Forum Topic

Disregarding History?

It should be a concern for Brentford's history to conserve the Barlow rails alongside Dock Road, many of which have disappeared during the course of demolition and site works opposite Morrisons.Brunel had used his Baulk rails for the Great Western Railway. I have found no details for the rail used in the Great Western and Brentford spur, but presumably these would have to have matched those used in the main line? In 1849 W H Barlow had invented the Barlow Rail profile to be laid direct on ballast without use of sleepers, and Brunel adopted these for the South Wales Railway.These latter went out of general use fairly swiftly, owing to maintenance costs, and large amounts of them were being sold off by the mid to late 1850's, when Brunel's Brentford trans-shipment depot was built (opened in 1859). Use of the rail for fencing is characteristic along Brunel's various railway lines, so retention of even a portion of these along Dock Road would preserve at least a small bit of Brentford's fast vanishing history.Those not so kept should be offered to museums, and hopefully not consigned to scrap metal dealers. I have raised this concern at the last BCC meeting, and councillors have promised to look into this, but I have heard nothing back.Another, related worry, is the amount of site work, drilling and concreting that seems to progress to the detriment of a proper archeological survey of the newly cleared area. This has never been excavated previously, to my knowledge, so it is vitally important that the planning conditions mandating such a survey should be enforced - and this done quickly, before integrity of the site is further compromised, and the plea go up that it would prove all too expensive now that so much work has already been done.

Nigel Moore ● 2421d34 Comments

I was so carried away by the presentation and stuff that I didnt look round the exhibitions.  And of course we then looked at the Classic Cars!  Will have to return (many times hopefully)

Emma Renton ● 2267d

Nigel Moore ● 2268d

Small collection, that about sums up Ballymores and the Councils attitude to heritage

Neil Chippendale ● 2268d

Went to the Ballymore meet & greet this morning. A slice of Barlow rail figured in a small collection of local artifacts at the entrance.

Nigel Moore ● 2268d

For the railway aficionados, I just bought a magazine article from ebay on the Brentford spur which may be of interest –Sadly the article bears no date, but it is obviously post May 1977.

Nigel Moore ● 2399d

Canham notes, as I have said earlier, that Saxon hut remains were found when excavating what is now Plot F, just to the west of Plot G. This photo (in Chiswick Library) is a rare one of the discovery, with the organic material surprisingly preserved.There is every possibility that further such evidence of the post-Roman settlement in Brentford could be found nearby, which would be exciting.

Nigel Moore ● 2404d

Good to have had some reassurances from Planning via Guy - “Historic England have also been closely involved in work to date and have completed site visits investigating excavation work. They have reviewed trench results and are currently analysing the results of geoarchaeogical boreholes. There is also a watching brief on specific areas of the excavations. In summary, the site works are being closely monitored by Historic England and the Council’s conservation officer who are happy that the works are being carried out in accordance with the archaeological requirements.” For interest, from the 1940's – the Middlesex County Council's High Street widening proposals that were responsible for Brentford's pre-war and onwards degradation.Note that site plot 'G' was then occupied by the Gas Accumulator Co Ltd. More detail of then existing buildings can be seen in this plan of the pre-widening High Street amongst the scheme's paperwork -Off topic, but it is interesting to see that even at this late period, the High Street bifurcates at the western end as it approaches the Brent, with the southern line that which remains, heading over the bridge, while the northern branch here still survives, swerving as it were to reach where the Roman road entered the artificial ford crossing they had created.The two means of crossing the Brent here existed for centuries; at one point only pedestrians were allowed to use the bridge, and all wheeled vehicles had to use the ford. Most people could use the bridge for free, but Jews had to pay a toll.

Nigel Moore ● 2406d

"Ballymore are in the process of addressing the archaeological requirements (as required under planning) for the wider Phase 1 (Plots B, C and K). Specifically this is the initial desk top studies which will confirm the extent of intrusive archaeological works."I have just checked up on the site plans, and plots B, C and K, which are referred to in Ballymore's response, are all to the west at the opposite end of the site under discussion, which is marked as Plot G.So are we to understand that NO archeological requirements – not even initial desk top studies - are being addressed for this site? Rather a slippery and unresponsive reply if so. Please tell us that this is not the case.

