Former Water Works, Deals Gateway, Deptford

An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

for St James Homes Ltd

by Jennifer Lowe

Thames Valley Archaeological Services

Site Code DPS99/77

November 1999

Former Water Works, Deals Gateway, Deptford An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

Report 99/77

by Jennifer Lowe Introduction

This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of the Deptford Pumping Station, located at Brookmill Road in the London Borough of Lewisham (TQ 3760 7660) (Fig 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Stephen Trenwith of St James Homes Ltd, Wellington House, 209–217 High Street,

Hampton Hill, Middlesex, and comprises the first stage of a process to determine the presence/absence, extent, character, quality and date of any archaeological remains which may be affected by redevelopment of the area.

Site Description, Location and Geology

A Thames Water Pumping Station currently occupies the site, covering an area of approximately 5 hectares. The site lies within Lewisham, on the boundary between this borough and Greenwich, and is located on the eastern bank of the Ravensbourne River which flows northwards to join the Thames at Deptford Creek (Fig 2). The majority of the site is open space with two covered reservoirs (infilled) being mostly set below ground. To the south of these is the James Engine House with several ancillary buildings and structures nearby. A former engine house and ancillary workshops is present to the north. The western margin of the site is now defined by the Dockland Light Railway tracks which run parallel to the river (Fig 2). The northern area, formerly playing fields is currently occupied by a contractors compound. The site is located on alluvium (BGS 1981) and lies at a height of approximately 5.7m above Ordnance Datum.

Planning Background and Development Proposals

Planning permission is to be sought for the redevelopment of the site for residential, live-work and office development. There are no definitive plans of the development proposals at this time. A scheme involving the creation of 16 blocks of flats with courtyards and other areas of open space has been suggested for the northern proportion of the site, with Thames Water maintaining an operational area to the south centred on the James

Engine House. Although the scheme is provisional, the client considers that the foundation design will be piled and that that the structures will include basements.

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

Paragraph 21 states:

‘Where early discussions with local planning authorities or the developer’s own research indicate that important archaeological remains may exist, it is reasonable for the planning authority to request the prospective developer to arrange for an archaeological field evaluation to be carried out...’

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

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

18.

Paragraph 8 states:

‘...Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation...’

Paragraph 18 states:

‘The desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its’ setting is a material consideration in determining planning applications whether that monument is scheduled or unscheduled...’

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

Paragraph 25 states:

‘Where planning authorities decide that the physical preservation in situ of archaeological remains is not justified in the circumstances of the development and that development resulting in the destruction of the archaeological remains should proceed, it would be entirely reasonable for the planning authority to satisfy itself ... that the developer has made appropriate and satisfactory provision for the excavation and recording of remains.’

Further guidance is provided by the Lewisham Borough Unitary Development Plan, 31–35 (Lewisham UDP, Adopted July 1996)

31) Although the Borough does not currently contain any Areas of Archaeological Importance nor Scheduled Ancient Monuments (within the meaning of section 33 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, 1979) there are a number of areas in the Borough where important archaeological remains have been found, and where more may yet be found.

32) The Borough contains a rich archaeological resource spanning the full history of human activity in the British Isles. The Council, on the advice of the Museum of London’s Archaeology Service and the Kent Archaeological Rescue Unit, has identified a number of ‘Areas of

2 Archaeological Priority’. Their location are illustrated on the Proposals Map, and details are set out in Schedule 3. They cover Roman remains found along the lines of the two Roman roads which ran through the Borough, through Anglo-Saxon and Medieval settlement sites, mainly beside rivers, to Deptford’s strategic role as a shipbuilding centre and later Victorian county houses in what were then green field sites within the Borough.

33) Items of archaeological importance are not always to be found buried underground, but can also include buildings with social and historical significance. The protection, excavation, removal and storage of valuable remains is becoming increasingly difficult given the pace and scale of modern development. There is a mismatch between the rate of discovery and the facilities and financial resources available to remove and store the finds.

