Chadwell Heath Golf Club, Romford, London Borough of Havering

An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

For Cranfield Golf Academy

by Steve Preston

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd

Site Code CHR07/155

November 2007

i

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47–49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading RG1 5NR Tel. (0118) 926 0552; Fax (0118) 926 0553; email tvas@tvas.co.uk; website : www.tvas.co.uk

Summary

Site name: Chadwell Heath Golf Club, Romford, London Borough of Havering Grid reference: TQ 4940 8850 Site activity: Desk-based assessment Project manager: Steve Ford Site supervisor: Steve Preston Site code: CHR07/155 Area of site: c. 54ha Summary of results: The site lies in an area of considerable archaeological interest, with sites and finds of various periods represented fairly widely, including on the site itself. It is likely to be necessary to provide further information about the potential of the site from field observations in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits if necessary. Such a scheme could be implemented using an appropriately worded condition to any consent gained. This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford 12.12.07

1

Chadwell Heath Golf Club, Romford, London Borough of Havering An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

by Steve Preston

Report 07/155

Introduction

This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of around 54ha of land located at

Chadwell Heath, Romford, in the London Borough of Havering (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr

Bruce Weller of Weller Design Limited, Bishopsmead House, West Street, Farnham, Surrey, GU9 7DU on

behalf of Cranfield Golf Academy, 142 Station Road, North Chingford, London, E4 6AN 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.

Planning permission is being sought from the London Borough of Havering for the creation of a golf course

on the site, to involve landscaping and creation of artificial lakes. In light of the possibility that this work might

have an adverse impact on archaeological remains, as desk-based assessment has been requested in order to

inform the planning process and as a first step towards designing an appropriate mitigation strategy if required.

Site description, location and geology

The site currently consists of a golf centre (driving range, etc) and a large area of rough pasture. The topography

appears more or less flat although there is a gentle overall slope (in places more noticeable) down from the

north-west at around 30m above Ordnance Datum to 20m AOD in the south-east. The proposal area is roughly

L-shaped and covers approximately 54 ha, centred on NGR TQ494 885. The site is located on a mixture of

geologies, chiefly London clay, but with Boyn Hill (Thames terrace) gravel on the west side and brickearth to

the east (BGS 1976).

Planning background and development proposals

Planning permission is being sought for the creation of a golf course on the site, to involve landscaping, creation

of artificial lakes, car parking, and any other infrastructure works.

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

2

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.’

3

The London Borough of Havering’s Unitary Development Plan (HBC 1993) contains several policies

related to archaeology and the historic environment.

POLICY ENV4

‘In relation to buildings and structures which are included as listed buildings on the list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest (as set out in schedule 2), the Council will: ‘a) Normally oppose the demolition of any listed building; ‘b) Only permit the alteration or extension of a listed building (including internal alterations) where its architectural and historic character appearance, fabric and integrity are protected and maintained; ‘c) Ensure that new development will not adversely affect the setting of listed buildings. ‘In addition, in the interests of conserving buildings of special architectural or historic interest, the Council may consider more favourably change of use which could be contrary to policies elsewhere in the plan. ‘The Council has a statutory duty to protect the buildings and structures of special architectural or historic interest. These buildings are important for the positive contribution they make to the character of the area. They are appreciated and valued by the public as established and tangible evidence of the past, providing a sense of permanence and belonging and an historic perspective with which to approach today's development opportunities. In making judgements about proposed alterations and extensions the Council will wish to ensure that the standard of design, materials and detailing are sympathetic to the particular character of the building. ‘The retention and conservation of these buildings is therefore to be encouraged, both as useful structures in themselves and as part of our heritage. A wide range of suitable and viable uses will be considered in order to secure their conservation. however any new use and associated physical alterations must be acceptable in historic building terms and must not damage or lead to damage to the fabric or integrity of a building. Significant loss of essential features, especially of the original fabric, will almost always lead to a refusal of listed building consent. Those buildings which are currently listed are set out in Schedule 2: Listed Buildings. ‘Additionally the Council may use its powers to serve a Building Preservation Notice to prevent the demolition of an unlisted building which it considers to be of significant interest.’

‘POLICY ENV14

‘When any development is proposed the Council will ensure that any archaeological significance of the site is examined and evaluated. Planning permission will not be given without adequate assessment of any archaeological implications. Planning permission will only be granted where satisfactory provision is made in appropriate cases for the preservation in situ, where possible, or the excavation and recording of archaeological remains. The Council may refuse planning permission for development on sites of outstanding archaeological significance. ‘The Borough has a very significant archaeological heritage including a number of important sites and examples from otherwise poorly represented archaeological periods have been discovered here. It is likely that more sites will be revealed in the future. ‘The archaeological investigation of relevant sites where development is proposed enables a clearer picture of the early development of our civilisation to be established. Preservation of archaeological remains in situ is nearly always the preferred option as it safeguards sites for the future when less destructive, more sophisticated investigative techniques may have been developed. It is therefore important that provision is made to undertake an archaeological assessment and evaluation at the earliest stage of schemes at sites of potential archaeological value enabling delays or problems for developers to be avoided. ‘The Council will expect developers initially to contact English Heritage and/or the Passmore Edwards Museum for an evaluation of the records held by these bodes [sic] in order that an effective preliminary view may be formed as to whether the site is likely to contain important archaeological remains. If this "desk top" evaluation produces no indications that the site is likely to contain important archaeological remains, then further archaeological assessment will not normally be required.

