Posts Tagged ‘Liam’

PICT0063 (2)

This map, from the unbeatable, comprehensive Dowd’s Canvey Cyclopedia (http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~canvey/index_files/canveycyclopediafacts.htm) labels the various farms across Canvey in 1850, the days when Canvey was still but farmland and a small village, much like the Wild West, as I like to allude to! Only few of these actually remain today, with Brickhouse Farm being one of the only still in operation. So, where did all the rest go? Well, a majority became left abandoned, and most were built on as land was taken up by development. Only few survived on the land which today is west Canvey; a large area of wilderness which has escaped money-maker’s development. It remains much like it has been for hundreds of years, especially Bowers Marsh. Waterside Farmhouse still stands as the recycling centre today. We made it our mission to uncover the sites of two particular farms which lay on land not covered at by human expansion – Pantile Farm, and Tree (Southwick) Farm. I will say now that the farms in question no longer structurally exist. However, the sites of these two farm houses caught my eye as being on untouched ground – I decided that the remains from their demolition, from as much as a few decades ago, must still be there.

Farm Map

Myself, BTP Joe Mander, and guest explorer Sam Hill, took the trek out into Canvey’s countryside to investigate the sites of these farms – probably the first with the specific intention for many years. We parked in the recently established RSPB Nature Reserve West Canvey car park. We then set west for the current seawall, which had been there for around 200 years, made only of as grassy bank. Our findings of the first farm site are below:

Pantile Farm

Despite the buildings being recorded as standing as long ago as 1777, on Chapman and Andre’s map, the farmhouse has probably stood up until several decades ago. The date of the construction of the main farmhouse at Pantile is unclear. We were walking along the site of the farmhouse, characterized by raised ground and greener ground foliage, when we felt something hard underfoot. We pulled up some of the grass, and instantly came across the foundations of brick walls which made up the farmhouse. They were classic Victorian red terracotta bricks, characteristic of late Victorian architecture. However, the farmhouse can be seen derelict in this 1935 photograph, meaning the farmhouse could have been constructed earlier. Bricks for the farmhouse would probably have been of local origin, perhaps from the brick factories of Benfleet or Hadleigh. This means that it is hard to class the bricks as part of that Victorian movement of red brick, so the house could have been the same one from its initial construction, sometime probably in the 1700s. Pulling it away further from the red brick being of the Victorian era, the farmhouse appears to be of earlier style, not Victorian, in which brick would have been used extensively. Instead, brick appears to make up only the base of the building, and the rest being either made entirely of wooden timbers, or the brick walls lined with wooden timbers. The architectural style would suit that of the 1700s (although farmhouses were private constructions and m,ay not follow any contemporary style), and bricks found in the bushes, which had been weathered and overgrown, appeared to be of earlier than Victorian origin. Therefore this was probably was the initial farmhouse, which had never been replaced since the 170os. However, little mention of the farmhouse appears in anywhere before the mid 1800s. The bricks were layed short-ways next to each other, which is quite unconventional – probably to make a wall only one brick wide as cheap as possible, without it being too thin. Either that, or it could have been the step to the front entrance – the bricks from the first layer protrude. In fact, neither layer of the the bricks showed signs that there would have been more layers on top, meaning that it could well have been a step. Bricks elsewhere were layed usually, length-ways. Therefore the bit we found was probably steps/not the main walls of the farmhouse.

Image31107 (1)

