176–178 Bermondsey Street London SE1 3TQ
London Borough of Southwark
Historic environment assessment
February 2017
© Museum of London Archaeology 2017 Museum of London Archaeology Mortimer Wheeler House 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London N1 7ED tel 020 7410 2200 | fax 020 410 2201 www.museumoflondonarchaeology.org.uk general enquiries: [email protected]
176–178 Bermondsey Street London SE1
Historic environment assessment
NGR 53326 17952
Sign-off history issue issue date prepared by reviewed by approved by reason for issue no. 1 06/09/2016 Jack Smith Jon Chandler Paul Riggott First issue (Archaeology) Lead Consultant Contract Manager Jack Smith Archaeology (Graphics) 2 09/02/2017 Jack Smith - Paul Riggott Second issue following Contract Manager geotechnical investigations
PO code: P0943
www.mola.org.uk MOLA Mortimer Wheeler House, 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London N1 7ED tel 0207 410 2200 fax 0207 410 2201 email:[email protected] Museum of London Archaeology is a company limited by guarantee Registered in England and Wales Company registration number 07751831 Charity registration number 1143574 Registered office Mortimer Wheeler House, 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London N1 7ED Contents
Executive summary 1
1 Introduction 2 1.1 Origin and scope of the report 2 1.2 Designated heritage assets 2 1.3 Aims and objectives 3
2 Methodology and sources consulted 4
3 Site location, topography and geology 6 3.1 Site location 6 3.2 Topography 6 3.3 Geology 6
4 Archaeological and historical background 8 4.1 Overview of past investigations 8 4.2 Chronological summary 8
5 Statement of significance 13 5.1 Introduction 13 5.2 Factors affecting archaeological survival 13 5.3 Archaeological potential and significance 13
6 Impact of proposals 15 6.1 Proposals 15 6.2 Implications 15
7 Conclusion and recommendations 17
8 Gazetteer of known historic environment assets 18
9 Planning framework 22 9.1 Statutory protection 22 9.2 National Planning Policy Framework 22 9.3 Greater London regional policy 24 9.4 Local planning policy 25
10 Determining significance 28
11 Non-archaeological constraints 29
12 Glossary 30
13 Bibliography 32 13.1 Published and documentary sources 32 13.2 Other Sources 33 13.3 Cartographic sources 33 13.4 Available site survey information checklist 33
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 i P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx Figures
Cover: MOLA photo
Fig 1 Site location Fig 2 Historic environment features map Fig 3 Geology (British Geological Survey digital drift and solid geology) Fig 3b Southwark’s low-lying eyots and channels (MOLA 2002) Fig 4 Reconstruction of the layout of the Bermondsey Abbey Precinct (Dyson et al 2011: 121) Fig 4 Stowe’s Survey of 1603 (reproduction by Brett-James in 1929) Fig 5 Faithorne and Newcourt’s map of 1658 Fig 6 Morgan 1682 (Morden & Lea 1692 revision) Fig 7 Rocque’s map of 1746 Fig 8 Horwood’s map of 1799 Fig 9 Faden’s 1813 revision of Horwood’s 1799 map Fig 10 Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25”: mile map of 1878 Fig 11 Ordnance Survey 3rd edition 25”: mile map of 1916 Fig 12 Goad’s fire insurance map of 1887 (revised 1938) (LMA/LCC/VA/GOAD/VII) Fig 13 176–178 Bermondsey Street looking west (MOLA photo 25-08-16) Fig 14 View looking west on roof of 176-178 Bermondsey Street (MOLA photo 25-08-16) Fig 15 Existing ground floor plan (Formby Surveys Ref 9582_G:50:1:1 dated 06-16) Fig 16 Existing south-facing section (Formby Surveys Ref: 9582_S:100:1:1 06/2016) Fig 17 Proposed basement plan (Hall McKnight Pre-app report 16-06-16 draft page26) Fig 18 Proposed south-facing section showing basement floor (Hall McKnight Pre-app report 16-06- 16 page 32)
Note: site outlines may appear differently on some figures owing to distortions in historic maps. North is approximate on early maps.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 ii P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx Executive summary
Frontier Estates Ltd. has commissioned MOLA to carry out a historic environment assessment in advance of proposed development at 176–178 Bermondsey Street in the London Borough of Southwark. The scheme comprises the demolition of the existing mid/late 19th century building (with early 20th century warehouse conversion) on the site in advance of the construction of a hotel with a single-storey basement across the entire site footprint. The foundations are assumed to be piled. This desk-based study assesses the impact on buried heritage assets (archaeological remains). Although above ground heritage assets (historic structures) are not discussed in detail, they have been noted where they assist in the archaeological interpretation of the site. Buried heritage assets that may be affected by the proposals comprise: • Post-medieval remains. Historic maps indicate that the site developed from the mid 17th century with what was probably a house fronting the street, and by the mid 18th century, a warehouse to the rear. There is high potential for remains foundations, wells or cess pits, of low heritage significance. Whilst much of this area of Southwark was used for an extensive tanning industry, there is no evidence for such within the site itself. • Later medieval remains. Whilst the site lay just outside of the precinct of the Bermondsey Abbey, there is some evidence of development along Bermondsey Street, with a possible medieval structure 15m to the east of the site on the opposite side of the road. Here a medieval ditch was recorded with preserved leather work. Remains within the site might include evidence of reclamation and drainage, of low significance, but possibly also settlement and domestic features such as wells and rubbish pits, of medium significance, if present. • Prehistoric and Roman remains. The site was located on the northern edge of the Bermondsey eyot, which would have been an attractive area for settlement during these periods; with the low-lying marshland to the north likely exploited for a broad range of activities. The extent of later truncation across the site is unclear, but remains could survive in the top of the natural brickearth/Gravels. The bases of deeper cut features like wells or rubbish pits could potentially survive at a lower depth. Archaeological survival will be high. The building which occupies the site footprint does not have a basement, and foundation is probably a raft; investigations on the site showed the survival of post- medieval remains directly below modern made ground. The excavation of the proposed basement would remove any archaeological remains within its footprint to its formation level; this would include any prehistoric and Roman remains in the top of the brickearth/Gravels and any later medieval and post-medieval remains directly below the existing slab. The lift pit would remove entirely any remains within its footprint. Piled foundations, if proposed, pile caps and the underpinning of party walls would entirely remove any remains within their footprint. In light of the archaeological potential of the site and its location in an APZ the local authority requested that an archaeological evaluation be undertaken prior to the determination of planning consent. This found that remains from the post-medieval period survived beneath the ground floor slab. In view of these results the local planning authority may require further evaluation following demolition of the existing building to determine archaeological potential and significance of any remains dating to before the post-medieval period. This would allow an appropriate mitigation strategy to be drawn up. This might comprise targeted archaeological excavation in advance of construction, and/or a watching brief during ground works for remains of lesser significance. Any further archaeological work would need to be undertaken in consultation with the local authority archaeological advisor and in accordance with an approved Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI). The work could be carried out under the terms of a standard archaeological planning condition.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 1 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx 1 Introduction
1.1 Origin and scope of the report
1.1.1 Frontier Estates Ltd. has commissioned MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology) to carry out a historic environment assessment in advance of proposed development at 176–178 Bermondsey Street (National Grid Reference 533268 179522 Fig 1). The scheme comprises the demolition of the existing mid or late 19th century building (with early 20th century warehouse conversion) on the site in advance of the construction of a hotel with a single- storey basement across the entire site footprint. 1.1.2 This desk-based study assesses the impact of the scheme on buried heritage assets (archaeological remains). It forms an initial stage of investigation of the area of proposed development (hereafter referred to as the ‘site’) and may be required in relation to the planning process in order that the local planning authority (LPA) can formulate an appropriate response in the light of the impact upon any known or possible heritage assets. These are parts of the historic environment which are considered to be significant because of their historic, evidential, aesthetic and/or communal interest. 1.1.3 This report deals solely with the archaeological implications of the development and does not cover possible built heritage issues, except where buried parts of historic fabric are likely to be affected. Above ground assets (ie, designated and undesignated historic structures and conservation areas) on the site or in the vicinity that are relevant to the archaeological interpretation of the site are discussed. Whilst the significance of above ground assets is not assessed in this archaeological report, direct physical impacts upon such arising from the development proposals are noted. The report does not assess issues in relation to the setting of above ground assets (eg visible changes to historic character and views). 1.1.4 The assessment has been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (DCLG 2012, 2014; see section 10 of this report) and to standards specified by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA Dec 2014a, 2014b), Historic England (EH 2008, 2015), and the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS 2014). Under the ‘Copyright, Designs and Patents Act’ 1988 MOLA retains the copyright to this document. 1.1.5 Note: within the limitations imposed by dealing with historical material and maps, the information in this document is, to the best knowledge of the author and MOLA, correct at the time of writing. Further archaeological investigation, more information about the nature of the present buildings, and/or more detailed proposals for redevelopment may require changes to all or parts of the document.
1.2 Designated heritage assets
1.2.1 The site does not contain any nationally designated (protected) heritage assets, such as scheduled monuments, listed buildings or registered parks and gardens. Adjacent to the site on the opposite side of Bermondsey Street to the east is a Grade II listed building, an early 19th century cloth factory (HEA 1 on Fig 2). The former Cluniac Priory and Abbey of St Saviour, Bermondsey, a scheduled monument, lies c 110 south-east of the site (HEA 23). 1.2.2 The site is entirely within in the LPA Bermondsey Street Conservation Area, which is noted for a varied character reflecting the medieval street scale and built up by 18th century houses and shops, and by 19th and 20th century warehouses and office buildings (LBS 2003). The mid/late 19th century building (with early 20th century warehouse conversion) on the site is not locally listed or specifically referred to in the Conservation Area Audit but is identified as a building that makes a positive contribution to the area. 1.2.3 The site is in the Bermondsey, Borough and River Archaeological Priority Zone (APZ), designated by the LPA due to the known high potential of the area to contain remains dating from the prehistoric period onwards. 1.2.4 The St Mary Magdalen churchyard burial ground is c 65m to the south-east of the site. It is unlikely that the burial ground would have extended into the area of the site since it is on the
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 2 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx opposite side of Bermondsey Street, which was established prior to the foundation of the burial ground.