34) Accordingly, the current approach of the DoE and English Heritage is to ensure that potentially important sites are identified and evaluated prior to development, and that any significant remains are preserved in situ and not destroyed by the development. In this way their preservation for the future is secured despite being inaccessible for the time being. Where it is not practicable to preserve remains in situ, consideration will be given to their excavation and recording prior to their destruction by development.

35) The potential damage from development can be reduced by appropriate land use policies, and many of the ‘Areas of Archaeological Priority’ are designated for open space.

The site, due to its close proximity to the Ravensbourne River, does fall within one of the Boroughs’ ‘Areas of

Archaeological Priority’

Methodology

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

Monuments Record, geological maps, and any relevant publications or reports.

Archaeological Background

A search was made of the greater London Sites and Monuments Records (GLSMR) on 20th October 1999 for a radius of 500m around the site, the results are summarised in Appendix 1 and the locations of the entries are shown on Figure 1. The search revealed a substantial number of entries for this area, ranging from Prehistoric to post-Medieval, with five entries being located within the development area itself.

The GLSMR entries for the site include features associated with the water industry, or industry in general.

The earliest entry located on the site is for a Roman cremation [Fig 1; 35]; a ‘blackware urn’ was found on the site in 1853. Other entries for the site date to the Medieval/post-Medieval periods. A Medieval flour mill/water mill is recorded as being on the site around 1588, and may well correspond to the mill which lay outside the site

3 on the western bank of the Ravensbourne which was demolished by the 1850s [30]. Similarly, a wooden water wheel and wooden pipes were recorded during a watching brief of flood prevention work; the pipes may be part of the original 19th century works [35]. Ravensbourne Farm, possibly of 18th century date, lay on the western side of the river on Mill Lane, now Brookmill Road [34]. This area was built on for terraced housing by 1880.

Prehistoric activity is recorded in this area, although it is relatively sparse. The Lewisham Borough UDP points out that the Ravensbourne River has provided a quantity of prehistoric finds, with Mesolithic tools and weapons, and two bronze age axes being recovered form the river [40]. Other prehistoric evidence comes from archaeological investigations close by. To the north-west of the site an Iron Age pit was excavated which contained a flint artefact and a fragment of quernstone [18], and immediately north of the site four flint flakes were uncovered during a watching brief [36].

As indicated above, Roman activity has been recorded on the development site itself, in the form of a

Roman cremation burial, presumably human. An inhumation burial was uncovered on Vanguard Street in 1868 to the north-west of the site. It was originally interpreted as Roman due to the depth at which is was encountered

(2.75m) and the fact that it was aligned east-west, however, no further dating evidence was found [17]. Roman activity is in the area is also suggested by a few sherds of residual Roman pottery from the south-east [42], and a ditch and a pit located during an excavation to the north-west of the site [18]. The possible remains of a Roman building were uncovered during sewer works in 1866, on Deptford High Street, when a portion of tessellated pavement was revealed as well as massive brickwork [13].

Only two entries in the GLSMR related to Saxon activity in the area, although one of these is the possible location of a Saxon settlement [14]. The name Deptford is derived from Anglo-Saxon for ‘deep ford’, referring to a crossing of the Ravensbourne River. It is thought that the focus of the settlement shifted from The

Broadway area to the St Nicholas’ Church area in the mid to late Saxon period. The only tangible Saxon evidence are two inhumations recorded from The Broadway, north-west of the site [18]. One is an adult female buried with 6th century grave goods, and the second is an adult male buried with three sherds of Roman pot.

However, the position of the second burial indicates it is contemporary with the female.

Medieval features are recorded from Deptford Creek, north of the site. A flour/water mill was located on the creek operated by the tides, dating to the 14th century. The mill existed until the 1960s and was demolished after a fire in 1970 [29]. The excavation north-west of the site, in The Broadway, yielded Medieval evidence in the form of a tile-built oven, remains of a 14th–15th century wall and several pits [18]. Deptford Bridge, which provides access across the Ravensbourne, north of the site, was initially recorded as a wooden bridge from

4 1345–6, being rebuilt in stone by 1570 [28]. During the late Medieval to early post-Medieval period a hermitage was built to the east of the bridge [12].

