063 otherwise unknown Roman boat. Unknown where the grid MLO21313 17004 75055 reference comes from, or the Roman date, or anything really. Plus the dendro date can’t be a dendro date. 3 MLO48461 17704 74604 Findspot Bronze Age Heron court, Watercourse but No features in excavation MLO18987 17635 74665 Excavation or Iron Age (trial trenching) but bank of Thames and garden terrace. MLO48460 17694 74634 evaluation? Medieval Struck flints, iron age, medieval and post-medieval pottery MLO48459 17725 74594 Survey Post medieval finds, no details. MLO18999 17735 74585 Listed Building Unknown Socketed gouge (Neolithic or Bronze Age), no details of MLO69719 17755 74616 discovery of this. Medieval or later worked stone found in MLO69722 17771 74588 Thames Foreshore survey MLO69721 Slipways, steps recorded in Thames foreshore survey MLO69720 Palm Court Hotel, early 18th century MLO91469 10–12 Bridge Street, 19th century House, tower MLO91629 4 ELO3358 17855 74814 Evaluation Prehistoric One ‘worked flint’ seems to have come from the same MLO64400 Medieval deposit as 12th/13th century pottery. MLO64401 Post medieval 12th-13th century ditch; beam slots and post holes MLO64402 apparently not later than 18th century, 18th/19th century MLO64404 and later brick walls MLO64407 MLO64408 5 MLO58984 17155 74655 Evaluation Roman Heathcote Road nursery: 1st /2nd century settlement: Ditch, MLO58985 Excavation Post hole, Rubbish pit MLO58986 MLO58987 6 MLO18993 17604 74904 Findspot Roman Coin (denarius) of Trajan (AD 98–117); circumstances of ELO774 17659 74829 Watching brief Post medieval find not recorded ELO5161 17660 74830 Evaluation Negative Watching brief revealed only geology and the floor of the MLO76242 previous building. Evaluation: no information recorded. MLO78179 7 ELO5273 17804 74804 Evaluation Saxon 19th century brick chambers, modern cellar MLO66654 1780 7480 Documentary Post medieval Desk-based assessment notes early mention of Richmond as MLO72112 Sheen 8 MLO19043 17584 74925 Documentary Saxon Sheen Manor house Possible Saxon origin? Henry I stayed and MLO19134 17592 74843 Excavation Medieval there (1126). Reference to a 2-year stay by Carmelite friars 9 MLO19133 17560 74966 Findspot Post medieval in 1313–15. (also Byfleet Manor, Sheen, rebuilt by Henry V MLO47494 17565 74974 Listed Modern while the new palace was being built). Unclear how many MLO48470 17567 74959 Buildings Unknown separate sites are referred to here MLO48471 17574 74967 Old palace yard (Sheen Palace), Manor house, Palace, MLO48472 17594 74925 Excavation rebuilt by Henry VII, moated site (partly excavated 1972), MLO48486 Great hall, Poultry house, kitchen, fountain, courtyard, MLO19046 Chapel MLO91670 Medieval iron key discovered in 1798 MLO91164 Richmond Palace Garden wall, c. 1498, later repairs and MLO738 additions. Wentworth House, Richmond Green (south-west)

