THUNDERER JETTY Stolthaven Dagenham Limited London RM9

Museum of London Archaeology

Mortimer Wheeler House

46 Eagle Wharf Road, London N1 7ED

tel 020 7410 2200 | fax 020 410 2201

https://www.mola.org.uk

general enquiries: [email protected]

© Museum of London Archaeology 2021

THUNDERER JETTY

Stolthaven Dagenham Limited

London RM9

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Archaeological desk based assessment

March 2021

www.mola.org.uk MOLA Mortimer Wheeler House, 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London N1 7ED tel 0207 410 2200 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

Thunderer Jetty, Stolthaven Dagenham Limited, Dagenham, RM9

Archaeological Desk Based Assessment

NGR 548682, 181805

Historic Environment Record search reference: 16012

Sign-off history

issue no.

Issue date Prepared by Reviewed by Project Manager Notes

1

02/02/2021 Natalie Wood (Archaeology) Juanjo Fuldain

(Graphics)

Rupert Featherby Lead Consultant

Archaeology

Christina Holloway

First issue

2 08/03/2021 Natalie Wood (Archaeology) Juanjo Fuldain

(Graphics)

Phil Stastney (Project Manager)

Minor edits

MOLA code: P21-007

Archaeological Desk Based Assessment © MOLA 2021 i 08/03/2021

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 2

2 Methodology and sources consulted 4

2.1 Sources 4 2.2 Methodology 4

3 The site: topography and geology 6

3.1 Site location 6 3.2 Topography 6 3.3 Geology 6

4 Archaeological and historical background 7

4.1 Overview of past investigations 7 4.2 Chronological summary 7

5 Statement of significance 12

5.1 Introduction 12 5.2 Factors affecting archaeological survival 12 5.3 Archaeological potential, and significance of likely remains 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 19

9 Planning framework 21

9.1 National Planning Policy Framework 21 9.2 Regional policy 23 9.3 Local planning policy 24

10 Determining significance 26

11 Non-archaeological constraints 27

12 Glossary 28

13 Bibliography 30

13.1 Published and documentary sources 30 13.2 Other Sources 31 13.3 Cartographic sources 31 13.4 Available site survey information checklist 31

Archaeological Desk Based Assessment © MOLA 2021 ii 08/03/2021

Figures Cover: Chapman and André’s map of Essex (1777)

Fig 1 Site location

Fig 2 Historic environment features map

Fig 3 Chapman and André’s map of Essex (1777)

Fig 4 Ordnance Survey 1st edition 6”: mile map of 1873–75

Fig 5 Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 6”: mile map of 1898–99

Fig 6 Ordnance Survey 6”: mile map of 1921

Fig 7 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 scale map of 1969

Fig 8 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 scale map of 1996

Fig 9 General Arrangement, showing proposed sections (Robert West, Thunderer Jetty Refurbishment, dwg. no 5776- 001-D-0010-P04, 14/04/20)

Fig 10 Existing and proposed E-W sections (Robert West, Thunderer Jetty Refurbishment, dwg. no 5776- 001-D-0010-P04, 14/04/20)

Fig 11 Existing and proposed N-S sections (Robert West, Thunderer Jetty Refurbishment, dwg. no 5776- 001-D-0010-P04, 14/04/20)

Fig 12 Bathymetry Study (Stolt Tankers & Terminals, Thunderer Jetty, ref. 113-327-221, rev. 00, April 2017)

Note: site outlines may appear differently on some figures owing to distortions in historic maps. North is approximate on early maps.

Archaeological Desk Based Assessment © MOLA 2021 1 08/03/2021

Executive summary Robert West has commissioned MOLA to carry out an Archaeological Desk Based Assessment in advance of proposed development at Thunderer Jetty, Stolthaven Dagenham Limited, Dagenham, RM9 in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. The scheme comprises the refurbishment of the existing ‘Thunderer Jetty’ which extends from the Stolthaven Dagenham site approximately 100m into the River Thames. Sections of the existing jetty will be demolished during refurbishments. This desk-based study assesses the impact of the scheme on archaeological remains (buried heritage assets). Above ground heritage assets (historic structures) are not discussed in detail, but they have been noted where they assist in the archaeological interpretation of the site. Archaeological remains that may be affected by the proposals comprise:

• Palaeoenvironmental remains within deeply buried peat deposits in the northern area of the site, of low to medium significance.

• Prehistoric remains, such as evidence of marshland exploitation including timber structures or trackways (low probability), of low to high significance. Any such remains would be buried beneath up to 5–6 metres of modern (and contaminated) made ground to the onshore northern area of the site.

• Post-medieval remains, including the foundations of early-20th century buildings in the onshore northern area of the site, of low to negligible significance.

In the Roman and medieval periods the northern third of the site was located on the intertidal foreshore and would have been prone to flooding thus unsuitable for settlement but likely exploited for the resources of the River Thames such as fish, reeds and fowl. There is also potential for evidence of medieval reclamation, drainage and water management features, and river walls. The significance of such remains, if present (they would be deeply buried), would depend on their nature and extent. The construction of the existing jetty will have removed remains within its footprint but such impacts would be extremely localised. Whilst piles would have removed archaeological remains within their footprints, the considerable depth of made ground to the northern area of the site means that the construction of any foundation slab at the northern edge of the site is unlikely to have impacted on archaeological remains. Piles used during the construction of the jetty would have removed archaeology within their footprint in the River Thames, however, dredging and erosion over time would have truncated the archaeology, if any was present and so construction of the existing jetty may not have had any further impact. The proposed impacts would similarly be localised. The greatest impact would be from the demolition of parts of the existing jetty and from new piling which would locally remove any archaeological remains within these areas, reducing the asset significance to negligible. Based on the low archaeological significance, it is unlikely that further archaeological investigation prior to the determination of planning consent is merited. An initial foreshore survey, followed by periodic visual assessment of changing scour patterns and any archaeological remains becoming exposed near the foreshore pile locations would determine the nature and sensitivity of the remains and the degree of impact. The survey and regular monitoring work would provide the detailed data needed to establish the rate and potency of short, medium or long term scouring. Appropriate action can then be taken in accordance with the degree and rate of scour and the sensitivity of the remains. Such measures could range from no additional work 9if scour is minimal) to foreshore reinstatement, river wall underpinning, or a strategically placed wall of gabions depending on the results of the survey.


1 Introduction 1.1 Origin and scope of the report

1.1.1 Robert West has commissioned MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology) to prepare an Archaeological Desk Based Assessment in advance of proposed development at Thunderer Jetty, Stolthaven Dagenham Limited, Dagenham, RM9; National Grid Reference (NGR) 548682, 181805: Fig 1. The scheme comprises the refurbishment of the existing ‘Thunderer Jetty’ which extends from the Stolthaven Dagenham site approximately 100m into the River Thames. Sections of the existing jetty will be demolished during refurbishments

1.1.2 This desk-based study assesses the impact of the scheme on archaeological remains (buried heritage assets). 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 on 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 (i.e., 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 assets arising from the development proposals are noted. The report does not assess issues in relation to the setting of above ground assets (e.g., visible changes to historic character and views). This archaeological report is not intended to support an application for Listed Building Consent.

1.1.4 The assessment has been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (MHCLG 2019; see section 9 of this report) and to standards specified by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA 2020a, 2020b and 2020c), Historic England (EH 2008, HE 2015), and the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS 2015). 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 Historic England’s National Heritage List for England (NHL) is a register of all nationally designated (protected) historic buildings and sites in England, such as scheduled monuments, listed buildings and registered parks and gardens. The NHL does not include any nationally designated heritage assets within the site.

1.2.2 The site lies within the Barking Level and Dagenham Marsh Archaeological Priority Area (APA). This covers the Thames floodplain and the potential for archaeological remains buried within the alluvial deposits of the Thames floodplain.

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.


2 Methodology and sources consulted 2.1 Sources

2.1.1 For the purposes of this report, documentary and cartographic sources including results from any archaeological investigations in the site and the 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. This information 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 1km-radius study area around it, as held by the primary repositories of such information within Greater London. These comprise the Greater London Historic Environment Record (GLHER) and the Museum of London Archaeological Archive (MoL Archaeological Archive). The GLHER is managed by Historic England and includes information from past investigations, local knowledge; find spots, and documentary and cartographic sources. The MoL Archaeological Archive 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, 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 The extent of investigations as shown on Fig 2 may represent the site outline boundary for planning purposes, rather than the actual area archaeologically investigated. Where it has not been possible from archive records to determine the extent of an archaeological investigation (as is sometimes the case with early work), a site is represented on Fig 2 only by a centre point.

2.1.4 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; 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;

• The London Society Library – published histories and journals; • Landmark – 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; • Robert West – engineering drawings (Robert West, April 2020), bathymetric data

(Stolthaven Dagenham Ltd, Thunderer Jetty, ref. 113-327-197, rev. 000, November 2014), (Stolt Tankers & Terminals, Thunderer Jetty, ref. 113-327-221, rev. 00, April 2017)

• Internet – web-published material including the LPA local plan, and information on conservation areas and locally listed buildings.

2.1.5 A site visit was not considered necessary. The majority of the site is in the River Thames and a previous site visit to Stolthaven Dagenham Limited to the north provided the information necessary for assessment.

2.2 Methodology

2.2.1 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 (DBA 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 1km) are included, unless their inclusion is considered relevant to the study. Conservation areas and archaeological priority areas are not shown. All distances quoted in the text are approximate (within 5m) and unless otherwise stated are measured from the approximate centre of the site.

2.2.2 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.

2.2.3 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.