The majority of information for this area relates to the post-Medieval period, a reflection of how Deptford had developed by this time. A detailed building survey carried out in the area around Deptford Broadway and

Tanners Hill records the presence of post-Medieval buildings, mainly 17th century terraced houses [4–9, 19, 20,

22, 25, 26]. Excavations in the same area revealed post-Medieval pits dating to between the 16th and 20th centuries, various ditches, gullies, a drain, and an 18th century metalled surface [18]. A watching brief carried out on Blackheath Road revealed further evidence of post-Medieval activity in the vicinity of the site in the form of ditches, a 17th century pottery assemblage and a 19th century pond or fountain [36].

The site has been subject to an archaeological watching brief (MoLAS 1995). This examined several areas around the site, some large and some small. Some of the trenches did not reach the base of modern deposits but others revealed a full sequence above the natural bedrock (sand and gravel). No deposits or finds of archaeological significance were revealed but the data on the absolute heights of the bedrock and other layers were important observations.

Historical Background

The history of the Thames Water site began in 1701 when the King was petitioned concerning the supply of water to the Royal Manors of East Greenwich and Says Court, in Kent and Surrey (Dickinson 1954). This was granted and the Ravensbourne Waterworks was established, becoming one of the earliest water companies south of the Thames. The engineer John Smeaton acquired the site and revamped the engines in 1779. It remained under the control of the Ravensbourne Water Works for several years, but the pressure from the expanding population meant they could no longer cope with demand. Smeaton’s Pumping Plant was located adjacent to the bridge across the Ravensbourne and opposite the old flour mill, which was demolished in c. 1850 (Fig 4).

In 1809 the Kent Water Works Company was incorporated and, in order to assist with passing their Bill through Parliament, they purchased the Ravensbourne site. The company made several changes to the site, including installing a Boulton and Watt beam engine on the west bank of the river in 1810, and a second engine in 1826, as well as extending the mains to Woolwich and the Docks. In 1845, filtration beds were introduced.

By the 1850s the Ravensbourne had become considerably polluted, encouraging the Company to locate an alternative supply, which they did by sinking the first well in 1859. By 1861 the whole site was supplied by wells and the Ravensbourne as a source was subsequently abandoned. The standard of water form the wells

5 proved to be so good that the settling reservoirs and filter beds became redundant; they were kept as service reservoirs but were covered at this time.

In 1904 the site came under the control of the Metropolitan Water Board. They replaced the Boulton and

Watt engines with two Worthington engines and started to build a new engine house in 1922 (Chevalier 1953).

By 1932 a complete overhaul of the works was initiated. It was decided to sink a new well and to replace the existing machinery with a triple expansion engine, which became known as ‘The James Engines’. By 1974, the

Metropolitan Water Board had become obsolete and is now the Thames Water Board, who administer the site to this day.

Cartographic and Documentary Sources

A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at the British Library and the

Thames Water Archive in order to ascertain what activity had been taking place throughout the sites’ later history and whether this may have affected any possible archaeological deposits within the proposal area

(Appendix 2).

The earliest map consulted for the area is Speed’s map of Surrey dated 1610 (not illustrated) but this shows little detail. The route of the Ravensbourne can be traced, flowing towards Deptford Creek (not named) and into the Thames. In general, the Deptford area seems lacking in development. Similarly, Seller’s map of 1690 (not illustrated) shows no substantial change in this area; again the Ravensbourne is the only notable landmark.

