Naval Dockyards

20TH CENTURY NAVAL DOCKYARDS:
DEVONPORT AND PORTSMOUTH CHARACTERISATION

REPORT
Naval Dockyards Society
Devonport Dockyard Portsmouth Dockyard

Title page picture acknowledgements
Top left: Devonport HM Dockyard 1951 (TNA, WORK 69/19), courtesy The National Archives.
Top right: J270/09/64. Photograph of Outmuster at Portsmouth Unicorn Gate (23 Oct 1964). Reproduced by permission
of Historic England.
Bottom left: Devonport NAAFI (TNA, CM 20/80 September 1979), courtesy The National Archives.
Bottom right: Portsmouth Round Tower (1843–48, 1868, 3/262) from the north, with the adjoining rich red brick Offices
(1979, 3/261). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Commissioned by The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England of 1 Waterhouse Square,
138-142 Holborn, London, EC1N 2ST, ‘English Heritage’, known after 1 April 2015 as Historic England.
Part of the NATIONAL HERITAGE PROTECTION COMMISSIONS PROGRAMME
PROJECT NAME: 20th Century Naval Dockyards Devonport and Portsmouth (4A3.203) Project Number 6265
dated 7 December 2012
Fund Name: ARCH
Contractor: 9865 Naval Dockyards Society, 44 Lindley Avenue, Southsea, PO4 9NU
Jonathan Coad Project adviser

Dr Ann Coats Editor, project manager and Portsmouth researcher
Dr David Davies Editor and reviewer, project executive and Portsmouth researcher
Dr David Evans Devonport researcher
David Jenkins Project finance officer
Professor Ray Riley Portsmouth researcher
Sponsored by the National Museum of the Royal Navy
Published by The Naval Dockyards Society

44 Lindley Avenue, Portsmouth, Hampshire, PO4 9NU, England
navaldockyards.org
First published 2015
Copyright © The Naval Dockyards Society 2015

The Contractor grants to English Heritage a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, perpetual, irrevocable
and royalty-free licence to use, copy, reproduce, adapt, modify, enhance, create derivative works and/or
commercially exploit the Materials for any purpose required by Historic England.
All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication
may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means
(electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the
copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.
British Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-0-9929292-0-6
ebook ISBN 978-0-9929292-2-0
Design © Tricorn Books, 131 High Street, Old Portsmouth, PO1 2HW
www.tricornbooks.co.uk
This book is printed in UK on Forest Stewardship CouncilTM certified paper
Contents
Preface xi
Acknowledgements and Permissions xiii
Abbreviations and Glossary xvii
List of tables xxi
Abbreviated list of figures xxii
Part 1: Historical background and characterisation 1

1 Dockyards 1
1.1 Historical background to British twentieth century dockyards 2
1.2 Political and strategic background to British twentieth century dockyards 4
1.3 First to second world wars 12
1.4 War damage 15
1.5 After the second world war 19
1.6 Into the twenty-first century 27
1.7 Dockyard and naval personnel 28
1.8 Women in dockyards 29
1.9 Fuel, ordnance, submarines and missiles 32
1.10 Devonport Dockyard overview 36
1.11 Portsmouth Dockyard overview 37
2 Characterisation 38
2.1 Characterisation process 43
2.2 Military characteristics 46
2.3 Industrial characteristics 47
2.4 Material characteristics 50
2.5 Architectural characteristics 54
2.5.1 Form and Function 54
2.5.2 Spaces and Vistas 58
2.5.3 Copying 60
2.5.4 Innovation 64
2.5.5 Usage 66
3 Changes to the naval estate 68
4 Conclusions 74
Illustrations
Part 2: Devonport Dockyard in the twentieth century 77

2.1 Introduction 77
2.2 From 1895 to the second world war 78
2.3 The second world war and its consequences 80
2.4 A new era begins 83
2.5 The Modern Movement arrives at Devonport 87
2.6 The Submarine Refit Complex 94
2.7 A green policy is formulated for Devonport 98
2.8 Modernisation and enhancement of nuclear submarine support facilities 99
2.9 Modernisation and changing rôles of earlier buildings 101
Illustrations
Part 3: Portsmouth Dockyard in the twentieth century 105
3.1 Introduction 105
3.2 Geology 107
3.3 Characterisation 109
3.4 Road names 109
3.5 Materials 110
3.6 Buildings 110
3.6.1 Area 1 110
3.6.2 Area 2 150
3.6.2.1 Railways 171
3.6.3 Area 3 173
3.6.4 Area 4 HMS Nelson accommodation and services 188
3.7 Conclusions 196
Appendix: Summary of significant twentieth century changes 200
at Portsmouth Dockyard
Illustrations
Part 4: Conclusions and recommendations 205

4.1 Primary findings 206
4.2 Stories 208
4.2.1 Portsmouth Dockyard Model 208
4.2.2 Dockyard museums 210
4.2.3 On the Knee Mutiny, 1906 210
4.2.4 Floating docks 210
4.2.5 Portsmouth Promontory stones re-used? 210
4.2.6 Pevsner and Lloyd critique 210
4.2.7 Dockyard amenities 211
4.3 Research questions 211
4.4 Finally 212
Appendix 1 Project methodology 213

1 Non-technical summary 213
2 Background 214
3 Research aim and objectives 216
4 Contents 216
5 Business case 217
6 Scope 220
7 Research strategy 220
8 Risk and ethics assessment 226
9 How the Naval Dockyards Society fulfilled the business case 228
10 Stakeholders 229
11 Archives 229
12 Document and building/structure record forms 230
13 Archive and dissemination 230
14 Timescale 232
15 Results 233
16 Conclusions and recommendations 233
Appendix 2 List of sources for maps, plans, models, aerial and ground 237
photographs relating to Devonport and Portsmouth Dockyards
Appendix 3 Devonport Dockyard designations 255
3.1 Listed and scheduled buildings 255
3.2 English Heritage (2013), South West Heritage at Risk Register 302
3.3 Buildings at Risk Register for Plymouth (2005) 302
Buildings at Risk Register for Plymouth (2013)
3.4 Plymouth Conservation Areas 306
3.5 Further relevant Plymouth City Council documents 306
Appendix 4 Portsmouth Dockyard designations 309

4.1 Listed and scheduled buildings 309
4.2 English Heritage (2013), South East Heritage at Risk Register 356
4.3 Hampshire County Council (2005). Threatened Historic Buildings 359
in Hampshire Register: Portsmouth
4.4 City of Portsmouth (2005). Portsmouth Conservation Area 22 359
HM Naval Base and St George’s Square - including the Historic Dockyard and The Hard
4.5 Conservation Area No. 18 Guildhall & Victoria Park 359
4.6 City of Portsmouth (December 2006, updated 2011). 360
Statutory List of Buildings & Ancient Monuments
4.7 City of Portsmouth (2011). Local List of Buildings of Architectural 360
or Historic Interest
References 361
Bibliography 405
PREFACE
This characterisation study was commissioned by English Heritage, now Historic England, to increase
our overall understanding of the dockyard built environment by telling the national story of twentieth
century dockyards and the particular narratives of Devonport and Portsmouth Dockyards, the two
remaining English naval bases. Before this study, twentieth century dockyards had not been appraised
holistically. It will inform possible future discussions with the MoD and Dockyards to enable Historic
England to focus its resources effectively in managing these historic environments. It was also
important to assess them before imminent naval policy changes further affect the built environment.
The tender to provide information for the understanding of the significance and value of naval
dockyards and to produce a report was awarded to the Naval Dockyards Society in December 2012.
The report was compiled through archival and library research and short field visits with the approval
of the Ministry of Defence, the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, Babcock International Group
(Devonport), BAE Systems (Portsmouth) and Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
The research team, all members of the Naval Dockyards Society, comprised two architectural
historians, one industrial archaeologist, two maritime historians and an experienced finance officer.
The frequency with which the names Coad, Evans and Riley occur in the designations underlines
their expertise. As volunteers the team was sensitive to the range of stakeholders and depth of
interpretations which are vital to characterisation.
The period covered by the study starts with the Naval Defence Act (1889) and the 1895 Naval Works
Act, which expanded the major British naval dockyards. The end of the twentieth century was marked
by the Strategic Defence Review Report (July 1998) and the 2005 Defence Industrial Strategy which
focused resources on increased offensive air power, two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers and the
Astute class of nuclear submarines. Devonport and Portsmouth have been subject to divisive naval
cuts in the late twentieth century, their future often posed as either/or. Ownership and management
have also changed significantly, with implications for historic buildings.
It should be noted that while ‘dockyard’ remained the official term until supplemented by ‘naval base’
in the late 1960s, the terms are used interchangeably by historians and residents. To professionals the
naval base is the total RN area and the dockyard is the operational area.
Part 1 describes the historic topographical development through technological developments and
phases related to changing technological and strategic needs. It analyses the changes driven by
naval platforms, ordnance, fuel, materials, architecture, and the economic and cultural ramifications.
Part 2 Devonport, and Part 3 Portsmouth, convey the findings which can be cross-referenced with
Appendices 3 and 4, collations of Devonport and Portsmouth Dockyard Designations. Parts 2 and
3 are dissimilar in structure because the team had differing levels of access to the dockyards. The
Conclusions summarise the primary findings and recommend ways in which this study will lead
to future research. Appendix 1 provides a more detailed explanation of the methodology used in
assembling this report. The report is illustrated by copies of plans and air and ground photography,
listed in Appendix 2, which indicate significant phases of expansion and individual buildings.
References list primary documents relating to Devonport and Portsmouth Dockyards.
The team aimed for Coad’s criteria of ‘Clear dissemination’ and a ‘good read’ to ‘enthuse a wider
audience’. He warned that ‘If a document is not a “good read” it tends to go to the bottom of the
in-tray or onto the top shelf and remain unread. What price all its knowledge and recommendations
then?’ (2005, p. 228) The NDS hopes that this study will be used by a broad spectrum of readers and
historians, interested in how these two dockyards have been crucial to the evolution of these two
communities and their hinterlands. It is capable of revealing an infinite range of diverse stories which
will explain the contemporary tapestry of their built environments and demographic trends.
xi
At dissemination seminars the question was asked ‘What are the main differences between the
two dockyards?’ Visually, Devonport is grey and Portsmouth red. These colours were historically
dominant, reflecting their respective underlying limestone/granite, and clay/brickearth, and continued
through the twentieth century with most new Devonport buildings composed of concrete or grey
Portakabins, and most Portsmouth buildings still red brick.
Devonport feels more consistently connected to the sea because its long thin curve, its landward
expansion being constrained by the Devonport community, follows and rises from the Tamar estuary,
whereas Portsmouth, having expanded on reclaimed or undeveloped land, forms a flat triangle with
two sides facing the harbour, sea views accessible only from the harbour walls and jetties.
Architecturally, Devonport has more clearly delineated eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth century
areas, whereas, due to listing, some historic buildings remain in Portsmouth’s otherwise modernised
areas, such as North Corner and Area 3. Stylistically both dockyards employed neoclassical design
well into the twentieth century, this tendency being breached at Portsmouth by Boathouse No. 6
in 1940 and by Modernist and Brutalist buildings in both yards, but neoclassicism has continued at
Portsmouth in some late twentieth century buildings.
Excluding parts of Portsmouth’s Area 3, which could be a generic industrial park, both dockyards
palpably express their identity. Their complete range of activities could be carried out nowhere else.
This report is a work of reference, an analysis and a narrative.
Ann Coats
Chair, The Naval Dockyards Society
June 2014
xii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND PERMISSIONS
Part 1 was written by Ann Coats with advice from Jonathan Coad and David Evans. Part 2 was written
by David Evans with advice from Jonathan Coad and David Davies, and additions by Ann Coats. Part
3 was written by Ray Riley, Ann Coats and David Davies with advice from Jonathan Coad and David
Evans. Part 4 was written by Ann Coats with advice from Jonathan Coad and David Evans. Appendix 1
was written by Ann Coats with advice from Jonathan Coad, David Davies and David Evans. Appendices
2-4 were compiled by Ann Coats. Executive David Davies edited the final report with patience and
good humour. Financial Officer David Jenkins managed the accounts. The members of the team are
thanked for their dedication, professionalism and patience.
We are indebted to Gail Baird of Tricorn Books, 131 Design Ltd, who formatted the report meticulously
through helpful discussions, to Richard Brooks for proofreading, and to the National Museum of the
Royal Navy for sponsoring post-production image manipulation.
We gratefully acknowledge the advice, guidance and patience of Wayne Cocroft and Paddy O’Hara
of Historic England and the unbounded support of Historic England personnel for all aspects of this
project.
This report owes much to the generosity of many stakeholders, in particular the site owners. At both
Devonport and Portsmouth Dockyards they were generous in giving access to their archives, thus
important information has been acquired about twentieth century changes. Text and photographs
have been submitted to them for approval. The NDS undertook to respect their requirements
concerning confidentiality, but emphasised a professional obligation to make the results of the
investigation available to the wider community within a reasonable time. Portsmouth Royal Dockyard
Historical Trust and members of its Support Group, and the Association of Friends of Plymouth Naval
Base Museum and Devonport Naval Heritage Centre have given every possible support, including
evidence about twentieth century uses of buildings. Many other organisations have been generous
with information.
All reasonable efforts have been made to trace the copyright owners of images and to provide an
appropriate acknowledgement in the book. For permission to reproduce images we are indebted to
Babcock International Group Devonport
British Aerospace Systems Portsmouth
British Transport Treasures
George Malcolmson
Historic England, including the Aerofilms Collection
Imperial War Museum
Ministry of Defence
MoD Admiralty Library, Naval Historical Branch, Portsmouth
National Museum of the Royal Navy Portsmouth
Plymouth City Museum and Art Gallery
Plymouth and West Devon Record Office
Plymouth City Council (Arts and Heritage)
Plymouth City Museum and Art Gallery
Portsmouth Museums and Records Service
xiii
Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust
Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust
Plymouth City Council (Arts and Heritage)
The National Archives
Western Morning News Ltd
Wilkinson Eyre
The following people have given invaluable specific assistance, for which the team and the Naval
Dockyards Society are extremely grateful, but Jonathan Coad deserves especial mention for his
consistently generous and constructive guidance as adviser, which helped to shape the report.
Aberg, Alan, BA, FSA, FRGS, Vice-President of the Society for Nautical Research
Ball, Katy, Registrar, Historic Environment Records Office, Portsmouth Museums and Records
Service, Portsmouth City Museum
Barclay, Alan, Archives Assistant, Economic Development Plymouth City Council, Plymouth &
West Devon Record Office, Plymouth
Barnett, Stephanie, Dr, Senior Lecturer, School of Civil Engineering and Surveying, University of
Portsmouth
Barrett, Ann, Research Leader, Ryde Social Heritage Group
Barrie-Smith, Caroline, Community Participation and Learning Officer, Boathouse Four
Bolger, Rick, BAE Systems Maritime Services Estates: Strategic Asset Management & Historic Estate
Conservation Manager, Portsmouth
Broadbent, Geoffrey, Professor, Former Head of the School of Architecture, University of
Portsmouth
Brooks, Richard, historian and author
Broomfield, Rachel, and Maslen, Jess, Historic Environment Officers, Development Management
Planning Services, Plymouth City Council, Plymouth
Butt, Mark, Projects and Facilities Manager Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust
Buxton, Ian, Professor, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, President World Ship Society
Carpenter, Lorraine, Administration & Personnel Manager Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust
Chantrill, Christopher, UK Public Spending
Cocroft, Wayne, Senior Investigator, Assessment Team, Historic England, Cambridge
Cook, Bob, Devonport Naval Heritage Centre
Crump, John, Chairman Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust
Dapree, Eddie, volunteer, National Museum of the Royal Navy Portsmouth
Dence, Roger, independent maritime history researcher, born and largely brought up on the Isle
of Wight.
Denwood, Jesse, Strategic Development Manager 1, Portsmouth Naval Base, Defence
Infrastructure Organisation
Donnithorne, Chris, Naval Biographical Database
xiv
Dowding, Nicola, Collections Manager FAAM/Peripatetic Curator NMRN,
Fleet Air Arm Museum, Yeovilton
Ford, Tony, Executive Officer, HMS Warrior 1860, Victory Gate, HM Naval Base Portsmouth
Frost, Charlotte, Porter’s Gardener Portsmouth Dockyard
Goodship, Peter, Consultant Chief Executive, Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust
Gurr, Javis, Archive Licensing Officer, Historic England
Hamilton, C. I., naval historian
Hawkins, Duncan, Director CgMs Consulting, Planning, Archaeology & Historic Buildings
Consultants
Historic England Designation Team, Bristol
Ingles, Victoria, Senior Curator of Current Navy and Special Collections, National Museum of the
Royal Navy Portsmouth
Isherwood, Abi, Projects Coordinator, Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust
Johnson, Heather, Information and Enquiries Assistant, Library of the National Museum of the Royal
Navy, Portsmouth
Johnson, Paul, The National Archives Image Library Manager
Kilgallon, Isobel, Senior Specialist Technician, University of Portsmouth
Lambert, Peter, MCIOB, MaPS, DipSurv, Property Surveyor, Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust
Lang, Graham, MCIAT, MCIOB, PG. Dip. Cons., Senior Asset Manager, Babcock International Group,
Devonport Royal Dockyard, Plymouth, Devon (retired 2012)
Macey, Jennifer, HER Assistant, Portsmouth City Council, Portsmouth Museums and Records Service
Malcolmson, George, Archivist, Royal Navy Submarine Museum, Haslar Jetty Road, Gosport
Mazeika, Chris, Master Shipwright’s House, Deptford
Miles, Dennis, Strategic Development Manager BAE Systems, Surface Ships Support Portsmouth
(retired 2013)
Morgan, Anne, Archivist, Economic Development, Plymouth City Council, Plymouth & West Devon
Record Office, Plymouth
Myers, Sandy, historian of West Dockyard, Simon’s Town, RSA
Naylor, Graham, Senior Librarian (History & Information) Plymouth Central Library, Plymouth
Nex, Peter, Portsmouth Dockyard apprentice, 1950s
O’Hara, Paddy, Archaeological Projects & TUs Chair, English Heritage, Fort Cumberland, Portsmouth
Overton, Nigel, Maritime Heritage Officer, Plymouth City Museum
Pennycook, Val, Chair of the Portsmouth Branch of the Association of WRNS
Pettit, Captain Gary, Captain of the Base, Devonport, Royal Navy
Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust Support Group, especially Archie Malley
Rankin, Stuart, Curator British Transport Treasures
Richards, William, Master Shipwright’s House, Deptford
xv
Rigby, J. C., ADC, Commodore RN, Naval Base Commander Portsmouth
Rowse, Paul, World Naval Ships Forum
Santillo, Paul, Research Coordinator, Devonport Naval Heritage Centre
Shaw, Jacquie, Head of Communications and Operations, Portsmouth Historic Dockyard
Sheldon, Matthew, Executive Director of Heritage, National Museum of the Royal Navy Portsmouth
Sherren, David, Map Librarian, University of Portsmouth
Smith, Wendy, author St Ann’s Church. A Brief History (2001)
Stedman, John, Archivist, Portsmouth Museums, Archives and Visitor Services, Portsmouth
City Museum
Steel, Vice Admiral David, CBE, Second Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Personnel & Training,
Royal Navy
Stephens, Roger, Sculptor, Salisbury
Tweddle, Professor Dominic, Director General, National Museum of the Royal Navy
Vincent, Tim, MRICS, Property Manager, Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust
Wareham, Allison, Library Information and Enquiries Manager, Library of the National Museum
of the Royal Navy, Portsmouth
Watson, Deborah, Senior Archives Assistant, Plymouth & West Devon Record Office, Economic
Development, Plymouth City Council, Plymouth
Welch, Chris, Babcock International Group Programme Manager, Devonport
Wraight, Jenny, Admiralty Librarian, Royal Navy Naval Historical Branch, Portsmouth
xvi
ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY
Abbreviations
2SL Second Sea Lord (Chief of Naval Personnel & Training and Second Sea Lord)
BAe British Aerospace
BAES BAE Systems plc, the 1999 merger of British Aerospace Systems, Marconi
Electronic Systems (MES) and the General Electric Company plc (GEC)
BAR/R Buildings at Risk/Register
BL British Library
BVT Surface Fleet BAE Systems Surface Fleet Solutions and VT Shipbuilding
CA Conservation Area
CE-in-C Civil Engineer-in-Chief’s Dept (Admiralty)
CNH Commander-in-Chief Naval Home Command
COB Central Office Block
COS Chief of Staff
CP Cathodic protection
CPRO Central Pay and Record Office
Cwt Centum weight, British [long] one hundred pounds weight; actually 112
pounds avoirdupois or eight stone (50.802345 kg)
DBE Design Based Event
DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government

DCMS Department for Culture, Media and Sport
DE&S Defence Equipment and Support
DEFRA Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
DIO Defence Infrastructure Organisation
DML Devonport Management Limited
DNST Director of Naval Stores Transport
DOE Department of the Environment
dt displacement tonnage
EEM Electrical Engineering Manager
EH The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, created by
the National Heritage Act 1983 and known as English Heritage from 1983–2015
FDC Floating Dock Complex
FDJ Floating Dock Jetty
FMB Fleet Maintenance Base
xvii
FMBF Fleet Maintenance Base Facilities
FO Flag Officer
FOSF Flag Officer Surface Flotilla
FOTR Flag Officer Training and Reserves
HAR/R Heritage at Risk/Register
HE The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, previously
known as English Heritage, but after 1 April 2015 as Historic England.
HERs Historic Environment Records (also known as Sites and Monuments Records)
held by County Councils, District Councils or Unitary Authorities. They
provide accessible information on the archaeology and the historic built
environment held for each local authority area.
HKPA Howell, Killick, Partridge and Amis, architectural partnership
HLC Historic Landscape Characterisation
HLF Heritage Lottery Funding
HMNBPR1992 HM Naval Base Property Register (1992)
HWS High Water Spring
ICEVL Institution of Civil Engineers Virtual Library
KCL King’s College London
LLRF Low Level Refuelling Facility
MCD Manager Constructive Department
MED/M.E.D. Mechanical Engineering Department
MEWW Mechanical Engineering Weapons Workshop
MG Motor Generator
MPBW Ministry of Public Buildings and Works
MoD Ministry of Defence
MoD ALNHBP MoD Admiralty Library, Naval Historical Branch, Portsmouth
MT Motor Transport
NAAFI Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes which since 1921 provided canteens and
other recreational facilities for British military servicemen, see http://www.
naafi.co.uk/
NAO National Audit Office
NBC Naval Base Commander
ND Non Destructive
NDS Naval Dockyards Society
NMM National Maritime Museum, Greenwich
NMR (Historic England) National Monuments Record
NMRNP National Museum of the Royal Navy, Portsmouth
xviii
OED (1986). Compact edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (2 volumes). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
OS Ordnance Survey
PCC Plymouth City Council, Portsmouth City Council
PDC Portsmouth Distribution Centre
PMRS Portsmouth Museums and Records Service
PNBPT Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust
PRDHT Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust
PRDHTSG Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust Support Group
PSA Property Services Agency
PSTO(N) Principal Stores and Transport Officer (Navy)
PWDRO Plymouth and West Devon Record Office
QM Quarter Master
RA Royal Academy
RMAS Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service (tugs, launches etc)
RE/R.E. Royal Engineer
S(A)M Scheduled (Ancient) Monument
SCE Superintending Civil Engineer
SDSR Strategic Defence and Security Review
SHAPE Strategic Framework for Historic Environment Activities and Programmes
SNSO Senior Naval Stores Officer
SRC Submarine Refit Complex
SRJ South Railway Jetty
SSN Ship, Submersible, Nuclear: a US inspired and NATO term for a nuclear-
powered general-purpose attack submarine
SSBN Ship, Submersible, Ballistic, Nuclear: a submarine deploying submarine-
launched ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads
TNA The National Archives of England and Wales, Kew
VT Group Vosper Thornycroft Group
Glossary
Altar/alter Steps incorporated into the dock side to shorten the length of supports
needed for a wooden hull and to reduce the volume of water needed to
fill the dock.
Asbestos Mineral fibres used widely in the twentieth century for fire retardation and
insulation in buildings and ships. Long term inhalation has caused pulmonary
asbestosis among dockyard workers. Blue and brown asbestos were banned
in 1985 but some dockyard buildings still contain them.
xix
Ballast pig Oblong cast iron ingot used as ships’ ballast.
Bartisan Wall-mounted turret projecting from a fortification. Most frequently found
at corners, they protected a warder and enabled him to see his surroundings
through oylets or arrow slits.
Broad arrow An arrowhead shaped mark used by government departments such as the
Boards of Admiralty and Ordnance to mark their stores.
Capital ships First class and leading warships carrying the heaviest firepower and directing
sea missions, defined in the naval limitation treaties of the 1920s and 1930s.
Castanea cf. sativa Sweet chestnut (possible identity/significant resemblance to a known species)
Caisson Boat-shaped vessel used as a dock gate, floated into place when empty, then
flooded in situ. It carries roads and rails to give access across the dock. From
the nineteenth century sliding caissons were fitted within grooves constructed
either side of the dock entrance.
Degaussing Procedure to reduce ships’ magnetic signatures during the Second World War
and protect vessels from magnetic mines. A large pulsing electrical cable was
dragged along the side of the ship so that its magnetic field did not stand out
from the Earth’s magnetic field.
Ferrobestos Asbestos in sheets, for jointing.
Junk Old/discarded/waste cable from ships, cut up and used as fenders, or picked
apart to be used as oakum (loose rope fibres used for caulking the seams of
wooden hulled ships).
Knuckle Rounded protruding masonry between slips or docks shaped like a knuckle
of bone.
Marlborough Salient An area of Portsea approximately 200 yards north-south by 100 yards east-
west, comprising the three parallel streets of Marlborough Row, Gloucester
Street and Frederick Street. It was surrounded by Portsmouth Dockyard on
three sides and acquired by the Admiralty in 1944 for new workshops.
Oculus Deriving from the Latin word for eye (also called a bull’s eye), a circular
window or opening in a building, used in neoclassical architecture.
Paravane Underwater float towed behind a minesweeper to cut mine cables or used
to carry anti-submarine explosives.
Pintle Pin or bolt, on which some other part turns, as in a hinge.
Pinus sp. Pine species.
Pocket Recess or cavity in the ground resembling a pocket, confined on three sides,
hence a small extension to a basin.
Portsmouth Common Residential neighbourhood of the dockyard. Until the 1690s it comprised the
common fields of Portsmouth Borough and at least one ropeyard. The first
houses were built in New Buildings in 1699 by speculator Thomas Seymour.
In 1792 the district’s name was changed from Portsmouth Common to Portsea
by the Portsea Improvement Act.
Roller fairlead Device to guide a line, rope or cable around an object, out of the way or to
stop it from moving laterally. Typically of cast iron, found around docks, slips
and basins, it is used to guide the winch cable and remove lateral strain from
the winch. The fairlead may be a separate piece of hardware, or it could be
a hole in the structure.
xx
Quercus sp. Oak species
Sacrificial anodes Metal alloy fittings inserted into reinforced concrete. They have a more
positive electrochemical potential than the reinforced iron bars they are used
to maintain, providing cathodic protection to consume future oxidation.
Scarf joint Shipwright’s joint whereby two timbers are connected longitudinally into a
continuous piece, the ends being halved, notched or cut away so as to fit
into each other with mutual overlapping. (OED)
Sullage stand Container for refuse from the dockyard and the docks
Warping Moving a ship in a basin or dock by hauling a line around a bollard or capstan.
Watering Island Area of reclaimed land at the southwest corner of Portsmouth Dockyard
which had sufficient depth of water and was conveniently close to the
harbour entrance to supply ships with water from the seventeenth century
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.4.1 Bomb Falls Districts around Devonport Dockyard 1940–44 16
Table 1.4.2 Bomb Falls Portsmouth Dockyard 1940–44, excluding incendiaries 17
Table 1.4.3 Bomb Falls Royal Naval Barracks Portsmouth 1940–41 17
Table 1.7.1 Overall dockyard personnel numbers, 1711–1901 28
Table 1.7.2 Individual dockyard personnel numbers, 1895 28
Table 1.7.3 Dockyard officers and men, Portsmouth and Devonport Dockyards, 1905–14 28
Table 1.7.4 Budgeted manpower numbers in Royal Dockyards 1905–6 and 1913–14 29
Table 1.7.5 Naval personnel 1900–2012 29
xxi
ABBREVIATED LIST OF FIGURES1
PART 1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CHARACTERISATION

