23–28 Charterhouse Square London EC1
London Borough of Islington
Historic environment assessment
June 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]
23–28 Charterhouse Square London EC1
Historic environment assessment
NGR 5319089 181870
Sign-off history issue issue date prepared by reviewed by approved by reason for issue no. 1 19/03/2015 Paul Riggott Jon Chandler Leonie Pett First issue (Archaeology) Lead Consultant Contract Manager Juan Jose Fuldain Archaeology (Graphics) 2 01/06/2015 Paul Riggott Leonie Pett Revised basement (Archaeology) Contract Manager proposals Juan Jose Fuldain (Graphics)
PO code: P0510ASA
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 1
1 Introduction 2 1.1 Origin and scope of the report 2 1.2 Designated heritage assets 2 1.3 Aims and objectives 3
2 Methodology and sources consulted 4
3 Site location, topography and geology 6 3.1 Site location 6 3.2 Topography 6 3.3 Geology 6
4 Archaeological and historical background 7 4.1 Overview of past investigations 7 4.2 Chronological summary 7
5 Statement of significance 13 5.1 Introduction 13 5.2 Factors affecting archaeological survival 13 5.3 Archaeological potential and significance 13
6 Impact of proposals 15 6.1 Proposals 15 6.2 Implications 15
7 Conclusion and recommendations 16
8 Gazetteer of known historic environment assets 17
9 Planning framework 25 9.1 Statutory protection 25 9.2 National Planning Policy Framework 25 9.3 Greater London regional policy 27 9.4 Local planning policy 28
10 Determining significance 31
11 Non-archaeological constraints 32
12 Glossary 33
13 Bibliography 35 13.1 Published and documentary sources 35 13.2 Other Sources 35 13.3 Cartographic sources 36 13.4 Available site survey information checklist 37
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 i P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx Figures
Cover: 23–28 Charterhouse Square
Fig 1 Site location Fig 2 Historic environment features map Fig 3 Conjectured plan of the Charterhouse precinct, c 1400 (Barber and Thomas 2002, Fig 17; after Knowles and Grimes 1954) Fig 4 Agas’s map of 1562 Fig 5 Daynes plan of property surrounding Charterhouse Churchyard of 1651 (London Metropolitan Archive ACC/1876/MP/01/123/A) Fig 6 Plan of Charterhouse Square and premises of adjoining proprietors of 1718 (London Metropolitan Archive ACC/1876/MP/01/124) Fig 7 Horwood’s map of 1799 Fig 8 Plan of the parish of St Sepulchre, Middlesex of 1839 (London Metropolitan Archive HFCS/PR/009) Fig 9 Plan showing the proposed continuation of Charterhouse Street into Charterhouse Square of 1870 (London Metropolitan Archive ACC/1876/MP/01/151) Fig 10 Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25”:mile map of 1873 Fig 11 Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 25”:mile map of 1896 Fig 12 Goad Fire Insurance map of 1947 (London Metropolitan Archive LCC/VA/GOAD/II) Fig 13 Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 1:1250 scale map of 1953 Fig 14 Existing ground floor plan (Plowman Craven, dwg 31893-001F-02, rev A prov 1, 24/02/15) Fig 15 Existing basement plan (Plowman Craven, dwg 31893-001F-01, rev A prov 1, 24/02/15) Fig 16 23–28 Charterhouse Square, looking south-west along Charterhouse Street, with the Grade II* listed East Building of Smithfield Market in the background (MOLA photo, taken 11/03/15) Fig 17 23–28 Charterhouse Square, looking south-west, with the area of the burial ground in Charterhouse Square in the foreground (MOLA photo, taken 11/03/15) Fig 18 Proposed ground floor plan (Waterman, New Build Core Option, Ground floor proposed works, 26/02/15) Fig 19 Proposed basement plan showing areas of ground disturbance (Waterman, Revised Basement Works, New Proposed Basement Works, May 2015)
Note: site outlines may appear differently on some figures owing to distortions in historic maps. North is approximate on early maps.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 ii P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx Executive summary
Helical has commissioned MOLA to carry out a historic environment assessment in advance of proposed development at 23–28 Charterhouse Square in the London Borough of Islington. The scheme comprises the refurbishment of the existing 1980s building on the site. As part of the refurbishment new pad foundations would be constructed in the basement in five areas. These pad foundations may also require mini-piles. 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: • Later medieval burials. A large number of human remains without coffins were uncovered on the site during construction in the 1880s. These were thought to be associated with a plague pit adjacent to the Charterhouse medieval monastery cemetery. Whilst it is likely that all human remains were removed and exhumed within the site, this is not certain. Human remains, if present, would be of high heritage significance. Disarticulated bone would be of low or medium significance. • Later medieval Charterhouse precinct wall. The site lay in the south-western part of the Charterhouse monastic precinct and the stone boundary wall possibly crossed the south- western edge of the site. Although the wall was removed by later development, its truncated footings, cut into the underlying geology, potentially survive intact beneath the existing basement between deeper foundations. There is moderate potential for footings of the wall, of medium or high significance. • Post-medieval remains. The site was developed by at least the mid 17th century. There is a moderate potential for footings of buildings, cellars, pits and wells, of low significance. The existing 1980s building has a basement across the whole building footprint. Excavations for the basement will have entirely removed or severely truncated any archaeological remains present, although cut features potentially survive intact, between deeper (presumably piled) foundations. The proposed impact is relatively small in area. Breaking out of the existing foundation/floor slab in the five areas proposed for new foundations would potentially have an impact, truncating or removing entirely any archaeological remains directly beneath the slab. This might include deeply cut features such as later medieval wells or pits. Standard pad foundations would entail the removal of any archaeological remains locally within the footprint of each excavated pad to a typical depth of 1.0–1.5m. Any archaeological remains within the footprint of each mini-pile would be removed. Although the proposed ground disturbance is small and localised, there is potential for human remains to be present, along with later medieval and post-medieval remains. The site is also located within an archaeological priority zone. In light of this, archaeological trial pit evaluation is recommended in the areas of impact to assess the presence, nature and significance of any archaeological remains. This could be combined with any geotechnical pits dug for engineering purposes. The results would allow an appropriate mitigation strategy to be drawn up for the preservation by record of any significant archaeological assets. This might comprise archaeological investigation in advance of construction within each of the areas of proposed disturbance. Alternatively, the preliminary investigations may indicate that no further work is necessary. Any archaeological work would need to be undertaken in accordance with an approved Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) and could be carried out under the terms of a standard archaeological planning condition set out under the granting of planning consent. The exhumation of human remains would require a burial licence from the Ministry of Justice, or alternatively, if the ground is consecrated under the Church of England (this seems unlikely), Faculty consent would be required from the Diocese.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 1 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx 1 Introduction
1.1 Origin and scope of the report
1.1.1 Helical has commissioned MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology) to carry out a historic environment assessment in advance of proposed development at 23–28 Charterhouse Square (National Grid Reference 5319089 181870: Fig 1). The scheme comprises the refurbishment of the existing 1980s building on the site. As part of the refurbishment new pad foundations would be constructed in the basement in five areas. These pad foundations may also require mini-piles. 1.1.2 This desk-based study assesses the impact of the scheme on buried heritage assets (archaeological remains). It forms an initial stage of investigation of the area of proposed development (hereafter referred to as the ‘site’) and may be required in relation to the planning process in order that the local planning authority (LPA) can formulate an appropriate response in the light of the impact upon any known or possible heritage assets. These are parts of the historic environment which are considered to be significant because of their historic, evidential, aesthetic and/or communal interest. 1.1.3 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 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). 1.1.4 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), English Heritage (2008, 2011), and the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS 2014). Under the ‘Copyright, Designs and Patents Act’ 1988 MOLA retains the copyright to this document. 1.1.5 Note: within the limitations imposed by dealing with historical material and maps, the information in this document is, to the best knowledge of the author and MOLA, correct at the time of writing. Further archaeological investigation, more information about the nature of the present buildings, and/or more detailed proposals for redevelopment may require changes to all or parts of the document.
1.2 Designated heritage assets
1.2.1 The site does not contain any nationally designated (protected) heritage assets, such as scheduled monuments, listed buildings or registered parks and gardens. There are six Grade II listed bollards dating to the 19th century immediately north of the site (HEA 1) 1.2.2 The site lies within the Charterhouse Square Conservation Area. The conservation area is characterised by buildings and streets survive which from medieval times, including The Charterhouse (a former Carthusian monastery, the principal buildings of which lie 70m to the north of the site), together with fine buildings from later centuries, many originally related to Smithfield Market. The character of the conservation area also depends on its great variety of uses, and the juxtaposition of different activities, cheek-by-jowl, sets this area apart from more homogeneous business or residential areas (Islington Borough Council 2007). 1.2.3 The site lies within the Clerkenwell Archaeological Priority Area. This defines an area of high potential for later medieval and post-medieval suburban development to the north of the City of London. 1.2.4 The site originally lay on the western edge of a later medieval burial ground associated with the Charterhouse, and in the 1880s burials without coffins were uncovered in large numbers
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 2 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx from within the site, suggesting the presence of a plague pit on the edge of the Charterhouse burial ground (see para 4.2.26). Whilst the human remains were understood to have been exhumed at that time, it is not known whether they were all removed from the area of the site. In addition, disarticulated bone may be present. The exhumation of any human remains, if present, would need approval from either the Secretary of State or the Church of England, depending on the current location of the remains. Exhumations from land which is still consecrated and subject to the Church of England’s jurisdiction will need the Church’s authorisation (a Faculty or the approval of a proposal under the Care of Cathedrals Measure 2011). Exhumations from land which is not subject to the Church of England’s jurisdiction will need a licence from the Secretary of State, under Section 25 of the Burial Act 1857 as amended by the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 2014.
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 3 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.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 and has been used to determine the potential for previously unrecorded heritage assets of any specific chronological period to be present within the site. 2.1.2 In order to set the site into its full archaeological and historical context, information was collected on the known historic environment features within a 150m-radius study area around the area of proposed development, as held by the primary repositories of such information within Greater London. These comprise the Greater London Historic Environment Record (HER) and the London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre (LAARC). The HER is managed by English Heritage and includes information from past investigations, local knowledge, find spots, and documentary and cartographic sources. The LAARC includes a public archive of past investigations and is managed by the Museum of London. The study area was considered through professional judgement to be appropriate to characterise the historic environment of the site. Occasionally there may be reference to assets beyond this study area, where appropriate, e.g., where such assets are particularly significant and/or where they contribute to current understanding of the historic environment. 2.1.3 In addition, the following sources were consulted: • MOLA – Geographical Information System, the deposit survival archive, published historic maps and archaeological publications, including the MOLA monograph on The Charterhouse (Barber and Thomas 2002). • English Heritage – information on statutory designations including scheduled monuments and listed buildings • The London Society Library – published histories and journals • London Metropolitan Archive – historic maps and published histories • Landmark – historic Ordnance Survey maps from the first edition (1860–70s) to the present day; • British Geological Survey (BGS) – solid and drift geology digital map; online BGS geological borehole record data • DP9 – structural drawings (Waterman/February 2015), existing architectural drawings (Plowman Craven/February 2015). • Internet - web-published material including LPA local plan, and information on conservation areas and locally listed buildings. 2.1.4 Nick Elsden, MOLA Project Manager, was consulted regarding the archaeological work for Crossrail that has been undertaken in the Charterhouse Square area adjacent to the site. 2.1.5 The assessment included a site visit carried out on the 11th of March 2015 in order to determine the topography of the site and the nature of the existing buildings on the site, and to provide further information on areas of possible past ground disturbance and general historic environment potential. The building was inspected internally. Observations made on the site visit have been incorporated into this report. 2.1.6 Fig 2 shows the location of known historic environment features within the study area. These have been allocated a unique historic environment assessment reference number (HEA 1, 2, etc), which is listed in a gazetteer at the back of this report and is referred to in the text. Where there are a considerable number of listed buildings in the study area, only those within the vicinity of the site (i.e. within 100m) are included, unless their inclusion is considered relevant to the study. Conservation areas are not shown. Archaeological Priority Zones are shown where appropriate. All distances quoted in the text are approximate (within 5m). 2.1.7 Section 10 sets out the criteria used to determine the significance of heritage assets. This is based on four values set out in English Heritage’s Conservation principles, policies and guidance (2008), and comprise evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal value. The
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 4 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx report assesses the likely presence of such assets within (and beyond) the site, factors which may have compromised buried asset survival (i.e. present and previous land use), as well as possible significance. 2.1.8 Section 11 includes non-archaeological constraints. Section 12 contains a glossary of technical terms. A full bibliography and list of sources consulted may be found in section 13 with a list of existing site survey data obtained as part of the assessment.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 5 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx 3 Site location, topography and geology
3.1 Site location
3.1.1 The site is located at 23–28 Charterhouse Square (NGR 531908 181870: Fig 1). The site is bounded by Charterhouse Square to the north-east, Charterhouse Street to the north-west and the south, and Fox and Knot Street to the south-west. The site falls within the historic parish of St Sepulchre’s, and lay within the county of Middlesex prior to being absorbed into the administration of the Greater London Borough of Islington. 3.1.2 The site is c 1.0km north of the modern northern bank of the Thames. It is located 400m to the east of the course of the former River Fleet. The Fleet flowed north-south along the approximate line of Farringdon Road. The Fleet was covered over in 1734 and the present-day Farringdon Street was created in 1829 (Barton 1982, 77–8). A tributary of the Fleet, the Fageswell Brook, ran from east to west, c 40m to the south of the site.