Nigel Moore ● 2406d

Deja Vu?The local planning authority (whatever their make up over the years) have seemingly been always hot on demolition in the cause of 'improvement', and less less hot on construction. Totally different set-up then of course, but the decline of Brentford's High Street dates from pre-war times, and little appears to have changed.Janet McNamara did a dissertation on the subject I believe.To my knowledge, no archeological surveys were done in the course of the post-war demolition of the south side of the High Street. New roads (i.e. Brent Way) were simply built over bulldozed buildings. This photo shows the view from alongside the riverside buildings in the previous post, looking north to the High Street -It would be so nice to believe that we have a more enlightened authority now in place. Any news on whether anybody has actually been down to check the state of play on-site today?

Nigel Moore ● 2407d

This is the site at 1 Brent Way where the 'excess' rubble from the site under discussion was moved. This also is an area of great interest; it was one of the earlier in-fills of the river Brent prior to the Grand Junction Canal Company works, to create a wharf at the  junction of the two major arms of the Brent (the southern branches were all later filled in), at the bottom of Boar's Head Yard.Under that rubble is the site of the house that James Clitherow granted on a 20 year lease from Christmas 1787, for use as the local Workhouse. It was from that time that the adjacent main branch of the river (isolated 6 years later by an artificial causeway built by the GJCC to carry the existing road through to a new swing bridge at the end of the peninsula) became known as 'Workhouse Dock'.Up until the recent demolition, the corner south of the old Workhouse was still occupied by Victorian cottages and an old stable, an iconic element of early engravings and photographs of the area, post the mid 19thC.

Nigel Moore ● 2407d

I seriously doubt anybody, Historic England included, has actually visited the site. Everybody is relying on placatory assurances that all is being complied with, in the hope that progress will very rapidly become too late to stop.Back at my ‘proper’ computer so able to reduce file sizes, and thus make them legible, this was the work going on a few days ago –This was the response to the previous postings, with the gate now screened off from public view –And this is what had been accomplished behind that screen, with the pit having been filled with concrete -With the same work having moved on to the other corners of the site since then.

Nigel Moore ● 2408d

Nigel - if we are correct in our interpretation of the work that is being carried out then this is all very shocking and deeply worrying.In the light of our previous posts on this issue I had assumed (perhaps naively) that planning and enforcement officers would have already visited the site to ensure that the works are compliant with the conditions attached to the planning permission.

Jim Storrar ● 2411d

Sadly, it has become obvious that the below ground works we have been observing are indeed foundation works – the area by the gate in my previous photo showing the large and deep pit with exposed concrete pillars, has now been filled with concrete and the pillars exposed with rebar protruding.Another large pit has been commenced in the NW corner, alongside the first:A larger concrete slab area has also gone down closer to the river, which they were working from at close of play this evening:Worse still, if possible, is that the contractors are now equally obviously alerted to the fact that the works they are undertaking are contrary to the planning conditions – and that residents are flagging this up for Council attention - and have now screened off the gate to prevent the public from seeing what continues to go on:This cynical flouting of planning conditions needs addressing urgently – councillors, please? Evidently the assurances thus far received are of little worth, and the opportunity to uncover more of Brentford's past is being rapidly lost to us with this callous fait accompli.(apologies for the large photos, I don't have the means on my laptop to reduce the file size)

Nigel Moore ● 2411d

In addition to the safeguarding of the Barlow rails there is some more encouraging information about Dock Road. A re-reading of some of the background documents reveals that there is an undertaking to retain the cobbles in Dock Road. This comes from a report by WSP, Ballymore's engineering consultants.It may be necessary to take up the cobbles to carry out strengthening and levelling but the cobbles will subsequently be reinstated.

Jim Storrar ● 2411d

I am also somewhat confused. The work being carried out seems to be below the surface (i.e. "below grade") of the cleared site. The work that was being carried out on 2nd January also appeared to involve the drilling of substantial holes below grade.  The condition attached to the planning permission is very clear that no below grade works should commence in advance of a programme of archaeological assessment and field evaluation, the submssion of an Archaeological Mitigation Strategy, and provision for archaeological investigation in advance of and during damaging groundworks. The condition also requires contingency arrangements for "major new discoveries". I hope that I misunderstand the defintion of "below grade" and that the developers have complied fully with the plannning conditions. However reassurance would be very welcome at the earliest possible date.Is that a Roman pediment that I can see in the pile of rubble shown in one of your photos, Nigel? Maybe not.

