Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

Home , Mottingham

ARCHAEOLOGICAL DESK-BASED ASSESSMENT

1-3 BELLINGHAM ROAD, LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM, LONDON SE6 2PN

DECEMBER 2018

Local Planning Authority: London Borough of Lewisham

Site centred at: TQ 37941 72404

Author: Peter Reeves BA (Jt Hons) MCIfA

Approved by: Duncan Hawkins BA FSA MSc MCIfA

Report Status: FINAL

Issue Date: December 2018

CgMs Ref: PR/25158

No part of this report is to be copied in any way without prior written consent.

Every effort is made to provide detailed and accurate information, however, CgMs Limited cannot be held responsible for errors or inaccuracies within this report.

© Ordnance Survey maps reproduced with the sanction of the controller of HM Stationery Office. Licence No: AL 100014723 Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

CONTENTS

Executive Summary 1.0 Introduction and Scope of Study 2.0 Development Plan Framework 3.0 Geology and Topography 4.0 Archaeological and Historical Background, with Assessment of Significance (Including map regression exercise) 5.0 Site Conditions and the Proposed Development (Review of Potential Impact on Archaeological Assets) 6.0 Summary and Conclusions

Sources Consulted

Appendix 1 – Indicative Surface Water Drainage Plan showing existing Thames Water Sewer

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 1 Site Location Fig. 2 HER Plot (data from GLHER) Fig. 3 1778-1799 Hasted A Map of the Hundred of Blackheath Fig. 4 1800 T. Milne Landuse Map of London and Environs Fig. 5 1843 Lewisham Parish Tithe Map Fig. 6 1862-1863 Ordnance Survey Fig. 7 1888 Bacon Map of London Fig. 8 1897 Ordnance Survey Fig. 9 1910 G.W.Bacon Ward Map Fig. 10 1916 Ordnance Survey Fig. 11 1949 Bomb Damage Map Fig. 12 1848-53 Ordnance Survey Fig. 13 1968 Ordnance Survey Fig. 14 1985 Ordnance Survey Fig. 15 1988-1991 Ordnance Survey Fig. 16 Google Earth Aerial View 2003 Fig. 17 Google Earth Aerial View 2009 Fig. 18 Google Earth Aerial View 2018 Fig. 19 Proposed Development

CgMs Limited 1 PR/25158

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The site of 1-3 Bellingham Road, Lewisham, London SE6 2PN been reviewed for its below ground archaeological potential.

In terms of relevant designated heritage assets, no World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Historic Battlefields or Historic Wreck sites are present within the study site or its immediate vicinity. The site is located within an Archaeological Priority Area as designated by the London Borough of Lewisham.

The study site can be considered to have a moderate archaeological potential for the Post- Medieval and Modern periods. Evidence for the former horticultural use of the site, which would comprise very ephemeral evidence might be present dating to the Post-medieval use of the site for market gardening.

Past-post depositional impacts within the study site are considered to have had a cumulatively negative archaeological impact. The deeper sewer would have had a severe negative archaeological impact where it passes beneath the site (Appendix 1).

Development proposals comprise conversion of the existing building fronting Bellingham Road and demolition of existing empty buildings to provide 18 residential units (comprising 4 flats and 14 mews houses) and two commercial units (flexible B use class) in a new building up to 3 storeys, and associated landscaping, car parking, cycle parking, access and refuse storage space.

The site is currently occupied and operational with the only available areas for potential pre- determination evaluation trenches located within the central spinal access route. Based on the available information, to assist in enabling the archaeological advisors to arrive at an informed decision we recommend the implementation of archaeological monitoring of relevant additional geotechnical investigations.

Archaeological monitoring may be followed by archaeological trial trenching if the geotechnical investigations identify the potential for archaeological assets to be present on the site.

The decision will be taken by GLAAS and the Borough.

CgMs Limited 2 PR/25158

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF STUDY

1.1 This archaeological desk-based assessment has been researched and prepared by CgMs Heritage (Part of the RPS Group), on behalf of the Artifex Group.

1.2 The subject of this assessment comprises the site of 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN. The site is centred at TQ 37941 72404 within the London Borough of Lewisham (see Figure 1).

1.3 In terms of relevant designated heritage assets, as defined in Section 2 below, and as shown on Figure 2, no World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Historic Battlefields or Historic Wreck sites are present within the study site or its immediate vicinity. The site is located within an Archaeological Priority Area as defined by the London Borough of Lewisham (DLO35840 – Thames and Ravensbourne Terrace Gravels).

1.4 The Artifex Group have therefore commissioned CgMs Heritage (Part of the RPS Group) to establish the archaeological potential of the site, and to provide guidance on ways to accommodate any archaeological constraints identified. This report is specific to below ground or archaeological heritage assets and does not assess the potential impact of the proposed development on above ground heritage assets (listed buildings and conservation areas).

1.5 In line with relevant planning policy and guidance, this desk-based assessment comprises an examination of evidence on the Greater London Historic Environment Record (GLHER) and other sources, including Lewisham Local Studies Library. The report also includes the results of a comprehensive map regression exercise.

1.6 The Assessment thus enables relevant parties to assess the archaeological potential of various parts of the site and, if necessary, to consider the need for design, civil engineering, and archaeological solutions to the archaeological potential identified.

CgMs Limited 3 PR/25158

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

2.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FRAMEWORK

2.1 Legislation regarding archaeology, including scheduled ancient monuments, is contained in the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, amended by the National Heritage Act 1983 and 2002, and updated in April 2014.

2.2 In March 2012 (revised 2018), the government published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF is supported by the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), which was published online 6th March 2014 and last updated 28 July 2017 (updated September 2018) (http://planning guidance.planningportal.gov.uk). The Planning Practice Guide issued in support of PPS5 is still valid however, and Historic England (formerly English Heritage) has provided documentation translating former PPS5 policy into its NPPF counterpart.

2.3 The NPPF and NPPG are additionally supported by three Good Practice Advice (GPA) documents published by Historic England: GPA 1: The Historic Environment in Local Plans; GPA 2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment (both dated March 2015). The second edition of GPA3: The Setting of Heritage Assets was published in December 2017.

2.4 Section 16 of the NPPF, entitled Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment provides guidance for planning authorities, property owners, developers and others on the conservation and investigation of heritage assets. Overall, the objectives of Section 16 of the NPPF can be summarised as seeking the: • Delivery of sustainable development; • Understanding the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits brought by the conservation of the historic environment; • Conservation of England's heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, and • Recognition of the contribution that heritage assets make to our understanding of the past.

2.5 Section 16 of the NPPF recognises that intelligently managed change may sometimes be necessary if heritage assets are to be maintained for the long term. Paragraph 189 states that planning decisions should be based on the significance of the heritage asset, and that level of detail supplied by an applicant should be proportionate to the importance of the asset and should be no more than sufficient to review the potential impact of the proposal upon the significance of that asset.

CgMs Limited 4 PR/25158

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

2.6 Paragraph 193 of the NPPF states that great weight should be placed on the conservation of a heritage asset, when considering the impact of proposed development upon the significance of that impact: the more important the asset, the greater the weight. Alteration/destruction to a heritage asset within its setting can harm significance, and as heritage assets are a finite resource, clear and convincing justification needs to be made for harm or loss. Substantial harm to or loss of archaeological heritage assets of the highest significance, notably Scheduled Monuments, should be wholly exceptional.

2.7 Paragraph 196 of the NPPF confirms that 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

2.8 Heritage Assets are defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF as: a building, monument, site, place, area or landscape positively identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions. They include designated heritage assets (as defined in the NPPF) and assets identified by the local planning authority during the process of decision-making or through the plan-making process.

2.9 Annex 2 also defines Archaeological Interest as a heritage asset which holds or potentially could hold, evidence of past human activity worthy of expert investigation at some point. Heritage assets with archaeological interest are the primary source of evidence about the substance and evolution of places, and of the people and cultures that made them.

2.10 A Designated Heritage Asset comprises a: World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument, Listed Building, Protected Wreck Site, Registered Park and Garden, Registered Battlefield or Conservation Area.