3 The site: topography and geology 3.1 Site location

3.1.1 The site is located at Thunderer Jetty, Stolthaven Dagenham Limited, Dagenham, RM9 (NGR 548682, 181805: Fig 1) and comprises a jetty that extends over the River Thames and is used to transfer goods to and from vessels. The site area is 1.2ha and is bounded by Stolthaven Dagenham Limited directly to the north, with the rest of the site being surrounded by the River Thames. The site falls within the historic parish of Dagenham and lay within the county of Essex prior to being absorbed into the administration of the Greater London Borough of Barking and Dagenham.

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. The underlying natural geology of a site can also provide an indication of suitability for early settlement, and potential depth of remains.

3.2.2 The site is located on the Thunderer jetty situated on the River Thames. A spot height taken in the Industrial Estate immediately north of the site was c 5.4m Ordnance Datum (OD). Various levels depict a general slope towards the site and river wall, probably a result of the formation of the Thames embankment.

3.2.3 The Thames is currently tidal for much of London. The tidal regime of a river is affected by Mean Sea Level (MSL) and also by human activity such as embankment. The MSL has fluctuated significantly since the last Ice Age: the end of the last glaciation resulted in the release of vast quantities of water; thus raising MSL, a process which continues. The situation is complicated by the results of Isostatic Uplift, and by periodic marine regression which for other reasons has affected Britain. As a consequence within the site the London Clay has been overlain by river silts (alluvium) of variable thickness potentially interleaved with archaeological strata deposited during the periodic advances and retreats of the river limit. Along much of the Thames foreshore in London, the alluvium is sealed by deposits of ballast dumped as a means of both waste disposal and consolidation to provide a working surface for activities such as barge repair (Nathalie Cohen, former Programme Leader, Thames Discovery Programme (TDP), pers comm.).

3.2.4 Approximately two thirds of the site is always submerged. The level of the river bed within the site slopes down from c 4.5m above Chart Datum (CD) to –11.7m below CD (Fig 12); levels underscored are above Chart Datum, levels not underscored are below Chart Datum. The heights of CD are relative to OD (at Newlyn), which in location is –3.28m OD. Therefore, the OD level of the river bed within the site c 1.2m to –15mOD; throughout the rest of this document all levels will be given in OD i.e. CD - –3.28m.

3.3 Geology

3.3.1 The underlying geology of the site comprises Tidal River or Creek deposits of clay and silt over bedrock of the Thanet Sand Formation.

3.3.2 The depth of natural geology in the site as an indicator of possible archaeological survival is discussed in detail in section 5.2.


4 Archaeological and historical background 4.1 Overview of past investigations

4.1.1 No archaeological investigations have been undertaken within the site today but eleven have been carried out within the study area. The closest investigation (DBA 4) was a geoarchaeological investigation carried out by MoLAS (now named MOLA) c 730m to the north-west of the site which recorded an island of high ground surrounded by channels and wetlands during the Mesolithic period. By the later Mesolithic period peat was developing in the vicinity of the site, which had become part of the expanding prehistoric floodplain forest. The characteristics of this forest may have differed across the floodplain, reflecting the underlying topography and proximity to river channels. Gravel overlain by sandy clay was sealed by a thick deposit of peat and capped by silty clay. The peat was radiocarbon dated to 4700–4440 BC (Late Mesolithic) at the base and 800–520 BC (Neolithic to Bronze Age) at the top. The Mesolithic deposits lie at considerable depth below the modern ground surface.

4.1.2 An archaeological evaluation and geoarchaeological investigation (DBA 6) was also carried out by MoLAS c 860m to the north-west of the site. This revealed an early prehistoric palaeochannel and a sequence of peat deposits which potentially dated between the Mesolithic and early Iron Age.

4.1.3 Other archaeological investigations within the study area have also produced evidence for the prehistoric environment (DBA 2, 5, 7 and 8). The results of these investigations, along with other known sites and finds within the study area, are discussed by period, below. The date ranges are approximate.

4.1.4 The results of these investigations, along with other known sites and finds within the study area, are discussed by period, below. The date ranges given 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 Britain first saw continuous occupation. Erosion has removed much of the Palaeolithic land surfaces and finds are typically residual. The topography of the area during the Upper Palaeolithic would have comprised gravel islands surrounded by channels and wetlands, as highlighted by the evidence recorded during an archaeological evaluation and geoarchaeological investigation (DBA 4 and DBA 6) carried out c 730m and 860m to the north-west of the site respectively. During an archaeological evaluation at Chequers Lane in 1991 (DBA 20) c 845m to the north-east of the site, possible Pleistocene or Palaeolithic peat and clay deposits were recorded. These deposits probably represent the formation of marshland.

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 dependable 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. During this period the Thames would have been an braided channel with areas of high ground suitable for settlement. Although this low-lying environment was probably exploited by hunter-gatherer groups, Mesolithic remains are not frequently recovered from this stretch of the floodplain, although they are often encountered in similar landscape positions in the tributary valleys of the Middle and Lower Thames, such as the Colne, Lea, Darent and Cray. The lack of finds may be a result of their great depth, buried below thick deposits of Holocene alluvium (Morley and Corcoran 2009, 9). During the late Mesolithic period the areas started to develop as a damp woodland environment as indicated by the evidence recorded at Dagenham Dock Plot D (DBA 6) c 860m to the north-west of the


site, and at Abacus Park (DBA 4) c 730m to the north-west. 4.2.3 The Neolithic (c 4000–2000 BC) is traditionally seen as the time when hunter gathering gave

way to farming and settled communities, and forest clearance occurred for the cultivation of crops and the construction of communal monuments. Pollen records indicate forest clearance over large areas of the British Isles during this period. Sea levels rose, marshland continued to form, and a peat unit was deposited across this part of the floodplain. Peat deposits were recorded during the 2004 archaeological evaluation at Dagenham Dock (DBA 7) c 620m to the north-east of the site.

4.2.4 The Bronze Age (2000–600 BC) is characterised by technological change, when copper and then bronze eventually replaced flint and stone as the main material for everyday tools. It is seen as a period of increasing social complexity and organised landscapes, probably due to increasing pressure on available resources.

4.2.5 During the Iron Age (600 BC–AD 43), the climate deteriorated with colder weather and more rainfall. The period is characterised by expanding population, which necessitated the intensification of agricultural practices and the utilisation of marginal land. Hillforts were established in lowland Britain, linked to tribal land ownership. No evidence of Iron Age activity or occupation has been recorded within the study area.

Roman period (AD 43–410) 4.2.6 Within approximately a decade of the arrival of the Romans in AD 43, the town of Londinium

had been established on the north bank of the Thames where the City of London now stands, 15km to the west of the site. It quickly rose to prominence, becoming a major commercial centre and the hub of the Roman road system in Britain. Small settlements, typically located along the major roads, supplied produce to the urban population, and were markets for Londinium’s traded and manufactured goods (MoLAS, 2000, 150).

4.2.7 The Roman road going east to Colchester from Londinium passed c 6.4 kilometres to the north of the site. The terraces overlooking the marshes would have continued to be primary areas of settlement, located to take advantage of the nearby wetlands for pasturage. Exploitation of the predictable resources of the intertidal floodplain is likely to have continued throughout the Roman period.

4.2.8 Throughout the Roman period the climate became warmer and drier (Buckley et al 1980, 4). It is possible some attempt was made to drain low-lying areas, possibly by constructing banks along the edge of the mudflats. The Romans brought elaborate water management technology with them, developed from the Mediterranean region (Rackham 1987, 383). Most coastal and estuarine marshes contained salt-making industries, which probably began in the Late Iron Age. ‘Red Hills’ which are the remains of extensive salt working are the most distinctive sites of this period along the Essex coast estuaries (Murphy and Brown 1999, 16). Salt production was organised on an industrial scale, and salt would have had an important impact on the regional economy and diet, enabling large scale processing of surplus meat and fish (MoLAS 2000, 154). This stretch of the estuary was a major transport route and supported a thriving economy founded on agriculture grazing, fishing, salt production, trade and transport (Essex County Council 2007, 8).

4.2.9 Several of the salt production sites in Essex and North Kent are associated with small early Roman cremation cemeteries (Rippon 2000, 63). In 1995, an archaeological and evaluation (site code DA-GB95) c 1.9km to the north of the site (outside the study area) identified an early Roman 1st century rectangular ditched enclosure with four 1st to 2nd century cremation burials. Outside the study area, further Roman burials have been recorded. An archaeological investigation (site code BMV05), c 2.3km to the north-east, recorded two cremation burials, as well as another Roman enclosure, wells small industrial buildings and a kiln.

4.2.10 All Roman finds have been located on the gravel terrace some distance to the north of the floodplain which would have been ideal for settlement. It is likely that the floodplain and areas of reclaimed marshland were utilised during this period for industrial purposes, fishing or pasture. It is possible that the remains of wooden structures such as walkways across the marshes or boats may survive within the alluvial and peat deposits within the site.


Early medieval (Saxon) period (AD 410–1066) 4.2.11 Following the withdrawal of the Roman army from England in the early 5th century AD,

Londinium was apparently abandoned. Germanic (‘Saxon’) settlers arrived from mainland Europe, with occupation in the form of small villages and an economy initially based on agriculture. By the end of the 6th century a number of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms had emerged, and as the ruling families adopted Christianity, endowments of land were made to the church. Landed estates (manors) can be identified from the 7th century onwards; some, as Christianity was widely adopted, with a main ‘minster’ church and other subsidiary churches or chapels.

