700 bath road, cranford, london borough of hounslow
TRANSCRIPT
700 Bath Road, Cranford, London Borough of Hounslow
An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
for Janson Properties
by Steve Preston
Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd
Site Code BRH06/99
September 2006
Summary
Site name: 700 Bath Road, Cranford, London Borough of Hounslow Grid reference: TQ 1056 7670 Site activity: Desk-based assessment Project manager: Steve Ford Site supervisor: Steve Preston Site code: BRH06/99 Area of site: 0.5 ha Summary of results: The site lies in an area with considerable recorded archaeological activity, particularly for prehistoric periods. Apart from the present buildings, there has been almost no development on the site to disturb any archaeology that may have been present. It would therefore be advisable to provide information on the potential of the site from field observations in order to inform a strategy to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits if necessary. This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford 15.09.06
i
Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47–49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading RG1 5NR Tel. (0118) 926 0552; Fax (0118) 926 0553; email [email protected]; website : www.tvas.co.uk
700 Bath Road, Cranford, London Borough of Hounslow An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
by Steve Preston
Report 06/99
Introduction
This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of 0.5ha of land located at 700 Bath Road,
Cranford, Hounslow (TQ 1056 7670) (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Michael Tomkins, of
Altonwood Project Services Ltd, 2 Hobbs House, Harrovian Business Village, Bessborough Road, Harrow, HA1
3EX on behalf of Janson Properties and comprises the first stage of a process to determine the presence/absence,
extent, character, quality and date of any archaeological remains which may be affected by redevelopment of the
area.
Site description, location and geology
The site is a roughly rectangular plot of land covering 0.5 ha on the south side of Bath Road (the A4), north-east
of Heathrow, centred on NGR TQ 1056 7670. It is bounded by Community Close to the east, Bath Road to the
north, a footpath leading to Meadowbank gardens to the west and residential properties to the south (Fig. 2). The
site currently consists of a single office block with parking, and numerous mature trees around the fringes. The
ground surface is at the same level as surrounding land, so there is no indication that the site has been either built
up or levelled down. The site is located on the junction of Taplow gravels with brickearth (BGS 1981a and b)
and the River Crane flows southwards towards the Thames, some 400m to the west. It is at a height of
approximately 23 m above Ordnance Datum.
Planning background and development proposals
Planning permission is to be sought for the development of the site as an hotel. Most of the existing trees are to
be retained; some are to be felled for safety reasons. Most of the development will occupy the footprint of the
existing buildings but there will be additional build to the west (Fig. 8) and ground floor parking.
Archaeology and Planning (PPG 16 1990) provides guidance relating to archaeology within the planning
process. It points out that where a desk-based assessment has shown that there is a strong possibility of
significant archaeological deposits in a development area it is reasonable to provide more detailed information
1
from a field evaluation so that an appropriate strategy to mitigate the effects of development on archaeology can
be devised:
Paragraph 21 states:
‘Where early discussions with local planning authorities or the developer’s own research indicate
that important archaeological remains may exist, it is reasonable for the planning authority to
request the prospective developer to arrange for an archaeological field evaluation to be carried
out...’
Should the presence of archaeological deposits be confirmed further guidance is provided. Archaeology and
Planning stresses preservation in situ of archaeological deposits as a first consideration as in paragraphs 8 and
18.
Paragraph 8 states:
‘...Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their
settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their
physical preservation...’
Paragraph 18 states:
‘The desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration in
determining planning applications whether that monument is scheduled or unscheduled...’
However, for archaeological deposits that are not of such significance it is appropriate for them to be ‘preserved
by record’ (i.e., fully excavated and recorded by a competent archaeological contractor) prior to their destruction
or damage.
Paragraph 25 states:
‘Where planning authorities decide that the physical preservation in situ of archaeological remains
is not justified in the circumstances of the development and that development resulting in the
destruction of the archaeological remains should proceed, it would be entirely reasonable for the
planning authority to satisfy itself ... that the developer has made appropriate and satisfactory
provision for the excavation and recording of remains.’
2
The London Borough of Hounslow’s Unitary Development Plan (LBH 2003) outlines similar policies. Policy
ENV-B.3.1 Ancient Monuments:
‘In its role as the Local Planning Authority, the Council will enhance and preserve the scheduled ancient monuments and their settings in Hounslow and protect them from any developments which would adversely affect them.’