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 general topography of the area shows a slight slope down from east to west representing the eastern side of the Fleet valley. The ground level recorded at 16.9m Ordnance Datum (OD) by an Ordnance Survey spot height on Charterhouse Street, just to the south of the site. A slope of approximately 0.5m across the site from east to west was noted during the site visit.
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 underlying geology is London Clay overlain by Thames Terrace Gravels of the Hackney Gravels Formation (British Geological Survey/BGS digital data). In places the gravel terraces are capped by brickearth. Brickearth, also known as the Langley Silt Formation, is a fine- grained deposit laid down as Aeolian (wind-blown) deposits during the last glaciation around 17,000 BC. It would have formed the ancient land surface and where present can be an indicator of archaeological potential, although subsequent quarrying and building has removed much of the brickearth (Gibbard 1994). 3.3.3 No geotechnical works have been carried out within the site itself. In 2013, an archaeological watching brief on the Charterhouse Square Crossrail grout shaft (HER 16) 10m to the east of the site recorded geological sequence. The top of the river terrace gravels was recorded at 13.6m OD (4.0m below ground level /mbgl). Above this a 0.9m layer of brickearth was recorded with the top at 14.5m OD (3.1mbgl). The presence of brickearth indicates that its full extent has not been mapped by the BGS and probably extends onto the area of the site.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 6 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx 4 Archaeological and historical background
4.1 Overview of past investigations
4.1.1 Whilst there have been no archaeological investigations within the site itself In the past, there have there been extensive investigations within the study area, in particular to the north of the site on remains of the Charterhouse medieval monastery. 4.1.2 In February and March 2013 a watching brief was conducted by MOLA on a 4.5m diameter Crossrail grout shaft in Charterhouse Square, 10m to the east of the site (HEA 16; Fig 2). This was monitored to 4.0mbgl. Three phases of burials where identified. Phase 1 at 14.6m OD (3.0 mbgl) consisted of 11 north-east–south-west aligned burials. Ten were adult inhumations, one was possibly buried in or on a timber coffin or board. The single subadult was apparently buried in a coffin. The backfill of the graves contained pottery dated to 1270–1350. Phase 2 consisted of a dumped deposit at 14.8m OD (2.8 mbgl) into which a further two adult burials, also aligned north-east–south-west, were cut. Both had been disturbed and truncated by the third phase of burials at 15.0m OD (2.6mbgl). This consisted of 12 east–west aligned burials, all apparently adult inhumations. Two were buried together in a double grave and two were stacked one above the other. In total 25 skeletons were recovered, none displaying obvious trauma, and all provisionally interpreted as 14th century plague victims. 4.1.3 A further 23 investigations have taken place within the study area. Seven of these have recorded remains relating to The Charterhouse (HEA 9, 10, 13, 18, 24, 28 and 50). Other later medieval remains, relating to the nearby Priory of St John of Jerusalem and St Bartholomew the Great, have been recorded (HEA 19, 20, 22, 23 and 51). 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 saw continuous occupation. Erosion has removed much of the Palaeolithic land surfaces and finds are typically residual. Within the study area one chance find of a Palaeolithic artefact has been made. The tip of a pointed biface of Acheulian type was found residual in a medieval dump layer at Preacher’s Court, 120m north of the site (HEA 13). 4.2.2 The Mesolithic hunter-gather communities of the postglacial period (10,000–4000 BC) inhabited a still largely wooded environment. The river valleys and coast would have been favoured in providing a predictable source of food (from hunting and fishing) and water, as well as a means of transport and communication. Evidence of activity is characterised by flint tools rather than structural remains. There are no known finds dated to this period within the study area. 4.2.3 The Neolithic (4000–2000 BC), Bronze Age (2000–600 BC) and Iron Age (600 BC–AD 43) are traditionally seen as the time of technological change, settled communities and the construction of communal monuments. Farming was established and forest cleared for cultivation. An expanding population put pressure on available resources and necessitated the utilisation of previously marginal land. There are no known finds dated to these periods within the study area. The location of the site on the well-drained and fertile gravels, with close access to the predictable resources of the River Fleet 400m to the west, would have been a first choice for settlement. The lack of finds may be due to the development of the area in the later medieval and post-medieval period, which is likely to have removed any early landsurfaces and evidence of prehistoric activity.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 7 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx Roman period (AD 43–410) 4.2.4 In the Roman period, the site lay 400m to the north-west of the north-western corner of the Roman city of Londinium and the Cripplegate Fort, 200m west of the road heading north which exited Aldersgate (modern Goswell Road). Clerkenwell Road/Old Street may have been an east-west road, 250m to the north. There has also been speculation that St John Street, 80m to the west, originated as a Roman road (Grimes 1968, 46), but this has not been confirmed archaeologically. 4.2.5 Since Roman custom forbade burials within the city a number of cemeteries were created just outside the city walls. The extent of Western Cemetery of the Roman city is uncertain; however, its nucleus is believed to be in the Holborn/Smithfield area (Hall 1996, 58–9). The closest recorded remains of the cemetery are outside the study area. At West Smithfield (GLHER ref 040276), c 180m south of the site, a Roman urn containing burnt bones were found in 1843. The size of the urn indicated that the cremation was of a child or youth. Three urns containing burnt bones were found near St Bartholomew’s Hospital in 1865 (GLHER ref 040275), c 210m south of the site. 4.2.6 Evidence of Roman possible quarrying was found between Hayne Street and Lindsey Street (HEA 17), c 60m to the south of the site. Within a possible quarry pit 3rd century pottery was found. A nearby ditch contained residual Roman pottery (AD50–100), a tegula (roofing tile) and a lead fragment. At 24–37 Cloth Fair (HEA 20), c 110m to the south of the site, a ditch system of possible Roman date was recorded. 4.2.7 It seems likely that the site was in an area outside the Roman city wall that was used for farming and possibly quarrying.
Early medieval (Saxon) period (AD 410–1066) 4.2.8 Following the withdrawal of the Roman army from England in the early 5th century AD the whole country fell into an extended period of socio-economic decline. The main focus of early Saxon settlement was the trading port of Lundenwic developed in the area now occupied by Aldwych, the Strand and Covent Garden, c 1.4km to the south-west of the site (Cowie and Blackmore 2008, xv). In the 9th century the former walled Roman city was reoccupied as Lundenburh in response to devastating Viking raids. The nature and extent of the late Saxon reoccupation within the City is difficult to establish due to a scarcity of archaeological evidence. This may suggest that the initial area of settlement was relatively small, possibly in the area between the Thames and the Cheapside/Eastcheap road axis, 800m south-east of the site. By the late 10th century the area within the city walls had become a major town (MoLAS 2000, 191). 4.2.9 Outside the study area archaeological investigations have revealed evidence for early Saxon activity in the Clerkenwell area on the eastern side of the River Fleet (this followed the route of modern Farringdon Road, 360m to the west of the site). This has taken the form of dispersed settlement and small-scale industry or craft working. Excavations around St John’s Square, c 290m to the north-west of the site (site code JON89) revealed pits containing pottery dated to AD 450–550 (Cowie and Blackmore 2008, 21). 4.2.10 There are no remains from the early medieval period noted within the study area. Throughout this period the site was located outside the city walls, away from the areas of known early medieval settlement, and was probably open fields or woodland.
Later medieval period (AD 1066–1485) 4.2.1 In the early part of this period the site would have been located in open fields to the north of the medieval city, and was probably open farmland with scattered farmsteads. The earliest datable activity of this period consists of extensive gravel and possibly brickearth quarrying between the late 12th to the mid-14th century, such as those found during archaeological investigations at Preachers Court, 120m north-west of the site (HEA 13).
Spitalcroft cemetery and chapel (mid 14th century) 4.2.2 In 1348–9, Sir Walter De Manny and Ralph de Stratford bought or leased lands from St Bartholomew’s Hospital for two cemeteries to bury victims of the Black Death in response to the overcrowding of city churchyards. These were the ‘Pardon Churchyard’ which probably lay
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 8 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx to the north of modern day Clerkenwell Road, and the ‘Spital Croft’ which occupied the west half of the precinct from Carthusian Street to Clerkenwell Rd (Knowles and Grimes 1954, 5–6; 17–20; HEA 29). 4.2.3 The location and extent of the ‘Spitalcroft’ cemetery is defined by Mrs Basil Holmes’ survey of 1899 and is shown on Fig 2 in the open green of Charterhouse Square, 15m to the east of the site. However, it is certain that there were burials beyond the area indicated in this survey. The presence of burials within Charterhouse Square was confirmed by recent archaeological investigations for Crossrail (HEA 16), when 25 medieval burials lying in were recorded in a grout shaft, 10m to the east of the site. A previous evaluation here in 1998 recorded a single child burial (HEA 9). A newspaper report from 1885 recorded that a large number of skeletons without coffins were exhumed from beneath the foundations of a block of houses on the site when it was being redeveloped. The report speculated that the remains were from a burial ground for plague victims (Illustrated Police News, August 8 1885). Curiously this discovery is not included in the Basil Holmes survey, perhaps supporting the suggestion that this was indeed a plague pit, that was located outside but immediately adjacent to the ‘official’ Charthouse burial ground in Charthouse Square. 4.2.4 Sir Walter De Manny founded a chapel on the northern side of the burial ground in the currently open area of Chapel Court, 90m to the north-east of the site. The foundations of which were laid in 1349. According to the Charterhouse Register, Manny intended to found a college of secular priests, but changed his mind (St John Hope 1925, 8). Instead, a hermitage was erected beside the chapel at some time before 1354, and its two inmates were to offer up prayers for those who died in the Black Death (Knowles and Grimes 1954, 6).