   Joe also found a piece of wooden timber in the grass, probably that of what lined the farmhouse in the photograph. The wood had a very dark rotten aesthetic, and it looked several hundreds of years old. It was about 1 meter long, and found lying out of place just under the grass foliage. It is lucky to have survived as long as it has, and looked older than the Victorian era. Whether the farmhouse which remains archaeologically today was built in the Victorian era, or several hundreds of years before, will remain a mystery. The farm was known as ‘Pantile Farm’ from 1774, and before was called ‘Longwick farm’. The house in fact follows Dutch style. Graham Stevens from the Canvey Community Archive stated that: “The name has always fascinated me because I could see no direct Canvey connection(marsh,wick etc). This has prompted me to do a little research on ‘pantiles’ as roofing material and find that they first appeared in Eastern England in the 17th cent and they were imported from, guess where? Holland! So it would appear our farm was named after it’s roof-tiles which could have arrived on Canvey as imports or more likely as ballast on Dutch eel-boats plying between Holehaven and Holland. P.S. The floor of Furtherwick Farm was reputed to be made of Dutch bricks originally used as ballast.” Some bricks in the bushes were found to be coated in a thick tar-like substance, which was again quite old in appearance. A section of reddish tiel was also found, possibly a piece of the infamous Dutch ‘pantile’. It is worth noting that archaeological digs took place on the site in 1995-6. One thing however is almost certain – the farmhouse would not have been built in the late Victorian era, because it was shown in the photo above to be long abandoned by 1935 – it probably was built and used long before then.

It is described in 1867 as:

“Pantile” belongs to E. Woodard, of Billericay, and likewise “Kersey,” situate in South Bemfleet.He purchased these farms of King’s College, Cam­bridge ; they were formerly parcel of Kersey Priory, at Hadleigh in Suffolk.

Tree Farm

The next farm was Southwick Farm, the most commonly known ‘Tree Farm’ on Canvey (there were several). It lied behind the seawall north of Northwick Road’s very end. The fact that both farmhouses were built near the wall indicates that a house with a view was clearly what farmers would usually go for! Up until recently, the site of the farmhouse would have been sheltered by small trees, although upon arrival we saw these had been cleared. The ground either side of the path through the middle was very flat, as if it had once been flattened for foundations of a building. The same ground plant which grew on the Pantile site also grew here too.

The below photograph, from possibly the 1990s, shows the site when it was last investigated. The main difference is that the tress are still standing.

7125_b (1)

In ‘The History of the Rochford Hundred’ book, 1867, by Philip Benton, the farm is described as this:

“Southwick Marsh” otherwise “Tree Farm,” in the parish of North Bemfleet, was formerly the property of Col. Wm. Brewse Kersteman; it was purchased by Jonathan Wood, and being sold by the trustees under his will, was bought by H. N. Wood (testator’s son).

We also know that the farm was used as a household beyond 1954, and was demolished some decades ago. It is described by SEAX Archeology as

Single-storied house with attics, timber-framed and weatherboarded, with thatched roofs. Built in the 17th century, the house is of central-chimney type with `modern additions’ to the rear and an original central chimneystack. <1> On OScard (1955) as `site of’ and deleted from OS field document. <2> <3> Nothing shown on OS 1:25000 map. <4> House shown on C and A map, 1777. <5> Demarcated on all sides by a ditch. Trackway leads in from south drains either side. Some tipping within area and farm track runs N/S through centre of site. Footings of building and ancillary structures probably survive beneath surface. Main damage to site caused by track cutting into sub soil <6>

Whether it used concrete or not in some part of its structure, we did find a small sudden mound on the site, which had chunks of concrete lying next to it, which looked old and rough, with small stones in it. We also found some old wood which was certainly rotten, and appeared to have once been a set of shaped timbers, which we know the structure was built from originally. We also finally found some brickwork pieces, which looked like red terracotta brick again. It had a glaze or tile cemented onto one side of it – perhaps from the floor? What the house was made from again remains a mystery, but there is the evidence.

As a final note, I can say this minor expedition was very successful, and remains were established of both farms. It would appear that if you were to remove the top soil from the site for Pantile, the building’s actual wall outlines e.t.c. would be clearly visible. A further investigation will be carried out at a later date now we have further knowledge, and we will come more equipped. This is the first time the remains of Pantile and Tree Farm have been recorded since demolition (or in the case of Pantile, since the aforementioned archaeological dig in the 90s). We are certainly the first to provide pictorial evidence. A video of our discovery will also be featured, and will appear shortly on this page. I will leave you with these two captivating images made using  Adobe Photoshop by Sam Hill, who joined us on the trip. He has merged images of the Tree Farm site and the old photo of the ruined Pantile Farmhouse, to create a representation of what it might look like to stumble across one of Canvey’s many old farmhouses, if one stood derelict today. Note this is not specifically meant to depict either of the two farms featured.

