THE GUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND ASSOCIATION LONDON CENTRE
7 MANOR ROAD, WOODFORD BRIDGE, ESSEX IG8 8ER
LONDON BOROUGH OF REDBRIDGE
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION
July 2005
THE GUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND ASSOCIATION LONDON CENTRE
7 MANOR ROAD, WOODFORD BRIDGE, ESSEX IG8 8ER
LONDON BOROUGH OF REDBRIDGE
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION
SITE CODE: GDB05
SITE CENTRE NGR: TQ 42860 91690
COMPASS ARCHAEOLOGY LIMITED 63 UNION STREET
LONDON SE1 1SG Telephone: 020 7403 9660
Facsimile:020 7403 9661 e-mail: mail@compassarchaeology.co.uk
July 2005
�Compass Archaeology Limited
Project 313
Abstract
Archaeological evaluation of land to the south of Manor Road, Woodford Bridge, took place in June 2005. The work was carried out prior to a planning application for residential redevelopment, on behalf of The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association.
This area has potential for archaeological remains, specifically the projected line of a Roman road linking Little London (to the north of Chigwell) with the London-Colchester route to the south: some evidence also comes from historic maps which show a boundary crossing the site on this alignment. The area lies in an Archaeological Priority Zone as defined by the London Borough of Redbridge UDP, drawn along the postulated road line.
Six trenches were opened, measuring c. 8m to 15m in length by 1.8m wide. No significant remains were found: a straightforward sequence of deposits covered the site, with much evidence for recent truncation and landscaping. Natural River Terrace Deposits � sandy gravel or occasionally homogeneous sand or silt � were exposed at depths of c. 0.3m to 0.7m, and in several areas overlain by a sterile disturbed/weathered natural or colluvium.
There were several cut features of probable 19th to earlier 20th century date, most notably
two sections of an apparently contiguous ditch that can be related to the historic boundary noted above. These features and adjacent deposits were overlain by recent made ground, and by a shallow imported topsoil.
It is probable that much of the site is heavily disturbed, both within the footprint of the present building and in external road/car park areas. It is also possible that the Roman road may have not have taken the direct route that has been postulated. There is no indication of an historic boundary immediately to the north of Manor Road, and in fact the ground here drops steeply � some 4m to 5m � on what would be the projected road line.
In view of these conclusions it is suggested that no further archaeological measures should be undertaken in relation to proposed development.
Contents page
1 Introduction 1
2 Acknowledgements 1
3 Background 3.1 Location and topography 1
3.2 Archaeology and history 2
4. Aims and objectives of the evaluation 4.1 Archaeology and planning 2
4.2 The archaeological brief 3
4.3 Archaeological research questions 3
5 Evaluation methodology 4
6 The archaeological evaluation 6.1 Summary of the findings 5
6.2 List of deposits and features by context 5
6.3 Matrix to show the stratigraphic relationship of contexts 7
6.4 Trench descriptions (1-6) 7
7 Assessment of the results of the evaluation 10
8 Conclusion and recommendations 10
Appendices
I London Archaeologist summary 24
Figures page
1 The proposed development area within the overall site boundary, in relation 11
to the 1:1250 Ordnance Survey map
2 Extract from the 25-inch Ordnance Survey map of c 1872, with the site 12
outline superimposed
3 Location of the evaluation trenches (1-6) and drawn sections in relation to a 13
Topographical Survey (Gleeds Management Services, Dwg No. NALS0120/01)
4 View of Trench 1 looking northwest and showing the surface of the natural 14
River Terrace Deposit
5 View of Trench 2 looking east, with 0.5m scale at the base of the ditch cut [8] 14
6 The southwest section of Trench 1 15
7 View of the deposits illustrated in Figure 6 15
8 The southwest section of Trench 2 16
9 Oblique view of Trench 2 showing the deposits in the southwest section 16
10 Plan of trenches 2 and 3 showing the excavated sections of the presumed 17
single ditch feature [8]
11 View of Trench 3 looking northwest towards the ditch cut [8] 18
12 View of Trench 4, showing downward slope of the natural surface [4] to 18
the northwest
13 Trench 3: the southwest section through ditch [8] and fills 19
14 View of the ditch cut and deposits shown in Figure 13 19
15 The southwest section of Trench 4 20
16 View of the deposits shown in Figure 15 20
17 View of Trench 5 looking northwest, with the deep cut feature [17] in the 21
foreground
18 View of Trench 6 looking northwest, showing the sandy surface of the 21
natural deposit [4]
19 The southwest section of Trench 5 22
20 View of the deposits shown in Figure 19, with natural gravel overlain by 22
possible colluvium
21 The southwest section of Trench 6 23
22 View of the deposits shown in Figure 21, prior to excavation of the 23
cut feature [21]
1. Introduction
1.1 This report presents a summary of archaeological evaluation of land to the south of
Manor Road, Woodford Bridge, London Borough of Redbridge, prior to a planning application for residential redevelopment. The proposed development site currently forms one part of a larger plot operated by the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, as outlined in Figure 1.