4

‘However, if the preliminary evaluation indicates that a site may contain important archaeological remains, then an archaeological field evaluation as described in "Planning Policy Guidance Note No.16 Archaeology and Planning" may be required. Remains of historical or archaeological significance should be preserved in situ where feasible or excavated and recorded by the Passmore Edwards Museum (the Council's designated Agent) who maintain records of archaeological/ historical sites. The Council will inform the Museum when it becomes aware of possible development at such sites. ‘The Council will expect developers to make provision for the carrying out of archaeological preservation of excavation/recording and also to take full account of the code of Practice drawn up by the British Archaeologists and Developers Liaison Group as well as the "Archaeological Investigation - Code of Practice for Mineral Operators" which relates to mineral bearing land.’

‘POLICY ENV15

‘The Council will seek to ensure that ancient monuments are preserved and maintained and will not normally permit any development which would adversely affect ancient monuments or their setting. ‘There are at present three scheduled Ancient Monuments in the Borough. These are defined on the Proposals Map and comprise the late 14th Century Upminster Hall Barn or Tithe barn in Hall Lane, Upminster, the moated site at Dagnam Park and the Roman Road across Romford golf course. ‘All scheduled monuments are ancient monuments: but not all ancient monuments are scheduled. This policy will therefore apply, both to scheduled monuments, and to all other nationally important archaeological remains, which though not scheduled, meet the criteria for the definition of ancient monuments as approved by the Secretary of State. ‘Ancient Monuments are protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, and allied legislation.’

Part of the south-west corner of the site strays across the borough boundary into Barking and Dagenham, so that

that borough’s (largely similar) policies also apply. Again, these policies, from the Barking and Dagenham Local

Development Plan (BDLDP 1996), are due to be replaced by the new Local Development Framework, not yet

published.

‘Development on sites of archaeological significance Policy DE36

‘When any development is proposed on sites of archaeological significance (as shown on map 9) or for any site identified by English Heritage the council will seek to ensure that an early evaluation is carried out, and that preservation in situ is given first consideration. However, if preservation in situ is not possible and the nature of the remains does not warrant a planning refusal, the council will require that adequate time, funding and resources are provided to enable archaeological investigations by an acceptable agent to take place during the process of development (see appendix 16).’ […] ‘36.2 where development may affect land of archaeological significance or potential, the council will expect applicants to have properly assessed and planned for the archaeological implications of their proposals. This does not only include fieldwork but also the analysis and preservation of results, where appropriate. A preliminary site evaluation to the specifications laid down by the council, or an acceptable agent would be required. PPG16 states that the needs of archaeology and development can be reconciled, and potential conflict reduced if developers discuss their preliminary plans for development with the local planning authority at an early stage. It is, therefore, in the interests of prospective developers to include as part of their research into the development potential of a site, an initial assessment of whether the site is known or likely to contain archaeological remains. ‘36.3 the developer shall ensure that an archaeological evaluation and if necessary excavation is carried out (after site clearance and before any development) on a site by an archaeological

5

organisation to be approved by the local planning authority. The specification and programming for archaeological work shall be matters for negotiation between the developer and the approved archaeological organisation, but all such work shall be carried out to the general satisfaction of the local planning authority. ‘Protection of archaeological sites Policy DE37 ‘The council will seek to ensure that the most important archaeological remains and their settings are preserved in situ (if possible for public access and display) and that where appropriate they are given statutory protection.’ ‘Planning applications and archaeological sites Policy DE39 ‘The council will notify English Heritage of planning applications found to correlate with sites as shown on the archaeological constraints map, as early as possible. ‘39.1 it would be preferable if English Heritage were informed when a significant inquiry is made into redevelopment of a site. Early notification allows more time for archaeologists to investigate the worthiness of the site, for negotiation about the site, and for the possible resultant excavation.’ ‘Protection of ancient monuments Policy DE40 ‘The council will protect scheduled ancient monuments and no development will be allowed if the monument or its setting are adversely affected.’

Further policies cover listed buildings: the listed buildings on the site are all either in Barking and Dagenham or

on the boundary.

‘Demolition of listed buildings Policy DE30

‘The council will not grant listed building consent for the demolition of a listed building other than in the most exceptional circumstances, and in any case, not unless it is satisfied that every possible effort has been made to continue the present use or to find a suitable alternative use.’

‘Change of use of a listed building Policy DE31

‘The change of use of a listed building will normally only be permitted if it would not have a detrimental effect on the character or appearance of the building.

‘Alterations to a listed building Policy DE32

‘The council will not normally permit any external or internal alterations or addition to a listed building where, in its opinion, there would be an adverse effect on its architectural or historic character.