Rocque’s Map of Surrey dated 1762 (Fig 3) illustrates the area around Deptford in more detail, making it possible to locate the position of the site. Although the water works was established in 1701 no detail of the works or of any structures are shown on this map. At this time the area of the site appears to be open land. The north end of Brookmill Road exists and appears to provide access to the site at this point on the west side of the river. A structure is shown which may well be the Brook Mill. This is further clarified by a plan of 1935 (Fig 4) which shows that Smeaton’s Pumping Plan was located adjacent to the water mill and probably shared the same structural components. Milne’s map of 1800 (Fig 5) does not provided any further information about the water works site itself, which is shown as an area of fields, but a rectangular symbol on the river may well be the site of the Brook Mill and waterworks. The site of Smeaton’s works now lies beneath the proposal site boundary and is beneath the tracks of the Docklands Light Railway.

A preliminary edition of the Ordnance Survey dating to 1848 (Fig 6) is the first map to illustrate the water works, which at this time would have been under the control of the Kent Water Works Company. At this time

6 the site was occupied by two rectangular filter beds, located at the centre of the site, with a large reservoir at the southern end. The northern end of the site lies on an island and is undeveloped. However, ‘Filter Bed No 3’ is labelled but is not defined. Perhaps this filter bed was under construction at the time of the survey and is located in the same area as a reservoir by 1870. The river is shown with a second sinuous channel to the east. It is not clear if the latter was the original course of the river or perhaps the channel was braided at this point. However, it is this sinuous channel which forms the boundary between Lewisham and Greenwich. The river was much broader than it is today and the south-western portion of the site appears to have reclaimed part of a former river channel. The site was still accessible from Mill Lane (now Brookmill Road) which crossed the Ravensbourne.

Three conjoining structures are shown opposite the entrance, presumably to house the engines.

The First Edition Ordnance Survey (1870/3) shows the water works and its surroundings in more detail

(Fig 7). The streets around the site have developed rapidly and are now lined with terraced houses. The site had developed further with the addition of a new reservoir at the northern end and the infilling of the channel which created the former `island’. The filter beds had been converted into reservoirs. Another building was erected close to the previously existing buildings, and an office building was added on the western bank of the river, along with another reservoir. The Second Edition Ordnance Survey (1894–6) shows considerable change on the site (Fig 8). For instance, the reservoirs at the north and south end appear to be out of use. The two central reservoirs are still evident, but the southern one has been reduced in size and a building stands where the reservoir once was. Another small building is on the east bank of the river, to the west of the reservoirs. A Kent

Waterworks Company map of 1899 includes labels stating the functions of the buildings and the status of the reservoirs (Fig 9). The Third Edition Ordnance Survey of 1916 shows little further development other than the addition of a small building close to the Cornish Engine House. The site belonged to the Metropolitan Water

Board at this time.

By the time the 1919 revision of the Ordnance Survey was made a large building was constructed on the site of the southern reservoir. Although not named it is most likely the James Engine House. Around the central reservoirs a steam crane track had been constructed. A 1930 map of the site highlights the density of mains water pipes running under the site at the time, the majority of which seemed to be centred on the eastern edge of the river and the western edge of the site, connecting the engine houses and reservoirs.

An Ordnance Survey map of 1950 shows no major changes. The southern end of site had a few additional features, such as coal shute and store, which were associated with the pump house. The reservoir on the western bank of the river had gone out of use. On a 1958 plan the central reservoirs are called contact tanks and a small

7 chlorinating house was on the edge of the larger reservoir (Fig 10). This plan gives a clear indication of where the wells were located. The Main Well was within the basement of the James Engine House and the Twins Well lay outside the Twin Pumping House. The plan shows how these wells were connected by underground tunnels, which also linked the wells off site. Although the earlier Ordnance Survey map of 1950 did not show an air raid shelter, one is indicated on the 1958 map. It was presumably built in the early 1940s. The Ordnance Survey map of 1968 shows no further development but the sinuous segment of river channel which originally ran along the eastern boundary of the site is no longer there.