5797_558678170821051_985680777_n 524747_558677924154409_1275766705_n

!!THE BELOW IS NOT GENUINE AND IS OUR APRIL FOOL’S JOKE!!

Due to recent media interest, Beyond the Point has decided to release a press statement surrounding potential prosecution on us.

On March 23rd 2013, we decided to visit Walmarth Hospital to get some last minute photos before demolition takes places at the start of this month. After leaping over a fence at the back of the site, we narrowly avoided builders and security guards on the site, however we didn’t manage to avoid the CCTV cameras. After approaching a building with no metal shutters, we snuck in though a window. With an alarm sounding, we were quick to take our photos and film our footage before leaving. We had just climbed back out of the window before seeing several men in high-vis vests, one of which with a police dog. We decided to run in the opposite direction thinking that we hadn’t been seen before running past armed police who pointed tasers and guns at us. Being told to “get down” we frantically dropped to the floor and awaited further instructions. We were cuffed by the police before having a helicopter spotlight put on us. We were taken to the local police station, Frimpton Police Station, before being interviewed with a local solicitor present. Being collected at 11pm that afternoon, we were collected by our parents before getting a court date, April 18th. We will be appearing at Basildon court on that day to face possible prosecution and also to get legally given a cease and desist order, refraining us from continuing our work for http://www.beyondthepoint.co.uk. Regrettably we will have to close down the site along with all social networking connections by midnight, April 28th 2013. Unfortunately we cannot transfer the website to new owners however the domain name will go on sale. We apologise for the inconvenience caused and our personal fascination for history will no stop.

Further media statements will be issued in due course.

Believe what you wish..

Churchill at Shoebury fires the Sten Gun

Posted: December 27, 2012 by BTP Liam in Case Study, Various
Tags: , , ,

For a few years now I have seen the below photograph of Sir Winston Churchill test-firing the ‘Machine Carbine, Sten’, which is most commonly known as the Sten sub-machine gun. A sub-machine gun is a fairly small machine gun which fires pistol-sized bullets (pretty much any fairly small machine gun which is smaller than a rifle), and the Sten was Britian’s own which served through World War Two up until the 1960s. It was an answer to avoid having to import expensive Thompson sub-machine guns (a.k.a. ‘Tommy Guns’) from America, although it was cheap and not very sturdy. Despite this, it had a slower rate of fire and greater accuracy than the Tommy gun, meaning it could be utilized at greater distances effectively. It was Brtian’s own SMG, and was issued to non-front-line troops (as a self-defense weapon for artillery firers e.t.c.), to officers, and to the Home Guard, as well as Commandos who favored stealthy combat, and Paratroopers who needed a lightweight and compact weapon when they jumped. Others were given Lee-Enfield rifles.

Little did I know that this photograph of Churchill with the Sten was taken at the experimental battery in Shoebury (see more on the remains/history of the place on this site), now ‘Gunner’s Park’ – a nature reserve holding numerous battery constructions. It was taken in 1941, and it’s owner – the Imperial War Museum, states

Caption Winston Churchill took aim with a Sten gun during a visit to the Royal Artillery experimental station at Shoeburyness in Essex, England, United Kingdom, 13 Jun 1941
Photographer Horton

 

person_churchill2

A Sten Mk.II – This was the most common type of Sten used in WW2

 