Fig. 1. Photograph of the launch of super-Dreadnought HMS Orion on 20 August 1910 from Portsmouth
Slip No. 5. PMRS, PORMG 1945/654/2.
Fig. 2. Photograph by Reginald Silk showing C3 submarine leaving Portsmouth Harbour passing
Semaphore Tower, a paddle steamer and HMS Dreadnought moored at South Railway Jetty,
entitled ‘Submarine passing the Dreadnought’. PMRS, PORMG 1945/653/16.
Fig. 3. Front cover, Gale and Polden (July 1912). Official Programme of the Great Naval Review,
Spithead.
Fig. 4. ADM01 (June 1908) p. b. Numbers and Dimensions of Locks, Docks and Basin Entrances in
HM Dockyards. Admiralty Book. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 5. Photograph showing a Phoenix Caisson for the Mulberry Harbour under construction in
C Lock, the Royal Naval Dockyard Portsmouth (27.1.1944). Imperial War Museum image
H 35374 (2003/583 PMRS) supplied by PMRS.
Fig. 6. Plymouth Blitz “Bomb Book” page 40, noted as Air Raid 38 on 21 Apr 1941. PWDRO,
1555/40.
Fig. 7. Plymouth Blitz “Bomb Book” page 41, noted as Air Raids 38A, 21–22 April 1941. PWDRO,
1555/41.
Fig. 8. Plymouth Blitz “Bomb Book” page 42, noted as Air Raids 39 and 40, 22–23 Apr 1941.
PWDRO, 1555/42.
Fig. 9. Plymouth Blitz “Bomb Book” page 2, c.1944. PWDRO, 1555/2.
Fig. 10. Photograph Devonport, Fore Street, air raid damage, c. October 1941. PWDRO, 1418/1360.
Fig. 11. Devonport Central Hall, Open Air Service, Plymouth, c.1942. PWDRO, 1418/1220.
Fig. 12. HMS Achates, Devonport, Launch, 20 September 1945. PWDRO, 1418/2303.
Fig. 13. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth and Royal Navy barracks, bombs dropped in the
southwest corner, 1940–43. TNA (1942). WORK 41/314.
Fig. 14. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth and Royal Navy barracks, bombs dropped in the Western
Jetties and North Corner, 1940–43. TNA (1942). WORK 41/314.
Fig. 15. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth and Royal Navy barracks, bombs dropped in the Tidal
Basin and Basin No. 3, 1940–43. TNA (1942). WORK 41/314.
Fig. 16. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth and Royal Navy barracks, bombs dropped in Area 3,
1940–43. TNA (1942). WORK 41/314.
Fig. 17. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth and Royal Navy barracks, bombs dropped in
Accommodation Area, 1940–43. TNA (1942). WORK 41/314.
Fig. 18. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth and Royal Navy barracks, bombs dropped near Dock Nos
12-15 and Accommodation Area, 1940–43. TNA WORK 41/314.
Fig. 19. UK Total government debt in the twentieth century. UK Public Spending, 27 Aug 2013.
Fig. 20. Photograph of Portsmouth Artificers (784A/10/1 image supplied by PMRS) PRDHT.
1
Full citations and permissions are given in the figure captions. Citations are also listed in Appendix 2 and References.
A bold Fig. no. indicates that the image is captioned more than once in Part 1 and/or Part 3.
xxii
Fig. 21. Photograph of female munitions workers, Electrical Engineers Department, Easter 1916.
Image 1340A/1/5 supplied by PMRS, PRDHT.
Fig. 22. Photograph of women in Portsmouth Dockyard, some wearing triangular ‘On War Service’
badges. Image 1340A/1/6 supplied by PMRS, PRDHT.
Fig. 23. Large decorative scrolled abutments at Rochefort Dockyard Ropery (1666–69).
A. Coats 2008.
Fig. 24. Louis XIV’s personal emblem at Rochefort Dockyard Ropery (1666–69). A. Coats 2008.
Fig. 25. Former Naval Academy at Portsmouth (1729–32, 1/14), east elevation. A. Coats 2014.
Fig. 26. Former Naval Academy at Portsmouth (1729–32, 1/14), cupola. A. Coats 2014.
Fig. 27. South elevation, Portsmouth HMS Nelson/Main Gate (1734, 1899–1903). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 28. Welcome message at Portsmouth Trafalgar Gate (2011). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 29. Portsmouth Unicorn Training Centre Gate (1980). A. Coats 2014.
Fig. 30. Future navy, by pupils of Flying Bull School, Portsmouth Trafalgar Gate (2011).
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 31. HMS Queen Elizabeth 2016 and HMS Princess Royal 1911, Portsmouth. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 32. Maritime planting at Portsmouth Trafalgar Gate (2011). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 33. Portsmouth D East Substation, built as Motor Generator House No. 18, extended 1950
(1939, 2/205). A. Coats, 2013.
Fig. 34. Twentieth century Portsmouth bicycle shed near North Camber. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 35. Twenty-first century Portsmouth bicycle shed on Mountbatten Way. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 36. Twenty-first century Portsmouth bicycle shed near Dock No. 12. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 37. Dockyard granite blocks re-used as seats, Porter’s Garden. A. Coats 2008.
Fig. 38. Concrete architrave, Portsmouth Storehouse No. 5 (1951, 1/34). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 39. Concrete sill, Portsmouth Storehouse No. 34 (c.1786, 1/149). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 40. South entrance, Light Plate Shop/No. 1 Ship Building Shop, Portsmouth (1867, 2/172).
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 41. Movable storage containers, Portsmouth compound. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 42. Photovoltaic cells, Portsmouth in 2013. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 43. Aerial photograph, straightened Portsmouth Western Jetties from the west (11 Apr 2005).
HE, 23834/01 SU 6200/31.
Fig. 44. Aerial photograph, Portsmouth Conservation Area 22, the Georgian Dockyard (11 Apr
2005). HE NMR 23834/16 SU 6300/35.
Fig. 45. Aerial photograph, Basin No. 3 from the southeast (9 Sept 1997). HE NMR, 15790/08 SU
6301/10.
Fig. 46. Stone pediment on the east elevation of Rodney at Portsmouth (1847–8, NE/14, now
Leviathan). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 47. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, Gymnasium (1893–1900, NE/81) roof gable. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 48. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, Barham chimney gable (1899, NE/82). A. Coats 2013.
xxiii
Fig. 49. Date plaque 1903, Portsmouth Factory (1903, 3/82). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 50. Portsmouth Dockyard officers’ design for gate piers to the Navy Board (29 June 1711).
TNA, ADM 106/667 (1711).
Fig. 51. Oculus windows, Portsmouth Main Pumping Station No. 1 (1878, 2/201). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 52. Iron columns, Portsmouth Main Pumping Station No. 1 (1878, 2/201). A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 53. Tall windows, Portsmouth Painters’ Shop (1896, 2/191). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 54. 1994 gable pediment, extension of Bay 1, Portsmouth Factory/100 Store (1903, 3/82).
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 55. Portico, Portsmouth Victory Building (1993, 1/100). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 56. Decorative brick detail, Portsmouth Naval Offices (c.2000, 2/5). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 57. Portsmouth Armour Plate Shop/No. 1 Ship Building Shop/Multi-functional Workshop
(1867, 2/172), nets to keep out birds. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 58. Portsmouth Torpedo Workshop (1886, 3/69), plastic strips to keep out birds. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 59. Portsmouth Gunnery Mounting Store (1896, 2/165), nets to keep out birds. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 60. Portsmouth Central Boiler House, plastic door strips to keep out birds (1907, 2/19).
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 61. Portsmouth Main Pumping Station No. 1 (2/201), nets to keep out birds. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 62. Cast iron light bracket, Portsmouth Weapon Electrical Workshop (1936, 2/151). A. Coats, 2015.
Fig. 63. Portsmouth Storehouse No. 11, ground floor conversion to the McCarthy Museum
(28 Apr 1971). HE NMR, J356/01/72.
Fig. 64. Portsmouth North Corner from the east (11 Apr 2005). HE NMR, 23852/14 SU 6201/4.
PART 2 DEVONPORT DOCKYARD

Fig. 65. HMNB Devonport map. Royal Navy (2010). Devonport Naval Base Handbook. Plymouth:
HIVE/DE&S, p. 5.
Fig. 66. Devonport Covered Slip No. 1 (1774–5) showing the roof timbers added in the nineteenth
century (1956). HE NMR, AA98/04662.
Fig. 67. Devonport South Yard South Smithery (S126), photograph along the north side of north
side of central building (29 Feb 1996). HE NMR, BB96/03858.
Fig. 68. Devonport South Yard South Smithery (S126) photograph detail of evidence of the line
shaft on the north side of central building (29 Feb 1996). HE NMR, BB96/03859.
Fig. 69. Devonport South Yard South Smithery (S126) photograph of interior central building (29
Feb 1996). NMR. BB96/03867.
Fig. 70. Devonport South Yard South Smithery (S126) photograph of the north elevation of centre
building (29 Feb 1996). HE NMR, BB96/03891.
Fig. 71. Devonport South Yard South Smithery (S126) photograph of Cowans Sheldon driven
capstan (1926) (29 Feb 1996). HE NMR, BB96/03865.
Fig. 72. Devonport Dock Dimensions. HE NMR, ADM01 (1908). Admiralty Book, p. c.
Fig. 73. Devonport North Yard (Keyham Extension) Dock No. 9 North midship section and outline
of entrance. HE NMR, ADM01 (1908). Admiralty Book, p. 100.
xxiv
Fig. 74. Devonport North Yard (Keyham Extension) Dock No. 9 South midship section and outline
of entrance. HE NMR, ADM01 (1908) Admiralty Book, p. 102.
Fig. 75. Devonport North Yard (Keyham Extension) Dock No. 10 North midship section and outline
Fig. 76. Devonport North Yard (Keyham Extension) Dock No. 10 South midship section and outline
Fig. 77. Devonport North Yard (Keyham Extension) Prince of Wales Basin outline of entrance.
HE NMR. ADM01 (1908) Admiralty Book, p. 117.
Fig. 78. Change of name from Keyham Steam Yard to North Yard. AdL, Vz 14/44 (1900–1923), MoD
ALNHBP.
Fig. 79. Cold store site M on the wharf near North Lock in 1920. Devonport North Yard. AdL, Vz
14/43 (1908-23), MoD ALNHBP.
Fig. 80. HM Dockyard Devonport: aerial photographs. TNA, WORK 69/19 (1951).
Fig. 81. Devonport Dockyard, machinery shop, 1911. PWDRO, 663/320.
Fig. 82. Proposed Devonport Dockyard boundary enlargement (1942). TNA, ADM 1/17810 (1942–44).
Fig. 85. Naval Stations: Post war reconstruction and development of Devonport and Plymouth
(1943). TNA, ADM 1/17810 (1942–44).
(1943). TNA, ADM 1/17810 (1942–44).
(1943). TNA, ADM 1/17810 (1942–44).
Fig. 88. HM Dockyard Devonport: plans for development and modernisation. TNA, ADM 1/26498
(1953).
(1953).
(1953).
Fig. 91. Refitting of nuclear submarines: Portsmouth or Devonport Dockyards. 1965. TNA, ADM
329/7 (1964–65).
Fig. 92. Photograph albums. Frigate complex: evidence of progress (1972). TNA, CM 20/91 (Jan
1971–Dec 1972).
1971–Dec 1972).
Fig. 94. Babcock Site Atlas (2011).
Fig. 95. Building N093. Babcock Drawing no. AB3/12B (1972).
Fig. 96. Building N093. Babcock Drawing no. AB3/16B (1972).
Fig. 97. Building N125 ground floor. Babcock Drawing no. AB2/11 (1972).
Fig. 98. Building N125 first floor. Babcock Drawing no. AB2/12 (1972).
Fig. 99. Sections through Building N125. Babcock Drawing No. AB1/80 (1972).
xxv
Fig. 100. Building N125, plan of part of main block. Babcock Drawing no. AB1/109 (1972).
Fig. 101. Building N125, main block elevations. Babcock Drawing no. AB1/83 (1972).
Fig. 102. Building N125, main block elevations. Babcock Drawing no. AB1/84A (1972).
Fig. 103. Building N125, main block cladding. Babcock Drawing no. 2916/1A (1972).
Fig. 104. Building N217, part of east elevation, Frigate Complex, April 1972.
Babcock Drawing no. ABG/16E.
Fig. 105. Building N217, part of west elevation, Frigate Complex, April 1972.
Babcock Drawing no. ABG/17C.
Fig. 106. Building N217, part of section, Frigate Complex, April 1972.
Babcock Drawing no. ABG/20F.
Fig. 107. Photograph albums. Frigate Complex book no. 2 (1973). TNA, CM 20/69 (1972–73).
Fig. 111. Photograph albums. Frigate Complex book no. 7 (1975). TNA, CM 20/74 (1975).
Fig. 112. Photograph albums. Frigate Complex book no. 9 (October 1975). TNA, CM 20/76 (1975–76).
Fig. 113. Photograph albums. Frigate Complex book no. 9 (June 1976). TNA, CM 20/76 (1975–76).
Fig. 114. Babcock (2011). Site Atlas.
Fig. 115. Photograph albums. Fleet Maintenance Base Devonport: Foundations book no. 1 (1974).
TNA, CM 20/77 (1973–74).
Fig. 116. Entrance control complex, Submarine Refit Complex. Babcock Drawing no. AD8/7 (1977).
Fig. 117. Photograph albums. Nuclear Submarine Refit Complex book no. 7 (July 1979). TNA, CM
20/67 (1978–79).
Fig. 118. Building N005, Submarine Refit Complex. Babcock Drawing no. AD3/24A (n.d.).
Fig. 119. Building N260, Submarine Refit Complex. Babcock Drawing no. M1979/08 (1994).
Fig. 120. Building N007 Submarine Refit Complex. Babcock Drawing no. AB2/1B (n.d.).
Fig. 121. N007 Submarine Refit Complex. Babcock Drawing no. AB2/3A (n.d.).
Fig. 122. N007 Submarine Refit Complex. Babcock Drawing no. AB2/5B (n.d.).
Fig. 123. Second floor plan of the NAAFI building, N007. Babcock Drawing no. AB2/14D (n.d.).
Fig. 124. NAAFI building (July 1977). TNA, CM 20/80 (1976).
Fig. 125. NAAFI building (March 1979). TNA, CM 20/80 (1976).
Fig. 126. NAAFI building (July 1977). TNA, CM 20/80 (1976).
Fig. 127. N019, Periscope Tower. Babcock Drawing no. AD1/44B (n.d.).
Fig. 128. Mast and Periscope Shop (September 1979). TNA, CM 20/80 (1976).
Fig. 129. NAAFI building (September 1979). TNA, CM 20/80 (1976).
Fig. 130. NAAFI building, September 1979. Detail from Fig. 125. TNA, CM 20/80 (1976).
xxvi
Figs 131 and 132. Naval base development; feasibility study, North Arm of the dockyard. TNA,
CM 20/48 (1974).
Fig. 133. Naval base development; feasibility study, North Arm of the dockyard. TNA, CM 20/48
(1974).
Fig. 134. Naval base development; feasibility study, North Arm of the dockyard. TNA, CM 20/48
(1974).
Fig. 135. Site plan in the feasibility study, North Arm of the dockyard. TNA, CM 20/48 (1974).
Fig. 136. Naval base development; feasibility study, North Arm of the dockyard. TNA,
CM 20/48 (1974).
CM 20/48 (1974).
CM 20/48 (1974).
CM 20/48 (1974).
CM 20/48 (1974).
Fig. 141. External Planning Guide: a study of spaces around and between buildings. TNA,
CM 20/55 (1976).
Fig. 142. External Planning Guide: a study of spaces around and between buildings. TNA, CM 20/55
(1976).
Fig. 143. Production and support activities for combined weapons equipment workshops. TNA, CM
20/54 (1974).
20/54 (1974).
20/54 (1974).
Fig. 146. Buildings S056 and S057. Babcock Drawing No. 2300/ZG/01 (n.d.).
Fig. 147. East elevation of Building S057. Babcock Drawing no. 2300/ZG/05 (c.1988).
Fig. 148. West elevation of Building S056. Babcock Drawing no. 2300/ZG/09 (c.1988).
Fig. 149. January 1977 top, June 1977 below. Weston Mill Lake: land reclamation. TNA, CM 20/83
(Jan 1974–Dec 1979).
Fig. 150. Cofferdam completed. TNA, CM 20/61 (1973–74).
Fig. 151. Submarine Refit Complex (May 1975). TNA, CM 20/62 (1975).
Fig. 152. Submarine Refit Complex (January 1976). TNA, CM 20/63 (1976).
Fig. 153. Submarine Refit Complex (September 1976). TNA, CM 20/64 (1976–77).
Fig. 154. Submarine Refit Complex, view from the west (January 1977). TNA, CM 20/64 (1976–77).
Fig. 155. Building N016, Submarine Refit Complex, west elevation. Babcock Drawing no. AW4/3M (n.d.).
Fig. 156. Building N022, Submarine Refit Complex west elevation. Babcock Drawing no.
AW4/3M (n.d.).
xxvii
Fig. 157. Building N016, Submarine Refit Complex plan, reference 7137/N/9030 (n.d.). Babcock
Drawing no. illegible.
Fig. 158. Submarine Refit Complex (September 1978). TNA, CM 20/67 (Jan 1978–Dec 1979).
Fig. 159. Building N022 Submarine Refit Complex plan. Babcock Drawing no. AB5/1A (n.d.).
Fig. 160. Building N008, Submarine Refit Complex, north elevation. Babcock Drawing no.
AW3/1J (n.d.).
Fig. 161. Submarine Refit Complex (April 1978). TNA, CM 20/65 (Jan 1977–Dec 1978).
Fig. 162. Submarine Refit Complex Building N017. Babcock Drawing no. AB4B/28B (n.d.).
Fig. 163. Submarine Refit Complex Building N020. Northern section and part of central building,
Babcock Drawing no. AB4B/20 (n.d.).
Fig. 164. Submarine Refit Complex Building N020. Part of central building and southern section,
Babcock Drawing no. AB4B/11 (n.d.).
Fig. 165. Submarine Refit Complex Building N020. Section through high level plant room. Babcock
Drawing no. AB4B/16. (n.d.).
Fig. 166. Submarine Refit Complex Building N021. Babcock Drawing no. AB1/1 (n.d.).
Fig. 167. Submarine Refit Complex, N018 (November 1975). TNA, CM 20/78 (1975).
Fig. 168. Submarine Refit Complex Building N018A. Babcock Drawing no. SWP/A/106/80 (n.d.).
Fig. 169. Submarine Refit Complex Building N020A. Babcock Drawing No. SWP/A/281/80 (n.d.).
Fig. 170. Submarine Refit Complex. Babcock Drawing no. AB7/14C (n.d.).
Fig. 171. Submarine Refit Complex. Babcock Drawing no. AB7/14C (n.d.).
Fig. 172. Submarine Refit Complex with 80 ton crane, 1979. TNA, CM 20/68 (1979).
Fig. 173. Submarine Refit Complex, 1980. TNA, CM 20/68. (1979).
Fig. 174. Building N259. Babcock Drawing no. 85007/AD1/8 (n.d).
Fig. 175. Building N259. Babcock Drawing no. 85007/AD1/1 (n.d).
Fig. 176. Quadrangle, longitudinal section. TNA, CM 20/57 (1978).
Fig. 177. Quadrangle, cross-section. TNA, CM 20/57 (1978).
Fig. 178. Babcock (2011). Site Atlas.
Fig. 179. D154. Phase 3 Location Plan sheet no. 15 (n.d.). No Babcock drawing number.
Fig. 180. Google aerial photograph of Devonport Dockyard. Retrieved from Google Earth in 2013.
Fig. 181. Devonport South Yard: photograph of Building S173 recorded before demolition.
(8 Feb 2011). HE NMR, DP130113.
Fig. 182. Devonport South Yard: Building S173 recorded before demolition. (8 Feb 2011). HE,
DP130116.
Fig. 183. Devonport South Yard (8 Feb 2011) Building S173 recorded before demolition. Stone
dated 1903. HE NMR, DP13021.
Fig. 184. Devonport South Yard: Building S173 recorded before demolition. Cast iron lamp bracket
(8 Feb 2011). HE NMR, DP13023.
Fig. 185. Devonport South Yard: Building S173 recorded before demolition. Interior with Cowans
xxviii
Sheldon overhead gantry dated 1941 (8 Feb 2011). HE NMR, DP13028.
Fig. 186. Section of a map showing the Quadrangle workshops in 1903. AdL, Vz 14/44 (1900–1923).
H.M. Dockyard Devonport North and South Yards Keyham Steam Yard and Naval Barracks,
MoD ALNHBP.
Fig. 187. Devonport Frigate Complex June (1973–76, N217) and North Yard Offices (N215, 1903,
1910). A. Coats 2013.
PART 3 PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD

Fig. 188. Plan of Portsmouth Dockyard in 1900, development and enlargement from 1540 to 1900,
annotated to 1955. HE NMR, MD95/03032 (1850–1955).
Fig. 189. Second Edition Ordnance Survey, Hampshire Sheet LXXXIII.7. HE NMR, MD95/03033
(1898).
Fig. 190. Her Majesty’s Dockyard at Portsmouth showing development and enlargement from 1540
to 1900. HE NMR, MD95/03034 (1900).
Fig. 191. Plan Showing Proposed Revision of Boundary of HM Dockyard Portsmouth. HE NMR,
MD95/03039 (1936).
Fig. 192. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Sketch plan of naval establishments, showing
Portsea,Gosport, Haslar and Bedenham. TNA (1910). WORK 41/310.
Fig. 193. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Dredging progress chart, 1935–1938, depths and
hatching of work executed during 1935–1936. TNA (1936). WORK 41/311.
Fig. 194. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Dredging progress chart, 1935–1938, hatching key.
TNA (1936). WORK 41/311.
Fig. 195. MoD (1974) HM Naval Base Portsmouth Building Location/Numerical Index map.
Fig. 196. HM Naval Base Portsmouth, Site Plan. Ministry of Defence: DIO (2012).
Fig. 197. Aldrich Road, formerly Marlborough Road, Portsmouth (c.1704–11). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 198. Stony Lane, along north wall of the Portsmouth Ropehouse (1771, 1/65). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 199. Set into the south elevation of Portsmouth Building 1/81 is a stone which reads ‘Under
this Stone theres a water Beer’, marking an old well or water tank. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 200. Ivy Lane runs east-west from the north side of Portsmouth Long Row Officers’ Houses
(1715–19, 1/124-132), then turns north to Victoria Road. A Coats 2013.
Fig. 201. Guardhouse Road sign, former Portsmouth Lime and Cement Store (1878, 3/218).
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 202. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. Georgian Dockyard looking south.
Fig. 203. Portsmouth HM Naval Base Area 1 (1974). MoD HM Naval Base Building Location/
Numerical Index.
Fig. 204. North elevation of the Main (now Victory) Gate in 1895. PRDHT.
Fig. 205. Admiralty plaque marking the widening of Portsmouth Main Gate (November 1943).
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 206. Main Gate, Cellblock (1883, 1/2), Search Rooms (1/2B and 1/2C), Clocking Station (1949,
1/2D) and Romney Hut Boathouse (1948, 1/5). PRDHT
Fig. 207. Broad arrow in the Dockyard Wall near Victory Gate. A. Coats 2012.
xxix
Fig. 208. Blocked gateway through the Dockyard Wall at Bonfire Corner. A. Coats 2012.
Fig. 209. Original 1711 Portsmouth Dockyard Wall, within the Naval Base. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 210. Twentieth century fouled anchor outside the Dockyard Wall, c.1944. A. Coats 2013
Fig. 211. Former Portsmouth Naval Recruiting Office (1862, 1/1, PNBPT) with additional wing
(2001). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 212. Tourist Information Centre Elevations., 9.10.2001. PNBPT.
Fig. 213. Tourist Information Centre Ground Floor Plan, 9.10.2001. PNBPT.
Fig. 214. Cell Block Interior: ground floor (8 Oct 1971). HE NMR, J473/03/71.
Fig. 215. Cell Block Interior: first floor cell door (8 Oct 1971). HE NMR, J473/07/71.
Fig. 216. Cell Block Interior: urinal (8 Oct 1971). HE NMR, J473/11/71.
Fig. 217. HMS Warrior 1860 and Jetty (1987) (9 Sept 1997). HE NMR, 15767/34 SU 6200/4.
Fig. 218. HMS Warrior 1860 Jetty at Portsmouth (1987, PNBPT). A. Coats 2014.
Fig. 219. Portsmouth Muster Bell (1791). PRDHT
Fig. 220. Muster Bell Plaque. PRDHT.
Fig. 221. Portsmouth Mast Houses, HE NMR, MD95/03032 (1850 annotated to 1955).
Fig. 222. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. Portsmouth Mast Houses and slips before Boathouse
No. 4 (1937–40).
Fig. 223. New Boathouse HM Dockyard Portsmouth Elevations, 24.7.37. PNBPT.
Fig. 224. New Boathouse HM Dockyard Portsmouth Ground Floor Plan, 24.7.37. PNBPT.
Fig. 225. New Boathouse HM Dockyard Portsmouth Retaining Walls Sections, 24.7.37. PNBPT.
Fig. 226. Proposed M.E.D. Offices over existing Tool Store Elevations. HM Dockyard Portsmouth
No. 4, 13.6.67. PNBPT.
Fig. 227. Gallery Plan and Section, HM Dockyard Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4. PNBPT.
Fig. 228. Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 from northwest (28 July 1997). HE NMR, BB97/09275.
Fig. 229. West elevation of Boathouse No. 4, concrete supporting trusses (28 Jul 1997). HE NMR,
BB97/09274.
Fig. 230. West elevation of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6). PNBPT. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 231. Concrete and steel trusses forming the undercroft of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940,
1/6) on its west elevation. PNBPT. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 232. West elevation of the undercroft of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6), beams and
trusses. PNBPT. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 233. Undercroft of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6) on its west elevation, shuttered
concrete west seawall. PNBPT. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 234. Undercroft of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6) eighteenth century Portland stone
north seawall and slipway stones. PNBPT. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 235. Portland Stone slipway stones beneath a layer of solidified bags of concrete, below
Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6). PNBPT. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 236. Underside of a Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6) concrete truss. PNBPT. A. Coats 2015.
xxx
Fig. 237. Unused reinforced concrete beams beneath Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6).
PNBPT. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 238. Underside of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6), shuttered concrete surface with
twentieth century repairs using steel. PNBPT. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 239. Southern extremity of the seawall of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6). PNBPT.
A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 240. Lock entrance to Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6). PNBPT. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 241. Dock entrance to Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6). PNBPT. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 242. Interior of the south elevation of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6), new stairway
and mezzanine. PNBPT. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 243. Corrugated steel wall: south elevation of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6). PNBPT.
A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 244. Interior steel frame and beam, Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6). PNBPT. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 245. Spiral staircase, north end of Boathouse No. 4, Portsmouth (28 Jul 1997). HE NMR,
BB97/09263.
Fig. 246. Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 tunnel: west opening (PNBPT, 22.9.1999 no. 38).
Fig. 247. Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 tunnel: east opening (PNBPT, 22.9.1999 no. 40).
Fig. 248. Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 lock gates: east opening (PNBP 3.11.1999 no. 48).
Fig. 249. Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 lock gates: adjustments to gates (PNBPT, 1.3.2000 no. 53).
Fig. 250. Northwest corner, Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 with Boathouse No. 4 Annex on the right
(28 Jul 1997). HE NMR, BB97/012856.
Fig. 251. Statue of William III (1718) in the Porter’s Garden at Portsmouth. A. Coats 2008.
Fig. 252. Statue of Captain Robert Falcon Scott (1915), entrance to the Porter’s Garden at
Portsmouth. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 253. College Road, 1980s. PRDHT.
Fig. 254. Photograph of College Road, late 1990s. PRDHT
Fig. 255. Portsmouth Pay Office (1808, 1/11), cast iron bases to the vaulted brick ceiling columns.
A. Coats 2012.
Fig. 256. Reconstruction of the former Naval Academy cupola, following its bomb damage in
1941 (09 Mar 1953). HE NMR, P241/53 FL00981/01/001.
Fig. 257. West elevation of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6 (1956). HE NMR, AA98/04652.
Fig. 258. West elevation of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6 (11 Jun 1991). HE NMR, BB012873.
Fig. 259. Pre-1985 photograph of Boathouse No. 6. PRHDT.
Fig. 260. Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6 from the southwest (11 Jun 1991). HE NMR, BB012872.
Fig. 261. Ground floor interior of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6 from the northeast (11 Jun 1991).
HE NMR, BB012875.
Fig. 262. First floor interior of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6 from the west (11 Jun 1991).
HE NMR, BB012878.
Fig. 263. Storehouse No. 6 (right of centre) (9 Sept 1997). HE NMR, 15790/04 SU 6200/8.
xxxi
Fig. 264. Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6, ground floor. PNBPT, 1998.
Fig. 265. Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6, south elevation. PNBPT, 1998.
Fig. 266. Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6, east end, south and east elevations. PNBPT, June 1998).
Fig. 267. Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6. Ground Floor Plan (25.10.98). PNBPT.
Fig. 268. Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6. Ground Floor Mezzanine Plan (20.10.98). PNBPT.
Fig. 269. Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6. First Floor Plan (20.10.98). PNBPT.
Fig. 270. Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6. Second Floor Plan (20.10.98). PNBPT.
Fig. 271. Boathouse No. 6 East Elevation Survey (16.11.98). PNBPT.
Fig. 272. Boathouse No. 6 North Elevation Survey (16.11.98). PNBPT.
Fig. 273. Boathouse No. 6 South Elevation Survey (16.11.98). PNBPT.
Fig. 274. Boathouse No. 6 Section AA Survey (16.11.98). PNBPT.
Fig. 275. Eastern interior of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6 (2001). HE NMR. AA026355.
Fig. 276. Conversion of Boathouse No. 5 (1/27) and Sail Loft (1/27) into the Mary Rose Museum
(8 Mar 1984). HE NMR, PK318/11 FL00982.02.001.
Fig. 277. Interior of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 7 from the northwest (11 Jun 1991).
HE NMR, BB003709.
Fig. 278. Entrance to Sunny Walk Offices (1950, 1/31). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 279. Semaphore Tower and Rigging House fire 1913, saluting party. Image 1499A/3 supplied
by PMRS, PRDHT.
Fig. 280. Photograph by Stephen Cribb, ‘The last of the Old Semaphore Tower falling down after
the day of the fire in 1913.’ PMRS, PORMG 1945/652/5.
Fig. 281. Eastern elevation, former Sail Loft/Rigging House (1784, 1/40-49), Portsmouth Semaphore
Tower (1810–24 1/40) and Lion Gate (1778, 1/50A). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 282. Lion pediment of Portsmouth Lion Gate (1778, 1/50A), incorporated into the Semaphore
Tower (1810–24, 1/40) in 1929. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 283. Portsmouth Semaphore Tower (1922–23). 1/50. BAES.
Fig. 284. Portsmouth, Rigging House and Semaphore Tower, Basement and Ground Floor Plans,
(2.11.1926). 1/50. BAES.
Fig. 285. Portsmouth, Rigging House and Semaphore Tower, 1st and 2nd Floor Plans, (2.11.1926).
1/50. BAES.
Fig. 286. Portsmouth, Rigging House and Semaphore Tower, Flag pole removed, sections and south
elevation (2.11.1926). 1/50. BAES.
Fig. 287. Portsmouth Rigging House and Semaphore Tower, east elevation (2.11.1926) 1/50. BAES.
Fig. 288. Portsmouth, Rigging House and Semaphore Tower, Detail of Upper Portion of Tower
West Front, elevation (2.8.1927) 1/50. BAES.
Fig. 290. Semaphore Tower and Rigging House from the west (9 Sept 1997).
HE NMR, 15790/05 SU 6200/7.
Fig. 291. Semaphore Tower and Rigging House from the east. (9 Sept 1997).
HE NMR, 15800/33 SU 6200/17.
xxxii
Fig. 291. Interior of the Chain Test House. (9.7.2003). HE NMR, AA045925.
Fig. 292. Floor of the Chain Test House (9.7.2003). HE NMR, AA045923.
Fig. 293. Cast iron elements of the Portsmouth Railway Swing Bridge to South Railway Jetty,
c.1876. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 294. Portsmouth Railway Waiting Room (1878, 1/47) on South Railway Jetty. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 295. Portsmouth Railway Shelter (1893, 1/45) on South Railway Jetty. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 296. Former Office, Portsmouth Captain of the Yard/Harbour Master (c.1850, 1/53.
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 297. ‘Two low buildings with steam coming out of pipes, railway line in front, dock in
right foreground.’ (c.1920) Buildings formerly on the site of the Victory Gallery. Image
404A/6/17 supplied by PMRS, PRDHT.
Fig. 298. Rainwater hopper 1927, Portsmouth Victory Gallery (1938, 1/57, NMRNP). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 299. Stone laid by W. L. Wylie in 1929, re-cut in 1988, Portsmouth Victory Gallery
(1938, 1/57, NMRNP). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 300. Rainwater hopper dated 1962, Portsmouth Victory Gallery (NMRNP, 1938, 1/57).
A. Coats 2013
Fig. 301. Portsmouth Dockyard apprentices monitoring HMS Victory for hull movement,
c.1954. P. Nex.
Fig. 302. West elevations, Storehouse Nos 9, 10 and 11 (28 Apr 1971). HE NMR, J186/01/71.
Fig. 303. Eastern elevation, Portsmouth Storehouse No. 11 (1956). NMR. AA98/04645. Portsmouth
Dockyard prints FL00981.
Fig. 304. Three postcards, Portsmouth Dockyard Museum (n.d.). George Malcolmson Collection.
Fig. 305. Storehouse No. 11, north end, conversion to the McCarthy Museum (28 Apr 1971).
HE NMR, J057/01/72.
Fig. 306. Storehouse No. 11, ground floor conversion to the McCarthy Museum. (28 Apr 1971).
HE NMR, J057/03/72.
Fig. 307. Storehouse No. 11, ground floor conversion to the McCarthy Museum (28 Apr 1971).
HE NMR, J106/04/72.
Fig. 308. Storehouse Nos 9, 10 or 11 (28 Apr 1971). HE NMR, J186/05/71.
Fig. 309. Storehouse No. 9, 10 or 11 (28 Apr 1971). HE NMR J186/06/71.
Fig. 310. Storehouse Nos 9, 10, 11: Mr Hartley’s fire plates, first floor joists and floorboards (c.1971).
HE NMR, J360/06/72.
Fig. 311. Eastern elevation, Portsmouth Storehouse No. 10 (1956). HE NMR, AA98/04650 Portsmouth
Fig. 312. Ground floor, Portsmouth Storehouse No. 10 (1776, 1/59) renewed brickwork and timber.
NMRNP. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 313. Ground floor of Portsmouth Storehouse No. 10 (1776, 1/59) detail of renewed brick
arches. NMRNP. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 314. Rear elevation, Portsmouth Storehouse No. 10 (1763, 1/59), new glazed entrance (2014).
NMRNP. A. Coats 2014.
Fig. 315. A rear door, Portsmouth Storehouse No. 10 (1776, 1/59). NMRNP. A. Coats 2014.
xxxiii
Fig. 316. Refurbished rear pediment, Portsmouth Storehouse No. 10 (1776, 1/59). NMRNP.
A. Coats 2014.
Fig. 317. Storehouse Nos 15, 16 and 17 (28 Apr 1971) from the west. HE NMR, J188/01/71.
Fig. 318. Storehouse Nos 15, 16 and 17 (28 Apr 1971) from the east. HE NMR, J188/03/71.
Fig. 319. Arches cut through former Portsmouth Great Ropehouse (1771, 1/65) in 1868.
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 320. Keystone, north elevation of the vehicular arch cut through former Portsmouth Great
Ropehouse (1771, 1/65) in 1868.
Fig. 321. Photograph (1956) of the western gable of Portsmouth Great Ropehouse (1771), before
the roof and windows were altered in the 1960s. HE NMR, AA98/04648 Portsmouth
Fig. 322. Interior of the Ropehouse, undergoing conversion (June 1960). NMR P96/01/60.
Fig. 323. Detail of the west elevation of St Ann’s Church, Portsmouth, 1939. HE NMR, St Ann’s
Church E 48/39 (1948).
Fig. 324. Detail of Cupola, St Ann’s Church, Portsmouth, 1939. HE NMR, St Ann’s Church E
48/39 (1948).
Fig. 325. Fire Station personnel on Parade (c.1900). HE NMR, PK318/10.
Fig. 326. Portsmouth Fire station, looking south (2005). HE NMR, AA034962.
Fig. 327. Original corrugated iron and fittings inside Portsmouth Fire Station (1843, 1/77).
A. Coats 2012
Fig. 328. Rainwater hopper, 1961, Portsmouth Fleet Headquarters, Jago Road (1961, 1/80).
A. Coats 2014.
Fig. 329. Portsmouth nineteenth century courtyard surrounded by stores and workshops (c.1850–90,
1/81). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 330. Portsmouth Admiral’s Walk, a seven foot wide section of setts. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 331. Rainwater hopper, 1931 on Portsmouth South Office Block Annexe (1931, 1/87C). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 332. Mary Rose Ship Hall in Dock No. 2 from the northwest (11 Apr 2005). HE NMR, 23852/25
SU 6300/79.
Fig. 333. Plan and Sections, Great Basin Entrance and South Dock, Improvements proposed by
Samuel Bentham. HM Dockyard, Portsmouth. HE NMR, MD95/03099 (c.1797).
Fig. 334. Basin No. 1 and Docks 1-5 looking east (28 Apr 1971). HE NMR, J195/01/71.
Fig. 335. Dock No. 1 (6.1.1909), completed extension, looking northeast. TNA, ADM 195/79
(1857–1915).
Fig. 336. Cross-section of Mary Rose within Dock No. 3 (1803). Wilkinson Eyre Architects, 2012.
Fig. 337. Lower ground floor plan of Mary Rose within Dock No. 3 (1803). Wilkinson Eyre Architects, 2012.
Fig. 338. Western profile of the new timber-clad Mary Rose Museum at Portsmouth (2013).
A. Coats 2013. PNBPT.
Fig. 339. Portsmouth Dock No. 6 (1700). A. Coats 2012.
Fig. 340. Portsmouth Joiners Shop 3.2.1911. TNA, ADM 195/79 (1857–1915).
Fig. 341. Portsmouth Victory Building 1/100 (Feb 1992). BAES. The [former] Site (Nov 1991).
xxxiv
Fig. 342. Portsmouth Victory Building 1/100 (Feb 1992 ). BAES. Location of New Building
(Nov 1991).
Fig. 343. Portsmouth Victory Building. 1/100 (Feb 1992). BAES. West, south, east elevations
(Nov 1991).
Fig. 344. Portsmouth Victory Building 1/100 (Feb 1992). BAES. North elevation (Nov 1991).
Fig. 345. Portsmouth Victory Building 1/100 (Feb 1992). BAES. Plan (Nov 1991).
Fig. 346. Victory Building from the southeast (9 Sept 1997). HE NMR, 15800/32 SU 6200/16.
Fig. 347. Concrete entrance pier, 1984, Portsmouth Victory Building (1993, 1/100). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 348. Storehouse No. 25, southwest corner (28 Apr 1971). HE NMR, J198/01/71.
Fig. 349. Storehouse No. 25 doorway (28 Apr 1971). HE NMR, J198/04/71.
Fig. 350. Portsmouth Iron Foundry and Subsidiary Buildings, Basement and Ground Floor Plans,
BAES (June 1964).
Fig. 351. Portsmouth Iron Foundry, First Floor Detail section drawing. 1/136. BAES (Feb–Apr 1997).
Fig. 352. Former Portsmouth Chief Inspector’s Office (1857, 1/138), west of the first Marlborough
Gate. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 353. Cannon, northeast corner, former Portsmouth Chief Inspector’s Office (1857, 1/138).
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 354. Western gate pier of the first Portsmouth Marlborough Gate (1711, 1/138). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 355. Plinth bearing a broad arrow, first Portsmouth Marlborough Gate (1711, 1/138).
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 356. West elevation, refurbished Portsmouth Iron and Brass Foundry (1854, 1/140),
now BAES HQ. A. Coats 2012.
Fig. 357. Storehouse No. 33 before reconstruction after fire 23.3.1908. TNA, ADM 195/79
(1857–1915).
Fig. 358. Wrought iron lamp bracket, Portsmouth Storehouse No. 33 (1786, 1/150). A. Coats, 2013.
Fig. 359. Plan of Jetty at North Wall, Portsmouth. Ordnance Survey, Hampshire Sheet LXXXIII.7.8.
HE NMR, MD95/03057 (1893–94).
Fig. 360. Damage to Portsmouth No. 1 Slip Jetty looking east, 1.2.1915. TNA, ADM 195/79
(1857–1915).
Fig. 361. Portsmouth No. 2. Slip and S. Side Laying Out Shop looking west, 1.2.14. TNA, ADM
195/79 (1857–1915).
Fig. 362. Portsmouth North Corner showing Slip No. 5 enlarged in 1912 and Dock No. 5 infilled in
1898. HE NMR, section of MD95/03032 (1850 annotated to 1955).
Fig. 363. HM Dockyard Portsmouth Harbour (1907–12), changes made to Slip No. 5. AdL, Vz 14/115
(1897–1907). MoD ALNHBP.
Fig. 364. Western Frontage Plan for Proposed Reconstruction, HM Dockyard Portsmouth. HE NMR,
MD95/03045 (1930).
Fig. 365. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. North Corner from the west.
Fig. 366. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. North Corner from the south.
Fig. 367. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. North Corner from the north.
xxxv
Fig. 368. Ship Shop Nos 3-4, south of Slip No. 5, before their demolition in 1980 (23 June 1971).
HE, J297/06.
Fig. 369. Interior of Ship Shop Nos 3-4 before their demolition in 1980 (23 June 1971). HE, J297/11.
Fig. 370. Block Mills from the southeast (n.d. c.1970s). HE NMR, PK318/07 FL00982.02.001.
Fig. 371. Block Mills from the southwest (n.d. c.1970s). HE NMR, PK318/07 FL00982.02.002.
Fig. 372. Block Mills from the southwest (11 Apr 2005). HE NMR, 23852/27 SU 6300/81.
Fig. 373. West elevation, Portsmouth Block Mills (1802, 1/153). A. Coats 2010.
Fig. 374. South elevation, Portsmouth Block Mills (1802, 1/153). A. Coats 2010.
Fig. 375. Interior, Portsmouth Block Mills (1802, 1/153). A. Coats 2010.
Fig. 376. Portsmouth Steam Factory (1847, 1/208), east elevation with the 10 ton gantry crane.
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 377. ‘VR’ bollard near Portsmouth Steam Factory (1847, 1/208). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 378. Portsmouth Steam Factory (1847, 1/208), rainwater hopper, 1847. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 379. Former 80hp Portsmouth Engine House (1849, 1/209). A. Coats 2014.
Fig. 380. Former Portsmouth Smithery (1852, 1/209). A. Coats 2014.
Fig. 381. Portsmouth Existing Site Plan, 1/223. BAES (June 1978)
Fig. 382. Portsmouth East Elevation, 1/223 (June 1978). BAES.
Fig. 283. Portsmouth North and South Elevations, 1/223. BAES. FMBF (June 1978).
Fig. 384. Portsmouth West Elevation, 1/223. BAES (June 1978).
Fig. 385. Portsmouth Slip Jetties, Stores & Ablutions Block, Elevations, Sections (Sept 1976).
1/225. BAES.
Fig. 386. Portsmouth Slip Jetties, Block 2, East, South, West Elevations. BAES (Sept 1979). 1/225.
Fig. 387. Typical rich red brick, Admin Offices North Corner (1982, 1/224). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 388. Portsmouth HM Naval Base Area 2 (1974). MoD HM Naval Base Building Location/
Numerical Index.
Fig. 389. Portsmouth Harbour looking northeast with Whale Island at top centre (1965). HE T85
FL00981/01/002.Fig. 353. Cannon, northeast of former Portsmouth Chief Inspector’s Office
(1857, 1/138). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 390. Basins and Locks North Yard Extension Plan. HE NMR, MD95/03054 (1874).
Fig. 391. Extension of Dockyard Plan and Sections, Docks, Locks and Basins showing the
dimensions of the excavations. HE NMR, MD95/03056 (n.d.).
Fig. 392. Portsmouth Dockyard Extension: Plan Shewing state of the works in Jany. 1875 (progress
since 1865). AdL, Vz 14/111 (1875). MoD ALNHBP.
Fig. 393. Map of the swing bridge and timber staging removing surplus excavated material from the
Great Extension to enlarge Whale Island. AdL Vz14/111 (1875). MoD ALNHBP.
Fig. 394. His Majesty’s Dockyard at Portsmouth. West section of Portsmouth Basin Nos 3, 4 and 5 to
2 and 3 ‘before’ changes. AdL, Vz 17/16 (1896, corrected to 1909). MoD ALNHBP.
Fig. 395. His Majesty’s Dockyard at Portsmouth. Portsmouth Basin Nos 3, 4 and 5 to 2 and 3 ‘after’
changes. AdL, Vz 17/16 (1896, corrected to 1909). MoD ALNHBP.
xxxvi
Fig. 396. His Majesty’s Dockyard at Portsmouth). East section of Portsmouth Basin Nos 3, 4 and 5
to 2 and 3 ‘after’ changes. AdL, Vz 17/16 (1896, corrected to 1909). MoD ALNHBP.
Fig. 397. Portsmouth Dockyard Extension Works 1881. Plate 4. Colson, pp. 118-173.
Fig. 398. Fountain Lake, HM Dockyard Portsmouth. HE NMR, MD95/03042 (1905 corrected to 1913).
Fig. 399. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. Great Extension Basins, Locks and Docks looking west.
Fig. 400. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. Great Extension Docks looking south.
Fig. 401. Aerial photograph looking west from Basin No. 3 towards the Tidal Basin and Basin
No. 2 (9 Sept 1997). HE NMR, 15800/20 SU 6301/13.
Fig. 402. Decorative bartisan in the Portsmouth Great Extension wall, Circular Road (1863–65). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 403. Head of Portsmouth Dock No. 8, 1850, showing limestone setts. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 404. Head of Portsmouth Dock No. 8, 1850, showing granite sliders. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 405. Clarkson & Beckitt capstan, 1905, north of Dock No. 8. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 406. Cowans Sheldon capstan, 1956, southeast of Portsmouth Basin No. 2. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 407. Marlborough Salient (Marlborough Row, Gloucester and Frederick Streets), taken into the
yard in 1944. HE NMR, MD95/03045 (1930).
Fig. 408. S. Cribb’s late nineteenth century photograph of workers leaving the original
Marlborough Gate. PRDHT.
Fig. 409. New Portsmouth Marlborough Gate, 1944. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 410. Aerial view of the west of Portsmouth Dockyard from the east (11 Apr 2005). HE NMR,
23835/03 SU 6200/53.
Fig. 411. Portsmouth EEM Workshops Marlborough Salient, Machine Shop Plan and Section
(Jun 1947). BAES.
Fig. 412. 2/12. No. 2 Electrical Shop, Floor Plans, Section (Jan 1965). BAES.
Fig. 413. HM Dockyard Portsmouth, Proposed Workshop No. 2, 2/25. (n.d, possibly 1920s). BAES.
Fig. 414. Portsmouth HM Dockyard, No. 4 Weapons Machine Shop (2/26) Extension West Side,
plan, sections and elevation (23.3.1970). BAES.
Fig. 415. South elevation of Portsmouth No. 4 Weapons Machine Shop (2/25-26), rebuilt western
bay after bomb damage. BAES (3.7.1996).
Fig. 416. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. Convict Prison (c.1834)/Naval Detention Quarters/RM
School of Music and Holy Trinity Church (1839).
Fig. 417. Ruins of Portsmouth Holy Trinity Church (1839, 2/37), bombed in the Second World War.
A. Coats 2014.
Fig. 418. North elevation, Portsmouth Holy Trinity Church Gateway (1839, 2/37). A. Coats 2014.
Fig. 419. Portsmouth Holy Trinity Church (1839, 2/37) south wall section. A. Coats 2014.
Fig. 420. Additions made 1852–53 to Portsmouth Convict Prison. HE NMR, MD95/03032
(1850 annotated to 1955).
Fig. 421. Former Portsmouth Garrison Prison Cell Blocks (1846, 2/44), built for Anglesey Barracks.
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 422. New Anchor Gate 12.9.1907. TNA, ADM 195/79 (1857–1915).
xxxvii
Fig. 423. Portsmouth Anchor Gate with the Police Office (1900). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 424. Portsmouth Heavy Plate Shop, General Sections through Building, North-South, East-West
Sections. 2/56, Aug 1972. BAES.
Fig. 425. Portsmouth Diamond Building (1979, 2/60). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 426. Junction of the original Portland stone masonry and the concrete eastern Pocket extension
in Basin No. 3, 1939. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 427. Roller fairlead by Cowans Sheldon & Co Ltd, 1939, Portsmouth Basin No. 3. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 428. Dock No. 12 (1876) caisson, Portsmouth Basin No. 3. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 429. The White House near Portsmouth Dock No. 12 (1914, 2/103-104). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 430. Setts and crane track on wharf by Portsmouth Dock No. 12 (1876). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 431. Engineering bricks near wharf beside Dock No. 12 (1876, 1903). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 432. Portsmouth Brutalist Workshop Complex No. 1 (1979, 2/109-110), south end.
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 433. Fluted concrete cornice detail, Brutalist Portsmouth Workshop Complex No. 1 (1979,
2/109). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 434. Portsmouth Brutalist Workshop Complex No. 1 (1979, 2/109-110), north end.
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 435. Portsmouth Brutalist Workshop Complex No. 1 (1979, 2/109-110), cleared of stores.
A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 436. Portsmouth Basin No. 3 Facilities, East Office Block, North and East Elevations 2/112.
BAES. (July 1997).
Fig. 437. Portsmouth Basin No. 3 Facilities, East Office Block, South and West Elevations 2/112.
BAES. (July 1997).
Fig. 438. Portsmouth Dockyard Extension Works 1881. Plate 5, Figs 7, 8, showing Transverse
Section of Dock No. 13. Colson, pp. 118-173.
Fig. 439. North elevation, Ship Halls A and B (2002, 2/121-122), Basin No. 3 (11 Apr 2005). HE
NMR, 23852/15 SU 6301/21.
Fig. 440. Steps and engineering bricks, Portsmouth Dock No. 15 (1876). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 441. Dock No. 15 (1876) and Portsmouth Brutalist Workshop Complex No. 2 (1976, 2/139-140).
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 442. New Portsmouth Pay Room 7.1.1909. TNA, ADM 195/79 (1857–1915).
Fig. 443. New Portsmouth Pay Room (interior) 30.3.1909. TNA, ADM 195/79 (1857–1915).
Fig. 444. Pipe Shop (1993, 2/152). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 445. Pipe Shop keystone (1993, 2/152). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 446. 2/165, Store for Gun Mountings, Plan and Sections (18 Feb 1910). BAES
Fig. 447. 2/165, Extending Gun Mounting Shop, HM Dockyard Portsmouth, North, South and West
Elevations (1911–12). BAES.
Fig. 448. 2/165, Extending Gun Mounting Shop, HM Dockyard Portsmouth, Detailed Elevation of
South End (1911–12). BAES.
xxxviii
Fig. 449. 2/165, Gun Mounting Store Extension, HM Dockyard Portsmouth, Floor Plan and Details
of Roof Truss (n.d.). BAES.
Fig. 450. North elevation of the Gunnery Mounting Store (1896, 2/165H). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 451. Stuccoed Office (1900, 2/179), South Wall, Portsmouth Tidal Basin from the west.
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 452. Stuccoed Office (1900, 2/179), South Wall, Portsmouth Tidal Basin from the east.
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 453. Gaslight standard (1891), South Wall, Portsmouth Tidal Basin. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 454. Lamp standard, South Wall, Portsmouth Tidal Basin. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 455. Top of lamp standard, South Wall, Portsmouth Tidal Basin. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 456. Portsmouth Dock No. 11 (1865) from the east. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 457. Gantry crane north of Portsmouth Dock No. 11 (1970s). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 458. Portsmouth Dockyard Foundations for Engine and Boiler Houses (Main Pumping Station
No. 1) (7.7.1874). 2/201. BAES.
Fig. 459. Portsmouth Dockyard Extension of Pumping Station Engine House, Pump Wells, Plans,
Elevations and Sections, 6.10.1893. 2/201. BAES.
Fig. 460. Portsmouth Dockyard, Main Pumping Station, Building for Oxygen Producing Plant, Tank
on Roof, Ground Plan, South and West Elevations and Sections, 1.12.1918. 2/201. BAES.
Fig. 461. North door of Portsmouth Main Pumping Station No. 1 (1878, 2/201). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 462. Portsmouth Pumping Station No. 1 (2/201) from the north (9.7.2003). HE NMR, AA045931.
Fig. 463. Extension of Portsmouth Motor Generator House No. 18 (2/205), Plans, Elevations,
Sections, 8.8.1950. BAES.
Fig. 464. Portsmouth Deep Dock/No. 9, midship section and outline of entrance. HE NMR, ADM01
(1908) Admiralty Book, p. 54.
Fig. 465. Portsmouth Dock No. 9/Deep Dock (1875), and metal framing for Stothert & Pitt crane.
A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 466. Portsmouth Dockyard Extension Works 1881. Entrance to South [A] Lock through Tidal
Basin. Colson, pp. 118-173.
Fig. 467. Portsmouth Dockyard Extension Works 1881. Caisson Camber at the Entrance to South [A]
Lock through Tidal Basin. Colson, pp. 118-173.
Fig. 468. Portsmouth Dockyard Extension Works 1881. Ship caisson and caisson section at Entrance
to the Tidal and Fitting Basins. Colson, pp. 118-173.
Fig. 469. Capstan between Portsmouth South/A Lock (1875) and North/B Lock (1876), Clarke
Chapman Marine, 17.4.96. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 470. Inner face, sliding caisson connecting South/A Lock (1875) to the Tidal Basin. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 471. Portsmouth South Lock/A Lock outer entrance C, midship section and outline of entrances.
HE NMR, ADM01 (1908) Admiralty Book, p. 59.
Fig. 472. Portsmouth North Lock/B Lock outer entrance B, midship section and outline of entrances.
HE NMR. ADM01 (1908) Admiralty Book, p. 56.
Fig. 473. Portsmouth Battery Workshop No. 2/Lay Apart Store (1915, 1970s, 2/235). A. Coats 2013.
xxxix
Fig. 474. South elevation, Portsmouth North Wall (1881). A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 475. Western point of Portsmouth North Wall (1881). A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 476. Portsmouth Proposed New Lock [C or D Lock] outer entrance midship section and outline
of entrances. HE NMR. (1908) Admiralty Book, p. 62.
Fig. 477. Portsmouth photograph entitled ‘No. 642 New Locks. Removal of Coaling Point Sept 1912’.
PMRS, PORMG 2009/124/17.
Fig. 478. Concrete infilled section (1923), northern quay, Portsmouth Rigging Basin. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 479. Date detail (1923), northern quay, Portsmouth Rigging Basin. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 480. Brickwork repairs to the north side of Portsmouth C Lock (1913, 1940). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 481. North side of Portsmouth C Lock (1913), looking east. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 482. Portsmouth C Lock, western sliding caisson (1913). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 483. Roller fairlead (1911), Stothert & Pitt Ltd, jetty between Portsmouth C Lock (1913) and
D Lock (1914). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 384. Portsmouth Dockyard, Pumping Engine House, Plan and Sections, 23.3.1908. 2/239. BAES.
Fig. 485. Portsmouth Dockyard, New Lock C, Pumping Engine House, Elevations, 23.3.1908.
BAES. 2/239.
Fig. 486. Portsmouth Dockyard, New Lock C, Pumping House Details of Steelwork, 23.3.1908.
BAES. 2/239.
Fig. 487. Portsmouth Dockyard, New Lock C, Boiler House Roof Details, 23.3.1908. BAES. 2/239.
Fig. 488. Portsmouth Dockyard, Plan of Foundation Plinths for Diesel Generator, Sept 1989. 2/239.
BAES.
Fig. 489. South elevation, Portsmouth North Pumping Station (No. 4) and Boiler House/Store 38
(1913, 2/239-240). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 490. Window, south elevation, Portsmouth North Pumping Station (No. 4) and Boiler House/
Store 38 (1913, 2/239-240). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 491. East elevation and main entrance, Portsmouth North Pumping Station (No. 4) (1913, 2/239)
and Boiler House/Store 38 (1913, 2/239-240). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 492. George V 1913 date plaque, Portsmouth North Pumping Station (No. 4) (1913, 2/239)
Fig. 493. Cast iron lamp bracket and rainwater hopper, Portsmouth North Pumping Station (No. 4)
Fig. 494. Entrance with rainwater hoppers, Portsmouth North Pumping Station (No. 4) and Boiler
House/Store 38 (1913, 2/239-240). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 495. Entrance, Portsmouth North Pumping Station (No. 4) and Boiler House/Store 38
(1913, 2/239-240). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 496. Portsmouth North West Wall quay, concrete pillars c.1914. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 497. Original Portland stone inner face of Portsmouth North West Wall with concrete coping
in the Pocket, 1914. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 498. Concrete inner face of Portsmouth North West Wall in the Pocket abutting original
Portland stone inner face. A. Coats 2015.
xl
Fig. 499. Original Portland stone, Portsmouth North West Wall in the Pocket. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 500. Crane and Railway Track Layout Plan HM Dockyard Portsmouth. HE NMR, MD95/03038
Fig. 501. Southern gate (1849), Edinburgh Road dockyard railway crossing. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 502. West stanchion, south gate (1849), Edinburgh Road dockyard railway crossing.
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 503. Single track railway line (1849), Edinburgh Road to Unicorn Gate. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 504. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Elevation and sections, new railway gate at Unicorn
entrance. TNA (1882) WORK 41/326.
Fig. 505. Railway track west of Portsmouth Dock No. 15 (1876). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 506. Railway track near the Promontory, east of Basin No. 3 (1881). Colson, pp. 118-173.
Fig. 507. Railway track near Portsmouth Basin No. 3 (1881). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 508. Single track railway line (1849), Portsmouth Town Station to Unicorn Gate, 1949. BAES.
Fig. 509. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: programme of work on railways, 1951–1954, new
works near the docks. TNA WORK 41/315.
Fig. 510. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: programme of work on railways, 1951–1954, new works
in Area 3 and the South East Gate and East Gate in use. TNA, WORK 41/315.
Fig. 511. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: programme of work on railways, 1951–1954, key to
years. TNA, WORK 41/315.
Fig. 512. Portsmouth HM Naval Base Area 3 (1974). MoD HM Naval Base Portsmouth Building
Location/Numerical Index.
Fig. 513. Plan of part of HM Dockyard Portsmouth before its enlargement, annotated to 1895,
3.1.1851. AdL Vz 14/110 (1851–1895). MoD ALNHBP.
Fig. 514. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth (1864). Elevation, proposed reconstruction of Unicorn
Gate and additions to wall. TNA, WORK 41/316.
Fig. 515. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. Re-sited Unicorn Gate from the north-west.
Fig. 516. Portsmouth Unicorn Gate (1779) and the streets taken into the Yard in the 1970s. Section
of HE, MD95/03032 (1850 annotated to 1955).
Fig. 517. North elevation of Portsea’s Unicorn Gate (1779). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 518. South elevation of Portsea’s Unicorn Gate (1779). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 519. Unicorn pediment, south elevation, Portsmouth Unicorn Gate (1779). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 520. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Unicorn gate: plan, sections and elevations of small
entrance gates (c.1869–79). TNA, WORK 41/324.
Fig. 521. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Unicorn gate: elevations of proposed grille and gates
(1878). TNA, WORK 41/325.
Fig. 522. Muster Bell, Portsmouth Unicorn Gate (18 May 1971). HE NMR J251/01/71.
Fig. 523. Outmuster, Portsmouth Unicorn Gate (23 Oct 1964). HE NMR, J270/09/64.
Fig. 524. Plaque and metal box which formerly housed a gas jet for workers to light their pipes
near Unicorn Gate. A. Coats 2013.
xli
Fig. 525. Junction of the 1981–82 Portsmouth Dockyard wall with the 1863–65 Great Extension wall,
Market Way. A. Coats 2014.
Fig. 526. Portsmouth Great Extension wall (1863–65) and 1981–82 rich red brick wall.
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 527. Rear of Portsmouth Torpedo Workshop (1886, 3/67). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 528. Portsmouth Torpedo Workshop (1886, 3/69) south elevation. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 529. Portsmouth Torpedo Workshop (1886, 3/69) dated pediment. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 530. HM Dockyard Portsmouth – New Factory, 1902–03, Transverse Sections looking East and
West, 3/82. BAES.
Fig. 531. HM Dockyard Portsmouth – New Factory, Ground Plan, 3.1.1903, 3/82. BAES.
Fig. 532. New Factory Portsmouth, Offices, Testing House, Boiler House & Coal Store, Plan.
Elevation, Sections, 3.2.1903, 3/82. BAES.
Fig. 533. HM Dockyard Portsmouth – New Factory, West and East Elevations, Oct 1903, 3/82. BAES.
Fig. 534. H M Dockyard Portsmouth – New Factory Half North Elevation, Oct 1908. 3/82. BAES.
Fig. 535. H M Dockyard Portsmouth – New Factory South Elevation, Oct 1908. 3/82. BAES.
Fig. 536. Portsmouth Factory (1903, 3/82) east elevation, original gables. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 537. Portsmouth Factory (1903, 3/82) north elevation, three bays of the engine house.
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 538. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. The Factory (3/82) from the west.
Fig. 539. Portsmouth HM Dockyard, MED Factory, Plans, Sections of Wall Foundations, 27.5.1960.
3/82. BAES.
Fig. 540. HM Naval Base Portsmouth, Conversion of Building No. 3/82 to Store, Ground Floor Plan,
Oct 1985. BAES.
Fig. 541. HMNB Portsmouth, Store, New Amenities and Plant Room Block, Elevations, Section and
Plan, Jan 1986. 3/82. BAES.
Fig. 542. 100 Store, South, East Elevations (July 1996), Miniload (3/82M). BAES.
Fig. 543. Plan Extension to 100 Store, Location Plan. BAES.
Fig. 544. Plaque dated 1994, Portsmouth Factory/100 Store (1903, 3/82). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 545. North elevation, extension to Bay 1, Portsmouth Factory/100 Store (1903, 3/82).
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 546. South elevation, Portsmouth Factory (1903, 3/82), raised window sills. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 547. South elevation, Portsmouth Factory (1903, 3/82), grey painted metal cladding.
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 548. Portsmouth Factory/100 Store (1903, 3/82), west entrance. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 549. Central Storage & Distribution Facility Portsmouth (27.1.1999). 3/82. BAES.
Fig. 550. Central Storage & Distribution Facility, Covered Monorail Link Portsmouth (27.1.1999).
3/82. BAES.
Fig. 551. Miniload (1999, 3/82M), joining Portsmouth Factory (1903, 3/82). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 552. Miniload (1999, 3/82M) with General Purpose Store (c.1995, 3/117). A. Coats 2013.
xlii
Fig. 553. Red brick former Portsmouth EEM Workshop/Electrical Shop No. 1 (1945, 3/88) and First
Outfits Unstows & De-stores (c.2000, 3/93). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 554. Central Storage & Distribution Facility (27.1.1999) (1945, 3/88). BAES
Fig. 555. Site plan detail of Portsmouth Dockyard New Gun Mounting Store (10.5.00).
HE NMR, MD95/04038.
Fig. 556. End elevation of Portsmouth Dockyard New Gun Mounting Store (14/12/00).
HE NMR, MD95/04038.
Fig. 557. Floor plan of Portsmouth Dockyard New Gun Mounting Store (10.5.00).
HE NMR, MD95/04038.
Fig. 558. Portsmouth First Outfits Unstows & De-stores (c.2000, 3/93). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 559. East elevation of Portsmouth South East Gate (Second World War). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 560. Welcome message, Portsmouth Trafalgar Gate (2011). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 561. Timber-slatted Portsmouth Store No. 52 (1973, 3/179). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 562. HE A881503. Chatham Dockyard prints FL0624 (Nov 1988). Chatham Dockyard Timber
Drying Shed (1770s).
Fig. 563. North elevation, former Portsmouth Coppersmith’s Shop/Store No. 56 (1890, 3/187).
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 564. Former Portsmouth Coppersmith’s Shop/Store No. 56 (1890, 3/187). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 565. West elevation, former Portsmouth Coppersmith’s Shop/Store No. 56 (1890, 3/187).
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 566. Former Portsmouth Coppersmith’s Shop/Store No. 56 (1890, 3/187). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 567. North elevation, Portsmouth Amalgamated Pipe Shop (1974, 3/188). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 568. Entrance, former Portsmouth Contractor’s Workshop (1901, 3/216). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 569. Retaining masonry wall, former Portsmouth Contractor’s Workshop (1901, 3/216).
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 570. Detail, retaining masonry wall, former Portsmouth Contractor’s Workshop (1901, 3/216.
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 571. ‘Guardhouse Road’ sign, former Portsmouth Lime and Cement Store. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 572. Hillside Accommodation Barge, east quay of Portsmouth Basin No. 3. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 573. Corrugated iron, Portsmouth Boatswain’s Workshop (1923, 3/231). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 574. Three Portsmouth dock/lock caissons, Basin No. 3 in 2015. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 575. Portsmouth Hydraulic Gear Store/Store No. 44 (1889, 3/236), from the north. A. Coats.
Fig. 576. Portsmouth Hydraulic Gear Store/Store No. 44 (1889, 3/236), from the south. A. Coats.
Fig. 577. Blocked original west door Portsmouth Hydraulic Gear Store/Store No. 44 (1889, 3/236).
A. Coats.
Fig. 578. North elevation, Portsmouth Hydraulic Gear Store/Store No. 44 (1889, 3/236). A. Coats.
Fig. 579. East elevation, Portsmouth Hydraulic Gear Store/Store No. 44 (1889, 3/236). A. Coats.
Fig. 580. Portsmouth Harbour Plan of Fountain Lake (1905 corrected to 1913). HE, MD95/03042.
xliii
Fig. 581. North elevation, Portsmouth Frederick’s Battery (1843–48, 1868, 3/250). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 582. West elevation, Portsmouth Frederick’s Battery (1843–48, 1868, 3/250). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 583. West elevation, south corner, Portsmouth Frederick’s Battery (1843–48, 1868, 3/250).
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 584. Doorway with insignia, Portsmouth Frederick’s Battery (1843–48, 1868, 3/250).
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 585. Insignia, Portsmouth Frederick’s Battery (1843–48, 1868, 3/250). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 586. Doorway with cartouche, 1868, Portsmouth Frederick’s Battery (1843–48, 1868, 3/250).
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 587. Cartouche, 1868, Portsmouth Frederick’s Battery (1843–48, 1868, 3/250). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 588. Frederick’s Battery and Round Tower, Portsmouth. HE NMR, MD95/03032
Fig. 589. Original site, Portsmouth Frederick’s Battery and the Round Tower. HE NMR, MD95/03034
(1900).
Fig. 590. New site, Portsmouth Frederick’s Battery and the Round Tower. HE NMR, MD95/03034
(1900).
Fig. 591. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. Portsmouth, re-sited Frederick’s Battery and the Round
Tower from the southwest.
Fig. 592. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Plans and sections of round tower at north-east angle
of extension works (1868). TNA, WORK 41/320.
Fig. 593. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Plan, numbers and position of piles for foundations of
round tower. TNA WORK 41/323.
Fig. 594. Portsmouth Round Tower (1843–48, 1868, 3/262), with adjoining rich red brick Offices
(1979, 3/261). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 595. Portsmouth Round Tower string course (1843–8, 1871, 3/262). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 596. Portsmouth Round Tower false machicolation (1843–8, 1871, 3/262). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 597. Ove Arup Partnership’s Offices (1979, 3/261) adjoining Portsmouth Round Tower
(1843–48, 3/262). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 598. Ove Arup Partnership’s Offices (1979, 3/261), Portsmouth Round Tower (1843–48, 3/262)
and Frederick’s Battery (1843–48, 3/250). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 599. Photograph by W. L. Lawrence: ‘Stand easy Flathouse’, the Floating Dock. PMRS,
PORMG 1945/619.
Fig. 600. Link to Portsmouth Floating Dock Jetty (1911). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 601. Cast iron base of the link to Portsmouth Floating Dock Jetty (1911). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 602. Portsmouth Floating Dock Jetty link rivets (1911). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 603. Portsmouth Floating Dock Jetty link iron hooks to secure cables (1911). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 604. Portsmouth Floating Dock Jetty link lamp post (1911). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 605. Portsmouth Floating Dock Jetty lamp post at the eastern corner (1911). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 606. Portsmouth Floating Dock Jetty crane at the northeastern corner (1911). A. Coats 2013.
xliv
Fig. 607. Wooden block floor surface (c.1930, 3/303), Portsmouth Floating Dock Jetty (1911).
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 608. Wooden block floor surface detail (c.1930, 3/303), Portsmouth Floating Dock Jetty (1911).
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 609. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. Portsmouth Floating Dock.
Fig. 610. North elevation of Portsmouth Promontory (1910). A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 611. Photograph of the 250 ton Arrol crane in Portsmouth Dockyard (1959–60).
PMRS, PORMG 1990/559.
Fig. 612. Crane track on Portsmouth Promontory. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 613. Portsmouth Plan No. 2. Ordnance Survey 1896. AdL, Vz 14/113 (1896–1903). MoD
ALNHBP.
Fig. 614. Portsmouth Seamens’ Quarters (1899–1903), Ground Floor Plan. BAES.
Fig. 615. Portsmouth Seamens’ Quarters (1899–1903), First & Second Floor Plans. BAES.
Fig. 616. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. RN Barracks: Seamens’ Quarters, Parade Ground.
Fig. 617. AFL03/A229825. Portsea: Aerial Views: HMS Nelson/RN Barracks with former
accommodation blocks and Nile Building (1973). Local Studies Collection Illustrations.
Fig. 618. Redevelopment of RN Barracks plan, Portsmouth (1963–74). TNA, ADM 1/28540.
Fig. 619. Model of Portsmouth Royal Naval Barracks,1966. TNA, ADM 1/28540 (1963–74).
Fig. 620. Cartoon, On the Knee Mutiny of 1904. George Malcolmson Collection.
Fig. 621. Pre-1956 view of Portsmouth HMS Nelson Main Gate. BAES.
Fig. 622. Portsmouth Main/Nelson Gate (1899–1903) South elevation. BAES.
Fig. 623. Flagpole, Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks Parade Ground. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 624. Portsmouth Jervis Gate (c.1980). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 625. Surviving northern portion of Rodney at Portsmouth (1847–48, NE/14 ). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 626. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. West elevation of Rodney (1847–48).
Fig. 627. Anglesey Barracks wall at Portsmouth (1847), near Rodney (1847–48, NE/14).
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 628. Gateway, Portsmouth Naval Barracks/HMS Nelson Barracks (c.1899). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 629. East elevation of Jervis (1899, NE/64), Portsmouth Naval Barracks. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 630. West elevation, Jervis (1899, NE/64), Portsmouth Naval Barracks. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 631. West elevation, Jervis (1899, NE/64), chimney gable. Portsmouth Naval Barracks.
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 632. North entrance, Jervis (1899, NE/64), Portsmouth Naval Barracks. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 633. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, cast iron rainwater hopper, Jervis (1899, NE/64).
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 634. Cast iron Doulton drain cover, south entrance of Jervis (1899, NE/64),
Portsmouth Naval Barracks. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 635. Portsmouth Naval Barracks Canteen/Eastney NE79, West Elevation, 1907. BAES.
xlv
Fig. 636. Portsmouth Naval Barracks Canteen/Eastney NE79. East and South Elevations, 1907. BAES.
Fig. 637. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, Eastney (c.1907, NE/79), south elevation. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 638. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, Eastney (c.1907, NE/79), north elevation. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 639. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, Eastney (c.1907, NE/79), west elevation. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 640. Electric lamp standard, Eastney (c.1907, NE/79), HMS Nelson Barracks. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 641. Electric lamp standard, Eastney (c.1907, NE/79), Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks.
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 642. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, Gymnasium (1893–1900, NE/81), west elevation.
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 643. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, Gymnasium (1893–1900, NE/81), main entrance.
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 644. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, Gymnasium (1893–1900, NE/81), ‘P.D. First Aid Station’.
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 645. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, Gymnasium (1893–1900, NE/81), north entrance.
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 646. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, Gymnasium south elevation pavilion (1893–1900, NE/81).
A. Coats 2014.
Fig. 647. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, Gymnasium south elevation pavilion tympanum
(1893–1900, NE/81). A. Coats 2014.
Fig. 648. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, Gymnasium (1893–1900, NE/81) south elevation,
rainwater hopper, 1899. A. Coats 2014.
Fig. 649. Portsmouth Gymnasium (1893–1900, NE/81), Roof Section, Dec 88. BAES.
Fig. 650. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, west elevation of Barham (1899, NE/82). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 651. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, Barham portico (1899, NE/82). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 652. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, east wing, Barham (1899, NE/82). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 653. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, ventilator, Barham’s east wing roof (1899, NE/82).
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 654. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, rainwater hopper, Barham (1899, NE/82). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 655. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, west elevation, Trafalgar (1950s, NE/86). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 656. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, west entrance to Trafalgar (1950s, NE/86). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 657. Post-1924 brickwork closing off former entrance to Portsmouth Gun Store Ground (c.1914)
near Trafalgar Gate. A. Coats 2013.
xlvi
xlvii
xlviii
PART ONE
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CHARACTERISATION 1
1 DOCKYARDS
The raison d’être of dockyards is the state-owned navy, for which docks, basins and slips exist, and
without which their accompanying buildings would not be required. The function of a dockyard is to
build, fit out, supply and repair naval ships. Dockyards are defined by dry docks, from which water
can be drained or pumped out for repairing, whereas shipbuilding can be carried out on a slip, but
the term was sometimes used where the yard did not yet have a dock: Pembroke Dock was called a
dockyard when it still only had slipways, while Bermuda was also called a dockyard before acquiring
a floating dry dock in 1869. A ‘dockyard’ was literally the yard that grew around the ‘dock’, and ‘royal
dockyard’ remained the official term until supplemented by ‘naval base’ in the late 1960s (Coad, 2013,
pp. 1, 4, 88); local residents, historians, media, and naval base personnel still refer to the operational
sites as ‘dockyards’. Commercial or private shipyards have been used as a supplementary resource for
the state to build new ships since the seventeenth century, whenever it was deemed economically and
strategically pragmatic for naval dockyards solely to repair warships. Dockyards have represented a
global paradigm of function and built environment for at least two millennia.
Jonathan Coad, a ‘leading’ and dedicated ‘historian of the royal dockyards’, expressed the ‘frequently
forgotten truism that without the Royal Dockyards there could have been no Royal Navy.’ (Cossons
Foreword to Coad, 2013, p. 391; Knight, Feb 2011, p. 234; Coad, 1989, p. xxv) This is demonstrably the
case in the UK, where the navy became a ‘permanent force’ from the early sixteenth century, and from
the late seventeenth century an all year navy which required permanent maintenance facilities ashore
(Coad, 2013, pp. xvii, 1; Davies, 1995, pp. 56-79). Coad also emphasised that historically, ‘warships
have been among the most expensive and technologically complex of all building projects’, and that
‘dry-docks remained the single most expensive piece of capital equipment’ (2001, p. 24).
Lake and Douet, in their thematic assessment of dockyard buildings, asserted:
Docks are the structures which define the dockyards, and formalise the relationship between
land and water. The nature of this relationship has been fundamental to the history of the
yards: rock to excavate at Devonport, mud and silt to consolidate or pile at Devonport and
Sheerness; destructive tides and heavy seas at the maritime yards, and silting rivers at the
fresh water ones. The location of the docks and slips, and the need to achieve satisfactory
access for the ships, have been the major factors in the planning of the yards, and locating
the stores, smitheries and workshops arranged around them. Their design, construction,
maintenance and enlargement has always been one of the predominant concerns of the
Navy Board and the officers managing the yard, and has absorbed far greater amounts of
expenditure than any other dockyard works. (1998, p. 36)
As in previous centuries, twentieth century dockyard morphology responded to the requirements of
the state, which transmitted political, social and economic developments, international events and
those of an expanding, then declining, and more technologically complex Royal Navy. Dockyard
facilities and personnel numbers reflected the number and type of naval ships and numbers of naval
personnel. Until the end of the eighteenth century dockyards were the nation’s most complex industrial
1
A bold Fig. no. indicates that the image is captioned more than once in Part 1 and/or Part 3, leading to some
numbers appearing to be out of sequence.
1
Twentieth Century Naval Dockyards Devonport and Portsmouth: Characterisation Report
centres and until the twentieth century the most expensive installations. They frequently included
ordnance, hospital and victualling facilities, the Victualling Board becoming Britain’s first mass caterer.
Synergies between state naval operations and private commerce have stimulated industrial innovation
consistently, therefore dockyard buildings need to be assessed alongside similar structures in non-
military sites.
Twentieth century historians have tended to focus on the operational, technological and social
context of dockyards, rather than their construction, while mainstream historians rarely write about
dockyards, so there is no continuous narrative or analysis. As Coad concluded, they lack ‘the drama
of great sea battles and the glamour associated with famous commanders’ and were until relatively
recently hidden behind high walls (2013, p. 391). While presenting an invaluable textual and visual
introduction to the twentieth century and First World War dockyards, Lake and Douet, Coad, and
Evans end their writings respectively in 1906 and 1914. Coad identifies 1914 as the watershed by
which point the navy had met its needs for the twentieth century, apart from the addition of Singapore
in the 1920s (2013, p. xvii). While the dockyards did not grow significantly beyond their boundaries
during the twentieth century, the last fifty years have seen major changes in the historical perception
of dockyard buildings, greater awareness of their heritage significance and conservation needs, and
their diverse future uses. This required an inclusive search by the NDS team for sources to provide
a baseline study for twentieth century dockyards. Echoing Coad, ‘It must be emphasised that the
great majority of the buildings mentioned here are not normally accessible to visitors.’ (1981, p. 3)
Portsmouth heritage area, managed by PNBPT, is open every day except Christmas Day; Devonport
Dockyard and HM Submarine Courageous are accessible in guided tours organised by Devonport Naval
Heritage Centre.
1.1 Historical background to British twentieth century dockyards

