Evaluation Report
on
685-976 Lea Bridge Road
Leyton, London, E10. LAB 05: (TQ 3810 8848)
for
Telford Homes Plc.
Fig. 1 Tithe Award Map (1839)
Evaluation Report
on
685-97 Lea Bridge Road
Leyton, London, E10. LAB 05: (TQ 3810 8848)
by
J G PERRY: February 2005
� Sutton Archaeological Services 2005
Summary
Sutton Archaeological Services (SAS) carried out an archaeological evaluation at 685-97 Lea Bridge
Road, Lyton, London, E10 on 23rd February 2005.
The Planning Inspectorate inserted an archaeological condition under PPG 161 in the grant of planning
consent. Research by Sutton Archaeological Services for the project design indicated that there was
Post-Medieval archaeology in the surrounding area.
Two trenches were excavated across the site revealing rubble deposits over the natural clay and
gravel.
No Post-Medieval archaeology was found.
In our opinion, we suggest that no further archaeological monitoring or intervention is needed and
that the archaeological condition in the planning consent has been fulfilled. The decision to discharge
the archaeological condition, however, rests with the Archaeological Officer at English Heritage and
the local planning authority.
1
Department of the Environment: Planning Policy Guidance: Archaeology and Planning, HMSO, 1990.
Contents
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Planning background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Archaeological & historical background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Research Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Archaeological Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Evaluation results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Trench 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Trench 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Assessment and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Archaeological potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Conclusions and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Publications and dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Archive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix I: Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
ILLUSTRATIONS
Fig. 1 Tithe award map (1839) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cover
Fig. 2 Site Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Fig. 3 Site Location Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Fig. 4 Trench Location Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Fig. 5 Context matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Introduction
Origin and scope of report: This report
relates to the site of the proposed
development at 685-697 Lea Bridge Road.
Telford Homes plc (the developer) has
commissioned Sutton Archaeological
Services (SAS) to carry out an evaluation
and any subsequent archaeological work
that may be necessary.
Location: The site lies in the London Fig. 2 Site Location � Crown Copyright MC/98/38
Borough of Waltham Forest, close to its
southern boundary with Hackney and Newham. The sites lie on either side of Lea Bridge Road,
which runs from Upper Clapton, across the River Lee and westwards to Whipps Cross. To the north
lies Grove Road, while to the east are Knotts Green, Livingstone College and Whipps Cross Hospital.
To the south lies a triangular area formed by Leyton High Road, Leyton Green Road and Lea Bridge
Road.
Topography: The sites lie in a mainly residential area on the eastern side of the Lee valley, which runs
southwards to the Thames. The ground slopes downwards from the north-east to the south-west.
The sites lie at a height of between 23m and 25m aOD. To the north the ground rises to small hill.
Geology: Under the site lies clay over sand and gravel.
Planning background
The site once contained a terrace of 19th century houses which was bombed during the Second World
Was. The development area is now waste ground.
Telford Homes plc has received for planning permission to develop the site for housing, gardens,
access roads and landscaped areas (fig. 4).
Fig. 3 Site Location Plan � Crown Copyright MC/98/38
Outline planning permission was refused by the London Borough of Waltham Forest, but the
development was approved on appeal. An archaeological condition under PPG 16 was included in
the Planning Inspectorate�s decision APP/U5930/A/02/1102997 dated 11th June 2003:
24/6. No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall only take place in accordance with the detailed scheme so approved. The archaeological works shall be carried out by a suitably qualified investigating body or person(s) acceptable to the local planning authority.
Archaeological and historical background
Taking the evidence as a whole, before the evaluation, the potential for Prehistoric, Roman, Saxon
and Medieval and Post-Medieval settlement in the area of the site was considered low, though we
expected stray finds might turn up.
There is plenty of evidence for human occupation and activity in the area around the site, though this
is mostly confined to the Roman, Medieval and later periods.
Prehistoric: There have been only a few Prehistoric finds recorded in the area around the site,
however, this could be due to a lack of archaeological survey in the research area. The lack of
Prehistoric material from the nearby evaluations shows there was no Prehistoric archaeology on those
sites. Pre-evaluation evidence suggested there was a low potential for Prehistoric archaeology on this
site.
Roman: The Roman road to the south-west of the site is thought to be aligned towards the north-
east, possibly along what is now Leyton Green Road. The Roman building found in Leyton Green
Road may be associated with the Roman road. Pre-evaluation evidence suggested there was a low
potential for Roman archaeology on this site.
Saxon: During this period, little Domesday suggests that the surrounding area seems to have been
mainly forest, with little or no Saxon occupation. Pre-evaluation evidence suggested there was a low
potential for Saxon archaeological is low.
Medieval to Modern: There is some evidence, both archaeological and historical, to indicate the
presence of Medieval buildings at Knotts Green. Many of these could have survived into the Post-
Medieval period and may have been replaced in the Tudor great rebuilding. Certainly the records
refer to many large, 16th century buildings. One of the buildings has a moat, but this seems to be a
modern feature.
The cartographic evidence from the 19th century shows ribbon development on two sides of the
Knotts Green triangle, to the south along Leyton Green Road and to the west along Leyton High
Road. These buildings probably indicate the position of the earlier Post-Medieval buildings. The area
of the site, however, remained undeveloped until the late 19th century. Pre-evaluation evidence
suggested there was a low potential for archaeology for this period.
Research objectives
Sutton Archaeological Services carried out the evaluation following our research design dated
February 2005. After a brief assessment of the evidence, our objectives were to look for signs of
Post-Medieval occupation on the site, and if found to determine their extent, date, condition and
significance.