In 1940, The British Expeditionary Force, Britain’s main army, was sent into France to help the French troops drive back the Germans during the first British assault of World War Two. However they were rapidly struck back, and were left in pieces on the French coast from which they arrived. With the Germans closing in fast, and nowhere to go but the English Channel, these troops were evacuated via Operation Dynamo, commonly known as the ‘Battle of Dunkirk; which lasted from the 26th of May to the 4th of June. ‘The Little Ships’ were some 700 privately owned boats (mainly fishing boats) owned by British citizens, which were volunteers who responded to the call for private small boats to come to Dunkirk and rescue the cornered remains of the British fighting force. One such boat, built in 1937, came from Burnham-on-Crouch, and remains burnt after arson in Smallgain’s Boat Yard on Canvey to-date. It was a 6-man boat designed to catch oysters via ‘dredging’ – a method which involved lifting up sediments from the seabed and capturing fish (or in this case mollusks) in a net. Its remains can be seen publicly to this day, and was in fine shape until its recent attack.

 

The Vanguard in dredging use in its prime

The boat pre-damage not long ago

The boat pre-damage not long ago

The boat was heavily damaged a few years ago due to a fire.

The boat was heavily damaged a few years ago due to a fire.

CK69

CK69

Internal Gubbings - Image by Dave Bullock

Internal Gubbings – Image by Dave Bullock

CK69

CK69

 

 

 

 

This ‘Association of Dunkirk Little Ships’ website details her:

Boat Specification

Boat Name:

Vanguard

Boat Type:

Oyster Smack

Boat Length:

45ft

Boat Beam:

14ft 6ins

Boat Draft:

4ft 6ins

Boat Displacement:

11.5 tons

Boat Engine:

Kelvin 44

Boat Construction:

Pitch pine on oak

Boat Builder:

R & J Prior, Burnham

Boat Year:

1937

Working boats are designed to suit their trade and the waters in which they earn their living. Our East coast rivers are muddy, tidal and tricky to navigate. But the oyster fishermen of the region know their waters like the back of their hands and their boats are designed to suit them, with a shallow draft, a low freeboard and wide decks to provide ideal working platforms. The Burnham Oyster Company had Vanguard purpose-built for dredging and she was designed to turn in her own length. Her deck allowed six men to work in comfort hauling in the nets. The deckhouse provided the minimum of shelter. Vanguard certainly was not intended for the open sea and would roll like a pig in anything above force 5.

Skipper Grimwade took her across to Dunkirk in 1940 with Joe Clough as his engineer. They went with another oyster dredger, the Seasalter which also survived and a ketch called Ma Joie which was abandoned and lost. They could not get into Dunkirk harbour, so they picked up the men from the beaches and 24 hours later, arrived back at Ramsgate loaded with troops.

At the end of the war, Keeble & Sons of Paglesham, Essex bought the Vanguard and put her back to oyster dredging which their family had done on the rivers Roach and Crouch for fifty years on thirty-four acres of rented oyster beds. But the bad winter of 1962 decimated the oyster population.

Those which survived the ice and the cold and succeeded in breeding since then, are now faced with the increasing hazards of pollution. So W. Keeble sold Vanguard to Ron Pipe, a fisherman at Burnham-on-Crouch, who used her for in-shore fishing for a while and sold her again. Ten years later, Doug Whiting bought her back from another owner in a sorry state. Now he has enlarged her wheel-house, given up oyster fishing and has taken up shrimping on the Roach and Crouch.

Since then she has changed hands again.

A few weeks back we headed up toward the new Sadler’s Farm upgrade, and turned off to the road which leads to St. Margaret’s Church, a more country lane. After exploring a few fences, we managed to get where we needed to be to visit the numerous pillboxes.

The first field backed straight on to the main farm buildings, which for that reason contained a good-condition pillbox clearly kept well by the farmer, and from the inquisitive members of the public (except us of course!). It was mounted on a concrete platform, and was brick-faced due to the moulding process which would have used bricks rather than wooden strips (causes the lines in concrete ones from where the concrete seeps between cement). It was a Type 26 (square with four standard loop-holes) and features a blast-wall protecting the entrance. This one however din’t have a loop on the entrance face of the pillbox, so only had three. It also featured an air-vent hole on-top through the ceiling to let out bad air produced from the firing of the guns inside.