‘Proposals for alterations to a listed building must not result in the building being defaced by alien materials and advertising, must respect their original design characteristics and must not obscure or damage architectural detail.’

‘Setting of listed buildings Policy DE33

‘The council will seek to preserve or enhance the setting of listed buildings by appropriate control over the design of new development in their vicinity, control over the use of adjacent land, and where appropriate, by the preservation of trees and landscape features.’

With regard to development of golf courses in particular, English Heritage is in the process of issuing guidelines,

which will consider the topic mainly in relation to Historic Parks but also include consideration of other wider

historic landscapes. Draft guidelines (EH 2005, 56), include:

‘Proposals for golf course development should be developed with reference to historic landscape character so that the wider design and management of the course fits with the wider landscape.

6

‘Use landscape character assessments and, where appropriate, historic landscape characterisation to inform the design of the course.

‘Consider the historic and visual significance of key components of the wider landscape such as field and woodland patterns to ensure that the course conserves and enhances local character.’

The site is surrounded by archaeological priority areas within the local plans and the eastern part of the site lies

partly within one. This is displayed on Figure 2.

Methodology

The assessment of the site was carried out by the examination of pre-existing information from a number of

sources recommended by the Institute of Field Archaeologists paper ‘Standards in British Archaeology’ covering

desk-based studies. These sources include historic and modern maps, the Greater London Sites and Monuments

Record, geological maps and any relevant publications or reports.

Archaeological background

General background

The site is right on the boundary between the modern London Boroughs of Havering (in which the site lies) and

Barking and Dagenham which is immediately to the west; the site’s western boundary follows, in part, the

Borough boundary. Historically this area was part of Essex.

Havering in general is not noted for its wealth of archaeological remains. The recent assessment of the

archaeology of Greater London shows few findspots or sites of any period in the borough, and none at all for the

prehistoric periods in this north-eastern corner (MoLAS 2000, maps 1–6). The Roman period is only a little

better represented, with the major road from London to the east following the line of the modern A12

(Colchester Road) and settlements attested at intervals along this. The Saxon period, however, is another blank,

and only by the medieval period does Havering begin to show any concentration of activity.

The current administrative boundary between Havering and Dagenham in this area is also marked by a

number of medieval and early post-medieval boundary stones, representing the edge of what was known as the

Forest of Essex, and, later of the Metropolitan area of London.

7

Greater London Sites and Monuments Record

A search was made on the Greater London Sites and Monuments Record (GLSMR) on 13th November 2007 for

a radius of 1km around the proposal site. This revealed 61 entries within the search radius. These are

summarized as Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 1.

Prehistoric Just off Figure 1 to the east is the findspot of numerous Palaeolithic stone tools, recorded during gravel

extraction in the 19th century. There are two records, it is not clear if they are the same finds, but a minimum of

ten handaxes and twelve other tools are recorded. Another Palaeolithic handaxe came from a gravel pit on

Romford Road [Fig 1: 1]. A Neolithic flint axe is also recorded from the area although its precise provenance is

not known [2]. Cropmarks seen on aerial photographs, strictly undated but which are likely to represent

prehistoric features, are present at Crown Farm just to the east [3] and on the site itself [4, 30]. These are

discussed more fully below. Immediately north of the site [5] air photographic evidence showed a double ditched

enclosure and a smaller circular enclosure, thought to be prehistoric. Excavation of these features at Warren

Farm has shown an early Iron Age enclosed settlement (and later features).

Roman Roman ditches, probably field boundaries, were also recorded in the excavation north of the site [5].

Saxon The GLSMR contains no entries relating to the Saxon period in the search area.

Medieval The smaller enclosure seen on air photographs north of the site [5] turned out, on excavation, to be a medieval

windmill site. Air photographs reveal several more similar features in the vicinity. Documentary sources refer to

Beans Land [6] from 1377 onwards; this appears to be the same site as Whalebone House. Other sources refer to

Chadwell from as early as 1254 [9]. North-west of the site is the extant remains of a moated manor house at

Mark’s Manor House [7]. Just off the proposal area’s south-west corner is a boundary marker for the Forest of

Essex; the area around this is designated an Archaeological Priority Area.

Post-medieval Most of the entries within the search area are for post-medieval buildings, or references to former buildings.

These include several windmills known from map evidence or projected from air photographs [5, 11, 12], a

Tudor house destroyed in the Second World War [6], Mark’s Manor house (GLSMR notes the site of this as lost,

even though its moat still survives) [7], a hamlet shown on the 1777 map [14]. A local landmark for a long time

was a pair of whale bones erected before 1641, purportedly from a whale beached in the Thames in 1585. These

were removed in 1904, but give their name to a lane and a house [6]. The GLSMR also records a lane from

8

Whalebone Lane to Harts Horne Lane shown on a 1618 map. A sunken road survives as a feature in the north of

the site [23]. One of the circular cropmarks on the site which is possibly a ring ditch (levelled round barrow?)

may, alternatively, be the site of a windmill of medieval or post-medieval date [30].

