White Swan Public House, Yabsley Street, Blackwall, London Borough of Tower Hamlets An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment for St James Homes Ltd by Lisa‐Maree Hardy Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd Site Code WSL02/54 June 2002 White Swan Public House, Yabsley Street, Blackwall An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment by Lisa-Maree Hardy Report 02/54 Introduction This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of a parcel of land fronting Yabsley Street, Blackwall, London Borough of Tower Hamlets (TQ 3840 8055) (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Andy Ainsworth of St James Homes (North Thames Region), Marlborough House, 298 Regents Park Road, Finchley, London N3 2UA and comprises the first stage of a process to determine the presence/absence, extent, character, quality and date of any archaeological remains which may be affected by redevelopment of the area. Site description, location and geology A site visit was made on 11th June, 2002, in order to determine the current land use on the site. The site comprises an irregular shaped parcel of land, with frontage to Blackwall Way, Yabsley Street and Preston’s Road, Blackwall. The site is bounded to the south by Yabsley Street and land currently used as a holding yard and a car park. To the west of the site is Preston’s Road, a main thoroughfare linking Poplar with the Isle of Dogs, and to the east, Blackwall Way and a new residential development. The site is bounded to the north by residences and an air intake shaft to the Blackwall Tunnel. The western portion of the site is currently occupied by former commercial premises, comprising a large open structure with a concrete floor. The area of the site fronting Preston’s Road is open space. The commercial premises are bounded to the east by an alley-way (Warrington Place) which leads to the northern portion of the site, which is currently open grassland. The eastern portion of the site is occupied by the former White Swan Public House. The White Swan occupies the corner of Yabsley Street and Blackwall Way. The structure itself is boarded up, but appears to be occupied by squatters. The area of the White Swan property is fenced. The area which bounds Warrington Place is concreted and the yard to the immediate north of the building is currently filled with refuse. The site is located on the floodplain of the Thames, overlying alluvial sediments (BGS 1981). The site lies at a height of approximately 5m above Ordnance Datum. 1 Planning background and development proposals Planning permission is to be sought for the redevelopment of the site, which will comprise the demolition of the existing buildings, and the construction of residential apartments. Archaeology and Planning (PPG 16 1990) provides guidance relating to archaeology within the planning process. It points out that where a desk-based assessment has shown that there is a strong possibility of significant archaeological deposits in a development area, it is reasonable to provide more detailed information from a field evaluation so that an appropriate strategy to mitigate the effects of development on archaeology can be devised: Paragraph 21 states: ‘Where early discussions with local planning authorities or the developer’s own research indicate that important archaeological remains may exist, it is reasonable for the planning authority to request the prospective developer to arrange for an archaeological field evaluation to be carried out...’ Should the presence of archaeological deposits be confirmed further guidance is provided. Archaeology and Planning stresses preservation in situ of archaeological deposits as a first consideration as in paragraphs 8 and 18. Paragraph 8 states: ‘...Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation...’ Paragraph 18 states: ‘The desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its’ setting is a material consideration in determining planning applications whether that monument is scheduled or unscheduled...’ However, for archaeological deposits that are not of such significance it is appropriate for them to be ‘preserved by record’ (i.e., fully excavated and recorded by a competent archaeological contractor) prior to their destruction or damage. Paragraph 25 states: ‘Where planning authorities decide that the physical preservation in situ of archaeological remains is not justified in the circumstances of the development and that development resulting in the destruction of the archaeological remains should proceed, it would be entirely reasonable for the planning authority to satisfy itself ... that the developer has made appropriate and satisfactory provision for the excavation and recording of remains.’ The Tower Hamlets Draft UDP 1992 also outlines policy regarding the archaeological potential of development sites: 2 Dev 40: Development which adversely affects a Scheduled Ancient Monument will normally be refused. Dev 41: Planning powers will be used to protect and preserve the archaeological heritage including the industrial archaeological heritage of the Borough. Interpretation and presentation of remains will also be sought. DEV 42: The permanent preservation of remains in the original location will normally be required. Suitable design, land use and site management to achieve this will be encouraged. DEV 43: Proposals involving ground works in the areas of archaeological importance or potential, shown on the proposal map or on individual sites notified to the Council by English Heritage or the Museum of London will be subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicants will need, as part of their submission to demonstrate that the archaeological implications of the development have been assessed, using the professional advice of an approved archaeology consultant. 2. Appropriate conditions will be attached to planning permissions to ensure that investigation, excavation and recording takes place by an approved archaeological organisation before development commences: and 3. In appropriate cases, planning agreements will be sought to ensure that adequate opportunities are afforded for the archaeological investigation of sites, before, and during demolition and development, and that suitable provisions is made for preserving remains and finds in the original location or for removing them to a safe of safe keeping. The site lies within an Archaeological Priority Area as defined in the Borough UDP (THUDP 1992). This inclusion is largely based on the area’s location within the alluvial floodplain of the River Thames, hence having the potential to contain preserved organic remains and timber structures. The close proximity of the site to the historic docklands is also of interest. Methodology The assessment of the site was carried out by the examination of pre-existing information from a number of sources recommended by the Institute of Field Archaeologists’ paper Standards in British Archaeology covering desk-based studies. These sources include historic and modern maps, the Greater London Sites and Monuments Record, geological maps and any relevant publications or reports held in the Tower Hamlets Local History Library and Archives. Archaeological background General Archaeological Background The topographic location of this site, in close proximity to the River Thames, indicates that the presence of waterfront archaeology needs to be considered. The main consideration of the archaeology of the Isle of Dogs, on which the site is located, is the relatively low lying position and liability to flooding. For the earlier 3 prehistoric period, the archaeology of the area is intimately linked with fluctuations in sea level height, with periods of inundation during the formation of peat deposits, particularly in the southern portion of the Isle of Dogs. The crucial factor in predicting the likely survival of prehistoric material is the ability to identify areas where peats and clays meet the edges of former gravel islands, and where buried channels and marshes lie. A survey of the London Docklands area to determine the depth to the top of the gravel indicates that gravels within the vicinity of the site to be buried at a depth of between 1m and 4m. Areas in which relatively high gravel islands existed may provide a focal point for prehistoric and later occupation. In areas in which deep alluvial deposits exist, the likelihood of post-glacial occupation is almost non-existent (Merriman 1992). Based on this information, and without site specific borehole information, the possibility of deeply buried deposits existing on the site cannot be ruled out. Waterfront archaeology River and stream channel deposits are characterized by anaerobic conditions that inhibit the decay of organic material and the timber foundations of structures such as revetments, bridge piers, and buildings such as water mills often survive (Hawkes and Fasham 1997). Excavations in other areas in conditions and locations similar to those of the proposal site have revealed evidence of the survival of such medieval works along streams and rivers. Elsewhere in London, and in particular the Docklands, archaeological investigations have revealed remnants of revetments and other structures. Revetment types vary according to chronology and purpose, and can range from early marking of channel alignments by stakes, to stakes bound by willow wattling, to complex constructions of posts and planks with back-bracing. On the south-west side of the Isle of Dogs, complex structures of Bronze Age date have been revealed at Atlas Wharf (MoLAS 2000, 99) On the Isle of Dogs and much of the northern bank of the Thames into Essex, flood defences were raised from medieval and possibly late Saxon times onwards. The early maps of the area such as Rocque in 1766 (Fig. 3) show the presence of a ‘Marsh Wall’. On this map the marsh wall on the Isle of Dogs meets the settlement of Blackwall and continues beyond to the north east. It is possible therefore that the remains of early flood defences may be present on or close to the site.