A view from the field

Looking between the blast and entrance walls

Us posing inside!

We then painstaking (yes it was literally quite painful too) squeezed under a barbed wire fence and some thorn bushes into the next field west, we’re we found a large Type 28 pillbox. These pillboxes differed from the rest as they were designed as fortified anti-tank positions, with a large stepped loophole big enough to fit a 2-Pounder large gun, which was mounted with a shield across it’s front, and fired large 40mm (diameter of bullet) caliber rounds designed to pierce tank armour. It also features many standard loop holes for light-machine guns or rifles (there was a dividing wall in the pillbox which separated some normal loop-holes front he big gun loop-hole. Note how stepped-sides of loop-holes are to make incoming bullets deflect outwards and not inwards onto the crew. Sandbags would have been placed around the loop-hole to fill the space between it and the gun’s shield.

Myself at the 2-pounder loop

Joe on the east side (regular loop can be seen)

A contemporary diagram of an Ordnance QF 2-Pounder gun which would have been fired from this pillbox

We then cot back in the car following an easier public footpath along the south of the field, to which we then went back up the lane to opposite the farm’s main gate. In this field was another Type 26, with another blast wall. Although vines and the elements had started to get the better of it, we did go in and found tons of Peacock butterflies suspended around the ceiling. At first we thought these to be dead, but soon realized they must have gone in to feed from a salt or similar solution produced from the concrete in the presence of moisture. We also saved a butterfly from a spider’s web despite testing our courage in this pillbox, ridden with cobwebs and quite dark.

Watching over farm and field

Closer view

Beauty in decay

The final pillbox was a Type 24 – almost like a flat-ended hexagon. It had six sides, one being longer than the rest (containing the entrance with two pistol loops either side), with the other smaller sides having one regular loop hole in each. This was much further back up along the main road, to the north of it, in a public park. It featured a wall in the middle to stop explosions killing all the crew inside, instead just the ones in front of the wall.

The small sides

The larger side with pistol loops

Here is a plan of an average Type 24

So all in all it was a good trip out to liven-up a Sunday. Below is a great shot Joe got of a train powering down the adjacent railway, plus a slideshow of all our images from the day (you can mouse over it and flick through them yourself).

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Canvey’s first drainage was created in the 1620s by Dutch land reclaimation expert Cornelius Vermuyden, who made Canvey from marsh to solid ground. Hollowed out Elm trees created pipes, which one was dug up in the 70s now in the Dutch Cottage Museum’s garden. Dykes – ditches, where cut too, and the original water ways are still followed by the modern dykes, mostly concrete channels. One such channel, at a Canvey park (you’ll have to guess where) lead to a large concrete pipe about a metre in diameter going into a new housing area. We entered the pipe with gloves, a torch, a wellies. Please note this was only a water drain, not a sewer, which are inaccessible legally, and contain bad waste and noxious fumes, so don’t get confused!). Going around 6 metres in, it stopped with a brick square ‘room’, with a channel in the floor to allow the water to flow. A manhole cover which was seen above ground, could be seen from underneath! Another concrete pipe continued on around 12 metres, which we followed, but nearing the end, a sludge from year’s buildup was visible on the floor, and with the water level raising as we went further in, it was becoming ill-suited to our casual clothing. Turning out the torch left us in pitch black spare from the light at ‘the end of the tunnel’ behind us. The main reason for turning back, was the uncomfort of the squatting position (I wouldn’t sit down if I were you!) as we also couldn’t stand up. Unfortunately , 2/3rds of the way in, we found a date ’09/11/2001′ or at least similar, meaning we unfortunately didn’t see any slightly historic sections of the pipes, which was our main intention, despite seeing the weird world beneath us all.

‘Go for it!’

Peering in!

In the first ‘room’ (steps to manhole on left)

The manhole cover from above

Joe’s new style

You can see all our images here:

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.462947883727414.102924.238743826147822&type=3