John asks:

“We are considering a house move from West Greenwich to East Greenwich to Pelton Road, close to the Pelton Arms pub. We really like the area but don’t really know much about it. Any issues we should be aware of?”

The Phantom replies:

The Pelton Road area is a very interesting one, and one that I keep meaning to write about historically. I’m quite a fan of it myself. I like the funny little roads like Caradoc, Hadrian and Bradyll Streets, with their cute terraces and straight-onto-the-street frontages (I particularly like the way Caradoc Street curves so it’s always a slight surprise where I end up…) which were so ‘typical’ of South London’s recent past they were used as a set for the recent Only Fools and Horses prequel.

And I really like Pelton Road itself, a street of two sides – the lovely, tight terraces on the east, larger terraces on the west, with decorations ever so slightly above their station – huge downstairs windows and just-that-little-bit-too-big ornamentations, which lift my heart every time I see them. I also like the (not unbroken, but still nice) picket fencing around them which gives them a distinctive neighbourhood feel. Annoyingly I don’t seem to be able to find photos of either of my favourite parts of Pelton Road.

Closer to the main road, there are some post-war infill flats. Be careful as you walk past in the summer – I’ve been water-bombed by oiks as I’ve walked past and I’ve seen the little tykes do it to others, too. It’s not all bad – I always enjoy looking at someone’s rather splendid collection of decanters on a ground-floor windowsill as I walk past (in the Phantom sou’wester…) There are more little terraced houses in the streets still owned by the Morden Estate. There are also a couple of good cottages on Pelton Road itself.

Hmm. Things to look out for. Well, obviously no one really knows what Lovell’s Wharf will bring us (apart from a bricked-up Thames Path, of course.) I suspect much of the really heavy work in Pelton Road itself is over now, but I wouldn’t discount heavy construction vehicles, dust and noise.

The Pelton Arms itself has gone from being a frankly unexciting place to being somewhere I actively choose to go to. The new guv’nor has really upped the ante with bands, good food, themed nights and free cheese on Sundays (you can’t go wrong with free cheese…) Don’t be fooled, though, by what have to be the most inviting looking seats in Greenwich, in the corner by the open fire. You’ll walk in, think ‘Wow – we’re in luck!’ and quickly nab said squashy seats before red-facedly sloping off to somewhere else five minutes later to cool down.

I’m sure you’re not the kind of person that moves in next door to a music pub then complains there’s music going on – but do bear in mind that very close to the pub might be a little louder in the summer.

The other pub, the Royal Standard, isn’t quite so well regarded, despite its splendid mascot ; the noise from here is not music related. I don’t know how much actual trouble they get, but anecdotally, I’ve heard that it gets loud at closing time.

Trotting on, I’ve already mentioned the water-bomb menace from the flats (actually it’s not that bad, happily the little herberts are dreadful shots); I’m not aware of any other trouble.

Something you might want to look out for is the Catholic church at the end. The church itself is rather sweet, and I really like the Priest’s House, but I understand that they keep trying (and so far failing) to develop their community hall into ‘luxury’ flats. It all went quiet with the economic downturn, but now money’s tighter than ever, the proposal could rear its ugly head again.

And then there’s the playground, that can’t have seen a child for bloomin’ decades. It was clearly a lovely little corner once – it’s been landscaped and just at the moment its overgrown charms include naturalised bulbs and blossom from once properly planted trees. I assume it belongs to the school though how any inner city school has enough land they can just let some go to waste is beyond me. In my heart I would love to see it going back to being a little community garden (it would make a great urban orchard) but every time I pass it I wonder how long it will be before some grasping developer notices it.

And that’s all the news that I can think is fit to print. I know people who read this blog live round there. Why is it so great? What’s not so good? Do tell…

Back to Greenwich archaeology today, folks. I guess one positive thing coming out of the turmoil surrounding the area just now means that we’re getting more opportunities for excavation than we’ve had since the end of WWII – though of course, at the end of the war, people were more interested in just getting somewhere to live, somewhere to work and something to eat than finding out what previous Greenwichians had been up to.

How we deal with those opportunities is both exciting and a grave responsibility.

As you’ve probably guessed from the photo at the top, I’m back to the Stockwell Street site today, as I’ve been given a preview copy of of the Historical Summary by Alan Baxter & Associates that the work will be based on.

