News: Gypsy tart originated from the Isle of Sheppey
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Chatham 1864  (Read 10986 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Leofwine

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2391
  • Appreciation 339
  • Today is only yesterday's tomorrow
    • Brompton History Research Group
Re: Chatham 1864
« Reply #10 on: August 02, 2010, 02:03:10 »
A-ha, that might answer a question I'd wondered about.  In many of the early censuses River Street, most of Westcourt Street, and parts of Middle & Wood Street are in Chatham, the rest of Brompton is in Gillingham.  I wonder if that was when the whole of Brompton became part of Gillingham?
=========
Brompton History Research Group
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1891788967775575/

merc

  • Guest
Re: Chatham 1864
« Reply #9 on: August 01, 2010, 15:28:47 »
According to "The Gillingham Chronicles", Gillingham once owned a tongue of land stretching down the south slope of the Lines, which included Hardstown and ending somewhere near Chatham High Street. Due to the problems of main drainage building in about 1894, Gillingham had problems with this area and agreed to sell it to Chatham in return for an equivalent section of land from Brompton.


Offline bromptonboy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 703
  • Appreciation 33
Re: Chatham 1864
« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2010, 12:11:53 »
Numanfan, bottom right of the Hards Town area. Is that a Gasometer there?

Offline bromptonboy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 703
  • Appreciation 33
Re: Chatham 1864
« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2010, 11:05:39 »
Quite a few interesting things on the plans. Medway Street is a dead-end. Look at how far back from Railway Street Rome House is. I would put it where the current Victory House is. What on earth was 'The Alhambra' shown behind Military Road on the first plan? By the time of the 1909 Ordnance Survey the Alhambra had disappered as had Rome House. It is interesting to see that the Shrubbery appears to be WD Land as indicated by the Boundary Stones numbered WD 111, WD 112, WD 113 and WD 114. It is also interesting to see the area opposite Southill Barracks on the other side of Maidstone Road stretching down to Hills Terrace is all WD land as indicated by the boundary stones numbered WD 129 to WD 138. This puts the edge of this WD land only 900 feet short of the edge of the WD land at Fort Pitt suggesting that the 1790's plan to totally enclose Chatham in fortifications was as advanced as for the WD to have bought-up most of the land it required.

merc

  • Guest
Re: Chatham 1864
« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2010, 17:22:36 »
Jeyes (near the top, mid left) was a Builder, and i think Frederick (left of Jeyes) was either his son, or another part of his name. There's also a Jeyes and Frederick Road next to each other in Gillingham. Jeyes built a number of houses/Roads in the area and named some of the roads after himself, members of his family, and his interests.

Offline peterchall

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3620
  • Appreciation 166
  • 25.06.1929 - 12.03.2016
Re: Chatham 1864
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2010, 17:00:38 »
The row of houses south of the railway don't even have a pathway leading to them; in fact the first couple seem to be built on 'rubble' or whatever the 'shading' represents. They are what is now Herman Terrace, with a few houses of what is now Cromwell Terrace behind them, again with no access path..
It's no use getting old if you don't get artful

Offline Leofwine

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2391
  • Appreciation 339
  • Today is only yesterday's tomorrow
    • Brompton History Research Group
Re: Chatham 1864
« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2010, 16:33:34 »
I always understood cisterns were for water storage. Perhaps the cistern stored water for maintaining the gardens.

And the number of timber yards is not really surprising if you consider how fast Chatham was growing in this era, and also the ship/boat-building going on along the river.
=========
Brompton History Research Group
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1891788967775575/

Offline peterchall

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3620
  • Appreciation 166
  • 25.06.1929 - 12.03.2016
Re: Chatham 1864
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2010, 08:33:17 »
What was the "cistern", to the west of the Shrubbery? The number of timber yards is interesting, I wonder if the 20th century ones in Railway Street/High Street and Medway Street were also there.

The Town Hall was opened in January 1900. It was still "The Shrubbery" on 1907 OS map.
It's no use getting old if you don't get artful

Offline Leofwine

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2391
  • Appreciation 339
  • Today is only yesterday's tomorrow
    • Brompton History Research Group
Re: Chatham 1864
« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2010, 23:06:11 »
That's interesting.  I'd heard the Paddock was called that because it used to be used for horses in the 18th century, but it seems in the mid-19th century it was called the Shrubbery, not the paddock!

Interesting map Numanfan, and odd to see Chatham without the town hall (built 1890s?)
=========
Brompton History Research Group
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1891788967775575/

Offline numanfan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 540
  • Appreciation 122
    • www.move2medway.co.uk
Chatham 1864
« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2010, 21:44:20 »
To go with 'The Story of Chatham' by Presnail, I've got a copy of the 1864 Ordnance Survey that is mentioned in the book. Some very interesting roads / buildings / landmarks on there.

www.move2medway.co.uk - take the journey

 

BloQcs design by Bloc
SMF 2.0.11 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines