GIHS has received the following letter about Deptford Dockyard from Chris Mazeika:
As you may know an application to ensure statutory designation of the Deptford
Royal Naval Yard was made to English Heritage in December 2009. The process has
been described by EH as “complex” and has resulted in over two years passing,
with EH admitting that their previous understanding of the site requires them to
review the advice they had given to the DCMS in 2010.
With national bodies
and amenity societies also recognizing the importance of the site, may I
encourage you to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the unusual
lengthy process of designation by writing to EH for your letter to be forwarded
to DCMS, in support of the statutory designation of the Deptford yard. Also
could you forward this message to interested parties.
Substantial new information has come to
light following further research by members of local organisation, Deptford Is
and other specialists, which will shortly be sent to EH/DCMS. Given adequate
notice from EH of the next submission to the DCMS this new information should be
included in EH's future recommendation to the DCMS.
Recent Case History
of Designation
In 2010, following our request made to confer statutory
protection in 2009, EH commissioned a report by Jonathan Clarke that resulted in
a recommendation not to confer statutory protection. However the research
documents compiled by us in response to that decision (attached), when submitted
to EH, were sufficient cause for EH to re-appraise the application. An
enlightened decision was then made by Veronica Fiorato to re-appraise the
earlier decision countersigned by by Emily Gee and Julian Heath. This
re-examination of the case should have provided the opportunity for EH to
correct their errors and to include new information. We now understand that the
new EH report and recommendation which we have not had sight of has been sent to
the DCMS.
Your assistance is required to add weight to this application
for protection at Deptford. The Deptford site has many pressures on it and a
planning application that was to be determined last Christmas has been withdrawn
mainly due to heritage issues.
However this important site of British
history needs to have protection if the assets are to be preserved for the
future.
Your letter to DCMS at this stage could be critical in ensuring they
have the mass of informed opinion to recommend designation of the
assets.
For your information the factual research attached/below
successfully challenged the 2010 EH designation recommendation not to list and
enabled them to reopen the case for further consideration.
Here are a
few extracts from the new information that will be submitted to
DCMS.
Condition is not a major factor in listing or scheduling. FOr
instance, a filled in mastpond at Chatham is a Scheduled Ancient Monument,
clearly condition could not be determined in this case. Even where condition is
determined, examples such as the GI listed slipway covers at Chatham have
received substantial restoration. Also, docks at Chatham that have been
substantially altered through the centuries are all listed. The docks, slipways
basin and mastpond at Deptford all predate those listed and scheduled structures
at Chatham.
Recent on-going archaeological explorations have confirmed
earlier archaeological reports that stated,
In respect of Divers 2001,
Hawkins 2000 Lowe 2000,
9.1.4
The evaluation showed that major dockyard
features survive below ground level across much of the site, specifically near
the River Thames, and that later activities on the site have had relatively
little impact on these remains.
9.1.5
Not only had later activities on the
site had relatively little impact on surviving Post-medieval features, but there
was no evidence to suggest that Medieval and earlier deposits and features were
absent due to later truncation. In fact it would appear that earlier horizons
had generally survived undisturbed and that medieval features, if present would
have survived.
9.1.6
The documentary and cartographic sources for the
dockyard have been shown to be relatively accurate, and that the large features
targeted by the evaluation trenches have been found in their anticipated
locations, often at relatively shallow depths below the present ground
surface.
9.4.2
The evaluation has established that the major features of
the dockyard have survived in their predicted locations with little evidence for
widespread truncation by later activities on the site.
(Divers
2001:69-71).
Dry dock
The stone entrance to the double dry dock,
the only major excavation of this structure to date, was shown to be almost
pristine save for a course or two of coping stone that had been removed. The
image linked immediately below shows the extent of the depth of the excavation.
Clearly, a more extensive excavation will be needed to accurately assess the
survival of the double dry dock.
http://www.museumoflondonarchaeology.org.uk/NewsProjects/ConvoysWharf.htm
Slipways
High
quality survival of the dockyard slipways dating in construction to c.1855 is
now also established.
http://www.museumoflondonarchaeology.org.uk/NewsProjects/ConvoysStorehouseSlipway.htm
Basin
(Wet Dock)
Since EH's earlier decision, drawings of the 1845 basin slipways
have recently been unearthed in the archives establishing that Capt. Sir William
Denison R.E. was the engineer. EH has cited sites such as this as "sites of
collaborative genius" warranting a high grade of protection.