4.2.12 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 settlements served by a parish church. The primary settlement of Barking focused to the south and east of Barking Abbey, c 5.1km to the north-west of the site. Settlement within the Dagenham area probably grew up on or in the vicinity of the later medieval settlement, close to the later medieval parish church and the main road from London to Tilbury, c 3.2km north-east of the site.

4.2.13 There is limited evidence for early medieval activity in the study area. Early Saxon pottery sherds were recorded during the archaeological evaluation and excavation at Goresbrook Fields (site code DA-GB95) c 1.9km to the north of the site. Throughout this period the site was located on the open intertidal marshland, probably used for seasonal pasture, and at some distance from the main settlements.

Later medieval period (AD 1066–1485) 4.2.14 Dagenham is not named in Domesday Book (1086) as it was included within the entry for the

manor of Barking, held by Barking Abbey and one of the Abbey’s largest and most valuable estates. The abbey’s demesne (land farmed directly) increased during this period by the grants of the former free tenements and others. In 1086, Barking manor produced nearly half the income of the abbey, and in 1291 over a third (VCH Essex v, 190–214). From the 13th century onwards, references to the manor, its farms and hamlets, are sufficiently numerous to suggest a flourishing community (ibid, 267–281). Part of the eastern boundary is formed by the River Beam, known as the Mardyke in the 13th century, and as the Fleetsmouth or Dagenham Creek in the 16th century.

4.2.15 The 13th century church of St Peter and St Paul at Dagenham formed the focus of the later medieval settlement alongside Crown Street and Church Street, c 3.2km north-east of the site. Ripple Road (now the A13) was the main road eastwards from Barking, and followed the edge of the higher ground overlooking the extensive reclaimed marshlands and river Thames to the south. It turned north as Broad Street, before continuing eastwards through Dagenham village as Crown Street and on towards Rainham, crossing Dagenham Beam Bridge after leaving the village. The bridge is first mentioned in 1299 and by 1564 the wooden bridge had been replaced by a stone one (VCH Essex v, 267–81).

4.2.16 The manor of Barking was divided in a number of smaller estates, some of which fell within the Dagenham area. This included Cockermouth, to the north-east of Area 6, a free tenement held of Barking Abbey first mentioned in the late 13th century, although it possibly had earlier, pre-Conquest (1066) origins (VCH Essex v, 267–281). In 1330, John of Cockermouth, from whom the manor was named, granted it to the abbey. The manor house stood at the junction of Ripple Road and Chequers Lane (ibid) c 1.7km to the north-east of Area 6 (outside the study area).

4.2.17 The marshland began to be drained and reclaimed in this period (although it cannot be ruled out that limited reclamation took place in the Roman period). This initially took the form of drainage channels dug around parcels of land. The purpose of reclamation would have been primarily economic, providing good-quality grazing for livestock and fertile land for crops. It is clear that the coastal marshes were important for sheep pasture in that inland parishes often owned a detached portion of the coastal marshes (Rippon 2000, 153–85; Thirsk 2000, 150–66). The marshland would have been prone to flooding, which would have made it unsuitable for settlement or arable cultivation, but ideal for the formation of improved pasture. Those areas that were not reclaimed would have continued to be exploited for a variety of purposes and the importance of coastal trading, fish and shellfish in the later medieval (and post-medieval) period is well known.

4.2.18 Reclamation is likely to have taken place in stages, with a number of successive sea walls


being constructed as more and more of the marshland was reclaimed out from the edge of the higher ground. Reclamation is likely to have improved the general living environment of those people living near the edge of the marshes on in some cases, on islands of higher ground within the marsh (ibid). In 1321–2 attempts were being made to bring the marshes under cultivation, but this was difficult and expensive. Crops sown there were sometimes lost by flooding, as occurred in 1409. Flooding, indeed, was a perpetual problem, and in the late 14th and 15th centuries there was a succession of floods on this part of the coast which almost ruined the wealthy abbey of Barking, and must have been equally damaging to small landowners, or even more so. By the Dissolution the abbey seems to have reclaimed a good deal of lost land (VCH Essex v, 214–19).

4.2.19 Reclamation is likely to have improved the general living environment of those people living near the edge of the marshes or in some cases, on islands of higher ground within the marsh. In 1321–22 attempts were being made to bring the marshes under cultivation, but this was difficult and expensive. Crops sown there were sometimes lost by flooding, as occurred in 1409. Flooding, indeed, was a perpetual problem, and in the late 14th and 15th centuries there was a succession of floods on this part of the coast (VCH Essex v, 214–19).

4.2.20 The only evidence for this period within the study area, is the site of a reed bed apparently dated to the 14th century (DBA 11), recorded on the GLHER c 900m to the north-west.

Post-medieval period (AD 1485–present) 4.2.21 The northern third of the site was probably used as pasture throughout much of this period,

until the construction of the buildings within the industrial estate in the 1920s. The earliest map used to show the location of the site is Chapman and André’s map of Essex (1777) (Fig 3), it is small scale but shows the north of the site lying within a large area of marshland known as ‘Dagenham Marsh’, the southern two thirds of the site was within the River Thames at this time. The eventual Dagenham Breach (marked here as ‘The Gulph’) and the inlet which would become Dagenham Dock is shown to the east of the site. The 1777 map shows the village of Dagenham some distance to the north-east of the site (and therefore not shown within Fig 3). Also to the north-east, on the higher ground on the edge of the marsh, lies Cockermouth manor house. The remains of an 18th century reed bed (HEA 21) were discovered c 700m to the west of the site, adjacent to the existing river wall.

4.2.22 The Ordnance Survey 1st edition 6”: mile map of 1873–75 (Fig 4) shows little change to the site. The southern two thirds are within the River Thames and the northern third overlies foreshore and a small area of open field between Horse Shoe Corner and Chequers Lane, which includes a section of the river wall bank. The immediate surrounding area is characterised by open marshland and pasture fields. The only industry in the immediate area comprises a fish manure factory in the location of the future Dagenham Dock, c 360m to the east of the site. Isolated farmhouses are also located to the east, adjacent to the east bank of Dagenham Breach. The London, Tilbury and Southend Railway line, opened in 1854, is shown c 1.2km to the north.

4.2.23 The Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 6”: mile map of 1898–99 (Fig 5) shows very little change to the site, other than the ground consolidation to the north. Significant changes to the east of the site include the construction of the Dagenham Dock and piers, as well as a tramway leading to the docks from the railway line to the north.

4.2.24 The Ordnance Survey 6”: mile map of 1921 (Fig 6) shows the development of the pier within the site, situated on the foreshore and within the Thames Channel. A branch road leading from the pier towards Dagenham Docks along with buildings to the north have also been constructed. To the east of the site, there are now two tramlines serving Dagenham Docks; one leading to the railway line and the other to the ‘Union Cable Works’ on Chequers Lane, c 890m to the north. Numerous industries are now located between the docks and the railway, mainly situated along Chequers Lane. These include a battery works, iron foundry and engineering works.

4.2.25 The Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 scale map of 1969 (Fig 7) shows potential expansion of the pier as it is now labelled ‘Jetty’, with a ‘Landing Stage’, suggesting that the site is now involved in movement of larger vessels carrying goods. The area to the north is almost entirely occupied by oil storage tanks and work buildings. The surrounding area to the north and east of the site is now heavily industrialised, with large factory buildings characterising the area.


The scale of production is evidenced by the construction of numerous rail sidings serving the various factory buildings.

4.2.26 The Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 scale map of 1996 (Fig 8) shows little change within the site or the buildings to the north. Extensive demolition of former industrial buildings c 350m to the north of the site have been replaced by a smaller industrial estate.


5 Statement of significance 5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 The following section discusses historic impacts on the site which may have compromised archaeological survival from earlier periods, identified primarily from historic maps, and information on the likely depth of deposits.

5.1.2 This is followed by an assessment of the likely potential for archaeological remains to be present in the site (high, moderate, low, or no potential if it is clear that any archaeological remains will have already been removed by past ground disturbance); and – in accordance with the NPPF – a statement of the significance (high, medium, low, or negligible) of the known or likely remains in the site. This is based on current understanding of the baseline conditions, past impacts, and professional judgement.

5.2 Factors affecting archaeological survival

Levels of natural geology, and past truncation 5.2.1 The site currently overlies the River Thames with the southern two thirds submerged and the

other third above the Mean Low water mark and thus over intertidal foreshore. The very northern end of the site is located on land. Bathymetry data has been used to provide an idea of the relative ground levels across the site. The data shows that ground level within the site slopes down to the south-west into the river from 0.1m OD next to the shore to –15.4m OD south-west of the jetty where dredging has taken place. The river bed being on average at a level of -11.9m OD.

5.2.2 A nearby borehole survey c 290m to the south-west at number 7 jetty puts the depth of the river bed at c –12m OD (TQ48SE305). Superficial deposits of clay and peat were found beneath the river bed overlying natural gravel and sand found at a level of c –19.6m OD.

5.2.3 Based on the results of a geotechnical investigation carried out by SLR Global Environmental Solutions (SLR Ref: 408.03893.00002 – DQRA v.2, May 2012) and WSP Environmental (job no. 12111804, August 2009) the predicted level of natural geology within the north of the site, on land is as follows:

• Current ground level within the industrial estate is c 5.4m OD at the river wall. • The top of alluvium (the ground level within the foreshore) lies at between 1.5m OD

to –3.0m OD (3.9m–8.4mbgl) varying in thickness from 3.6 to 8.4m. • The top of untruncated gravel lies at –5.8m OD to –7.6m OD (9.5m–12.8mbgl).