Of the six royal dockyards, Portsmouth is the oldest, being the first to have a dry dock in 1495,
while Plymouth Dock was the first, in the 1690s, designed as an integrated dockyard on a virgin site.
During the seventeenth century, the navy was remodelled to meet its expanded functions of global
protection for British trade and offensive operations to deny other nations control of sea routes.
France and Spain, rather than the Netherlands, became naval enemies, and warships could access the
English Channel and the Atlantic from Portsmouth and Plymouth more quickly than from the Thames
and Medway. In 1824 the town of Plymouth Dock was renamed Devonport, the dockyard following
suit in 1843. Deptford (1513) and Woolwich (1512) became research and development yards on the
Thames, easily accessible to the Admiralty and Navy Boards, until their closure in 1869, by which
time their facilities were too small for contemporary ships. Chatham (1547)2 became a mooring and
storehouse facility after the French attacked Portsmouth and Mary Rose sank in 1545, but did not have
its first dock, a double dock, until 1618 (Coad, 1989, p. 90). It was a sheltered upriver site accessible
from London and strategically located for seventeenth century campaigns against the Netherlands.
Chatham remained a major shipbuilding yard, latterly for submarines, until the 1960s, and then
became a nuclear submarine refitting centre; it was closed in 1984, when, following the 1981 Defence
Review, the smaller Royal Navy required fewer facilities. Sheerness (1665), Chatham’s deepwater
satellite, was closed in 1960 as naval operations contracted after the Second World War. Following
the closure of Portland in 1995, Devonport and Portsmouth became the two remaining bases of the
operational Royal Navy in England; since 1984 Devonport has been the only English royal dockyard,
with Portsmouth reclassified as a naval base.
Dockyard facilities extended during the Napoleonic War provided an infrastructure for the twentieth
century. A victualling, then naval base was constructed at Haulbowline Island in Cork (Cobh) Harbour
from 1806 to 1824, as Kinsale became inaccessible to larger warships. It was closed from 1831 but
2
Chatham’s activities can now be traced to 1509 when a storehouse was rented. Marlyne, a 10-gun, 50-ton pinnace
crewed by 35 men, was launched in 1570 (Chatham Dockyard Historical Society, 2014, p. 1).
2
Part 1: Historical Background and Characterisation
reopened in the 1840s. In 1865 Haulbowline gained a dry dock which was lengthened before the
First World War under the Naval Works Act of 1895, which also added a basin. Since 1923 it has been
the headquarters of the Irish Naval Service. Pembroke Dock was begun in 1814 to build warships
because of its deep water access, timber supplies and shipbuilding expertise transferred from Milford
Haven. Eventually it had thirteen building slips and a graving dock. As its ships were sent initially to
Devonport for fitting out, it did not need a basin. It closed as a dockyard in 1926, re-opening on a
limited scale in 1938–47. Rosyth was anticipated by 1900 to supplement the overstretched southern
bases and to counter Germany’s expanding navy. It was constructed between 1908 and 1918 to
provide full engineering, fuel and armament support for the largest capital ships, with a basin and
three dry docks, fully operational in 1916. Closed in 1925, it was re-opened in 1938 and privatised in
1987 under the management of Babcock, who acquired it in 1997. It is presently assembling the new
aircraft carriers Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales. Portland Harbour provided valuable refuge, coaling and
watering facilities during the nineteenth century, with berths for torpedo boat destroyers constructed
1903–14. It closed as a training base in 1995. (Coad, 2013, pp. 3, 16-19, 20-4, 30, 42-5, 50-2, 77, 95,
176, 393; Johnston & Buxton, 2013, p. 144; Law, 1999, pp. 154, 170-1; Buxton, 2016; Rogers, 2016)
At the beginning of the nineteenth century, dockyards were designed for the Navy Board by a
Civil Architect and Engineer, termed Surveyor of Buildings, from 1812–32. Changes in the dockyard
design process followed the Whig abolition of the Navy Board in 1832 and the termination of
George Ledwell Taylor’s post as Surveyor of Buildings in 1837. The Royal Engineers took over this
function for the Admiralty, the first incumbent being R. E. Captain Henry Brandreth. A Department of
Architecture and Civil Engineering was created, later called the Admiralty Works Department, headed
by a Royal Engineer as Director, with supervising engineers at each dockyard. Evans argued that
nineteenth century dockyards, while collaborating in innovation with private industry, led the field
in such practices as using steam as a motive power; chain testing; steam factories; the need for fire-
proof materials driving iron frame construction; iron roofs; hollow cast iron columns to carry water;
cast iron windows and metal doors; standardisation of screw threads; corrugated iron cladding and
partitions; training naval engineers; flexible factory design to accommodate changes in technology;
smoke dispersal and roofing over open spaces. In his view, ‘slip roofs were buildings of enormous
significance in the development of free-standing iron frames, and hence in architectural history’.
Hamilton noted that to integrate the dockyards more closely within a single naval hierarchy, the
reforms ended the post of resident Commissioner, the overall manager answerable to the Admiralty
via the Navy Board. A Superintendent (an Admiral Superintendent at Portsmouth, ‘clearly still the
leading naval yard’) who was a naval officer became directly answerable to the Admiralty. (Coad,
2013, pp. 79-80; Evans, 2004, pp. 12, 15-16, 45; Hamilton, 2005, p. xxv)
In 1843, the Civil Architect became Director of Engineering and Architecture or Director of Works,
managing the Works Department which instigated, assessed and prepared parliamentary estimates
for all new yard works, although the Admiralty put very large projects out to tender with firms of
consulting engineers. By the mid-nineteenth century designs for all engineering and architectural
works were centralised under the Director of Naval Works. Brandreth appointed many R. E. officers
as dockyard superintendent engineers, although a civil engineer was appointed to Portsmouth in
1864 and more civil engineers were employed by the twentieth century. Charles Colson ‘joined the
Admiralty in 1866 and was for several years assistant engineer on the Portsmouth Dockyard Extension.
After acting from 1881 to 1883 as Civil Engineer of Portsmouth Dockyard, he was sent to Malta to
design a new naval dock there… and promoted to Superintending Civil Engineer’. In 1892 ‘he was
appointed Superintending Civil Engineer at Devonport.’ When the Naval Works Loan Department was
formed in 1895 Colson was appointed ‘Deputy Civil Engineer in Chief. He was responsible, under
Sir Henry Pilkington, for the design and construction of much Admiralty work at Portsmouth’ and
elsewhere until 1905. (Colson Obituary, 1916, ICE, pp. 391-2) Local initiative was reduced, although
it continued overseas, but home yard officers had oversight and execution. Centralisation increased
even further during the nineteenth century, with improved post, telegraph, telegram and telephone
systems. (Coad, 2013, pp. 80-3)
3
Dockyards became a forcing ground for large iron frame buildings. Evans argued that ‘Historians
of iron space frames tend to concentrate on the development of greenhouses’, but ‘many of the
technical steps leading up to this were worked through in the dockyards’. By 1848 the Report of
the Committee of Revision of Dockyards acknowledged that ‘Steam has rendered the most costly of
these Establishments indispensable. The repairs of the Steam Navy, even in peace, would exceed the
powers of all the private Factories now in existence’. Despite further reforms, it was argued from the
1850s to 1860s, fuelled by evidence from two Reports (House of Commons, 1859, Report of the Committee
on dockyard economy; House of Commons, 1861, Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the control
and management of Her Majesty’s yards), that dockyards should be abolished because they could not be as
efficient as private businesses, ignoring the fact that dockyards ‘constituted the largest manufacturing
enterprise of the day.’ (Hamilton, 2005, pp. xxxviii-xxxix, lv) Evans contended that the factory designs
of Director of Engineering G. T. Greene and architect W. Scamp’s factory designs inspired ‘tens
of thousands of open-plan factories built, and still building, around the world.’ At Devonport, the
Keyham Steam Factory represented a breakthrough in factory design where a multiplicity of functions
could co-exist. Apart from the foundry, it was a largely undifferentiated space where machinery and
functions could be altered and arranged in any way. Any area which needed to be isolated could
be separated by simply bolting old boiler plates or corrugated iron to the standards. However, until
the 1950s this building, together with many others in the hidden world of dockyards, remained in
obscurity, and so the names of Greene and Scamp were never pronounced in the architectural world
with the reverence accorded to those of Barry, Paxton and Eiffel because ‘the world of the Royal
Dockyards was perceived as self-contained’. Evans noted however, that Greene has been recently
‘recognised by architectural and structural historians as a pioneer of functional design and a harbinger
of the Modern Movement.’ (2004, pp. 45, 81, 105, 130, passim)
To carry out extra work under the 1895 Naval Works Act the Director of the Admiralty Works
Department, Major Sir Henry Pilkington, became Engineer-in-Chief with a dedicated team for the
Naval Loan works led by Major Edward Raban, then Portsmouth Superintending Engineer. In 1886 the
Admiralty Works Department had a staff of 150 civil engineers, clerks of works, draughtsmen, clerks
and foremen. By 1914, the London headquarters staff had also expanded from four to twenty-five
civil engineers, draughtsmen, surveyors and a clerk to address the expanded work (Coad, 2013, p.
86). These became the early twentieth century dockyard architects.
The core functions of dockyard buildings: industrial, stores, administration and housing, did not
change significantly until the 1840s, because they were supporting a largely sailing navy built of
timber. By 1914 they had changed drastically in scale, funded by secure government budgets, to
provide steam yards: basins dry docks, foundries, factories and machine shops to process metals.
The larger size of rifled guns and turrets added gunmounting stores and workshops to the dockyard
landscape (Coad, 2013, pp. 112, 171-2, 207, 320). Evans concluded that dockyard buildings supplied
‘the greatest navy of its time with buildings filled with lessons and messages for factory design and
constructional innovation that were applicable on a virtually universal scale.’ (2004, p. 202). The
time is therefore ripe for rôle of dockyards within this field to be reassessed. The NDS team made
a detailed study, where possible, of significant new twentieth century buildings, existing buildings
converted into twentieth century uses and twentieth century buildings which have disappeared.
1.2 Political and strategic background to British twentieth century dockyards