The Carthusian Monastery (late 14th century) 4.2.5 The London Charterhouse (HEA 36–49) was founded as a Carthusian monastery in 1371 by Sir Walter De Manny at the behest of the Bishop of London, Michael de Northburgh. The Carthusian Order was a Catholic religious order of enclosed monastics founded by Saint Bruno of Cologne in 1084. The London Charterhouse, one of only nine monastic houses of this order in the country, was founded beside the site of the Black Death cemetery. The principal buildings included monastic cells were arranged around a ‘Great Cloister’ which lay under the present Green (GLHER ref: 080482/01), 175m to the north of the site. The cemetery chapel in the area of Chapel Court (HEA 47) was said to have become the conventual (ie relating to the monastery) church (St John Hope 1925, 8). Much of the land surrounding the Charterhouse was probably developed and built upon by 1350 and tenements were already in existence as ribbon development along the street frontage of St John Street, 75m to the west of the site. 4.2.6 The monastery, dedicated to the Salutation of the Mother of God, was a double foundation for 24 monks and a Prior but may have had as many as 30 monks by Dissolution in the mid 16th century. The monks, in contrast to other orders, occupied individual cells arranged around a ‘Great Cloister’ (GLHER ref: 080482/01). The monks were under a strict order which included silence except for certain occasions. The monks were served by lay brothers (conversi) and servants (donati). Construction appears to have proceeded slowly; the cells were probably not completed before 1419 or even 1436 (Knowles and Grimes 1954, 25), and other parts of the conventual buildings such as the ‘little cloister’ were not built until 1436. A note in the Charterhouse register records that at the time of the death of the second prior John Okendon in 1412, six cells remained to be built, along with the chapterhouse, ‘farmery’ (?infirmary), parlour and the precinct wall. 4.2.7 The plan of the core buildings of the Charterhouse is reasonably well known thanks to the remarkable survival of the medieval Water Supply Plan showing both the layout of the water pipes, the ground plan of the buildings and elements of their elevation (Barber and Thomas 2002, Fig 37). Investigations following wartime fire damage and excavations by Professor Grimes in 1948/9 revealed considerable evidence relating to the main conventual complex, although only the broad outline is published (Knowles and Grimes 1954, 41–67; Grimes 1968). Excavations at St Bartholomew’s Medical College, outside the study area 200m to the north of the site (Site code: MED90) have revealed details of the monk’s cells on the north side of the Great Cloister and a number of sites excavated within and adjacent to the precinct were synthesised with Grimes work to present an account of the development of the monastery and published in a MoLAS monograph (Barber and Thomas 2002). 4.2.8 The southern range of buildings around the Great Cloister included the Church (HEA 47) and
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 9 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx the Chapter House (HEA 48). To the west of the church, just west of the site, lay the Little Cloister (HEA 44) and further west the standing buildings of Wash-house Court (HEA 41) were added in the early 16th century, perhaps to accommodate the lay brothers’ quarters, kitchens and the Laundry (Knowles and Grimes 1954, 31). 4.2.9 Around this core lay numerous outbuildings, wasteland, orchards and vegetable gardens all contained within the inner and outer precincts of the monastery. 4.2.10 A further chapel was built in the Charterhouse Square, in the cemetery outside the enclosure wall, and was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin and All Saints (HEA 36) and was consecrated in 1471 (Knowles and Grimes1954, 30). 4.2.11 A conjectured plan on the Charterhouse precinct c 1400 (Fig 3), shows the site to be on the south-western part of Spitalcroft, with the precinct wall running along the south-western boundary of the site.
Post-medieval period (AD 1485–present) 4.2.12 In 1537 the monastery was dissolved by King Henry VIII. The site was in the hands of the Crown Commissioners until 1542, and they may have let out certain buildings. After this, the Charterhouse was used as a storehouse for the King’s tents, hunting nets and tackle (Knowles and Grimes 1954, 37). In 1545, the property was sold to Edward North, Chancellor of the Court of Augmentations, who extensively remodelled the monastery into a fine townhouse and removed the monastic cells around the Great Cloister. 4.2.13 The walls surrounding the cell buildings and the cell gardens were all demolished, excluding the cloister wall, and their stone foundations were robbed for reuse. Excavations at St Bartholomew's Hospital Medical College (Site code: MED90), 200m to the north of the site, revealed that many foundations were robbed out altogether, although fragments remained in some cells. The dividing walls within the cell buildings appear to merely have been demolished down to contemporary ground level. None were robbed out below that level. Presumably the dressed stone was removed from the top, but it was felt that the smaller walls did not warrant large-scale digging to rob the foundations. All the cells had quantities of demolition material within them, particularly within the areas of the cell building itself. The demolition material was up to 0.5m thick in places, consisting of stone, tile, brick, mortar and plaster. Archaeological dating for the robber cuts was imprecise, but all those producing dating evidence suggested the period 1500–1600. 4.2.14 New construction for the town house included a new wall built across the line of the former cell gardens. It is thought that this was a boundary wall between the immediate holdings of the Charterhouse mansion to the south, and other gardens to the north (Barber and Thomas 2002, 76). The 14th century church in Chapel Court was demolished and the southern area built over as part of Lord North’s remodelling of the site (Survey of London 2010, Fig 25). 4.2.15 After the death of Edward North, his son Roger sold the site to Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk, in 1565. Howard continued the alterations. Woodwork in the Great Hall bears the initials TH and the date 1571. Howard was executed in 1572 for his support for the cause of Mary Queen of Scots, and the confiscated property became an ambassador’s residence before being returned to Howard’s eldest son Philip, Earl of Arundel, in 1581. 4.2.16 In the standing buildings of Charterhouse, it is difficult to differentiate between works carried out by North or Howard (Schofield 1984, 141). Excavations have shown evidence for destruction of part of the monastery during the 1540s and 1550s and the construction of new buildings including a new northern boundary wall from old stone robbed from the monastery. Aspects of the rebuilding can still be seen in the standing buildings on the site, many of which are statutorily listed, and the conversion of monastic sites for secular uses after the Dissolution can be paralleled at numerous sites in England. 4.2.17 The chapel in the Square was used by Thomas Cotton as a school in 1561 but may have reverted to exclusive use as a chapel in 1565 when the property was bought by the Duke of Norfolk. It was probably demolished in the early 17th century. 4.2.18 In Agas’s map of 1562 (Fig 4) the Charterhouse precinct wall can be seen as can the gatehouse which was to the north of the site. The site itself was open ground within the precinct wall. 4.2.19 Thomas Sutton bought the Charterhouse property in 1611 and created the hospital for poor
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 10 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx brothers and Charterhouse school in his will of 1614. A series of maps and engravings from the 17th century onwards show a range of Tudor buildings adjoining the western precinct wall in the vicinity of (outside) the site, to the west of Wash-house Court. Davies (Davies 1921) records the tradition that these buildings were the old monastic barns which were converted to house the brothers of Sutton’s Hospital. The school boys occupied buildings on the west side of the former Great Cloister. 4.2.20 Daynes plan of property surrounding Charterhouse Churchyard of 1651(Fig 5) is the first map that shows the site in detail. The boundary of the Charterhouse had moved to the north-east and the area of the site, no longer within the Charterhouse property, is marked as ‘Mr Lawes Ground’. In the north-western part of the site there were three buildings; one of these, next to the Charterhouse West Gate and gatehouse is marked as “The old house on Short’. One further building had been constructed in the south-eastern part of the site. The two buildings just to the south of the site are marked as ‘Mr Lawes New Tenements’. The land on the other side of the Charterhouse boundary, immediately adjacent to the site is marked as ‘Church Yard’ 4.2.21 A plan of Charterhouse Square and premises of adjoining proprietors of 1718 (Fig 6) denotes the area of the site as having changed ownership back into ‘The Charterhouse Estate’. The buildings seen on the 1651 map appear to have been demolished, with the exception of one building in the north western corner of the site. 4.2.22 Rocque’s map of 1746 (not reproduced) does not show detail of buildings but does indicate that the site had been built on by this date. Detail of the buildings on the site is shown in Horwood’s map of 1799 (Fig 7). There was a terrace of houses along Charterhouse Square with gardens to their rear. 4.2.23 The plan of the parish of St Sepulchre, Middlesex of 1839 (Fig 8) shows the route of new sewers that were being built in Charterhouse Lane and Charterhouse Square. The actual plan is based on the 1824 parish plan. The eastern part of the site is occupied by terraced houses numbered 23 to 29. The western part of the site includes their rear gardens. Just outside the western boundary is a small row of four houses fronting on to Red Lion Court and buildings fronting Charterhouse Lane in the north. 4.2.24 In the 1870s a new road, Charterhouse Street was constructed to the immediate south of the site. The development can be seen in a plan showing the proposed continuation of Charterhouse Street into Charterhouse Square of 1870 (Fig 9). Numbers 29 to 31 Charterhouse Square were demolished. This map also shows changes to the immediate west of the site with building demolished and a new street (now Fox and Knot Street) defining the western boundary of the site. 4.2.25 The Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25”:mile map of 1873 (Fig 10) appears to show the proposed work had mostly been completed by this date. The area to the west of the site had been cleared, Nos. 30 and 31 Charterhouse Square have been demolished but No. 29 was still extant. The map shows the appearance of the Metropolitan Line underground railway in a cutting immediately south of the site, with Aldersgate (now ‘Barbican’) Station a short distance to the south-east. 4.2.26 The site was redeveloped in the mid 1880s. The remaining terraced houses were demolished and three new buildings constructed. The Goad Fire Insurance map of 1886 (not reproduced) does not show great detail of the site but described the building as warehouses that were still under construction. It was during this construction that a large number of skeletons without coffins were exhumed from the site. A contemporary newspaper report (Illustrated Police News, August 8 1885) states that a large number of skeletons without coffins were exhumed from beneath the foundations of a block of houses which were around 150 years old (ie dating to the early 18th century). The report speculated that the remains were from a burial ground for plague victims. Unfortunately the report did not state what happened to the exhumed remains or whether the site was totally excavated. It is therefore possible that human remains are still present on the site. 4.2.27 The Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 25”:mile map of 1896 (Fig 11) shows the site following redevelopment. The Goad Fire Insurance map of 1947 (Fig 12) denotes that the three buildings on the site all had basements. The northern building was used by various businesses. The southern two buildings were a factory belonging to J. Collett Ltd. A small open yards is shown in the centre of the site. Some of the basements have oil tanks and one
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 11 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx was used as a printers (potentially suggesting the presence of ground contaminants). 4.2.28 The Charterhouse area was bombed in May 1941 and London County Council bomb map (not reproduced) shows that two southern buildings on the site were damaged beyond repair. The northern building suffered general blast damage which was not structural. The Ordnance Survey 1:1250 scale map of 1953 (Fig 13) shows that only the northern building remained on the site with the southern buildings having been demolished. The Ordnance Survey 1:1250 scale map of 1961(not reproduced) shows that the area of the demolished buildings had been built on by this date. No further changes on the site are apparent from historic Ordnance Survey mapping. The current building, which is used as bank offices, dates to the 1980s.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 12 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.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 16.9m OD • The top of brickearth would have lain at 13.8m OD (3.1mgl), but will have been removed by the existing basement • The top of truncated Gravel lies at 12.9m OD (4.0mbgl) 5.2.2 The ground between the top of the natural brickearth and the current ground level has been truncated by the existing basement.
Past impacts 5.2.3 The existing building on the site dates from the 1980s. It has a basement which extends across the whole of the building footprint. The finished floor level (FFL) of the basement is recorded at 13.4m OD (3.5mbgl). The thickness of the basement slab is not known but if a thickness of 0.4m is assumed this would imply excavations for the basement may have extended to 13.0m OD (3.9mbgl). Any archaeological remains within the footprint of this excavation would have been either entirely removed or severely truncated, with the exception of cut features such as pits and ditches and possibly graves. The type of foundations is not known but based on the date and height of the building these are probably piled. Piles would have removed any remains from within the footprint of each pile, with additional truncation outside the pile footprint from pile caps set beneath the basement slab. 5.2.4 The construction of the previous building in the mid 1880s resulted in the discovery of a large number of skeletons without coffins, thought to represent plague victims in a plague pit. It is not known whether the burials were all exhumed, or the extent of ground disturbance.
Likely depth/thickness of archaeological remains 5.2.5 Archaeological remains will have been removed by excavation for the existing basement other than the bases of deeply cut features, such as wells or cesspits, graves or quarry pits, which could survive beneath the basement, between deeper foundations. Burials were encountered at a maximum depth of 14.2m OD (3.4mbgl) during the adjacent Crossrail investigations, and might be encountered at a similar depth within the site. Alternatively, it is conceivable that there was a deeper plague pit within the site.