Assessment of the Effects of the Earlier Waterworks Usage (see Fig 12)

The Thames Water archives contain cross-section drawings of the filter beds. These drawings do not show depths relative to Ordnance Datum but they do show that the filter beds required the excavation of at least 2m of ground. Some truncation of the original ground will have taken place. A plan showing the design of one of the covered reservoirs, which replaced the filter beds, is presented in Figure 11. The depth of the reservoir below the ground is c. 3.6m. Although this drawing also does not relate the depth to Ordnance Datum, recent site survey details place the top of the reservoirs at c. 5.64m above Ordnance Datum (AOD). The base of the reservoir is therefore at c. 2.04m AOD.

The watching brief carried out in 1995 (MoLAS 1995) made two observations relative to the height of the natural deposits. Firstly, for the area of the covered reservoir, the natural sand and gravel deposits were present at a depth of c. 3.5m. This indicates that construction of the reservoirs had, at the very least, removed any deposits overlying the gravel deposits and possibly had truncated the latter. Secondly, in a position adjacent to the river, gravel was encountered at 1.6m AOD, with peat and clay deposits above this to 3.7m AOD. Further alluvial deposits were present at the northern end of the site (Appendix 1; Fig 1, 32). If these deposits were originally widespread across the site and not just especially thick close to the river, then at the very least construction of the reservoirs would have removed the majority, if not all, of the thickness of these deposits. A comparison of Figures 6–9 with Figure 10 shows that the river was originally wider at the place where this watching brief was undertaken and it is most likely that an infilled channel sequence was observed. If so, it may be atypical of the depth of alluvial deposits across the site and deep truncation may be widespread.

Discussion

8 An assessment of the archaeological potential of the Deptford Pumping Station is reliant upon several factors such as its proximity to known archaeological remain/finds, the size of the development area, and the degree of truncation of the site.

Firstly, the assessment of the evidence ascertained from the GLSMR indicates that the site lies within an area of high archaeological activity and this is reflected in the designation of the general area as an ‘area of archaeological importance’ within the Borough. The area around the Ravensbourne river is highlighted as being of particular interest, yielding finds of various periods. Indeed, riversides are generally thought to be favourable spots for prehistoric and later occupation. The presence of alluvium close to rivers is also a significant factor for the survival of earlier archaeological deposits, which can lie beneath this overburden and are frequently in waterlogged contexts that make for good preservation of organic material.

Archaeological remains and finds from Deptford date from Prehistoric to post-Medieval periods. The focus of late to post-Medieval Deptford clearly lies to the north of the site, as is noted by the predominance of structures dating to this period. This is further confirmed by the cartographic evidence; Rocque’s map of 1762 highlights a developing settlement around this area. Several entries are located near or within the development area, and are extremely significant when assessing archaeological potential. The Roman cremation burial suggests that further Roman evidence, possibly in the form of more burials, may be present in the vicinity. The area which may have contained the buildings of the original 18th century waterworks now lie beyond the site margins in an area occupied by the Docklands Light Railway.

However, the potential of the site is substantially reduced when the extent of truncation is taken into account. The site has not experienced dense development but the development that has taken place, i.e. reservoirs, generally cuts into the ground. The cartographic evidence indicates that four large reservoirs or filter beds have been on the site at some point in the last 150 years and occupied c. 75% of the site area. These structures involved excavations more than 2m below the original ground level (3.5m below current levels) and will have led to the loss of most, if not all, of the archaeologically relevant levels in these areas. These observations are supported in part by the results of a watching brief carried out in 1995 (MoLAS 1995) which revealed much truncation/infill and no archaeological finds or deposits. A summary of the extent of truncation is shown in Figure 12. No evidence was found that the extreme northern end of the site had been disturbed or truncated to any great extent.

It is suggested, following this detailed consideration of the site, that the large extent of truncation that has been observed or has been determined from documentary sources will have severely compromised much

9 archaeology that was originally present on this site and it is concluded, that the majority of the site now has very little potential and no further action is justified in these areas. This statement cannot be extrapolated to cover the extreme northern end of the site and this location retains archaeological potential. It is recommended that for this area the impact of development on below-ground archaeological deposits should be assessed by means of a field evaluation. This will, in the first instance, confirm or refute the archaeological potential of the site as identified by this document and provide information with which to draw up a scheme to mitigate the effects of redevelopment if required. A scheme for the evaluation will need to be drawn up and approved by the archaeological advisor to the London Borough of Lewisham (Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service) and implemented by a competent archaeological contractor, such as an Institute of Field Archaeologists

Registered Organisation.