1.3 Aims and objectives
1.3.1 The aim of the assessment is to: • identify the presence of any known or potential buried heritage assets that may be affected by the proposals; • describe the significance of such assets, as required by national planning policy (see section 9 for planning framework and section 10 for methodology used to determine significance); • assess the likely impacts upon the significance of the assets arising from the proposals; and • provide recommendations for further assessment where necessary of the historic assets affected, and/or mitigation aimed at reducing or removing completely any adverse impacts upon buried heritage assets and/or their setting.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 3 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx 2 Methodology and sources consulted
2.1.1 For the purposes of this report the documentary and cartographic sources, including results from any archaeological investigations in the site and a study area around it were examined in order to determine the likely nature, extent, preservation and significance of any buried heritage assets that may be present within the site or its immediate vicinity and has been used to determine the potential for previously unrecorded heritage assets of any specific chronological period to be present within the site. 2.1.2 In order to set the site into its full archaeological and historical context, information was collected on the known historic environment features within a 120m-radius study area around the area of proposed development, as held by the primary repositories of such information within Greater London. These comprise the Greater London Historic Environment Record (HER) and the London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre (LAARC). The HER is managed by Historic England and includes information from past investigations, local knowledge, find spots, and documentary and cartographic sources. The LAARC includes a public archive of past investigations and is managed by the Museum of London. The study area was considered through professional judgement to be appropriate to characterise the historic environment of the site. Occasionally there may be reference to assets beyond this study area, where appropriate, e.g., where such assets are particularly significant and/or where they contribute to current understanding of the historic environment. 2.1.3 In addition, the following sources were consulted: • MOLA – in-house Geographical Information System (GIS) with statutory designations GIS data, the locations of all key indicators of known prehistoric and Roman activity across Greater London, past investigation locations, projected Roman roads and burial grounds from the Holmes burial ground survey of 1896; georeferenced published historic maps; Defence of Britain survey data, in-house archaeological deposit survival archive; and archaeological publications. • Historic England – information on statutory designations including scheduled monuments and listed buildings, along with identified Heritage at Risk • London Metropolitan Archive – historic maps and published histories • Groundsure– historic Ordnance Survey maps from the first edition (1860–70s) to the present day • British Geological Survey (BGS) – solid and drift geology digital map; online BGS geological borehole record data • Montagu Evans – Design, Appearance and Access Statement for Pre-Application architectural drawings (Hall McKnight June 2016), existing site survey (Formby surveys 06/2016) • Internet - web-published material including LPA local plan, and information on conservation areas and locally listed buildings. 2.1.4 The assessment included a site visit carried out on the 25th of August 2016 in order to determine the topography of the site and the nature of the existing buildings on the site, and to provide further information on areas of possible past ground disturbance and general historic environment potential. Observations made on the site visit have been incorporated into this report. 2.1.5 Consultation with the Southwark’s archaeological advisor was made following the initial desktop assessment; the recommendations were that: ‘in keeping with the current policy and guidance, and consistent with recent advice nearby, it is necessary to better establish the significance of the remains at risk, so that an informed judgement may be made over the proposed impact on them, and appropriate steps taken to mitigate any harm… This should be supported by archaeological predetermination evaluation of the areas of the site impacted by the new proposal (where logistically possible). This could take the form of archaeological test pits. There is good evidence that archaeological remains can survive beneath buildings fronting onto Bermondsey Street, although archaeological survival may be higher towards the rear of the site in the bakery area, where previous developmental impacts are possibly less’
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 4 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx ‘On present evidence it remains possible that the site could contain archaeological remains which will inform recognised national and local archaeological research objectives – that is non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest in NPPF terminology. Moreover, we cannot at this time rule out the possibility of finding assets demonstrably of equivalent significance to a scheduled monument’. 2.1.6 As a result of this consultation predetermination evaluation was carried out by MOLA in September 2016 when five geotechnical trial pits were monitored archaeologically. The results are outlined in Section 4 below. 2.1.7 Fig 2 shows the location of known historic environment features within the study area. These have been allocated a unique historic environment assessment reference number (HEA 1, 2, etc), which is listed in a gazetteer at the back of this report and is referred to in the text. Where there are a considerable number of listed buildings in the study area, only those within the vicinity of the site (i.e. within 100m) are included, unless their inclusion is considered relevant to the study. Conservation areas are not shown. Archaeological Priority Zones are shown where appropriate. All distances quoted in the text are approximate (within 5m). 2.1.8 Section 10 sets out the criteria used to determine the significance of heritage assets. This is based on four values set out in Historic England’s Conservation principles, policies and guidance (EH 2008), and comprise evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal value. The report assesses the likely presence of such assets within (and beyond) the site, factors which may have compromised buried asset survival (i.e. present and previous land use), as well as possible significance. 2.1.9 Section 11 includes non-archaeological constraints. Section 12 contains a glossary of technical terms. A full bibliography and list of sources consulted may be found in section 13 with a list of existing site survey data obtained as part of the assessment.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 5 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx 3 Site location, topography and geology
3.1 Site location
3.1.1 The site is located at 176–178 Bermondsey Street, London SE1 (NGR 533268 179522: Fig 1). The site is bounded by Bermondsey Street on the east, and is surrounded by buildings on all other sides. The building to the north is North Elm Court, west of the site is Cedar Court and the south of the site is bounded by 180 Bermondsey Street. 3.1.2 The site falls within the historic parish of Southwark and lay within the county of Surrey prior to being absorbed into the administration of the Greater London Borough of Southwark. 3.1.3 The site is located 700m south of the modern bank of the River Thames. A former east-west tributary of the Thames, the Neckinger, ran 180m south-east of the site roughly along the current route of Tower Bridge Road and Abbey Street (Barton and Myers 2016).
3.2 Topography
3.2.1 Topography can provide an indication of suitability for settlement, and ground levels can indicate whether the ground has been built up or truncated, which can have implications for archaeological survival (see section 5.2). 3.2.2 The site is generally flat, with a gradual gentle rise up to the south. The ground level is recorded at 2.6m Ordnance Datum (OD) by an Ordnance Survey spot height on Bermondsey Street, 5.0m from the north-east corner of the site. It is at 2.5m, 90m to the north, 3.1m OD, 30m to the south-east, and 3.8m, 90m to the south. 3.2.3 The site lies beside an ancient channel between the raised gravel ‘eyots’ (islands) to the north and south. Substantial reclamation and ground consolidation in the later medieval and post- medieval periods has deeply buried and largely obscured the original low-lying topography of the intertidal marshland within which the site is located, although a gentle slope up to the Bermondsey eyot to the south of the site is evident in current street levels (above) and was also visible on the site inspection, and could be clearly seen on the curved stretch of Bermondsey Street, heading northwards. 3.2.4 The levels of the underlying Gravels in the area provide a picture of the sub-surface topography of the Thames floodplain. This is discussed below.
3.3 Geology
3.3.1 Geology can provide an indication of suitability for early settlement, and potential depth of remains. 3.3.2 According to British Geological Survey data, the geology comprises alluvial silt overlying Thames Gravels of the Kempton Park Terrace formation. The site lies within the Thames floodplain, on low lying ground to the south of the present course of the River Thames. The prehistoric floodplain of the Thames in central London and south of the river was crossed by many mobile streams creating a landscape of low gravel islands, fen, mudflats and channels (Dyson et al 2011). This landscape has been the subject of many later alterations, some caused by marine transgressions (rising sea level). These resulted in the deposition of clays which can amount to a thickness of nearly two metres in low-lying areas (Drummond-Murray et al, 1994). Intermittent lowering of sea level (regressions) also allowed the formation of salt marshes along the river estuary and these changes were reflected in the deposition of peats. 3.3.3 The BGS digital drift and solid geology data shows the site on alluvium beside a channel which divided the Bermondsey eyot to the south from the Horsleydown eyot to the north, which is shown on Fig 3 and 3b. This channel filled and became first a reedy marsh, possibly used for wildfowling, etc. during the Bronze Age, from about 2000 BC. Plant succession ensured it later became a scrub carr woodland whilst the islets to either side of it were cultivated (MoLAS, 2002). The channel subsequently carried a stream known as the Neckinger. 3.3.4 Archaeological monitoring by MOLA of geotechnical trial pits was undertaken at the site in
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 6 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx September 2016 (MOLA Geo-archaeological evaluation report 2016); and the results have been incorporated into this report. Natural brickearth was recorded in one trench at 1.1m OD, suggesting the site was on the gravel terrace rather than within the alluvial floodplain. None of the trial pits recorded natural Gravel or alluvium, but brickearth was recorded in Trial Pit 3, at a depth of 1.1m OD. The report notes that the deposit contained a piece of pottery so could represent re-deposited brickearth. Alluvial deposits were not recorded.
Table 1: summary of geotechnical data (MOLA, Geo-archaeological evaluation report 2016) Levels are in metres OD TP ref. Modern Top of undated Top of natural Top of natural made ground made ground (brickearth) (Gravel) TP1 2.8m OD 2.0m OD - - TP2 2.8m OD 1.5m OD - - TP3 2.8m OD 2.6m OD 1.1mOD - TP4 2.9m OD 2.3m OD - - TP5 2.9m OD 2.2m OD - - HEA 16 1.5m OD HEA 17 1.4–1.6m OD 206 - - - 0.9–1.1m OD Bermondsey Street
3.3.5 A number of archaeological investigations in the study area have recorded natural deposits of alluvium, peat and sandy gravel, and indicate a higher level of the Gravels to the south confirming a rise up onto the Bermondsey eyot. The closest past investigation, on the eastern side of Bermondsey Street (HEA 7), 15m from the site, encountered natural Gravel at –2.4m OD (5.0m below ground level/mbgl). Excavations at Titan House, 15m south of the site (HEA 14) recorded natural Gravels at –1.6m OD (4.1mbgl) and at –1.0m OD (4.0mbgl) in two evaluation trenches (PCA 2007), although these levels are likely to be truncated. 3.3.6 A MoLAS (now named MOLA) evaluation and excavation (HEA 16), 80m south-west of the site recorded natural sand at 1.5m OD across the entire excavation area. This level is possibly truncated as stated in the evaluation report (MoLAS 1996). A similar level was found at 241– 253 Long Lane, 75m south west of the site with natural gravel recorded at 1.4–1.6m OD (HEA 17). 3.3.7 A geotechnical investigation was undertaken in 2008 by Cannaughts Ltd in advance of development at 206 Bermondsey Street, 60 metres south of the site. Two boreholes (BH1–2) and six trial pits (TP1–6) were dug. The highest levels of natural Gravel were encountered at 0.9–1.1m OD (2.3–2.5mbgl). Alluvium was not recorded in any of the pits. 3.3.8 The closest BGS historic borehole to the site was on Bermondsey Street c 20m south–east of the site (BGS ref TQ37NW2154). This record is very old, dating from 1849, but it does record the presence of 12ft (3.7m) of alluvium above sands and gravels. 3.3.9 Based on geotechnical works within the site and the levels recorded in the vicinity natural Gravels on the site are expected at between 0.9–1.6m OD and, above which brickearth may survive.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 7 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx 4 Archaeological and historical background
4.1 Overview of past investigations
4.1.1 Archaeological monitoring of geo-technical test pits occurred on the site during September 2016. Five geo-technical pits were excavated to determine ground conditions on the site (HEA 32). Four trenches contained post-medieval made ground overlain by modern made ground. Two sherds of pottery, two fragments of a roofing tile and a leather shoe, all dating to the post- medieval period, were recorded (MOLA 2016). 4.1.2 In the 120m study area there have been 25 investigations which provide a good understanding of the archaeological background of the site and its vicinity. 4.1.3 All investigations within the study area, where archaeological remains were found, recorded post-medieval stratigraphy, primarily in the form of dumping or ground raising layers. These investigations have primarily been evaluations and watching briefs. Extensive excavations have also occurred within the study area, most notably on the site of the former Cluniac Priory and Abbey of St Saviour, Bermondsey, a scheduled monument, the north-west corner of which lies c 110 south-east of the site (HEA 23). The results of these excavations found materials dating back to the Neolithic, suggesting early activity in the area. However, the majority of the evidence here is occupation evidence from the medieval period onwards, consisting of building remains, ditches and rubbish pits (HEA 7, 11, 12, 15, 17, 20 and 21). 4.1.4 The closest past investigation to the site (HEA 7), c 15m to the east, recorded medieval dumping layers and a substantial ditch together with possible evidence for a medieval building consisting of chalk and mortar foundations. There was also evidence for the large channel that existed between the Horsleydown and Bermondsey eyots (Fig 3) in the form of a thick layer of silt overlain by Bronze Age peat. 4.1.5 The results of these investigations, along with other known sites and finds within the study area, are discussed by period, below. The date ranges below are approximate.
4.2 Chronological summary
Prehistoric period (800,000 BC–AD 43) 4.2.1 The Lower (800,000–250,000 BC) and Middle (250,000–40,000 BC) Palaeolithic saw alternating warm and cold phases and intermittent perhaps seasonal occupation. During the Upper Palaeolithic (40,000–10,000 BC), after the last glacial maximum, and in particular after around 13,000 BC, further climate warming took place and the environment changed from steppe-tundra to birch and pine woodland. It is probably at this time that England saw continuous occupation. Erosion has removed much of the Palaeolithic land surfaces and finds are typically residual. There are no known finds dated to this period within the study area. 4.2.2 The Mesolithic hunter-gatherer communities of the postglacial period (10,000–4000 BC) inhabited a still largely wooded environment. The river valleys and coast would have been favoured in providing a predictable source of food (from hunting and fishing) and water, as well as a means of transport and communication. Evidence of activity is characterised by flint tools rather than structural remains. There are no known finds dated to this period within the study area. 4.2.3 The Neolithic (4000–2000 BC), Bronze Age (2000–600 BC) and Iron Age (600 BC–AD 43) are traditionally seen as the time of technological change, settled communities and the construction of communal monuments. Farming was established and forest cleared for cultivation. An expanding population put pressure on available resources and necessitated the utilisation of previously marginal land. Evidence from numerous investigations on the south side of the River Thames indicate that the higher, drier, ground of the islands, or ‘eyots’ within the marsh were settled and farmed from the Neolithic period. The marshland may also have been exploited for a range of resources and in places along the Lower Thames estuary timber trackways were constructed in the Bronze Age, providing access across the marshes. The only known finds from the prehistoric period within the study area are from Bermondsey Square
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 8 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx (HEA 23), 110m south-east of the site, where artefacts from the Neolithic, Bronze Age and Late Iron Age have been found, suggesting that land on the Bermondsey eyot was settled during this period. Peat deposits dated to the Bronze Age have also been observed during a watching brief at 173 Bermondsey Street (HEA 7), 80m north-east of the site.