Policy ENV-B.3.2 Sites of Archaeological Importance
‘The Council will promote the conservation, protection and enhancement of the archaeological heritage of the Borough and its interpretation and presentation to the public. Where development may affect land of archaeological significance or potential, the Council will expect applicants to have properly assessed and planned for the archaeological implications of their proposals.
‘Within the Council’s Archaeological Priority Areas (Map ENV-B3) and for other sites of archaeological potential (as identified by archaeological advisors [sic] to the Council):
‘(i) A written assessment of the likely archaeological impact of development (archaeological statement) will be required as part of the documentation needed to complete a planning application.
‘(ii) The Council may require that an on site assessment by trial work (archaeological field evaluation) is carried out before any decision on the planning application is taken.
‘The Council will seek to ensure that the most important archaeological remains and their settings are permanently preserved in situ and if unscheduled and of national importance are given statutory protection. In such cases, if preservation in situ is both desirable and feasible, the Council will require the development design to accommodate this objective.
‘Where the preservation of archaeological remains in situ is not appropriate, the Council will require that no development takes place on a site until archaeological investigations have been carried out by an investigating body to be nominated or approved by the Council and such investigations shall be in accordance with a detailed scheme to be approved in advance by the Council. Where feasible, the Council will negotiate the provision of facilities for public viewing during the period of excavation.’
Further policies cover Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and buildings of local townscape character.
The proposal site does not lie within an Archaeological Priority Area as defined on the proposals map,
although one is defined just to the north-west on the opposite side of Bath Road. The nearby Cranford Village
Conservation Area does not extend into this area.
Methodology
The assessment of the site was carried out by the examination of pre-existing information from a number of
sources recommended by the Institute of Field Archaeologists paper ‘Standards in British Archaeology’ covering
desk-based studies. These sources include historic and modern maps, the Greater London Sites and Monuments
Record, geological maps and any relevant publications or reports.
3
Archaeological background
General background
Archaeological finds and deposits of all periods on the brickearth and gravel deposits of West London are well
known, having come to light during observations carried out over many years during gravel and brick clay
extraction (MoLAS 2000), and more recently via aerial photography (e.g., Longley 1976), although the modern
urban setting of much of west London does restrict the latter technique.
The gravel terraces of the London area also have revealed a largely complete sequence of Pleistocene
deposits which is in itself archaeologically significant due to their formation during early human settlement in
the British Isles. As a result, some of these terraces contain Palaeolithic archaeological evidence (Wymer 1993).
However, neither the Taplow terrace, nor the brickearth (Langley Silt) on which the site is based, is historically
associated with prolific finds of Palaeolithic date, and indeed it has been suggested that such finds as are made in
these deposits are actually redeposited from the earlier (Lynch Hill) gravels (Gibbard 1985, 128). Wymer (1999,
62) suggests this absence may be the result of a combination of chance factors in terms of recovery, rather than a
real absence of the material, but this remains to be established.
In areas to both the east and west of suburban London the same gravel terraces have been extensively
settled at many times in the more recent past. Some examples of this are provided by large and important sites
such as the Neolithic causewayed enclosures at Staines, Middlesex (Robertson-Mackay 1987) and Orsett, Essex
(Hedges and Buckley 1978), rich Bronze Age sites such as at Runnymede Bridge, Egham, Surrey (Longley
1980) and Mucking North Rings, Essex (Bond 1988) and early/middle Saxon occupation at Harmondsworth
(Andrews 1996) and a much larger site at Mucking (Hamerow 1993).
In the West London area, recent (and not so recent) large scale developments especially in the vicinity of
Heathrow airport, have revealed extensive deposits of both the prehistoric and historic periods (e.g., Grimes and
Close-Brooks 1993; Barrett et al. 2001). However, the recent survey of London’s archaeology (MoLAS 2000)
records only very sparse activity prior to the Norman Conquest in Hounslow, other than a concentration of
Bronze Age ring ditches. It is probable this situation reflects a lack of systematic investigation, given the extent
of the archaeology found at Heathrow, for example, but for some periods (e.g., Iron Age and Roman) it must be
considered that the gaps could be real, and this has in the past plausibly been suggested to be related to the
presence of forest over much of the area.