2.11 Significance is defined as: The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. This interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.

2.12 Setting is defined as: The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.

2.13 In short, government policy provides a framework which:

CgMs Limited 5 PR/25158

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

• Protects nationally important designated Heritage Assets (which include World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Protected Wreck Sites, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields or Conservation Areas) • Protects the settings of such designations • In appropriate circumstances seeks adequate information (from desk based assessment and field evaluation where necessary) to enable informed decisions • Provides for the excavation and investigation of sites not significant enough to merit in-situ preservation.

2.14 The NPPG reiterates that the conservation of heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance is a core planning principle, requiring a flexible and thoughtful approach. Furthermore, it highlights that neglect and decay of heritage assets is best addressed through ensuring they remain in active use that is consistent with their conservation. Importantly, the guidance states that if complete, or partial loss of a heritage asset is justified, the aim should then be to capture and record the evidence of the asset’s significance and make the interpretation publically available. Key elements of the guidance relate to assessing harm. An important consideration should be whether the proposed works adversely affect a key element of the heritage asset’s special architectural or historic interest. Additionally, it is the degree of harm, rather than the scale of development, that is to be assessed. The level of ‘substantial harm’ is considered to be a high bar that may not arise in many cases. Essentially, whether a proposal causes substantial harm will be a judgment for the decision taker, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the NPPF. Importantly, harm may arise from works to the asset or from development within its setting. Setting is defined as the surroundings in which an asset is experienced, and may be more extensive than the curtilage. A thorough assessment of the impact of proposals upon setting needs to take into account, and be proportionate to, the significance of the heritage asset and the degree to which proposed changes enhance or detract from that significance and the ability to appreciate it.

2.15 In considering any planning application for development, the planning authority will be mindful of the framework set by government policy, in this instance the NPPF, by current Development Plan Policy and by other material considerations.

2.16 The relevant Strategic Development Plan framework is provided by the London Plan Consolidated with Alterations Since 2011. The Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP) were adopted 10 March 2015. This document includes the revised early minor alterations to the London Plan, which were published in October 2013. There were no

CgMs Limited 6 PR/25158

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

changes to Policy 7.8 Heritage Assets and Archaeology; slight amendments were made to the wording of Policy 7.10 World Heritage Study sites, cross referencing this policy with the Supplementary Planning Guidance document for the setting of World Heritage Study sites prepared in 2012. Recent Minor Alterations to the London Plan (MALP), published 14 March 2016, concern housing standards and parking, with no alteration to heritage policies.

2.17 Policy in the Consolidated London Plan relevant to archaeology at the study site includes the following:

POLICY 7.8 HERITAGE ASSETS AND ARCHAEOLOGY

STRATEGIC A. LONDON’S HERITAGE ASSETS AND HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT, INCLUDING LISTED BUILDINGS, REGISTERED HISTORIC PARKS AND GARDENS AND OTHER NATURAL AND HISTORIC LANDSCAPES, CONSERVATION AREAS, WORLD HERITAGE SITES, REGISTERED BATTLEFIELDS, SCHEDULED MONUMENTS, ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS AND MEMORIALS SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED, SO THAT THE DESIRABILITY OF SUSTAINING AND ENHANCING THEIR SIGNIFICANCE AND OF UTILISING THEIR POSITIVE ROLE IN PLACE SHAPING CAN BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

B. DEVELOPMENT SHOULD INCORPORATE MEASURES THAT IDENTIFY, RECORD, INTERPRET, PROTECT AND, WHERE APPROPRIATE, PRESENT THE SITE’S ARCHAEOLOGY.

PLANNING DECISIONS C. DEVELOPMENT SHOULD IDENTIFY, VALUE, CONSERVE, RESTORE, RE-USE AND INCORPORATE HERITAGE ASSETS, WHERE APPROPRIATE.

D. DEVELOPMENT AFFECTING HERITAGE ASSETS AND THEIR SETTINGS SHOULD CONSERVE THEIR SIGNIFICANCE, BY BEING SYMPATHETIC TO THEIR FORM, SCALE, MATERIALS AND ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL.

E. NEW DEVELOPMENT SHOULD MAKE PROVISION FOR THE PROTECTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES, LANDSCAPES AND SIGNIFICANT MEMORIALS. THE PHYSICAL ASSETS SHOULD, WHERE POSSIBLE, BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ON-SITE. WHERE THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSET OR MEMORIAL CANNOT BE PRESERVED OR MANAGED ON-SITE, PROVISION MUST BE MADE FOR THE INVESTIGATION, UNDERSTANDING, RECORDING, DISSEMINATION AND ARCHIVING OF THAT ASSET.

LDF PREPARATION

F. BOROUGHS SHOULD, IN LDF POLICIES, SEEK TO MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE THE CONTRIBUTION OF BUILT, LANDSCAPED AND BURIED HERITAGE TO LONDON’S ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, CULTURAL IDENTITY AND ECONOMY AS PART OF MANAGING LONDON’S ABILITY TO ACCOMMODATE CHANGE AND REGENERATION.

CgMs Limited 7 PR/25158

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

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.

POLICY 7.9 HERITAGE-LED REGENERATION

STRATEGIC

A. REGENERATION SCHEMES SHOULD IDENTIFY AND MAKE USE OF HERITAGE ASSETS AND REINFORCE THE QUALITIES THAT MAKE THEM SIGNIFICANT SO THEY CAN HELP STIMULATE ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY REGENERATION. THIS INCLUDES BUILDINGS, LANDSCAPE FEATURES, VIEWS, BLUE RIBBON NETWORK AND PUBLIC REALM. PLANNING DECISIONS

B. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HERITAGE ASSETS SHOULD BE ASSESSED WHEN DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED AND SCHEMES DESIGNED SO THAT THE HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE IS RECOGNISED BOTH IN THEIR OWN RIGHT AND AS CATALYSTS FOR REGENERATION. WHEREVER POSSIBLE HERITAGE ASSETS (INCLUDING BUILDINGS AT RISK) SHOULD BE REPAIRED, RESTORED AND PUT TO A SUITABLE AND VIABLE USE THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THEIR CONSERVATION AND THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES AND ECONOMIC VITALITY.

LDF PREPARATION

C. BOROUGHS SHOULD SUPPORT THE PRINCIPLES OF HERITAGE-LED REGENERATION IN LDF POLICIES.

2.18 A new London Plan has been prepared in draft and is open for consultation until March 2018. Chapter 7 ‘Heritage and Culture’ contains relevant draft polices HC1 to HC7. Of particular relevance to sites containing non-designated heritage assets is draft policy HC1 as follows:

HC1 Heritage and Conservation Growth

A. Boroughs should, in consultation with Historic England and other relevant statutory organisations, develop evidence that demonstrates a clear understanding of London’s historic environment. This evidence should be used for identifying, understanding, conserving, and enhancing the historic environment and heritage assets, and improving access to the heritage assets, landscapes and archaeology within their area.

B. Development Plans and strategies should demonstrate a clear understanding of the historic environment and the heritage values of sites or areas and their relationship with their surroundings. This knowledge should be used to inform the effective integration of London’s heritage in regenerative change by:

1. setting out a clear vision that recognises and embeds the role of heritage in place-making

CgMs Limited 8 PR/25158

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

2. utilising the heritage significance of a site or area in the planning and design process

3. integrating the conservation and enhancement of heritage assets and their settings with innovative and creative contextual architectural responses that contribute to their significance and sense of place

4. delivering positive benefits that sustain and enhance the historic environment, as well as contributing to the economic viability, accessibility and environmental quality of a place, and to social wellbeing.

C. Development proposals affecting heritage assets, and their settings, should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to the assets’ significance and appreciation within their surroundings. The cumulative impacts of incremental change from development on heritage assets and their settings, should also be actively managed. Development proposals should seek to avoid harm and identify enhancement opportunities by integrating heritage considerations early on in the design process. D. Development proposals should identify assets of archaeological significance and use this information to avoid harm or minimise it through design and appropriate mitigation. Where applicable, development should make provision for the protection of significant archaeological assets and landscapes. The protection of undesignated heritage assets of archaeological interest equivalent to a scheduled monument should be given equivalent weight to designated heritage assets.