The photo (by Alan Baxter & Associates – as are all the drawings) was taken from the roof of St Alfege’s and is one of the best views I’ve seen of the site – an area that’s quite hard to get one’s head around without plans. It’s actually pretty damn huge and when the post-war buildings are gone it will be even bigger.

Much of the report itself contains basic history that we’ve covered many times before, so I’ll cut to the bits I didn’t know myself.

Something that amused me was that after going of for several hundred words about the seriousness of Greenwich as a historical site, the report suddenly changes tack right at the end of page five to robustly state that however important the rest of Greenwich might be, this little bit of the town “has not played a role in the significant aspects of Greenwich’s history”. Read: “Potential busybodies – object everywhere else but here, okay…”

Personally, if I were going to deter potential objectors, I’d point to the amount of disruption and damage already done on the site and suggest that it can’t get much worse – that we might as well find out what’s there and preserve what we can, then move on.
Dunno about you but I’d always assumed that the name Stockwell came from it being the town’s water supplies – the Stock Well. Apparently that’s just plain wrong – ’stoc’ is Anglo-Saxon for tree trunk or post.

However much the report says that it played no significant role, Stockwell Street was part of the major east-west route through the town by medieval times, and at some point became known as The Broadway. It had two coaching inns – as well as the Spread Eagle there was also The White Hart and, (especially interesting to the Phantom Brewmaster, Rod) there were considerable maltings set behind, run by Frederick John Corder and Alfred Conyers Haycroft, but acquired around 1906 by Hugh Bairds &; Sons.

I get the feeling that the archaeologists are hoping to find some remains of those, though they haven’t actually said yet. They’ve promised to let me know.

You’ll see in Alan Baxter’s next drawing, a charming tea garden (it’s on a map of 1885), presumably for all the teetotallers from the Bible Christian Chapel that was also there. I’ve been looking to find something about the chapel and not found any mention in my 1901 copy of Life and Labour in London, which lists and describes (often in less than glowing terms) the funny little churches that dotted Victorian Greenwich like a holy rash, though Charles Booth does admit that that particular area of the town was “overdone with religious effort.”

There was also a roasting house in 1894. Roasting what? Hops? Coffee? Chickens? I’m sure someone will tell me. It’s possible they’ll find some remains of that.

The first big thing that really affected the area, which will have got rid of most of the medieval remains, was the coming of the railways – with the extension of the London to Greenwich railway in 1878 and the ill-fated Greenwich Park Railway, which I really must write about sometime (I confess I’m a bit scared of doing so – there are so many rivet-counter railway enthusiasts who’d point out all the bits I’d most certainly get wrong.) Suffice to say that some bright spark thought that what Greenwich really needed was a line between the town and, er, Nunhead. Perhaps the cemetery was a big draw (it is now, btw, absolutely fantastic…), perhaps it was just that railways were THE thing to do and that bit of land was free.

It lasted until WWI, and bits of the station hung around as a timber yard until the 60s (and, of course, there is a small part of the line still in existence, as the delightful and much sought-after Prior St allotments.)

Nevertheless, Stockwell Street was still essentially cute. Here’s a picture from Greenwich Heritage Centre, showing the street in the 1930s:

If there was one single thing that really did for Stockwell Street as a site, it was the Second World War. Alan Baxter’s drawing shows exactly where it suffered a direct hit:
It’s unlikely that the Nazis were actually aiming for the Stockwell Engineering Company – a little factory that was making radar parts at the time, which after the war made kitchen utensils known as Westware (anyone still got any?); more that they were aiming for the railway, or, even nothing at all, just dumping-off bombs, a favourite South London hobby of theirs.

There wasn’t much coming back from a V2 rocket. The Post Office was completely obliterated but the maltings, and several houses, both on Stockwell St and King William Walk were badly damaged.

As a by-product, though, it did mean that, when the ghastly John Humphries House was built in the 1960s, there was finally an excavation of the old well. Don’t you just love this old picture, courtesy of Greenwich Heritage Centre, where they’ve discovered the (or at least AN) old well. The antiquarian John Stone, who first called for it, would have been in ecstasies – sadly The Phantom Webmaster discovered he died in the early 1930s.

I’ve asked if they’ll be digging out the well again when JHH bites the dust; I don’t know yet. But wouldn’t it be great if Hengham Peng (named from the Irish Roisin Heneghan and American Shih-Fu Peng, BTW) incorporated the well into the foundations; perhaps with a glass floor, or visitable cellars, like the charnel house at Spitalfields?