Roman period (AD 43–410) 4.2.4 The Roman city of Londinium (London) was founded on the north bank of the River Thames, 1km to the north of the site, probably by AD 50, on what was the lowest suitable crossing point on the river for the roads linking the south coast with the expanding frontiers to the north and west. A substantial settlement and area of industrial activity also grew up in Southwark on an eyot on the south side of the River Thames, directly opposite the Roman city, 850m to the north-west of the site. The settlements were linked by a bridge, which was located probably just east of the current London Bridge. Southwark industrial activities included tanning, glass making, and metal working. It was also a hub of international trade, with boats off-loading goods such as fish sauce and olive oil from the Mediterranean and stone and grain from other parts of Britain (Cowan et al, 2009). 4.2.5 The site is located 420m south-west of the major north-west to south-east aligned Roman road of Watling Street, which ran approximately the modern line of Old Kent Road and Great Dover Street. The road may have attracted settlement on the higher ground of the Bermondsey eyot. As with the prehistoric, land between the eyots, including the site, would have been intertidal marshland. Outside the study area, c 210m south of the site, significant quantities of Roman building material and pottery were found, suggesting there was some form of building and settlement on the drier ground (Dyson et al, 2011), possibly a farmstead or villa. Further Roman evidence was found at excavations at Bermondsey Square, c 160m south-east of the site, including a human skull and a layer of plough soil (HEA 23). Evidence of Roman activity has also been found at 249–253 Long Lane (HEA 15) 75m south-west of the site during an evaluation in 2010; a well preserved sequence of archaeological deposits, which included possible quarry pits, a possible large ditch, two chalk-built walls, three postholes and rubble/mortar dumps were recorded. The possible date of these features is not clarified in the report which simply states that ‘a limited artefactual assemblage suggested that on-site activity could span the Roman, medieval and post-medieval periods’ (FA 2010). 4.2.6 Investigations within the site suggest that it was located on the Bermondsey eyot, either on the low gravel island itself or on the edge of the former channel (in an area of intertidal marshland) separating the Bermondsey eyot from the Horselydown eyot to the north.
Early medieval (Saxon) period (AD 410–1066) 4.2.7 Following the withdrawal of the Roman army from England in the early 5th century AD the whole country fell into an extended period of socio-economic decline. In the 7th to 9th centuries the trading port of Lundenwic developed on the north side of the River Thames in the area now occupied by Aldwych, the Strand and Covent Garden, 2.7km north-west of the site (Cowie and Blackmore 2008, xv). The walled Roman city was apparently largely abandoned until the late 9th century, when it was re-established as a burh (fortified settlement) during King Alfred’s campaign against the Danish invasions. A burh was also established at Southwark on the south side of the river, c 1km to the north-west of the site, in order to protect the river crossing on the site of London Bridge (Clarke 1989, 18). The Southwark burh formed the nucleus of the settlement of the area (Thomas 2002, 22, 68). In the 10th century a Minster was established here, and by the end of the century a mint was in operation (Carlin 1996, 13) and London Bridge was possibly rebuilt. Away from the bridgehead the area around the site remained sparsely populated marshland or pasture. 4.2.8 In the 9th and 10th centuries, the Saxon Minster system began to be replaced by local parochial organisation, with formal areas of land centred on nucleated settlements served by a parish church. The name Bermondsey is thought to derive from 'Bermond's eye' (ie eyot) close to the edge of which the site probably lay. Bermond may have been a Saxon lord who owned the land (Weinreb and Hibbert, 1995). In the Late Saxon period Bermondsey was a royal manor (Dyson et al 2011, 14). It has been suggested that a middle Saxon minster church is located somewhere on the Bermondsey eyot (Blair 1996); whilst the location is not known the higher gravel island would have been a good location for settlement.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 9 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx 4.2.9 Evidence of early medieval activity has been found just outside of the study area at Bermondsey Square, c 160m to the south-east of the site, where agricultural soil was found containing 5th–6th century ceramics, together with possible burials possibly associated with the Saxon monastery at Bermondsey. Structural remains were also found, together with an apsidal building which may have been part of a church. 4.2.10 Throughout this period the site still probably lay on marshy ground between the Bermondsey and Horsleydown eyots, and was possibly used for rough pasture.
Later medieval period (AD 1066–1485) 4.2.11 The Domesday survey (1086) states that Bermondsey manor (estate) was owned by the Crown. At that time it included parts of Camberwell, Rotherhithe, Southwark, Dulwich, Waddon and Reyham (probably Leigham in Streatham). The later and lesser manor of Bermondsey was granted by William Rufus, probably in 1094, to Bermondsey priory, a grant confirmed by Henry I in 1127. The Cluniac priory of St Saviour, Bermondsey was founded in 1082 on a site to the south of the present parish church of St Mary Magdalen (HEA 4), c 70m to the south- east of the site (Cherry and Pevsner 2002, 608; VCH Surrey iv, 17–24). The first known record of the parish church is in about 1293, when the church appears to have been serving the workers in the priory (stmarysbermondsey.org.uk/History). The church and the priory formed the focus of medieval settlement on the Bermondsey Eyot. The priory would have dominated the area both physically and economically (Carlin 1996, 30–31). 4.2.12 Documentary evidence suggests that during this period much of the locality was poorly drained and prone to inundation despite the construction of dykes and banks as flood defences. The frequent flooding of abbey land in Bermondsey during the 13th and 14th centuries impoverished the monastery (VCH Surrey ii, 68, 70, 72). The existence of streams in Bermondsey at this time is indicated by local place-names. Their presence encouraged the growth of various local industries during the medieval and post-medieval periods, notably milling, brewing, tanning (leather making) and cloth manufacture (Carlin 1996, 55–57, 184–9; VCH Surrey iv, 18). Much of the area around the site probably remained marshy and uninhabitable in this period, there is evidence for attempts to reclaim the marshy ground at 156–170 Bermondsey Street, with timber revetments and ground-raising consolidation layers recorded (HEA 11). 4.2.13 There is now no trace visible of the Bermondsey priory church, but Abbey Street, c 200 south- east of the site, is on the site of the nave; the crossing was near the junction with Tower Bridge Road, which cuts diagonally across the site of the cloister. A gate between the inner and outer precincts stood until 1820 at the north entrance to Bermondsey Square, c 125m south of the site (Cherry and Pevsner 2002, 609). The precinct of the abbey is thought to have extended as far north as Tanner Street, as shown on (Fig 4). 4.2.14 The manor of Bermondsey had been held by Earl Harold, and passed to King William I after the Norman Conquest, when it was recorded in Domesday Book as having a 'new handsome church' with 20 acres of meadow and woodland (Williams and Martin 2002, 72). The Cluniac Priory of St Saviour at Bermondsey was founded in the AD 1086 and was located c 140m south of the site. In 1399 it was elevated to the status of abbey (Evans 2003, 5) and became a Benedictine house. Medieval features associated with the abbey have been found in Bermondsey Square (HEA 23), including walls which were likely to be part of the cloister and possible remains of the south wall of the Norman church and its alterations in the medieval period. The remains of the abbey are a scheduled monument. 4.2.15 In the 12th century the Priory became a centre for pilgrimage (Thomas 2002, 57), which would have boosted its finances and probably encouraged settlement in the surrounding area. According to tradition the Neckinger was once navigable from the Thames to the monastery (VCH Surrey iv, 17–24). In 1399 the monastery became an abbey, when the Prior was elevated by the Pope into an Abbot (Clarke 1901, 6; Knowles and Hadcock 1971, 98; VCH Surrey ii, 64–77). Its financial fortunes seem to have improved, aided by royal patronage. In the latter part of the medieval period the rules of monastic life seem to have relaxed, land was leased or sold off, and increasing numbers of wealthy lay-people took up residence within the precinct (Thomas 2002, 159). 4.2.16 The site itself was located just outside of the abbey precinct, which extended to the eastern side of Bermondsey Street, c 15m to the east of the site (Dyson et al 2011: Fig 81) This has
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 10 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx been supported by excavations at 163–167 Bermondsey Street, c 30m north-east of the site, which found possible surviving elements of the precinct boundary in the form of ragstone walls (HEA 13). 4.2.17 The land outside the abbey precinct would have been primarily agricultural land or possibly pasture. The business of the abbey would have attracted activity and there may however have been some development on the main roads outside. Medieval dumps, truncated by chalk and mortar foundations of possible medieval date were observed at 0.7m OD (around 1.9mbgl) during investigations at 171–173 Bermondsey Street, c 15m east of the site (HEA 7). There were no associated finds to confirm the date of the structural remains. Two phases of a later medieval ditch were recorded; the later and more substantial ditch was filled with well- preserved organic material such as leather shoes and turned wood bowls. Remains of a medieval timber-framed building with associated garden soils were recorded at 151–153 Bermondsey Street (HEA 12), 75m to the north-east of the site.
Post-medieval period (AD 1485–present) 4.2.18 After the Dissolution of the monasteries in the mid-16th century Bermondsey Abbey was dismantled and all the land it had owned in the area passed into secular ownership, much of it being in the hands of Robert Cecil, first Earl of Salisbury. Without the presence of this central place, local urban and suburban development appears to have spread more widely along the riverfront and surrounding main roads (MOLA 2010, 9). In the 17th century the second Earl sold off much of the land which was then further sub-divided and resold in small parcels so that no coherent development by a few landowners was possible. Investigations on the site recorded finds dating to the post-medieval period, comprising pottery, sherds, roof tile fragments and a leather show (HEA 32). 4.2.19 The earliest map depicting the site is Stowe’s survey of 1603 (Fig 5 shows a reproduction by Brett-James in 1929). The map (beyond the extract reproduced here), shows buildings extending along the Thames waterfront from land north of Lambeth marsh to Rotherhithe in the west. Further buildings can be seen along the roads heading south out of London to Newington and Kent, including The Borough, Tooley Street and Bermondsey Street. Bermondsey Abbey (named as Bermondsey House) is shown south of the site. Most of the buildings of the Abbey had been demolished by c 1541. The rest of area south of Tooley Street, including the site itself, remains undeveloped. 4.2.20 In Faithorne and Newcourt’s pictorial map of 1658 (Fig 6) the area around the site has been developed, with buildings shown either side of the frontage of Bermondsey Street extending south to a substantial building labelled ‘Abby’, surrounded by formal gardens. This was the mansion built by Sir Thomas Pope on the site of the Bermondsey Abbey. The land behind the site to the west is still open ground or gardens. Buildings can be seen within the site comprised of buildings parallel to Bermondsey Street with extensions perpendicular to the street axis, forming enclosed open areas at the back. The Neckinger channel is shown a short distance to the north of the site. 4.2.21 Morgan and Lea’s revision of Morgan’s map of 1682 (Fig 7) shows further development of the area around Bermondsey Street, especially along Tanner Street and Long Lane to the north and south of the site respectively. The map shows a building in the eastern part of the site, fronting the main road, with an open yard to the rear, accessed by a narrow alleyway to the north of the site. 4.2.22 Rocque’s map of 1746 (Fig 8) is small scale and shows built up areas indicatively as shaded areas. It is apparent from later maps that the shaded areas often included small yards and alleys, the detail of which was omitted. The map shows building development to the rear of the building fronting the main road, in the middle of the site. The western end of the site is still open, access by a narrow alleyway and named ‘White Lyon Y’ (yard) is marked. The industrial development of the area is also clearly shown, with a number of yards indicated (not shown on Fig 8). To the west of the site is a market garden and orchard. Further west, along the north side of Long Lane, 120m to the west of the site, is a series of tanning yards, which later characterise the industry across much of this part of Southwark. Leather tanning was established as early as the medieval period in Bermondsey and from the late 17th century onwards the growth of London and its national and international trading links stimulated the growth of this industry (MOLA 2010, 10). It was an anti-social activity though, as the process entailed soaking skins in dung in timber-lined tanning pits and the stench would have been
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 11 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx overpowering. 4.2.23 The streetscape of Bermondsey Street is more clearly visible by the time of Horwood’s map of 1799 (Fig 9), where a building - probably a house - with a small rear garden can be seen occupying the eastern end of the site fronting Bermondsey Street. It is not known whether this is the same building as those shown on earlier maps. The building(s) in the central part of the site shown on Rocque’s map have been demolished and the central and western parts of the site are open yard, backing onto a large open area, to the west of which are extensive tanning yards. 4.2.24 By the time of Faden’s 1813 revision of Horwood’s map (Fig 10) the southern half of u-shaped warehouse building can be seen in the central part the site forming an east-west alley opposite Newman’s Row. Further development of local industries can be seen with more tanneries in the area, with a ‘Tan Yard’ and warehouse 35m south west of the site. In addition, a glue factory and distillery is shown c 175m north-west of the site. One of the buildings on the site, 176 Bermondsey Street, was insured as a cheesemonger and butcher to Charles Waller in 1819, according to Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Group records. It appears the ground floor was used as a shop at this time (LMA, CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/480/953062), probably with residential occupation above. 4.2.25 By the time of the Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25”: mile map of 1878 (Fig 11) the whole area surrounding the site had been completely developed for housing and industrial activities, including the previously open area around Bermondsey Square. On the opposite side of Bermondsey Street from the site, the previous alley of Newman’s Row has developed into a more substantial through street into an area occupied by more tanneries. The former burial ground of Mary Magdalene Church (HEA 30) and the Friends Burial Ground (HEA 31) are now marked as disused on the map. Burials stopped in the Bermondsey church yard in 1854 and in the Friends Burial Ground in 1844, though in 1869 a large number of burials were transferred there when the Worcester Street burial ground was destroyed. By the second half of the 19th century the many small-scale tanneries in the area began to be amalgamated and this is evident in Fig 10, which shows fewer small individual tanneries, with the remaining much larger. Within the site itself, there are two small buildings on the street front with a larger building occupying the back and an open area or courtyard between the two. In the south-east corner of the site is a smaller rectangular plot facing the street front. The site backs on to a very large tannery (the grid of individual square tanning pits can be seem on the top left of the extract) and it is separated by small back alley. There is no evidence to suggest the tanning industry extended into the site. 4.2.26 The Ordnance Survey 3rd edition 25”: mile map of 1915 (Fig 12) shows the site has been completely developed with the previous open area built on and the site now forming one narrow building. By this time the Mary Magdalene burial ground is shown as a recreation ground and many of the tanneries in the area have gone. The West Gate of the former Bermondsey Abbey is shown at the junction of Bermondsey Street and Abbey Street, c 120m south-east from the site. 4.2.27 The 1938 revision of the 1887 Goad fire insurance plans (Fig 13) shows that the building on the site was part of a waste paper warehouse but was at that time vacant. The blue strip indicates a glass ceiling, which would have provided light into the building. The building at the eastern end of the site is of three storeys. No basements are indicated, although they may not have been accessed during the survey. 4.2.28 The LCC Bomb Damage map (not reproduced) shows that the building on the site sustained blast damage in WWII. There have been some alterations to the current building following this period. By the time of the 1956 revision of the Goad map (not reproduced) the building is shown as a bakery. The current 3-storey mid to late 19th century building, houses a bakery and ancillary offices and storage and is not currently basemented. The building appears to have been converted into a warehouse in the 20th century.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 12 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx 5 Statement of significance
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 The following section discusses past impacts on the site: generally from late 19th and 20th century developments which may have compromised archaeological survival, eg, building foundations or quarrying, identified primarily from historic maps, the site walkover survey, and information on the likely depth of deposits. It goes on to consider factors which are likely to have compromised asset survival. 5.1.2 In accordance with the NPPF, this is followed by a statement on the likely potential and significance of buried heritage assets within the site, derived from current understanding of the baseline conditions, past impacts, and professional judgement.