Jim Storrar ● 2413d

Just back from Morrisons, and I notice two areas of the cleared site are being dug deep with backhoes – the NE corner near the iron gates, and the SW corner near the river.The more visible area of activity close to the High Street just inside the gates, shows a large pit nearly 5' deep, exposing columns of concrete, which I presume to be from the previous drilling and concreting exercise.It can scarcely be the beginning of an archeological survey – the 'desktop exercise' re: which is yet to be done from the information vouchsafed – and yet is fairly deep below ground, which we are assured they cannot do until the archeology has been done, so I am 'confused'.

Nigel Moore ● 2413d

Thanks Guy - and also well done to Jim and Nicholas for their initiatives; increasing general awareness, especially amongst specialist interest groups, always helps with these things.Good to have such feedback from Ballymore; hopefully indicating more public engagement as things progress.

Nigel Moore ● 2413d

Many thanks Guy. That's good news.

Jim Storrar ● 2414d

Feedback from Ballymore (slightly edited to preserve security)"The Barlow Rails that have been taken up so far on the project, have been removed from Plot G and are currently stored in a Warehouse on the site. Ballymore moved them there as there was a significant risk that they would be taken if left out in the open as we have had some unwanted guests snooping around the site during both day and night. The remaining rails which are still in position to the south of Dock Road (picture attached) are being left where they are for now, as being cast in to the ground seems like the safest place for them now. Once all rails have been removed, we will do a stock take and provide some lengths and details of the profile so that they may be designed in to the landscape, which is what I have been told their intended use is for.Ballymore are in the process of addressing the archaeological requirements (as required under planning) for the wider Phase 1 (Plots B, C and K). Specifically this is the initial desk top studies which will confirm the extent of intrusive archaeological works."

Guy Lambert ● 2414d

I enquired recently with the workers on site and was told that some of the rails had been taken down and placed in a secure location on site. Apparently they will be incorporated in to the future landscape work..

Trevor ● 2414d

At Didcot they have reconstructed a section of broadgauge track. This is real history best of luck with your endeavours. Better than any text books

Nicholas Beard ● 2417d

Nicholas - that is a very good idea. Thank you.

Jim Storrar ● 2417d

I think you should contact the GWR SOCIETY at Didcot. Also the Gwr preservation group at Southall. Just an idea.

Nicholas Beard ● 2417d

Nigel - what an excellent idea. Given that the pace of development in the area along Dock Road will accelerate in the coming weeks and months it is important that the rails are secured at an early date by the community. This would probably have to involve their removal and safe storage.I'm not sure how this could be achieved but someone may have to make a direct approach to the developers who, if we are very lucky indeed, may arrange for their removal and transport to a suitable holding site.Chris "Teflon" Grayling is perhaps considering the use of Barlow rails on the HS2 line. It wouldn't be a complete surprise if he was so-minded.

Jim Storrar ● 2418d

An example of a place that saw fit to preserve the local heritage relating to such early rails –This is at Ross-on-Wye. Something similar could/should be done here, with a plaque explaining the relevant history.

Nigel Moore ● 2418d

Just to show what has been done in the past – this is an overlay of various excavation plot plans taken from 'Canham' (as I assembled them in my sketchy little monograph on the history of Workhouse Dock many years ago) -It can be seen that only a couple of Sth High St areas have been excavated. Site 9 (out of above picture) was of particular interest in uncovering the remains of a Saxon hut. Most recently, continuation of the Roman road was discovered prior to building the new flats to the West of Site 4.The whole area above Workhouse Dock (and indeed perhaps even the bed of the river alongside) could reveal exciting discoveries, as this was the most central connection between river and the market place. The alleyway, called Bradshaw's Yard after bakers based on the High Street, had a malthouse on its western side close to the riverbank as late as 1910.Pre-Roman artifacts dating from Brentford's mesolithic settlements - and from all subsequent periods - have been unearthed in central Brentford, and we owe much to early collectors such as Layton and to enthusiasts such as Montague Sharpe, even before the more scientific excavations covered by Canham. As the most important crossroads for the whole of SE Britain prior to the Roman interference, there will be much yet to be found, if present authorities are suitably exercised over the matter.