5.2.4 Within this northern edge of the site, between the top of the natural and the current ground level, there is a considerable depth of made ground. The minimum depth encountered during the geotechnical investigation was 1.5mbgl, with an average depth varying between 3.5m and 6.0mbgl. This made ground has the potential to contain residual archaeological remains, likely to be related to the late 19th century development of the site. However, these remains are likely to be of low to negligible significance.

Past impacts 5.2.5 Past impacts which would potentially have impacted archaeological remains within the site

comprise: • Jetty piles along with any associated infrastructure and other impacts associated with

the construction of the jetty. Piles would have removed all remains within their footprint. However, it is likely that these would be restricted to isolated artefacts deposited or lost within the river.

• The use of the jetty as vessel movements may have caused alterations to the river scour patterns around the piles and on the waterline, which can erode and expose any archaeological remains or peats.

• Dredging to clear the river bed will have removed completely any archaeological


remains. A bathymetry study from 2014 (Stolthaven Dagenham Ltd, Thunderer Jetty, ref. 113-327-197, rev. 000, November 2014) showed the level of the river bed south of the jetty at -14m OD, while a study from 2017 (Stolt Tankers & Terminals, Thunderer Jetty, ref. 113-327-221, rev. 00, April 2017) showed the level had dropped to -15.01m OD. The riverbed was dropped intentionally between these dates by dredging (M Crabbe, Robert West, pers. comm., 05/03/2021). Depending on the location of the dredge remains could vary from isolated depositions of artefacts further into the river to structures such as earlier jetties closer to the shoreline. However, evidence indicates that these would be limited to isolated depositions of artefacts.Construction of the landward northern end of the jetty. The foundations at the northern end are not known but given the nature of the underlying geology and the use of the jetty it is likely that they would be piled with a thicker foundation slab. Piles would have removed all within their footprints whereas the foundation slab will have removed or truncated remains within its footprint. However, it is likely that footprint of the foundations slab; remains would be related to the late 19th century onwards industrial development of the site.

Likely depth and thickness of archaeological remains 5.2.6 The bathymetry data implies that dredging has taken place towards the south of the jetty,

significantly deepening the level of the river bed. Any levels below –12m OD suggest that erosion or dredging has taken place and in these areas, archaeological survival is thought to be non-existent.

5.2.7 In the northern third of the site, any evidence of early prehistoric (Upper Palaeolithic/Early Mesolithic) activity would be located at the alluvium/gravel interface and cut into the underlying gravel. Later prehistoric and Roman activity would be located progressively higher up in the alluvial sequence. Later medieval and post-medieval deposits/features potentially survive directly below any modern made ground.

5.3 Archaeological potential, and significance of likely remains

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.

Statement of Significance 5.3.2 As the majority of the site is located over the River Thames it is thought that there is a

negligible potential for archaeology within the water itself. There is no evidence of settlements over the Thames and the GLHER showed no chance finds. As well as this, dredging and erosion would have truncated any archaeological remains present. However, the northern third of the site is situated on the foreshore. The waterlogged nature of the alluvium within this area of the site means that the preservation of any organic remains (e.g. timber) is potentially high. Past impacts to the site have been localised and overall archaeological potential on the foreshore is considered to be high but there is little evidence of habitation. The nature of possible archaeological survival in this area is summarised here

5.3.3 The site has high potential to contain palaeoenvironmental remains. The alluvial deposits within the northern area of the site form a floodplain sequence which is well known in this part of the Thames, and holds a record of environmental change and the evolving floodplain geomorphology stretching back to the Late Glacial period. Any peat deposits in particular will preserve a range of palaeoenvironmental proxy indicators (pollen, plant macro fossils), which can be utilised to reconstruct the past paleoecology of the floodplain and environments within which prehistoric occupation occurred. Fluvial and estuarine deposits will also preserve palaeoenvironmental remains (ostracods, foraminifera, diatoms) which can be utilised to reconstruct the past fluvial regimes and indicate the onset of tidal inundations and the transition to an estuarine river environment. Palaeoenvironmental remains would be of low to medium significance, derived from their potential evidential value.

5.3.4 The site has an uncertain but possibly moderate potential to contain archaeological remains dating to the prehistoric period. There is currently no evidence of human occupation in this


period within the boundaries of the site and no finds within the study area. The present site lies within the floodplain, and displays no significant topographic high points which may have existed as high and dry land well into the Bronze Age period. The significance of any prehistoric assets would depend on the nature and extent of such remains and is therefore currently unknown. Redeposited finds would be of low significance. Evidence of occupation and/or the remains of structures or trackways (low probability) would potentially be of high significance, depending on their nature, extent and condition. This would be derived from the evidential value of such remains.

5.3.5 The site has an uncertain, possibly low, potential to contain archaeological remains dating to the Roman period. The northern area of the site would have been marshy and prone to flooding and probably unsuitable for settlement. Evidence from other areas of the Lower Thames valley indicates that throughout the Roman period the marshes were utilised extensively for a range of economic activities including salt production, pottery manufacture, fisheries and rough pasture. There is potential for the remains of boats in any relict creeks that may have crossed the marsh. As with other periods, settlement would have been located on the well-drained and fertile gravel terrace well to the north of the site. The significance of any Roman assets would depend on the nature and extent of such remains and is therefore currently unknown but potentially low to high depending on the condition and extent of remains. This would be derived from their evidential value.

5.3.6 There is a low potential for archaeological remains dating to the medieval period. There is limited evidence for early medieval activity in the study area. Throughout this period the site was located within marshland. The site lay at the very edge of the Thames foreshore and was probably not used until land reclamation was carried out in the 14th century. The site also lay at a considerable distance from the main settlements of the period. Evidence of medieval agricultural features such as drainage ditches, if present, would be of low significance. Medieval flood defences and any water management features (sluices, drains, streams etc.) would be low significance, as derived from the potentially evidential and historical value of the remains.

5.3.7 There is a high potential for archaeological remains dating to the post-medieval period. The northern area of the site on the shore was drained and reclaimed at a late date, in the late-19th to early-20th century. Industrial buildings began to be constructed to the north of the site from the 1920s onwards. The foundations of early-20th century depot buildings or railway sidings would be of low or negligible significance, as derived from their evidential and historical remains.


6 Impact of proposals 6.1 Proposals

6.1.1 The proposed scheme is comprised of the refurbishment of the existing ‘Thunderer Jetty’ which extends from the Stolthaven Dagenham site approximately 100m into the River Thames. Sections of the existing jetty will be demolished during the refurbishment (Fig 9).

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 was developed for the first time in the early-20th century with the construction of the jetty and industrial buildings to the north. The alluvium on which the northern third of the site lies was within the foreshore and unattractive to settlement although open to exploitation, e.g. fishing. Alluvium may survive in the northern onshore tip of the site beneath the made ground, and has a high potential for palaeoenvironmental remains of low to medium significance, and a moderate potential for prehistoric remains of low to high significance. There is also potential for evidence of marshland reclamation and flood management at the top of the alluvium, beneath the substantial thickness of modern made ground.

Demolition 6.2.4 The demolition of the existing floating pontoon and piles, as well as the existing upstream and

middle dolphins is unlikely to impact any archaeological remains present. The level of the river bed near the dolphins reaches –10.6m OD, while the level near the floating pontoon and piles is –12.9m OD. It is unlikely that archaeology would survive at this depth and any present would have been removed with the construction of the existing piles and dolphins within their footprint.

Piling

New driven steel tubular piling within the site is proposed to reach a level of –26m OD to –36m OD, truncating into the natural chalk. New sheet piling near the floodgate towards the north of the site will truncate down into the Thanet Sand. The river bed near these proposed piles rises from –7.6m OD to +0.2m OD, any archaeology in the footprint of the new piles will be truncated. The severity of the impact would depend on the pile type, pile size and pile density.

Dredging 6.2.5 Dredging has occurred towards the south of the site, with the level of the river bed ranging

from -15.4m OD to -12.9m OD. Any archaeology in this area would have been removed so further construction to this part of the site would have no added impact.

Operational phase scour 6.2.6 Significant erosion of the foreshore from the movement of vessels during the operational

phase of the development, for example as noted by the Thames Discovery Programme at Vauxhall Bridge, is likely; any remains within any scour area would be removed. When


comparing two bathymetry studies conducted on the site in 2014 and 2017, it was found that the river bed had dropped from -14.0m OD to -15.1m OD as a result of scouring.


7 Conclusion and recommendations 7.1.1 The site does not contain any designated assets such as listed buildings or schedule

monuments. The site is located within the Barking Level and Dagenham Marsh APA. 7.1.2 Overall archaeology potential in the northern third of the site, particularly onshore, is

considered to be high. The waterlogged nature of the alluvium within the northern area means that the preservation of any organic remains (e.g. timber) is potentially high. The main potential is for palaeoenvironmental remains (high potential) and prehistoric remains (moderate potential).

7.1.3 Within the rest of the site (southern two thirds), it is thought archaeology potential is negligible to low as the site lies over the River Thames and past dredging/erosion would have removed any archaeological remains present.

7.1.4 The proposed scheme comprises the refurbishment of the existing ‘Thunderer Jetty’ which extends from the Stolthaven Dagenham site approximately 100m into the River Thames. Sections of the existing jetty will be demolished during the refurbishment (Fig 9).