Twentieth century dockyards were shaped by the 1889 Naval Defence Act and the 1895 Naval Works
Act (and succeeding Naval Works Acts), products of Britain’s traditional naval rivalry with France
and new rivalry with Russia and Germany. This legislation implemented a two-power standard and
accelerated the naval arms race with Germany. A new Naval Ordnance Department was created
under Captain John (Jacky) Fisher, which brought naval ordnance under Admiralty control, and the
Naval Intelligence Division (NID) was formed in 1887 from the 1882 Foreign Intelligence Committee.
4
Lake and Douet observed that by 1889, British anxiety over its isolation in Europe was driving naval
expansion, and facilities were being reorganised to build new ships. The first of a series of articles
written in September 1884 by W. T. Stead in the Pall Mall Gazette, entitled ‘The Truth about the Navy’,
had stirred up public demand for more investment to achieve a two-power standard and improve
armament, resulting in a promise of £3m for the navy in December 1884. MP Lord Charles Beresford
urged a stronger navy in the House of Commons. Redford argued that the serious war scare with
Russia in 1885, arising from the 1884 Panjdeh Incident on the Afghanistan/Russia border, and the
less substantial scare over France’s naval strength in 1888 were major spurs to the Naval Defence
Act in 1889. Johnston and Buxton also pointed to ‘concerns over the preparedness of the navy, its
organisation and equipment’ which led to the Naval Defence Act. Evans showed that this act was
designed to maintain superiority over the French, as few docks could take the largest new warships.
Continuing popular anxiety sustained the huge cost of investing in new docks, slips and basins at
Devonport and Portsmouth. (Coad, 2013, pp. 44, 221; Brown, 2010, pp. 123-5; Lake & Douet 1998,
p. 10; Johnston & Buxton 2013, pp. 11-12; Hattendorf et al., 1993, pp. 604-9; Lambert, 1998, pp. 136,
191-3; Redford, pers. comm., 2015; Colomb, 1888; Brown, 2010, p. 113; Grimes, 2003, p. 20; Evans,
2004, p. 195-203; Brown, 2016; Grove, 2016)
However, Cain and Hopkins’s analysis of the material forces of British imperialism, linked to political
and social developments, concluded that ‘Britain was determined to prevent the domination of the
European continent by any one power or a close combination of powers.’ Not to have effected this
strategy would have allowed another power to “menace the importance of the United Kingdom and
the integrity of the British Empire.” Britain could not dominate European powers territorially. The
return to a blue water policy to control imperial sea routes after a period of cheap defence was
therefore seen as the only means of protecting Britain’s global financial interests and London as
the financial centre of the world. (Cain & Hopkins, 2001, pp. 2, 383-5 quoting a 1911 General Staff
Memorandum)
Andrew Lambert’s scrutiny of ‘Britain as a unique global power’ argued that the City, which ‘dominated
global shipping, coal, insurance markets and communications’, via its monopoly of submarine cables,
had coordinated ‘politically motivated alarm’ to pressurise the government to authorise expenditure
through the Act over five years to deter other major powers’ growth: ‘The Naval Defence Act fleet
was designed to win battles in European waters, not patrol the colonies.’ However, it did stimulate
the provision of commercial dry docks in the colonies through naval loans or subsidies, enabling
steam-powered naval ships to be repaired and refitted around the world when necessary. Naval
defence expenditure rose from £24.9m in 1860 to £26.3m in 1890, increasing from 15.5% to 16.8%
of government expenditure. (Lambert, 1998, Appendix I; Cain and Hopkins, 2001, pp. 249, 308, 364;
Lambert, 2006, pp. 6-7, 11, 14-20, 30-2)
Martin Daunton in The Dreadnought and the Edwardian Age (2011), a multi-authored volume aiming to
set the Dreadnought within broad cultural contexts, re-examined the ‘Finance of Naval Expansionism,
c.1890–1914’. After William Gladstone resigned as Prime Minister in 1894 he deplored increased
naval expenditure as “the greatest and richest sacrifice ever made on the altar of militarism. It is
absolute insanity…I dread the effect which the proposals may have on Europe.” He predicted that it
would ruin his Sinking Fund, set up to repay the National Debt. Daunton recalled that Gladstone had
used direct taxation to ensure that the ‘aristocrats and sinecurists’ promoting militarism were taxed
accordingly. Gladstone also feared that governments would sway electorates to support high naval
spending, such as the 1889 Naval Defence Act, passed when he was out of office. Sir Ian Hamilton,
his former private secretary, was concerned that it would reduce parliamentary powers to control
annual budgets and mortgage future taxes. Daunton concluded that ‘the costs of the naval building
programme therefore posed major political and constitutional issues’, conflicting with Liberal aims
to improve urban and welfare expenditure. After the end of the Boer War the new Chancellor of
the Exchequer, Austen Chamberlain, stated that “in the present condition of our finances, it would,
in my opinion, be impossible to finance a great war, except at an absolutely ruinous cost.” His
plan to increase direct taxation and introduce tariff reform was rejected by the voters in 1906. This
5
contradiction between funding social welfare and Dreadnoughts was eventually resolved in 1909–10 by
the introduction of a graduated income tax and increased public spending: ‘The British government
could now afford both old age pensions and HMS Dreadnought and its successors’. Daunton contended
that at the beginning of the twentieth century, due to Britain’s record of reducing its National Debt
after the French and Napoleonic wars, ‘there was confidence in the credit-worthiness of the British
government, which was able to borrow at lower interest rates than other countries.’ The German
government, however, which had no national income tax until 1913, was less successful than Britain
in raising loans to expand the navy in 1913. (Daunton, 2011, p. 31, 33-4, 40, 45, 49)
The Naval Defence Act indeed marked a decisive change from Gladstone’s cheap naval defence,
which ended when the 1893 Naval Estimates were raised and rearmament expenditure was funded by
higher direct taxation (Cain & Hopkins, 201, pp. 184-5). William Henry White, the former Devonport
apprentice who became Director of Naval Construction and Assistant Controller of the Royal Navy
1885–1902, drove dockyard reforms, improved the science of naval architecture and standardised the
designs of 245 new warships, excluding destroyers (White, biography, 1845-1913). Brown considered
that White’s reforms made ‘the Dockyards by far the fastest builders in the country’. In 1887 White
identified seventy-two obsolescent naval ships and proposed a £9m replacement building programme.
The Admiralty approved the expanded programme in 1888 and the Naval Defence Act authorised the
building of seventy ships between 1889 and 1894, to cost £21.5m (Brown, 2010, pp. 123-5). The First
Naval Lord of the Admiralty, Admiral Sir Frederick Richards, asserted in August 1893:
At the present moment we have a distinct lead over the Combined Fleets of France and Russia
in point of 1st Class Battle Ships, completed or approaching completion under the Naval
Defence Act. The all important object now is to maintain that lead. (TNA, August 1893, ADM
116/324)
But Richards continued:
if we allow France and Russia to go ahead with the vessels they have already on the stocks
building without continuing our construction proportionately the consequences would be
very serious by the time 1898 is reached. There can be no greater danger to the maintenance
of the Peace of Europe than a relatively weak British Navy. (TNA, August 1893, ADM 116/324)
He concluded: ‘The new shipbuilding programme of the late Board of Admiralty affords a firm basis
in which to work. I hold a continuous policy in shipbuilding to be essential to the safety of the British
Empire.’ (TNA, August 1893, ADM 116/324) Major General Sir George Aston, lecturing at University
College London in December 1930, recalled that during the Anglo-Boer Wars (1880–81, 1899–1902)
the ‘predominance of the British Navy over all others kept the peace’ and ensured that Britain was
not invaded (Aston, 1932, pp. 438-9). Continuing the naval rivalry with Germany, Russia and France,
the Naval Defence Act initiated a further massive expansion of the major British naval dockyards from
1900 and improved fleet facilities funded by naval loans through a succession of Naval Works Acts
(Lake & Douet, 1998, p. 10).
The Naval Defence and Works Acts drove forward both shipbuilding and dockyard modernisation
programmes. In 1903 a loan funded the building of power stations to bring electricity to dockyards,
which led to the removal of individual engine houses serving workshops. Portsmouth’s power station,
built in 1906, was extended in 1913. Rosyth’s was built in 1910–15 (Coad, 2013, pp. 51, 208; Rosyth
Dockyard). In Coad’s view, the Naval Works Act (1895) focused late nineteenth and early twentieth
century dockyard expansion at Devonport and Portsmouth, creating larger dry docks, slips and basin
capacity to construct the largest new warships and new merchant vessels which potentially could be
converted into armed cruisers. Docks and locks at Portsmouth and Devonport docks in the Keyham
extension were further extended before 1914, the latter making Devonport the largest naval base in
western Europe, ‘a position it maintains a century later’. (Coad, 2013, pp. 44-9)
Redford distinguishes between the older arms races/competition between Britain and France/Russia
6
up to 1905, and Britain’s newer competition with Germany from 1898, as strategically they implied
different uses for Portsmouth Dockyard and naval base. When opposed to France it was a front
line base for the main fleet (the others being Portland and Devonport), whereas against Germany it
became a repair and training facility with the main fleet at Rosyth/Scapa Flow (Redford, pers. comm.,
2015). Recent historiography emphasises in particular the financial and political complexities of both
Britain and Germany which affected the arms races culminating in the First World War. Seligmann,
Nägler and Epkenhans have re-evaluated the narrative based on primary documents, particularly of
the Naval Intelligence Department. The Naval Route to the Abyss. The Anglo-German Naval Race 1895–1914,
throws new light on Admiralty strategy and the arms race to maintain naval supremacy and manage
the invasion risk. By 1905 the French and Russian fleets were deemed to be no risk to Britain; the
major threat was now Germany. Rear Admiral Sir Lewis Beaumont, Director of Naval Intelligence
1894–99, wrote in 1898: “There is, in my opinion, more fear of an attempt at invasion of England from
Germany than any other nation. Their Home Fleet is eventually to be 17 Battleships”. The 2nd earl of
Selborne, First Lord of the Admiralty 1900–05, was convinced in February 1904 “that the composition
of the new German fleet… is designed for a possible conflict with the British fleet.” The navalist
campaign over 1907–8 naval estimates was based on the fact that ‘German naval build-up was real
and genuine intelligence did exist’. (Seligmann et al., 2015, pp. xxvii-xxxiv, quotations 110, 147, 241)
The widening of the Kiel Canal to allow the whole German Fleet to pass through in six hours, the
build up of Wilhelmshaven from the 1890s, and the consolidation of the fortified north German
coast was being reported by military and naval intelligence by 1902 (Seligmann et al., pp. 138-143). It
was also publicised topically in Erskine Childers’ novel The Riddle of the Sands, based on his cruises in
the Frisian Islands in 1897 and 1898. A connection with his cousin, Hugh Childers, Civil Lord of the
Admiralty and First Lord of the Admiralty in the 1860s, and his own position as a House of Commons
clerk would have familiarised him with the naval and diplomatic contexts. His personae embodied the
Foreign Office protagonist, the experienced sailor and the editor, evincing diplomatic awareness of
German invasion plans and the physical build-up of coastal defences: ‘Chatham, our only eastern
base – no North Sea base or squadron – they’d land at one of those God-forsaken flats off the Crouch
and Blackwater’, or in the Wash. Childers epitomised Britain’s failure of resources and strategy: ‘We
have no North Sea naval base, no North Sea Fleet, and no North Sea policy.’ (1979, pp. 27, 278-
302, quotations 312, 321; 312-14, 319-27) Cumulatively, intelligence led the Admiralty to evaluate
the most effective and defensible east coast base to address ‘a serious deficiency of accommodation
for long battleships and cruisers.’ The Firth of Forth was assessed by the Berthing Committee in
January 1902 as ‘the first large natural harbour on the east coast north of the Thames’. Rear Admiral
Reginald Custance, Director of Naval Intelligence 1899–1902, considered in May 1902 that ‘the Forth
is centrally placed in the North Sea and would be a suitable port.’ Selborne’s Navy Estimates 1903–04
recommended, ‘to relieve the congested dockyards’, that ‘If no whisper of the proposal is allowed
to go abroad, the land in question can now be bought at its agricultural value on the Firth of Forth’.
(Seligmann et al., 2015, pp. 103, quotations 121, 126, 138-9; 380-2, 383-5) He continued:
The position is already fortified, and the establishment of a naval base there would greatly
increase our strategic strength against the German fleet. Further, in a naval war with either
France or Germany, it is certain that a greater proportion of our trade would have to be
deflected round the north of Scotland, and a naval base at this spot would facilitate its
protection. (Quoted in Seligmann et al., 2015, p. 139)
A British blockade of the German Fleet with torpedo-armed flotilla craft was perceived as unfeasible
due to the scale of the North Sea (290,000 square miles) and the newly fortified harbours of the
600 miles of north German coast, which would prevent RN submarines and destroyers getting close
enough to observe. Logistically, vessels could not be refuelled and could have been picked off
individually. They could also not form a sufficiently close line to catch an emerging fleet. Therefore
capital ships and battle cruisers/Dreadnoughts remained the core of a defensive/offensive fleet with
which the Admiralty aimed to draw out the German High Seas Fleet. Naval intelligence in 1907
hypothesised that by capturing German trading ships and thereby reducing goods reaching Germany,
7
which was increasingly dependent on this trade for basic foodstuffs such as wheat, was the only
means of ‘luring the German fleets to sea’, compelled by popular demand. A perceived wartime threat
to Britain’s trade from the conversion of Germany’s merchant navy (the second largest after Britain’s)
to armed cruisers was met by the Admiralty subsidising the building of Lusitania and Mauretania under
the Cunard Agreement (1904), which gave the Admiralty effective control of Cunard’s resources.
(Seligmann et al., 2015, pp. xxvii-xxxiv, 105, 106-7, 148-151, quotation 257; 259-61, 416-20, 428, 441)
This ambiguous connection was fateful. When Lusitania returned to Liverpool in 1915 she was sunk by
the German submarine U20 off southern Ireland on 7 May. The Germans also sank unarmed ships.
Sumida showed that there were few controls on the spending from the loans acquired through the
Naval Works Acts of 1895, 1896 1897, 1898, 1899, 1901 and 1903. Expenditure on new dock works
and naval barracks in the fiscal years 1897/8–1904/5 rose from £5.1 million to £24.8 million, a net
spend of £16.6 million over naval estimates. This was funded by rising tax receipts until the military
costs of the Second Anglo-Boer War (1899–1902) forced the government to raise taxes and borrow,
increasing the National Debt by a quarter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pressed for cuts in naval
spending in October 1901. Tax revenues dipped 1903–4 by £10 million because of falling economic
activity, and in 1904 the Committee of Public Accounts objected that the extra funds allowed by the
Acts were exceeding the naval estimates. From 1905–6, £1 million of accumulated debts had to be
repaid from the works budget of the naval estimates. (Sumida, 2014, pp. 18, 21-5)
Following the Russo-Japanese War, German naval build-up challenged British naval superiority. The
revised definition of ‘2 Power Standard + 10%’ was declared government policy in March 1908 by
Liberal 2nd Baron Tweedmouth, First Lord of the Admiralty 1905–8 and Prime Minister Herbert Asquith
in November 1908. (Otte, 2011, p. 56; Seligmann, 2011, p. 372) But Aston recalled that following the
British Empire Defence Conference in 1909, ‘a 60 per cent. standard in battleships above Germany’
was substituted.’ (Aston, 1932, p. 441) Britain thus tacitly gave up the two power standard as naval
rearmament responded to Lloyd George’s budgeting 1909–14 (Cain & Hopkins, 2001, p. 386).
Otte also argued in The Dreadnought and the Edwardian Age that Britain’s power projection and naval
superiority underpinned its diplomacy; in return the Foreign Office demanded a naval presence.
He cited Eyre Crowe, Head of the Western Department of the Foreign Office, as urging in 1907 that
England was ‘an island with vast oversea colonies and dependencies whose existence and survival
as an independent community are inseparably bound up with the possession of a preponderant
seapower.’ (2011, pp. 52-3) This ‘blue water’ policy had been advocated since Sir Walter Raleigh and
the Duke of Buckingham: ‘The Navy is the Wall & ffence of or. Country & the readiest force to assist
ffreinds, assaile Enemyes maintain ffishing, Traffique and Plantacoñs’ (BL, Sloane MS 3232, c.1618, fos
139-139v), but was dismissed by Fisher in 1907 as “merely a piece of hoary [Foreign Office] tradition.”
(Quoted, Otte, 2011, p. 54)
Otte also examined the complexity and volatility of naval expansionism. In 1906 Asquith, Liberal
Chancellor of the Exchequer (1904–8), wished to reduce the four capital ships planned to be laid
down 1907–8, but Sir Edward Grey, Liberal Foreign Secretary 1905–16, argued in 1906 that this should
only happen if other powers reduced spending. British naval estimates did fall from £36,889,500 for
1904–5 to £31,419,500 for 1907–8. However, Grey argued in August 1906 that ‘
To defend the United Kingdom we must be able to take the offensive outside our territory at
sea and drive the enemy off the sea. If we are placed on the defensive we are ruined. We must
therefore have a naval force superior to our enemy or enemies. (Quoted by Otte, 2011, p. 56)
Germany responded in November 1907 by publishing an expansion of its 1908 Naval Programme.
(Otte, 2011, pp. 56-8)
During the discussion of 1908–9 naval estimates and the acceleration crisis of 1909 it was clear that
Germany had quickened its Dreadnought construction. In January 1909 the Fourth Sea Lord Alfred
Winsloe reported to Henry Jackson, Third Sea Lord, that a Cabinet “clique” of six, including Winston
8
Churchill,3 had insisted before Christmas 1908 on just four Dreadnoughts or their resignation. Winsloe
asserted that if six were not promised the Board of Admiralty would “resign en masse”, with the
proviso that if Germany again increased its programme, “we have the power given us to lay down two
extra ships without waiting for parliamentary approval”. (Seligmann et al., 2015, pp. 370-1) The Navy
League and Conservatives campaigned: ‘We want eight and we won’t wait’ in March and April 1909,
supported by Fisher, and the Dreadnoughts went ahead. Meanwhile, Grey embarked on discussions of
‘reciprocal reduction of the speed of construction’ with Bernhard von Bülow and Bethmann Hollweg,
successive German Chancellors 1900–9 and 1909–17, but neither side actually contemplated reduction
in 1909, although in July 1910 Prime Minister Asquith hoped British naval spending was “at the very
top of the wave.” In March 1911 Grey urged a mutual exchange of information to prevent a break
down of civilisation, but German attitudes hardened. By February 1912 it was known that Germany
planned to lay down fifteen capital ships in the next six years, prompting Churchill, First Lord of the
Admiralty since 1911, to threaten in March to build two ships for each German one, but to reduce this
target if the Germans did. Churchill also noted in 1912:
The development of the naval base at Rosyth is necessarily slow, and several years will pass
before its permanent works can be used as a base for a fleet operating in the North Sea. No
docking facilities for the heaviest ships exist north of the Medway. No naval bases are as yet
in existence at any point north of Harwich; no adequate coaling facilities exist in the north or
at Cromarty; and fleets called upon to operate suddenly from these harbours would have to
depend on colliers coming north about from South Wales or on overland transit of coal from
Grangemouth. (Quoted in Seligmann et al., 2015, p. 444)
In the end, Otte concluded, Britain achieved victory in the arms race, rather than deterrence through
diplomacy, contending that Germany needed a neutral Britain to be able to focus on the threat of Russia
in Europe. (2011, pp. 58-68, 72-73, 78)
Epkenhans demonstrated that naval expansion suited Germany’s state-building aspirations. Grand
Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz, Secretary of State for the Germany Imperial Navy 1897–1916, had been
responsible since the 1890s for creating the High Seas Fleet, funded by naval bills of 1898, 1900,
1908 and 1912, steadily producing the second largest fleet after Britain. This implemented the Kaiser’s
long-term aims of increasing the navy to expand Germany’s colonies and international trade, and
deter Britain from risking its own ships in battle. In 1900 Tirpitz believed that Britain would not
overcome Germany in the North Sea due to financial reasons and overseas commitments. But in
1908 Bülow realised that Germany could not afford to fund both an army and the navy envisaged
by Tirpitz. He asked Tirpitz for a plan to achieve naval neutrality with Britain so that Germany could
focus on a European land war. Tirpitz would not budge until 1909, despite Germany’s worsening
political and financial circumstances and ongoing diplomatic discussions, because to do so would
undermine all his work. Epkenhans argued that Tirpitz’s plan could not financially counteract ‘Fisher’s
naval revolution’. By May 1914 Tirpitz acknowledged that Germany could not afford to build more
ships. Epkenhans contended that Britain ‘curbed Germany’s naval aspirations by simply outbuilding
her navy both as far as quantity and quality were concerned.’ Despite the advantages of a more
authoritarian state and Krupps’s technological innovations, Tirpitz was doubly trounced by the
political complications of funding the programme and the lack of a strategy to defeat the Royal Navy
(Epkenhans, 2011, pp. 79, 80-2, 85-9). Rodger accused First Lord of the Admiralty Churchill and First
Sea Lords Prince Louis Mountbatten and Fisher of a similar lack of strategy in 1914 (1979, pp. 121, 128).
Fig. 1. Photograph of the launch of super Dreadnought HMS Orion on 20 August 1910. The ship was
laid down 29 November 1909 on Portsmouth Slip No. 5. PMRS, PORMG 1945/654/2. Photograph
reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Museums and Records Service.
Fig. 2. Photograph by Reginald Silk showing C3 submarine leaving Portsmouth Harbour passing
3
As President of the Board of Trade under Liberal Prime Minister Asquith and Chancellor Lloyd George, Churchill
was implicitly a supporter of welfare reforms.
9
Semaphore Tower, a paddle steamer and HMS Dreadnought moored at South Railway Jetty, entitled
‘Submarine passing the Dreadnought’. HMS Dreadnought was the first ship of its class launched
from Portsmouth Slip No. 5 in 1906. Built by Vickers, Barrow-in-Furness, C3 was commissioned in
1906 and deliberately blown up during the Zeebrugge raid in 1918. PMRS, PORMG 1945/653/16.
Photograph reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Museums and Records Service.
Admiral Sir John Fisher, brought into office partly to control expenditure, but largely responsible for
the expansionist Dreadnought programme, was First Sea Lord 1904–10. To Rodger ‘his achievements
at the Admiralty decisively altered naval, and perhaps world history’: he advanced the technical
education of executive officers, the status of engineer officers and the pay and conditions of ratings,
cleared the navy of outdated ships and enabled scientific improvements in gunnery, submarines,
torpedoes and ship technology. He was ‘an enthusiast rather than a deep thinker, whose mind
dealt naturally in slogans and superficialities’, whose autocratic leadership and prejudices caused
many errors, but identified the strategic need to oppose the German naval threat in 1906. (1979,
pp. 123-6) Through the Committee on Designs he drove the Dreadnought project – the first all-big-
gun battleship – embodying superior propulsion through Parsons’ steam turbine engine, superlative
hull design, firepower, range finding, communication systems and accuracy, to ‘hit first, hit hard
and go on hitting’. (Sumida, 2014, pp. 26-7; Brown, 2010, pp. 180-9) Thomas shows, however, that
Fisher’s thinking was confused about its desired capabilities. Blinkered by his feud with Lord Charles
Beresford, he prevented the innovative Argo fire control system devised by Arthur Pollen, Beresford’s
protégé, from being installed (Thomas, 2007, pp. 37-8, 45-6). HMS Dreadnought, designed by Sir Phillip
Watts, Director of Naval Construction 1902–12, was built in fourteen months at Portsmouth in 1905–6
because it was ‘by far the fastest building yard in the country’ and launched on 10 October 1906.
But, as Johnston and Buxton identified, building Dreadnought drew on ‘the collective experience’ of
Portsmouth Dockyard, ‘the armaments industry and manufacturer to create this apparently effortless
demonstration of British industrial expertise.’ (2013, p. 9)
Thomas, using the evidence of fifty-five photographs taken during its construction, critiqued the
claims by Fisher’s propagandists that Dreadnought was built in a year and a day by showing that six
months’ prefabrication of longitudinal frames and sections preceded the keel laying on 2 October
1905; 12 inch guns and hydraulic machinery were ordered in January 1905, propelling machinery in
June, and armour and major castings in August. This, rather than the standardisation of steel plate,
which was sent by a variety of contractors and arrived at different times, explained the speed of
construction. Moreover, eight guns and mountings previously built for battleships Lord Nelson and
Agamemnon, which were already under construction, were diverted to Dreadnought, representing a huge
time saving. Several wax models of Dreadnought’s hull were tested between February and March 1905
at R. E. Froude’s water tank at Haslar to refine the bow, hull, plates and propellers. Drawings
were dispatched to Portsmouth by 10 July 1905, extra draughtsmen being employed in London
and Portsmouth. Previous Portsmouth battleship construction times had averaged thirty-one months,
although it ‘had a reputation for building faster than Chatham and Devonport yards’; but as Dreadnoughts
became larger completion times lengthened from twenty-four to twenty-eight months. (Thomas, 1998,
pp. 4, 10, 13-15; Thomas, 2007, pp. 39-42)
The undeniably fast construction time was also due to Portsmouth working practices detailed by
Thomas: the working week was extended from forty-eight to sixty-nine hours: six-day weeks of
6am to 6pm and a shorter lunchtime of thirty minutes. Some men also had to work on Christmas
Day and New Year’s Day. This was accepted because 1,500 Portsmouth men had been discharged in
1905; presenting a Hobson’s choice of overwork or no work. This can be deduced as another reason
for selecting Portsmouth over a private yard for the first Dreadnought; this régime would probably
not have been accepted by unions in private yards, but the Admiralty would not negotiate with
dockyard unions and turned down dockyard petitions between 1905 and 1913. The workforce was
also increased: 1,100 men working initially on Dreadnought rose to 3,000. Little new technology was
used in the way of cranes, gantries or mechanical equipment; construction relied mainly on hard
physical labour. (Thomas, 1998, pp. 26-35; Thomas, 2007, pp. 38-9)
10
Brown, citing TNA, ADM 179/69, fo. 593, 1916–24 and Galliver (1999), shows that the
total workforce at Portsmouth dockyard had grown from 5,892 in 1880 to 11,924 by 1904, but
reductions totalling 1,430 were made in 1905 and 1906. Thereafter the workforce grew again
to 14,736 by 1913 and to 16,287 in July 1914. The latter figure included 15,646 male and 50
female manual workers and 591 officers and clerks. The workforce grew further during the
war to 25,398 employees in December 1918, including 1,786 women, 22,509 men, and 1,103
officers and clerks.
Galliver stressed that while short term dismissals might be made to balance naval estimates, dockyard
employment escaped the normal trade cycles, and that the dockyards were distinct from commercial
yards in that established men with better job security buttressed the ‘low wage and relatively quiescent
dockyard working environment.’ (Brown, 2016; Galliver, 1999, p. 103, 112, 121)
In 1906 Fisher claimed that ‘with the introduction of Dreadnoughts – a leap forward of 200% in
fighting power has been effected’, and that nothing could endanger ‘our naval supremacy’. Eight more
Dreadnoughts were built from 1907 to 1916 at both Portsmouth on Slip No. 5 and at Devonport on Slip
No. 3 in the upgraded South Yard (Johnston & Buxton, 2013, pp. 95-6,143, 163). Those built by private
yards mostly cost less than those in dockyards, but usually took longer, although Thomas points out
that it was ‘difficult for contemporaries to produce direct comparisons between the Royal Dockyards
and the private yards in terms of cost, efficiency and productivity.’ (Thomas, 1998, pp. 3-4) Dreadnoughts
certainly signified, for Evans, ‘a quantitative leap in warship construction’ and a ‘new era in naval
history’. Thomas considered, however, that the Dreadnought programme led the British to expect to win
the war ‘simply by fighting another Trafalgar’, which the battle of Jutland was not. The Grand Fleet
instead had to focus on the hitherto neglected anti-submarine warfare: ‘The rules of the game had
changed and things would never be quite the same again’. (Evans, 2004, p. 200; Thomas, 2007, p. 43;
Thomas, 1998, pp. 133, 134)
Fig. 3. Front cover, Gale and Polden (July 1912). Official Programme of the Great Naval Review, Spithead.
London: Gale and Polden Ltd.
Despite ‘certain ominous events, that have adversely affected the political atmosphere quite recently’,
the 1912 Spithead Review Programme portrayed the vessels as not ‘assembled for aggressive display’, but
‘an inspection of the war strength of our navy in Home Waters’ by ministers and MPs, ‘custodians of the
British Empire’. The subdued ambience of the cover was belied by seemingly endless lines of the “Fleet
in Being”, with the ‘first appearance at Spithead of Aeroplanes and Waterplanes (or Hydroplanes)’ and
a submarine emerging in front of the gun emplacement on the fortifications. B. W. (and elsewhere
Fred T. Jane) claimed that aircraft had revolutionised warfare, and were comparable to destroyers for
‘scouting and stealthy fighting’. Contending that MPs were not as familiar with ‘naval conditions afloat’
as ‘with military life’, he argued that they should see more of the navy in order to legislate for a strong
navy, to ‘secure freedom from invasion’ and ‘safety of our food supplies’. Its articles recalled that
eighteenth century naval heroes such as Nelson had delivered Trafalgar, which had given ‘a century
of peace’. It marshalled the defensive naval case that ‘England has long been unable to produce
either the food-stuffs for her people or the raw material for her manufacturers. Without supplies
from abroad, we should certainly starve.’ Echoing Churchill’s uncompromising response to Germany’s
February 1912 plans for building fifteen capital ships in six years, it claimed that ‘the enemy’s coasts
must be our frontier’ and ‘for an efficient blockade there must be five battleships outside to every
three in harbour, and two cruisers blockading to every one blockaded.’ (B. W., Gale & Polden, pp.
12, 16; Otte, 2011, pp. 72-3) Public flaunting continued. Coad’s (2013) back endpaper illustrates ‘The
flagship Iron Duke leading a procession of dreadnoughts at the Fleet Review at Spithead in July 1914’,
quoting Admiralty First Lord Winston Churchill: ‘incomparably the greatest assemblage of naval power
ever witnessed in the history of the world.’
Fig. 4. ADM01 (June 1908) p. b. Numbers and Dimensions of Locks, Docks and Basin Entrances in
HM Dockyards. Admiralty Book. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
11
Increased ship sizes required larger granite-lined locks, docks and basins, and new oil technology
led to coaling stations being replaced by oiling depôts (Lake & Douet, 1998, p. 10). Johnston and
Buxton noted that 53% of the £21.5m order of ten battleships and sixty smaller warships went to
the royal yards, according to Brown worth £11.5m. This comprised six battleships, twenty cruisers
and twelve torpedo gunboats, with a further £4.75m going to the royal yards to complete ships
already under construction. Between 1895 and 1908 between £1m and £3m a year was spent in the
dockyards, with the Treasury allowing the Admiralty greater flexibility on managing budgets than
had been customary. This expansion lasted until the end of the First World War, Johnston and Buxton
observing, ‘By 1918, the scale of British capacity to construct warships stood at an all-time high’. Never
again would the dockyards build capital ships in the twentieth century, as their docks could no longer
construct the largest hull sizes; by the Second World War warship production was focused on private
yards. (Johnston & Buxton, 2013, pp. 9, 30; Brown, 2010, pp. 125-6, 180-90, 203, 218; Coad, 2013, pp.
10, 12, 15, 17, 42-3, 94, 96, 235)
This investment was not just for rearmament. Otter noted that metal vessels needed more frequent
dry docking than timber ships. He cited civil engineer N. G. Gedye as estimating in 1909 that “at
any one time 20-25%” of the total naval tonnage was ‘undergoing repair or overhaul…fully utilising
current dockyard provision’, which would therefore be inadequate in wartime. He also named Sir J.
Wolfe-Barry (civil engineer son of Sir Charles Barry), as arguing that the Admiralty should contribute
to the costs of commercial dry docks which could accommodate warships. While the Admiralty only
subsidised overseas dry docks, it did monitor British ship and dock dimensions. Although Otter
remarked that naval docks maintained “old fashioned” altars and slides until the start of the twentieth
century, this did not apply to the later C and D Locks at Portsmouth. (Otter, 2004, pp. 199-200, 211;
HE NMR, ADM01, 1908, Admiralty Director of Works: Docks, Locks & Sections; Buxton, 2015).
During the twentieth century major naval technological revolutions included Dreadnought class
battleships, submarines, the replacement of coal with oil, gas turbine by diesel, nuclear and electricity
as the means of engine propulsion, the application of wireless, aviation, radar and other electronic
technologies to naval warfare, and nuclear-propelled submarines. These, along with the introduction
of guided missiles, just-in-time delivery of materials, and the changing size and composition of the
fleet, all had an impact on the dockyards.
1.3 First to second world wars