No SMR Ref Grid Ref (TQ) Type Period Comment MLO91163 paired with Old Court house but much altered in 19th MLO27639 century, house, boundary wall, gate pier seems to be listed ELO6977 twice. Old Court House, Richmond Green, early 18th ELO143 century, grade II*, may also be listed twice. ELO4735 Sutton AS excavation (or evaluation) at ‘The Old Palace’ MLO62870 17th to 19th century walls, structures, modern cess pit, MLO62875 bomb shelter, nuclear bunker. MLO62877 MoLAS watching brief at ‘Old Palace’ recorded 16th MLO63613 century brick walls, which ‘must be’ part of the Tudor MLO63614 palace; 18th century wall built of 16th century brick, MLO63615 vaulted chamber, cess pit, garden feature. MLO63616 MLO75643 MLO98334 10 MLO85615 17006 75047 Listed Building Post medieval One entry for the listing, (modified at unknown date) one MLO91180 17015 75056 De-Listed for the de-listing. Richmond footbridge, de-listed in 1995, Building had been grade II*. Late 19th century bridge, lock, sluices, Tollbooth, lamp post, lock keepers cottage 11 MLO19141 17655 74845 Documentary Medieval Reference to Byfleet Manor house, 16th century Franciscan MLO19741 17637 74888 Listed Building Post medieval friary, cellar MLO48475 44 Richmond Green (south-west) 18th century house MLO90951 12 MLO90949 17669 74826 Listed Building Medieval Old Palace Place, Grade II* 16th/17th century timber MLO91136 17690 74817 Post medieval framed house, later additions MLO90999 17701 74827 17, 19, 20 King Street, 18th century house. 18 King Street MLO91000 17726 74817 listed Grade II*, early 18th century house MLO91494 17718 74821 13 MLO91270 17206 74839 Listed Building Modern Twickenham Road bridge, 1933 steps, lamp post 14 MLO69746 17234 74874 Survey Post medieval Railway bridge recorded in Thames foreshore survey 15 ELO146 1730 7482 Survey Medieval Thames foreshore survey recorded several wharves, Jetty, MLO69730 17304 74814 Findspot Post medieval Steps, Structure, Posts of jetty, landing stage, waterfront, MLO75645 17304 74824 etc. GLSMR says jetty posts radiocarbon dated to 1584-5 MLO69709 17314 74804 but presumably dendrochonological dating?, revetment, MLO69710 thought to be later; also Medieval or later worked stone MLO69711 MLO69712 MLO69728 16 ELO4397 17355 74545 Watching brief Unknown Negative evidence MLO71089 17 MLO91144 17360 74839 Listed Building Post medieval Asgill House Grade I listed 18th century country house, Modern 1767 for Sir Charles Asgill, Lord Mayor of London. Altered 19th century but recently restored to original appearance 18 ELO3192 17424 74634 Evaluation Post medieval Map evidence for meadow. Post-medieval land surface with MLO72124 Documentary Unknown footprints, wheel ruts, etc. Undated water channel MLO74057 MLO74058 MLO74059 19 MLO90978 17439 74792 Listed Building Post medieval Gazebo in garden of Trumpeter’s house, 18th century. 20 MLO77283 17450 74920 Watching brief Post medieval Revetment, Structures, Cess pit, Dump. Expected Tudor MLO77284 17479 74992 Listed Building remains not present, possibly truncated. MLO77285 8–13 Old Palace Lane, early 19th century terrace MLO77286 MLO77287 MLO77288 ELO1471 MLO91020 21 MLO69727 17504 74735 Survey Post medieval Steps, Water gate recorded in Thames foreshore survey. MLO69729 17514 74755 Borehole Unknown Borehole survey found redeposited London clay, MLO18098 17535 74745 survey presumably modern dumping, although reinterpreted by the ELO3547 17545 74545 Documentary GLSMR as possible flood deposit; some truncation. MLO62963 17545 74704 Documentary reference to 18th century house, demolished MLO69726 1830

22 MLO75646 17504 74855 Excavation Post medieval ‘Amorphous east-west scarp’ 23 MLO91522 17529 74883 Listed Building Medieval? Trumpeter’s House, Old Palace yard, site of Middle Palace MLO91019 17515 75030 Post medieval Gate, Grade I 18th century house; The Virginals, 1 Old MLO91504 17570 74916 Palace Yard, 19th century house. 1–3 Old Palace Yard listed as a group, Grade I, 18th century but with some 16th century work? 24 MLO19050 17604 74804 Excavation Post medieval Presumed corner of the palace, but no Tudor features: just MLO19139 17595 74783 Listed Building later phases of wall, though there was Tudor demolition MLO90891 17629 74828 rubble. MLO90893 17550 74755 Cholmondily Lodge House and Cottage, 1–3 Friars Lane,