Where heritage assets have been identified as being At Risk, boroughs should identify specific opportunities for them to contribute to regeneration and place-making, and they should set out strategies for their repair and re-use.

2.19 The relevant Development Plan framework is provided by the Lewisham Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document, adopted June 2011. Relevant policy includes:

CORE STRATEGY OBJECTIVE 10: PROTECT AND ENHANCE LEWISHAM’S CHARACTER

LEWISHAM’S DISTINCTIVE LOCAL CHARACTER WILL BE PROTECTED THROUGH SENSITIVE AND APPROPRIATE DESIGN, IN PARTICULAR THOSE AREAS REQUIRING MANAGED CHANGE AND PROTECTION SUCH AS THE BOROUGH’S HERITAGE ASSETS AND THEIR SETTINGS, LOCAL RIVERS AND LANDSCAPE, AND YET AT THE SAME TIME CREATING AND IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT WITHIN THE KEY REGENERATION AND GROWTH AREAS OF LEWISHAM, CATFORD, DEPTFORD AND NEW CROSS. THIS WILL MEAN: A. ENSURING THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT ACHIEVES HIGH STANDARDS OF URBAN DESIGN AND RESIDENTIAL QUALITY, AND CONTRIBUTES TO A SENSE OF PLACE AND LOCAL DISTINCTIVENESS INFORMED BY AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE HISTORIC CONTEXT B. ENSURING THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS ARE SENSITIVE, APPROPRIATE TO THEIR CONTEXT, AND MAKE A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION TO THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT C. PRESERVING OR ENHANCING THE CONDITION AND HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BOROUGH’S HERITAGE ASSETS AND THEIR SETTINGS AND THE OTHER IDENTIFIED ELEMENTS OF THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT.

CORE STRATEGY POLICY 15

HIGH QUALITY DESIGN FOR LEWISHAM

CgMs Limited 9 PR/25158

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

1. FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT, THE COUNCIL WILL: A. APPLY NATIONAL AND REGIONAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE TO ENSURE HIGHEST QUALITY DESIGN AND THE PROTECTION OR ENHANCEMENT OF THE HISTORIC AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, WHICH IS SUSTAINABLE, ACCESSIBLE TO ALL, OPTIMISES THE POTENTIAL OF SITES AND IS SENSITIVE TO THE LOCAL CONTEXT AND RESPONDS TO LOCAL CHARACTER B. ENSURE DESIGN ACTS TO REDUCE CRIME AND THE FEAR OF CRIME C. APPLY THE HOUSING DENSITIES AS OUTLINED IN THE LONDON PLAN, EXCEPT WHERE THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO PRESERVING OR ENHANCING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF CONSERVATION AREAS D. USE BUILDING FOR LIFE STANDARDS TO ASSESS MAJOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO ENSURE DESIGN QUALITY IN NEW HOUSING SCHEMES E. ENSURE DEVELOPMENT IS FLEXIBLE AND ADAPTABLE TO CHANGE F. ENSURE ANY DEVELOPMENT CONSERVES AND ENHANCES THE BOROUGH’S HERITAGE ASSETS, AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THEIR SETTINGS, SUCH AS CONSERVATION AREAS, LISTED BUILDINGS, REGISTERED PARKS AND GARDENS, SCHEDULED MONUMENTS AND THE MARITIME GREENWICH WORLD HERITAGE SITE.

2. THE SPATIAL STRATEGY IN SECTION 6 IDENTIFIES THE REGENERATION AND GROWTH AREAS, DISTRICT HUBS, ACTIVITY HUBS, LOCAL HUBS, AND AREAS OF STABILITY AND MANAGED CHANGE AND DESCRIBES THEIR CHARACTER. WITHIN EACH STRATEGY AREA THE DESIGN OF NEW DEVELOPMENT MUST MEET VARIOUS CHALLENGES, DETERMINED TO A LARGE EXTENT BY ITS CONTEXT, SIZE, PURPOSE, AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY. SPECIFICALLY EACH STRATEGY AREA WILL NEED TO ADDRESS.

REGENERATION AND GROWTH AREAS

3. DEVELOPMENT SHOULD ACHIEVE THE FOLLOWING DESIGN AIMS: A. ACHIEVE ‘CENTRAL’ DENSITY LEVELS WITHIN THE LEWISHAM MAJOR TOWN CENTRE. B. ACHIEVE ‘URBAN’ DENSITY LEVELS IN CATFORD TOWN CENTRE. C. NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN LEWISHAM AND CATFORD TOWN CENTRES SHOULD RESULT IN A RADICAL UPGRADING OF THE SOCIAL AND PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT AND, IN ORDER TO BE SUCCESSFUL, WILL NEED TO ALLOW FOR TALL BUILDINGS OF THE HIGHEST DESIGN QUALITY WHERE THEY IMPROVE AND ADD COHERENCE TO THE SKYLINE, AND DO NOT CAUSE HARM TO THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT, INCLUDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HERITAGE ASSETS. D. IN THE DEPTFORD AND NEW CROSS AREA, URBAN DESIGN POLICY WILL AIM TO ESTABLISH VISUAL LINKS WITH THE THAMES, INCREASE THE CONNECTIVITY OF THE STREET NETWORK, IMPROVE THE STREETSCAPE, AND CREATE A SENSE OF PLACE WITH RADICAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SOCIAL AND PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT. TALL BUILDINGS MAY BE APPROPRIATE IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS SUBJECT TO CORE STRATEGY POLICY 18. E. THE NEW CROSS/NEW CROSS GATE TOWN CENTRE HAS A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES WHICH NEED TO PRESERVE AND RESPECT THE CHARACTER OF THE ADJACENT CONSERVATION AREAS AND THE SETTING OF LISTED BUILDINGS. F. DEPTFORD TOWN CENTRE HAS DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES AROUND THE STATION AND FOR THE CREATION OF NEW CIVIC SPACES AND FACILITIES. THESE SHOULD ACT TO PRESERVE OR ENHANCE THE CHARACTER OF THE CONSERVATION AREA, RESPECT THE CONTINUED FUNCTIONING OF THE STREET

CgMs Limited 10 PR/25158

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

MARKET, AND CREATE A NEW SENSE OF PLACE AND FOCUS WHICH WILL SUPPORT AND INCREASE THE VITALITY AND VIABILITY OF THE CENTRE. G. DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT LOCATIONS (MELS) WILL NEED TO CREATE NEW PLACES IN AREAS THAT CURRENTLY LACK IDENTITY AND WILL BUILD ON EXISTING LANDSCAPE FEATURES TO PRESERVE LOCAL DISTINCTIVENESS.

CORE STRATEGY POLICY 16

CONSERVATION AREAS, HERITAGE ASSETS AND THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

THE COUNCIL WILL ENSURE THAT THE VALUE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BOROUGH’S HERITAGE ASSETS AND THEIR SETTINGS, WHICH INCLUDE THE MARITIME GREENWICH WORLD HERITAGE SITE, CONSERVATION AREAS, LISTED BUILDINGS, ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS, REGISTERED HISTORIC PARKS AND GARDENS AND OTHER NON DESIGNATED ASSETS SUCH AS LOCALLY LISTED BUILDINGS, WILL CONTINUE TO BE MONITORED, REVIEWED, ENHANCED AND CONSERVED ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF GOVERNMENT PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE, THE LONDON PLAN POLICIES, LOCAL POLICY AND ENGLISH HERITAGE BEST PRACTICE.