5.2 Factors affecting archaeological survival
Natural geology 5.2.1 Based on BGS boreholes and the information from archaeological investigations in the site, the predicted level of natural geology within the site is as follows: • Current ground level lies at 2.6m OD. • The top of truncated Brickearth has been recorded on the site between 0.8–1.1m OD (1.5–1.8mbgl) • The top of truncated Gravel has been recorded nearby between 0.9–1.6m OD (1.0– 1.7mbgl) 5.2.2 Between the top of the natural and the current ground level is modern made ground and undated made ground, of mid/late 19th century and earlier date. The undated made ground may potentially contain remains of archaeological interest.
Past impacts 5.2.3 Archaeological survival is expected to be high across the site, based on the likely depth of remains; the monitoring of geotechnical trial pits suggested that any archaeological deposits would have been removed to a level between 1.1m OD and 2.3m OD; by mid-20th century development (MOLA 2016). 5.2.4 The existing floor slab lies at 2.8–2.9m OD (Fig 16 and Fig 17), which is slightly above ground level (2.6m OD) suggesting that it may be a raft foundation. There is no basement level or evidence of earlier basements. The foundations will have removed any archaeological remains within their footprint to the depth of construction. A raft foundation would have removed remains across the site to a depth of 0.5m; this impact would be superficial and any archaeological remains beneath would survive intact. Pads or strip footings, if they have been used, will have removed remains locally to a depth of 1.0–1.5m. Remains would survive beneath and probably beneath these.
Likely depth/thickness of archaeological remains 5.2.5 The natural Brickearth is recorded between 0.8–1.1mOD (1.5–1.8mbgl). The natural deposits are to be sealed by undated and modern made ground. Post-medieval deposits were revealed in four of five test pits directly below modern made ground.
5.3 Archaeological potential and significance
5.3.1 The nature of possible archaeological survival in the area of the proposed development is summarised here, taking into account the levels of natural geology and the level and nature of later disturbance and truncation discussed above. 5.3.2 The site has a low to moderate potential to contain archaeological remains dated to the
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 13 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx prehistoric period. The site would have been located in low-lying marshland, prone to flooding and unsuitable for settlement throughout this period. It was just north of the Bermondsey eyot, which may have had early settlement as evidence from such eyots indicates that they were settled and farmed from the Neolithic. Artefacts from the Neolithic, Bronze Age and Late Iron Age have been found in Bermondsey Square (HEA 23) 125m south-east of the site. Peat deposits dating to the Bronze Age were observed at 173 Bermondsey Street (HEA 7) 15m east of the site, indicating that at some point the ground beside the site was dry enough for vegetation to form. The low-lying marshland surrounding the eyot would have been important for a broad range of activities and evidence of prehistoric intertidal marshland exploitation, such as timber trackways, revetments, and fish traps, if present, would potentially be of medium or high significance, depending on the nature and extent of the remains. High survival of organic remains, eg timber, is likely due to waterlogged conditions. 5.3.3 The site has a low to moderate potential to contain remains dating to the Roman period. The site is located on the north of the Bermondsey eyot, remains dating to this period have been found further south, on the higher ground, at Bermondsey Square and Long Lane (HEA 23, 15). The site’s location on land that was regularly inundated by the River Thames would be unfavourable for occupation, but as with the prehistoric may have been utilised for fishing and other activities, although there is currently no evidence for such in the vicinity of the site. If present, would potentially be of medium or high significance, depending on the nature and extent of the remains 5.3.4 The site has a low potential to contain remains dating to the early medieval (Saxon) period. Evidence of early medieval activity has been found at Bermondsey Square, 125m south-east of the site, where agricultural soil has been found containing 5th-6th century ceramics, together with possible burials associated with a possible Saxon religious community on the eyot. These remains however are focussed on the higher gravels. The site would have been prone to flooding and marginal in this period and early Saxon occupation in the area was centred on the North Southwark eyot on the south bank of the river Thames. 5.3.5 The site has a moderate potential to contain remains dating to the later medieval period. Bermondsey Street was one of the few roadways connecting Bermondsey Abbey (HEA 23), the north-western edge of which lay 15m to the south-east of the site, with the Thames riverfront and the Southwark settlement 1km to the north-west. There is some evidence for land reclamation at this time at in the form of ditches, revetments and ground raising layers at 156–170 Bermondsey Street (HEA 11). The site lay outside of the precinct of the Abbey. Whilst much of the land around the abbey would have been farmland or pasture, there is some evidence of development along Bermondsey Street, with a possible medieval structure 15m to the east of the site on the opposite side of the road (HEA 7). Here a medieval ditch was recorded with preserved leather work. Remains within the site might include evidence of reclamation and drainage, of low significance, but possibly also settlement and domestic features like wells or rubbish pits. These would potentially be of medium significance, derived from the potential evidential and historical value of the remains. 5.3.6 The site has high potential to contain archaeological remains dating to the post-medieval period. Historical maps show the frontage of Bermondsey Street developed from the mid 17th century onwards with what was probably a house fronting the street, and by the mid 18th century, a warehouse to the rear. Whilst much of this area of Southwark was used for an extensive tanning industry, there is no evidence for such within the site itself. The current buildings are likely of mid to late 19th century date. The former house fronting the street was probably converted to a warehouse to match the function of the building to the rear in around the early 20th century. Remains of earlier buildings or assets relating to them potentially survive beneath the current. Domestic features such as wells or cess pits could also be present. The significance of such assets would be of low significance, derived from the potential evidential and historical value of the remains.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 14 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx 6 Impact of proposals
6.1 Proposals
6.1.1 The scheme comprises the demolition of the existing mid/late19th century buildings on the site for development of a new hotel building with 5 upper storeys at the eastern end towards the street front and in the western extent 2 upper floors. A single-depth basement level would be excavated underneath the entire footprint of the building (Hall McKnight 2016, 26). 6.1.2 The proposed basement plan is shown on Fig 18. The basement finished floor level (FFL) would extend to a depth of –1.1m OD (Hall McKnight 2016). 6.1.3 The type of foundations have not yet been established. A raft foundation would have a 0.4m thick groundbearing slab (Malcolm Brady pers comm 26/08/2016), ie the formation level would be –1.5m OD, or 3.9mbgl. Alternatively presumably piled foundations would be used. 6.1.4 Underpinning of the existing party wall on the south side with mini-piles is possible, along with an option of using the lower ground floor wall on the north side (Michael Barclay Partnership DRG NO: 6890-300 30-08-16).
6.2 Implications
6.2.1 The identification of physical impacts on buried heritage assets within a site takes into account any activity which would entail ground disturbance, for example site set up works, remediation, landscaping and the construction of new basements and foundations. As it is assumed that the operational (completed development) phase would not entail any ground disturbance there would be no additional archaeological impact and this is not considered further. 6.2.2 It is outside the scope of this archaeological report to consider the impact of the proposed development on upstanding structures of historic interest, in the form of physical impacts which would remove, alter, or otherwise change the building fabric, or predicted changes to the historic character and setting of historic buildings and structures within the site or outside it. 6.2.3 The site has a high potential for post-medieval remains, of low significance. Prehistoric and Roman remains (medium or high significance) and later medieval remains (medium significance) are possible.
Preliminary ground works 6.2.4 The main impact of any preliminary ground works would be breaking out the foundation slab. Breaking out of the existing foundation/floor slab would potentially truncate or remove entirely any archaeological remains directly beneath the slab, ie of post-medieval or possibly later medieval date.
Construction of the basement 6.2.5 The excavation of the basement across the whole site footprint would extend to a depth of –1.5m OD. Any archaeological remains would be removed to the formation level of 3.9mbgl. This would include post medieval remains directly below modern made ground. 6.2.6 The proposed lift pits would extend to a depth of 1.5m below the foundation slab formation level, ie to –3.0m OD. This would remove entirely any archaeological remains that might have survived the basement excavation within the pit footprint to this depth.
Underpinning 6.2.7 There are various impacts to archaeological remains associated with underpinning, including excavation around the foundations, auger drilling and insertion of mini-piles. Any remains would be removed locally from the footprint of these works.
Piled foundations 6.2.8 If piles are used, any archaeological remains within the footprint of each pile would be
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 15 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx removed as the pile is driven downwards. The severity of the impact would therefore depend on the pile size, type and pile density. Where the piling layout is particularly dense, it is in effect likely to make any surviving archaeological remains, potentially preserved between each pile, inaccessible in terms of any archaeological investigation in the future. 6.2.9 Augered piles/continuous flight auger (CFA) piles would minimise the impact upon possible archaeological remains whereas vibro-compacted piles may cause additional impact through vibration and deformation of fragile surrounding remains, in particular at the level of the water table. 6.2.10 The insertion of pile caps and connecting ground beams, along with the excavation of a pile guide trench, typically extend no more than 1.0–1.5mbgl and would remove any archaeological remains within the footprint of these works to this depth.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 16 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx 7 Conclusion and recommendations
7.1.1 There are no statutorily designated heritage assets on the site. The site lies within in the Bermondsey Street Conservation Area and an APZ designated due to the known high potential of the area to contain remains dating from the prehistoric period onwards. 7.1.2 This report has found high potential for post-medieval structural remains, with low to moderate potential for prehistoric and Roman remains. There is a moderate potential for later medieval settlement activity beyond the nearby Bermondsey Abbey precinct. 7.1.3 Archaeological survival is expected to be high across the site, based on the likely depth of remains; the monitoring of geotechnical trial pits suggested that any archaeological deposits would have been removed to a level between 1.1m OD and 2.3m OD; by mid-20th century development (MOLA 2016). 7.1.4 The proposed single-storey basement construction would entirely remove any buried heritage assets that might be present within the site footprint. The impact would depend on the nature of the foundations; piles, if used, would remove entirely any remains beneath the basement slab, the severity of impact depending on pile size and density. The proposed lift pit would reach the underlying Gravels. 7.1.5 Table 1 summarises the known or likely buried assets within the site, their significance, and the impact of the proposed scheme on asset significance.