I don’t normally like to return to a subject as quickly as this, but Stephen had some really interesting extras to go with yesterday’s Faded Greenwich post (he also has a better pic of the sign – see above.)

He used to live at Number 21 and tells me that the naming of the whole of the oddly-shaped ovalish street as ‘Circus’ is only relatively recent. If you take a peek at this 1908 map you’ll see that only the rounded, south side was originally the Circus; the flatter, northern side, which was hastily finished with any-old buildings after the cash ran out, rather than continuing the elegant, sweeping curve of Searles’s vision, was known slightly more prosaically as Gloucester ‘Place.’

Stephen tells me his brother remembers a pediment stretching between the two sides, that said ‘Circus’, but if there was one there, it’s long since bombed to buggery in WWII, which destroyed most of the less-pretty north side and more-than-ideal of the south side too. Maybe there are some old photos knocking around. I keep meaning to try and find some pictures of bomb damage in the area.

Okay – I have a confession to make. I am a little, um, behind with my correspondence. I have this slightly ad-hoc thing with my email where I put a star next to the things I haven’t dealt with yet (or things that I’m halfway investigating/ haven’t got round to posting on Parish News – I’m utterly rubbish at listings…) As of today, I have an embarrassing 207 stars next to messages. Sorry, folks…

One of the oldest stars, about which he has recently gently reminded me, is Ian’s, asking me this question, ahem, over a year ago:

“I live in Straightsmouth and have always wondered about the origins of its name. I’ve made the occasional half hearted effort to find out but have drawn a blank. I’m aware of the fate of Glaisher Street which did run off Straightsmouth which I see you note in your blog.

The street must predate the railway which it runs beside (apparently my house No. 64 is from about 1790 according to the person who surveyed it – which is earlier than I would have given it credit for).”

Now of course, part of the reason for getting behind with this question is that it’s bloomin’ hard. Not least because it doesn’t fall neatly into any of the special interest groups I know of, like The Ashburnham Triangle Association (wrong side of the tracks…) and it’s not ‘grand’ enough to be covered by the histories concerning the central streets.

I spent some time with my friends the Reverend L’Estrange, Richardson and Hasted on this one, dipping into every book on my shelf, and came up with a big fat nothing, though it did have me take a trip to find Halford’s Row in Roan Street, where, Mr Richardson told me, a bit of St Alfege’s church spire had lodged itself in one of the houses after being hit by lightning on May 6th, 1813 – don’t bother looking – the house is long-gone…

My best guess was that the name comes from the mouth of the Ravensbourne slooshing into Greenwich Reach, which I suppose could be called a ’straight.’ But in truth I just didn’t know.

So I had no choice but to bring out the big guns – in the form of the very wonderful Julian Watson. I don’t normally like to bother him since he must spend his entire life answering tedious questions about Greenwich – his name has appeared in the credits of pretty much every book written about the area from the past thirty-odd years. I do try to do my own research. Honest. But this one totally got me.

The odd thing is that it seems to have got everyone. Here is his reply…

“This is one of the most fascinating names in Greenwich and has never been satisfactorily explained. It is clearly marked but not named on Samuel Travers’ map of 1695. The earliest reference that I have found to the name is, if I remember right, 1768 on a property deed. It is probably ancient and could have linked up with the original road through the centre of Greenwich before Duke Humphrey acquired the whole of the central block of the town.

The old way before the royals was along Old Woolwich Road and then possibly along what was called Long Turnpin Lane and then to Church St. Most of Turnpin Lane was enclosed within the Royal Hospital grounds. Or it might have gone along Rood or Stocks Lane – roughly the line of College Approach.

Prof. JEG Montmorency of the original Greenwich Antiquarian Society suggested a Roman origin for this very interesting street but, sadly, there is no evidence for this. However, he still could be right!

The short answer is that the derivation of the name and the date is not known even though many great brains including Sir Robert Somerville have thought about it long and hard.”