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.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 13 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx 5.3.2 The site has a low potential to contain prehistoric remains. The site’s location on well drained gravel terrace close to predictable resources of the River Fleet may have made it attractive for early settlement and farming. However, no remains of prehistoric date have been found within the study area, despite a number of archaeological investigations in the past. It is likely that later activity has removed any evidence of prehistoric landsurfaces. 5.3.3 The site has a low potential for Roman remains. The site lies to the north of the Roman city of Londinium in an area which was probably open fields used for agriculture or quarrying. Isolated Roman material has been recorded within the study area but other than that Roman remains are scarce. The site is located south of where Roman features were discovered, further away from the Roman road, and was probably beyond the extramural Roman western cemetery. 5.3.4 The site has a low potential for early medieval (Saxon) remains. In the latter half of this period the site was some distance to the north of the later Saxon settlement of Lundenburgh, which was within the Roman city walls. No evidence of early medieval settlement or activity has been found within the study area. The site is likely to have lain within open fields or woodland. 5.3.5 The site has a low to moderate potential for later medieval remains, including of 14th century burials. Although it is certain that a 14th century burial ground extended into the site (either the ‘official’ Charterhouse cemetery or an adjacent plague pit), it is likely, but not certain, that all human remains were removed during construction on the site in the mid-1880s. The Charterhouse precinct wall probably lay just outside the south-western edge of the site. It is conceivable that it extended into the edge of the site. Although the wall was removed by later development, its truncated footings, cut into the underlying geology, potentially survive intact beneath the existing basement between deeper foundations. Remains of burials would be of high significance (low or medium for disarticulated remains). Footings of the Charterhouse precinct wall, if it did extend into the site, would potentially be of medium or high significance, depending on survival, through association with the surviving elements of the Charterhouse complex, some of which are statutorily listed. The significance would be derived from the evidential and historical value of the remains. 5.3.6 The site has a moderate potential for post-medieval remains. From historic mapping the site appears to have been first built on in the 17th century. Any remains of previous buildings will have largely been removed by the excavations for the current basement, although deep cut features such as pits and ditches, and truncated cellars and footings of buildings potentially survive. Such remains would be of low significance, derived from a limited evidential and historical value.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 14 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx 6 Impact of proposals
6.1 Proposals
6.1.1 The scheme comprises the refurbishment of the existing 1980s building on the site. There would be some reconfiguration of internal partitions on the ground and upper floors 6.1.2 As part of the refurbishment new pad foundations would be constructed in the basement in five areas. Three of these pad foundations would have mini-piles (Pali Radice piles). Fig 18 shows the proposed ground floor plan. Fig 19 shows the propose basement layout.
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 main potential for the site is for deeply cut features such as wells, pits, and conceivably (if present) burials, dating to the later medium and possibly post-medieval periods. The proposed impacts are relatively small in area and localised.
Breaking out foundation slab 6.2.4 Breaking out of the existing foundation/floor slab in the five areas proposed for new foundations would potentially have an impact, truncating or removing entirely any archaeological remains directly beneath the slab.
Standard pad foundations 6.2.5 Standard pad foundations would entail the removal of any archaeological remains locally within the footprint of each excavated pad to a typical depth of 1.0–1.5mbgl as assumed for the purposes of this assessment. It is possible that the bases of deep cut archaeological features such as pits, ditches and wells would remain intact beneath these impact levels, but their context could be lost.
Mini-piled foundations 6.2.6 Any archaeological remains within the footprint of each pile would be removed as the pile is driven downwards. The proposed piling layout is not particularly dense, so is unlikely to make any surviving archaeological remains, potentially preserved between each pile, inaccessible in terms of any archaeological investigation in the future.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 15 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx 7 Conclusion and recommendations
7.1.1 There are no designated assets on the site. There are six Grade II listed bollards immediately north of the site. The site is in a conservation area and an archaeological priority area. 7.1.2 The current 1980s building has a basement underlying the whole building footprint. Whilst its excavation is likely to have removed much of the archaeology, it extends close to the predicted level of underlying natural gravel and there is potential for the remains of features cut into the gravel, including later medieval burials and possibly structural remains, along with footings of post-medieval buildings and cut features. 7.1.3 Below ground works that could have an impact on archaeological remains include breaking out of the existing foundation slab, construction of new pad foundations and possibly the insertion of mini-piles. These are relatively small in area and the impact would be localised. 7.1.4 Table 1 summarises the known or likely buried assets within the site, their significance, and the impact of the proposed scheme on asset significance.
Table 1: Impact upon heritage assets (prior to mitigation) Asset Asset Impact of proposed scheme Significance Remains of 14th century burials High Breaking out of the existing foundation (Low to moderate potential) (low or medium slab, construction of new pad foundations for disarticulated and the insertion of mini-piles. remains) Remains of medieval Charterhouse Medium or high Significance of asset reduced to precinct wall (depending on negligible (Low to moderate potential) survival) Post-medieval cut features (pits, wells) Low and footings/cellars (moderate potential)
7.1.5 Although the proposed impacts are relatively small in area and localised, there is potential for human remains to be present, along with later medieval and post-medieval remains. The site is also located within an archaeological priority zone. In light of this, it is probable that the local authority would request further investigation of archaeological potential, in order to clarify the likely impacts of the development. 7.1.6 Although the precise details would need to be agreed with the local authority’s archaeological advisor, it is suggested that the most appropriate investigation strategy is likely to entail archaeological trial evaluation pits. These would aim to assess the presence, nature and significance of any archaeological remains in the areas of proposed impact. This investigation could be combined with any geotechnical pits dug for engineering purposes. 7.1.7 The results would allow an appropriate mitigation strategy to be drawn up for the preservation by record of any significant archaeological assets. This might comprise targeted archaeological investigation in advance of the five areas of new foundations. This would ensure that significant archaeological assets are not removed without record. Alternatively, the preliminary investigations may indicate that no further work is necessary. 7.1.8 Any archaeological work would need to be undertaken in accordance with an approved Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) and could be carried out under the terms of a standard archaeological planning condition set out under the granting of planning consent. The exhumation of human remains would require a burial licence from the Ministry of Justice, or alternatively, if the ground is consecrated under the Church of England (this seems unlikely), Faculty consent would be required from the Diocese.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 16 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.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 150m-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 06/03/2015 and is the copyright of English Heritage 2015. 8.1.3 English Heritage statutory designations data © English Heritage 2014. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014. The English Heritage GIS Data contained in this material was obtained in September 2014. The most publicly available up to date English Heritage GIS Data can be obtained from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk.
Abbreviations CA – Compass Archaeology CGMA – CgMs Consulting DGLA - Department of Greater London Archaeology (Museum of London) DUA – Department of Urban Archaeology GLHER – Greater London Historic Environment Record ILAU – Inner London Archaeological Unit MoLAS – Museum of London Archaeology Service (now named MOLA) RMLEC – Roman and Medieval London Excavation Committee
HEA Description Site code/ No. HER No. 1 Six bollards on the north and north west side of the Square, Charterhouse 1025025 Grade II listed bollards of 19th century date, made of cast iron. Two, of cannon type, flanking the entrance to Rutland Place from Charterhouse Square. Two, of cannon type, flanking the entrance to the Charterhouse, that to the left inscribed 'ST. JAMES/ CLERKEN/ WELL'. Two octagonal bollards flanking the entrance to Charterhouse Street from Charterhouse 2 Gates at north west corner, leading into Charterhouse Street, Charterhouse 1280090 Square Grade II listed gates, dated 18th century and later. Cast iron. Carriage gates flanked by pedestrian gates. Gate standards with urn finials surmounted by globe lanterns. 3 Numbers 22 and attached railings, 22, Charterhouse Square 1195526 Grade II listed terraced house, now offices from 1788. Yellow brick set in Flemish bond with Coade stone dressings. 4 119, Charterhouse Street 1298102 Grade II listed terraced house. Probably of late 18th century date, but perhaps extensively altered in the early 19th century, with mid-to-late 19th century shopfront, and then altered internally for use as a cold store and offices. Yellow and brown brick set in Flemish bond, 5 Fox and Anchor Public House, 115, Charterhouse Street 1052278 Grade II listed public house. Dated 1898 on gable. Designed by Latham Augustus Withall and built by W.H. Lascelles and Co.; the decorative panels on the inside external walls of the ground floor, and perhaps most or all of the decorative front, designed by W.J. Neatby and manufactured by Doulton and Co of Lambeth. Terracotta and faience, of buff and various other colours 6 111, Charterhouse Street 1195530 Grade II listed cold storage warehouse, now offices dated to 1900. Designed by A.H. Mackmurdo for John Palmer. Brick, now painted, set in Flemish bond, dressings of Portland stone, those to upper floors now painted, 7 East building of Central Market, West Smithfield EC1 1285241 Grade II* listed meat market from 1868 by Horace Jones, City Architect. Red brick with Portland stone dressings and corner towers; structural cast-iron to gateways and interior; tipped Welsh slate roofs with double-thickness glass louvres to lower half and louvred dormers to upper half of roof. Rectangular plan with central through-road (Central Avenue) running north to south. 8 18-21A Charterhouse Square, EC1 CAA00 Evaluation by MOLAS in 2000 revealed natural gravel was found to have been MLO76194 truncated by construction of the basements of the standing building.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 17 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx HEA Description Site code/ No. HER No. 9 Charterhouse Square, EC1 CSQ98 Archaeological evaluation by MoLAS in 1998. Although the location of a 15th- ELO9727 century chapel of the London Charterhouse was indicated by a 1997 geophysical MLO73457–8 survey by Geophysical Surveys of Bradford no physical evidence of it was located, 084713 but a single burial of a child, probably dating to the period of a Black Death cemetery (1348–9) was found. A dumped deposit of loose black ash was recorded. This was one of three levelling layers and contained large amounts of chalk fragments, pebbles, some tile and cockle shell and pottery dating to 1600-1650. It also contained a fragment of Delftware wall tile dating to the first half of the 17th century. The levelling and dumping in Charterhouse Square seems to have taken place after 1630 and before 1700, although quantities of pottery recovered were small. A garden soil layer containing pottery dated to 1280–1350 was also recorded. 10 Charterhouse Square, EC1 COS13 A watching brief by MOLA on 2013. A window sample and a test pit were opened within the small enclosed garden on the north side of Charterhouse Square. The test pit was located against the south boundary wall of the garden, and was opened in order to determine the depth of the boundary wall’s foundation. It consisted of topsoil and garden soil overlying post-medieval brick rubble, including yellow stock bricks. The base of the wall foundation was located and was built on a skim of cement overlying the brick rubble. The window sample revealed topsoil overlying post-medieval brick rubble and a small layer of clinker. This overlay natural sands and gravels, observed at 15.1m OD. Natural clay was observed at c 7.0m BGL (10.6m OD). 11 28–36 St John Street London STF13 A watching brief in 2013 by MOLA on 17 geotechnical test pits recorded Archaeological deposits were recorded in three of the external test pits, deposits may have been part of larger layers or fills of cut features. One deposit contained a sherd of post medieval pottery dating to between 1660 and 1730. 12 52–54 St John Street, EC1 JOH88 A watching brief in 1988 by DGLA revealed the site (within the precincts of the priory 082308 of St John Clerkenwell) to be truncated by modern basements, and deposits which did survive suggested medieval and later rubbish pitting and gravel-quarrying. 13 Preachers Court, Charterhouse Mews, EC1 PCC92 An evaluation by MoLAS in 1992. Natural strata were not reached, the earliest 082950–4 recorded deposits being possible quarry pit fills dating to mid 12th-mid 14th century. PRR98 Built into these were two medieval walls aligned parallel to the nearby precinct wall MLO74221 of the London Charterhouse, a Carthusian monastery founded in 1371; these walls MLO74228 presumably belong to previously unknown monastic buildings located against the MLO70872 precinct wall, possibly outbuildings. To the east the area seems to have been open MLO75755 ground and here a ragstone and timber-lined drain was found. Dating to c 16th MLO23473 century, this may have been contemporary with Wash House Court which was added in the late 15th/early 16th century to accommodate the lay brothers' quarters. Deposits relating to the post-Dissolution transition from monastery to mansion house and subsequent building phases were also recorded. Two brick buildings constructed against the earlier precinct wall at the west of the site were noted; one is dated to the late 17th century, perhaps part of that marked on Kip's engraving of 1755. On the east of the site a gravel surface, probably dating to the 17th century was also recorded. In 1997 a watching brief recorded natural gravels were overlaid by early medieval dump layers or gravel extraction pit fills. They were succeeded by features and deposits relating to the Charterhouse (f. 1371): a chalk wall, a possible timber drain and dump layers dating to the 14th - 16th century. Above were brick walls, a possible floor and dumped layers dating to the later 16th-18th century. They were overlaid by 19th century demolition materials. An excavation was conducted in 1998 by MoLAS. In December 1998, a watching brief was carried out on the construction of an additional building, to the immediate south-east of the excavated area. Prior evaluation comprising test pits in and around the site took place in 1992 and 1997. Small gravel extraction pits pre-dating the Charterhouse foundation were recorded. These were backfilled in the late 12th and 13th centuries, after which the site became open land. A boundary ditch of ‘Spital Croft’, acquired in 1349 for a chapel and burial ground for Black Death victims, was recorded. This silted up and was backfilled in the late 14th century. The remains of two possible service buildings or temporary accommodation from the initial