The main road from London to the west has run through Hounslow since Roman times (the Roman road
heading for Silchester, later roads for Bath). Margary’s route 4a (Margary 1955, 74) has long been noted to be a
4
lonely stretch of road, with no branches until Calleva (Silchester), but its line is reasonably well-established
within London and the modern Bath Road indeed follows its line quite closely (Margary 1955, 77).
Greater London Sites and Monuments Record
A search was made on the Greater London Sites and Monuments Record (GLSMR) on 11 August 2006 for a
radius of 1000m around the proposal area. This produced some 45 entries (including duplicates), about half of
which are for post-medieval, modern or undated features. The entries are summarized as Appendix 1 and their
locations plotted on Figure 1.
Prehistoric
The earliest entries are for two findspots of Neolithic axes, one not closely located [Fig. 1: 1], the other only a
short distance north of the site [2]. By themselves, such finds mean little, as stray items can have travelled far
from where they were made or used, but in the broader context of this location, it is likely there was Neolithic
activity in the area. Indeed, excavations at Cranford Lane [3] have provided evidence for intensive activity in
both the Neolithic and Bronze Ages. Provisional results from this unpublished site indicate Neolithic settlement
in the form of pits and possibly a post-built structure (which, if confirmed, would be very rare evidence for a
Neolithic building), which was succeeded by a settlement, burials and field system of the later Bronze Age. It is
understood that definitive publication of this site is imminent (S Anthony, pers. comm.). Closer to the site, to the
north, later Bronze Age or Iron Age pottery has been found during a watching brief on a pipeline, including
some from pits, which probably indicates another settlement in the vicinity [4], whilst further north again [5],
another watching brief recovered similar evidence, Bronze Age and Iron Age pottery, struck flints and a loom
weight. This remarkable concentration of evidence along the Crane Valley suggests fluid occupation, with short-
lived settlements sites shifting across the landscape over a long period, and highlights the potential of the area to
produce more such sites. The absence of Middle and later Iron Age sites, given the number of earlier remains, is
also notable.
Roman
The only Roman evidence from the area comes in the form of a complex stock enclosure system from the
excavations at Cranford Lane [3]. This relative scarcity of remains, coupled with the absence of later Iron Age
sites, does strengthen the case for seeing this area as progressively more wooded in these periods, and genuinely
not settled, rather than simply not sufficiently explored.
5
Saxon
There is no entry for this period from the search area.
Medieval
Although there are a number of SMR entries for the medieval period, these in fact amount to little. There is an
entry for the documentary references to the village of Cranford [6], and one for the bridge over the Crane, which
existed at least by AD1284 and was replaced in 1776 [7]. The whole of Cranford Park [8] is noted to be covered
by ridge and furrow, which is the remains of the medieval ploughing regime. More significant is the extant
moated site [9] near the bridge, thought to be a sub-manor.
Post-medieval
The 18th-century bridges over the Crane [7, 10] are Listed Buildings (Grade II). Of some interest is the village
lock-up ‘The Round House’, which is also listed [11]. It is noted it was used to incarcerate the footpads who
bedevilled Hounslow Heath. Stansfield House [12] is also Grade II listed. None of these buildings is close
enough to the proposal area to be affected by any development on it.
Undated, Negative, Modern
The remaining entries include a number of structures on Heathrow Airport which are listed buildings [13], but
otherwise, generally record an absence of archaeology. A number of entries record the sites of known modern
landfill, which can be expected to have no archaeological potential [14–17]. Two recent evaluations produced
negative results [18, 19]. Two entries record ditches visible on an aerial photograph, which could be
archaeological [20, 21]. Finally, number of entries record features visible on air photographs which are known to
have been destroyed by gravel extraction or development [22–25: two sites are just off Figure 1 to the south].
Scheduled Ancient Monuments
There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments within the vicinity of the site.