The evaluation fieldwork was undertaken by Compass Archaeology between on the 8th and 15th June 2005.
1.2 It was considered that the site had potential for archaeological remains, specifically that it is located on the projected line of a Roman road which to the south joins that from London to Colchester. The site also lies very largely within an Archaeological Priority Zone as defined by the London Borough of Redbridge UDP (Policy SC16, November 2003). This particular Zone is drawn along the projected line of the road, with a width in this area of about 50m to 60m.
Historic maps show the area as open land, although some of these also show a boundary crossing the site more or less on the projected line of the Road.
1.3 It was agreed with English Heritage that an archaeological evaluation should be undertaken prior to submission of a planning application for redevelopment. The evaluation comprised six trial trenches of between 8m and 15m in length, located across the southern part of the site.
2. Acknowledgements
The archaeological evaluation was commissioned by Mr Paul Bradley-Lloyd (Walker Stuart Planning Solutions), on behalf of The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association.
We are also grateful to the staff of The GDBA for their interest and assistance during the fieldwork, and in particular to Karen Werlemann.
David Divers (English Heritage Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service) monitored the project on behalf of the London Borough of Redbridge.
Information on the history and background of the site was provided by the LB of Redbridge Archive and Local History Library.
3. Background
3.1 Location and topography
The site is located near the top of a west-facing slope above the Roding Valley, at a height of about 47.5m to 53.5m OD. The plot itself is roughly square, and covers an area of approximately 1 hectare: the evaluation was located within the southern part of the site and was approximately centred at NGR TQ 4286 9169 (Fig 1).
The British Geological Survey (Romford. England & Wales Sheet 257, 1996) indicates
that the site mainly overlies London Clay. Areas of recent River Terrace Deposit (Woodford Gravel) are shown just to the east and southeast, and there is a more extensive
band of Boyn Hill Gravel at slightly greater distance to the west. As will be seen, the River Terrace coverage is much more extensive than this record suggests.
At present the centre of the site is occupied by a substantial building, with access and car parking to the north and west. The ground to the east has been landscaped and apparently heavily built up, the land surface here rising by up to 3.5m. However, to the south there is an open grassed area with a much gentler rise from west to east and it is here that the evaluation was located.
3.2 Archaeology and history
The site is located on the projected line of a Roman road. This appears to have branched from the main London to Chelmsford and Colchester road just outside the capital, and to have run northward at least as far as the settlement at Little London, on the River Roding just beyond Chigwell (possibly identified as Durolitum). The exact route is unknown, although the immediate line appears to follow the present-day Roding Lane North to the south of the site and the High Road (A113) to the north.
In the vicinity of Woodford Bridge the modern road deviates up to 500m to the west of the projected line. This route is shown on early surveys (eg, Chapman & Andr��s Map of the County of Essex of c 1773 and the first Edition 2-inch Ordnance Survey of 1805). However, evidence that the Roman road followed a more direct route is provided by a number of 19th and earlier 20th century maps, which show a boundary running on the projected Roman line across the present site and as far as Manor Road. The earliest of these maps appears to be Doyley�s 1815-16 Plan of the Manors of Wanstead, Woodford, Buckholt &Aldersbrook�, and a very similar picture is given by the same surveyor in the 1832 Plan of the Parish of Woodford.