Nigel Moore ● 2420d

Thanks Guy, will look forward to a positive and encouraging response!

Nigel Moore ● 2420d

Nigel, I have made some enquiries but relevant people not back until 7th Jan

Guy Lambert ● 2420d

If that is an excuse used, it is an illegitimate one. As Canham's '2000 years of Brentford' graphically illustrates, many important finds were uncovered during  excavations of previously built up sites.Besides, as said, it is a firm planning obligation to conduct archeological surveys on all of the South High Street site. Another worry is the area alongside Brent Way, which has been entirely covered with huge piles of rubble from the parking lot site. This contained the original 18thC Workhouse which gave its name to the adjacent Dock. From the plans, it is evidently planned to raise the whole area to the height of the 100year flood level, and perhaps the rubble is intended to be utilised that way – but it will be a major effort to now remove all that for the mandatory excavations!I believe that the 'cobbled' road is protected (for whatever that is worth).

Nigel Moore ● 2420d

I agree 100% regarding the rails and also the fan pattern cobbles on Dock Road. The speed between demolition and pile driving/site investigation means no investigation could have taken place. Is it agreed that previous building activity would have removed evidence of historic remains within the demolition site? That might be the excuse......

Iain Muir ● 2420d

Last attempt -

Nigel Moore ● 2420d

Nigel Moore ● 2420d

Jim, I think you should! More the merrier in fact. We were assured, when I raised this at the previous BCC meeting, that Cllrs Guy Lambert and Mel Collins would be seeking assurances from Hounslow/Ballymore, given that planning conditions were indeed in place to this effect. Although I have had no feedback, I see from his latest 'update' that Cllr Lambert has since met with Ballymore et al, so hopefully he can give us some assurance on here?I've forgotten how to add pictures, and the search facility is not working for me just now, but the southern portion of the rail fencing is still there, as you can see if this hyperlink works -[img]https://i.imgur.com/FIQQUb5.jpg[/img]

Nigel Moore ● 2420d

Nigel, Thank you. You raise some very important issues. I had the same thoughts as you while looking at the clearance of the site to the south of Morrisons.I believe that Barlow rails are, or were, incorporated into the base of the fence at northern end of Dock Road. The rails should certainly be retained, perhaps in a museum, as part of our industrial heritage.I would hope that the most stringent archaeological conditions have been attached, and are being enforced, to the development of the entire site south of Brentford High Street. Evidence of activity within the Prehistoric, Roman, Saxon, medieval and post -medieval periods have previously been found within the larger site to the south of Brentford High Street.English Heritage Archaeology raised concerns with the scheme given the significant evidence of archaeological remains from a number of eras. Hounslow were to be in discussion with them to establish a range of conditions and protection measures that would ensure work is carried out sensitively and any remains identified and found are dealt with appropriately.The planning history of the site south of Brentford High Street is difficult to follow. However the report to Hounslow Planning Committee on 27th November 2014 stated that:“…the development also offers the opportunity to have a beneficial effect by providing a greater understanding of the archaeology and history of Brentford. For this to be achieved a suitable scheme of mitigation would be secured by safeguarding condition.The impact of the proposed scheme upon possible buried heritage assets could be mitigated by two stages of investigation. An initial programme of geo-archaeological boreholes dug in advance of construction would be required by safeguarding condition and in consultation with English Heritage.If areas of archaeological potential are then identified, this could lead to a second stage comprising targeted archaeological evaluation trenches in order to clarify the nature, date, extent, and significance of any buried heritage assets that might be present. A safeguarding condition will ensure that these mitigation methods are implemented and therefore it is considered that the application is policy compliant.”It would be nice to trust that an adequate programme for archaeological investigations is in place. However I haven’t been able to find any recent references to such measures and I think that this is one of those cases where clear answers are needed to direct questions to Hounslow and to the developers  ….  before it’s too late.I would be happy to draft an email to local councillors and to the Director of Planning. What do you think? Happy New Year!

Jim Storrar ● 2421d