Listed buildings in the search area include Crown Farm and its granary [15] the farm being thought to be

late 16th century and the granary 18th century. An area around Crown Farm, including part of the eastern

extremity of the site, but mainly extending to the east, has been designated an Archaeological Priority Area. The

Havering Stone is a listed building [8]; its site is given as only very slightly removed from the site of the

medieval marker for the Forest of Essex. The Marks stones are another boundary marker; also are a Listed

Building [16]. Another boundary marker (for Waltham Forest) is on the edge of the proposal area [17] and is

also a listed building. The 18th-century brick barn at Warren Farm [7], north of the site, is listed. A 19th-century

cast iron water pump just south of the site is also a Listed Building [18]. There are three listings for coal tax

posts (1861 or thereabouts) although it is unclear if there are actually three posts, as two are given the same gird

reference. [18, 19]. Yet another boundary marker, this time for a kink in the Metropolitan area, is also noted in

the GLSMR and although it is noted as one of only two such surviving, it does not appear to have Listed Status

[20].

Buildings no longer extant, whose existence is known only from earlier records, include St Chad’s church

(1884) [21], a 16th-century house at Padnall House, Rose Lane [22]; a late 19th century infant’s church; a

cemetery ; and stocks said to have stood where a police station was later built (all of the last three, just off-map

to the east).

Modern, Undated, Negative An undated brick structure, below ground, was observed at 10 Gordon Road [13]. A rather confused entry in the

GLSMR records (as medieval) air photo evidence for a modern track overlying an Iron Age or Roman track,

within the site itself [10]. If this evidence is indeed from a photograph alone, it cannot be dated to a specific

period, nor is it clear how a photograph can show an earlier trackway under a modern track. Comparison with the

maps (below) suggests this is a boundary to the Mark’s manor estate. A second entry apparently for the same

features [23] provides no clearer indication of the nature of the evidence. Air photographic evidence shows

‘scattered but extensive’ cropmarks, plotted here in the south of the site but including locations across the site

and beyond [24]. This seems to be the cause of the definition of another archaeological priority area extending

east and south from the south-west corner of the site. Further photographs show a ring ditch (probably

9

prehistoric) in the playing fields by the south-west corner of the site [25]. Just off the western edge of the site is

another record for air photographic evidence of a rectangular enclosure [26].

The only formal archaeological investigation in the search area apart from the excavation at Warren Farm

was a two-trench evaluation at Whalebone Library; this produced nothing of archaeological interest [13].

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments within the proposal area or in its immediate vicinity.

Documentary sources

Although today administratively in London, Havering has historically always been in Essex, and it only became

a Borough in 1965. The borough derives its name by a sort of reverse engineering from Havering-atte-Bower.

Havering itself is an Old English (Anglo-Saxon) name, derived from the personal name (not otherwise recorded)

Hæfer and the common suffix -ingas (followers of), thus meaning ‘the settlement of Haefer’s people’. It first

appears in Domesday Book (AD1086). It used to be believed that the -ingas place name formation indicated

specifically early Anglo-Saxon settlements, but this hypothesis cannot now be sustained (Cameron 1996, 70–2;

Smith 2004). The Domesday entries for Havering (it appears with three spellings in Domesday Book alone)

indicate a substantial manor (Williams and Martin 2002, 970; 1008; 1046). As with all the Essex entries in so-

called ‘Little’ Domesday, the listings for Havering are more detailed than in the main Domesday Book. The

manor of Havering was held by the king himself and had been held by Harold before the conquest. It was

assessed at 10 hides and housed 41 villans, 41 bordars and six slaves. It supported 41 ploughs (a slightly

suspicious symmetry perhaps suggesting scribal error, but not altogether impossible) and had woodland for 500

pigs, 100 acres of meadow and a mill (Williams and Martin 2002, 970). This is a huge estate, very few listings

mention more than 20 ploughs, and most manors supported fewer than 10. Two other manors in Essex contained

lands which paid dues to the manor of Havering in King Edward’s day, but did not do so under the Conqueror

(Williams and Martin 2002,1008; 1046). Havering belonged to the crown from the 11th century until the 19th.

Romford is also an Anglo-Saxon place name, meaning ‘wide ford’ (Mills 1998, 290) with the river Rom

apparently being ‘back-formed’ from the place rather than vice versa. The name is not mentioned before the 13th

century. It has little separate history of note (VCH 1978, 56–98). It was a small but prosperous medieval rural

market, and depended heavily on the road traffic.

10

The modern A12 at least in part follows the line of the main Roman road out of London to East Anglia,

Margary’s (1955) route 3, to Colchester via Chelmsford. Margary makes the interesting, if unexplained,

observation that Essex roads, even such main routes, are much less substantially constructed than the main roads

elsewhere in the Roman province, making their tracing more difficult. He notes that at Romford, the modern

road ‘evidently deviates a little to the south of the true line, and the course of the Roman road is uncertain’, so

the Ordnance Survey’s confident depiction of it as the A118 here, whilst plausible, cannot be altogether taken for

granted. Romford may be the Durolitum of the Antonine Itinerary, although this, too, is not certain (TIR 1983,

46; VCH 1978, 56); the only evidence being that it is approximately 15 (Roman) miles from London on the

Colchester road.