A larger-scale view of the historic boundary is given by the 25-inch Ordnance Survey map of c 1872 (Fig 2). The line shown on this map and those of 1895 and 1938 has also been superimposed onto the present-day Topographical Survey (Fig 3), although the exact nature of the boundary remains unclear. In part it was fenced, but this appears to have diverged to the west within the southern part of the present site. Beyond this point the possible road alignment is denoted by a broken line, which also relates to the contemporary Parliamentary and Urban District/Municipal Borough boundaries.
Map evidence shows that Woodford Bridge remained a small rural settlement until the later 19th century. At this time the site itself was quite open, apart from the boundaries already noted (cf. Fig 2). During the course of the 20th century the land was progressively developed as the eastern part of a Dr Barnardo�s Home. The present buildings date from the 1970s or early 1980s, with some more recent additions.
4. Aims and objectives of the evaluation
4.1 Archaeology and planning
It is understood that a planning application will be submitted for residential redevelopment of the present site, although there are currently no detailed proposals for this scheme.
The majority of the site falls within an Archaeological Priority Zone that reflects the projected line of the Roman road. An archaeological evaluation would therefore be
required by the local authority (LB of Redbridge) and English Heritage as part of the planning process.
4.2 The archaeological brief
The accepted brief for archaeological evaluation is to determine, as far as is reasonably possible, the location, extent, date, character, condition, significance, and quality of any surviving archaeological remains liable to be threatened by the proposed redevelopment (English Heritage, Model Brief for an Archaeological Evaluation). This will provide a basis on which decisions can be taken as to the need for any further archaeological action (eg, preservation in situ or further archaeological investigation), or for no further action.
The general methodology is set out in DOE Planning Policy Guidance 'Archaeology and Planning' No.16, November 1990 (PPG16).
4.3 Archaeological research questions
The evaluation presented an opportunity to address the research questions defined in the preliminary Written Scheme for an Archaeological Field Evaluation (Compass Archaeology, May 2005).
The principal research question concerned the potential presence of Roman remains or artefacts, specifically related to the projected line of the road. Potential finds could include evidence for roadside ditches as well as the road itself, and adjacent land use.
It was considered that there might also be some evidence for prehistoric activity, at least in the form of redeposited artefacts within later deposits.
A final question concerned the evidence for medieval and earlier post-medieval land use, and specifically whether there was any significant evidence for the use or development of the site prior to the 20th century.
5. Evaluation methodology
5.1 The Written Scheme was agreed prior to the commencement of fieldwork. The subsequent evaluation was carried out in accordance with English Heritage guidelines (including Standards and Practices in Archaeological Fieldwork, 1998) and those of the Institute of Field Archaeologists (Standard and Guidance for Field Evaluations).
5.2 The evaluation comprised six trial trenches, located within the southern part of the site as shown on Figure 3. This was the only major area that was free of buildings or other development such as car parks, and was also attractive as it had not apparently been built on in the past.
The evaluation trenches were placed approximately at right angles to the projected line of
the Roman road (ie, southwest to northeast), with two also sited over the historic boundary line derived from 19th and earlier 20th century maps (see 3.2 above). Individual trenches measured between c 8m and 15m in length by 1.8m in width, giving a total linear coverage of 65m.
The trenches were opened by a small 360� mechanical excavator using a toothless bucket and working under archaeological supervision. Recent deposits/ fills and undifferentiated soil horizons were removed to depths of between c 0.3m and 1.5m. Thereafter the exposed surfaces and sections were investigated by hand, recorded and photographed by the on-site archaeologists.
At the conclusion of the field evaluation the trenches were backfilled by machine with removed spoil.
5.3 The deposits exposed in the evaluation were primarily recorded on scaled plans and sections, supplemented by 35mm photography. Individual deposits and features were also recorded on pro forma context sheets (nos. [1] to [21]), with some numbers applied to more than one trench where deposits or features were felt to be contiguous (most obviously the topsoil and natural River Terrace).
Levels taken during the evaluation were derived from an existing Topographical Survey (Gleeds Management Services, Dwg No. NALS0120/01).
The evaluation trench positions were located onto the Survey plan by taped measurement. The Survey was already positioned onto an Ordnance Survey Superplan base which included gridlines (Fig 1).