THE COUNCIL WILL WORK WITH ITS PARTNERS, INCLUDING LOCAL COMMUNITIES, TO ENSURE THAT THE BOROUGH’S HERITAGE ASSETS AND THOSE YET TO BE IDENTIFIED WILL BE VALUED POSITIVELY AND CONSIDERED AS CENTRAL TO THE REGENERATION OF THE BOROUGH AS DETAILED IN THE CORE STRATEGY SPATIAL POLICIES. THE WORLD HERITAGE SITE BUFFER ZONE FOR THE MARITIME GREENWICH WORLD HERITAGE SITE IS IDENTIFIED ON THE PROPOSALS MAP (SEE ALSO CORE STRATEGY POLICY 18). THE COUNCIL WILL ENSURE THAT ITS OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE, INTEGRITY AND AUTHENTICITY WILL BE PROTECTED AND ENHANCED AND WILL ENSURE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE SITE MASTER PLAN. THE COUNCIL WILL CONTINUE TO REVIEW ITS CONSERVATION AREAS, DESIGNATING NEW ONES AND PREPARING ASSOCIATED MANAGEMENT PLANS AND POLICIES TO CONSERVE THEIR CHARACTER.

2.20 Further relevant local planning policy is provided by the Lewisham Local Development Framework Development Management Local Plan Document, adopted November 2014. Relevant policy includes:

DM Policy 34 Thames Policy Area and Deptford Creekside 1. New development within the Thames Policy Area or on sites adjacent to Deptford Creek will need to, where appropriate, improve the relationship of the River Thames or Deptford Creek with the local context, by: a. maintaining and enhancing the relationships of local views, existing visual links and physical connections, landmarks, recreational facilities, heritage assets such as listed buildings and the archaeological heritage with the river or creek…

DM Policy 37 Non-designated heritage assets including locally listed buildings, areas of special local character and areas of archaeological interest A. General principles

CgMs Limited 11 PR/25158

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

1. The Council will protect the local distinctiveness of the borough by sustaining and enhancing the significance of non-designated heritage assets. 2. Development proposals affecting non-designated heritage assets should be accompanied by a heritage statement proportionate to the significance of the asset and which justifies the changes to the asset. 3. Non-designated heritage assets may be identified during the development management process….

…D. Non designated heritage assets of archaeological interest 8. The Council will ensure that non designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments will be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets. 9. The conservation, protection and enhancement of the archaeological heritage of the borough will be promoted through: a. requirements to assess and plan for the archaeological implications of development proposals that may affect the archaeological heritage of a site which may require preliminary archaeological site evaluations. Proposals on sites within areas of archaeological priority as shown on the Policies Map should be accompanied by an evaluation. Evaluations should be commissioned from professionally qualified archaeological organisations or consultants. b. the location and design of developments should avoid archaeological remains in order to ensure these remain preserved in situ, with public access and display. c. where permanent preservation is not justified, the remains are investigated, recorded and subsequently published by a recognised archaeological organisation prior to the start of development. d. Where remains unexpectedly come to light, seeking ensure their preservation or their recording in consultation with the developer.

2.21 In terms of relevant designated heritage assets as defined above and as shown on Figure 2, no nationally designated World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Historic Battlefield sites, Historic Wreck sites or Historic Parks and Gardens lie within the immediate vicinity of the study site.

2.22 In terms of relevant local designations, the site is located within an Area of Archaeological Priority, DLO35840 – Thames and Ravensbourne Terrace Gravels, as designated by the London Borough of Lewisham.

2.23 In line with existing national, strategic and local planning policy and guidance, this desk based assessment seeks to clarify the site’s archaeological potential and the need or otherwise for additional mitigation measures.

CgMs Limited 12 PR/25158

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

3.0 GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY

3.1 Geology

3.1.1 The British Geological Survey (BGS online) indicates that the solid geology of the general study area comprises of ‘London Clay Formation – Clay and Silt’ deposits forming the London Basin.

3.1.2 Superficial geology deposits, if they occur below the site, will comprise elements of the Kempton Park Gravel Member – Sand and Gravel.

3.1.3 Alluvium, comprising a mixture of Clay, Silt, Sand and Gravel is located along the course of the Ravensbourne River to the west of the study site (west of Bromley Road).

3.2 Topography

3.2.1 The existing ground level of the study site is roughly level at c.21m AOD.

3.2.2 As indicated above, the Ravensbourne River, flows from south to north to the west of the study site, whilst the River Pool runs south to north to the west of the Ravensbourne.

CgMs Limited 13 PR/25158

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

4.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, WITH ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE (Including Historic Map Regression exercise)

4.1 Timescales used in this report:

Prehistoric Palaeolithic 900,000 - 12,000 BC Mesolithic 10,000 - 4,000 BC Neolithic 4,000 - 2,500 BC Chalcolithic & Bronze Age 2,500 - 800 BC Iron Age 800 - AD 43

Historic Roman AD 43 - 410 Anglo Saxon/Early Medieval AD 410 - 1066 Medieval AD 1066 - 1530 Post Medieval AD 1530 - 1749 Modern AD 1750 - Present

4.2 Introduction

4.2.1 What follows comprises a review of archaeological findspots within a 1km radius of the study site, also referred to as the study area, held on the Greater London Historic Environment Record (GLHER), together with a historic map regression exercise charting the development of the study area from the eighteenth century onwards until the present day.

4.2.2 In terms of relevant designated heritage assets, as defined above in paragraph 2.6 and as shown on Figure 2, no World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Historic Wrecks or Historic Battlefield designations lie within the immediate vicinity of the study site.

4.2.3 The bulk of the GLHER findspots within the study area search radius relate to finds of Post Medieval and Modern material identified from recent archaeological interventions.

4.2.4 The site is located within an Archaeological Priority Area (APA) designated by the Borough of Lewisham. The APA, DLO35840 – Thames and Ravensbourne Terrace Gravels, covers deposits that might be considered to contain evidence for prehistoric

CgMs Limited 14 PR/25158

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

settlement although within the 1km search radius deployed for this report no such evidence has been recorded despite a reasonable amount of intrusive archaeological investigation.

4.2.5 Recent work to the north and the south of the site has identified archaeological assets dated to the Post-medieval and Modern periods only or have been entirely devoid of archaeological features and artefacts.

4.2.6 The map regression demonstrates that until the 19th century the site remained undeveloped and in use for market gardening.

4.3 Prehistoric - Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age

4.3.1 No archaeological finds or features of Palaeolithic date have been identified within a 1km radius of the study site.

4.3.2 A collection of struck flint dating to the late Mesolithic/early Neolithic is recorded close to the River Pool at TQ 37159 72189 (MLO77516) and at TQ 37099 72050 (MLO76127). However, in neither instant was evidence for settled activity recorded.

4.3.3 Predicting the presence or absence of early prehistoric material, specifically Palaeolithic and Mesolithic, is notoriously difficult. The courses of the River Ravensbourne and Pool would have attracted early human activity as they would have provided sources of drinking water and abundant flora and fauna within their flood plains, such exploitation would have been seasonal and leaves a very ephemeral footprint on the landscape.

4.3.4 While vertebrate remains have been identified within the Kempton Park Gravels, the identification of archaeological artefacts to date has not been common (Gibbard 1994: 90).

4.3.5 In view of the above, the study site’s archaeological potential for the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods can be considered to be generally low.

4.3.6 From around 4000 BC the mobile hunter-gathering economy of the Mesolithic gradually gave way to a more settled agriculture-based subsistence. The pace of woodland clearance to create arable and pasture-based agricultural land varied regionally and locally, depending on a wide variety of climatic, topographic, social and other factors. The trend was one of a slow, but gradually increasing pace of forest clearance.

CgMs Limited 15 PR/25158

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

4.3.7 By the 1st millennium, i.e. 1000 BC, the landscape was probably a mix of extensive tracts of open farmland, punctuated by earthwork burial and ceremonial monuments from distant generations, with settlements, ritual areas and defended locations reflecting an increasingly hierarchical society.

4.3.8 The sole evidence of later prehistoric activity (Bronze Age) identified within the 1km study area comprise 35 flint flakes recorded 900m to the west of the study site (MLO78025 at TQ 37159 72189). No evidence for agricultural activity or settlement dating to the Bronze Age has been recorded within the search area, similarly no evidence of a funerary or ritual landscape has been recorded.