A range of Ordnance Survey and other early maps was viewed at Romford Library and The Essex Record

Office (The London Metropolitan Archive being closed for refurbishment), in order to ascertain what

developments have taken place on the site in its recent history. Cartographic coverage in these repositories was

rather sparse; additional historical mapping was therefore also viewed online courtesy of Landmark digital

mapping.

The earliest map of the area available to view was that of Essex by Saxton, dated 1576 (Fig. 3). This is not

at a scale that permits much detail, but Romford is shown as a substantial settlement. By the early 17th century,

mapping begins to show more details, with cartographers such as Norden (not illustrated) and Speed (Fig. 4)

mapping the road layout. Speed depicts the area only very generally but does note the presence of what must

have been a noted local landmark, the whalebone. There is no detail for the site. An anonymous plan of the

manor of Mark dated 1662 shows land holdings in some detail (Fig. 5). Pigtails Farm is marked on this map;

later maps will show that this is just off the east of the site, and one field is noted as ‘next ye stone’, meaning the

Havering Stone. This map does not cover the whole of the site with the western portion of the site missing

Pigtails Farm is the only building shown. With other areas as pasture or heath (‘weeds’). All the internal

boundaries are marked as tree lines or hedges.

Chapman and Andre’s map of 1777 (Fig. 6) shows the area ii less detail than the 1662 map but confirms its

general pattern, and adds some details, such as the whalebone, the Havering Stone, and the borough boundary

line. The site is still shown as empty. The Enclosure map of 1832, surveyed in 1814, shows no significant change

from the 1662 map, except that there is less orchard depicted; this might be just a lack of detail rather than an

actual change of land use (Fig. 7).

11

More detailed mapping is available from the Ordnance Survey First Edition of 1871; unfortunately, the

only portions available in any of the record offices were those covering the western portion of the site (not

illustrated, as the Second Edition is almost identical and more is available of this map). For the western part of

the proposal area, this shows several fields, and Cuthroat Lane is shown as a substantial, broad lane, with a

notation of a ‘3ft R.H’ which might indicate ‘raised hedgerow’. The borough boundary follows this lane and

Whalebone Lane, the boundary marker stone is shown where the two lanes meet (‘B.S.’). There is another

boundary stone at Paulatim Lodge. There is no development on the site.

The 1896 Second Edition (Fig. 8) is identical except that Cuthroat Lane is now just a boundary line. The

absence of trees from this map compared to the First Edition is merely a change of style. Between the two main

fields in the north of the site is a remnant of the orchards previously shown, now just a thin belt of trees. This

seems to be the line noted in the GLSMR as a possible early road/track. It is conceivable this is marking the

remains of a sunken lane, but it might match the edge of the gardens/parkland depicted around Marks manor on

Chapman and Andre’s map. A thin band of trees in what might be this location is also shown on the 1832 map

but nothing like it is shown on the 1662 map which ought to have noted its presence, so a relation to 18th century

formal gardens seems possible. Just beyond the site, London Road, the modern A118, is still mainly free from

development but Crown Cottages are in place. This road is also now noted as a Roman road.

The Revision of the Ordnance Survey of 1938 and 1939 shows the site very close to its modern layout (Fig.

9). Just beyond the site, Romford and Chadwell have begun to develop, and the A118 (now identified as such) is

now lined with development. Within the site, there has been no change except that one field is set aside as

allotment gardens. The 1968 map shows the allotment have expanded, one or two smaller fields have been

amalgamated, and provides more detail of drainage channels on the site, but in essence nothing has changed

(Fig. 10). The only change in the modern layout is the development of the golf range itself, which does not

appear to have involved much landscaping.

Listed buildings

Crown Farm farmhouse and Barn are Listed Buildings, as are several boundary markers around the fringes of the

site. Development on the site would have to be sympathetic to their character and setting.

Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields

There are no registered parks and gardens or registered battlefields within close proximity of the site.

12

Aerial Photographs

A search was made on the catalogue of aerial photographs held by the National Monuments Record (NMR) on

16th November 2007 (Appendix 3). This revealed 208 photographs from 42 sorties flown between 1944 and

1992. Almost all of these were viewed on 27th November 2007. As the NMR coverage was so extensive, no

other collections have been consulted. The photographs included 137 vertical views and 37 obliques: the latter

are taken specifically for archaeological purposes, the former show archaeological cropmarks only incidentally.

The photographs showed the changing landuse on the site over the post-War period, and highlighted a

number of natural features intermittently visible in the geology. For the area of the site, cropmarks and other

features that might be of potential archaeological interest were also occasionally visible. These include:

1> In the south-west corner of the site, what seems to be a ditch diagonally across the corner, near the

Havering Stone, perhaps not necessarily very old but not corresponding to anything on historic maps.

2> In the area where the boundary between the boroughs of Barking and Dagenham and Havering kinks as

it crosses the site, in the west, what appears likely to be a hollow way, or a double-ditched boundary is visible as

a cropmark in several years. As this closely matches the line of Cut-throat lane, this is presumably what it is,

although the lane itself may have run along an earlier boundary. A series of marks to the south of this, visible in

several years, might be a small enclosure relating to this boundary, but it is considered they are just as likely to

be natural striations (these may be the marks recorded in the GLSMR, 26 on Fig. 1).