Table 1: Impact upon heritage assets (prior to mitigation) Asset Asset Significance Impact of proposed scheme Prehistoric remains, eg marshland Medium to high Lift pit, piles (if used) and underpinning, exploitation basement excavation (low to moderate potential) Significance reduced to low/negligible Roman remains, Medium to high Lift pit, piles (if used) and underpinning (low to moderate potential) Basement excavation Significance reduced to low/negligible Later medieval reclamation and Low (reclamation Breaking out foundation slab, drainage and possibly settlement and drainage) or excavation, lift pit, piles (if used) and (moderate potential) medium (settlement) underpinning. Post-medieval development Low Significance of asset reduced to (high potential) low/negligible
7.1.6 In light of the archaeological potential of the site and its location in an APZ the local authority requested that an archaeological evaluation be undertaken prior to the determination of planning consent which found that remains from the post-medieval period survived beneath the ground floor slab. In view of these results the local planning authority may require further evaluation following demolition of the existing building to determine archaeological potential and significance of any remains dating to before the post-medieval period. This would allow an appropriate mitigation strategy to be drawn up. This might comprise targeted archaeological excavation in advance of construction, and/or a watching brief during ground works for remains of lesser significance. Any further archaeological work would need to be undertaken in consultation with the local authority archaeological advisor and in accordance with an approved Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI). The work could be carried out under the terms of a standard archaeological planning condition.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 17 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx 8 Gazetteer of known historic environment assets
8.1.1 The table below represents a gazetteer of known historic environment sites and finds within the 120m-radius study area around the site. The gazetteer should be read in conjunction with Fig 2. 8.1.2 The GLHER data contained within this gazetteer was obtained on 18/08/2016 and is the copyright of Historic England 2016. 8.1.3 Historic England statutory designations data © Historic England 2016. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2016. The Historic England GIS Data contained in this material was obtained in March 2016. The most publicly available up to date Historic England GIS Data can be obtained from http://www.historicengland.org.uk.
Abbreviations MoLAS – Museum of London Archaeology Service (now named MOLA) HER – Historic Environment Record PCA – Pre Construct Archaeology CA – Compass Archaeology FA – Foundations Archaeology
HEA Description Site code/ No. HER No. 1 173 Bermondsey Street, SE1 NHL1376564 Grade II listed early 19th century cloth factory. 2 187–189 Bermondsey Street, SE1 NHL1376565 Grade II listed hostel, now studios with flats above. Dated to 1907–8. Probably by Sir Reginald Blomfield. 3 191 Bermondsey Street, SE1 NHL1376566 Grade II listed house, early 19th century date. 4 Church of St Mary Madgalene, SE1 NHL1376567 Grade II* listed Church, dated to 1675–1979. Remodelled in the 19th century by MLO7725 Charles Stanton. Also the site of the first Parish church of Bermondsey, as noted on the GLHER (MLO7725). 5 155 Bermondsey Street, SE1 BDI01 An evaluation and watching brief by Pre Construct Archaeology in 2002. Natural alluvial BDI02 clay was overlaid by two distinct peat deposits, the uppermost of which was truncated ELO12584 by the construction of a basement in the 19th century. The basement was backfilled with modern brick rubble and demolition debris. Natural gravel was observed between –0.9 to –1.0m OD. 6 175 Bermondsey Street, SE1 BDK00 An evaluation by PCA in 2000. Evidence of post-medieval and tanning was found above the natural sand, consisting of pits and tanning waste dated to the 17th and 18th century. Victorian and later ground works had truncated the rest of the sequence. 7 171–173 Bermondsey Street, SE1 BDU01 A watching brief, evaluation and excavation by PCA from 2001 to 2002. Medieval ELO996 dumps, truncated by chalk and mortar foundations were observed during the watching brief at c 0.7m OD. Foundations possibly medieval but no associated finds to confirm this. Two phases of a late medieval ditch were recorded; the later and more substantial ditch was filled with well-preserved organic material such as leather shoes and turned wood bowls. A post-medieval barrel-lined well was cut by an early post-medieval dumping layer which was in turn cut by an 18th century brick-lined well. There was also evidence of the channel between Horsleydown eyot and Bermondsey eyot in the form of a thick layer of bluish silt which was overlain by Bronze Age peat and other alluvial conditions until perhaps the medieval period when the site was drained. Natural sand observed at –2.4m OD. 8 142 Bermondsey Street, SE1 BMY13 Compass Archaeology watching brief in 2013. Recorded a single pit exposing the concrete foundations of two walls, with associated backfill relating to the present 19th– 20th century buildings. 9 159 Bermondsey Street, SE1 BND02 An evaluation by MoLAS in 2002. Holocene alluvial deposits, consisting of peat above ELO14594 clay, sealed by alluvium, were recorded in a palaeochannel. Later deposits were
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 18 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx HEA Description Site code/ No. HER No. truncated by the construction of a cellar, backfilled in the late 17th century. The Natural gravels were observed at –3.8m OD. However, auger probing of deep sediments on this site has further demonstrated the palaeochannel between Horseley Down and Bermondsey was >4m deep. 10 Watch house in St Mary Magdalen churchyard, Bermondsey Street, SE1 BNY98 An archaeological watching brief by MoLAS in 1998. Natural gravel was overlaid by 18th–19th century cemetery fill. Two gravestones were located below the topsoil beneath which 15 burials, dating from the mid-late 18th – early 19th century, were revealed. Eleven skeletons were complete, the remainder extending beyond the limits of the watching brief. 11 156–170 Bermondsey Street, SE1 BRB02 Evaluation and excavation by PCA in 2002. Recorded a number of drainage ditches ELO995 and ground-raising consolidation dumps which indicate attempts to drain and reclaim ELO994 the marshy ground from the late medieval period. The remains of timber revetments MLO76470 (MLO76471) were observed along the edge of these ditches, dated to the late 15th – MLO76471 early 16th centuries. One of the ditches had silted up by the early 16th century and had MLO77347 then been re-cut at each end, possibly suggesting the presence of three properties MLO77349 fronting onto Bermondsey Street. The revetments also retained dumped deposits MLO77351 overlying the ditch fills, creating a causeway across the central part of the ditch. The remains of two timber footbridges which crossed the ditch were found supporting the evidence for three properties. These bridges appear to have been built in the 16th century and had gone out of use by the end of the century when they were sealed by dump deposits. Pits and postholes were recorded cutting into these dumps and further dumping occurred during the first half of the 17th century. By the latter part of the century a building with brick drains and a cobbled alleyway occupied the site. A timber- lined pit and dumps of horn cores were also found and may indicate the importance of the tanning industry in the area. A sequence of dumps and surfaces suggest the excavation area probably remained an external yard associated with properties fronting onto Bermondsey Street to the east. Natural gravels were encountered at -2.78m and - 2.15m OD. 12 151–153 Bermondsey Street, SE1 BSK99 A watching brief and evaluation by PCA in 1999-2000. Natural strata was not seen. The BYM00 earliest deposit recorded was a 19th century demolition layer.A natural channel was ELO2345 recorded cutting through peat and alluvial deposits. The remains of a medieval timber- MLO77553 framed building and associated garden soils were recorded. Another building, dating to the mid-16th – mid-17th century, consisted of brick and stone walls with internal earth and tile floors, and fireplaces; it re-used stone and tile, probably recovered from demolished medieval buildings at Bermondsey Abbey. A sunken barrel outside this building may have been a storage pit; it was covered by extensive 18th and 19th- century demolition dumps. The probable marsh deposits were cut by tanning pits, consisting of three wooden barrels and a number of rectangular pits, provisionally dated to the 18th–19th centuries. 13 163–167 Bermondsey Street, SE1 BWU04 An evaluation by MoLAS in 2004. A layer of peat was recorded, sealed by alluvial clay. ELO14651 The remains of post-medieval buildings was also identified. The ragstone walls which may be surviving elements of Bermondsey Abbey precinct were also seen. The south face of the southernmost wall was fully exposed in localised areas, comprising masonry about 1.5m high, overlying timber pile foundations. Other structural features included medieval chalk foundations for an internal room with a pitch-tiled hearth, and overlying post-medieval brick walls that follow the same building alignment. There was also evidence of a 16th-17th century brick drain and garderobe in an alley between two of the 'abbey' walls. All medieval - early post-medieval masonry has been preserved and protected in situ. 14 Titan House, 184–192 Bermondsey Street, SE1 BYC02 An archaeological watching brief and evaluation by PCA between 2002 and 2007. TIH07 recorded natural gravels overlaid to the south and west of the site by a thick layer of ELO12589 peat sealed by alluvial clay of the Holocene sequence. To the east of the site this was ELO12586 overlaid by demolition dumps of probable 18th or 19th century date. Natural gravels were sealed by modern made-ground. Natural gravel was observed at between –0.3m OD and –1.8m OD and –1.6 to –1.0m OD. 15 247, 249–253 Long Lane, Bermondsey, SE1 LGL10 An evaluation, excavation and watching brief by FA in 2010. Natural sands and gravels were cut by a ditch which contained a piece of glazed floor tile of medieval or early
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 19 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx HEA Description Site code/ No. HER No. post-medieval date. The earliest feature was a large ditch containing 11th to 12th- century pottery, which ran parallel to the modern course of Long Lane. A number of large sand/gravel quarry pits containing a mix of Roman and medieval pottery were present across the excavated area and at least one of these features cut through the earlier ditch. The second phase of activity comprised 17th to 18th century structural remains in the form of three chalk-built walls, along with two related postholes. The third phase was represented by numerous 19th and early 20th- century deposits and features, which frequently contained chinaware pottery and brick fragments, along with brick-built structures such as a possible well and several walls. A series of 19th to 20th- century brick walls, cuts and in-fills completed the sequence.