Evidence from
the John Rennie drawings of 1814 determines that the majority of the river wall
dating to pre-1840, and recent scholarly work published 2011 now asserts that
Deptford was the first of the royal dockyards to have a wet dock (basin) and
also the first to have a purpose built mast pond. Link to the academic
article.
http://www.cairn.info/resume.php?ID_ARTICLE=DSS_114_0677
The
John Rennie basin entrance (wet dock) has recently been determined to survive to
coping level commensurate with the 1814 archive drawings, and whilst it was
originally thought by EH that much of the basin wall had been robbed it and the
John Rennie work destroyed, the coping level of the basin entrance now
demonstrates that the ground level has actually risen by 4 to 5ft, indicating
that only the uppermost courses of the basin wall or coping level may have been
removed. That an example of the coping level exists and Rennie's specification
and drawings can be consulted may make repair of the basin a more likely option
than previously thought possible. This is important new information as the
previous evidence cited as reason not to list the basin was the incorrect
assertion that the John Rennie work was entirely destroyed c.1900 Whilst it may
appear in photographs that their is partial survival it must be remembered that
the majority of the basin structure is behind and beneath the visible stone and
brick walling, with stone blocks of 7 cubic feet on beds of brickwalls and
timber pilings.
EH Advice and Guidelines
“Docks and harbour
walls pre-dating 1840 generally form the most impressive
engineering
structures of their date and even where they have received alteration,
as
nearly all have, will normally merit designation, with those displaying
technical innovation or association with major developments in shipbuilding,
warranting a high grade.”
EH Guidelines on Assessing Heritage
Significance
:40-.80 Consistency of judgement is crucial to the public
acceptability and fairness of the process
New publications by
EH since the 2010 decision should also impact positively on the consideration
for designation, particularly the October 2011 guidance on the Setting of
Heritage Assets and Maritime and Naval Buildings Selection Guide 2011. The
recent EH upgrading to GII* of the Master Shipwright's House and Dockyard
Officers' Offices, the SAM of the Undercroft of the Tudor Storehouse and the GII
listed Basin Slipway Covers will all be enhanced by the 'presence' of the
primary dockyard infrastructure, its docks, slips, basin and mast ponds.
We
can also be encouraged by the precedence set by the listing of in-filled
structures at Chatham where "the Great Basin and its three associated dry docks
have been covered over " are now SAM II* (EH Lake/Douet 1998:42) The
comprehensive listing and scheduling of dockyard structures in the other royal
yards where alterations and changes have occurred to the structures throughout
the centuries is considered in a contributive light and now viewed thus, "Docks
and harbour walls pre-dating 1840 generally form the most impressive structures
and even where they have received alteration, as nearly all have, most will
merit serious consideration for designation." (EH M+NBSG
2011:9-10)
Whilst the majority of secondary resource material on the
royal dockyards used by EH (Coad 1989/Lake and Douet Thematic Listing Programme
1998 and Maritime and Naval Building Selection Guide 2011) is now known to be
insufficient to determine the significance of Deptford because the Deptford yard
has remained immured from published EH research agendas and more recent efforts
by EH such as the Clarke report have fallen woefully short of accuracy,
nonetheless the Lake and Douet Thematic Survey of English Naval Dockyards
(whilst it repeats several now contested conclusions made by Coad 1989) and the
more recent Maritime and Naval Buildings Selection Guide 2011 are nonethelesss
for their approach to the roayl naval yards in general they are important
documents to take into consideration.
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/thematic-survey-navy/thematic-survey-navy.pdf
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/dlsg-maritime-naval-buildings/
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/setting-heritage-assets/
Historic
events, persons, innovations, global connections
Whilst I have concentrated
on the material structures of the dockyard, it is anticipated that EH will
pursue their own assessment of the wealth of historic associations of the yard
with national and international significant events and historic figures,
consider advances in maritime and industrial technology, the development of
European architecture, the global significance of the Deptford Yard to the
Commonwealth Nations of Australia, Canada and the United States, the setting of
the yard as the very raison d’être of Deptford, its immediate geographical
context of the neighbouring GII listed Victualling Yard buildings, and steam era
GII listed Payne's Wharf, the dockyard church of St. Nicholas GI (described as
"the Westminster Abbey of the British Navy" the high grade GII* listed Albury
Street 'Captain's Houses'. the geographical, intellectual and functional
proximity of Maritime WHS of Greenwich, the Deptford yard as the most
significant site on the London Thames to witness to centuries of London
shipbuilding and the yard as the signifier of the national and internationally
renowned and historically related The Corporation of the Trinity House of
Deptford Strand .
Once again, given the controversial history of
designation in this case, it is vital that we all remain vigilant to a fair and
equal access and application of national resources invested in the heritage
agencies in order to ensure that Deptford does not suffer social exclusion from
these resources and that further national funds are not risked through the
lengthy and expensive legal process of judicial review.
Yours,
Chris Mazeika
No comments:
Post a Comment