3> Visible in many years, just north-west of Crown Cottages, is a large circular mark might be a prehistoric

barrow but which is most probably a medieval or post-medieval windmill mound (Fig. 11). Close to this, in

some years, more cropmarks are faintly visible, which appear roughly circular; it is unclear that these need be of

any archaeological interest, as the next field to the east is full of very similar but certainly natural marks. It is

worth noting, however, although not directly relevant to the proposal area, that the field south of Crown Farm

also contains some marks clearly of archaeological potential (as already recorded in the GLSMR).

4> A series of indistinct ‘blobs’ appearing only in two views from 1970, could possibly represent discrete

features such as pits or a small pond barrow, but on balance it is more likely that these are a result of some defect

in the film or during processing.

5> Visible in several years, two straight lines in the north-western corner of the site could possibly mark a

trackway leading towards Warren Farm, but they appear close to the line of a field boundary shown on the 1895

Ordnance Survey map, and thus may not be very old.

13

6> Visible only in 1951, a light stripe crossing the north-western part of the site approximately east–west

may represent a trackway or road. However, again on balance this is more probably not archaeological but just

recent wear forming an informal footpath; it is even possible it is a fault in the film, as there is a similar and

parallel mark to the north.

7> Finally, several of the more recent shots show the lines of the removed field boundaries (still visible as

fields in the 1940s and 1950s). These are therefore demonstrably modern features and although they may have

earlier origins they are of no great antiquity.

On balance, none of these marks need be archaeological and only the probable windmill mound is likely to

be of interest.

Discussion

In considering the archaeological potential of the study area, various factors must be taken into account,

including previously recorded archaeological sites, previous land-use and disturbance and future land-use

including the proposed development.

From the information in the GLSMR is that the site lies in an area of considerable archaeological interest,

with sites and finds of various periods represented fairly widely, including on the site itself. There has been no

systematic archaeological investigation on the site itself. A substantial Iron Age and Roman site has been

excavated immediately to the north, and medieval or early post-medieval occupation is recorded all around. The

Ordnance Survey marks the line of the A118, immediately to the south, as a Roman road; while this is certainly

plausible, simply on map evidence, in fact the precise line of the Roman road (London to Chelmsford) in this

area is conjectural (Margary 1955, 215). A Roman settlement has long been posited at Romford without any

substantial evidence having been found. The area between the A12 and A118 (both likely lines for the Roman

road) may be suggested as a reasonably likely location for such a settlement.

Cartographic regression shows that the site has remained entirely undeveloped, although its internal

divisions and land use have changed. Apart from the area formerly used as allotments, little disturbance of any

sort has occurred, so that archaeological deposits, if once present, may well have survived intact over large areas.

It is likely to be necessary to provide further information about the potential of the site from field

observations in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground

archaeological deposits if necessary. Such a scheme could be implemented using an appropriately worded

condition to any consent gained. A scheme for such an evaluation would need to be drawn up and approved by

14

the archaeological advisers to the Borough and carried out by a competent archaeological contractor, such as an

organization registered with the Institute of Field Archaeologists.

References

BDLDP, 1998, Barking and Dagenham Local Development Plan, adopted June 1996 BGS, 1976, British Geological Survey, 1:50000 Sheet 257, Drift Edition, Keyworth Cameron, K, 1996, English Place Names, London EH, 2005, Guidance on golf in historic parks and landscapes, consultation draft, July2005, English Heritage,

London HBC, 1993, Havering Unitary Development Plan, Havering Borough Council; adopted March 1993 Margary, I D, 1955, Roman Roads in Britain, London Mills, A D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford MoLAS, 2000, The archaeology of Greater London; an assessment of archaeological evidence for human

presence in the area now covered by Greater London Museum of London Archaeology Service Monogr PPG16, 1990, Dept of the Environment Planning Policy Guidance 16, Archaeology and Planning, HMSO Smith, G, 2004, ‘The adoption of Old English in Surrey’, Bull Surrey Archaeol Soc 376, 2–5 TIR, 1983, Tabvla Imperii Romani: Condate–Glevvm–Londinivm–Lvtetia, British Academy/ Union Academique

Internationale, London VCH, 1978, Victoria History of the Counties of England: Essex, vii, London Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London

15

APPENDIX 1: Sites and Monuments Records within a 1000m search radius of the development site

No SMR Ref (MLO) Grid Ref (TQ) Type Period Comment - 10878

23101 47765 88404 Findspot Palaeolithic Numerous finds made during early gravel extraction;

10 handaxes, 1 retouched flake, 11 unretouched flakes, possibly more

1 3775 48505 88205 Findspot Palaeolithic An unretouched flake from Romford Road gravel pit 2 ELO5827

3101 48004 88005 Findspot Neolithic Polished stone axe, location indicative only.

3 14018 49394 88485 Documentary Unknown Air photograph shows clear ring ditch. Probably prehistoric.