4.3.9 Within the 1km search radius no evidence for activity throughout the Iron Age period has been recorded.

4.3.10 Despite the presence of Kempton Park Gravels beneath the study site it is considered that the archaeological potential of the study site for the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age can be categorised as low.

4.3.11 No evidence for settlement or agricultural use of the area has been recorded within the 1km search radius and where archaeological evaluation and excavation has occurred within APA, DLO35840 – Thames and Ravensbourne Terrace Gravels, deposits that might be considered to contain evidence for prehistoric settlement throughout the 1km search radius deployed for this report no such evidence has been recorded despite a reasonable amount of intrusive archaeological investigation. The APA is shaded yellow on Figure 2.

4.4 Roman

4.4.1 Settlement during this period is considered to have occurred where Watling Street (see paragraph 4.4.2 below) crossed the River Pool. The area is subject of an APA (DLO35843) located 700m to the west of the study site (shaded a green blue on Figure 2). Various archaeological interventions in this area have recorded evidence of settlement activity including 1602 pottery sherds at TQ 37159 72189 (MLO78027) and a cremation burial at TQ 37099 72080 (MLO11361).

4.4.2 The line of Watling Street, the Roman road linking London with Dover, Canterbury and Richborough, has been conjectured to run through the study area, to the west of the

CgMs Limited 16 PR/25158

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

site. The projected route is covered by an APA (DLO35842) and is shaded purple on Figure 2.

4.4.3 Unlike many of the projected routes of former Roman roads archaeological investigations along its route have proved its presence. The well-preserved gravel surface of the road was recorded at TQ 3713 7212 (MLO2203) and evidence for the roadside ditches was recorded at TQ 37099 72080 (MLO77155). Finds typically associated with Roman roads can include aligned land divisions and agricultural activity, together with roadside settlement/activity, quarrying, burials and chance losses. However, the site is so remote from the road that none of these features are considered likely to extend to the site.

4.4.4 During the Roman period the study site is believed to have lain away from known centres of activity and settlement. Accordingly a generally low archaeological potential has been identified for the Roman period at the study site.

4.5 Saxon/Early Medieval & Medieval

4.5.1 The place name Catford is thought to be derived from the Saxon word for ‘cattle ford’ and is thought to have originated around a crossing of the River Ravensbourne, with the focus centred to the west and northwest of the study site beyond the study area.

4.5.2 However, some consideration should be given to the possibility that the ford was across the River Pool, possibly on the alignment of the Roman road which may well have degraded by this time. Within the 1km search radius although no evidence of structures or settlement activity has been found it is noted that the only record of Saxon material is in this area where significant numbers of Saxon pottery sherds were recorded (MLO78027 at TQ 37159 72189).

4.5.3 During the Saxon period the general environment in which the study site is located probably comprised dense woodland (most of which was not cleared until 1857), and as such a generally low archaeological potential has been identified for this period at the site itself.

4.5.4 During the Medieval period Bellingham Manor was founded and is believed to have been located 350m to the south of the site (MLO11344 and MLO8644 at TQ 3795 7202). Friars Mill, believed to have been founded by the Cistercians at Stratford Langthorne

CgMs Limited 17 PR/25158

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

Abbey in Essex, is believed to have been located to the west of the study site at TQ 3777 7228 (MLO1901).

4.5.5 To the south of the site a Post-Medieval mill complex (Lower Mill) may have had Medieval origins but this remains unproven. The complex includes the former mill MLO1902, an outbuilding associated with the mill, MLO28273 and a mill pond (MLO3832 7169).

4.5.6 It is known that during the Medieval period deforestation began and the resulting cleared land primarily used for agriculture.

4.5.7 While the study site appears to lie away from known areas of settlement and activity, the potential for surviving remains of Medieval land division and agricultural practices might be present but these should be regarded as of local significance only.

4.6 Post Medieval and Modern (including map regression exercise)

4.6.1 The earliest map presented in this assessment locates the site within open space to the east of Bromley Road. Hasted’s map of the Hundred of Blackheath, dated between 1778 and 1799 (Figure 3) indicates the focus of settlement in the area as to the north and south of the site with further settlement along the course of the Ravensbourne River to the west.

4.6.2 Milne’s Landuse Map of London and Environs (Figure 4, dated 1800) shows the study site located within open ground identified by the blue shading as in use as market gardens.

4.6.3 The Lewisham Parish Tithe Map (Figure 5, dated 1844) and its associated Award shows the site located within two plots of open ground. Plot 2153 is identified as in use as pasture as is Plot 2164. The plots and the surrounding plots are owned by the occupiers of Plot 2165 identified simply as House, Yard and Buildings.

4.6.4 The site remains unchanged and undeveloped on the First Edition Ordnance Survey (Figure 6, 1862 - 1863) and this remains the same in 1888 (Figure 7). Bacon names the house and yard to the south of the site as White House Farm.

4.6.5 The Second Edition Ordnance Survey (Figure 8, dated 1897) shows the site unchanged and within a relatively undeveloped landscape. At this time the railway, which was to

CgMs Limited 18 PR/25158

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

result in a significant expansion of residential properties and businesses in the area, is shown constructed to the west of Bromley Road.

4.6.6 The Catford Ward Map produced by G.W. Bacon in 1910 (Figure 9) shows significant residential development of the area although at this time Bellingham Road has been set out but no properties built. The subsequent Ordnance Survey Map, dated 1916 (Figure 10), shows a semi-detached house in the south-east corner fronting Bellingham Road and within the site a fairly large structure toward the northern end of the site.

4.6.7 The World War Two Bomb Damage Map (Figure 11, 1949) compiled for the Corporation of London indicates that the buildings within the site were impacted; pale yellow indicates blast damage, orange general blast damage (not structural) and black, indicating complete destruction.

4.6.8 The 1948 to 1953 Ordnance Survey Map (Figure 12) shows further alterations across the site with the building partially destroyed in World War II demolished and a new range of buildings constructed along the western and eastern edges of the site. A building constructed within the centre of the site at the Bellingham Road end was short lived and does not appear on the Ordnance Survey (Figure 13, dated 1968).

4.6.9 The site has undergone no significant changes since 1968 (Figures 14 to 18).

4.6.10 We are also aware of a main sewer passing beneath the site (Appendix 1). The date of construction is unknown but would have comprised cut and cover.

4.6.11 The potential of the study site for the Post Medieval and Modern periods is anticipated to be concentrated upon remains of phases of development and redevelopment as represented on the map regression.

CgMs Limited 19 PR/25158

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

4.7 Negative/Neutral Evidence

4.7.1 An archaeological desk-based assessment undertaken for a site to the west appears to have attracted no further archaeological work (ELO12434). An archaeological watching brief (ELO7944) following an archaeological evaluation (ELO7719) to the north-west of the site identified a palaeochannel but no archaeological assets. An archaeological evaluation immediately to the north (ELO2744) at TQ 3771 7271 also recorded no archaeological assets.

4.7.2 Archaeological evaluation to the south-west of the site (ELO850 and ELO9968) at TQ 3775 7221 identified a modern and 19th century cut feature with no deposits or artefacts from earlier periods recorded.

4.8 Assessment of Significance

4.8.1 Existing national policy guidance for archaeology (the NPPF as referenced in section 2) enshrines the concept of the ‘significance’ of heritage assets. Significance as defined in the NPPF centres on the value of an archaeological or historic asset for its ‘heritage interest’ to this or future generations.

4.8.2 No relevant archaeological designated heritage assets as defined in the NPPF are recorded on or in close proximity to the study site.

4.8.3 No non-designated heritage assets are identified on the site although it is acknowledged that the site is located within an archaeological priority area as designated by Lewisham Borough Council. However, recent evaluations undertaken nearby (also within the APA) have not recorded any evidence for prehistoric settlement (specific to the APA) and have not recorded archaeological assets predating the Post-Medieval and Modern periods.

4.8.4 Overall it would appear that, whilst it is possible that archaeological remains dating to the Prehistoric period may be present within the study site boundary, the balance of probability is that should such remains occur they will purely be of local significance.