In following up Julian’s Roman suggestion, (btw who else just loves the idea of Greenwich Antiquarian Society being headed by someone named Prof. J.E.G. de Montmorency? It’s all so deliciously steampunk…) I found a letter online from Beryl Platts, author of A History of Greenwich,(annoyingly I couldn’t find out who the letter was to…) which says:

“There is no doubt that the first Roman road from the Kent coast to London did come through what is now Greenwich Park; traces are still visible. It stopped at a point still called Straightsmouth (Streetsmouth) and there was, and still is, a Thames-side dock there, called Billingsgate.”

Sadly this was in the 70s before the ‘Billingsgate’ descended into – well, not very much.

So there you have it, folks and Ian. All the Straightsmouth that’s fit to print…

We just don’t see what’s under our noses, do we? I thought I’d trained myself to be more observant, but I’ve just received a “1 out of 10, must try harder” note from my Phantom Muse for missing these bollards just outside Waterstones.

Stephen’s provided the pics for today’s example of early recycling. Old cannon – I don’t know whether they were captured from enemies or just decommissioned Royal Navy ones – upended and used to stop carts going up lanes they weren’t allowed. Sometimes, as here, in St Alfege’s Passage, they’ve had a cannon ball stuffed into the end, for extra luxury.

James asks:

“I would like to ask you if you know anything about the history of Rangers Square just off Hyde Vale in West Greenwich? My wife and I lived there for 5 years, in a rather small but very nice two bed flat and even had two of our children there.

I wonder why it is called Rangers Square, possibly some relation to Rangers House, and whether you know what was there before the flats? I had heard it was some garage. There is also a bit of scrubby bush just behind it backing onto the Conduit House flats with some tall looking trees. I had even heard there was someone living in this scrub during the summer months in 2006.”

The Phantom is once again embarrassed by sheer ignorance, but given the close proximity to Ranger’s House, I’m guessing that that is the reason. If memory serves, Ranger’s Square is a modern-ish development (70s/80s?) and, as I am increasingly discovering, the naming process for new streets and developments is a path strewn with pitfalls these days.

I told you about the friend of mine who worked for a major developer (not around here) whose job description involved her naming the new developments in a former mental asylum, and whatever she came up with seemed to offend someone or other who thought she was being disrespectful to people with mental health problems. I’ve heard stories about naming problems around here too.

Hence people tend to stay with fairly bland titles that can’t possibly offend anyone and ‘Ranger’s Square’ would seem to fit the bill. But maybe someone else knows better – or can tell you about the interesting character who lived in the scrubbery behind in 2006…

JB asked me

“Any idea after whom, or what, Whitworth St is named (or how to find out?)”

The Phantom wrangled with this one for some time, before JB very kindly answered his/her own question. I thought I’d pass this on for anyone who’s ever wondered about it – but I can’t claim any laurels for research on this one…

I vaguely remembered that Whitworth Street is part of the East Greenwich Estate, built by Morden College between 1842-69 (designed by George Smith, BTW, who was responsible for much of Victorian Greenwich). All you need to do is look at those tell-tale plaques on the sides of the houses in the area

Many of the streets in the nearby Pelton Estate are named for mining towns – I’m pretty sure it was built on mining money (hence the Pelton Arms having the picture of a colliery on the pub sign) but I’ve been unable to get hold of a copy of The development of an Early Victorian Artisan Estate in East Greenwich by Michael Kerney (which is in Transactions of the Greenwich and Lewisham Antiquarian Society Vol IX, No. 6 1984, if you have access to it…) which would, I’m sure reveal all.

Sadly the only book I have on Morden College’s history is far more concerned with individuals than what it actually stood for and did, and I was definitely skating on thin ice.

I did find a contender. Sir Joseph Whitworth, an engineer famed for standardising screw threads (well – someone had to do it…) – an idea that was taken up by the rapidly expanding railways. Also for the ‘Whitworth Rifle’ – which, apparently, was superior to the Enfield and was about the right period, but didn’t seem to have any connection. He was from Manchester…

It’s a very good job that JB got back to me at that point, after having done some sleuthing. Sir Joe was Right Out, proving that the Phantom can be utter rubbish at times. I hand over to JB and bow to his/her infinite wisdom…

“It transpires that Whitworth Colliery, later Whitworth Park Colliery, was just 16 miles from Pelton. The old colliery was exhausted in 1882, just about as Whitworth St was being built, I should think. However, Whitworth Park Colliery was still going as recently as the Seventies.”