16 239 Long Lane, Tenners Yard, SE1 LGN96 An evaluation by MoLAS in 1996. Natural sand was cut by a series of medieval and MLO67216 post-medieval pits and two post holes. One of the features was a sub rectangular pit MLO67216- with a stake hole cut into the base at either end. This indicates that the pit may have MLO67220 been lined originally. It is suggested that these pits may relate to the leather industry in Bermondsey. Natural Sand at 1.5m OD 17 241–253 Long Lane, Bermondsey, SE1 LGZ07 An archaeological evaluation by PCA in 2007 recorded various medieval features cut ELO7699 into the natural sands; including a ditch sealed by modern made ground in the north of MLO98423 the site and a number of pits sealed by late medieval redeposited sand (MLO98425). MLO98424 The latter was cut by a 17th-18th century pit and covered by a possible floor make-up MLO98425 which, was cut on the east side by three beamslots, overlain by a ragstone floor. A possible timber footing with a brick surface above was also identified. The floors probably represented the remains of cellars of two 18th century terrace houses (MLO98423). A 19th century wall (MLO98424) was discovered between the cellars. To the east of this wall demolition material, dated to the late 19th–early 20th century. A number of masonry features associated with the wall, including the remains of a floor surface, were also uncovered. Natural sand was recorded at between 1.4m OD and 1.6m OD 18 241–245 Long Lane, SE1 LOU10 A standing building recording by MOLA in 2010. The building comprised three adjoining houses which were probably built in the early to mid-19th century. 19 St Mary Magdalen Church, 193 Bermondsey Street, SE1 MMB12 A watching brief by Thames Valley Archaeology Service in 2012 revealed 19th century made ground, which contained finds from the 17th–19th century and three small disarticulated human bone fragments. 20 151 Tower Bridge Road, SE1 TBD99 An evaluation by PCA in 1999 identified a peaty layer; forming the lowest deposit in a sequence indicative of alternate phases of flooding and regression. The peaty deposits are most likely medieval in date. The site was truncated by a network of timber and brick tanning pits of 18th century date. An extensive deposit of crushed tree bark and acorn was recorded in the south–west of the site: a product of the tanning process. The site had subsequently truncated by the construction of Victorian or later basements. 21 157 Tower Bridge Road, SE1 TBV05 An evaluation and excavation by PCA in 2005–2009. Above the natural gravels a TBW09 sequence of alluvium and peat was recorded representing a period of marine regression from the middle Bronze to early Iron Ages. The natural deposits were cut by a series of tanning pits dated to the late 18th to 19th century. The earliest were timber- lined. Associated drainage systems and walkways, brick columns (probably part of the tannery roofing) and a series of brick walls forming part of a building associated with the tannery were also recorded. The latest recorded pits dated to the mid-late 19th century and were brick-lined with associated drainage and walkways. Operation of the tannery seems to have ceased in the early 20th century, when all pits and structures were backfilled and sealed by a layer of made ground. 22 St Mary Magdalene Church Yard, Abbey Street/Bermondsey Street, SE1 SMM11 Archaeological watching brief by PCA in 2011. Two brick tombs were located on the ELO12738 line of new paths and a further two were revealed during removal of undergrowth. MLO105178 Additionally, two tombstones were found within the backfill of the tombs. The tombstones were identified to the Smith family and the Allen/Beazley family, dating from 1749–1788 (MLO105178). 23 Bermondsey Square, Southwark, SE1 ELO12344 A series of excavations by PCA between 2004 and 2010. Prehistoric artefacts from the ELO12581
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 20 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx HEA Description Site code/ No. HER No. Neolithic, Bronze Age and Late Iron age provide evidence that Bermondsey was BYQ98 settled during these periods. The excavations recovered evidence for activity and settlement of the site throughout the Roman period. The features included pits, ditches, post built structures, wells and clay and timber buildings, with the finds ranging from pottery, building material, animal bone, glass, coins, hygiene sets and brooches. It is thought that Bermondsey Square is the site of a farmstead or villa complex. The layout of priory of the 12th century was recorded comprising the main cloister and the inner precinct. The excavations have revealed significant parts of the mansion built by Sir Thomas Pope over the site. Natural sand and gravel was seen at 1.4 to 2.3m OD. 24 Lamb Alley, Morroco Street, SE1 MLO74502 Site of small tannery operating in 1872 as noted on the GLHER – site redeveloped as warehousing. 25 Newhams Roaw, Bermondsey Street, SE1 MLO74563 Site of small hat manufacturers operating in 1872, as noted on the GLHER. No further details. 26 Bermondsey Street, SE1 MLO74564 Small curriery operating in 1872, as noted on the GLHER. No further details. 27 Bermondsey Street, SE1 MLO74578 Small curriery operating in 1872, as noted on the GLHER. No further details. 28 Newhams Row, Bermondsey Street, SE1 MLO74590 Site of small tannery operating in 1872, as noted on the GLHER. No further details 29 Newhams Row, Bermondsey Street, SE1 MLO74591 Small tin and zinc works operating in 1872, as noted on the GLHER. Possible survival of site footprint. 30 St Mary Magdalen church yard, Bermondsey, SE1 MLO106854 This is likely to have been within precinct of Bermondsey Abbey since the mid/late11th Basil Holmes century. It was enlarged in 1783 and 1810 and contains remains of an ancient 1896, 228 cemetery belonging to Bermondsey Abbey. Burials in the church yard stopped in 1854. Today it is maintained as a public garden by the vestry. 31 Friends Burial Ground, Long Lane, Bermondsey, SE1 MLO16864 The Society of Friends Burial Ground was bought in 1697 and closed in 1844, but in Basil Holmes 1869 a large number of coffins were interred there when the Worcester Street Burial 1896,228 Ground was destroyed. The area has since been laid out as a garden in which there are no gravestones. It is adjacent to the Quaker Burial Ground. 32 176-178 Bermondsey Street, SE1 BOD16 Archaeological monitoring of geo-technical trial pits undertaken by MOLA in 2016. Revealed that modern truncation is likely to have removed any late 19th century buildings. Demonstrated the potential for the survival of post-medieval deposits throughout the site. Natural brickearth recorded at 1.1m and 0.8m OD.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 21 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx 9 Planning framework
9.1 Statutory protection
Scheduled Monuments 9.1.1 Nationally important archaeological sites (both above and below-ground remains) may be identified and protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. An application to the Secretary of State is required for any works affecting a Scheduled Monument. Prior written permission, known as Scheduled Monument Consent (SMC) is required from the Secretary of State for works physically affecting a scheduled monument. SMC is separate from the statutory planning process. 9.1.2 Development affecting the setting of a scheduled monument is dealt with wholly under the planning system and does not require SMC. Geophysical prospection (including the use of a metal detector) on a scheduled monument requires prior consent from Historic England.
Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas 9.1.3 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out the legal requirements for the control of development and alterations which affect buildings, including those which are listed or in conservation areas. Buildings which are listed or which lie within a conservation area are protected by law. Grade I are buildings of exceptional interest. Grade II* are particularly significant buildings of more than special interest. Grade II are buildings of special interest, which warrant every effort being made to preserve them.
9.2 National Planning Policy Framework
9.2.1 The Government issued the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in March 2012 (DCLG 2012) and supporting Planning Practice Guidance in 2014 (DCLG 2014). One of the 12 core principles that underpin both plan-making and decision-taking within the framework is to ‘conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations’ (DCLG 2012 para 17). It recognises that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource (para 126), and requires the significance of heritage assets to be considered in the planning process, whether designated or not. The contribution of setting to asset significance needs to be taken into account (para 128). The NPPF encourages early engagement (i.e. pre-application) as this has significant potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of a planning application and can lead to better outcomes for the local community (para 188). 9.2.2 NPPF Section 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment, is produced in full below: Para 126. Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance. In developing this strategy, local planning authorities should take into account: • the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; • the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring; • the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and • opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place. Para 127. When considering the designation of conservation areas, local planning authorities should ensure that an area justifies such status because of its special architectural or historic
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 22 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx interest, and that the concept of conservation is not devalued through the designation of areas that lack special interest. Para 128. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. Para 129. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal. Para 130. Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of or damage to a heritage asset the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision. Para 131. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of: • the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; • the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and • the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Para 132: When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. Para 133. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply: • the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and • no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and • conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and • the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. Para 134. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. Para 135. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. Para 136. Local planning authorities should not permit loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred. Para 137. Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 23 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably. Para 138. Not all elements of a World Heritage Site or Conservation Area will necessarily contribute to its significance. Loss of a building (or other element) which makes a positive contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site should be treated either as substantial harm under paragraph 133 or less than substantial harm under paragraph 134, as appropriate, taking into account the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site as a whole. Para 139. Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets. Para 140. Local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from those policies. Para 141. Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development management publicly accessible. They should also require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.
9.3 Greater London regional policy
The London Plan 9.3.1 The overarching strategies and policies for the whole of the Greater London area are contained within the London Plan of the Greater London Authority (GLA March 2015). The subsequent 2015–16 Minor Alterations (MALPs) to the London Plan have no bearing on the historic environment. Policy 7.8 relates to Heritage Assets and Archaeology: A. London’s heritage assets and historic environment, including listed buildings, registered historic parks and gardens and other natural and historic landscapes, conservation areas, World Heritage Sites, registered battlefields, scheduled monuments, archaeological remains and memorials should be identified, so that the desirability of sustaining and enhancing their significance and of utilising their positive role in place shaping can be taken into account. B. Development should incorporate measures that identify, record, interpret, protect and, where appropriate, present the site’s archaeology. C. Development should identify, value, conserve, restore, re-use and incorporate heritage assets, where appropriate. D. Development affecting heritage assets and their settings should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail. E. New development should make provision for the protection of archaeological resources, landscapes and significant memorials. The physical assets should, where possible, be made available to the public on-site. Where the archaeological asset or memorial cannot be preserved or managed on-site, provision must be made for the investigation, understanding, recording, dissemination and archiving of that asset. F. Boroughs should, in LDF policies, seek to maintain and enhance the contribution of built, landscaped and buried heritage to London’s environmental quality, cultural identity and economy as part of managing London’s ability to accommodate change and regeneration. G. Boroughs, in consultation with English Heritage [now named Historic England], Natural England and other relevant statutory organisations, should include appropriate policies in their LDFs for identifying, protecting, enhancing and improving access to the historic environment and heritage assets and their settings where appropriate, and to archaeological assets, memorials and historic and natural landscape character within their area. 9.3.2 Para. 7.31 supporting Policy 7.8 notes that ‘Substantial harm to or loss of a designated heritage asset should be exceptional, with substantial harm to or loss of those assets designated of the highest significance being wholly exceptional. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 24 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx optimal viable use. Enabling development that would otherwise not comply with planning policies, but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset should be assessed to see of the benefits of departing from those policies outweigh the disbenefits.’ 9.3.3 It further adds (para. 7.31b) ‘Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of and/or damage to a heritage asset the deteriorated state of that asset should not be taken into account when making a decision on a development proposal’. 9.3.4 Para. 7.32 recognises the value of London’s heritage: ‘…where new development uncovers an archaeological site or memorial, these should be preserved and managed on-site. Where this is not possible provision should be made for the investigation, understanding, dissemination and archiving of that asset’.
9.4 Local planning policy
9.4.1 Following the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Planning Authorities have replaced their Unitary Development Plans, Local Plans and Supplementary Planning Guidance with a new system of Local Development Frameworks (LDFs). UDP policies are either ‘saved’ or ‘deleted’. In most cases archaeology policies are likely to be ‘saved’ because there have been no significant changes in legislation or advice at a national level.
The London Borough of Southwark 9.4.2 The London Borough of Southwark’s core strategy was adopted in April 2011 9.4.3 Strategic Policy 12 in the Core Strategy covers the borough’s historic environment and is supported by policies 3.15, 3.16, 3.17 and 3.19 which were adopted as part of the Southwark Plan in 2007, and were ‘saved’ in April 2013 following the adoption of the Core Strategy. These state: Strategic Policy 12 – Design and conservation Our approach is Development will achieve the highest possible standards of design for buildings and public spaces to help create attractive and distinctive places which are safe, easy to get around and a pleasure to be in. We will do this by 1. Expecting development to conserve or enhance the significance of Southwark’s heritage assets, their settings and wider historic environment, including conservation areas, archaeological priority zones and sites, listed and locally listed buildings, registered parks and gardens, world heritage sites and scheduled monuments. 2. Carefully managing the design of development in the Thames Policy Area so that it is sensitive to the many special qualities of the River. 3. Making sure that the height and design of development conserves and enhances strategic views and is appropriate to its context, the historic environment and important local views. 4. Requiring tall buildings to have an exemplary standard of design and make a positive contribution to regenerating areas and creating unique places. Locations where tall buildings could go are in London Bridge, the northern end of Blackfriars Road, Elephant and Castle and action area cores. These are shown on the Key diagram. 5. Continuing to use the Southwark Design Review Panel to assess the design quality of development proposals. 6. Requiring Design and Access Statements with applications and encouraging Building for Life Assessments and heritage impact assessments.
Policy 3.15 – Conservation of the Historic Environment Development should preserve or enhance the special interest or historic character or appearance of buildings or areas of historical or architectural significance. Planning proposals that have an adverse effect on the historic environment will not be permitted. The character and appearance of Conservation Areas should be recognised and respected in any new development within these areas. Article 4 directions may be imposed to limit permitted development rights, particularly in residential areas. In this policy the term historic environment includes Conservation Areas, listed buildings, scheduled monuments, protected London Squares, historic parks and gardens and trees that
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 25 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx are protected by Tree Preservation Orders, trees that contribute to the character or appearance of a Conservation Area and ancient hedgerows. Policy 3.16 - Conservation Areas Within Conservation Areas, development should preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area. New Development, including Alterations and Extensions Planning permission will be granted for new development, including the extension or alteration of existing buildings provided that the proposals: i. Respect the context of the Conservation Area, having regard to the content of Conservation Area Appraisals and other adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance / Documents; and ii. Use high quality materials that complement and enhance the Conservation Area; and iii. Do not involve the loss of existing traditional features of interest which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area; and iv. Do not introduce design details or features that are out of character with the area, such as the use of windows and doors made of aluminium, uPVC or other non-traditional materials; Where appropriate development in Conservation Areas may include the use of modern materials or innovative techniques only where it can be demonstrated in a design and access statement that this will preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
Demolition Within Conservation Areas, there will be a general presumption in favour of retaining buildings that contribute positively to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. Planning permission will not be granted for proposals that involve the demolition or substantial demolition of a building that contributes positively to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, unless, in accordance with PPG15 or any subsequent amendments, it can be demonstrated that: i. The costs of repairs and maintenance would not be justified, when assessed against the importance of the building and the value derived from its continued use, providing that the building has not been deliberately neglected; and ii. Real efforts have been made to the continue the current use or find a viable alternative use for the building; and iii. There will be substantial planning benefits for the community from redevelopment which would decisively outweigh loss from the resulting demolition; and iv. The replacement development will preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area and has been granted planning permission.