CgMs Limited 20 PR/25158

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

5.0 SITE CONDITIONS AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (Review of potential impact upon Heritage Assets)

5.1 Site Conditions

5.1.1 The site is currently occupied by a series of light industrial buildings varying between single and two storeys brick-built structures accommodating a variety of services relating to maintenance and valeting of vehicles. The buildings are arranged along the eastern and western edges of the plot (Figures 1 and 18).

5.1.2 The construction of the existing buildings can be considered likely to have a significant, negative archaeological impact through the cutting of foundations and services. A major sewer runs beneath the site on a north-east to south-west alignment.

5.1.3 The construction and subsequent demolition of previous phases of development across the site, as described in the historic map regression, can be considered likely to have had a cumulatively negative archaeological impact through the cutting of foundations and services, followed by their subsequent grubbing out. The cut and cover construction for the sewer would have had a severe impact (Appendix 1).

5.1.4 Agricultural/horticultural use of the study site prior to development can be considered likely to have had a moderate, widespread negative archaeological impact.

5.2 The Proposed Development

5.2.1 Development proposals comprise conversion of the existing building fronting Bellingham Road and demolition of existing empty buildings to provide 18 residential units (comprising 4 flats and 14 mews houses) and two commercial units (flexible B use class) in a new building up to 3 storeys, and associated landscaping, car parking, cycle parking, access and refuse storage space (Figure 19).

5.3 Review of Potential Development Impacts Upon Heritage Assets

5.3.1 In view of the available information regarding the study site’s archaeological potential, combined with the potential for past depositional impacts, redevelopment of this site is considered unlikely to have a widespread or significant archaeological impact.

CgMs Limited 21 PR/25158

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

5.3.2 As no basements are proposed for the redevelopment of the site the potential impacts are limited and restricted to strip foundations and the cutting of deep services.

5.3.3 However, the study site’s perceived potential for archaeological evidence, due to its location within an Archaeological Priority Area, indicates that the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) Officer for the London Borough of Lewisham will require appropriate archaeological mitigation measures to be implemented in advance of redevelopment.

CgMs Limited 22 PR/25158

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

6.1 The site of 1-3 Bellingham Road, Lewisham, London SE6 2PN been reviewed for its below ground archaeological potential.

6.2 In accordance with central, regional and local government planning policy and guidance, a desk based assessment has been undertaken to clarify the archaeological potential of the study area.

6.3 In terms of relevant designated heritage assets, no World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Historic Battlefields or Historic Wreck sites are present within the study site or its immediate vicinity. The site lies within an Archaeological Priority Area as designated by the London Borough of Lewisham, specifically DLO35840 covering the Thames and Ravensbourne Terrace Gravels which are associated with evidence for prehistoric settlement.

6.4 The study site can be considered to have a moderate archaeological potential for the Post-Medieval and Modern periods. Evidence for the former horticultural use of the site, which would comprise very ephemeral evidence might be present dating to the Post- medieval use of the site for market gardening.

6.5 Past-post depositional impacts within the study site are considered to have had a cumulatively negative archaeological impact. The deeper sewer would have had a severe negative archaeological impact where it passes beneath the site.

6.6 Development proposals comprise conversion of the existing building fronting Bellingham Road and demolition of existing empty buildings to provide 18 residential units (comprising 4 flats and 14 mews houses) and two commercial units (flexible B use class) in a new building up to 3 storeys, and associated landscaping, car parking, cycle parking, access and refuse storage space.

6.7 The site is currently occupied and operational with the only available areas for potential pre-determination evaluation trenches located within the central spinal access route. On the basis of the available information, to assist in enabling the archaeological advisors to arrive at an informed decision we recommend the implementation of the following initial mitigation measures directed at proposed redevelopment impacts:

CgMs Limited 23 PR/25158

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

1. Archaeological monitoring of relevant additional geotechnical investigations. 2. Archaeological trial trenching if the geotechnical investigations identify the potential for archaeological assets to be present on the site.

6.8 As archaeological remains of national significance are not anticipated at the site, it is suggested that such work can be secured by an appropriately worded condition attached to the granting of planning consent for redevelopment.

CgMs Limited 24 PR/25158

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

SOURCES CONSULTED

1. General British Library Greater London Historic Environment Record Lewisham Local Studies Library

2. Internet http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk http://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/ http://www.british-history.ac.uk/ https://finds.org.uk/database/ https://www.historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list https://opendomesday.org.uk http://www.pastscape.org.uk http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk

3. Bibliographic Batchelor, C.R., Branch, N.P., Allison, E.A., Austin, P.A., Bishop, B., Brown, A.D., Elias, S.A., Green, C.P., Young, D.S. The timing and causes of the Neolithic elm decline: New evidence from the Lower Thames Valley Association for Environmental Archaeology 2014 Vol. 19. No. 3 pp263-290

Bridgland Quaternary River terrace deposits as a framework for the Lower Palaeolithic record in Gamble & Lawson (eds.) The English Palaeolithic Reviewed 1996

British Geological Survey British Regional Geology London and the Thames Valley Fourth Edition 1996

Brown London Railway Atlas 2010

CgMs/QUEST Written Scheme of Investigation for Geoarchaeological Borehole Survey Kent Wharf Deptford Lewisham London SE8 September 2015 unpublished document

Chartered Institute for Archaeologists Standard & Guidance for historic environment desk based assessment August 2014 unpublished document

Cherry & Pevsner Buildings of England London 2: South 1999

Department of Communities and Local Government National Planning Policy Framework 2012

Historic England (formerly English Heritage) Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment 2008

Historic England Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 1 The Historic Environment in Local Plans July 2015 unpublished document

CgMs Limited 25 PR/25158

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

Historic England Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 2 Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment July 2015 unpublished document

Historic England Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 3 The Setting of Heritage Assets 2nd Edition December 2017 unpublished document

Gibbard The Pleistocene History of the Lower Thames Valley 1994

Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service Guidelines for Archaeological Projects in Greater London April 2015 unpublished document

Hasted The History and Topographical Survey of Kent Volume 3 1797

London County Council Names and Streets and Places in the Administrative County of London 1955

London Topographical Society/London & Metropolitan Archives The London County Council Bomb Damage Maps 1939-1945, 2005

Margary Roman Roads in Britain 1955

MoLAS/English Heritage The Archaeology of Greater London: An Assessment of archaeological evidence for human presence in the area now covered by Greater London 2000

Museum of London A research framework for London archaeology 2002

Museum of London Archaeology Service New Laban Dance Centre Creekside Deptford, Archaeological Evaluation Report 2000 unpublished document

QUEST Kent Wharf Deptford London Borough of Lewisham Geoarchaeological Deposit Model Report October 2015 unpublished document

QUEST Kent Wharf Deptford London Borough of Lewisham Environmental Archaeological Assessment Report January 2016 unpublished document

QUEST Kent Wharf Deptford London Borough of Lewisham Geoarchaeological Analysis Report November 2017 unpublished document

Poulter Around Lewisham and Deptford 2005

RCHME Survey Report Deptford Houses 1650-1800 1998 unpublished document

Weinreb, Hibbert & Keay (eds.) The London Encyclopaedia 2008

Wymer The Lower Palaeolithic Occupation of Britain 2 volumes 1999

4. Cartographic 1745 John Rocque Map of London 1769 Andrews Dury & Herbert Map of Kent 1799 Ordnance Survey Drawing 1800 Thomas Milne Land Use Map

CgMs Limited 26 PR/25158

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

1844 Deptford Tithe Map 1867 Ordnance Survey 1871 Ordnance Survey 1882 Ordnance Survey 1894 Ordnance Survey 1894-6 Ordnance Survey 1896 Ordnance Survey 1898 Ordnance Survey 1914 Ordnance Survey 1916 Ordnance Survey 1936 GOAD Insurance Plan 1938 Ordnance Survey 1948 Ordnance Survey 1951 Ordnance Survey 1951 GOAD Insurance Plan 1955 Ordnance Survey 1959 Ordnance Survey 1967 Ordnance Survey 1969 Ordnance Survey 1970 Ordnance Survey 1973 Ordnance Survey 1979 Ordnance Survey 1980 Ordnance Survey 1980-82 Ordnance Survey 1982-5 Ordnance Survey 1989 Ordnance Survey 1991 Ordnance Survey 1994 Ordnance Survey 1998 British Geological Survey Sheet 270 (South London) 2002 Ordnance Survey 2014 Ordnance Survey