7.1.5 Table 1 and 2 summarises the known or likely buried assets within the site, their significance, and the impact of the proposed scheme on asset significance. (Assets mentioned below are confined to the onshore northern area of the site). Table 1: Impact upon heritage assets (prior to mitigation) within the northern third of the site

Asset Asset Significance

Impact of proposed scheme

High potential for palaeoenvironmental remains, including peat deposits

Low (general alluvial

deposits) to medium (peat)

Refurbishment of existing jetty. Significance of asset locally reduced to negligible

Uncertain, possibly moderate potential for prehistoric remains, including isolated features and the remains of boats or trackways

Low to medium

Uncertain, possibly low potential for Roman remains, including evidence of economic activities, and possibly for boats or trackways

Low (for residual

artefacts) or high

(structural remains)

Moderate potential for medieval agricultural remains and possibly for flood defences and water management features.

Low

High potential for post-medieval remains, including the foundations of early-20th century depot buildings or railway sidings

Low to negligible


Table 2: Impact upon heritage assets (prior to mitigation) within the southern two thirds of the site

Asset Asset Significance

Impact of proposed scheme

Low potential for palaeoenvironmental remains, including peat deposits

Low (general alluvial

deposits) to medium (peat)

Refurbishment of existing jetty. Significance of asset locally reduced to negligible

Uncertain, possibly low potential for prehistoric remains, including isolated features and the remains of boats or trackways

Low to medium

7.1.6 Based on the low archaeological significance of the majority of the site, it is unlikely that further

archaeological investigation prior to determination of the planning consent is merited. 7.1.7 An initial foreshore survey, followed by periodic visual assessment of changing scour patterns

and any archaeological remains becoming exposed near the foreshore pile locations would determine the nature and sensitivity of the remains and the degree of impact. The survey and regular monitoring work would provide the detailed data needed to establish the rate and potency of short, medium or long term scouring. Appropriate action can then be taken in accordance with the degree and rate of scour and the sensitivity of the remains. Such measures could range from no additional work (if scour is minimal) to foreshore reinstatement, river wall underpinning, or a strategically placed wall of gabions depending on the results of the survey.


8 Gazetteer of known historic environment assets 8.1.1 The gazetteer lists known historic environment sites and finds within the 1km-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 18/01/2021 and is the

copyright of Historic England 2021. 8.1.3 Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2021. Historic England statutory

designations data © Historic England 2021. The Historic England GIS Data contained in this material was obtained in November 2020. The most up to date publicly available Historic England GIS Data can be obtained from http://www.historicengland.org.uk.

Abbreviations AOC ‒ AOC Archaeology Group DGLA – Department of Greater London Archaeology (Museum of London) GLHER – Greater London Historic Environment Record LAARC – London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre MoLAS – Museum of London Archaeology Service (now MOLA) NHL – National Heritage List for England (Historic England) PCA ‒ Pre-Construct Archaeology

DBA No.

Description Site code/ HER/NHL

No. 1 Hindman’s Way, Dagenham Docks, RM9 6LP

An archaeological investigation was carried out by AOC in 2010. There are no further details listed in the LAARC.

HWX10

2 Chequer’s Lane, Dagenham, RM9 An archaeological evaluation was carried out by AOC in 2004. Peat deposits of Early Bronze Age date were found below alluvial deposits; they were sealed by thick deposits of contaminated made-ground dated to the 18th to 20th centuries.

CQL04

3 Proposed anaerobic digestion & in-vessel composting facility, Plot 7A, London Sustainable Industries Park, off Choats Road, Dagenham, RM9 An archaeological investigation was carried out by MOLA in 2012. There are no further details listed in the LAARC.

LSP12

4 Abacus Park, Choats Road, Barking, RM9 An archaeological investigation was carried out by MoLAS in 2006. Sandy clay above gravel was sealed by a thick deposit of peat, overlaid by silty clay. A reconstruction of the buried landscape was produced via geoarchaeological modelling. This showed that during the Mesolithic period the site lay on an island of higher ground, encircled by stream channels and wetland areas; by the later Mesolithic period peat was developing across the entire site which had become part of an expanding floodplain forest. The characteristics of this forest may have differed across the floodplain, reflecting the underlying topography and proximity to river channels. The peat was radiocarbon dated to 4700–4440 BC (Late Mesolithic) at the base and 800–520 BC (Neolithic to Bronze Age) at the top.

ACU06 MLO99287

5 Choats Road, Dagenham Docks, RM9 An archaeological watching brief was carried out by PCA in 2004. Made ground of 20th century date was observed overlying deposits of alluvium. Peat was recorded beneath the alluvium in the west of the site.

CDG04

6 Dagenham Dock: Plot D, Choats Road, Dagenham, RM9 An archaeological evaluation was carried out by MoLAS in 2006. The site appears to have lain within a palaeochannel in early prehistoric times; it was subsequently abandoned and filled with peat. A long peat sequence, probably spanning the late Mesolithic to early Iron Age periods, was recovered.

DDK06

7 Dagenham Docks, Hindman’s Way, Dagenham, RM9 An archaeological evaluation was carried out by MoLAS in 2004. Peat deposits, dating from c 4000–400 BC (Neolithic–Iron Age periods), were found overlying gravels and sands, sealed by clays. Pollen analysis identified evidence of woodland clearance and cereal production that is likely to have taken place in the vicinity of the site. Diatom analysis also provided some indication of the changing riparian environment.

DAD04


DBA No.

Description Site code/ HER/NHL

No. 8 Pumping stations and associated works, Dagenham Docks, Chequer’s

Lane, Dagenham, RM9 An archaeological watching brief was carried out by MOLA in 2005. The excavation of two trenches for drainage pipes was monitored for evidence of ancient peat deposits. Column samples of peat were extracted for analysis.

DPW05

9 Hindmans Way, Horseshoe Corner, Dagenham, RM9 The site of ‘The Gallows’ noted on the GLHER. A gallows is also shown in the area on the Chapman and André map of 1777.

MLO5744

10 Hindmans Way, Horseshoe Corner, Dagenham, RM9 The location of a 16th century river wall recorded on the GLHER.

MLO35470

11 Horseshoe Corner, Dagenham, RM9 The location of a 14th century reed bed recorded on the GLHER.

MLO20717

12 Hindmans Way, Dagenham, RM9 Evidence of reclaimed marshland dating to the 18th century. Recorded on the GLHER.

MLO20717 MLO35469

13 The location of a mid-19th century ice house – ‘Dagenham Ice House – recorded on the GLHER.

MLO13942

14 The location of an early-19th century ice house – ‘Breach Cottage’ – recorded on the GLHER.

MLO7985

15 The location of an early-18th century ice house – ‘Breach House’ – recorded on the GLHER.

MLO24570

16 Kent Avenue, Dagenham, RM9 Dagenham Breach. Documentary evidence states that disrepair of sluices into the Dagenham marshes in the 17th century led to the drowning of a large area of the marshes. The "breach" was closed in 1721 by the construction of a dam, creating a series of lakes in the area behind the dam.

MLO26318

17 The site of an 18th-century ship recorded on the GLHER. MLO7989 18 Dagenham Dock, Dagenham, RM9

Six sites of landfill taken from British Geological Survey data supplied to the Environment Agency. It is not known whether these sites were made or worked land, and the date of infill is unknown, although all of are 19th/20th century date. A digitised map showing the extent of each landfill site is also held (source GLSMR).

MLO72424

19 Thames Road/Choats Road, Barking In March and April 2010 Quaternary Scientific (QUEST) undertook the monitoring of geotechnical site investigations and recovery of borehole sequences. The evidence suggests that the development area will have been suitable for human use, possibly even habitation, during parts of the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age.

ELO11746

20 Chequers Lane, RM9 An archaeological evaluation was carried out in 1991. Other than 20th century foundations and layers, the only features on the site were peat and clay deposits (possibly Pleistocene) which were sampled for environmental studies.

ELO3145

21 Hindman’s Way, Dagenham, RM9 The location of an 18th century reed bed/marsh as recorded by the GLHER, although Hindman’s Way lies c 500m to the east. It is possible this is incorrectly located.

MLO20717

22 Hindman’s Way, Dagenham, RM9 Location of medieval to post-medieval flood defences.

MLO1434

23 Hindmans Way, Dagenham, RM9 Evidence of reclaimed marshland dating to the 18th century. Recorded on the GLHER. This may be a duplicate of the record for DBA 12 above.

MLO20717 MLO35469


9 Planning framework 9.1 National Planning Policy Framework

9.1.1 The Government issued the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in March 2012 (DCLG 2012) and supporting Planning Practice Guidance in 2014 (DCLG 2014). The 2012 NPPF was revised and a new NPPF published in July 2018, with minor revisions in February and June 2019 (MHCLG 2019).

Conserving and enhancing the historic environment 9.1.2 The NPPF section concerning “Conserving and enhancing the historic environment” (section

12 of the NPPF 2012) has been replaced by NPPF 2018 Section 16 (unchanged in February and June 2019), reproduced in full below:

Para 184. Heritage assets range from sites and buildings of local historic value to those of the highest significance, such as World Heritage Sites which are internationally recognised to be of Outstanding Universal Value. These assets are an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations. Para 185. Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. This strategy should take into account:

• a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

• b) the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring;

• c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and

• d) opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place.

Para 186. 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 interest, and that the concept of conservation is not devalued through the designation of areas that lack special interest. Para 187. Local planning authorities should maintain or have access to a historic environment record. This should contain up-to-date evidence about the historic environment in their area and be used to:

• a) assess the significance of heritage assets and the contribution they make to their environment; and

• b) predict the likelihood that currently unidentified heritage assets, particularly sites of historic and archaeological interest, will be discovered in the future.