Cartographic and documentary sources
Cranford is first mentioned in Domesday Book (AD 1086) (Williams and Martin, 366) when it was a manor of
five hides held by William fitzAnsculf in the Hundred of Elthorne. The population numbered just eight villans,
two cottars and three slaves and the whole was worth 60 shillings. It had previously belonged to Thorsten, one of
King Edward’s thegns. The placename is Old English (Anglo-Saxon) deriving from cran (crane or heron) and
6
ford (ford) (Mills 1998, 100). Names incorporating the -ford element can generally be shown to be among the
earliest of the Anglo-Saxon names, suggesting that Cranford was an early Saxon settlement (Cameron 1996,
176). Both the manor and the church were on the west side of the river. There is no direct evidence relating to
the presence or location of a medieval manor house until the Moat House is mentioned in 1684. Cranford House,
built 1710–20, was demolished just prior to the Second World War and the estate (Cranford Park) sold to the
council.
Heathrow is another Anglo-Saxon name, although not attested before around AD1410. It means simply a
row (of houses) on a heath (Mills 1998, 173). Cranford, now in the parish of Heston, was a parish in its own
right until the 1930s when it was successively divided and re-ordered out of existence (VCH 1962, 177). It was
always very small, with no significant residential development until the 1930s. In 1801 there were only 27
houses, and still just 117 by 1901. The common south of the Bath Road was not developed until 1935. There is
little other history of note (VCH 1962, 179). Other than the church to the west, very little of historic Cranford
survives (Pevsner 1951, 38–9).
A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at Hounslow Record
Office in order to ascertain what activity had been taking place throughout the site’s later history and whether
this may have affected any possible archaeological deposits within the proposal area (see Appendix 2).
The earliest map available of the area is Christopher Saxton’s map of Kent, Sussex, Surrey and Middlesex (Fig.
3) from 1575. No detail is shown for the area although Cranford is marked as is Hounslow (Hounsley)(Saxton’s
‘n’ is often superscript or even omitted). John Norden’s map of 1593 shows a little more, including highlighting
the importance of what is now the Bath Road and its river crossings (Fig. 4). Ogilby (1672) and Warburton
(1749) are typical of 17th- and 18th-century cartographers (Fig. 5). Here the main roads and bridges are again
depicted, as are the major country seats of the gentry, notable inns, and sundry other places worthy of note, but
this is by no means comprehensive mapping. Cranford Place is shown quite distinct from Cranford Bridge, and
Cranford (when the latter is shown at all) is variously shown to the north (Ogilby) or south (Norden) of Cranford
Bridge. There is no development noted along the roadside, after Hounslow where the roads westwards diverge.
The Hounslow Record Office does not hold the Heston tithe map, but does have the Heston Enclosure map
(1841) which covers the area. This shows all the land south of Bath Road as undeveloped. The area of the site is
part of plot 516, noted as the rectorial allotment. The entire plot is featureless. It was not possible to reproduce
7
this map. Detailed mapping arrives with the first Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1865. This shows the site in
some detail (Fig. 6). The north-western corner is occupied by a rather indistinct building, perhaps with a well.
The rest of the plot is undeveloped, with some trees. The Second Edition (1895) shows the building to the north-
west more clearly, there is no suggestion of a well at this time (Fig. 7). The land boundary associated with this
house has changed, but there is no other alteration to the site apart from an absence of tress: this might be a
stylistic change, however, as the depiction of trees over the entire sheet is much more sparse on the Second
Edition. On the 1913 Ordnance Survey map, the site is entirely open ground, with no building anywhere (not
illustrated). The 1925 and 1935 revisions are identical to that of 1913.
Listed buildings
There are no Listed buildings on the site. The closest Listed Buildings are described above; none would be
affected by any development on the proposal area.
Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields
There are no registered parks and gardens or registered battlefields within close proximity of the site.
Historic Hedgerows
There are no hedgerows, historic or otherwise, on the site.
Aerial Photographs
The site areas lies within an urban area which has been developed since before the advent of aerial photography.
No photographic collections have therefore been consulted.
Discussion
In considering the archaeological potential of the study area, various factors must be taken into account,
including previously recorded archaeological sites, previous land-use and disturbance and future land-use
including the proposed development.