CgMs Limited 27 PR/25158

N:\25000-25999\25158 - 1-3 Bellingham Road, London, SE6 2PN\Figures\Mapping\GIS\Projects\Figure 1.mxd NB / 03.12.18

Blackheath A2213 A2215

A21 GREENWICH LONDON BORO A2216

Enfield A2212 ELTHAM LEWISHAM Barnet SOUTHWARK LONDON BORO Harrow Waltham Hither Green Haringey Forest Redbridge

Havering A205 Brent Hackney LEWISHAM LONDON BORO A20 Islington Camden Barking and Hillingdon Dagenham Tower Newham Dulwich Hamlets CATFORD Ealing 4 3 Mottingham 2 1 Southwark Greenwich Hounslow Bexley Lambeth Sydenham Wandsworth Lewisham Richmond Upon Thames A2199 Grove Park Merton Kingston A2015 Upon Crystal Palace Thames Bromley Sutton Croydon A2212 1 Hammersmith & Fulham PENGE

2 Kensington & Chelsea BROMLEY LONDON BORO 3 City of Westminster A214 4 City of London BROMLEY A222 BECKENHAM 173000 172500 172000

537500 538000 538500 Scale at A4: 1:8,000 0 200m

Site Boundary ± Figure 1: Site Location

© Ordnance Survey maps reproduced with the sanction of the controller of HM Stationery Office. Licence No: AL 100014723 Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right [2017] N:\25000-25999\25158 - 1-3 Bellingham Road, London, SE6 2PN\Figures\Mapping\GIS\Projects\Bellingham Road Figure 2.mxd NB / 04.12.18

ELO13707 MLO103029 ELO18646

ELO14253

ELO9958 MLO1923 Site Boundary 1km search radius

Non-Designated

173000 Heritage Assets: MLO64266 HER Monuments ELO11983 DLO35842 Point ELO9943 HER Monuments Line HER Monuments Polygon ELO2744 Area of Potential Archaeology DLO35840 MLO11331 Bell Green ELO11538 ELO7719 MLO2016 London - Lewes ELO7944 Roman Road MLO99113 Southend ELO16278 172500 Thames and Ravensbourne Terrace Gravels

MLO11361 ELO12434 MLO1922 MLO1901 Previous Archaeological Work: MLO89521 MLO90303 MLO77516 )" HER Events Point ELO9957 MLO90304 MLO78025 ELO850 ELO1504 MLO76322 )" MLO90305 MLO104328 HER Events Line MLO78028 MLO90306 DLO35843 )" MLO78027 HER Events MLO77156 MLO78026 Polygon MLO77157 MLO78029 MLO77155 ELO9968 MLO76127 MLO2203 ELO625 )" MLO11344 MLO8644 MLO101002 MLO60366 172000 ELO4238 MLO10232

MLO19469 ELO6865 )"

ELO11525 ELO11688 MLO25565

MLO1902 MLO28273 MLO30359 ± ELO11535 ELO11980 DLO35851 MLO11359 Scale at A3: 1:8,000 0 250m 171500 ELO14276 Site falls within HLC ID 2476; Figure 2: ELO2325 Southend & Downham, RES 2 and DST HER Plot (Data from (Inter-war suburbs, Detached, Semis and Terraces) GLHER)

537000 537500 538000 538500 539000 © Ordnance Survey maps reproduced with the sanction of the controller of HM Stationery Office. Licence No: AL 100014723 © English Heritage 2017. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2017 The Dataset contained in this material was obtained on 16.01.17 N:\25000-25999\25158 - 1-3 Bellingham Road, London, SE6 2PN\Figures\Mapping\Corel NB/Dec 2018

Not to Scale: Illustrative Only Legend

Approximate site location N Figure 3: 1778-1799 Hasted A Map of the Hundred of Blackheath

© Ordnance Survey maps reproduced with the sanction of the controller of HM Stationery Office. Licence No: AL 100014723 Contains OS data © Crown copyright [and database right] 2016 N:\25000-25999\25158 - 1-3 Bellingham Road, London, SE6 2PN\Figures\Mapping\Corel NB/Dec 2018

Not to Scale: Illustrative Only Legend

Site Boundary N Figure 4: 1800 T. Milne Land Use Map of London and Environs

Not to Scale: Illustrative Only Legend

Site Boundary N Figure 5: 1843 Lewisham Parish Tithe Map

Not to Scale: Illustrative Only Legend

Site Boundary N Figure 6: 1962-1863 Ordnance Survey Map

Not to Scale: Illustrative Only Legend

Site Boundary N Figure 7: 1888 Bacon Map of London

Not to Scale: Illustrative Only Legend

Site Boundary N Figure 8: 1897 Ordnance Survey Map

Not to Scale: Illustrative Only Legend

Approximate site location N Figure 9: 1910 G.W Bacon Ward Map

Not to Scale: Illustrative Only Legend

Site Boundary N Figure 10: 1916 Ordnance Survey Map

Not to Scale: Illustrative Only Legend

Site Boundary N Figure 11: 1949 Bomb Damage Map

Not to Scale: Illustrative Only Legend

Site Boundary N Figure 12: 1948-1953 Ordnance Survey Map

Not to Scale: Illustrative Only Legend

Site Boundary N Figure 13: 1968 Ordnance Survey Map

Not to Scale: Illustrative Only Legend

Site Boundary N Figure 14: 1985 Ordnance Survey Map

Not to Scale: Illustrative Only Legend

Site Boundary N Figure 15: 1988-1991 Ordnance Survey Map

Not to Scale: Illustrative Only Legend

Site Boundary N Figure 16: 2003 Google Earth Aerial Image

Not to Scale: Illustrative Only Legend

Site Boundary N Figure 17: 2009 Google Earth Aerial Image

Not to Scale: Illustrative Only Legend

Site Boundary N Figure 18: 2018 Google Earth Aerial Image

Not to Scale: Illustrative Only Legend

Site Boundary N

Figure 19: Proposed Development

© Ordnance Survey maps reproduced with the sanction of the controller of HM Stationery Office. Licence No: AL 100014723 Contains OS data © Crown copyright [and database right] 2016 Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1-3 Bellingham Road, London Borough of Lewisham, London SE6 2PN

Appendix 1 – Indicative Surface Water Drainage Plan showing existing Thames Water Sewer

CgMs Limited 28 PR/25158

NOTES: TWMH 9406 CL 21.29 EX. 300mmØ CW SEWER 1. DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAWING. N IL 17.81 INDICATIVE PAVING BUILD-UP 2. ALL LEVELS ARE IN METRES ABOVE ORDNANCE DATUM AND ALL DIAMETERS IN MILLIMETRES UNLESS EX. 150mmØ CW SEWER OTHERWISE STATED.

600mm 3. PROPOSED DRAINAGE IS SHOWN INDICATIVELY AND FOR INFORMATION ONLY.