Apart from the personnel discharges of 1905–8, Galliver portrayed dockyard employment at the
beginning of the twentieth century for established or long term hired men as secure compared with
private yards, which had always hired men for a specific contract (1999, p. 103). Lunn and Day cited
total dockyard numbers in 1914 as 54,370, which increased to a high point of 93,370 during the First
World War (1999, p. 129). However, in 1919, with the largest navy in the world, the Committee on
National Expenditure set the ten-year rule, to plan on not fighting a major war for ten years so that
the equipment programmes could be ‘smoothed out’ and the economy could recover. ‘As it required
the greatest industrial infrastructure, the ten-year rule hit the Royal Navy particularly hard.’ (TNA, The
Cabinet Papers 1915–1986; Ford, 2015, p. 67) This also affected the private shipbuilding, munitions and
steel industries, which had been focused on naval contracts and the dockyards.
Writers in the Naval Review in the 1920s and 1930s accepted the national financial priorities governed
by the City, stressing the importance of the Empire to Britain and noting future threats. In his
comprehensive and perceptive article Col. J. F. C. Fuller wrote that he was ‘fully aware of the present
needs of economy and the financial difficulties which have to be faced by the entire Empire for many
years to come’. He argued that ‘To-day money is the controlling factor, and we cannot expect that a
new Grand Fleet will spring fully armed from the purse of the British public’ but ‘we must design,
even if only in thought.’ He emphasised that the aims of naval policy must be command of the sea”
or the free use of the sea as a road’, to ‘safeguard national profit’ and to ‘undermine the prosperity of
12
the enemy.’ (Fuller, 1922, pp. 75, 104) The anonymous writer of ‘Great Ships Or?’ argued that ‘we must
not attempt to always have a larger fleet of great ships numerically than any other naval power, but
only a sufficient number to prevent any possible enemy fleet from interfering with the command of
the sea so absolutely essential to a large scattered Empire such as the British.’ (Naval Review, 1921, p. 3)
The influential Admiral Sir Cyprian Bridge noted in 1921:
The United States have now a shipbuilding programme which, if carried out, would put the
British Empire in the second position as a naval Power - unless we too engage in a programme
equally comprehensive. If we are to do so we shall be compelled to incur pecuniary expenditure
that can only be characterised as gigantic; and this, too, at a time when our ability to meet
it is more than doubtful. Reduction of expenditure, not increase of it, is the pressing need of
the hour.
As evidence of the evolving imperial status identified by Cain and Hopkins, Bridge stressed, ‘it is
necessary to point out that the British Navy is no longer the navy of Great Britain; it is the navy of
the British Empire.’ In relation to dockyards, he warned, ‘Every large increase in displacement renders
docks - sometimes many of them - practically useless as far as the most important classes of ships are
concerned.’ (Bridge, 1921, pp. 442, 443, 446)
By 1921 the government had publicly abandoned the two-power standard, against the advice of then
Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill and First Sea Lord Admiral David Beatty (Daily Express, 21 July
1921), but was committed to the navy being equal to any other power. The programme of four new
battlecruisers initiated for 1922 was cancelled following the signing of the Washington Treaty in 1921,
which bound Britain to disarmament. This was continued by the Naval Treaty of 1930, which ruled
out new ship construction for a further five years (Johnman & Murphy, 2002, pp. 18-19, 35). In Grove’s
words, Britain’s attempt to ‘outbuild every rival was abandoned.’ (1987, p. 1) The effect on dockyard
employees, reported in local newspapers, was that in March 1922, with fifty to sixty people already
being discharged each week at Portsmouth, the number was increased to ninety. At Devonport thirty
discharges a week were increased to fifty. By 1923 Portsmouth had discharged almost 6,000 workers.
At Devonport numbers fell from 13,950 in 1925 to 11,670 in 1930 (A Brief History of Devonport Naval Base,
p. 28). The government was under pressure to spread scarce new contracts among private yards in
high unemployment areas, therefore restricted dockyard functions to repair and maintenance. As a
safeguard against Japan’s rising naval power, funds were approved in 1923 to establish Singapore
Dockyard but the Cabinet suspended work in 1924. (Ford, 1915, p. 70) It eventually opened in 1937.
Rosyth, despite being the most modern dockyard, was put on a ‘care and maintenance’ basis in 1925,
as was Pembroke Dock in the following year. Winston Churchill made the ten year rule permanent in
1928, so that the armed forces would never reach their point of war readiness, with no expenditure
for modernisation. However, the failure of the British-led Geneva Disarmament Conference (1932–34)
provoked rearmament. The lowest total dockyard numbers were 43,320 in 1933 but they regained
their 1914 level in 1937. By then there was a shortage of skilled workers because of long-standing
discharges and low numbers of apprentices. (Lunn & Day, 1999, pp. 129, 130-2; Law, 1999, p. 151)
Cain and Hopkins showed that the cost of both wars added £160m, incurred mainly to the US during
the First World War, to the national debt, and dominated defence expenditure during the whole of
the twentieth century (2001, pp. 184, 386, 674). It marked the end of Britain’s rôle as the foremost
global power, banker and warehouse. By the end of the First World War Britain had borrowed $3.7bn
from the US and held few gold reserves. While Britain’s imperialist rôle remained indispensable in
bolstering sterling and trade balances, and indeed halted decline from 1914 until the 1940s, its status
as the leading world power would no longer be financed because it ran counter to the interests of
the City-Treasury-Bank of England nexus. Their joint policy to take control of the money supply by
curbing government expenditure, taxation and industrial investment, following post-war inflation,
‘was achievable only by ruthlessly cutting defence expenditure in the 1920s.’ As the US insisted on full
repayment of its loans, no money was available to counteract US industrial and naval investment and
its growing share of world trade. Leaving the Gold Standard in 1931 allowed Britain to build up its
13
sterling reserves through Dominion tariffs and other countries within the Sterling Area and to reduce
its interest payments to the US, but in 1934 it stopped these payments altogether. (Cain & Hopkins,
2001, pp. 406, 448-60, 466-73, 473, 484, 649, 654, 657)
An account of the 1932 Disarmament Conference revealed obfuscation over defining ‘offensive and
defensive weapons…every nation trying to prove that it is really its neighbours’ armaments which are
standing in the way of world peace.’ It also perpetuated resentment that the US had not contributed
to the early costs of the First World War other than by punitive loans. (Naval Review, 1932, pp. 501,
506-7) Hence, despite curbs, Johnman and Murphy showed that warship construction occurred, albeit
unevenly, from 1930, with royal dockyards producing 12,590 displacement tonnage (dt) in 1931
compared with private yards’ 4,140dt. In 1932 the respective amounts were 17,150dt and 21,305dt and
in 1937, 11,700dt and 97,649dt. In 1934 the navy absorbed £209,000 (56%) of rearmament expenditure;
by 1939 it was receiving £829,000, 30% of a total spend of £2,731,000. (Johnston & Buxton, 2013, pp.
30-1; Johnman & Murphy, 2002, pp. 55, 57) To retain dockyard employees, Portsmouth Dockyard
also undertook extensive refits of First World War battleships and contract work for other government
departments, such as casting steps for telegraph poles for the GPO (Mayhead, 2000, pp. 4-10).
Rearmament was unwelcome to the City-Treasury-Bank of England alliance in the 1930s because it
would be inflationary, jeopardise the balance of payments and reserves, and threaten social unrest
through cuts in welfare. As Cain and Hopkins showed, Britain had ‘a huge burden of imperial defence
commitments which had to be met from an economy relatively less powerful than before 1914, a less
secure currency and small reserves of gold and foreign currencies.’ The US and Dominions opposed
it for financial reasons. Rearmament was therefore slow, focused on the low cost options of airpower
deterrence and limiting naval expenditure. More spending would have to rely on borrowing, and in
1938 the US Congress refused to allow loans to any nation, including Britain, which was in deficit
in war debt. However, the Anglo-American Reciprocity Treaty in 1938 allowed the US more access
to British markets at the expense of gold reserves. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s continuing
appeasement was therefore driven by political need and a reluctance to surrender to US ‘financial
supremacy’, but this had already occurred by 1940 (Cain & Hopkins, 2001, pp. 478-88). Meanwhile,
by 1938 the navy was articulating its preparedness for war through Navy Week in July–August and
the associated display of the Portsmouth Dockyard Model. In comparison with the 1912 Spithead
Review Programme, the 1938 Navy Week Programme emphasised naval skills and procedures, rather than
hardware, to counter a clearly forecast threat to both navy and civilians. It timetabled hourly displays
of Torpedoes and Depth Charge Firing by Destroyers in the Tidal Basin. A Fleet Air Arm Attack on
Cruiser with Defensive Action in Basin No. 3 was designed ‘to give our visitors a realistic idea’ of
wartime conditions. Also in Basin No. 3 a destroyer depth charged and rammed a submarine during
the Submarine and Destroyer Displays. Promoting civil defence were half-hourly Poisonous Gas
Demonstrations and three Air Raid Precautions Displays: ‘to give a practical demonstration of the
effects of an air raid on a populated area’ and ‘how to act in the event of a raid’. (Gale & Polden,
1938, pp. 5, 21, 23, 25)
Once the commitment was made, Grove claimed that ‘Britain put more resources into fighting a war
than she had ever done before’, with the result that the country was ‘effectively bankrupt.’ (1978, pp.
2, 3) Cossons contended that the Royal Navy held ‘undisputed command of the oceans until after
the entry of the United States into the Second World War following Pearl Harbour.’ (Coad, 2013, p.
ix) Early shipping losses in the Second World War, with 114 Allied ships sunk by German mines and
U-boats by December 1939, led to commercial orders for more escort vessels. Damage to warships
meant that the dockyards were engaged in naval repair rather than construction. Therefore 1,344
new naval vessels were built in commercial yards and only 3 cruisers and 14 submarines in royal
yards (Johnman & Murphy, 2002, pp. 64, 92-3). Employees of the Shipbuilding Employers Federation
constructing or repairing naval and merchant ships rose from 154,800 in 1941 to a peak of 174,700 in
1944, and still 158,400 in September 1945. Portsmouth docked 2,548 ships, but due to the risk from
air raids, did not berth larger strategic ships. Towards the end of the war Portsmouth was involved in
the manufacture of the Pluto oil line and Mulberry Harbours.
14
Fig. 5. Photograph showing a Phoenix Caisson for the Mulberry Harbour under construction in C
Lock, the Royal Naval Dockyard Portsmouth (27.1.1944) IWM Image H 35374 (2003/583 PMRS)
supplied by PMRS, copyright courtesy the Imperial War Museum.
Airpower transformed warfare and long range amphibious operations became possible through use
of carriers, landing craft and submarines. Following the Second World War, Portsmouth built only
destroyers and frigates. HMS Andromeda, a Leander class frigate, completed in 1967, was the last ship
to be built at the dockyard until the end of the century. In total Portsmouth had built nearly 300
naval ships. (Till, 2001, pp. 61, 63-4; PRDHT) The frigate Scylla was the last warship to be launched
at Devonport, in 1968.
1.4 War damage
During the First World War Portsmouth was subject to a Zeppelin raid in September 1916, causing
minor damage to the dockyard. In the Second World War both dockyards were badly bombed,
Plymouth being one of the most severely affected of all British cities. Smitten City - the Story of Portsmouth
under Blitz reported that Plymouth suffered 1,172 civilian deaths, Coventry 1,252 and Hull nearly
1,200, compared with Portsmouth’s 930 (The News, 1944, p. 5). Buildings in both dockyards had to
be demolished or altered. Pevsner and Cherry recorded that ‘much was totally lost in the devastation
of 1941…and haphazard clearance and reconstruction since have surrounded the surviving buildings
with confusion and clutter, so that Devonport no longer has the coherence of Chatham or parts
of Portsmouth.’ (Sadden, 2012; Lavery, 2007, p. 103; Coad, 2013, pp. 312, 393; Pevsner & Cherry,
1989, p. 651) Particular accounts of Devonport and Portsmouth convey how seriously they suffered
casualties, while air raids disrupted both yards by destroying buildings and services.
Twyford’s It Came to Our Door: Plymouth in World War II - a Journalist’s Eye Witness Account focused on the
many civilian residential areas which were hit. Most photographs show civilian streets blazing or
flattened. Twyford argued that Plymouth was the ‘worst blitzed city’, with 59 raids and 1,172 civilians
killed, totalling possibly 1,300 deaths including service personnel. Two raids in March 1941 left
336 civilians killed and five nights in April 1941, when the city sustained over twenty-three hours
of bombing, resulted in 590 civilian deaths. In all, destroyed houses totalled 3,754, leaving 72,102
residents homeless. So much of central Plymouth was devastated that a Reconstruction Plan was
begun in 1943 by Professor Patrick Abercrombie and City Surveyor and Engineer, J. Paton Watson to
redesign the roads and build a new city centre and up to 20,000 new homes for the 75,000 homeless
residents. (Twyford, 2005, pp. 79, 141, 142-217, 228-44)
Devonport South Yard in particular suffered extensive bomb damage in March and April 1941. On
21 April 1941 there was a direct hit on Boscawen Accommodation Block which killed over 100
personnel. Most of the officers’ terrace, the West Ropery, the northern section of the East Ropery,
the Rigging House, Fixed Rigging House with Sail Loft over (east of Dock No. 1 and Basin) and the
Mould Loft were destroyed. The Scrieve Board survived fifty incendiaries landing on its roof. In North
Yard and Morice Yard most of the nineteenth century buildings survived, although they suffered roof
damage. (Twyford, 2005, pp. 96-8, 142-217; A Brief History of Devonport Naval Base, p. 21)
The disconnect between dockyard and civilian damage in the secondary sources derives from the
lacunae of local archival sources. Most wartime records held at Plymouth and West Devon Record Office
do not mention bombs in the dockyard or the damage they caused because they were created by the
civilian, not military authorities. Any surviving military accounts of damage will be at the National
Archives (for example TNA: MAF 99/309, December 1940–April 1944, Plymouth and Devonport: air
raid damage reports; ADM 1/11613, November 1941 and Reconstitution of accounts at Portsmouth and
Devonport after expense accounts offices and machinery were destroyed in air raids). While excluding
the dockyard, PWDRO maps showing bombs dropped in 1941 and 1944 (Plymouth Blitz Bomb Book,
1555) convey the concentration of air raids hugging the coast and inevitably, the dockyard.
15
Fig. 6. Plymouth Blitz “Bomb Book” page 40, noted as Air Raid 38, showing approximate location
of bombs dropped on all areas of the central part of Plymouth on 21 Apr 1941. PWDRO, 1555/40.
© Plymouth City Council (Arts and Heritage).
Fig. 7. Plymouth Blitz “Bomb Book” page 41, noted as Air Raids 38A, showing the approximate
route of three specific raids and location of bombs dealt with by the Bomb Disposal Squad and
the times bombs exploded. Air raid number 38 (21–22 April 1941) from St Budeaux, Devonport,
Victoria Park, York Street, Treville Street, Embankment Road to Laira and Cattedown. Air raid
number 39 (22–23 April 1941) from West Hoe, Millbay, Union Street, Devonport Hill, Devonport,
Ford, across Tavistock Road, Central Park towards Mutley and Thorn Park Avenue. Air raid
number 40 (23–24 April 1941) from Embankment Road area, Sutton Harbour, city centre, north of
Stonehouse, Devonport, Stoke, Camels Head, Weston Mill, east of King’s Tamerton, Burrington,
Pennycross and Torr Crescent. PWDRO, 1555/41. © Plymouth City Council (Arts and Heritage).
Fig. 8. Plymouth Blitz “Bomb Book” page 42, noted as Air Raids 39 and 40, showing the
approximate location of bombs dropped on the city of Plymouth, including Devonport and
Stonehouse, 22–23 Apr 1941. PWDRO, 1555/42. © Plymouth City Council (Arts and Heritage).
Fig. 9. Plymouth Blitz “Bomb Book” page 2, showing the approximate location of unexploded
bombs marked in blue and dealt with by the Bomb Squad and also the times bombs were reported
as having exploded (c.1944). PWDRO, 1555/2. © Plymouth City Council (Arts and Heritage).
Table 1.4.1 Bomb Falls Districts around Devonport Dockyard 1940–44