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 18 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx HEA Description Site code/ No. HER No. foundation of the Carthusian Charterhouse monastery were recorded, with external wall footings of chalk and mortar that may have supported a half-timber superstructure. These buildings went out of use and the ground was raised prior to the construction of a two room building that may have been part of a range bisecting the outer court of the monastery, potentially barns, storehouses or stables. These appear to have been contemporary with the earliest precinct wall of around 1480. Two phases of alterations in brick appear to date to the reuse of the structures from the mid 16th century as ancillary buildings to Lord North’s mansion, situated immediately southeast. In addition a new range of service buildings were constructed in brick against the precinct wall to the north after the Dissolution. These were converted in the early 17th century into accommodation for the resident Brothers of Sutton's Hospital. The tip of a pointed biface of Acheulian type was found residual in a medieval dump layer 14 Crossrail Ground Investigation Package 13 VO2 (Stepney Green) and VO3 XRM09 (Farringdon Trackside) and Package 29 (Farringdon/Liverpool Street/Eleanor Street), City of London and LB Tower Hamlets EC1 Excavation of six borehole starter pits in the Farringdon Station area (below Smithfield Market, between Lindsey Street and Grand Avenue) was monitored in November 2009. The pits were excavated into the gravel bedding of a railway tunnel below the Grade II* listed market (the former Central Meat Market building). No archaeological remains pre-dating the construction of the railway tunnel and Smithfield Market were identified during the watching brief, and the mid-19th-century or later bedding of the railway tunnel directly overlies London Clay. 15 Crossrail GI Package 29B and D, Farringdon and Liverpool Street EC1 and EC2 XRQ10 A watching brief by MoLAS in 2010. Selected boreholes were monitored on four sites. At Hayne Street, Farringdon, the natural sands and gravels were overlain by reworked natural deposits. These were overlain by silt, of uncertain date and origin, which in turn was overlain by an 18th-century or later refuse or dumped deposit. Natural gravels at 76–92 and 101 Moorgate were overlain at the latter site by a Roman horizon of dumped or re-worked brickearth, which may represent some form of extra-mural activity. These were sealed by remnants of the post-Roman Moorfields Marsh. At 76–92 Moorgate, Electra House, the gravels were overlain by a possible marsh deposit and sealed by make up for the construction of the existing building (built 1900–3). At 11 Blomfield Street a borehole showed that construction of the existing basement in 1887 had truncated any archaeological remains once present. In the roadway of Liverpool Street, what appeared in boreholes to be the surface of the London Clay was overlain by possible river terrace gravels, but later work on the site suggests that these may represent Roman activity. Above these lay marsh-like deposits from either the Moorfields Marsh or Walbrook overbank flooding. Above this, soil representing the 16th to 18th-century Bethlem burial ground produced human bone, and was sealed by 18th/19th-century dump layers. 16 Crossrail Grout Shaft Trial Pits, Smithfield Market Basement, Charterhouse XTE12 Street, EC1 A watching brief and standing structure recording by MOLA in 2012. Natural London clay was exposed in three grout shafts. The combined Metropolitan Line (1865) and Smithfield Market basement (1868) had truncated all earlier archaeological remains. Features which cut the natural clay consisted of a variety of brick structures, all of which are constructed from materials in use during mid to late 19th century. In the easternmost shaft a brick inspection chamber used to access and service trains whilst in the sidings, and a series of iron pipes, possibly associated with turntables and/or lift mechanisms were exposed and recorded prior to demolition. To the west, archaeological deposits were limited to a shallow brick footing aligned north-south, probably associated with foundations for a platform that allowed access to the market above. A large brick culvert (subsequently diverted) ran through the northern edge of the western shaft respecting the east-west aligned railway. A brick drainage chamber post-dated the 19th century standing building, as did a pair of aligned foundations, whose original purpose is unclear. They may be remedial work for the standing building, or possibly linked to a signal box to the south (truncated by later activity). 20th-century backfill consisting of brick rubble overlay all these features, some of which had evidently been re-excavated numerous times over the last 150 years. A brick structure formed of a series of 8 rectangular cabins/rooms and a larger room the west was surveyed to Level 2 of the English Heritage specifications. The rooms,
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 19 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx HEA Description Site code/ No. HER No. collectively called “Shunters’ Rooms”, were located along the former northernmost wall of the Smithfield underground railway station and could be accessed from the yard and from the inside of the station. The rooms, with vaults nearly 7 m high, are thought to have been built to provide living accommodation/mess room to the railway workers - and perhaps to the shunters especially - and to provide storage space conveniently located close to the railway sidings. One of the easternmost rooms was also used as a railway shop providing the workers with nuts, bolts and screws. In February and March 2013 a watching brief was conducted on a 4.5m diameter shaft in Charterhouse Square. This was monitored to 4m below ground level and exposed terrace gravels overlaid by a thick deposit of naturally deposited brickearth. A layer of compacted gravel overlay this, into which 11 north-east–south-west aligned burials had been cut. Ten were adult supine inhumations, one was possibly buried in or on a timber coffin or board. The single subadult was apparently buried in a coffin. The backfill of the graves contained pottery dated to 1270–1350, but some, possibly all of this may be residual. These burials were sealed by a dumped deposit into which a further two adult individuals, also aligned north-east–south-west, were cut. Both had been disturbed and truncated by a third phase of burials, which consisted of 12 east–west aligned burials, all apparently adult supine inhumations. Two were buried together in a double grave and two were stacked one above the other. In total 25 skeletons were recovered, none displaying obvious trauma, and all provisionally interpreted as 14th century plague victims, although the change in grave orientation in the final phase may relate to the post-plague Outer Cemetery of Charterhouse, dating to the 1370s. A thick deposit dating to between 1600 and 1800 sealed the graves. It may be that later burials have been entirely truncated by this post-medieval activity, or that there were simply no later burials in this location. Nineteenth-century deposits included a brick footing and garden soil horizons, these were probably associated with domestic dwellings to the west which were subsequently demolished to make way for the Metropolitan line in the 1860s. These were sealed by modern make up and tarmac. 17 Crossrail: Farringdon Eastern Ticket Hall, 20-23 Long Lane, 2 Lindsey Street, XSF10 8–10 Hayne Street, EC1 A watching brief by MoLAS in 2010. Seven trenches were excavated between Hayne Street and Lindsey Street, south of the 1873 Metropolitan Line underground railway cutting. Natural gravels overlying London Clay were exposed across the site, while natural brickearth was observed on the E side. In the S of the site, natural deposits were cut by a possible quarry pit containing pottery of 3rd century date, while residual Roman pottery (AD50-100), a tegula and a fragment of lead were recovered from a nearby ditch. This east-west ditch, which cut natural gravels and London Clay, was one of two recorded in this area together with a series of deposits suggesting a marshy or flooded environment. The ditch may be of medieval date and a variety of leather finds recovered from it – including a knife sheath and a complete child’s shoe with a distinctive 16th century form of latchet fastening – suggests that it had been backfilled or become disused during the 17th century. These features, which appear to be related, may be part of the historically- attested Fagswell Brook and an area of swampy ground surrounding a pond through which it flowed. A number of later features were recorded, including three 16th-17th century rubbish pits on the W side of the site, multiple phases of an 18th-19th-c brick drain in the E of the site and an 18th-19th century soakaway (constructed from re- used bricks of 1550-1666) in the same area. These remains were sealed by foundations and structures associated with the 19th and 20th century buildings on the site, and with the nearby underground line. At 20-21 Long Lane in the south of the site the basement of a late 19th century building - including the coal chute - was recorded. Fragments of newspaper found there suggest that it was backfilled in the 1930s. The basements and foundations of 19th and 20th century buildings completed the archaeological sequence in all areas of the site. 18 Charterhouse Square, EC1 WFG56 A watching brief by RMLEC in 1956. The archive contains only a few field records relating to the excavation of the Chapel Court and Master Court. The published account (Knowles & Grimes 1954) gives the full account of Grimes's work on this site. 19 60–61 Long Lane, EC1 LLA88 A watching brief by DUA in 1988. Refurbishment of a 19th century building revealed 043764
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 20 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx HEA Description Site code/ No. HER No. a subdivided chalk and brick cellar 3.2m x 1.8m. This was backfilled in the late 18th century; the backfill included human bones, perhaps deriving from disturbance of burials originally associated with the nearby church of St Bartholomew the Great. 20 24–37 Cloth Fair, 62–67 Long Lane, EC1 CLO83 A watching brief by DUA in 1983. During spring 1983 a watching brief was carried 043290–3 out with a grant from Harbour Group Developments Ltd on this site immediately north of St Bartholomew the Great church and within the precinct of the 12th century priory. The earliest recorded features were a ditch system perhaps of the Roman period, which fell into disuse. This was overlaid by a large number of east-west aligned adult male burials of medieval date, confirming inference from documentary and archaeological sources that this was part of the site of the monastic cemetery. From the 14th century a succession of extensive but well-maintained gravelled yard surfaces covered the site, sealing the burials. A group of 15 very worn Penn floor tiles, dating to 1330-1400, were incorporated in the early part of the yard sequence. The surfaces correspond with the suggested site of the medieval Bartholomew Fair. The first structural evidence observed was a row of houses built in the late 16th century. The cellars of several of these houses were constructed of Reigate stone and brick with timbered floors; they cut through the latest gravelled surfaces, and fronted onto a metalled road (the origin of Cloth Fair) which was laid out across the S part of the site adjacent to the ex-priory church. This development was part of a larger scheme, known from documentary sources, involving all the land to the N and E of the church. It remained partially intact well into the 20th century. 21 39, 40 Cloth Fair, EC1 CFI06 A watching brief by MoLAS in 2006. Two parallel walls of late 19th - early 20th century date were recorded during monitoring of work on basement drainage system. The majority of deposits had been truncated but two parallel walls of late 19th - early 20th century date were recorded. Natural gravel was observed. 22 St Bartholomew the Great, Cloth Fair, EC1 SBG87 For five weeks in April-May 1988 excavations were carried out by DGLA within the BRT88 churchyard of St Bartholomew the Great church, jointly funded by English Heritage 043639–43 and the parish. The archaeological excavation preceded the development by the parish of part of the churchyard. The area of excavation, measuring approximately 75sq m, was located between the 14th century Lady Chapel of the church on the south and Cloth Fair on the north. The earliest features on the site were two linear ditches running in an approximate east-west direction. The ditches were sealed by a metalled surface containing some sherds of abraded Roman pottery. It was sealed by deposits through which a large number of inhumations had been made. Sixty-six articulated and seventy-five disarticulated inhumations were recorded. In addition to the inhumations, two rectangular chalk and mortar features, adjacent to the north wall of the Lady Chapel, may have been tombs or burial vaults. All of the inhumations and the possible tombs are presumed to date from after the foundation of the priory in 1123.The earliest wall foundation recorded was a semicircular chalk and rammed gravel structure predating the main foundations of the 14th century Lady Chapel. The position of the semicircular structure suggests that it may have been an apsidal chapel to the chancel of the 12th century church. Two phases of construction were identified in the exposed foundations of the 14th century Lady Chapel. The different phases of foundation suggested that at least part of the Lady Chapel had been constructed prior to the demolition of the east end of the 12th century church. Following the dissolution of the priory, the Lady Chapel was sold for private use. Some evidence for the post-Dissolution use of the Lady Chapel came from a pit adjacent to the Lady Chapel wall which contained 1,857 18th century pipeclay wig-curlers, as well as a large quantity of post-medieval glass and pottery. The site code BRT88 was later issued for potential work recording the crypt of the Lady Chapel, but in the event not used. 23 84–85 Long Lane, EC1 LOG82 A small watching brief by DUA in 1982 took place towards the NE corner of the 044715–20 precinct of St Bartholomew's Priory. Victorian basements had truncated the site but two rectilinear stone structures survived, cutting into the natural gravels. At least one was a cesspit, both of chalk and ragstone and aligned with Long Lane. Evidence from sections around the edge of the site revealed, on the N side, 2.5m of successive road-metallings and tread of medieval and post-medieval Long Lane, and on the south side horizontal deposits of garden soil disturbed only by north- south foundations of a 16th or 17th century brick wall under East Passage. Two