Implementation Submission of details demonstrating that a contract for the construction of the replacement development has been let will be required prior to implementation of the development. Policy 3.17 - Listed Buildings Development proposals involving a listed building should preserve the building and its features of special architectural or historic interest. Alterations and extensions Planning permission for proposals which involve an alteration or extension to a listed building will only be permitted where: i. There is no loss of important historic fabric; and ii. The development is not detrimental to the special architectural or historic interest of the building; and iii. The development relates sensitively and respects the period, style, detailing and context of the listed building or later alterations of architectural or historic interest; and iv. Existing detailing and important later additional features of the building are preserved, repaired or, if missing, replaced. Demolition There will be a general presumption in favour of the retention of listed buildings. Planning permission will not be granted for proposals that involve the demolition or substantial demolition of a listed building, unless, in accordance with PPG15 or any subsequent amendments, it can be demonstrated that:
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 26 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx i. The costs of repairs and maintenance would not be justified, when assessed against the importance of the building and the value derived from its continued use, providing that the building has not been deliberately neglected; and ii. Real efforts have been made to continue the current use or find a viable alternative use for the building; and iii. There will be substantial planning benefits for the community from redevelopment which would decisively outweigh the loss from the resulting demolition. Listed building consent must be applied for contemporaneously with an application for planning permission for a redevelopment scheme. Submission of details demonstrating that a contract for the construction of the replacement development has been let will be required prior to implementation of the development. Policy 3.19 – Archaeology Planning applications affecting sites within Archaeological Priority Zones (APZs), as identified in Appendix 8, shall be accompanied by an archaeological assessment and evaluation of the site, including the impact of the proposed development. There is a presumption in favour of preservation in situ, to protect and safeguard archaeological remains of national importance, including scheduled monuments and their settings. The in situ preservation of archaeological remains of local importance will also be sought, unless the importance of the development outweighs the local value of the remains. If planning permission is granted to develop any site where there are archaeological remains or there is good reason to believe that such remains exist, conditions will be attached to secure the excavation and recording or preservation in whole or in part, if justified, before development begins.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 27 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx 10 Determining significance
10.1.1 ‘Significance’ lies in the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest, which may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Archaeological interest includes an interest in carrying out an expert investigation at some point in the future into the evidence a heritage asset may hold of past human activity, and may apply to standing buildings or structures as well as buried remains. Known and potential heritage assets within the site and its vicinity have been identified from national and local designations, HER data and expert opinion. The determination of the significance of these assets is based on statutory designation and/or professional judgement against four values (EH 2008): • Evidential value: the potential of the physical remains to yield evidence of past human activity. This might take into account date; rarity; state of preservation; diversity/complexity; contribution to published priorities; supporting documentation; collective value and comparative potential. • Aesthetic value: this derives from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from the heritage asset, taking into account what other people have said or written; • Historical value: the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through heritage asset to the present, such a connection often being illustrative or associative; • Communal value: this derives from the meanings of a heritage asset for the people who know about it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory; communal values are closely bound up with historical, particularly associative, and aesthetic values, along with and educational, social or economic values. 10.1.2 Table 2 gives examples of the significance of designated and non-designated heritage assets.
Table 2: Significance of heritage assets Heritage asset description Significance World heritage sites Very high Scheduled monuments (International/ Grade I and II* listed buildings national) Historic England Grade I and II* registered parks and gardens Protected Wrecks Heritage assets of national importance Historic England Grade II registered parks and gardens High Conservation areas (national/ Designated historic battlefields regional/ Grade II listed buildings county) Burial grounds Protected heritage landscapes (e.g. ancient woodland or historic hedgerows) Heritage assets of regional or county importance Heritage assets with a district value or interest for education or cultural appreciation Medium Locally listed buildings (District) Heritage assets with a local (ie parish) value or interest for education or cultural Low appreciation (Local) Historic environment resource with no significant value or interest Negligible Heritage assets that have a clear potential, but for which current knowledge is Uncertain insufficient to allow significance to be determined
10.1.3 Unless the nature and exact extent of buried archaeological remains within any given area has been determined through prior investigation, significance is often uncertain.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 28 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx 11 Non-archaeological constraints
11.1.1 A Groundsure environmental survey carried out by STL 12-04-16 did not highlight any significant constraints within the site but did identify a potential contaminant-pathway-receptor relationship in the study area. 11.1.2 It is anticipated that live services will be present on the site, the locations of which have not been identified by this archaeological report. Other than this, no other non-archaeological constraints to any archaeological fieldwork have been identified within the site. 11.1.3 Note: the purpose of this section is to highlight to decision makers any relevant non- archaeological constraints identified during the study, that might affect future archaeological field investigation on the site (should this be recommended). The information has been assembled using only those sources as identified in section 2 and section 14.4, in order to assist forward planning for the project designs, working schemes of investigation and risk assessments that would be needed prior to any such field work. MOLA has used its best endeavours to ensure that the sources used are appropriate for this task but has not independently verified any details. Under the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 and subsequent regulations, all organisations are required to protect their employees as far as is reasonably practicable by addressing health and safety risks. The contents of this section are intended only to support organisations operating on this site in fulfilling this obligation and do not comprise a comprehensive risk assessment.
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 29 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx 12 Glossary
Alluvium Sediment laid down by a river. Can range from sands and gravels deposited by fast flowing water and clays that settle out of suspension during overbank flooding. Other deposits found on a valley floor are usually included in the term alluvium (eg peat). Archaeological Areas of archaeological priority, significance, potential or other title, often designated by Priority Area/Zone the local authority. Brickearth A fine-grained silt believed to have accumulated by a mixture of processes (eg wind, slope and freeze-thaw) mostly since the Last Glacial Maximum around 17,000BP. B.P. Before Present, conventionally taken to be 1950 Bronze Age 2,000–600 BC Building recording Recording of historic buildings (by a competent archaeological organisation) is undertaken ‘to document buildings, or parts of buildings, which may be lost as a result of demolition, alteration or neglect’, amongst other reasons. Four levels of recording are defined by Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (RCHME) and Historic England. Level 1 (basic visual record); Level 2 (descriptive record), Level 3 (analytical record), and Level 4 (comprehensive analytical record) Built heritage Upstanding structure of historic interest. Colluvium A natural deposit accumulated through the action of rainwash or gravity at the base of a slope. Conservation area An area of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. Designation by the local authority often includes controls over the demolition of buildings; strengthened controls over minor development; and special provision for the protection of trees. Cropmarks Marks visible from the air in growing crops, caused by moisture variation due to subsurface features of possible archaeological origin (i.e. ditches or buried walls). Cut-and-cover Method of construction in which a trench is excavated down from existing ground level [trench] and which is subsequently covered over and/or backfilled. Cut feature Archaeological feature such as a pit, ditch or well, which has been cut into the then- existing ground surface. Devensian The most recent cold stage (glacial) of the Pleistocene. Spanning the period from c 70,000 years ago until the start of the Holocene (10,000 years ago). Climate fluctuated within the Devensian, as it did in other glacials and interglacials. It is associated with the demise of the Neanderthals and the expansion of modern humans. Early medieval AD 410–1066. Also referred to as the Saxon period. Evaluation A limited programme of non–intrusive and/or intrusive fieldwork which determines the (archaeological) presence or absence of archaeological features, structures, deposits, artefacts or ecofacts within a specified area. Excavation A programme of controlled, intrusive fieldwork with defined research objectives which (archaeological) examines, records and interprets archaeological remains, retrieves artefacts, ecofacts and other remains within a specified area. The records made and objects gathered are studied and the results published in detail appropriate to the project design. Findspot Chance find/antiquarian discovery of artefact. The artefact has no known context, is either residual or indicates an area of archaeological activity. Geotechnical Ground investigation, typically in the form of boreholes and/or trial/test pits, carried out for engineering purposes to determine the nature of the subsurface deposits. Head Weathered/soliflucted periglacial deposit (ie moved downslope through natural processes). Heritage asset A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape positively identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions. Heritage assets are the valued components of the historic environment. They include designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing). Historic environment A written document whose purpose is to determine, as far as is reasonably possible from assessment existing records, the nature of the historic environment resource/heritage assets within a specified area. Historic Environment Archaeological and built heritage database held and maintained by the County authority. Record (HER) Previously known as the Sites and Monuments Record Holocene The most recent epoch (part) of the Quaternary, covering the past 10,000 years during which time a warm interglacial climate has existed. Also referred to as the ‘Postglacial’ and (in Britain) as the ‘Flandrian’. Iron Age 600 BC–AD 43
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 30 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx Later medieval AD 1066 – 1500 Last Glacial Characterised by the expansion of the last ice sheet to affect the British Isles (around Maximum 18,000 years ago), which at its maximum extent covered over two-thirds of the present land area of the country. Locally listed A structure of local architectural and/or historical interest. These are structures that are not building included in the Secretary of State’s Listing but are considered by the local authority to have architectural and/or historical merit Listed building A structure of architectural and/or historical interest. These are included on the Secretary of State's list, which affords statutory protection. These are subdivided into Grades I, II* and II (in descending importance). Made Ground Artificial deposit. An archaeologist would differentiate between modern made ground, containing identifiably modern inclusion such as concrete (but not brick or tile), and undated made ground, which may potentially contain deposits of archaeological interest. Mesolithic 12,000 – 4,000 BC National Record for National database of archaeological sites, finds and events as maintained by Historic the Historic England in Swindon. Generally not as comprehensive as the country HER. Environment (NRHE) Neolithic 4,000 – 2,000 BC Ordnance Datum A vertical datum used by Ordnance Survey as the basis for deriving altitudes on maps. (OD) Palaeo- Related to past environments, i.e. during the prehistoric and later periods. Such remains environmental can be of archaeological interest, and often consist of organic remains such as pollen and plant macro fossils which can be used to reconstruct the past environment. Palaeolithic 700,000–12,000 BC Palaeochannel A former/ancient watercourse Peat A build-up of organic material in waterlogged areas, producing marshes, fens, mires, blanket and raised bogs. Accumulation is due to inhibited decay in anaerobic conditions. Pleistocene Geological period pre-dating the Holocene. Post-medieval AD 1500–present Preservation by Archaeological mitigation strategy where archaeological remains are fully excavated and record recorded archaeologically and the results published. For remains of lesser significance, preservation by record might comprise an archaeological watching brief. Preservation in situ Archaeological mitigation strategy where nationally important (whether Scheduled or not) archaeological remains are preserved in situ for future generations, typically through modifications to design proposals to avoid damage or destruction of such remains. Registered Historic A site may lie within or contain a registered historic park or garden. The register of these Parks and Gardens in England is compiled and maintained by Historic England. Residual When used to describe archaeological artefacts, this means not in situ, ie Found outside the context in which it was originally deposited. Roman AD 43–410 Scheduled An ancient monument or archaeological deposits designated by the Secretary of State as Monument a ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’ and protected under the Ancient Monuments Act. Site The area of proposed development Site codes Unique identifying codes allocated to archaeological fieldwork sites, eg evaluation, excavation, or watching brief sites. Study area Defined area surrounding the proposed development in which archaeological data is collected and analysed in order to set the site into its archaeological and historical context. Solifluction, Creeping of soil down a slope during periods of freeze and thaw in periglacial Soliflucted environments. Such material can seal and protect earlier landsurfaces and archaeological deposits which might otherwise not survive later erosion. Stratigraphy A term used to define a sequence of visually distinct horizontal layers (strata), one above another, which form the material remains of past cultures. Truncate Partially or wholly remove. In archaeological terms remains may have been truncated by previous construction activity. Watching brief An archaeological watching brief is ‘a formal programme of observation and investigation (archaeological) conducted during any operation carried out for non–archaeological reasons.’