Air Raid No. Date
3 8 July 1940 Devonport: Marlboro’ St
8 12/13 August 1940 Keyham: Admiralty St; Stonehouse Peel St, Brownlow St
9 25 August 1940 Keyham Barton Av, Avon Tce
12 11/12 September 1940 Stonehouse: Emma Pl
14 25 September 1940 Keyham: Goschen St
26 9 January 1941 Devonport Park: Portland Pl
31 14 March 1941 Devonport
35 7/8 April 1941 Keyham
38 21/22 April 1941 Devonport Intensive
42 29/30 April Devonport Intensive
48 13/13 May 1941 Keyham, Morice Town, Stonehouse
52 9 July 1941 Devonport, Morice Town, Keyham
Plymouth Blitz Bomb Book: Position of Bombs dropped in Air Raids (PWDRO, 1555/1, 16 Jul 1940–30
Apr 1944, p. 1,), showing the chronological sequence of major air raids and approximate location of
bombs dropped during each raid by district. Raids nearest the dockyard have been abstracted.
Fig. 10. Photograph Devonport, Fore Street, air raid damage, c. October 1941. PWDRO, 1418/1360.
© Plymouth City Council (Arts and Heritage) / courtesy of Western Morning News Ltd.
16
Fig. 11. Devonport Central Hall, Open Air Service, Plymouth, c.1942. PWDRO, 1418/1220. © Plymouth
City Council (Arts and Heritage) / courtesy of Western Morning News Ltd.
Fig. 12. HMS Achates, Devonport, Launch by Lady Leatham, 20 September 1945. PWDRO, 1418/2303.
© Plymouth City Council (Arts and Heritage) / courtesy of Western Morning News Ltd.
Few photographs from the collection of the Western Morning News (1860–1987, PWDRO, 1418) list
Devonport, and few show the dockyard apart from ceremonial events. Two illustrated here identify
damage in Devonport Central Hall and Fore Street, which were near the dockyard: on 23 April 1941
‘The whole of Fore Street…was laid in ruins.’ (Twyford, 2005, p. 187) While the launch of HM Submarine
Achates showed the continuation of construction at Devonport in 1945, she was not completed and was
sunk as a target off Gibraltar in 1950.
Table 1.4.2 Bomb Falls Portsmouth Dockyard 1940–44, excluding incendiaries

Number of Number
Air Raid No. Date Air Raid No. Date
bombs of Bombs
1 11 July 1940 4 12 29 October 1940 1
2 12 August 1940 7 13 1 November 1940 3
3 24 August 1940 4 14 10 November 1940 6
4 26 August 1940 5 15 14 November 1940 2
5 6 September 1940 20 16 16 November 1940 14
8 29 September 1940 2 19 5 December 1940 55
9 7 October 1940 6 24 10 January 1941 1
10 9 October 1940 10 25 9 March 1941 2
11 27 October 1940 1 26 10/11 March 1941 1
Bomb Map Portsmouth compiled by Wartime Records, drawn by Joseph Parkin, MICE, City Engineer,
88A/1/10/1. Portsmouth Museums and Records Service.
Only raids which affected Portsmouth Dockyard have been abstracted, including the Royal Naval
Barracks and the Wardroom. The numbers may not be entirely accurate, given some blurred numbers,
but indicate the intensity of some raids.
Table 1.4.3 Bomb Falls Royal Naval Barracks Portsmouth 1940–41

Air Raid No. Date Number of Bombs
1 12 August 1940 3
2 10/11 January 1941 4
3 10/11 March 1941 14
4 11/12 April 1941 1
5 14/15 April 1941 1
6 27 April 1941 1
Portsmouth Record Plan of Drains, showing bombs which landed on the Naval Barracks, 1940–41
(including the Wardroom). National Museum of the Royal Navy, Portsmouth.
17
As its title implies, possibly this plan was created to assist drain repairs following air raids. It also
shows the dense pattern of air raid shelters dug beneath the Parade Ground at the beginning of
the Second World War, which were then covered over and the Parade Ground reinstated. The table
does not include the later bombing of Rodney Block in 1942 which led to its southern wing being
demolished. A map at The National Archives displays bomb falls until 1943.
Fig. 13. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Miscellaneous. Portsmouth yard and Royal Navy
barracks, showing passive defence measures, including bombs dropped and buildings damaged,
1940–43. Scale: 1:1,666. Section showing bomb falls in the southwest corner. TNA (1942). WORK
41/314. Reproduced with the permission of The National Archives.
1940–43. Scale: 1:1,666. Section showing bomb falls in the Western Jetties and North Corner. TNA
(1942). WORK 41/314. Reproduced with the permission of The National Archives.
1940–43. Scale: 1:1,666. Section showing bomb falls in the Tidal Basin and Basin No. 3. TNA (1942).
WORK 41/314. Reproduced with the permission of The National Archives.
1940–43. Scale: 1:1,666. Section showing bomb falls in Area 3. TNA (1942). WORK 41/314.
Reproduced with the permission of The National Archives.
1940–43. Scale: 1:1,666. Section showing bomb falls in the Accommodation Area. TNA (1942).
1940–43. Scale: 1:1,666. Section showing bomb falls near Dock Nos 12-15 and the Accommodation
Area. TNA WORK 41/314. Reproduced with the permission of The National Archives.
Portsmouth Dockyard was badly damaged on Monday 12 August 1940 but no fires occurred. Three
people were killed, nineteen seriously wounded were sent to hospital and seventeen were slightly
wounded. Further deaths and damage to docks occurred on 24 August (TNA, August 1940, ADM
1/10949). As Table 1.4.2 excludes incendiaries, it omits the incendiary attacks on 10/11 January 1941,
when 171 people were killed in the city, and on 10 March 1941 and 27 April 1941, when over 100
people were killed. One witness to Portsmouth’s worst incendiary attack on 10/11 January 1941
(6.00–10.30pm and 11.30pm–2.30am) commented that ‘the Germans had timed this raid when the
tides were such that there was no water to be supplied.’ Another recalled: ‘It was one of the greatest
raids we had. We had two hours of incendiaries, then a two hour lull and then two hours of high
explosives. They lit the place up, let it burn well, and then came and dropped high explosives.’
(WEA, 2010, p. 11) Richard Eurich stated that he made the drawings for his painting Night Raid on
Portsmouth Docks 1941 ‘on the day after the heavy bombing partly due to the presence of two battleships
in the harbour’ (Eurich). On one daytime raid a dockyard worker recalled: ‘I was in the underground
shelter beside Victory and Stukas attacked us and they dropped a bomb into the dock beside Victory
and blew the bottom in of Victory.’ (Pattern maker, 1999, pp. 3-4)4
4
For further extracts from oral history tapes and an introduction to the dockyard in the twentieth century, see
Lunn, K. and Day, A. (Eds). 1998). Inside the Wall. Recollections of Portsmouth Dockyard 1900–1950. Portsmouth: University
of Portsmouth. All the oral history interviews are available in the Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust
Collection, Portsmouth Museums and Records Service. Catalogue retrieved from http://www.portsmouthmuseums.
co.uk/collections/index.html
18
Smitten City, also a journalist’s account, described the effects of sixty-seven German air raids from 1940–
44 and appraised the major attacks on the city as occurring on 24 August 1940, when 40 bombers
dropped 67 bombs, killing 125 civilians and leaving over 500 people homeless, 10 January 1941 and
10 March 1941. In total, properties damaged amounted to 80,000, with 6,625 totally destroyed and
6,549 seriously damaged (1944, pp. 5, 14).
Whether numbers of raids, deaths or buildings lost are the criteria for severity, photographs show that
the physical environment of Plymouth was undoubtedly worse hit than that of Portsmouth. Crucially,
both the cities and their civilian populations were targeted because of the presence of the dockyards.
Residents knew that, and worked hard to restore facilities as soon as possible. Air raids shaped the
post-war plans of both dockyards.
1.5 After the second world war

Fig. 19. UK Total government debt in the twentieth century (UK Public Spending, 27 Aug 2013),
reproduced courtesy Christopher Chantrill.
This graph makes clear the effect of war spending on twentieth century Britain’s indebtedness, which
constrained naval expenditure after the Second World War. During the First World War the National
Debt rose to above 150% of GDP and above 200% during the Second World War. It fell below 50%
of GDP from the 1970s until 2010 (ukpublicspending, 2013).5 While the view has been expressed in
dissemination seminars that the National Debt was a separate issue, and did not reflect just defence,
naval and dockyard expenditure, undoubtedly these contributed to a significant proportion of
government expenditure and hence debt.
By 1945, Britain was second to the US in global finance and trade ratings. The Sterling Area was
strictly controlled by 1940, but Britain’s sterling debts within the Area were seven times its gold and
dollar reserves. Manufacturing industry, formerly an unlikely rival to invisible earnings for investment,
had become more embedded within City financial institutions, through mergers driven by short-term
financial gain.
Post-war the dockyards had the vast task of repairing and decommissioning ships. The large reserve
fleet that was maintained until the 1960s probably prevented the earlier closure of one or more of
the large dockyards, especially Chatham, which had been under threat intermittently since the early
1900s. Women working in the industrial sector were replaced by returning men. The aspirations
of politicians and society for Britain to remain a leading world power and ongoing global conflicts
ensured the continuation of the remaining dockyards, with British defence spending maintained at 8%
of GNP, compared with France at 6% and West Germany at 4% (Lunn, 1999, pp. 179-80).
By the 1950s, British exports were recovering and in 1955–58 the pound became convertible in the
hope of attracting more European countries to the Sterling Area. However, Britain’s trade growth was
lagging behind that of the US, Europe and Japan, which were also expanding their trade with the
Commonwealth, so balance of payments continued weak and reserves continued to fall. The City
preferred to seek its invisible earnings elsewhere and, benefitting from the flexibility of the Eurodollar,
became the leading centre for multinational corporations. In 1957 Prime Minister Harold MacMillan
ordered defence cuts to support the pound, followed by a series of reviews of Britain’s rôle of a world
power which confirmed the declining economic benefit of the Commonwealth. Britain became a
member of the European Free Trade Association in 1959 and applied to join the European Economic
Community in 1961. In 1967 the pound was devalued, marking the ‘beginning of the end of the Sterling
Area’. With imperial preference waning, Australia refused to hold more than 40% of its reserves
in sterling. Sheerness Dockyard closed in 1960 and the last ships were launched in Portsmouth,
Devonport and Chatham. In future, apart from a short period at Portsmouth (2002–14), shipbuilding
would go to private yards. (Cain & Hopkins, 2001, pp. 619-23, 632-9, 657; Lunn, 1999, pp. 180-1)
5
It would have been beyond the scope of this project to review the most recent academic data.
19
All dockyards contracted as defence requirements fell from their all-time high, but in 1955 they were
servicing a navy which ‘was still number two in the world in naval capabilities if not in sheer size of
fleet.’ (Grove, 1987, p. ix) The Cold War (1946–91) began almost immediately, along with the Korean
War (1950–53) and the Cod Wars of the 1950s and 1970s, but required a different navy from that
required for colonial operations. Retrospectively, Grove perceived ‘too many commitments chasing too
few resources.’ The Admiralty anticipated a similar fleet for an immediate future war and to perform
its traditional ‘sea control and power projection’ to protect British overseas possessions (Grove, 1987,
pp. ix, 7). But the post-war government insisted that another war would not occur for five or possibly
ten years (the 5+5 prediction) and applied severe cuts to save expenditure and reconstruct industrial
exports. Naval manpower fell from 133,500 in 1945 to 105,000 regulars in late 1946, with future figures
constantly revised to 167,000 by the end of the 1948–49 financial year, 142,000 in 1949–50 and 124,000
by 1952. The dockyard workforce was reduced to 10,000 by early 1947, a 90% reduction from its
highest wartime numbers. (Grove, 1987, pp. 19-21, 23, 24, 26, 33, 36, 37, 53)
With a war expectation of 5+5 years skewed by the USSR’s continental incursions in 1948 and its
detonation of an atomic bomb in 1949, the focus on restoring commercial capacity had to be adjusted
to achieving an effective anti-Soviet fleet during a sterling crisis which devalued the pound in 1949.
Allied discussions on coordinating capabilities resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty being signed in
April 1949 which confirmed US overall command, confined Britain’s operational command to the
north-eastern Atlantic and raised questions of how independent the Royal Navy would be. Rearmament
driven by NATO requirements began in 1950, with naval personnel estimates increased to 132,000
by 1952, defence taking 14% of the national income and competing with social welfare programmes.
However, the Conservative government in 1951 was determined to cut the balance of payments deficit
by diverting resources from defence to boost engineering exports. (Grove, 1987, pp. 38, 40, 42, 53, 54,
68, 70-1, 77, 79; NATO history, 2013)
By the mid-twentieth century, the Empire, now the Commonwealth, the product of Britain’s mercantilist
policy to protect trade and deliver raw materials for industry, had ceased for financial reasons to be
worth retaining. Overseas coastal supply bases had evolved into vast colonial territories with formerly
lucrative trade networks. These had made Britain the warehouse of the world but also involved the
government in wars and protection. By the beginning of the twentieth century the City had vastly
increased its invisible earnings in the wider world and protecting imperial materials for industry was
a low priority. Cain and Hopkins’s table of invisible earnings and balance of payments showed that
while the balance of trade in manufactures declined three-fold from 1851 to 1913, business, shipping
and financial services doubled in the same period, and overseas investment income increased six-
fold, creating an overall four-fold increase in the balance of payments. The Second World War had
proved the Empire’s value and added German and Italian colonies, but by the 1950s the colonies had
ceased to contribute overall to British hegemony and sterling reserves, and overseas deployments
were depleting the balance of payments - they were no longer sustainable. India and Pakistan gained
their independence in 1947, the Sudan in 1956, Malaya and the Gold Coast in 1957, Cyprus and Nigeria
in 1960, Jamaica in 1962, Kenya in 1963, Malta in 1964 (the navy having closed its dockyard in 1958),
and Aden in 1967. Bermuda Dockyard was closed in 1951, Simon’s Town Dockyard was handed over
to the South African Navy in 1957, and Gibraltar Dockyard was closed in 1958 (although it continues
as a naval base), signalling Britain’s new north Atlantic preoccupation. (Cain & Hopkins, 2001, pp.
158, 620, 627-31, 635, 649-55; Grove, 1987, p. 8)
All British financial crises: 1945, 1951, 1956, 1964, 1964, 1967, 1972 and 1975–6 reduced naval budgets,
although not as much as might have been expected. Membership of NATO ensured that the Admiralty
could justify its traditional defence of trade, maintenance of operational soundness and aerial flexibility
based on carriers, as argued in a 1950s memorandum:
To play a part in world affairs, particularly within NATO, worthy of a nation whose greatness
is founded upon and whose survival depends upon seaborne trade, and which now holds the
major Allied sea commands in the crucial areas, we need a Navy wherein the Fleet Air Arm
20
is an essential component. Otherwise we forfeit our right to be considered as a major naval