The Institute of Field Archaeologists has defined the purpose of a field evaluation as follows.
�The purpose of field evaluation is to gain information a bout the archaeological resource within a given area or site (including its presence or absence, character, extent, date, integrity, state of preservation and quality), in order to make an assessment of its merit in the appropriate context, leading to one or more of the following:
the formulation of a strategy to ensure the recording, preservation or management of the resource
the formulation of a strategy to initiate a threat to the archaeological resource
the formulation of a proposal for further archaeological investigation within a programme of research.�
Standards and Guidance for Archaeological Field Evaluations, IFA, 2001
Archaeological Methodology
Standards: SAS carried out the archaeological evaluation in accordance with
our project design dated February 2005.
the Institute of Field Archaeologists� Code of Conduct, Code of Approved Practice
for the Regulation of Contractual Arrangement in Field Archaeology, Standards and
Guidance for Field Evaluations
the archaeological guidance papers issued by English Heritage.
the planning condition inserted by the Planning Inspector ate�s grant of planning
permission APP/U5930/A/02/1102997 dated 11th June 2003
Control: All excavation work was done under the control of the archaeologists on site.
Trenches: We dug 2 trenches as shown on Fig 4.
Trench Position Dimensions (metres)
1 eastern part of the site 10 x 2
2 western part of the site 10 x 2
We broke open each trench with a 360o excavating machine, using a wide-bladed (1.50m+) smooth-
edged ditching bucket.
Non-archaeological deposits: In each trench we removed by machine, in level spits of no more than
10-15 cm, the topsoil, subsoil and made ground deposits from the 19th century or later. Work
continued removing all overburden until we reached the first significant archaeological layer (or the
natural deposits), at which point all machine work ceased in that trench. (We excavated up to 20cm
into the natural to make sure we had reached true natural and not re-deposited material.) In this way
we excavated trenches 1 and 2 without finding any significant archaeological deposits.
Site records: We recorded all features as we proceeded, by written records, plans, sections and
photographs. A Munsell soil colour chart was used to determine soil colour and all readings were
taken with moist soil. In all, we recorded 5 contexts - numbered [001] to [005] - in a single context
recording system. The site was recorded in accordance with the Fieldwork Methodology in Appendix
III of our Project Design, and using the Museum of London�s recording system.
Appendix 1 to this report is a list of the contexts found, and Fig. 5 shows the site matrix.
Levels: All levels were taken from the developers site survey (9116/01).
Backfilling: After excavating and recording we backfilled the trenches and roughly levelled the
ground, leaving surplus spoil on site.
Evaluation results
Trench 1
Trench 1 was located in the eastern part of the site and oriented north to south.
Context 001 was a brick rubble fill deposit (south: 24.98m to north: 24.99) that extended across the
whole of the trench to a depth of 62cm.
Underlying 001 was the natural silty clay [002] (south: 24.36m to north: 24.34) which extended
across the whole of the trench. It was excavated to a depth of 40cm.
There were no archaeological features and the only find, other than modern CBM, was a fragment
of 20th century pot.
Trench 2
Trench 2 was in the western part of the site and oriented north to south.
Context [003] was the brick rubble fill (south: 24.46m to north: 24.55), similar to context 001. The
deposit was 64cm in depth and extended across the whole of the trench.
Underlying 003 was the natural silty clay [004] (south: 23.82m to north: 24.90 ) and extended across
the whole of the trench to a depth of 19cm.
Below the clay was a the natural gravel [005]
.
Fig. 4 Trench location plan
There were no archaeological features and the only find was modern CBM.
Assessment and interpretation
The evidence from the SAS preliminary research indicated that there was Post-Medieval archaeology
in the surrounding area.
The evaluation only revealed rubble deposits over the natural clay and gravel.
There was no evidence for archaeology in any of the trenches other than the 19th century rubble. The
only archaeological finds made, except modern CBM, was a sherd of 20th century pottery.
We found no evidence of any period occupation on the site.
Archaeological Potential
Following the evaluation our revised view is that this site has no potential for archaeological remains
of any period.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Our findings set out above lead us to conclude that the proposed development does not threaten to
destroy any archaeological remains of national, regional or local importance, deserving further
investigation or preservation.
In our opinion, we suggest that no further archaeological monitoring or intervention is needed and
that the archaeological condition in the planning consent has been fulfilled. The decision to discharge
the archaeological condition, however, rests with the Archaeological Officer at English Heritage and
the local planning authority.
Publications and dissemination
The evidence is not worthy of publication but a note on the evaluation will be placed in the London
Archaeologist�s round-up and a copy of the report lodged in the local library.
Archive
The resulting archive, including all of the finds, will be donated by the developer and deposited with
the Museum of London when the final report has been completed
Trench 1 Trench 2
Fill 001 003
Natural Silty clay 002 004
Natural sandy gravel 005
Fig. 5 Context Matrix
APPENDIX I: Context descriptions
Context No.
Trench
Description
Interpretation
001
1
A friable to very soft, very dark greyish brown silty sand, containing 20-30% CBM rubble
Brick rubble
002
1
A soft, yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) to dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) silty clay.
Natural
003
2
Friable to very soft, very dark greyish brown silty sand, containing 20-30% CBM rubble
Brick rubble
004
2
A soft, yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) to dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) silty clay.
Natural
005
2
A friable to very soft, sandy clay, containing 60- 70% small to medium rounded flint pebbles and
Natural
occasional large rounded flint pebbles.
� Sutton Archaeological Services 2005