The site lies in an area of considerable archaeological potential, especially for the Neolithic and Bronze
Ages, as the SMR search results clearly demonstrate. There is a concentration of settlement evidence,
8
particularly for the Bronze Age, but also, it appears, for the Neolithic, which is unusual. The site may also be in
an area with some medieval potential, located as it is along a main road leading to a bridge, although medieval
archaeology has so far not been encountered in the area. It would appear that potential for other periods is
limited, but this cannot be ascertained with any great confidence, as investigation west of the Crane and north of
the Thames has so far been limited.
Other than one small building in the far north-west of the site, depicted on the maps of 1865 and 1895, but
neither earlier or later, the only development on the site seems to be the modern buildings currently present. Any
truncation of archaeological deposits on the site will thus be restricted to the footprint of the extant building, and
the remainder of the site can be expected to be archaeologically intact. The development proposal will occupy
almost an identical footprint towards the eastern portion of the site, but with additional build to the west (Fig. 8).
On balance therefore it is felt that it will be necessary to provide further information about the potential of
the site from field observations in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any
below-ground archaeological deposits if necessary. A scheme for this evaluation will need to be drawn up and
approved by the archaeological advisers to the Borough and implemented by a competent archaeological
contractor, such as an organization registered with the Institute of Field Archaeologists. Such an evaluation could
be implemented as an appropriately worded condition attached to any planning consent gained.
References
Allen, T J, 1978, ‘Disposition of the terraces of the river Thames in the vicinity of Yiewsley’, in D Collins Early man in West Middlesex: The Yiewsley Palaeolithic sites, London
Andrews, P, 1996, ‘Prospect Park, Harmondsworth, London Borough of Hillingdon: settlement and burial from the Neolithic to the Early Saxon periods’, in P Andrews and A Crockett, Three Excavations Along the Thames and its Tributaries, 1994, Wessex Archaeol Rep 10, Salisbury, 1–50
Barrett, J C, Lewis, J S C and Welsh, K, 2000, ‘Perry Oaks – a history of inhabitation Part 2’, London Archaeologist, 9, 221–7
BGS, 1981a, British Geological Survey, 1:50,000 Sheet 269, Drift and Solid Edition, Keyworth BGS, 1981b, British Geological Survey, 1:50,000 Sheet 270, Drift and Solid Edition, Keyworth Bond, D, 1988, Excavations at the North Ring, Mucking, Essex, East Anglian Archaeol 43 Cameron, K, 1996, English Place Names, London Gibbard, P L, 1985, The Pleistocene history of the middle Thames valley, Cambridge Grimes, W F and Close-Brooks, J, 1993, ‘The excavation of Caesar’s Camp, Heathrow, Harmondsworth,
Middlesex, 1944’, Proc Prehist Soc, 59, 303–6 Hamerow, H, 1993, Excavations at Mucking; Vol. 2: The Anglo-Saxon settlement, Engl Heritage Rep 21,
London Hedges, J and Buckley, D, 1978, ‘Excavations at a Neolithic causewayed enclosure, Orsett, Essex, 1975’, Proc
Prehist Soc, 44 219–308 LBH, 2003, London Borough of Hounslow Unitary Development Plan Adopted December 2003 Longley, D, 1976, The implications of gravel extraction in north-west Surrey, Surrey Archaeol Soc Res Vol 3,
Guilford, 1–37 Longley, D, 1980, Runnymede Bridge 1976: Excavations on the Site of a Late Bronze Age Settlement, Res Vol
Surrey Archaeol Soc 6, Guildford Margary, I D, 1955, Roman Roads in Britain, London
9
Mills, A D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford MoLAS, 2000, The archaeology of Greater London; an assessment of archaeological evidence for human
presence in the area now covered by Greater London, Museum of London Archaeology Service Monogr Pevsner, N, 1951, The Buildings of England: Middlesex, London PPG16, 1990, Dept of the Environment Planning Policy Guidance 16, Archaeology and Planning, HMSO Robertson-Mackay, R, 1987, ‘The Neolithic causewayed enclosure at Staines, Surrey: excavations 1961–63’,
Proc Prehist Soc 53, 23–128 Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London Wymer, J, 1993, The Southern Rivers Palaeolithic Project Report No. 2 1992-1993: The South West and South
of the Thames, Wessex Archaeology Wymer, J J, 1999, The Lower Palaeolithic occupation of Britain, Salisbury VCH, 1962, Victoria County History of Middlesex Vol. iii, London
10
APPENDIX 1: Sites and Monuments Records within a 1000 m search radius of the development site
No SMR Ref (MLO) Grid Ref (TQ) Type Period Comment 1 2194 10 76 Findspot Neolithic Axe or adze; no details: ‘near Bath Road’ 2 2193 1050 7700 Findspot Neolithic Tranchet axe 3 65692
65693 65694 65695 65696 65698 65699 65700 65701 (ELO2980)
0955 7735 Excavation Neolithic Bronze Age Roman
Neolithic pit, Neolithic post-built structure (possibly), Neolithic amber bead, later Bronze Age circular buildings, 4-post granaries, pits and a field system, and 8 Bronze Age cremations, also a Roman stock enclosure complex.
