From the 1650′s onward, the famous gardens at Sayes Court, especially during the summer, received a constant stream of visitors, from the Evelyn family friends to the court elite and royalty. Our own modest tour in my two most recent posts had to omit much detail, and did not include Evelyn’s private garden, or the house itself. There is also still much to tell, as well as some unsolved mysteries, about how the garden evolved over the decades, especially in the 1680′s when Evelyn radically altered the oval garden. How do we know about this? Thanks mostly to John Evelyn’s own writings and plans, but also to the steady trickle of interest and archival research into Sayes Court and Evelyn’s role in the development of science and society in the seventeenth century. This trickle seems to have grown into something of a torrent since the turn of the millennium. In 2001, for example, there was a well-attended two-day conference at the British Library, “John Evelyn and his milieu”, which gathered together researchers from all over the world. Unbeknownst to me, there was definitely something in the air when I first started wondering about that old mulberry in the park!
Ironically, at the same time as I started to learn about the historical importance of the house and gardens at Sayes Court, proposals had been drawn up to build a horrendous huddle of high rise (up to 40 storeys), high density (3,500 “residential units”) tower blocks on the site of Convoys Wharf, which now covers Evelyn’s “Elysium” and the adjoining docks of the former King’s Yard. This so-called “development” scheme is blatantly designed to maximise profit for the present owners, Hong-Kong based company Hutchison-Whampoa. If it gets the go-ahead it will be a new low water-mark in social and historical exclusion. The docks have been linked for centuries to the general prosperity of Deptford. It’s no secret that the area has declined since their closure. How many local people could afford to buy an apartment at Convoys Wharf with a starting price of nearly £300,000? Not only does this proposal threaten to sever the site’s social links with the local community, it also looks set to destroy or bury for ever what remains of its history. Over the past three months, trenches have been excavated all over the site, as a “developer-led” archaeological investigation has been carried out.
Since the dig began in the first week in January, precious little information has been available to the public – still completely barred from the site for so-called “safety reasons”. Finally, just a few days before the end of the dig is due on 9th April, a perfunctory statement has just gone up on the developers’ website.
It seems from this statement that very little remains have been found of either Sayes Court house and gardens, or of the earlier phases of the dockyard. This is at first surprising, considering that earlier evaluations of the site found a lot more evidence.
However, when you take a closer look at where they’ve sited their trenches, (click on the images to view larger versions) it becomes clear that they’ve actually been digging in the wrong places. Overlaying the plan of their trenches (marked in yellow and numbered in black) onto Evelyn’s meticulously accurate 1653 map (see earlier posts), and cross-checking them with the modern ground-plan of the warehouses, we see, for example, why their trench no. 29 failed to find the house. It was way off the mark, in completely the wrong area. Less a case, as they claim, of the house having vanished “due to the impact of later development” – than to the trench being situated in an open yard, empty of anything except a row of old elm trees in the seventeenth century, and next-door only to the stables and pig-sty.

Detail of the trench plain overlaid on 1653 plan, showing how the only trench in the vicinity of the house misses it completely
All this smacks of a deliberate misappropriation of the past. Who does this history really belong to - a cabal of private interests, or the people of Deptford?
The complete 2010 trench plan overlaid on Google Earth.
The complete excavation trench plan overlaid on the modern landscape can be downloaded from http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=893374&filename=Convoys Wharf trench plan 2010.kmz It will take a moment or two to download, then double click on it to open it in Google Earth (which must already be installed). This will open up the trench plan overlaid onto the modern map of the area.
Select (by clicking once on it) “Convoys Wharf trench plan 2010″ from the menu on the left. By dragging the arrow on the slider below (the one that says “the slider sets the transparency of the overlay”) you can view the trench plan or the modern landscape, and all degrees of transparency in between.
If you don’t have Google Earth, you can download it free at earth.google.co.uk



the archaeologists have claimed that “these old maps” are at least 3 to 5 metres out. in relation to the dockyard such a wide discrepancy is impossible, such were the demands on space that accuracy was paramount. to suggest that the maps are 15ft out enables this wild placing of trenches. Perhaps a letter to the Royal Archaeological Institute, one to the professional body regulating archaeological practice and one to the Times?
Sayes Court once provided timber for the Defence of the Realm. Who will now defend this glorious past that deserves a glorious future?
Will government policy PPS5 published in March 2010 protect Sayes Court House and Gardens?
download PPS5 here
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pps5
if you are correct it would seem that the dig is not compliant with
Annex B Compliance with Hampton principles p.45
• consistency in the quality of historic environment-related advice offered to planners & developers, including through adherence to relevant professional standards.
download
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pps5impactassessment
there will always be recourse to judicial review aka. recent Heathrow decision should the development noty comply with PPs5.
/www.planninghelp.org.uk/action/action-stop-or-improve-a-bad-development/judicial_review
What are the issues involved in judicial review?
Any person or group may make an application for judicial review providing that they have sufficient interest or ‘cause’ in the matter. But Judicial review is not an easy option. It usually requires expert knowledge of the law and can incur considerable costs. Judicial review is considered a remedy of last resort and therefore you must show that there is no other alternative remedy.
If you are thinking of using judicial review to challenge a decision you should make yourself fully aware of the risks and uncertainties, and whether you are willing to take these in. In particular, there is a possibility of incurring substantial financial costs. At the outset you should also establish whether:
you have adequate cause;
you have a provable case;
you are confident that the authority’s decision was unlawful;
you are confident that the authority’s decision did not follow the correct procedure; and
the decision was (i) rational; (ii) violating human rights legislation; or (iii) in accordance with European Union law.