Harringay online

Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!

This is the high res version of the 'Dorset' map of Tottenham available in the Wikipedia entry on Tottenham (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tottenham). What is interesting about it is that it includes (in the top right corner - it is oriented with south at the top) the old shape of St. Ann's Road ('Chisley Lane'), the rough location of Chestnuts Park ('Hangers Greene') and the area of the Gardens Streets is marked as 'Lands belonging to St Iohns of Ierusalem'. It also seems to show the course of Stonebridge Brook to the north of St Ann's Road and, worryingly, a pond bang in the middle of the Gardens (where has it gone?)

Views: 694

Comment by Hugh on June 6, 2011 at 13:54

Interesting stuff. The St John's Lodge Reference is from the Riddell site. I think we can assume the building name is correct. As to its location, this 1864 OS map might help:



Unhelpfully, my copy of that map doesn't have the next segment to the west. Since this is OS I think we can assume it is correct.


The 1798 Wyburd map of the area is also of interest:



You can see why references might be made to Riddell living in Hangers Greene. Also note the change between the maps from Hangers Lane/Greene to Hanger Lane. For me this together with the use of Hangers for names elsewhere in the area (Bushey Hangers and Hangers Barne) supports the school of thought that assumes Hangers refers to a geographical feature.


Notice also in the 1798 map we have 'Blackup Lane'. This was rendered as 'Black Cap Lane' on the 1872 map. In both cases this was shown as being on the road now known as West Green Road. On the 1864 map, it is shown as 'Blackboy Lane' and is in its present day location.

Comment by Hugh on June 6, 2011 at 14:01

With regards to the 1619 map suggesting the continuing ownership of land by St John's, you make a good point. My article references the sources I used to conclude that it was taken by the Crown, but they may be wrong. Worth following up and checking.

Comment by linka on June 6, 2011 at 14:54
Very interesting - the idea of rummaging around in the land-holding history appeals to my inner (and outer) nerd.  I've had my eye on the 1864 Ordnance Survey map for a while. The Wyburd map is pretty interesting.  Should the hospital site ever be redeveloped in such a way that entails demolition and subsurface excavation, I vote the archaeologists get to look for St John's Lodge - it seems at least sixteenth century in date, perhaps older...
Comment by Hugh on June 8, 2011 at 8:13

This may take us a little further. Three maps:


This makes clearer:


1. Where the common land or Green was, e.g. the area south of the tree line shown in the middle map, where you can see '795'. This makes it clearer why St John's Lodge might have been described as being on Hanger Green. Below is a photo I took some years ago showing the remnants of these 'greens', round the corner on Seven Sisters Road just north of the railway bridge.


2. The third map helps us more clearly identify the building names and we can see the land that was taken by the hospital included the St John's Lodge land in its entirety. It also seems possibek that Rose Cottage became Hanger Lane Farm.


3. Comparing building shapes, it looks like they reused one of the buildings shown on the 1863 map within the hospital compound...........which makes me wonder. There's a building in pretty much that same position today as you can see from Google Maps.



I've had a look at it before and wondered if it predates the hospital, but had written it off as something built with the hospital. Now I'm rethinking that. From the shape, the maps suggest it's the same building. The latest map that shows it was drawn in 1895. The building certainly doesn't look later than that. So could it be part of, or associated with, St John's Lodge, I'm wondering. Below is a picture of the front of the building from a couple of years ago. The second is of the stained glass panel over the front door. Does that tell us anything? Little remains of the original interior.


Comment by StephenBln on June 8, 2011 at 8:56

The field/piece of ground  no. 1529 no doubt had a diiferent owner.. and therefore wasn't developed with the rest of the Gardens..  It later became the site of the M.E.T. building, later Ever-Ready factory.. 



Comment by Hugh on June 8, 2011 at 9:01

The Ever-Ready factory I knew about, though can find no documentary evidence of it. What was M.E.T? Here's a map snippet of that plot from 1914:




Comment by linka on June 8, 2011 at 11:15

I wondered about that extra plot to the West, as it was mentioned as having gardens/ a pool (nice bit of groundwater for the heavy metals from the factory...!).

Now, the building on the St John's Lodge spot - fascinating extra evidence, this, thanks so much for posting it. I'd been trying to peer at it before on Google maps because of its suspicious position, but it's hidden by trees on that. It looks like a nineteenth century facade, but possibly it was placed on an older footprint/orientation. It certainly matches the description, plan-wise, of Mrs. Riddell's St. John's Lodge, of having a rather broad central hall with rooms branching off on either side. 'Rambling old house' might suggest that it was older than mid-late nineteenth century, but perhaps Mrs. Riddell and her engineer husband redeveloped it (complete hypothesis).

There is an odd confusion about its current name. On the St. Ann's Hospital plan it appears as 'Highgate House'.  In the revised appraisal for the St. Ann's conservation area it is described as follows:


"On the south side of the hospital road, near the entrance, is Mayfield House, a large two storey locally listed Victorian building constructed of yellow London stock brick with red brick dressings.
It has a slate roof with projecting hipped gables, a decorative multi-paned glazed porch surmounted by a white-painted timber balcony and timber sash windows. It has a modern two-storey extension in matching style and materials that successfully remains subordinate to the original building. The buildings are connected by a glazed corridor."

There is no suggestion there that it is older than 19th century. If there's a half-basement or basement, the size of the bricks there might tell more about whether there was a complete rebuild or whether there are parts of an older building there. 


Finally, have you got a picture of the stained glass from the exterior? looking at the scroll under the bird, it looks like there is a word starting 'St.....' but the rest is obscured by the design.  It might say 'Ann's' but then it might say 'John's'....


I think it's possible that we've got Mrs. Riddell's house here (which means that the plaque might be in the wrong place). Whether it's older, in part ... hmmm!

Comment by linka on June 8, 2011 at 11:31
(I mean to say, the stained glass looks like it could be Arts & Craftsy-19th century too, but I have no knowledge of that kind of thing really. If we can call that a Phoenix and see a use of the 'St. John's' name it could allude to a rebuilding combined with a bit of Victorian medieval-fandom).
Comment by Hugh on June 8, 2011 at 11:31

I just looked again at the 1864 map I posted above a couple of days ago. And the possibly surviving house looks to be in a separate plot to St John's. So maybe a neighbour rather than associated with the lodge? The 1798 map suggests something was there with a simillar footprint at the end of the 18th cent. I wonder if Bruce Castle can help?

And, sorry no pic of the glass from the outside. I think I took them with my phone, but I'll check and see. If I used my camera I might be able to do something with the shots of the front of the house.

Comment by linka on June 8, 2011 at 11:42

hmmm - I'm not sure I see that the separate building is separate from the St John's plot? I need a printer and tracing paper but have neither handy. Hanger Greene House is the one referenced as existing in the grounds to the West, but it seems to have had a shorter life-span (although a 'Hangers' Barn' is attested set further into the fields in the 1619 map).

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of Harringay online to add comments!

Join Harringay online


© 2024   Created by Hugh.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service