The records from the evaluation have been allocated the site code: GDB05 by the Museum of London Archaeological Archive. An ordered and indexed site archive will be compiled in line with the MoL Guidelines and will be deposited in the Museum of London Archive.
6. The archaeological evaluation (see Fig 3)
6.1 Summary of the findings
The trenches were dug on a west-facing slope at levels of between c 48.65m and 52.40m OD (a 3.75m rise). In fact much of the area rose quite gently, with the highest point of trenches 2 to 6 reaching 50.7m OD and a steeper slope towards the eastern boundary in the area of Trench 1. In the absence of any significant remains machine excavation was generally to the top of the clean natural River Terrace Deposit [4], removing overlying made ground and fills and also (in at least four trenches) underlying sterile deposits which represent either disturbed/ weathered natural or hillwash ([3], [6], etc.).
The natural sand and gravel was exposed in all six trenches, rising to the east and at a level of between c 47.9m to 51.5m OD. This was a comparable rise to that of the modern ground surface (c 3.6m), although the slope was more uniform overall with the highest point of trenches 2 to 6 reaching 50.5m OD.
The overlying sequence of deposits was fairly straightforward and similar across the site,
with the lower sterile horizons overlain (and presumably truncated) by dumped and made ground [2], [5], etc., and thence by a fairly shallow imported topsoil [1]. There was some variation in the thickness and consistency of the various deposits, but overall no significant change.
Several of the trenches also revealed cut features, most obviously parts of a presumably contiguous ditch [8] in trenches 2 and 3 that can be related to the boundary recorded on 19th and earlier 20th century maps. There was also one large pit [17] and several smaller features in the western part of the site (trenches 5 and 6). These were of quite recent date, possibly all 20th century.
6.2 List of deposits and features by context
Context Trench Description Interpretation
1 All Fairly dark brown brownish grey silty sand with frequent pebbles & roots plus Imported topsoil with turf over
occasional CBM (brick & tile) frags.
2 1 Compact mid grey-brown silty sand with frequent gravel, occasional CBM/mortar Fairly recent made ground, thicker to northwest
frags. & a few pieces of slate
3 � Sterile mid to light brown sand/silt with gravel Mixed deposit: reworked upper level of natural &/or hillwash
4 All Clean medium-fine gravel + slightly silty sand with a few root traces. Generally Natural River Terrace Deposit
firm, occasionally v. compact (TR3), elsewhere softer & more sandy (TR6), &
some clay or silt patches (TRs 1 & 2)
5 2 Mid grey-brown silty sand with frequent flint gravel & occasional CBM flecks Uppermost fill/ levelling over ditch [8]
Context Trench Description Interpretation
6 � Two areas, east & west of cut [8]: to E. mid to light brown clayey silt becoming very Possibly mix of reworked top of natural & colluvial/hillwash
gravely. To W. firm orange-brown sandy silt with scattered pebbles deposit
7 3 Dark brown-grey sandy silt with scattered pebbles + occasional CBM frags. & clinker Uppermost fill/ levelling over ditch [8]
8 2 & 3 A substantial cut feature with steeply sloping sides onto broad base, c 3.4m to Assumed to be two sections of a contiguous ditch cut, aligned
4.5m wide & up to 1.2m deep. Truncated at or just above level of natural approx. southwest-northeast
9 3 Firm mid brown sandy silt with gravel, becoming darker to base, with occasional Principal fill of ditch [8]
tile & red brick frags.
10 � Firm mottled mid brown sandy silt +gravel Reworked/ weathered top of natural
11 2 Mid brown sandy silt with gravel, slightly darker to base, with very occasional tile & Principal fill of ditch [8]
red brick frags.
12 4 Thin deposits of light & darker brown sand over thicker layer of mid grey-brown sandy Series of levelling/ made ground deposits
silt with frequent gravel
13 � Firm orange-brown clay with occasional gravel & a few brick frags. Dumped deposit, probably redeposited natural clay
14 4, 5 & 6 Mid to darker grey-brown silty sand with frequent gravel, occasional brick frags. & Fairly recent made ground
v. rarely larger pieces of rubble
15 5 Firm & sterile buff sandy clay/silt with occasional flint pebbles Probably natural colluvium: quite distinct from underlying gravel
16 � Stiff, mottled orange-light brown clay with some gravel, frequent red brick rubble near Fill within [17], probably redeposited natural clay
base & occasional 19th/20th century pottery
17
�
Steep-sided cut into natural deposits at southeast end of trench, depth up to c 1.2m
Northeastern side of large pit, purpose unknown
18
6
Firm dark grey-brown silty sand with frequent gravel & occasional brick frags.
Dumped/ made ground deposit
19
�
Mid brown silty sand with frequent gravel & occasional brick frags.
Disturbed or made ground deposit overlying [20]
20
�
Mottled orange-brown sand/silt with scattered flint pebbles & occasional CBM
Fill within [21]
21
�
Cut feature running parallel with and into the southwest section of trench. Steep-
Appears to be the northeastern side of a fairly large pit,
sided onto a fairly level base, depth up to c 0.6m purpose unknown
6.3 Matrix to show the stratigraphic relationship of contexts
Topsoil 1
2 5 7 14
Made ground
& levelling
12 18
13 19
Fills 11 9 16 20
Cut features 8 17 21
Reworked
natural & 3 6 10 15
colluvium
Natural River 4
Terrace
6.4 Trench descriptions
6.4.1 Trench 1 (Figs 4, 6 & 7)
The lowest deposit exposed [4] was a clean sandy medium-fine gravel, with interleaved areas of sandy silt containing a few flint pebbles towards each end of the trench: one of these areas is seen in the foreground of Figure 4. Collectively these represents the top of the natural River Terrace, identified by the Geological Survey as Woodford Gravel (3.1 above).
The natural surface was exposed in plan over the whole base of the trench, and rose to the southeast by about 1.2m (to a maximum of c 51.5m OD), but was not excavated to any depth.
Throughout the trench the natural was overlain by a sterile mixed sand/silt with gravel [3], some 300m to 400m thick. This may represent the reworked upper level of natural, or perhaps more likely hillwash deposits that have been transported down the slope.
It is possible that layer [3] has been truncated by recent landscaping of the site. Certainly there was no overlying soil horizon, but rather a made ground deposit of silty sand and frequent gravel [2] with occasional fragments of building material (brick, tile, mortar and slate). This layer increased in thickness downhill (ie, to the northwest) from about 100mm to 350mm, and so represents a slight levelling of the underlying slope. The deposit may well date from developments in the 1980s, following acquisition of the site by The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association.
The surface of [2] was sealed by an undifferentiated topsoil deposit [1], presumably laid down at the same time and supporting the present grassed surface.
6.4.2 Trench 2 (Figs 5, 8-10)
The lower deposits within Trench 2 presented a similar sequence to that described above. The sandy gravel natural [4] contained patches of fairly homogeneous clay, and was overlain by a sterile deposit [6] that ranged (east to west) from areas of clayey silt and gravel to a darker orange sandy silt with scattered pebbles. These were not directly linked but are assumed to be broadly contemporary, perhaps of colluvial origin (as [3] in Trench 1). The deposit thickness ranged from about 300mm to 600mm.
One substantial cut feature [8] was exposed crossing the line of Trench 2. This appears to be part of a ditch cut, also represented in Trench 3 (see below) and in this area some 4.5m wide by 1.0m deep. The eastern side of the ditch was poorly defined in plan but to the west was quite clear against the adjacent natural layer [6] and underlying clay lensing [4].
Cut [8] contained a more or less uniform fill [11], with a shallower overlying deposit [5]. The first of these layers produced occasional fragments of roof tile and red brick, of post- medieval date but not closely dateable. However, the cut itself can clearly be related to the approximate north-south boundary that is recorded on several historic maps between c 1815 and 1938, so the fill is also likely to fall within this period (3.2 above; Fig 2).
The ditch [8] and associated deposits were evidently truncated by modern landscaping. This is particularly clear on the western side of the ditch, where the cut was only present at the level of the probable natural deposit [6], and both were directly overlain by a thin (c 50mm to 100mm) layer of imported topsoil [1].
6.4.3 Trench 3 (Figs 10/11, 13/14)
Trench 3 was generally shallow, with a very compact natural silty sandy gravel exposed some 300mm to 400mm below the present ground surface. This is clearly part of the River Terrace deposit [4], and this area was overlain by a thin spread of sandy silt and gravel [10] that is assumed to derive from weathering and/or reworking of the underlying material.