4 14247 48975 88784 Unknown Unknown Small rectilinear enclosure. (Air photo evidence? Excavation? Not stated, but listed as prehistoric)

5 ELO4436 23737 23739 23740 53956 53957 35485

48875 89325 48924 89304 48915 89255 48934 89284 48595 89194 48915 89345

Documentary Evaluation Excavation

Iron Age Roman Medieval Post Medieval

Air photograph shows large double ditched enclosure, smaller circular enclosure thought to be prehistoric henge. Evaluation or excavation (or both?) in 1988 showed the enclosure was early Iron Age but not double ditched; and the smaller enclosure was in fact a medieval windmill. ‘It is hoped that the site will be scheduled’. Also early Roman field boundaries. Air photos of several more windmill mounds/sites.

6 24499 26069 26328

48644 88195 48664 88134

Documentary Medieval Post-medieval

Documentary sources refer to Beans Land from 1440. Family of Reynold Benes known from 1377. Seems to be same site as Whalebone House. Records of a Tudor House, destroyed in Second World War might refer to same building? Whalebones erected as a local landmark by at least 1641, purportedly from a whale beached in the Thames in 1585. Removed in 1904.

7 38400 5689

48505 89384 48505 89384

Monument Documentary

Medieval Post-medieval Modern

Moat around Mark’s Manor house, still extant. Marks Manor House, pulled down 1808. Site recorded as not precisely known (though its surrounding moat is). References from 1330 onwards. Manor house may be from mid 15th century.

8 7993 84884

48954 88224 48965 88228

Documentary Listed Building

Medieval Post-medieval

Reference to boundary marker post (cross) for the Forest of Essex. The Havering stone (boundary marker) listed Grade II, 1642

9 14507 23237

47894 88115

Documentary Medieval References to Chadwell date from 1254. Heath enclosed 1860, built on in last two decades of 19th century

10 14021 58271 ELO5186 58326

48800 88830 48450 88670 48800 88830 48850 88820

Documentary Cartographic

Unknown Post medieval Modern

Air photograph revealed a modern track (still in use) overlying what is recorded as an Iron Age/Roman track/road but of course this must actually be undated. A 1618 map shows a lane from Whalebone Lane north to Harts Horne Lane, presumably this is what is actually on the air photo. Final entry seems to be reference to air photograph; ‘triple ditches, part of road in agricultural land and allotments.’

11 ELO6881 21999

48795 89425 Cartographic Post-medieval Windmill mound on 1779 map.

12 23741 49014 89284 Cartographic Post Medieval Windmill on map of 1618, likely to be in wrong position

13 26329 ELO4846 71606

48695 88234 48664 88175

Observation Evaluation

Unknown Negative

Brick built structure below-ground. 10 Gordon Road. Two trenches at Whalebone library revealed only garden soil with late post-medieval pottery.

14 73255 48250 89249 Documentary Post-medieval Hamlet of unknown origin, first shown on map of 1777

15 84815 84855

49351 88554 49359 88581

Listed Building Post-medieval Modern

Crown farmhouse Late 16th century farmhouse with later additions. Late 18th century brick granary to north west of Crown farmhouse. Both Grade II.

16 78445 84802

48493 89466 Listed Building Post-medieval The Marks stones Grade II; listed twice because they are on a boundary.

17 78435 48454 88826 Listed Building Post-medieval Waltham Forest bounds stone, post 1641; grade II 18 84777

84920 48937 88191 48926 88190

Listed Building Post-medieval 19th Century

19th century cast iron water pump. Cast iron coal duty boundary post on south side of road, Grade II, mid 19th century (post 1861)

19 78436 84913

48973 87825 Listed building 19th Century Coal tax post (‘obelisk’) on railway embankment Grade II (post 1861): two listings may be for same object.

20 8024 48454 88694 Monument Post-medieval Metropolitan boundary marker. - 8026 47814 87774 Documentary Post medieval Chapel, Warehouse

16

No SMR Ref (MLO) Grid Ref (TQ) Type Period Comment Modern

21 14234 48154 87975 Documentary Post-medieval St Chads church, 1884 - 10923 47845 87774 Documentary Post medieval Infant School, ceased late 19th century; few details 22 14316 48164 89315 Documentary Post medieval Padnall House, Rose Lane, references date back to

1303. Certainly included part of a 16th century house.

23 58314 48840 88920 49000 89130

Monument Post medieval Fragment of sunken road. Probably same feature as 10?

24 151 48800 88500 49100 87900

Documentary Unknown Air photographs show scattered but extensive cropmarks.

25 14314 49014 87854 Documentary Unknown Air photograph shows clear ring ditch in playing field. Probably prehistoric.

26 58241 48775 88614 Documentary Unknown Air photograph shows rectangular enclosure 27 53704 48724 89345 Documentary Post-medieval Air photograph of windmill mound 28 84774 48491 89288 Listed Building Post-medieval Warren farm brick barn, 18th century Grade II 29 ELO6882

22763 48805 89204 Observation Unknown Earthwork in a field near to Reynolds Court (No.

70), Padnall Road, no verifiable details, could be anything.