Para 188. Local planning authorities should make information about the historic environment, gathered as part of policy-making or development management, publicly accessible. Proposals affecting heritage assets Para 189. 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 190. 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 into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a


heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal. Para 191. 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 192. In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of:

• a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

• b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and

• c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

Considering potential impacts Para 193. 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 (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. Para 194. Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of:

• a) grade II listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens, should be exceptional;

• b) assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, registered battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.

Para 195. 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 total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:

• a) the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and • b) no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through

appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and • c) conservation by grant-funding or some form of not for profit, charitable or public

ownership is demonstrably not possible; and • d) the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.

Para 196. 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, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. Para 197. 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 directly or indirectly affect 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 198. Local planning authorities should not permit the 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 199. Local planning authorities should 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. Para 200. 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 setting that make a positive contribution to the asset (or which better reveal its significance) should be treated favourably. Para 201. Not all elements of a Conservation Area or World Heritage Site 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 195 or less than substantial harm under paragraph 196, 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 202. 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.

9.2 Regional policy

The London Plan 9.2.1 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 2016). 9.2.2 Policy 7.8 of the adopted (2016) London Plan 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.

9.2.3 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 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.’

9.2.4 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’.

9.2.5 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’.

The Draft New London Plan 9.2.6 The current 2016 consolidation Plan is still the adopted Development Plan. However,


consultation on revisions to the Plan was open until 2nd March 2018, and the Draft New London Plan is now at an advanced stage and is a material consideration in planning decisions. Following Examination in Public, a “Consolidated Suggested Changes Version” was published in July 2019, and an Intend to Publish (ItP) London Plan was published in December 2019. Policies contained in the ItP London Plan that are not subject to a direction by the Secretary of State carry significant weight (GLA website, 2019).

9.2.7 Policy HC1 “Heritage conservation and growth” of the Draft New London Plan relates to London’s historic environment. It is set out here incorporating the minor changes published in July 2019; it was unchanged in the ItP London Plan, and was not subject to any Directions from the Secretary of State which were received on the 13th of March 2020.

A Boroughs should, in consultation with Historic England, local communities and other statutory and relevant organisations, develop evidence that demonstrates a clear understanding of London’s historic environment. This evidence should be used for identifying, understanding, conserving, and enhancing the historic environment and heritage assets, and improving access to, and interpretation of, the heritage assets, landscapes and archaeology within their area. B Development Plans and strategies should demonstrate a clear understanding of the historic environment and the heritage values of sites or areas and their relationship with their surroundings. This knowledge should be used to inform the effective integration of London’s heritage in regenerative change by:

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

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

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

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

C Development proposals affecting heritage assets, and their settings, should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to the assets’ significance and appreciation within their surroundings. The cumulative impacts of incremental change from development on heritage assets and their settings, should also be actively managed. Development proposals should avoid harm and identify enhancement opportunities by integrating heritage considerations early on in the design process. D Development proposals should identify assets of archaeological significance and use this information to avoid harm or minimise it through design and appropriate mitigation. Where applicable, development should make provision for the protection of significant archaeological assets and landscapes. The protection of undesignated heritage assets of archaeological interest equivalent to a scheduled monument should be given equivalent weight to designated heritage assets. E Where heritage assets have been identified as being At Risk, boroughs should identify specific opportunities for them to contribute to regeneration and place-making, and they should set out strategies for their repair and re-use.

9.2.8 Para. 7.1.8 adds ‘Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of and/or damage to a heritage asset to help justify a development proposal, the deteriorated state of that asset should not be taken into account when making a decision on a development proposal’.

9.2.9 Para 7.1.11 adds ‘Developments will be expected to avoid or minimise harm to significant archaeological assets. In some cases, remains can be incorporated into and/or interpreted in new development. The physical assets should, where possible, be made available to the public on-site and opportunities taken to actively present the site’s archaeology. Where the archaeological asset cannot be preserved or managed on-site, appropriate provision must be made for the investigation, understanding, recording, dissemination and archiving of that asset, and must be undertaken by suitably-qualified individuals or organisations.

9.3 Local planning policy

9.3.1 The Barking and Dagenham Local Plan 2010–2025 (formerly called the Local Development


Framework) sets out policies for economic growth whilst ensuring those things which make the borough special are preserved or enhanced. The adopted Local Plan consists of a series of documents. The most important of these is the Core Strategy, adopted in July 2010, which sets out the borough’s spatial vision for Barking and Dagenham and a strategy for how this vision will be achieved.

9.3.2 The Core Strategy (July 2010) includes Strategic Objectives, the most relevant of which is: SO10: Protecting and enhancing our natural and man-made assets including our biodiversity, habitats, landscape character and historic heritage as identified in the UK, London and Barking and Dagenham Biodiversity Action Plans, the Council’s Landscape Framework and Conservation Area Appraisals.

9.3.3 The Core Strategy also outlines the borough’s Local Development Framework (LDF) Spatial Strategy. The Spatial Strategy is built around five themes: Managing Growth; Sustainable Resources and the Environment; Creating a Sense of Community; Ensuring a Vibrant Economy and Attractive Town Centres; and Creating a Sense of Place. Under ‘Creating a Sense of Place’:

The LDF will seek to engender a ‘sense of place’ by capitalising on Barking and Dagenham’s local distinctiveness and using it to improve the quality of life for new and existing communities, as well as encouraging more people from outside the area to visit the Borough. Important elements of this will include encouraging the development of arts, leisure and culture in the Borough; protecting and promoting the Borough’s heritage; encouraging the highest standards of design in new developments and the public realm; and capitalising on the Borough’s existing attractions.

9.3.4 Chapter 8 of the Core Strategy: Creating a Sense of Place includes policy CP2: Protecting and Promoting our Historic Environment. As part of this policy the Council seeks to:

• Protect and wherever possible enhance our historic environment. • Promote understanding of and respect for our local context. • Reinforce local distinctiveness. • Require development proposals and regeneration initiatives to be of a high quality that

respects and reflects our historic context and assets.


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 Consultation on draft revisions to the original Conservation Principles document which set out the four values was open from November 2017 until February 2018. The revisions aim to make them more closely aligned with the terms used in the NPPF (which are also used in designation and planning legislation): i.e. as archaeological, architectural, artistic and historic interest. This is in the interests of consistency, and to support the use of the Conservation Principles in more technical decision-making (HE 2017).

10.1.3 Table 3 gives examples of the significance of designated and non-designated heritage assets. Table 3: Significance of heritage assets

Heritage asset description Significance World heritage sites Scheduled monuments Grade I and II* listed buildings Historic England Grade I and II* registered parks and gardens Protected Wrecks Heritage assets of national importance

Very high (International/

national)

Historic England Grade II registered parks and gardens Conservation areas Designated historic battlefields Grade II listed buildings Burial grounds Protected heritage landscapes (e.g. ancient woodland or historic hedgerows) Heritage assets of regional or county importance

High (national/ regional/ county)

Heritage assets with a district value or interest for education or cultural appreciation Locally listed buildings

Medium (District)

Heritage assets with a local (i.e. parish) value or interest for education or cultural appreciation

Low (Local)

Historic environment resource with no significant value or interest Negligible Heritage assets that have a clear potential, but for which current knowledge is insufficient to allow significance to be determined

Uncertain

10.1.4 Unless the nature and exact extent of buried archaeological remains within any given area has been determined through prior investigation, significance is often uncertain.


11 Non-archaeological constraints 11.1.1 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.

11.1.2 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 13.4, 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.


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 (e.g. peat).

Archaeological Priority Area/Zone

Areas of archaeological priority, significance, potential or other title, often designated by the local authority.

Brickearth A fine-grained silt believed to have accumulated by a mixture of processes (e.g. 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 [trench]

Method of construction in which a trench is excavated down from existing ground level 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.

Desk-based assessment

A written document whose purpose is to determine, as far as is reasonably possible from existing records, the nature of the historic environment resource/heritage assets within a specified area.

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 (archaeological)

A limited programme of non–intrusive and/or intrusive fieldwork which determines the presence or absence of archaeological features, structures, deposits, artefacts or ecofacts within a specified area.

Excavation (archaeological)

A programme of controlled, intrusive fieldwork with defined research objectives which 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 (i.e. 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 Record (HER)

Archaeological and built heritage database held and maintained by the County authority. 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 Later medieval AD 1066 – 1500


Last Glacial Maximum

Characterised by the expansion of the last ice sheet to affect the British Isles (around 18,000 years ago), which at its maximum extent covered over two-thirds of the present land area of the country.

Locally listed building

A structure of local architectural and/or historical interest. These are structures that are not 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 the Historic Environment (NRHE)

National database of archaeological sites, finds and events as maintained by Historic England in Swindon. Generally not as comprehensive as the county HER.

Neolithic 4,000 – 2,000 BC Ordnance Datum (OD)

A vertical datum used by Ordnance Survey as the basis for deriving altitudes on maps.

Palaeo-environmental

Related to past environments, i.e. during the prehistoric and later periods. Such remains 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 record

Archaeological mitigation strategy where archaeological remains are fully excavated and 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 Parks and Gardens

A site may lie within or contain a registered historic park or garden. The register of these in England is compiled and maintained by Historic England.

Residual When used to describe archaeological artefacts, this means not in situ, i.e. Found outside the context in which it was originally deposited.

Roman AD 43–410 Scheduled Monument

An ancient monument or archaeological deposits designated by the Secretary of State as 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, e.g. 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, Soliflucted

Creeping of soil down a slope during periods of freeze and thaw in periglacial 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 (archaeological)

A formal programme of observation and investigation conducted during any operation carried out for non-archaeological reasons.