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 21 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx HEA Description Site code/ No. HER No. north-south aligned adult skeletons were noted by contractors at a depth of 8ft. In sections around the perimeter of the site the gravel street surfaces of Long Lane were recorded. The stone lining of a late medieval or post-medieval pit, probably a cesspit, was also recorded. 24 10–13 Carthusian Street, EC1 CTN86 A watching brief by the DUA in 1986 produced evidence of 13th century occupation. The earliest activity was a deposit of early medieval agricultural or garden soil over which a large 13th century building was found. This building was extended and an associated chalk-lined pits and a well were found. During the 16th century a replacement brick building was built on earlier foundations. The rubbish pits produced large quantities of wine jars, bottles, cups and plates and reinforces the 17th-documentary evidence that showed it to be the site of the Red Lion Inn. 25 2 Charterhouse Square (opposite), junction with Carthusian Street, EC1 CQC07 A watching brief by MoLAS in 2007 of a sewer drop shaft. Truncated natural gravel was overlaid by ground consolidation and dumped deposits for the construction of a brick building of 18th century date. One corner of this building, with an internal brick floor, was located in the middle of the drop shaft. In the south-west corner of the trench was a brick structure of 19th/20th century date. 26 2–9 Charterhouse Square, EC1 CQE04 A watching brief in 2004 by CA on telecommunications trench utilised the route of existing services and revealed only 20th century backfill. 27 4 Charterhouse Square, EC1 CQR05 A standing structure recording in 2005 by CGMS of building originally dates to the 18th century and forms the south half of a structure comprising numbers 4 and 5, the two houses broadly mirroring each other. 28 7–8 Carthusian Street, EC1 CAR89 A trial excavation in 1989 by DGLA revealed a number of rubbish pits of later CAR90 medieval or post-medieval date. Archaeological survival was exceptionally good and 082310 indicated continuous and intense occupation over several centuries. The deposits represent dumping of material from yards and gardens at the rear of the properties that abutted the Charterhouse wall. 29 Charterhouse Square Burial Ground 084012 Basil Holmes (1896): “This garden is a part of the site of a burial ground dating back Basil Holmes ID to 1349, when Sir Walter de Manny purchased from St Bartholomew’s Hospital 13 61 acres of land, known as the Spittle Croft, for the burial of those who died in the plague of that time. In 20 years 50,000 bodies where interred there. In 1371 the Carthusian Monastery was built upon it. The Pardon Churchyard survived longer, being used for suicides and executed people. Charterhouse Square is ¼ acres.” 30 Long Lane, EC1 040197 The findspot of Roman pavement, found in the area of Long Lane in 1806. Recorded on the GLHER. 31 St Bartholomew the Great, EC1 1180873 Grade I listed church building. Surviving eastern portion of church of former 041240 Augustinian Priory founded 1123. One bay of 12th century nave plus crossing with 041240/01/001– shortened transepts. Twelfth century apsed choir with vaulted ambulatory, 14th 8 century clerestorey and timber roof; 14th century Lady Chapel; early 17th century brick tower to south west of crossing with small timber cupola. As part of the restoration on the church Sir Aston Webb undertook some archaeological investigations in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During refurbishment of the Lady Chapel, he exposed several walls and sections of wall which he correctly interpreted as belonging to the earliest 12th century church. Webb also excavated in the area to the north of the Lady Chapel and exposed the foundations of several chalk lined tombs in the area now occupied by the 1988 church vestry extension. Sir Aston Webb's restoration work also involved the clearance of a large number of medieval and later inhumations on the southern side of the church, although the exact areas cleared of burials were not accurately mapped at the time. It is probable that these were from the Canon’s burial ground 32 Charterhouse Square 080514 The site of a post-medieval manor house. The Great and Little Cloister, church, 080477 chapter house, washouse court & the priors new cell were all sold to sir edward north in 1542. He destroyed much of the priory & converted the remnants into a town house. He destroyed the little cloister & made the church his dining hall. In 1553 he sold the house to John Dudley. It is mentioned in the documents as a
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 22 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx HEA Description Site code/ No. HER No. mansion or capital messuage. It was also held by the Duke of Norfolk, but returned to the throne after his execution. The mansion later became the basis of the school that was founded in c1611. The great hall was a part of this manor house, built out of material from the monastic buildings c1550 & built partly on the site of the church. Some of the Great Cloister of Charterhouse Priory (GLHER ref 080409) was used by the Bassano family - Italian entertainers at court. Buildings identified as being in use are the Prior’s cell, the Prior’s private chapel and a number of cells. Henry VIII had allowed them the use of this area after taking over the monastery at the dissolution. 33 St Johns Street 082421 The route of a medieval road. 34 St John’s Street 082247 Site of Hicks Hall, the first Sessions House in Clerkenwell built by Sir Baptist Hicks, JP and mercer. The name continued to be used by its replacement, the Old Middlesex Sessions House. 35 Charterhouse Square 080395 The site of a later medieval burial ground. Originally established as a plague cemetery by Sir Walter Manny, with a chapel, later a hermitage, which became the nucleus for Charterhouse. 36 Charterhouse Square 080482/10 The site of the Chapel of the Blessed Virgin and All Saints. 37 Charterhouse Mews No site code A watching brief by ILAU in 1986. Chalk rubble and brick footings of what was 083402–4 thought to be the original Tudor boundary wall to the Charterhouse were found. The area appeared to have been largely pitted in the post-medieval period for sand and gravel extraction. Some 17th century or 18th century pottery was noted but not retained. A brick arched drain cutting through a pit fill (SMR ref: 083404) and running east-west into Charterhouse was found. 38 Charterhouse Square 212458/01–2 The site of the outer gateway of Charterhouse and of the precinct wall adjoining the outer gatehouse. 39 Charterhouse Square 212458/03 The site of the inner gateway of Charterhouse. 40 Charterhouse Square 212458/04 The site of the Conduit House of Charterhouse. 41 Charterhouse Square 080482/04 The site of Washhouse Court of Charterhouse. Consisted of a laundry, dormitory, 080482/04/001– brew house, storehouses and a refectory. 5 212458/06 42 Charterhouse Square 080395/01 The site of the Chapel of the Salutation of the Virgin. 43 Charterhouse Square 212458/05 The site of Master’s Court of Charterhouse. 44 Charterhouse Square 080482/05 The site of Great Hall of Master’s Court, the guesthouse, Little Cloister, Little Cloister 080482/05/001– Alley of Charterhouse as well as a doorway, wall and two water channels 5 080482/09 212458/05/001 45 Charterhouse Square 212458/09 The site of the Brother’s Library of Charterhouse. 46 Charterhouse Square 212458/09 The site of the Chapel Cloister of Charterhouse. 47 Charterhouse Square 080482/06 The site of the Charterhouse Priory Church. Also of a soakaway. 080482/06/001– 14 080482/07
48 Charterhouse Square 080482/08 The site of the Chapter House, chapel and tower and an entrance hall of 080482/08/001 Charterhouse. 212458/07 49 Charterhouse Square 080482/06/015 The site of the Prior’s Chapel of Charterhouse. 50 2–5 Carthusian Street, Islington, EC1 CIN91
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 23 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx HEA Description Site code/ No. HER No. An evaluation and excavation by DGLA in 1991. Two trenches were excavated in 082379-80 the site in July 1991. The test pits produced late medieval and early post-medieval pottery from the fills of cut features, with also some residual Roman pottery. A large medieval quarry pit probably contemporary with the Carthusian Monastery was excavated. Post-medieval features were found including cess pits and brick walls from the 17th century, as well as two brick cess pits from the 18th century. Natural brickearth was recorded at 15.30mOD. 51 Cowcross Street/Peter's Lane/St John's Lane/Eagle Court/Britton COW88 Street/Benjamin Street, Islington, EC1 COW89 An excavation was carried out at the site of St John's Priory on Cowcross Street by 080436 DGLA in 1989, prior to redevelopment. Site code COW89. This followed evaluation 082201 at the site under site code COW88 (ELO14228). The excavated area was at the MLO10307 south end of the outer precinct, and at the corner of St John's Lane and Peter's Lane found a number of buildings, cess pits and a well that were associated with the medieval priory. A number of graves were also uncovered which may pre date the Priory buildings. The remains of a Tudor building were also identified. 52 109–113 Charterhouse Street , EC1 No site code A watching brief DGLA in 1988. Modern building works had truncated the site to the point where no archaeological remains survived. 53 Charterhouse Square MLO46151 The medieval Carthusian Charterhouse priory had an extensive water supply network with at least two cisterns or conduit houses, of which much was recorded. 54 Charterhouse Square, Islington, EC1 MLO73455 The approximate site of the chapel established by Sir Walter Manny in his Black Death cemetery of Spitalcroft (later New Church Haw). It is mentioned in bequests of 1350 and 1361, and is known to have an attached hermitage. It probably became the conventual church of the Carthusian Charterhouse monastery during its construction.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 24 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx 9 Planning framework
9.1 Statutory protection
Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas 9.1.1 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out the legal requirements for the control of development and alterations which affect buildings, including those which are listed or in conservation areas. Buildings which are listed or which lie within a conservation area are protected by law. Grade I are buildings of exceptional interest. Grade II* are particularly significant buildings of more than special interest. Grade II are buildings of special interest, which warrant every effort being made to preserve them.
Human remains 9.1.2 Development affecting any former burial ground is regulated by statute, principally the Burial Act 1857, the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884 and 1981, and the Pastoral Measure 1983. 9.1.3 The exhumation of any human remains requires approval from either the Secretary of State or the Church of England, depending on the current location of the remains. Exhumations from land which is subject to the Church of England’s jurisdiction will need the Church’s authorisation (a Faculty or the approval of a proposal under the Care of Cathedrals Measure 2011). This includes consecrated ground in cemeteries. 9.1.4 Exhumations from land which is not subject to the Church of England’s jurisdiction will need a licence from the Secretary of State, under Section 25 of the Burial Act 1857 as amended by the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 2014. A Burial Licence is required from the Secretary of State if the remains are not intended for reburial in consecrated ground (or if this is to be delayed - for example where archaeological or scientific analysis takes place first). 9.1.5 Under the Town and Country Planning (Churches, Places of Religious Worship and Burial Grounds) Regulations 1930, the removal and re-interment of human remains should be in accordance with the direction of the local Environmental Health Officer.
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;
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 25 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx • the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and • opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place. Para 127. When considering the designation of conservation areas, local planning authorities should ensure that an area justifies such status because of its special architectural or historic interest, and that the concept of conservation is not devalued through the designation of areas that lack special interest. Para 128. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to 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.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 26 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx 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. Para 139. Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets. Para 140. Local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from those policies. Para 141. Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development management publicly accessible. They should also require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.