No SMR Ref Grid Ref (TQ) Type Period Comment MLO91456 17586 74724 18th or 19th century houses; gazebo perhaps 18th century in MLO90892 Queensberry House. Also a separate listing for 1–5 consecutive (or 1, 2, 3, 4, 6?) Friars Lane (Queensberry Place), 19th century terrace. St Helena House, early 19th century 25 MLO90954 17623 75081 Listed Building Post medieval 1–10 Richmond Green (Pembroke Villas), 19th century row of semi-detached villas 26 MLO91153 17728 74837 Listed Building Post medieval 11 Paved Court, 18th century terraced house MLO91443 17732 74786 Modern 1–3, 5-14 Paved Court, 17th and 18th century terraced MLO86156 17729 74789 houses, 18th and 19th century shops MLO86157 17728 74795 6–8 King Street, 18th century houses, shops MLO90995 17740 74832 Old Ship Public house, George Street, 18th century MLO91492 17738 74829 Pair of telephone boxes, K6 type (Giles Scott, 1935) MLO91493 17738 74851 MLO91437 17735 74825 MLO90998 17724 74833 MLO90996 17731 74822 MLO90997 17736 74846 MLO91152 17749 74844 MLO90994 17741 74838 MLO91151 17741 74777 MLO91455 17747 74864 MLO91353 27 MLO90946 17698 74835 Listed Building Post medieval 1 Richmond Green (south-east) Old Court House, Grade II* MLO90947 17711 74853 18th century, 2–6 18th century terrace (1–4 also listed MLO90971 17884 74996 separately), also separate listing for a correction to grid ref MLO90973 17848 74955 for No. 1. Nos 7, 14, 16–19, 25, 29 Listed separately, 21, 22 MLO90974 17827 74931 together, 8 and 9 together, all also 18th century terrace. Nos MLO90976 17803 74894 10, 11 and 12, 32 listed separately all Grade II* 18th MLO90977 17783 74878 century houses. No. 5 listed separately (previously listed as MLO91159 17860 74967 no. 6!) Unclear if that means no. 6 is or is not listed. MLO91160 17823 74926 23, 24, Richmond Green (south-east), 19th century terraced MLO91161 17810 74897 houses; Nos 30, 31 18th century houses MLO91162 17795 74887 MLO91434 17843 74944 MLO91519 17830 74935 MLO91520 17817 74910 MLO91521 17800 74888 MLO91530 17764 74865 MLO91531 17742 74855 MLO91532 17722 74868 MLO90942 17775 74871 MLO90944 17737 74858 MLO90945 17730 74862 28 MLO90943 17753 74887 Listed Building Post medieval Richmond Green, commemorative plaque (silver jubilee of MLO90950 17654 74833 Modern Elizabeth II), 19th century gothic drinking fountain; Old MLO90952 17622 74909 Friars listed II*, late 17th century terraced house (1687) MLO90948 17685 74823 with railings also listed. Oak House listed II* 18th century MLO90972 17870 74972 terraced house; Nos. 2 and 4 (south-west side) and nos 1–4 MLO91435 17878 74990 north east side and 1–4 (south-east side) Richmond Green, MLO91533 17797 75089 early 18th century terraces; some railings also listed. MLO90929 17855 74894 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 Brewers Lane 18th/19th MLO90930 17849 74897 century houses, later shop fronts. Number 5 the Britannia MLO90931 17836 74907 public house early 18th century MLO90932 17830 74909 MLO90933 17850 74908 MLO90934 17833 74919 MLO91628 17848 74916 29 MLO27652 17857 74962 Listed Building Post medieval Coach house, 6A Richmond Green; evidence not stated. MLO91518 17873 74983 Modern 3 Richmond Green, late 18th or 19th century terraced MLO90975 17814 74904 house; 15 Richmond Green, 18th century house; 19th MLO91517 17878 75002 century Street lamp outside No. 1 MLO91138 17916 75029 Onslow Hall, Little Green, 19th century house MLO91240 17983 74971 1-6 The Square, 19th century buildings, shops 30 MLO90894 17875 74873 Listed Building Medieval 23, 24 George Street, 18th century house MLO63605 17925 74884 Evaluation Post medieval 17th/18th century Well, Building, Ditches MLO63606 17951 74856 Modern 3 and 4 Church Walk, pair of 18th century houses MLO63607 17952 75093 Presbyterian chapel 1883, now United Reformed Church MLO90923 17928 75046 Richmond Theatre, Little Green, Grade II*, 1899. MLO91338 17934 74829 Church of St Mary Magdalene, Grade II* mid 18th century MLO91010 with early 20th century chancel by Bodley; monuments. MLO91147 Unclear why SMR calls it medieval. 31 MLO91137 17928 75118 Listed Building Post medieval 1 and 2 Little Green, 18th and 19th century houses MLO91009 17917 75122 Modern Parkshot Cottage, early 18th century