Hooray for people who Ask The Phantom and then answer the questions by themselves, letting me in on the answer in the process…

Naming new roads and developments, BTW, isn’t as easy as it sounds. I have a friend whose job (not in this borough, I’m happy to say) includes naming new developments. I thought it was a brilliant perk, but she soon put me right. The red-tape is scary in the extreme.

She recently had to name all the apartment blocks created from an old mental asylum. It didn’t seem to matter how innocuous the name was that she tried, someone at the council always managed to find some dodgy PC reason why it sounded like she was being offensive to people with mental health problems.

Her solution? She asked if there were any councillors that might merit commemoration in the new blocks.

She never had any problems again…

Neil Rhind seems to disagree with Hasted – in that it was named after Sir Algernon, not Sir Robert May. But far more interesting to me is the theory that there was actually a maze – albeit rather a long way away. A turf maze – a bit like the one at Hall Place rather than a formal one like at Hampton Court. It was, apparently, on the site of today’s Wemyss Road – just round the corner from the main drag. It’s not really a direct route though, and it’s frankly a stretch for me – though I guess at a pinch it could commemorate the cutting of the maze…

It’s also spelled Maize Hill – though I’ve not heard that there were any plantations of corn around there in particular.

No – I’m going back to my friend’s theory in that our ancestors enjoyed the art of creativity in spelling. Mr May – whether Algernon or Robert – seems the most likely solution to me – it being originally “May’s Hill.”

I got told off for speculation yesterday and since I may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb, I have one last thought to add. I have not heard or read this from anyone – it’s merely from my own ponderings. That since this was a pathway cutting the Park from the rest of the land and that one thing that the area was well-known for – especially in Henry VII’s time, was the abundance of May trees.

There was nothing Good King Hal and his “lusty bachelors” enjoyed more than setting off of a spring morning, and riding out towards Shooters Hill to gather may blossom, ‘ “caracolling” (I think this means singing rude songs) along the way and challenging each other to “feats of horsemanship,” according to Rev. LeStrange. Could that particular hill have enjoyed a particularly spectacular display of blossom?

I’ll be getting onto some of the intriguing buildings – and their occupants – of Maze Hill on other days…

SE10

What a sad looking street. This should be the most attractive shopping street in Greenwich and it has more shut shops per metre than even Trafalgar Road.

I’ve had several worried emails about it this week – here are just a few concerns:

“What is happening with Warwick Leadlay gallery?? I walked past this morning and all the windows are papered over! The notice on the door – which mentioned additional premises around the corner – was ambiguous as to whether the Nelson Rd site was going to reopen…
Please tell me that this is just a short-term thing and that they’re not closing or moving the gallery we all love so much!”

“Where’s Pistachios Cafe? I used to like eating there. Have you noticed its absence….? Is it closed permanently or undergoing renovations (signs on the door say re opening in mid march)”

“Rococo- gone overnight it seems!”

As far as Rococo is concerned – yes – that was a big surprise – there and seemingly flourishing (and a classy shop too) one day, dead and gone the next without a whimper.

But the other two – well – I’m cautiously optimistic. I have heard that Warwick Leadlay is actually expanding – its art department has already moved into Marcet Book’s old site, and (or so I’ve heard) Warwick is devoting the Nelson Road shop to the antiquarian side. I hope and pray this is true. Ditto Pistachios – I walked past yesterday and frenzied activity inside suggested that the sign on the door is correct. I was never that wild about Pistachios myself – but I will give it another go when it reopens – hopefully much smarter.

But the rest of the street – and all those empty shops – what on earth are Greenwich Hospital Trust thinking? All the shops we’re losing are the independents. GHT just HAS to do something about it – if not for our good, for its own. If Greenwich goes the same way as every other high street in Britain, full of bland chains, visitors will stop coming and GHT’s income will go down. The shops look great – but they have nothing in them. I truly believe that GHT needs to cast a few sprats to catch a few mackerels – to give good rent deals to independents to keep Greenwich’s individuality and visitor levels – good for all in the long run.

There is one small glimmer of curiosity. The old Thai place that burned down a couple of years ago seems set to rise out of the ashes in Japanese form. Itoshi, from what I can see from pressing my nose against the glass, will be going down the conveyor-belt-sushi route. I can’t it’s a chain – yet. BTW, Japanese definitely seems to be in just now – what with the likes of Zin and the superb Ginza, and a new Japanese grocery store down Trafalgar Road I haven’t tried yet. Anyone been in there ?