13 Bibliography 13.1 Published and documentary sources

Buckley DG (ed), 1980 The Archaeology of Essex to AD1500. Essex County Council CIfA [Chartered Institute for Archaeologists] 2020a, Standards and guidance for commissioning work or

providing consultancy advice on archaeology and the historic environment, Published December 2014, updated October 2020, Reading.

CIfA [Chartered Institute for Archaeologists] 2020b, Standards and guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment, Published December 2014, updated January 2017 and October 2020, Reading

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

EH [English Heritage], 2008 Conservation principles, policies and guidance. Swindon GLA [Greater London Authority], 2016 The London Plan. Spatial Development Strategy for Greater

London. March 2016 GLA [Greater London Authority], 2017 The London Plan The Spatial Development Strategy for Greater

London: Draft for public consultation. December 2017 GLA [Greater London Authority], 2019 The London Plan – Intend to Publish version. December 2019 GLAAS, 2015 Guidelines for Archaeological Projects in Greater London. Greater London

Archaeological Advisory Service; Historic England, April 2015 Gibbard PL, 1994 The Pleistocene history of the lower Thames valley, Cambridge Gray R, 1978 A history of London, London HE [Historic England] 2017 Conservation Principles for the Sustainable Management of the Historic

Environment, Consultation Draft, 10th November 2017 https://content.historicengland.org.uk/content/docs/guidance/conservation-principles-consultation-draft.pdf

HE [Historic England] 2019 Piling and Archaeology: Guidance and Good Practice. Revised edition, March 2019

Humphery-Smith C, 1984 The Phillimore Atlas and Index of Parish Registers. Margary, I D, 1967 Roman Roads in Britain. London: Baker MHCLG [Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government], 2019 National Planning Policy

Framework, revised February 2019 MOLA 2011 Mapping past landscapes in the lower Lea valley: a geoarchaeological study of the

Quaternary sequence. MOLA Monograph Volume 55. Corcoran, J, Halsey, C, Spurr, G, Burton, E and Jamieson, D, for Museum of London Archaeology

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

Morley, M., and Cocoran, J., 2009 Dagenham Dock Plot D2, Dagenham Dock, London: A Geoarchaeological Assessment. A MOL Archaeology unpublished report.

Murphy, P. and Brown, N. 1999 Archaeology of the Coastal Landscape, in Green L. S. (ed) The Essex Landscape: In Search of its History. Essex County Council Planning.

Museum of London, 2003 A research framework for London archaeology 2002, London Rackham O, 1987 The History of the Countryside. JM Dent & Sons Ltd. London. Rippon, S. 2000 The Transformation of Coastal Wetlands: Exploitation and management of marshland

landscapes in north-west Europe during the Roman and medieval periods. Oxford. Thirsk J, 2000 Rural England, An illustrative history of the landscape, Oxford Thompson A, Westman A, and Dyson T (eds), 1998 Archaeology in Greater London 1965–90: a guide

to records of excavations by the Museum of London, MoL Archaeological Gazetteer Series 2, London

VCH [Victoria County History], 1966 A History of the County of Essex: Volume 5. Weinreb B Hibbert C, Keay J, Keay J (eds), 2008 The London Encyclopaedia. London: Macmillan Wheatley HB and Cunningham P, 1891 London past and present: its history, associations, and

traditions, 3 vols, London

https://content.historicengland.org.uk/content/docs/guidance/conservation-principles-consultation-draft.pdf

https://content.historicengland.org.uk/content/docs/guidance/conservation-principles-consultation-draft.pdf


13.2 Other Sources

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:

Greater London Authority https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/what-new-london-plan - accessed 11/11/2020 Regulation 19 draft Local Plan https://www.lbbd.gov.uk/local-plan-review - accessed 11/11/2020

Landmark historic Ordnance Survey mapping Museum of London Archaeological Archive MOLA Deposit Survival Archive

13.3 Cartographic sources

Chapman and André’s map of Essex (1777) (Barking and Dagenham Archives and Local Studies Centre, (912) 914.267) Ordnance Survey maps Ordnance Survey 1st edition 6”: mile map of 1873–75 Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 6”: mile map of 1898–99 Ordnance Survey 6”: mile map of 1921 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 scale map of 1969 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 scale map of 1996 Engineering/Architects drawings Bathymetry Study - Stolt Tankers & Terminals, Thunderer Jetty, ref. 113-327-221, rev. 00, April 2017 Robert West, Thunderer Jetty Refurbishment, dwg. no 5776-001-D-0010-P04, 14/04/20 SLR Global Environmental Solutions Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment Report, SLR Ref: 408.03893.00002 – DQRA v. 2, May 2012 WSP Environmental Factual Ground Investigation Report, job no. 12111804, August 2009, rev. 26/08/1999

13.4 Available site survey information checklist

Information from client Available Format Obtained Plan of existing site services (overhead/buried) N - - Levelled site survey as existing (ground and buildings)

N - -

Contamination survey data ground and buildings (inc. asbestos)

N - -

Geotechnical report Y PDF Y Envirocheck report N - - Information obtained from non-client source Carried out Internal inspection of buildings Site inspection N N

https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/what-new-london-plan%20-%20accessed%2011/11/2020

https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/what-new-london-plan%20-%20accessed%2011/11/2020

https://www.lbbd.gov.uk/local-plan-review%20-%20accessed%2011/11/2020

548300 548400 548500 548600 548700 548800 548900 549000

1814

00

1815

00

1816

00

1817

00

1818

00

1819

00

1820

00

1821

00

1822

00

Archaeological desk-based assessment © MOLA 2021

Fig 1 Site location

0 10kmBorough of Barking and Dagenham

BARK2030DBA21#01

the site

scale @ A4

the site

1:5,000 0 250m

0 500m

Contains Ordnance Survey data© Crown copyright and database right 2014

© Crown Copyright 2021. All rights reserved.Licence Number 100047514

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

4

7

1

5

8

9

17

14

18

10

23

16

15

12

21

11

22

13

19

3

6

2

20

548000 548500 549000 549500

1800

00

1805

00

1810

00

1815

00

1820

00

1825

00

1830

00

Archaeological desk based assessment © MOLA 2021

Fig 2 Historic environment features map

BARK2030DBA21#02

KEY

past archaeological investigation (area)

") past archaeological investigation (centrepoint)

!( archaeological feature/findspot

study area

site outline

0 750mscale @ A41:14,750Contains Ordnance Survey data© Crown copyright and database right 2021

Archaeological Priority andConservation Areas not shown

BARK2030DBA21#03&04

Fig 4 Ordnance Survey 1st edition 6”: mile map of 1873–75 (not to scale)

Fig 3 Chapman and André's map of Essex (1777)

the site

the site


BACK2030DBA21#05&06

Fig 6 Ordnance Survey 6”: mile map of 1921 (not to scale)

Fig 5 Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 6”: mile map of 1898–99 (not to scale)

the site

the site


BACK2030DBA21#07&08

Fig 8 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 scale map of 1996 (not to scale)

Fig 7 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 scale map of 1969 (not to scale)

the site

the site


MEAN LOW WATER

MEAN HIGH WATER

-12.0

-11.0

-10.0

-9.0

-8.0

-7.0

-6.0

-5.0

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

+1.0

+2.0

0.0

+1.0

+2.0

+3.0

+4.0

+2.0

MEAN LOW WATER

MEAN HIGH WATER

4.697m

2.1

EX

ISTI

NG

PIP

ER

AC

KRIVER THAMES (TIDAL)

-12.0

-11.0

-10.0

-9.0

-8.0

-7.0

-6.0

-5.0

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

+1.0

+2.0

0.0

+1.0

+2.0

+3.0

+4.0

+2.0

MEAN LOW WATER

MEAN HIGH WATER

4.697m

D

9012

D

9012

50,000 DWT VESSEL

2.2

2.3

3.1, 3.2, 3.3

1.2

2.5

2.5

2.5

C

9012

C

9012

B

9012

B

9012

A

9011

A

9011

RIVER WALL

2.8

C

9012

C

9012

2.4

2.6

1.3

1.1

2.7BARKING REACH POWER

STATION OUTFALL TUNNEL

INDICATIVE OUTLINE

EXISTING FLOODGATE REPLACED

WITH FIXED STEEL BARRIER

010m 10m 20m 30m 40m 50m

Scale 1:500 @ A1 - 1:1000 @ A3

N

GENERAL ARRANGEMENTSCALE 1:500

DO NOT SCALE OFF THIS DRAWING

Project

Drawing Title

Delta House

175-177

Borough High Street

London SE1 1HR

t: 020 7939 9916

f: 020 7939 9909

www.robertwest.co.uk

Rob

ert W

est C

onsu

lting

201

9.A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

c

RWCL Internal Register reference:

-

Rev ByComment DateChkd Appr

Current Revision

Revision History

-

FOR CONSENTS

THUNDERER JETTY

REFURBISHMENT

SCHEME

GENERAL ARRANGEMENT

5776 001

5776-001-D-9010 P01

P01 02/03/2021

As shown @ A1

Stolthaven Dagenham Ltd

NOTES

1. The Contractor is responsible for verifying all site & setting out dimensions

before commencing work.

2. All dimensions shown are in millimetres (mm), all levels in metres above

Chart Datum (m CD), and co-ordinates in metres to British National Grid

(OSGB36) unless stated otherwise. 0m CD = -3.28m OD (Ordnance

Datum Newlyn).

3. Do not scale from this drawing.

Activities

1. Demolition of Middle and Upstream Dolphin, and Pontoon

1.1. Demolition of existing Middle Dolphin consisting of 10m x 10m deck

slab supported on 22 no. vertical steel box piles and 19 no.