30 - 4920 8840 Cropmark Bronze Age or Post-medieval

Windmill or ring ditch

- 26321 48734 87574 Documentary Medieval to Post Medieval

Reference to Butlers Farm from 1540, possibly named for Richard Butler, known from 1243. House demolished 1956

- 31859 47830 87760 Documentary Post medieval Modern

19th and early 20th century cemetery

- 3804 47745 87915 Documentary Post medieval Stocks said to have stood where the Police station was subsequently built in 1891.

- 24083 47774 88375 Watching brief Negative No archaeology found though ‘flint artefacts were known’ from the area (not the sort of stuff you’d want to have any SMR mention of)

- 58257 47804 88305 Documentary Unknown Air photograph shows field system. Probably prehistoric, as area was woods in 1653.

17

APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1576 Saxton’s map of Essex (Fig. 3)

1594 Norden’s map of Essex

1611 Speed’s map of Essex (Fig. 4)

1662 Plot Manor of Marks in the Liberty of Havering (Fig. 5)

1777 Chapman and Andre’s map of Essex (Fig. 6)

1832 Enclosure map of the Liberty of Havering, north (Fig. 7)

1871 Ordnance Survey First Edition 25 inch Sheet LXXIV

1895 Ordnance Survey Second Edition 25 inch Sheets LXXIV and LXVI (Fig. 8)

1938/1939 Ordnance Survey Revision LXXIX. 5, 6, 9, 10(Fig. 9)

1968 Ordnance Survey TQ 48 NE (Fig. 10)

18

APPENDIX 3: Aerial Photographs consulted

1> Vertical (non-specialist)

No Date taken Sortie number Frame number Grid ref (TQ) Comment 1 07-Aug-44 RAF/106G/LA/29 4321–2 487 890 2 11-Feb-46 RAF/3G/TUD/UK/66 5208–12, 5258–60 497 887 3 27-Mar-46 RAF/3G/TUD/UK/91 5091, 5118–20, 5148–50, 5178–81 488 894 4 10-May-46 RAF/3G/TUD/UK/194 5243–5 485 877 5 11-Oct-46 RAF/CPE/UK/1786 5162–4, 5193–6, 3029–30, 3091 487 894 Possibly barrow but more likely

windmill in SE of site 6 27-Apr-47 RAF/CPE/UK/2037 5026–7, 5129 488 896 7 10-Jun-47 RAF/CPE/UK/2141 5305–7 493 879 8 24-Jun-47 RAF/CPE/UK/2168 5265–70 496 885 9 18-Aug-47 RAF/CPE/UK/2239 5269–72, 5310–3 490 889 Trackway, ?pits in NW corner 10 03-Jun-51 RAF/58/712 5064 491 891 Trackway? 11 21-Jun-51 RAF/58/726 5158–9 484 889 12 09-Oct-51 RAF/58/796 5146–8 481 891 13 30-Apr-52 RAF/540/720 4203–4 491 893 14 09-Aug-53 OS/53T91 38–40 492 879 15 14-Sep-53 OS/53T107 170–5 484 880 16 14-Sep-53 OS/53T108 31–6, 90–6 495 890 17 14-Sep-53 OS/53T109 123–7 493 892 18 06-Jul-55 RAF/82/1230 153–5 496 885 19 10-Oct-55 RAF/82/1315 114–15 494 884 20 23-Apr-56 OS/56T11 21–3 495 888 21 05-Apr-57 OS/57T6 46–53 485 880 22 05-Apr-57 OS/57T7 25–6 497 882 23 13-Sep-60 RAF/543/1059 297–9 493 882 ?Something? 24 28-Aug-61 RAF/58/4646 537 492 881 Line of Cut-throat Lane/

borough boundary/ hollow way, and possible enclosure nearby?

25 23-Jul-66 FSL/6641/3 3523 489 886 26 28-Apr-67 MAL/67036 70–2, 125–30 487 894 27 17-Jul-67 MAL/67067 149–54, 157–60 497 885 28 29-Jul-67 MAL/67073 1, 76 481 885 Not available to view 29 31-May-70 MAL/70042 43–9, 169–72, 175–80 494 894 30 22-Jun-70 MAL/70051 54–5, 99–104, 176–9 493 878 31 10-Jun-76 MAL/76041 225–7 487 895 Line of Cut-throat Lane/

borough boundary/ hollow way 32 13-Jun-92 OS/92351 88–90, 127–9 494 887 Not available to view

2> Oblique (Specialist)

No Date Flown Accession No. Frames Grid Ref. (TQ) Comment 33 03-Jul-75 NMR 825 187–9, 192–201 488 892 34 09-Jul-75 NMR 827 172–193 488 885 35 09-Jul-75 NMR 10591 29–33 489 893 31–3 Not available to view 36 17-Jun-76 NMR 960 191–207 489 892 37 03-Jun-80 NMR 1764 328–32 485 894 38 13-Jul-82 NMR 2122 3008–13 493 895 39 23-Aug-89 NMR 4536 77–84 488 893

Note: Grid reference is given for start of run, multiple frames may offer broad coverage.