4 77875 78058 78059 78060 (ELO 2410)
10629 77027 Watching brief Bronze Age/ Iron Age/ Medieval/ Post-medieval/ Undated
Pits with LBA/EIA pottery, probably occupation, also undated ditches see in pipeline route. Not clear if grid reference actually relates to the features. Unstratified medieval and post-medieval pottery and a quernstone (post-medieval).
5 66678 66679 (ELO3080)
1025 7795 Watching Brief Bronze Age Iron Age
Two Bronze Age pits, topsoil finds of BA and IA pottery, flints, loom weight
6 73131 1055 7790 Documentary Medieval References to village of Cranford 68676 1005 7700 Documentary Medieval Site of medieval bridge from before 12874; replaced
1776 7
84972 85506
10039 77159 10042 77158
Listed Building Post-medieval 18th-century brick bridge, Grade II Listed (twice)
8 2641 1010 7770 Monument Medieval Extant ridge and furrow covering whole of Cranford Park
9 1951 1009 7704 Monument Medieval Moated site, extant 10 85507
85750 10044 77001 10036 77003
Listed Building Post-medieval 18th-century brick bridge, Grade II Listed (twice)
11 85399 10321 76981 Listed Building Post-medieval Village lock-up, Grade II. Although given as c. 1838, is supposed to have been used in 18th century.
12 85398 10568 77264 Listed Building Post-medieval Stansfield House, Grade II 18th-century houses 13 85179 09904 75971 Listed Building Modern Various 1950s buildings in Heathrow Airport are
Listed, Grade II 14 72658 1130 7600 Documentary Modern/Negative Known landfill site, 19th century or later 15 72711 1090 7760 Documentary Modern/Negative Known landfill site, 19th century or later 16 72623 0970 7650 Documentary Modern/Negative Known landfill site, 19th century or later 17 72657 1060 7600 Documentary Modern/Negative Known landfill site, 19th century or later 18 74004 1077 7748 Evaluation Modern/Negative Late 19th century foundations only 19 76009
(ELO518) 09880 76960 Evaluation Modern/Negative Only modern features revealed.
20 2648 1020 7720 Documentary Undated Aerial photograph shows linear ditches 21 2605 1110 7672 Documentary Undated Aerial photograph shows several ditches 22 2703 0966 7760 Documentary Undated Aerial photograph shows rectilinear enclosure, since
destroyed by gravel extraction 23 2649
2650 0990 7586 Documentary Undated Aerial photographs show a circular feature, possibly
a ring ditch, and a complex of linear ditches (destroyed)
24 2643 0960 7586 Documentary Undated Aerial photograph shows a circular feature, possibly a ring ditch (destroyed)
25 10590 0958 7640 Documentary Undated Aerial photograph shows a complex of ‘block marks, possibly pits (destroyed)
11
APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted
1575 Saxton (Fig. 3)
1593 Norden (Fig. 4)
1672 Ogilby (Fig. 5)
1749 Warburton
1841 Heston Enclosure
1865 Ordnance Survey First Edition 25 inch sheets Middlesex XX.1 and XX.5 (Fig. 6)
1895 Ordnance Survey Second Edition 25 inch sheets XX.1 and XX.5 (Fig. 7)
1913 Ordnance Survey Revision 25 inch sheets XX.1 and XX.5
1925 Ordnance Survey Revision 25 inch sheets XX.1 and XX.5
1935 Ordnance Survey Revision 25 inch sheets XX.1 and XX.5
12