457x457mm timber fender piles to its perimeter

1.2. Demolition of existing Upstream Dolphin consisting of 10m x 10m

deck slab supported on 16 no. vertical and raking steel box piles, and

10m long line of timber fender piles to its riverward edge

1.3. Demolition of existing access pontoon consisting of 18.5 x 3.1m steel

fabricated pontoon spanning between 2 No. pairs of combined steel

H piles of estimated 600x1000mm section

2. Construction of new Jetty Head, Jetty Approach and Berthing/ Mooring

Structures

2.1. Construction of 75m(l) x 7m(w) x 9m(h) partially prefabricated steel

and concrete jetty approach providing small vehicle access and

conveyance of liquid products from the jetty head to shore via an

overhead pipe rack, supported upon up to 8 No. driven steel tubular

piles of approximately 1.2m diameter.

2.2. Construction of a 1.5m(h) x 4.5m(w) steel floodgate within the

existing sheet pile flood defence wall to provide vehicle access to the

approach.

2.3. Construction of a max. 18m(w) x max. 45m(l) partially prefabricated

steel and concrete jetty head/ loading platform at approximately 1.2m

above the existing jetty head/ loading platform, supported upon up to

31No. driven steel tubular piles of approximately 1m diameter,

including 22m(l) x 6m(w) x 7m(h) steel frame pipe rack on top.

2.4. Removal of existing loading equipment (including loader crane,

flexible hoses, hose derrick, fixed pipelines/ manifolds, raised

operator cabin, and associated utilities/ furniture) from existing jetty

head, and replacement upon new jetty head with similar

arrangement, with additional firefighting tower and provision for 2No.

future marine loading arms.

2.5. Driving of steel tubular monopiles to form new berthing/ mooring

dolphins, 4No. of approximately 2m diameter, and 2 No. of

approximately 1.5m diameter; Installation of pre-fabricated

superstructure including mooring bollards and fenders.

2.6. Installation of pre-fabricated walkways and steps of approximately

1m width providing access between loading platform and new

monopile dolphins.

2.7. Construction of small vehicle ramp from the shore end of the new

jetty to link it with the existing car park level.

2.8. Construction of 25m(l) x 6m(w) x 7m(h) steel framed pipe rack to link

it with the existing 10m(h) steel framed pipe rack.

3. Refurbishment of Downstream Dolphin

3.1. Patch concrete repairs and to underside of an existing 23m x 12m

dolphin top slab and welded/ grouted repairs to existing steel box

piles at approximately MHWS to HAT.

3.2. Replace existing timber/ steel piled fendering system to downstream

end of Main berth with new fender and steel fixing frame

3.3. Refurbish or replace existing topside mooring/ access/ loading

equipment with equivalent as necessary.

LEGEND

Site boundary

To be demolished

Changes in plan areas (ha)

Activity Gross Net

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 -0.04 -0.03

2.1 0.06 0.06

2.3 0.06 0.02

2.5, 2.6, 3.2 0.02 0.02

2.7, 2.8 0.02 0.02

Total net new development 0.09

see Fig 10see Fig 10

see Fig 11see Fig 11

BA

RK

2030D

BA

21#09

Fig 9 General Arrangement, showing proposed sections (Robert West, Thunderer Jetty Refurbishment, dwg. no 5776- 001-D-9010-P01, 02/03/21)

Arc

haeolo

gic

al d

esk-b

ased a

ssessm

ent

MO

LA

2021

EXISTING UPSTREAM DOLPHIN

(TO BE REMOVED)

EXISTING MIDDLE DOLPHIN

(TO BE REMOVED)EXISTING DOWNSTREAM

DOLPHIN TO BE REPAIRED

EXISTING PIPE RACK

(OPERATIONS REMOVED)

STEEL TUBULAR MONOPILE

THANET SAND

8.53mCD

12.84mCD

THANET SAND

EXISTING FLOATING

PONTOON AND GUIDE

PILES (TO BE REMOVED)

MHWS +7.0mCD

MLWS +0.6mCD

HAT +7.5mCD

MHWN +5.8mCD

MLWN +1.6mCD

LAT +0.0mCD

Present day tide levels

+0.0mOD

EXISTING JETTY HEAD/ LOADING PLATFORM

8.83mCD

NEW JETTY HEAD/LOADING

PLATFORM

EXISTING DOWNSTREAM

DOLPHIN REPAIRED AND

FITTED WITH NEW FENDER


BERTHING DOLPHIN

NEW PIPE RACK

THANET SAND

CHALK

9.7mCD

16.17mCD


MOORING DOLPHIN

THANET SAND

CHALK


BERTHING DOLPHINS

MHWS +7.0mCD

MLWS +0.6mCD

HAT +7.5mCD

MHWN +5.8mCD

MLWN +1.6mCD

LAT +0.0mCD


+0.0mOD

-26m TO -30m

STEEL TUBULAR PILESSTEEL TUBULAR

FENDER PILES

0 15m 25m5m 5m 10m 20m

Scale 1:250 @ A1 - 1:500 @ A3


Project

Drawing Title

Delta House

175-177

Borough High Street

London SE1 1HR

t: 020 7939 9916

f: 020 7939 9909


Rob

ert W

est C

onsu

lting

201

9.A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

c


-


Current Revision

Revision History

-

FOR CONSENTS

THUNDERER JETTY

REFURBISHMENT

SCHEME

CROSS SECTIONS & ELEVATIONS

SHEET 1

5776 001

5776-001-D-9011 P01

P01 MC 02/03/2021

As shown @ A1


A-A0010

ELEVATION A-A - PROPOSED JETTYSCALE 1:250

A-A0010

ELEVATION A-A - EXISTING JETTYSCALE 1:250

To be demolished

NOTES






Datum Newlyn).


LEGEND

4. Geotechnical information including, but not limited to, strata types and

levels shown on Robert West drawings are indicative only. Precedence

shall be given to associated geotechnical reports.

BA

RK

2030D

BA

21#10

Fig 10 Existing and proposed E-W sections (Robert West, Thunderer Jetty Refurbishment, dwg. no 5776- 001-D-9011-P01, 02/03/21)

Arc

haeolo

gic

al d

esk-b

ased a

ssessm

ent

MO

LA

2021

EXISTING FLOODGATE (TO BE REPLACED

WITH FIXED STEEL BARRIER)

EXISTING SHEET

PILE RIVER WALL

EXISTING FLOATING

PONTOON AND GUIDE

PILES (TO BE REMOVED)

THANET SAND

ALLUVIUM & MADE GROUND

RIVER TERRACE DEPOSITS

EXISTING PIPE RACK

8.6mCD

EXISTING

JETTY HEADEXISTING JETTY APPROACH

50,0

00 D

WT

VE

SS

EL

50,0

00 D

WT

VE

SS

EL

MLWS +0.6mCDLAT +0.0mCD

+0.0mOD=3.28mCD

MLWN +1.6mCD

MHWN +5.8mCD

HAT +7.5mCDMHWS +7.0mCD


EXISTING

PIPE RACK

NEW RAMP AND FLOOD GATE (APPROX 1500 X 4500mm TO REPLICATE EXISTING JETTY FLOOD GATE).

THANET SAND

CHALK

NEW BERTHING/

MOORING DOLPHINS

ALLUVIUM & MADE GROUND

RIVER TERRACE DEPOSITS

16.17mCD

9.7mCD8.925mCD

16.17mCD16.17mCD

NEW JETTY HEAD

NEW PIPE RACK

NEW JETTY APPROACH

-26m TO -30m

-33mCD

-9mCD

-1.99mCD

-10mCD

-6mCD

-36mCD-35mCD

7180

4310

16.17mCD

6000

0 15m 25m5m 5m 10m 20m

Scale 1:250 @ A1 - 1:500 @ A3


Project

Drawing Title

Delta House

175-177

Borough High Street

London SE1 1HR

t: 020 7939 9916

f: 020 7939 9909


Rob

ert W

est C

onsu

lting

201

9.A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

c


-


Current Revision

Revision History

-

FOR CONSENTS

THUNDERER JETTY

REFURBISHMENT

SCHEME

CROSS SECTIONS & ELEVATIONS

SHEET 2

5776 001

5776-001-D-9012 P01

P01 MR 02/03/2021

As shown @ A1


B-B0010

SECTION B-B - EXISTING JETTY CROSS-SECTIONSCALE 1:250

C-C0010

SECTION C-C - PROPOSED JETTY CROSS-SECTIONSCALE 1:250

D-D0010

EXISTING APPROACHSCALE 1:250

D-D0010

PROPOSED APPROACHSCALE 1:250

LEGEND

NOTES






Datum Newlyn).


4. Geotechnical information including, but not limited to, strata types and

levels shown on Robert West drawings are indicative only. Precedence

shall be given to associated geotechnical reports.

To be demolished

BA

RK

2030D

BA

21#11

Fig 11 Existing and proposed N-S sections (Robert West, Thunderer Jetty Refurbishment, dwg. no 5776- 001-D-9012-P01, 02/03/21)

Arc

haeolo

gic

al d

esk-b

ased a

ssessm

ent

MO

LA

2021

BA

RK

2030D

BA

21#12

Fig 12 Bathymetry Study (PLA Hydrographic Services, Thunderer Jetty, ref. 113-327-221, rev. 00, April 2017)

Arc

haeolo

gic

al d

esk-b

ased a

ssessm

ent

MO

LA

2021

Documents

THUNDERER JETTY Stolthaven Dagenham Limited London RM9