9.3 Greater London regional policy
The London Plan 9.3.1 The overarching strategies and policies for the whole of the Greater London area are contained within the London Plan of the Greater London Authority (GLA July 2011). Policy 7.8 relates to Heritage Assets and Archaeology: 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, 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.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 27 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx 9.3.2 As part of the Revised Early Minor Alterations to the London Plan (GLA Oct 2013), amended paragraph 7.31 supporting Policy 7.8 ‘Heritage Assets and Archaeology’ adds that ‘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. Enabling development that would otherwise conflict with planning policies, but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset should be assessed to see if the benefits of departing from those policies outweigh the disbenefits.’ It further adds ‘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’. The Draft Further Alterations to the London Plan (GLA Jan 2014), incorporate the changes made to paragraph 7.31 but add no further revisions to the elements of the London Plan relating to archaeology and heritage.
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. 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
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 28 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx provided in the Islington Urban Design Guide (IUDG) Supplementary Planning Document.
9.4.3 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 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.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 29 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx 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. 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 30 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.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 2 gives examples of the significance of designated and non-designated heritage assets.
Table 2: Significance of heritage assets Heritage asset description Significance World heritage sites Very high Scheduled monuments (International/ Grade I and II* listed buildings national) English Heritage Grade I and II* registered parks and gardens Protected Wrecks Heritage assets of national importance English Heritage Grade II registered parks and gardens High Conservation areas (national/ Designated historic battlefields regional/ Grade II listed buildings county) Burial grounds Protected heritage landscapes (e.g. ancient woodland or historic hedgerows) Heritage assets of regional or county importance Heritage assets with a district value or interest for education or cultural 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 31 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx 11 Non-archaeological constraints
11.1.1 Oil tanks and a printers works are noted on the site in the late 19th century (see Fig 12) and this might have resulted in some ground contamination. 11.1.2 It is anticipated that live services will be present on the site, the locations of which have not been identified by this archaeological report.. 11.1.3 The exhumation of any human remains, if present, from land which is not subject to the Church of England’s jurisdiction will need a licence from the Secretary of State, under Section 25 of the Burial Act 1857 as amended by the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 2014. 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 32 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.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 English Heritage. Level 1 (basic visual record); Level 2 (descriptive record), Level 3 (analytical record), and Level 4 (comprehensive analytical record) Built heritage Upstanding structure of historic interest. Colluvium A natural deposit accumulated through the action of rainwash or gravity at the base of a slope. Conservation area An area of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. Designation by the local authority often includes controls over the demolition of buildings; strengthened controls over minor development; and special provision for the protection of trees. Cropmarks Marks visible from the air in growing crops, caused by moisture variation due to subsurface features of possible archaeological origin (i.e. ditches or buried walls). Cut-and-cover Method of construction in which a trench is excavated down from existing ground level [trench] and which is subsequently covered over and/or backfilled. Cut feature Archaeological feature such as a pit, ditch or well, which has been cut into the then- existing ground surface. Devensian The most recent cold stage (glacial) of the Pleistocene. Spanning the period from c 70,000 years ago until the start of the Holocene (10,000 years ago). Climate fluctuated within the Devensian, as it did in other glacials and interglacials. It is associated with the demise of the Neanderthals and the expansion of modern humans. Early medieval AD 410–1066. Also referred to as the Saxon period. Evaluation A limited programme of non–intrusive and/or intrusive fieldwork which determines the (archaeological) presence or absence of archaeological features, structures, deposits, artefacts or ecofacts within a specified area. Excavation A programme of controlled, intrusive fieldwork with defined research objectives which (archaeological) examines, records and interprets archaeological remains, retrieves artefacts, ecofacts and other remains within a specified area. The records made and objects gathered are studied and the results published in detail appropriate to the project design. Findspot Chance find/antiquarian discovery of artefact. The artefact has no known context, is either residual or indicates an area of archaeological activity. Geotechnical Ground investigation, typically in the form of boreholes and/or trial/test pits, carried out for engineering purposes to determine the nature of the subsurface deposits. Head Weathered/soliflucted periglacial deposit (ie moved downslope through natural processes). Heritage asset A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape positively identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions. Heritage assets are the valued components of the historic environment. They include designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing). Historic environment A written document whose purpose is to determine, as far as is reasonably possible from assessment existing records, the nature of the historic environment resource/heritage assets within a specified area. Historic Environment Archaeological and built heritage database held and maintained by the County authority. Record (HER) Previously known as the Sites and Monuments Record Holocene The most recent epoch (part) of the Quaternary, covering the past 10,000 years during which time a warm interglacial climate has existed. Also referred to as the ‘Postglacial’ and (in Britain) as the ‘Flandrian’. Iron Age 600 BC–AD 43
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 33 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.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 Record for National database of archaeological sites, finds and events as maintained by English the Historic Heritage in Swindon. Generally not as comprehensive as the country HER. Environment (NHRE) Neolithic 4,000 – 2,000 BC Ordnance Datum A vertical datum used by Ordnance Survey as the basis for deriving altitudes on maps. (OD) Palaeo- Related to past environments, i.e. during the prehistoric and later periods. Such remains environmental can be of archaeological interest, and often consist of organic remains such as pollen and plant macro fossils which can be used to reconstruct the past environment. Palaeolithic 700,000–12,000 BC Palaeochannel A former/ancient watercourse Peat A build-up of organic material in waterlogged areas, producing marshes, fens, mires, blanket and raised bogs. Accumulation is due to inhibited decay in anaerobic conditions. Pleistocene Geological period pre-dating the Holocene. Post-medieval AD 1500–present Preservation by Archaeological mitigation strategy where archaeological remains are fully excavated and record recorded archaeologically and the results published. For remains of lesser significance, preservation by record might comprise an archaeological watching brief. Preservation in situ Archaeological mitigation strategy where nationally important (whether Scheduled or not) archaeological remains are preserved in situ for future generations, typically through modifications to design proposals to avoid damage or destruction of such remains. Registered Historic A site may lie within or contain a registered historic park or garden. The register of these Parks and Gardens in England is compiled and maintained by English Heritage. Residual When used to describe archaeological artefacts, this means not in situ, ie Found outside the context in which it was originally deposited. Roman AD 43–410 Scheduled An ancient monument or archaeological deposits designated by the Secretary of State as Monument a ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’ and protected under the Ancient Monuments Act. Site The area of proposed development Site codes Unique identifying codes allocated to archaeological fieldwork sites, eg evaluation, excavation, or watching brief sites. Study area Defined area surrounding the proposed development in which archaeological data is collected and analysed in order to set the site into its archaeological and historical context. Solifluction, Creeping of soil down a slope during periods of freeze and thaw in periglacial Soliflucted environments. Such material can seal and protect earlier landsurfaces and archaeological deposits which might otherwise not survive later erosion. Stratigraphy A term used to define a sequence of visually distinct horizontal layers (strata), one above another, which form the material remains of past cultures. Truncate Partially or wholly remove. In archaeological terms remains may have been truncated by previous construction activity. Watching brief An archaeological watching brief is ‘a formal programme of observation and investigation (archaeological) conducted during any operation carried out for non–archaeological reasons.’
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 34 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx 13 Bibliography
13.1 Published and documentary sources
Barber B and Thomas C, 2002. The London Charterhouse MoLAS Monograph Series 10: London. Basil Holmes, 1899 The London Burial Grounds. 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 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 (Swindon: English Heritage) EH [English Heritage], 2011, The setting of heritage assets. GLA [Greater London Authority], July 2011 The London Plan. Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. GLA [Greater London Authority], October 2013 The London Plan, Spatial Development Strategy For Greater London, Revised Early Minor Alterations Consistency with the National Planning Framework. London GLA [Greater London Authority] Jan 2014 Draft Further Alterations to the London Plan GLAAS [Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service], 2014: Standards for Archaeological Work London Region. Gibbard PL, 1994 The Pleistocene history of the lower Thames valley, Cambridge Islington Borough Council, 2002 Islington UDP02, Unitary Development Plan 2002. Islington Borough Council, 2007 Charterhouse Square Conservation Area Character Appraisal Islington Borough Council, 2011 Core Strategy Knowles, D, and Grimes, W F, 1954 Charterhouse: the medieval foundation in the light of recent discoveries Lobel M, 1989 The City of London from prehistoric times to c 1520, Historic Towns Atlas 3, Oxford London Topographic Society 2005 The London County Council Bomb Damage Maps 1939-45, LTS publication 164 Margary, I.D. 1967 Roman Roads in Britain, London MoLAS [Museum of London Archaeology Service], 2000 The archaeology of Greater London: an assessment of archaeological evidence for human presence in the area covered by modern Greater London. London Museum of London, 2003 A research framework for London archaeology 2002, London Sloane B and Malcolm G, 2004 Excavations at the Priory of the Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, Clerkenwell, London. MoLAS monograph 20, London St John Hope WH, 1925 History of the London Charterhouse SoL [Survey of London], 2010 The Charterhouse Monograph 18. Thompson A, Westman A, and Dyson T (eds), 1998 Archaeology in Greater London 1965–90: a guide to records of excavations by the Museum of London, MoL Archaeol Gazetteer Ser 2, London Weinreb B and Hibbert C (eds), 1995 The London encyclopaedia. Macmillan. London