References BGS, 1981, British Geological Survey, Sheet 270, Drift Edition, Scale 1:50 000 Chevalier, W S, 1953, London’s Water Supply 1903-1953, A review of the work of the Metropolitan Water Board, London MoLAS, 1995, Deptford Pumping Station: Archaeological Watching Brief, Museum of London Archaeology Service, London Dickinson, H W, Water Supply of Greater London, 1954 Lewisham Borough Unitary Development Plan, 1996, Adopted Metropolitan Water Board, 1961, The Water Supply of London PPG16, 1990, Department of the Environment Planning Policy Guidance note 16, Archaeology and Planning, HMSO

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

No SMR Ref Grid Ref (SU) Type Period Comment

1 070086 37080 76550 Horse Mill Post-Medieval Horse-powered mill dating to 1790 2 070084 37080 76550 Windmill Historical Unknown Origin of cornmill unknown, Post Mill demolished 1849 3 071815 3710076750 Surface/Floor Post-Medieval Possible floor of 19th century building. 071816 3710076750 Pit Post-Medieval Deposits recorded contain 18th century refuse, thought to be fill of sand or gravel pit. 4 071127 37140 77010 Ditch Unknown 5 21179403 37170 76896 House Post-Medieval Grade II. 17th century. 6 21179402 37173 76897 House Post-Medieval Grade II. 17th century. 7 21179401 37176 76900 House Post-Medieval Grade II. 17th century. 8 211793 37180 76904 House Post-Medieval Grade II. 17th century. 9 090221 37180 76970 Sculpture/Gateway Roman Two faced head (of Janus) found Boundary marker in 17th century 10 211792 37186 76905 House Post-Medieval Grade II. 17th century. 11 211791 37187 76908 House Post-Medieval Grade II. 17th century 12 211733 37188 76910 House Post-Medieval Grade II. 17th century. 13 071595 37200 76900 Hermitage Medieval Built at east end of Deptford Bridge during late Medieval period. 14 070033 37200 76950 Tessellated Roman Pavement/Building 15 071581 3720077000 Settlement Saxon Documentary/Literary Evidence 16 071235 37200 77100 Negative evidence Unknown 17 071384 37240 76930 Tenement Post-Medieval Dating form late 17th century to the middle 18th century 18 071490 37250 76800 Burial Undated (Recorded as Roman) 19 071050 37250 76980 Pit Iron Age 071051 37250 76980 Ditch Roman 071128 37250 76980 Pit Roman 071129 37250 76980 2 Inhumations Saxon 071130 37250 76980 Oven Medieval 071132 37250 76980 Pit Medieval 071133 37250 769890 Pit Post-Medieval 071134 37250 76980 Gully/Ditch/Drain Post-Medieval 071135 37250 76980 Metalling Post-Medieval May represent the rear yard of St Christopher coaching inn 071136 37250 76980 Pit/Ditch Unknown 071482 37250 76980 Flint artefact ?Neolithic Flint flakes 071483 37250 76980 Quern Iron Age 20 211541 37288 76959 Terraced House Post-Medieval Grade II. 17th century Shop In use as shop up to 19th century. 21 211542 37295 76960 Terraced House Post-Medieval Grade II. 17th century Shop In use as shop up to 19th century. 22 071259 37300 76700 Basement Post-Medieval 23 211543 37300 76960 Terraced House Post-Medieval Grade II. 17th century. Shop 24 071052 37300 76980 Unclassified Post-Medieval 25 071347 37300 77000 Pit Post-Medieval 071348 37300 77000 Structure Post-Medieval 26 211544 37307 76961 Terraced House Post-Medieval Shop 27 211545 37309 76962 Terraced House Post-Medieval Shop 28 211561 37370 76889 Distillery Post-Medieval 29 071593 37400 76900 Bridge Medieval 14th century wooden bridge. Replaced by stone bridge in 1570. 30 070074 37430 77075 Mill Medieval Pre 14th century mill operated by tidal Deptford creek. 31 070073 37470 76650 Flour/Water Mill Medieval Mill in existence by 1588. Demolished 1850s 32 071849 37520 76800 Stream Unknown Results of auger survey 071850 37520 76800 Flood deposit Unknown 071851 37520 76800 Peat Unknown 33 071345 37550 76600 Flood deposits Unknown Results of watching brief 071366 37550 76600 Negative Evidence Unknown