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 31 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx 13 Bibliography
13.1 Published and documentary sources
Barton N and Myers S, 2016 Lost Rivers of London. Blair, J, 1996 The Minsters of the Thames, in The cloister and the world: essays in medieval history in honour of Barbara Harvey (eds J Blair and B Golding), 5-28, Oxford Carlin, M, 1996 Medieval Southwark, London and Rio Grande; The Hambledon Press CIfA [Chartered Institute for Archaeologists] Dec 2014a, Standards and guidance for commissioning work or providing consultancy advice on archaeology and the historic environment, Reading. CIfA [Chartered Institute for Archaeologists] Dec 2014b, Standards and guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment, Reading Clarke J, 1989 Saxon and Norman London. Museum of London Cowan, C; Seeley, F; Wardle, A; Westman, A. and Wheeler, L. 2009. Roman Southwark: settlement and economy. Excavations in Southwark, 1973–91, MOLA Monograph 42. Cowie R and Blackmore L, 2008 Early and Middle Saxon rural settlement in the London region. MoLAS monograph 41. London: Museum of London Archaeology Service Cherry, B and Pevsner, N. 2002. Buildings of England – London 2, South. New Haven and London; Yale University Press DCLG [Department of Communities and Local Government], March 2012 National Planning Policy Framework DCLG [Department of Communities and Local Government], March 2014 Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment: Planning Practice Guide Drummond-Murray J., Saxby, D, and Watson, B, 1994, Recent archaeological work in the Bermondsey district of Southwark, in London Archaeologist 7, 10 Dyson, T., Samuel, M., Steele, A. and Wright, S.M. 2011. The Cluniac Priory and Abbey of St Saviour, Bermondsey, Surrey. Excavations 1984–95, MOLA Monograph 50. EH [English Heritage], 2008 Conservation principles, policies and guidance. Swindon EH [English Heritage], 2015, The setting of heritage assets. Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3. Evans, R. Assocs, 2003, Bermondsey Street Conservation Area Appraisal for London Borough of Southwark FA [Foundations Archaeology], August 2010, 249–253 Long Lane, Bermondsey, London: Archaeological Evaluation, unpublished evaluation report GLA [Greater London Authority], March 2015 The London Plan. Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. Consolidated with Alterations Since 2011 GLAAS [Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service], 2014: Standards for Archaeological Work London Region. Hall Mcknight, 176-178 Bermondsey Street Pre-application report 16-06-16. Humphery-Smith C, 1984 The Phillimore Atlas and Index of Parish Registers. Knowles, D & Hadcock, R. N 1971 Medieval Religious Houses. Michigan: Longman Malden, H. E, (ed) 1967 A History of the County of Surrey, in Victoria County History. Volume 2 London. Malden, H. E, (ed) 1912 A History of the County of Surrey, in Victoria County History. Volume 4 London. MoLAS, 1996 239 Long Lane, Bermondsey. Unpublished evaluation and excavation report MoLAS [Museum of London Archaeology Service], 2000 The archaeology of Greater London: an assessment of archaeological evidence for human presence in the area covered by modern Greater London. London MoLAS, 2002. 159 Bermondsey Street, unpublished evaluation report. MOLA, 2016, Pre-determination Investigation Report, unpublished MOLA report Museum of London, 2003 A research framework for London archaeology 2002, London PCA [Pre-Construct Archaeology] 2007 An Archaeological Evaluation of Land at Titan House, 184–192 Bermondsey Street, London Borough of Southwark, SE1. Unpub report RCHME [Royal Commission for the Historical Monuments of England] 1928, An inventory of the historical monuments in London: Vol 3, Roman London, London
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 32 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx Thomas, C. 2002. The Archaeology of Medieval London. Stroud; Sutton Publishing Ltd Weinreb B Hibbert C, (eds), 1995 The London encyclopaedia. Macmillan. London Williams, A. and Martin, G.H. 2002. Domesday Book. A Complete Translation, Penguin Books, London.
13.2 Other Sources
Borough of Southwark website: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/511/design_conservation_and_archaeology – last accessed 01-09-16 British Geological Survey online historic geology borehole data and digital drift and solid geology data Greater London Historic Environment Record Historic England designation data Internet – web-published sources Groundsure historic Ordnance Survey mapping London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre MOLA Deposit Survival Archive London Metropolitan Archive
13.3 Cartographic sources
Brett-James, N, 1929, map of London, based on Stowe’s survey of 1603 Faithorne and Newcourt 1658 ‘An Exact Delineation of the Cities of London and Westminster and the suburbs thereof together with the Borough of Southwark’, reproduced in Margary, H, 1981 A collection of early maps of London, Margary in assoc Guildhall Library, Kent Faden, 1813 revision of Horwood’s 1799 Map of Westminster and Southwark Goad, C E, 1886 Insurance plan of London, http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/collage LMA/GOAD/VII Horwood, 1799 ‘Map of Westminster and Southwark’ Morgan W, 1682 ‘London &c Actually Surveyed’, reproduced in Margary, H, 1977 ‘London &c Actually Surveyed’ by William Morgan, 1682, Margary in assoc Guildhall Library, Kent Rocque, 1746 ‘A Plan of the Cities of London Westminster and Southwark with contiguous buildings from an actual survey’ by John Rocque, reproduced in Margary, H, 1971 ‘A Plan of the Cities of London Westminster and Southwark’ by John Rocque, 1746, Margary in assoc Guildhall Library, Kent
Ordnance Survey maps Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25” map (1878). Ordnance Survey 3rd edition 25” map (1916).
Engineering/Architects drawings Existing ground floor plan (Formby Surveys Ref 9582_G:50:1:1 dated 06-16) Existing section (Formby Surveys Ref: 9582_S:100:1:1 06/2016) Proposed basement plan (Hall McKnight Pre-app report 16-06-16 draft page26) with pers comms Malcolm Brady 26-08-16) Proposed basement plan with comments (Michael Barclay Partnership DRG NO: 6890-300 30-08-16) Proposed EW section showing basement floor (Hall McKnight Pre-app report 16-06-16 page 32)
13.4 Available site survey information checklist
Information from client Available Format Obtained Plan of existing site services (overhead/buried) Y paper/pdf/CAD Y Levelled site survey as existing (ground and Y paper/pdf/CAD Y buildings) Contamination survey data ground and buildings (inc. Y paper/pdf/CAD Y asbestos) Geotechnical report N paper/pdf/CAD Y Envirocheck report Y paper/pdf/CAD Y Information obtained from non-client source Carried out Internal inspection of buildings Site inspection Y Y
Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 33 P:\SOUT\1646\na\Assessments\176-178_Bermondsey_St_HEA_07-02-2017.docx Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2017
the site
010km Borough of Southwark 0 500m
533300
1
6
5 1
0 5 1 0 S 1 t o U y c t 1 n o 1 a 5 i 0 t m 5 6 s 2 0 1 o b t 1 2 o r 1 t e t 1 6 o o 7 C 7 1 4 0 o 4 u r t
1
6
9
1 7 2 to 18 1
Elm Court the site
Unit 1
1
7
6 1 7 El Sub Sta 3
1
8
0
1
7
1 7
8
2
1
8
1
1 179500
8
5
1 to 98
0
4
9
8
1
1
Contains Ordnance© Crown CopyrightSurvey data 2016. All rights reserved. 025m © Crown copyrightLicence and database Number right 100047514 2014 scale 1:500 @ A4
Fig 1 Site location
SOUT1646HEA17#01 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2017
7 B E
R
M 2 l
6 O
N 2 e
8 1 8 to s D 2 4
1 2 u 4 0 S lto o 8 6 2 9 6
H E o 9 8
t Y El Sub Sta 9
S 7 Leathermarket Gardens 1 T 0 3 2 R E Works 2c E T 3 1 5 to 0 7 C 9 1 to our 4 2 9 26 t Old 1 4 TAN 7 1 NER STR 4 2 EET a 31 1 to 3 7 3 1 1 1 8 l 1
2 1 2 2 4
4 0 1 5
1 Tennis Courts 3 4 Play Area 8 6
1 to 29 1 t o 3 5 ing 7 6 Build 1 E )"8 4 l Su LAMB WA 3 b Sta LK
a 1 t 5 c S 1 b 1 b u 4 )"12 9 1 t S 7 )" o 2 l 0 E b (!272 (! 26 2 5 153 5 1 a o t 6 51 5 o 1 t 25 4 (! El Sub Sta 4 Bell Ya 1 rd 3 Mews Art Gallery 7 1 5 6 9 5 5 1 to 1 t 4
o 1 1 1 13 7 " o 1 ) 5 t 0 0 15 )" U
House 1 1 n 24 (! i t t s o 5 1 1 7 Block K 0 t 1 1 o 2 6 b 4 9 Royal Oak Yard 2 to 18 1 1 #1 7 * 3 the site 2 6 "7 101 to 102 Unit 1 ) 1 1 House 7 1 3 Units 1 to 4 )"32 8 NEWHAM'S ROW 8 Units 1 to 4 0 )"21 (!29(! 28
Sta 3 )"20 2 Coach t
o o
t
1 0
11 14 t 6 1 9 )" )" o )" 5 1 to 9 1 8 1 179500 E *#2 C 4 9 A 0 8
s 2 L 1 1 t o e #3 P 20 o * t g 2 1 N a 2 t
9 O t 9 1 I o 1
L C St E Mary M e agdalen U h
1 L T St John an B d St Luke 16 239 9 )" 2 *# 22 4 9 A to 8 J 0 )"15)"17 1 to 9 2 )"19 )"22 231 237a LON G L 23 30 Rectory Shelter ANE 9 )"18 T 4 The to E 245 1 2 E 10 R )" St Mary Magdalen T S
Y Archdale 31 El Su E b Sta S Play Area D N )"23 O KEY M R e E s B u 30 o Scheduled monument o H Cluny Estate t 9 to 15 1 Hotel 58 *# listed building 1 to Court 16 D E Basil Holmes burialgrounds C
I 8 M 3 6 C 1 A t LON )" pasto archaeological investigation LU 2 1 G 3 N 2 7 S 8 House Y 7 T PL R 3 AC E 4 Cluny E 5 E (! archaeological feature/findspot 33 T 2 4 8 House e 2 o 1 h t o T t 3 8 1 11 study area 22 6 5 site 2outline 8 t 2 o 1 4 o 23 t Archaeological Priority and 1 5 6 85 ConservationMeakin Areas not shown Mansions 11
Contains Ordnance Survey data 0100m © Crown copyright and database right 2016 scale 1:2,000 @ A4
Fig 2 Historic environment features map
SOUT1646HEA17#02 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2017
Horsleydown Eyot
the site
KEY Bermondsey Eyot alluvium Kempton Park Gravel formation
site outline
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2017 scale 1:5,000 0150m scale 1:5,000 Fig 3 Geology (British Geological Survey generalised drift geology)
SOUT1646HEA17#03 ma n w at erfr ont
T h a m e s
Horselydown Eyot
Historic environment assessment ©
the site low tide
high tide
SOUT1646HEA
Bermondsey Eyot MOLA
17#03b Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. 2017 Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. City of London 100023243 2016.
Fig3b Southwark's low-lying eyots and channels (MOLA 2002) Historic environment assessment ©MOLA 2017
the site
Fig 4 Reconstruction of the layout of the Bermondsey Abbey Precinct (Dyson et al 2011: fig 81)
SOUT1646HEA17#04 Historic environment assessment ©MOLA 2017
the site
Fig 5 Stowe's Survey of 1603 (reproduction by Brett-James in 1929)
the site
Fig 6 Faithorne and Newcourt's map of 1658
SOUT1646HEA17#05&06 Historic environment assessment ©MOLA 2017
the site
Fig 7 Morgan 1682 (Morden & Lea 1692 revision)
the site
Fig 8 Rocque's map of 1746
SOUT1646HEA17#07&08 Historic environment assessment ©MOLA 2017
the site
Fig 9 Horwood's map of 1799
the site
Fig 10 Faden's 1813 revision of Horwood's 1799 map
SOUT1646HEA17#09&10 Historic environment assessment ©MOLA 2017
the site
Fig 11 Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25":mile map of 1878 (not to scale)
the site
Fig 12 Ordnance Survey 3rd edition 25”: mile map of 1916 (not to scale)
SOUT1646HEA17#11&12 Historic environment assessment ©MOLA 2017
the site
Fig 13 Goad's fire insurance map of 1887 (revised 1938) (LMA/LCC/VA/GOAD/VII)
SOUT1646HEA17#13 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2017 Fig 15 View looking west on roof of 176-178 Bermondsey Street Fig 15 View (MOLA photo 25-08-16) Fig 14 176–178 Bermondsey Street looking west. (MOLA photo 25-08-16)
SOUT1646HEA17#14&15 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2017 2.9m OD the site 2.8m OD 2.8m OD Fig 16 Existing ground floor plan (Formby Surveys Ref 9582_G:50:1:1 dated 06-16)
SOUT1646HEA17#16 E W
the site
Historic environment assessment ©
2.9m OD
SOUT1646HEA
MOLA
17#17
2017
Fig 17 Existing south-facing section (Formby Surveys Ref: 9582_S:100:1:1 06/2016) the site
Bike Store Wine\ Ba Pò
Hoist
Accessible W.C. W.C. Kitchen FFL\ -1.11 Pò
FFL\ -1.11 -1.1m OD Historic environment assessment ©
Refuse Pò
SOUT1646HEA
MOLA
extent of proposed lift pits
17#18 site outline 2017
Fig 18 Proposed basement plan (Hall McKnight Pre-app report 16-06-16 draft page26) W E
Historic environment assessment ©
2.8m OD Ground Floor FFL
-1.1m OD Basement FFL
SOUT1646HEA
MOLA
17#19
2017
Fig 19 Proposed south-facing section showing basement floor (Hall McKnight Pre-app report 16-06-16 page 32)