No SMR Ref Grid Ref (TQ) Type Period Comment MLO90993 17945 75168 32 MLO69695 17894 74724 Survey Unknown Paved causeway noted in Thames Foreshore survey (quite a long way from the Thames foreshore, grid reference suspect) 33 MLO91192 17602 74706 Listed Building Unknown 1–5 St Helena terrace, no date offered 34 MLO91485 17779 74723 Listed Building Post medieval 3 and 5, Hill Street 18th century houses (No. 5 ex-cinema), MLO91047 17749 74735 Documentary Modern 12 and 14 Hill Street early 19th century MLO91122 17749 74742 Reference to town hall MLO73983 17784 74765

Listed buildings Grade II unless otherwise stated.

APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1575 Saxton, Surrey, Sussex, Kent and Middlesex (Fig. 3) 1594 Norden, Surrey 1605 van der Keere, Kent, Sussex, Surrey and Middlesex 1611 Speed, map of Surrey with views of Richmont and Nonsuch (Fig. 4) 1635 Glover’s map of the Hundred Of Istleworth (Fig. 5) 1690 Seller’s map of Surrey 1724 Moll, Surrey 1729 Senex’s map of Surrey (Fig. 6) 1766 Rocque’s plan of London (Fig. 7) 1768 Rocque’s map of Surrey 1793 Lindley and Crossley, Surrey 1823 C and J Greenwood, Surrey (Fig. 8) 1863 Ordnance Survey prelim (Fig. 9) 1867 First Edition Ordnance Survey (Fig. 10) 1894 Second Edition Ordnance Survey 1913 Third Edition Ordnance Survey (Fig. 11) 1933 Ordnance Survey Revision (Fig. 12) 1960 Ordnance Survey TQ1775SW (Fig. 13) 1982 Ordnance Survey TQ1775SW 1993 Ordnance Survey TQ1775 2006 Ordnance Survey Digital Mapping (Fig. 14)

19 76000

SITE

10 23 31 25 75000 2 20 27 29 8 6 28 9 30 13 15 17 11 22 7 4 19 24 32 14 34 21 33 26 5 18 1 3 16 12

74000

TQ17000 18000 ALR07/144 Asgill Lodge, Old Palace Road, London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, 2007 Archaeological Desk-based assessment

Figure 1. Location of site within Richmond and Greater London, showing locations of GLSMR entries.

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Pathfinder 1174 TQ 07/17 at 1:12500 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 SITE

ALR07/144 Asgill Lodge, Old Palace Road, London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, 2007 Archaeological Desk-based assessment Figure 2. Site location in relation to Archaeological Priority Area (red) and Registered Park (blue/green). Green dots are archaeological finds, blue diamonds listed buildings. Copyright English Heritage and Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Approximate location of SITE