EX. 300mmØ CW SEWER MINIMUM COVER 1m x 0.5m x 0.4m GEO-CELLULAR 4. LAYOUT BASED ON PROPOSED SITE PLAN, RECEIVED PLASTIC STORAGE CRATES (POLYPIPE FROM ROK PLANNING ON 27 NOVEMBER 2018, POLYSTORM OR EQUIVALENT) PRODUCED BY KIRKWOOD MCCARTHY (REF. 21.16 WRAPPED IN VISQUEEN URBAN 18005-GA-100). PROPOSED PERMAVOID PAVING DRAINAGE IMPERMEABLE INSTALLED AROUND TREE PITS GEOMEMBRANE. INSTALLED IN RRPREC1C RootRain 5. THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN BASED UPON TOPOGRAPHIC 2 PRECINCT IRRIGATION SYSTEM AREA 36m ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURERS SURVEY DATA PRODUCED BY SKY REVOLUTIONS IN DEPTH 0.45m SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS. AUGUST 2018 (REF. SRL 18133). LEVELS TO BE

SWMH 1.0 LAYOUT FOR DEPTH VOID RATIO 95% REFER TO DRAINAGE ULLS186A ULLSWATER GALVANISED TREE GRILLE SUPPORT CL 21.45 VERTICAL STEEL TREE GUARD FRAME SET ON CONCRETE HAUNCH CONFIRMED ON SITE. STORAGE VOLUME 15.4m3 IL 19.80 1.8m HIGH x 600mm DIAMETER SECURED TO GRILLE ENGINEERED MEDIA 6. EXISTING SEWERS DETAILS (INCLUDING SIZE, LEVELS, & RODDING POINT CONDITION) SHOULD BE CONFIRMED BY A CCTV REFER TO DRAINAGE LAYOUT FOR SIZE & LEVELS PERMAVOID PAVING DRAINAGE SURVEY.

7. LOCATIONS OF OTHER UTILITIES SHOULD BE CELLULAR ATTENUATION TANK CONSTRUCTION DETAILS IMPERMEABLE GEO-MEMBRANE CONFIRMED AND CHECKED FOR CLASHES WITH PROPOSED DRAINAGE STRATEGY. (1:20) STONE BEDDING PERFORATED DISTRIBUTION PIPE 8. ALL PROPOSED LEVELS TO BE CONFIRMED IN DETAILED LEVELS STRATEGY. DETAILS SHOWN ARE INDICATIVE. REFER TO MANUFACTURER FOR FULL DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS. REFER TO MANUFACTURERS DETAILS FOR INLET & OUTLET TO INSPECTION CHAMBER

150mmØ SWD @ 1:150 9. OUTFALL LEVELS TO BE CONFIRMED AND DRAINAGE MANIFOLDS AND INSPECTION ACCESS. (REFER TO LAYOUT FOR LOCATIONS). DESIGN AMENDED ACCORDINGLY. EXISTING THAMES WATER TRUNK COMBINED PERFORATED UNDERDRAIN SEWER. DEPTH APPROXIMATELY 10m BELOW GROUND LEVEL KEY

SITE BOUNDARY

EXISTING THAMES WATER COMBINED WATER SEWER & MANHOLE

ACCESS COVER TO BE LOCATED ABOVE BYPASS EXISTING THAMES WATER TRUNK DOOR. PULL HANDLE ON END OF STEEL ROPE COMBINED WATER SEWER VARIES TO BE LOCATED JUST UNDER MANHOLE COVER, (REFER TO SCHEDULE FOR DETAILS) STEEL ROPE FOR OPERATING BYPASS SECURED IN PLACE WITH EYE BRACKET PROPOSED SURFACE WATER SEWER & DOOR ON HYDRO-BRAKE MANHOLE

'B' PROPOSED BURIED GEOCELLULAR SWMH 1.1 ATTENUATION TANK CL 21.56 CP IL 19.56 PROPOSED BURIED PERMAVOID 150 'D' (DEPTH AS SHOWN) CONCRETE MOUNTING BLOCK SUMP INCOMING PIPE 'B' HYDRO-BRAKE PROPOSED VORTEX FLOW CONTROL OUTLET SPIGOT PIVOTING INFLOW DEVICE PROPOSED GEOCELLULAR ATTENUATION HYDRO-BRAKE OUTLET SPIGOT BYPASS DOOR TANK PROPOSED COMBINED WATER MANHOLE CL 21.69 OUTFLOW INFLOW 'F'

'E' OUTFLOW CONSTRUCTED ON EXISTING LINE TOP OF TANK 20.04 INCOMING PIPE IL 19.44 60° NRV

2 OUTGOING PIPE PROPOSED NON-RETURN VALVE

AREA 24m 225Ø OUTGOING PIPE x x x x DEPTH 0.6m x EXISTING SEWER TO BE ABANDONED VOID RATIO 95% STORAGE VOLUME 13.7m3 NEOPRENE RUBBER GASKET PROPOSED TREE PIT FLOW INTAKE

100 MIN. 'C' TREES TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH ROOT CP 150mmØ SWD PROTECTION BARRIER TO BELOW GROUND SWMH 1.2 GEOCELLULAR ATTENUATION TANK CL 21.69 @ 1:150 SECTION THROUGH TYPICAL FLOW CONTROL CHAMBER IL 19.44 FLOW CONTROL CHAMBER 1:20 1:20 SWMH 1.3 CL 21.56 PROPOSED GEOCELLULAR ATTENUATION CP IL 19.41 TANK CL 21.69 TOP OF TANK 20.04 IL 19.44 AREA 20m2 NOT FOR DEPTH 0.6m CONSTRUCTION VOID RATIO 95% PERMEABLE PAVING NOTES STORAGE VOLUME 11.4m3 * THE FORMATION OF THE PERMEABLE PAVING SUB-BASE MUST NOT EXCEED A GRADIENT OF 1/40. DRAFT FOR STEEPER GRADIENTS, USE MAXIMUM GRADIENT OF 1/40 FOR FORMATION, APPLYING VERTICAL STEPS AS NECESSARY, BUT ENSURING MINIMUM SUB-BASE BLOCK PAVING THICKNESS IS ALWAYS ACHIEVED.

LAYING COURSE PERMEABLE PAVING CONSTRUCTION SPECIFIED ABOVE IS SUITABLE FOR CBR BASE COURSE * VALUES OF BETWEEN 2% & 5%. FOR CBR VALUES OUTSIDE OF THIS RANGE, REFER CP PERMAVOID SUB-BASE REPLACEMENT BACK TO THE ENGINEER FOR CLARIFICATION.

150mmØ SWD @ 1:150 ATTENUATION LAYER SWMH 1.4 ALL MATERIAL SPECIFICATION AND WORKMANSHIP OF PERMEABLE PAVING Rev Description Drn Chk App Date GEOTEXTILE CL 21.92 CONSTRUCTION TO BE STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS BY IL 19.29 CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATION FOR LIGHTER DUTY MARSHALLS. CONSULTING PERMAVOID PERMEABLE BLOCK PAVED AREAS ARDENT ENGINEERS PROPOSED PERMAVOID PAVING 2 SCALE 1:20 AREA 55m Third Floor DEPTH 0.45m The Hallmark Building VOID RATIO 95% 52-56 Leadenhall Street STORAGE VOLUME 23.5m3 London EC3M 5JE

SWMH 1.5 Tel: 020 7680 4088 PROPOSED NON-RETURN VALVE CL 21.72 Web: www.ardent-ce.co.uk IL 19.25 E-mail: [email protected] abcdee SWMH 1.6 Client CL 21.72 DD x IL 19.23 PARTIAL ABANDONMENT OF COMBINED x NRV ARTIFEX CPD THREE LIMITED WATER OUTFALL FORM SITE x x CWMH 1.0 Project Title: CL 21.72 1-3 BELLINGHAM ROAD & EX. 150mmØ IL 18.71 CW SEWER PROPOSED MANHOLE TO BE CONSTRUCTED EX. 300mmØ CW SEWER 2-4 DANEBY ROAD ON EXISTING THAMES WATER SEWER LINE Drawing Title: INVERT LEVEL INTERPOLATED BASED ON 1:150 GRADIENT OF PIPE TBC THROUGH INDICATIVE SURFACE WATER CCTV SURVEY TWMH 9312 CL 21.73 DRAINAGE STRATEGY IL 18.53 A1 Scale Date Designed by 1:200 29-11-18 LB EX. 300mmØ CW SEWER Drawn by Checked by Approved by LB CC DRAFT Reproduced from/based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of the Controller of Her Drawing Number Rev Majesty's Stationary Office, Crown Copyright Reserved. License No. 100044561 186720-001 - user name: luke barrett File Location: y:\ardent projects\186720 - bellingham mews\technical\acad\drawings\186720-001 indicative sw drainage strategy.dwg