The north western part of the trench was crossed by a large cut feature [8], assumed to be a direct continuation of that in Trench 2 and also related to the boundary that is shown on various 19th and earlier 20th century maps. In Trench 3 the feature was more clearly defined, and slightly narrower but also a bit deeper (c 3.2m by up to 1.2m). The two sections of the ditch do not exactly line up but this probably reflects a slight change in alignment at this point that can be seen on the historic maps (see Figs 2 & 3).
The deposits filling the ditch ([9] & [7]) were similar to those observed in Trench 2, and produced a few comparable finds of post-medieval brick and tile. Also as before the ditch and adjacent deposits were truncated, with the ditch cut only present at the level of the disturbed natural layer [10]. The upper levels of the both ditch and soil horizons have been replaced by a shallow layer of imported topsoil [1], probably during landscaping in the 1980s.
6.4.4 Trench 4 (Figs 12, 15 & 16)
The surface of the natural sandy gravel [4] within Trench 4 dropped away to the northwest, from about 49.4m to 48.4m OD, and may well have been truncated by recent activity.
The clean natural surface was overlain by a series of recent made ground deposits [13], [12] and [14], the first of which may be a redeposited natural clay from works elsewhere on the site. These were in turn sealed by the fairly shallow imported topsoil and present turf surface [1].
6.4.5 Trench 5 (Figs 17, 19 & 20)
The top of the natural gravel in Trench 5 was fairly level (at about 48.3m OD where not obviously truncated), and was largely overlain by a clean clay/silt with occasional pebbles [15]. This latter was about 100mm to 200mm thick and may well represent a natural colluvial/ hillwash deposit originally transported from higher ground to the east.
Natural deposits at the southeastern end of Trench 5 had been extensively disturbed by a cut feature [17], apparently one side of a large pit that extended some 3m along the line of the trench and was bottomed c 1.55m below present ground level. The fill [16] was largely a solid clay (probably redeposited natural) containing some brick rubble and a few sherds of late 19th to 20th century stoneware.
The pit fill [16] and adjacent ?natural layer [15] appear to have been truncated, and were directly overlain by a mixed silty sand made ground [14]. This was in turn sealed by an imported topsoil [1] and the present turf surface.
6.4.6 Trench 6 (Figs 18, 21 & 22)
The natural deposit within Trench 6 was markedly more sandy than elsewhere, although assumed to be part of the general River Terrace Deposit [4]. In several areas the surface had undergone recent disturbance, and in particular was cut on the southern side of the trench by one fairly large pit [21]. The latter is not closely dated, although the fill [20] produced a few fragments of post-medieval roof tile.
Fill [20] and the adjacent natural surface were both overlain by a mixed silty sand [19], which may be either a reworked soil horizon or � perhaps more likely � made ground imported after truncation of the previous deposits. It is fairly clear that the overlying contexts [18] and [14] do represent levelling/made ground, sealed by a modern topsoil [1]. These deposits probably relate to development of the site and landscaping of the adjacent grounds in the 1970s or 1980s.
7. Assessment of the results of the evaluation
The archaeological evaluation has provided an opportunity to address the site-specific objectives that were defined within the preliminary Written Scheme (4.3 above). The responses to these are outlined below.
There was no evidence for any Roman remains or artefacts, and certainly no indication of the line of the road. It is possible that the latter may have not have taken the direct route that has been postulated, and which is suggested by the historic boundary across the site. There is no indication of this line immediately to the north of Manor Road, and in fact the ground here drops quite steeply. A direct continuation of the 19th century boundary would place the projected road line near the end of Grovewood Place, and some 4m to 5m below the level on Manor Road.
The evaluation did not produce any other significant evidence, either for prehistoric, medieval or earlier post-medieval activity or land use. The earliest features and deposits dated to the 19th century, and most of the evidence clearly relates to the development and landscaping of the site in the second half of the 20th century.
8. Conclusion and recommendations
8.1 The archaeological evaluation revealed a straightforward sequence of deposits across the site, with considerable evidence for modern truncation and landscaping. There were no historic soil horizons, and the earliest feature appears to be an infilled ditch in trenches 2 and 3 that can be related to the documented 19th and earlier 20th century boundary.