APPENDIX 1: continued

No SMR Ref Grid Ref (SU) Type Period Comment

34 071271 37550 76900 Brick surface Post-Medieval/Unknown and flood deposit 35 070109 37570 76540 Farmhouse Post-Medieval Ravensbourne Farm 071486 37600 76600 Cremations Roman 070193 37600 76600 Waterwheel Post-Medieval 070198 37600 76600 Water pipe 36 071867 37600 76950 Flint flakes Prehistoric 071868 37600 7695 Pit Post-Medieval 071867 37600 76950 Ditch Post-Medieval 071870 37600 76950 Pottery assemblage Post-Medieval 071871 37600 76950 Pond/fountain Post-Medieval 37 071494 37700 77000 Burial ground Post-Medieval Known from documentary sources 38 071120 37850 76200 Finds Post-Medieval 071121 37850 76200 Factory Post-Medieval 39 071852 37850 76750 Negative evidence Unknown 40 070031 37900 76200 Axe Bronze Age Found in Ravensbourne 41 071528 37900 76850 Pits/cess pit Post-Medieval 071529 37900 76850 Soakaway Post-Medieval 42 071831 37931 76184 Water channel Post-Medieval 071830 37931 76184 Pot sherds Roman

12 APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1610 J Speed, Map of Surrey 1690 Seller, Map of Surrey 1762 J Rocque, Map of Surrey (Fig 3) 1800 Milne, London (Fig 5) 1848 Ordnance Survey (Fig 6) 1870/73 First Edition Ordnance Survey, London Sheets LXIX, LXVIII 25” (Fig 7) 1894–6 Second Edition Ordnance Survey, London Sheets LXIX, LXVIII 25” (Fig 8) 1899 Deptford Station, Kent Waterworks Company (Fig 9) 1916 Third Edition Ordnance Survey, London Sheets IX.8, X.5I 25” 1919 Ordnance Survey, London Sheets IX.8, X.5I 25” 1930 Deptford Pumping Stations, Metropolitan Water Board 1935 Plan of John Smeaton’s pumping plant at Deptford (Fig 4) 1950 Ordnance Survey, TQ37 36 1958 Deptford Works, Metropolitan Water Board (Fig 10) 1968 Ordnance Survey, TQ37 36

13 SITE

20-1, 23-4 16 26-7 4 77000 15,19 25 30 38 9,14 37 17 29 34 5-8, 28 42 10-13 18 3 40 22 SITE 31 33 36 1, 2 35 32

39 41

76000

TQ37000 38000 DPS99/77 Deptford Pumping Station, Deptford, London Borough of Lewisham, 1999 Figure 1. Location of site within Deptford and Greater London showing SMR entries in a 500m radius.

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Pathfinder sheet TQ27/37 1:25000 Ordnance Survey Licence AL52324A0001 (reproduced at 1:10000) Deptford Pumping Station, Deptford London Borough of Lewisham, 1999

76900 N Depford Bridge

76800 Former playing fields

Approximate location of Smeatons water works

76700

Biv Crosslet Vale

Dii Biii

76600 C

Ravensbourne River James Engine House

A Di Bi 76500

Dockland Light Railway

TQ37500 37600 37700

0 200m Watching Brief Areas

Figure 2. Location of site showing current land use. DPS99/77 Approximate location of site