13.2 Other Sources
Landmark historic Ordnance Survey mapping British Geological Survey digital drift and solid geology data Greater London Historic Environment Record Internet – web-published sources London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre London Metropolitan Archive MOLA Deposit Survival Archive National Monuments Record, Swindon
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 35 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx 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 Braun and Hogenberg, 1572 ‘A map of London, Westminster and Southwark’, reproduced in Margary, 1981 A collection of early maps of London, Margary in assoc Guildhall Library, Kent Daynes plan of property surrounding Charterhouse Churchyard of 1651 (London Metropolitan Archive ACC/1876/MP/01/123/A) 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 Goad 1947 Insurance plan of London, (London Metropolitan Archive LCC/VA/GOAD/II) Greenwood and Greenwood, 1827 ‘Map of London from an Actual Survey’, reproduced in Margary 1982, ‘Map of London from an Actual Survey’ by C and J Greenwood, 1827, Margary in assoc Guildhall Library, Kent Hollar, c 1658 ‘A map of West Central London, c 1658’, reproduced in Margary, H, 1981 A collection of early maps of London, Margary in assoc Guildhall Library, Kent Leake J, 1667 ‘A map of the City of London showing the extent of the damage caused by the Great Fire of 1665’, reproduced in Margary, H, 1981 A collection of early maps of London, Margary in assoc Guildhall Library, Kent Margary H, 1979 The A–Z of Elizabethan London, Margary in assoc Guildhall Library, Kent Margary H, 1981 A collection of early maps of London 1553–1667, Margary in assoc Guildhall Library, Kent Margary H, 1981 The A–Z of Georgian London, Margary in assoc Guildhall Library, Kent Margary H, 1985 The A–Z of Regency London, Margary in assoc Guildhall Library, Kent Margary H, 1987 The A–Z of Victorian London, Margary in assoc Guildhall Library, Kent Margary H, 1992 The A–Z of Restoration London, Margary in assoc Guildhall Library, Kent Morgan W, 1682 ‘London &c Actually Surveyed’, reproduced in Margary, H, 1977 ‘London &c Actually Surveyed’ by William Morgan, 1682, Margary in assoc Guildhall Library, Kent 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 Plan of Charterhouse Square and premises of adjoining proprietors of 1718 (London Metropolitan Archive ACC/1876/MP/01/124) Plan of the parish of St Sepulchre, Middlesex of 1839 (London Metropolitan Archive HFCS/PR/009) Plan showing the proposed continuation of Charterhouse Street into Charterhouse Square of 1870 (London Metropolitan Archive ACC/1876/MP/01/151) 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 Stanford, 1862 ‘Stanford’s Library Map of London’, reproduced in Margary, H, 1980, ‘Stanford’s Library Map of London’ 1862, Margary in assoc Guildhall Library, Kent
Ordnance Survey maps Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25”:mile map of 1873 Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 25”:mile map of 1896 Ordnance Survey 3rd edition 25”:mile map of 1916 Ordnance Survey 1:1,250 scale map (1953) (1961)
Engineering/Architects drawings Plowman Craven, dwg 31893-001F-02, rev A prov 1, 24/02/15 Plowman Craven, dwg 31893-001F-01, rev A prov 1, 24/02/15 Waterman, New Build Core Option, Ground floor proposed works, 26/02/15 Waterman, Revised Basement Works, New Proposed Basement Works, May 2015
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 36 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx 13.4 Available site survey information checklist
Information from client Available Format Obtained Plan of existing site services (overhead/buried) N Levelled site survey as existing (ground and Y pdf Y buildings) Contamination survey data ground and buildings (inc. N asbestos) Geotechnical report N Envirocheck report N Information obtained from non-client source Carried out Internal inspection of buildings Site inspection Y Y
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2015 37 P:\ISLI\1266\na\Assessments\Charterhouse_Square_HEA_01-06-2015.docx Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2015
Greater London
the site
Contains Ordnance Survey data 010km 0 250m Islington © Crown copyright and database right 2014 531800 531900 532000
8 8 1 0
t o 7
8 8
7
7 8 t
6 2
r
u o
7
t
o
4
6
C
2 7 s Metral r 2 7 e 3-14
7 House h 2 5
2 8 0 c
9 a
e
0
r (private) 2
77 P
7
3 182000 Metral House
1-2 Great Hall E
Chapel l
6 C
a
9 c A i
L College
6 d
P 7 e t Grant
o M
6 D
5 N
6 A
3
L T
5 2a U 4 Charterhouse 2 1
1 R 3 14 3 1 5 1 7 T 5 h 5 0 e 5 8 4 1 4 0
5 8
4 3 9 3 E 3 Yard AR 5 QU t S Florin Court 3 f 6
4 6 lo 1 4 y t a o 2 E H 9 3 S M 8 5 1 2 U 4 E 2 4 O 3 4 9 3 W H 4 R S 7 1 1 E 4 T 9 8 R 3 3 3 A S 7 T H 3 Q E C 1 U 4
E 1 A 4 2 R R 3 o T t E 3 6 S 8 1 8 7 N 2
H 2
2
O
J
T 2 181900 1 S the site 1 8 3 10 12 2 3 1 3 9
2 t 3 1 43 o
E 2 1 9 R 4 1 UA 1 1 2 Q 41 6 3 E S
2 to 0 US 4 5 2 RHO 4 1 F 8 E 8 2 1 O RT 3 X HA 2 C 1 A 37 2 1 N to 1 D 3 1 3 2 1 2 K 2 8 4 N 1 7 O 0 T 1 6 S 1 5 T 0 8 4 1 ET 6 3 TRE to tation SE S 58 arbican S HOU SB B 4 Posts R 9 RTE 1 A S 6 9 CH 5 4 9 m
7 3 0 it h 1 f 2 i 5 e 8 H ld 1 A 1 Y 3
3 1 93 N 1 E o 8 0 t Bank 91 9 S 6 L T I R N E D 2 89 E 8 1 S to o 4 T t E 1 9 Y 87 9 4 S 8 7 86 1 T 1 5 R to 8 3 3 84 E 1 7 E 83 1 T PC 19 to e to 0 ag 15 181800 7 8 s 85 8 as 79 t P 0 8 as 1 2 7 E 2 T 2 to E 2 6 8 E 2 7 8 1 TR 2 S 23 2 LE 73 e D ag ID 6 1 2 s 3 M 7 as 2 1 to 23 71 P 0 st 5 7 Ea 9 5 4 6 T G East Market 6 2 3 2 EE R to R 4 T A 2 S N 24 1 Y D 68 R o 28 U 9 A t B 2 29 W 8 V 6 E 7 E K 30 N N 9 7 6 2 2 IN U B t 1 6 E a o G 3 o E N H t LA 9 60 rt 9 1 5 h 1 O 5 4 G R 8 o R N 5 lo N 6 3 LO is 5 m 1 i 3 6 to 6 n e S 2 7 5 g T w 9 R S P E 3 ce u IR a E 9 la 3 3 n A s T a P 5 F s o C 8 H a t 1 52 ou 3 T g o C O e t r L 3 50 lo t C 8 0 t 5 h 0 5 West Market Building C 4 1 8 o u 1 rt 4 6 4b 6 4 43 Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of theContains Controller Ordnance of Her Majesty's Survey data Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. 0100m Unauthorised© Crown copyright reproduction and database infringes rightCrown 2014 copyright and may lead scale 1:2,000 @ A4 to prosecution or civil proceedings. City of London 100023243 2015. Fig 1 Site location
ISLI1266HEA15#01 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2015
532000
9
8 0 7
8 3
Charterhouse 9
1 8 2 o t
6 8
9 8 9
4 The Green 2 8 1 8 0 t o
8 8
2 2
7 9 2
7 o
o Pump t
4 t
t
o
6
7 5
2 7 7 Hous 2 e 5 2 0 3-14 9 Chapel 2 7 )"13 (!45
9 5 7 l
182000 1 Metral House
1-2 a 6 Court
3 44 48 c 9 (! (! i 0 46 College (! d 6
6 e 0 S 5 47 49
(! (! M T 54 (! 5 53 J (! 13 O 3 4 12a 1 H 3 5 10 )" 1 7 T N h )"12 e (!41 (!43 ' S 1 4 8 4 0 5 8 L 4 Howard 7 A 1 40 42 7 3 (! (! N Yard 3 39 Florin Court E 6 (! 6 6
4 9 M )" LB 1 5 E 5 2 2 3 4 9 4 )"37 W (!38 4 1 S S 4 0 PH Q 3 4 7 1 3 (!36 )"8 1 U 2726 2 A 4 )")" 50 11 3 )" )" o R 3 t )"28 E 8 2 8 51 1 New Church Hawe )" *#2 7 (!34 (!35 # (!29 to 1 2 *3 1 14 3 8 # 25 01 3 * )" 2 1 9 1 3 TCB CR *# 2 42 4 3 1 6 to 4 )"24 2 17.6m 0 *#5 2 4 )"52 8 38 33 7 (! 2 *# 3 1 2 6 to 2 1 0 2 33 2 2 P 7 4 n 4 H 0 n Statio 6 1 rbica 1 16.9m 4 Ba 1 8 6 3 to Sm 58 9 SB 5 9 4 i 7 9 t 3 0 h
1 2 5 f i 1 e l 17.0m 3 1 1 L d 93 15.8m 1 I 8 E 0 N o N 9 Posts Bank 1 9 6 t LA 0 9 D )"15 G S 8 2 ON 89 E 16 o 1 L # 4 )" t to LB *7 Y 1 9 7 5 9 8 8 3 4 S 17 86 T to 7 (!32 R )"17 13 )"23 1 E 9 to 7 PC 1 5 85 8 E 1 l T 18 0 8 ne )"2 2 7 3 n 22 76 8 Tu 3 )"14 2 (!30 73 1 2 3 6 G 1 to 23 7 2 5 16.0m R 16.4m 70 5 6 41 A 5 4 2 1 East Market 69 2 3 ND to 24 24 A PH 8 9 V 9 7 30 7 E NE 19 20 2 2 1 6 N A )")" 3 to U L 9 1 1 G 5 6 to 5 E N 5 1 6 3 O 6 3 2 7 L 5 )"22 3 e (!31 9 9 ac 3 3 a l 5 to P 38 3 11 0 "21 8 West Market Building 5 3b ) 15 W 4 1 a b 4 r 4 4 5 d 6 4 3 8 1 1 to 20 B 4 4 4 d 6 51 4 to y 3 5 5 KEY D 4 3 IEL M 2 F PH 47 H id IT d
r SE SM a le C s O *# ListedS BuildingT within 75m 5 e WE 9 x L 5 4 C 8 5 8 a 9 location of grout shaft excavated in 7 se 8 4 5 u 2 6 7 o to 1 5 2013 (HEA 16) 16.5m H 1 0 to n 2 1 Statue 61 io 1 1 PCs C in L past archaeological1 investigation m )" D O o 5 2 L S D 2 IE E F 1 H (! archaeological4 feature/findspot IT 8 4 M H 7 2 1 a S l 5 Trough T 4 l E burial ground S 5 S E O A t L L W o B 1 C I Archaeological8 Priorty Area W O Haberdashers 2 E 0 N 0 16.7m M 2 W study area the Less Church LO A 21 3 O Y Amb Sta 8 H T R site outline TCB A Posts 2 B 3 Conservation Areas not shown
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2015 scale 1:2,200 @ A4 0100m
Fig 2 Historic environment features map
ISLI1266HEA15#02 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2015
the site
Fig 3 Conjectured plan of the Charterhouse precinct,c 1400 (Barber and Thomas 2002, Fig 17; after Knowles and Grimes 1954)
ISLI1266HEA15#03 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2015
the site
Fig 4 Agas’s map of 1562
the site
Fig 5 Daynes plan of property surrounding Charterhouse Churchyard of 1651 (London Metropolitan Archive ACC/1876/MP/01/123/A)
ISLI1266HEA15#04&05 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2015
the site
Fig 6 Plan of Charterhouse Square and premises of adjoining proprietors of 1718 (London Metropolitan Archive ACC/1876/MP/01/124)
the site
Fig 7 Horwood's map of 1799
ISLI1266HEA15#06&07 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2015
the site
Fig 8 Plan of the parish of St Sepulchre, Middlesex of 1839 (London Metropolitan Archive HFCS/PR/009)
the site
Fig 9 Plan showing the proposed continuation of Charterhouse Street into Charterhouse Square of 1870 (London Metropolitan Archive ACC/1876/MP/01/151)
ISLI1266HEA15#08&09 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2015
the site
Fig 10 Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25":mile map of 1873 (not to scale)
the site
Fig 11 Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 25":mile map of 1896 (1:2500 scale @ A4)
ISLI1266HEA15#10&11 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2015
the site
Fig 12 Goad Fire Insurance map of 1947 (London Metropolitan Archive LCC/VA/GOAD/II)
the site
Fig 13 Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 1:1250 scale map of 1953 (1:2500 scale @ A4)
ISLI1266HEA15#12&13 the site
Historic environment assessment 2015
ISLI1266HEA15#14
site outline
Fig 14 Existing ground floor plan (Plowman Craven, dwg 31893-001F-02, rev A prov 1, 24/02/15) Historic environment assessment 2015 the site site outline extent of basement Fig 15 Existing basement plan (Plowman Craven, dwg 31893-001F-01, rev A prov 1, 24/02/15)
ISLI1266HEA15#15 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2015
Fig 16 23–28 Charterhouse Square, looking south-west along Charterhouse Street, with the Grade II* listed East Building of Smithfield Market in the background (MOLA photo, taken 11/03/15)
Fig 17 23–28 Charterhouse Square, looking south-west, with the area of the burial ground in Charterhouse Square in the foreground (MOLA photo, taken 11/03/15)
ISLI1266HEA15#16&17 Historic environment assessment MOLA 2015 6 site outline site Existing stability wall Retained New Steel cross bracing bolted existingto columns New to beam support existing orslab proposed metal deck infill slab New deck metal slab New Column New RC wall connected to existing with dowels New steel staircase New 1200x750 RC spreader onto the existing beam installed masonry party wall Note:- Metal deck slab will need tieto the two buildings together either existing retaining through reinforcement during demolition or new resin anchor bars. dowel Key the site Pass. LiftPass. 1 Ground floor Proposed Works Fig 18 Proposed ground floor plan (Waterman, New Build Core Option, Ground floor proposed works, 26/02/15) Fig 18 Proposed ground floor plan (Waterman, www.watermangroup.com
ISLI1266HEA15#18 New Proposed Basement Works
site outline
the site Existing stability wall Retained
New Steel cross bracing bolted to existing columns
New Column supported on existing foundations or padstones on top of the existing party wall
New RC wall connected to existing with dowels supported on new foundations
Position of Existing Core Walls shown for Clarity
Assumed extent of Foundation under TBC. Re-use of existing
itrcevrnetassmn OA2015 Historic environment assessment MOLA foundations proposed where possible.
New pad foundations connected to existing pad foundations with dowelled reinforcement. Depending on the ground conditions the pad
ISLI1266HEA15#19 may require minipiled foundations to reduce the risk of differential settlement.
New Pali Radice Piles
Fig 19 Proposed basement plan showing areas of ground disturbance (Waterman, Revised Basement Works, New Proposed Basement Works, May 2015)
3