The only artefactual evidence was represented by a few post-medieval finds, principally of ceramic building material plus a few sherds of quite recent pottery. These are only of value in confirming the date of the associated deposits and have not been retained.
There were no earlier finds or features, although there were several layers which appear to represent either colluvial action or other disturbance/ reworking of the natural Terrace River Deposit.
Although the trenches revealed previous disturbance and truncation, they were in fact located in a part of the site that had not apparently been built over and which was felt to offer good potential for any archaeological remains. By contrast much of the site is already developed, or has been reduced for access, car parking, etc. For example, the tarmac surface just to the north of trenches 5 and 6 is at a level of about 47.7m OD, or some 300mm to 600mm below the recorded level of the natural River Terrace within the two trenches.
8.2 In view of the evaluation findings, and with regard to the existing development of the site, it is suggested that no further archaeological measures should be undertaken in relation to the proposed development.
Fig 1 The proposed development area (outlined in red) within the overall site boundary, in relation to the 1:1250 Ordnance Survey map
Base map reproduced from Ordnance Survey data with permission of the HMSO. �Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Compass Archaeology Ltd., London SE1 1SG, licence no.AL 100031317
Site survey by Gleeds Management Services, Dwg No. NALS0120/01
Fig 2 Extract from the 25-inch Ordnance Survey map of c 1872, with the site outline superimposed
Fig 3 Location of the evaluation trenches (1-6) and drawn sections (marked green) in relation to a Topographical Survey (Gleeds Management Services, Dwg No. NALS0120/01). The shaded line through TRs 2 & 3 represents a former boundary, derived from OS plans of 1873-1938
Fig 4 View of Trench 1 looking northwest and showing the surface of the natural River Terrace Deposit (0.5m scale)
Fig 5 View of Trench 2 looking east, with 0.5m scale at the base of the ditch cut [8]
Fig 6 The southwest section of Trench 1 (for location see Fig 3)
Fig 7 View of the deposits illustrated in Figure 6 (0.5m scale)
Fig 8 The southwest section of Trench 2 (for location see Fig 10)
Fig 9 Oblique view of Trench 2 showing the deposits in the southwest section (Fig 8)
Fig 10 Plan of trenches 2 and 3 showing the excavated sections of the presumed single ditch feature [8]
Fig 11 View of Trench 3 looking northwest towards the ditch cut [8] (0.5m scale)
Fig 12 View of Trench 4, showing downward slope of the natural surface [4] to the northwest
Fig 13 Trench 3: the southwest section through ditch [8] and fills (for location see Fig 10)
Fig 14 View of the ditch cut and deposits shown in Figure 13 (0.5m scale)
Fig 15 The southwest section of Trench 4 (for location see Fig 3)
Fig 16 View of the deposits shown in Figure 15 (0.5m scale)
Fig 17 View of Trench 5 looking northwest, with the deep cut feature [17] in foreground
Fig 18 View of Trench 6 looking northwest, showing the sandy surface of the natural deposit
Fig 19 The southwest section of Trench 5 (for location see Fig 3)
Fig 20 View of the deposits shown in Figure 19, with natural gravel overlain by possible colluvium (0.5m scale)
Fig 21 The southwest section of Trench 6 (for location see Fig 3)
Fig 22 View of the deposits shown in Figure 21, prior to hand excavation of cut feature [21]
Appendix I. London Archaeologist summary
Site address: The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association London Centre, 7 Manor Road, Woodford Bridge, Essex IG8 8ER, London Borough of Redbridge
Project type: Evaluation
Dates of fieldwork: 8th to 15th June 2005
GDB05 Supervisor/Project Manager: Geoff Potter NGR:Site code:
TQ 42860 91690
Funding body: The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association
Summary
The site lies on the projected line of a Roman road, and some historic maps also show a boundary crossing the site more or less on this alignment.
Six trenches were opened but no significant remains were found, and there was much evidence for recent truncation, made ground deposits and landscaping. Below this were several cut features of 19th to 20th century date, notably two sections of a ditch that can be related to the historic boundary.
Natural River Terrace sands and gravels were exposed in each trench, in places overlain by possible colluvial deposits.