power and therefore as a world power. (Quoted by Grove, 1987, p. 103)
NATO also made some American technology cheaper. Grove considered, however, that during the
1970s ‘Britain, as usual, was trying to squeeze a little too much defense out of an inadequate budget’.
(Grove, 1987, pp. 12, 79, 196, 268, 283-4, 320, 328-9, 341)
The government viewed investment in nuclear weapons for an anticipated swift nuclear war as both
a deterrent to Soviet use and a cheaper alternative to a conventional navy designed for sea control
and power projection. The first British nuclear bomb was tested off Australia in 1952. In light of this,
a ‘Defence Policy and Global Strategy’ paper was debated in 1952. The Admiralty argued that a force
capable of conventional warfare would be a decisive component following the first outbreak of war,
while Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden argued that disposing of overseas bases and a peacetime navy
presence would risk loss of British prestige and trade. In subsequent debates, Minister of Supply
Duncan Sandys was most vociferous in opposing expenditure on the navy rather than the RAF,
especially on expensive carriers, the key to amphibious and independent operations. A traditional
navy with nuclear weapons to deny the enemy the sea was promoted in the 1954 Navy Staff paper
‘The Navy of the Future’, to be effective from 1954–65. In 1954 the Cabinet approved a thermonuclear
weapons programme and Defence Minister MacMillan committed to a programme of two fleet carriers.
By April 1955 RN manpower estimates were 133,000, with a reduction of 6,000 over the following
year. However, widespread naval operations to protect British interests and the Korean War justified
retention of conventional forces to intervene strategically, although an operation to reclaim the
nationalised Anglo-Iranian Oil Company refinery in 1951 (the ex-Anglo-Persian source of the navy’s
cheap oil) merely evacuated company personnel. The short Suez crisis in 1956 highlighted the navy’s
unpreparedness for a sudden distant or large operation, but underlined the effectiveness of fleet and
light carriers. Meanwhile, US pressure on the pound emphasised Britain’s lack of tactical and financial
independence. In 1956 Navy Estimates planned 116,500 personnel in 1957, and Invergordon and Scapa
Flow bases were closed. (Grove, 1987, pp. 81, 84-5, 92-3, 103, 105-6, 107-10, 114, 125, chapters 4, 5)
Even before the Suez crisis in 1955–56, the government had sought cuts of £150-200m in the building
of a cruiser and eight frigates and future programmes. Placing of orders was complicated by high
British costs due to poor investment in new technology by private shipbuilders (Johnman & Murphy,
2002, pp. 115, 121). The 1957 White Paper of Duncan Sandys as Minister of Defence confirmed that
defence was still consuming 10% of the GNP and 12.5% of metal production. Although Suez ‘heralded
the end of Empire for Britain’, withdrawal was not immediate, with carriers and nuclear missiles
forming the basis of a continuing east of Suez policy. However, ongoing cuts abolished the East Indies
and Nore Commands and closed Sheerness, Portland, Lyness (Scapa Flow), Hong Kong and Malta
bases and made reductions at Chatham. Total naval manpower was cut to 121,500 in 1957, 112,000
in 1958–9 and 106,000 in 1959–60. The end of conscription also saved money. By 1959 defence
spending had been reduced to 7% of GNP, with the navy’s share of the defence budget around 25%.
MacMillan’s government set up defence agreements with post-colonial régimes to maintain a minimal
British presence. Following Kuwait’s independence in 1961, when the Soviet-supported Iraq claimed
its territory, a successful naval intervention was made to protect the Kuwait Oil Company (50% owned
by BP, 50% owned by the British government) which provided half the UK’s oil supplies. The 1962
Defence White Paper and Naval Estimates asserted that RN ships were ‘stationed all over the world’,
with an amphibious ‘capability to put two battalions ashore at short notice’. But during the 1960s the
Healey reviews sought to reduce defence expenditure of 7% of GNP, cancelling further carrier orders
and reducing further overseas bases, especially east of Suez.
A debate on the reorganisation of the Royal Dockyards (Estimates Committee’s Reports) on 1 July
1963 highlighted the loss of trained personnel due to low wages and poor career development for
apprentices. Sir Frederick Burden (Conservative, Gillingham) characterised the royal dockyards as ‘a
more efficient and economic way of providing for the refitting and re-equipment of vessels for the
Royal Navy than could have been obtained through private yards’ because they focused on naval
21
ships only, apprenticeship training is ‘one of the most admirable in the country’ and there are no
demarcation disputes such as so often hold up production in private yards’. He stated that ‘expenditure
on the royal dockyards was about £60 million a year and that they employed some 40,000 people. In
Chatham, for instance, there are about 12,000 dockyard workers and it is by far the biggest employer
of labour locally.’ However, he alluded to ‘the difficulty of recruiting, from among men trained in the
dockyard, the high quality of management that is always needed’. He raised:
the question of the wages paid in the Royal Dockyards compared with those paid in private
industry…. It is not good enough to expect to get really highly skilled technical men working in the
dockyards and being happy to remain there if they are not paid wages which are comparable with
those that they would receive outside the Royal Dockyards. The loyalty of the dockyard workers,
and their emotional approach to service in the dockyards—and that is what it is, in the dockyard
towns—should not encourage the Admiralty to be a bad employer in respect of the wages.
Joan Vickers (Conservative, Plymouth Devonport) also took up the issue of apprentices:
The success in the training of apprentices is shown by the fact that there are many former
apprentices in very high administrative posts outside dockyards. In many departments of the
Civil Service, in the Post Office, there is an amazing number of ex-dockyard apprentices. If
they can leave the dockyards and obtain important jobs outside, why is it not possible to train
them to take more responsible posts within the dockyards?...We lose far too many such people.
Referring to the Estimates Committee Reports, she explained the reasons for losing so many apprentices:
It is obvious why we lose so many of them. One witness says in an answer on page 223 that
they should remain craftsmen the rest of their lives. It is a very depressing idea that one recruits
apprentices so that they can remain craftsmen for the rest of their lives. This is why so few
grammar school boys are going to the apprentice technical colleges now. Most of the recruits
have to come in on aptitude tests, which is a pity. People are becoming dockyard apprentices
who are likely to remain craftsmen for the rest of their lives because people are not coming in
through the higher examination as they used to. In the olden days dockyard technical colleges
in dockyard towns were the places where people could get the best technical education. It is
a great pity that there is this very large wastage from the yards, but understandable.
Another reason is that after five years training the mechanic’s wage is only £10 4s. 2d. Policemen
at the dockyard gates, and even girl tracers, get that money without all that training. This is a
very inadequate amount on which to start.
There is, too, the problem of the low level of pay of unskilled men….It is unfortunate to say
that the average wage for all workers is about £15, with some getting £18 and £20, because
such an average wage does not count with those who are getting under £15. There are over
131 trades and grades within the dockyard, so there is a terrific differentiation between those
who take home £15 and those who take home about £8.
She also remarked on the low level of training: ‘only 1,200 people have been sent on courses in seven
years. That represents about 170 a year’.
Brigadier Terence Clarke (Conservative Portsmouth West), ‘a representative of our premier naval
dockyard’, gave
figures to show the numbers employed in these dockyards and how they have varied. In
1949–50 15,400 people were employed in Portsmouth Dockyard. In 1950–51 the number went
up to 16,500. The Korean War was in progress then, and there was a lot of repair work. In 1952
the number went up to 16,884, and in 1954 it reached its peak for that period of 17,472. There
was a slight drop after that of 1,000, and in 1958 it went up to 17,480, which is the highest it
has ever been. Today the figure is well over 16,000 and is much higher than it was when the
Labour Government were in office.
22
He added that ‘Many of [the employees] take home less than £9 a week, which is not encouraging to
anyone.’
Eustace Willis (Labour, Edinburgh East) asked when the current re-organisation of Rosyth Dockyard
and Portsmouth Dockyard, due to start in 1964, would be completed and when Devonport would
start; would it take until the 1970s? He also regretted ‘the waste of apprentices and the fact that about
1,000 apprentices are taken in each year about 500 of which leave after they have finished their time.’
John Hay (Conservative, Henley), a lawyer and a Civil Lord of the Admiralty, confirmed that ‘At
present about 43 per cent. are leaving us’ and that the Admiralty was using a psychologist from the
National Institute of Industrial Psychology
to interview apprentices in all four dockyards to try to find out what are the underlying
motives for their leaving the service—whether it is simply a question of pay or a question of
advancement; in short, what is the motivating factor?
James MacColl (Labour, Widnes), summing up the debate, warned:
that if the needs of the industry are not kept in the forefront, the dockyards will be by-passed
in the future; that, with the development of the amazing complexities of new work in ships,
the dockyards will find themselves by-passed because they are regarded as being out of date
in their ideas and organisation, and they will be lost. (Hansard Debates They work for you, 1
July 1963, Royal Dockyards (Estimates Committee’s Reports)
Naval discussions in 1967 regarding future accommodation requirements for personnel at Portsmouth
were clearly still clouded by uncertainty over the navy’s future plans (TNA, 17.5.1967, ADM 1/28540).
In 1964 the Royal Navy and Royal Marines totalled 84,251, reduced to 77,467 in December 1968 (House
of Commons Debates, 1969). However, Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer Roy Jenkins argued
in 1968 that ‘Our standing in the world depends on the soundness of our economy and not on a
worldwide military presence.’ (Quoted in Grove, 1987, p. 295)
Reflecting continuing constituency unease in a 1969 Defence Debate, Joan Vickers (Conservative,
Plymouth Devonport) asked how the efficiency of naval dockyards could be increased by attracting
younger people, arguing that ‘young men and apprentices will not come in if they do not have
adequate wages and security for the future. The other day I was informed that the basic wage for an
unskilled man is just over £12 a week.’ She emphasised that ‘for generations the people of Plymouth
have done an excellent job in the dockyard.’ (House of Commons Debates, 5 March 1969, cc500-1)
Frank Judd (Labour, Portsmouth West) welcomed the fact that ‘Portsmouth now knows where it stands
vis-à-vis the Navy and its dockyard for a long time ahead. We welcome the news of specialisation,
and will be proud to look after the modern and sophisticated guided missile destroyers.’ However,
he questioned the efficiency of dockyard rates of pay, comparing average national weekly earnings
for male manual workers of £23 (higher in the South East), with the most skilled men in Portsmouth
dockyard achieving
average earnings of only a little over £23 a week— £23 5s. 10d. to be precise. Semi-skilled
men have average earnings of £20 4s. 10d., and non-skilled have average earnings of £16 4s.
5d. Those are all averages; there are not a few men in the yards who earn less than £16 a
week. Younger men are not only leaving the yard but, because of the shortage of alternative
work, are leaving Portsmouth altogether. Quite apart from productivity agreements, what is the
Department to do about this critical situation? The social significance for a city with above-
average unemployment of a 20 per cent. reduction in the job opportunities in the dockyard
should not be underestimated. (House of Commons Debates, 5 March 1969, cc519-20)
It is informative to read parliamentary debates in 1969 in light of the subsequent run down of the
fleet and the dockyards. Dockyard MPs articulated particular worries for their constituents, while
ministerial speakers justified previous decisions. During the Defence (Navy) Estimates debate on 20
23
March 1969 Joan Vickers warned that universal dockyard grading issues would cause disputes within
the yards, which had evolved different pay grades. She also pointed out that personnel at ‘Malaysia
and Singapore will have been reduced by about 5,500 and the number of United Kingdom civilians by
nearly 300 by April 1969’; moreover that contract repair work had increased ‘from just under £3 million
to just under £7 million.’ Sir Frederick Burden (Conservative, Gillingham) highlighted competition
between Chatham and Devonport Dockyards for the repair and refit of nuclear and conventional
submarines, with Gerald Reynolds (Labour, Islington North) and Minister of Defence (Administration),
asserting that ‘Chatham will be the main yard for the repair of nuclear Fleet submarines’ and that
‘Devonport will become the leading yard for the Leander frigates’.
However, Willis queried
the continued maintenance of four dockyards. When we had a much larger Fleet than the
present one, we had three main dockyards. Rosyth was almost run down to nothing…. Now
that we have a much smaller Fleet and now that the kind of work involved calls for less
expenditure of time and labour, we have four dockyards.
He questioned the need for retaining Chatham in comparison with Devonport:
it has always seemed to me to be a dockyard which ought to have been closed. I can only
assume that the real reason for keeping it open is that it is handy for London and that people
like to be able to travel easily to and from London….Chatham is in an area of full employment,
yet we are diverting work to Chatham. I thought we were to say goodbye to Chatham some
time ago.
Willis accepted that the reason why ‘Rosyth was allowed to be almost closed down between the wars’
was its distance from London, and argued that Devonport should be expanded to implement ‘the
policy of regional development and the deliberate use of Government institutions to carry out this
policy’. He also recalled that
When the Polaris programme was first introduced, we were assured by the experts from the Front
Bench, who must have been briefed by experts in the Admiralty, that it was highly dangerous to take
nuclear submarines to Chatham, that it could not be done, that the Channel was too narrow and too
winding, and that large populations were living in the area. This policy is then suddenly reversed.
He continued, ‘would not it be better to concentrate on two dockyards, say at Portsmouth and
Devonport, and make them good ones?’ He reiterated that Chatham
has not been a sensible dockyard for the last 50 years. There was the difficulty of approach
long before nuclear submarines. I remember that when ships like the “Repulse” and the
“Renown” were attached to Chatham for manning purposes they could get nowhere near
Chatham, which was their home port. This did not make sense, but the Admiralty has always
had this ability to carry on in spite of commonsense arguments.
Ian Orr-Ewing (Conservative, Hendon North) and Vice-Chairman of the Defence Committee, riposted
I remember that when Sir Winston Churchill contradicted himself he said, “I adjust my mind to
the movement of events”. It appears that I have adjusted my mind to the movement of events,
and that what was dangerous and far too shallow a channel for the 30 foot draft of the nuclear
submarines has become possible and safe at Chatham. The technical advice that I received on
that occasion was probably incorrect. I am not discussing what has been done at Chatham.
This money has been spent. What I am saying is that it is ridiculous to provide another set of
nuclear refitting facilities at Devon-port and to start making our plans now.
Dr David Owen, Labour, Plymouth Sutton and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Navy,
recalled:
24
The decision to develop Rosyth as the first nuclear refitting yard was taken in 1963 by the then
Conservative Government. A further review of requirements for nuclear refitting was carried
out between August, 1963, and the summer of 1964, when it was clear that further nuclear
facilities would be required in 1968 and that these would be best provided at Chatham. This
was announced in the Navy Estimates debate in 1965.
The capital development of both these dockyards to meet their respective nuclear rôles is
nearing completion, at a cost of £5 million for Rosyth and £6 million for Chatham. Since this
money is now almost entirely committed, it would be foolish to waste facilities which are
almost completed and this was one of the major factors that we had to consider in preparing
the dockyard review.
Between them, Chatham and Rosyth should meet our nuclear requirements up to 1973–74,
when additional nuclear docking facilities will be needed and then further refit facilities. It
has been announced in the White Paper that Devon-port will be our third nuclear dockyard.
Owen concluded that ‘The dockyards have got to change, because the Fleet and the ships are changing
and becoming more and more complex.’ (Hansard Debates They work for you, 20 March 1969) These
strategies came largely to fruition over the next twenty years.
In 1970, 5.5% of British GNP was spent on defence, much reduced from the 7% of the early 1960s.
Continuing financial problems led to a swifter withdrawal east of Suez than anticipated, by the end
of 1971 (Grove, 1987, pp. 200, 202-3, 213-14, 340-1). The 1974–75 Review by Labour Defence Minister
Roy Mason aimed to reduce defence spending of 5.8% of GDP to 4.5% over ten years. It aimed to align
Britain with other NATO countries, while raising the naval share of the defence budget from 25% to
28% to maintain NATO commitments, anti-submarine forces, home defence and a nuclear deterrent.
The government boosted shipbuilding jobs in the regions, particularly in private yards, to counter
high unemployment. Dockyards developed specialised tasks: Rosyth and Chatham maintained nuclear
submarines,6 Devonport opened a frigate complex in 1977 and Portsmouth had a £60m modernisation
programme focusing on destroyers. (Grove, 1987, pp. 245-8, chapter 8, 295, 306, 322, 324; Lunn, 1999,
p. 181) The navy wished to replace the five ageing aircraft carriers with five new ones, but the last
remaining carrier in the programme was cancelled in 1966. A much reduced budget now looked at a
Through Deck Command Cruiser (TDCC), which became a Helicopter Carrying Heavy Cruiser (CAH)
able to carry Vertical and/or Short Take Off and Landing (V/STOL) planes and helicopters, finally
produced in 1977 as HMS Invincible, a light aircraft carrier. It would carry British Sea Harriers, V/STOL
strike fighters, the first of which were ordered in 1975 and entered service in 1978 (Grove, 1987, pp.
252-321, 295, 326).
Continuing cuts in the 1970s reduced naval morale, leading to poor recruitment and retention. Public
sector wage restraints in 1977–78 further reduced skilled naval personnel and limited the capability
to operate ships. (Taylor, 2010, pp. 4-10; Grove, 1987, pp. 200, 202-3, 213-14, 340-1) Parliamentary
debates in 1978 revealed personnel ‘overstretch: average hours at sea spent by a destroyer or a frigate
in 1957, 1967 and 1977’ were ‘1,970 hours, 2,750 hours and 2,870 hours respectively.’ While Geoffrey
Pattie (Chertsey and Walton) reiterated: ‘We are as dependent on our Navy now as ever we were’,
Bonner Pink (MP Portsmouth South) pointed out that Portsmouth Dockyard workers’ pay was less
than Vosper Thornycroft contractors and Chatham colleagues:
for the first time in living memory, we are experiencing strikes in Portsmouth Dockyard….It
is notorious that the pay in the Royal dockyards lags behind that in civilian yards. This has
been traditional because the Royal dockyards have taken into account the security of their
employees’ jobs. But today that security exists no longer. As I have said, the Royal dockyard
workers see defence cuts, and they know that if the numbers of ships are cut employment cuts
in the dockyards must follow. (House of Commons Debates, 1978)
6
The Polaris and later Trident nuclear submarines operated from a new base at Faslane on the Gare Loch, with a
weapons facility at nearby Coulport.
25
The Thatcher government, elected in 1979, was committed to both raising service pay and cutting
public expenditure, which left a shortfall of funding for naval equipment. In January 1981 former
banker John Nott became Secretary of State for Defence, committed to a thoroughgoing investigation
in naval rôles to ‘enhance our front-line capability’. The White Paper The Way Forward stated: ‘Our
current force structure is however too large for us to meet this need within any resource allocation
which our people can reasonably be asked to afford.’ Its essence was ‘We cannot go on as we
are’, but it did not reduce naval tasks - just ships - proposing defended shipping lanes rather than
escorts. It outlined a reduction ‘in the size of our surface fleet and the scale and sophistication of
new ship-building, and breaks away from the practice of costly mid-life modernisation.’ It promised
a 3% annual growth commitment to NATO until 1986. Grove pointed out that in real terms this
was a loss in funding, and the navy would be financing most of the Trident submarine and missile
programme. ‘EFG’ in RUSI pointed out in 1981 that focusing on Trident would be to the detriment of
essential ships such as ‘ocean-going escort vessels, mine counter-measures and amphibious ships.’
The White Paper planned to cut Royal Navy numbers to 10,000 by 1986, close Chatham Dockyard by
1984, reduce the volume of work carried out at Portsmouth Dockyard, close naval stores and depôts
elsewhere, and tie defence jobs to exports. Nuclear submarine refits would be moved from Chatham
to Devonport, resulting in some delays to the programme. Nott also made the memorable decision,
despite Argentine incursions in the Falklands, to withdraw HMS Endurance, the navy’s ice patrol ship in
the South Atlantic. (HMSO, 1981, paras 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, 23, 34, 35, 36, 40, 45; Grove, 1987, pp. 342-50,
353, 358-60; Schulman & Rader, 1981; EFG, 1981, pp. 1-2)
By the time of the 1981 Nott Review, which closed Chatham and downgraded Portsmouth to a
Fleet Maintenance and Repair Organisation (FMRO) in favour of Devonport, the USSR had invaded
Afghanistan and British expeditionary capacity was reduced, with the navy absorbing 57% of cuts.
The Falklands conflict in 1982, after redundancy notices had been issued to all but 1,800 Portsmouth
Dockyard civilian workers, demonstrated the flaws of this policy. Portsmouth prepared sixteen
warships and RFAs, and six warships were refitted for combat ahead of schedule, nineteen Ships Taken
Up From Trade (STUFT) were converted, and three warships were repaired following the conflict.
As an immediate consequence a larger fleet was retained, the 1982 Defence White Paper confirming
that lost warships and other hardware would be replaced. In October 1984 Portsmouth FMRO was
established, with civilian numbers set at 2,800 rather than the projected 1,800. (Taylor, 2010, pp. 4-10;
Dorman, 2001; Johnman & Murphy, 2002, p. 223; Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust)
The Falklands conflict justified a ‘balanced fleet’ to cope with an out-of-area contingency, the value
of carriers being to coordinate both an action and commercial support vessels. Nott promised
compensation of losses, allowing some newer vessels to be ordered, but in 1983 the new Defence
Secretary, Michael Heseltine, made cuts because of Falklands costs; inflation meant that money did
not buy as much, and the navy was committed to extra Falklands protection. Britain still had the third
most powerful navy in the world. To Grove, ‘The key to it all, however, was the state of the British
economy, a much more fragile and battered structure’ than before, with naval purchases vulnerable
to exchange rates. Overstretch and overload meant ships were at sea longer, therefore incurring more
wear and tear and more costly refits. Cuts in training resulted in poorer trained officers and men.
With fewer ships and lower morale, personnel fell from 59,300 in 1979 to 58,600 in 1984, although
the target for the 1990s was raised to 63,000. Grove placed the Royal Navy in poor third place behind
the Soviet navy by 1985, closely challenged by the French. He assessed Britain as having managed
its ‘decline as a major power…sometimes attempting radical solutions, more often, as today, trying to
keep up appearances maintaining the maximum apparent capability by skimping here and there on
less obvious necessities.’ Defence Secretary George Younger’s 1986 Defence White Paper confirmed
a defence commitment, but it represented a 6% cut in real terms. By 1986, in Grove’s view, ‘Britain
might still be an island, but she was no longer the maritime nation that she had been.’ Merchant
seafarers had declined from 61,000 in 1981 to 35,000 in 1985 and economically Britain was linked
more closely to Europe than the world. Grove concluded that the navy had always had ‘cultural and
emotional problems in coming to terms with the loss of the empire for which it had provided the
26
primary defense,’ and was ‘suffering from the warm afterglow of her last imperial war.’ (1987, pp. ix,
x, 357-89, 391, 393-6)
When Devonport and Rosyth were privatised in 1987, Portsmouth remained the only government
operated repair yard for surface warships, with FMRO completing Type 42 class destroyer refits
on time. From April 1998 Portsmouth was maintained by contractors: Fleet Support Limited (FSL),
a consortium of GEC (now Marconi) and Vosper Thornycroft, and could tender for refits and
commercial work (PRDHT). Contractors have operated within dockyards since at least the 1690s,
affecting dockyard management and operations, dependent on the balance of power between them
and the government, but during the twentieth century contractors became transnational organisations,
wielding huge financial and political clout.
The 1990 Options for Change review addressed the burden of Cold War platforms and weapons, the effect
of European unification on maritime policy, and the need for further defence cuts to reduce tri-service
manpower by 18% (56,000) by the mid-1990s, with the Army bearing the larger share of cuts. Again,
war in the Gulf in August 1990 undermined this policy, but Front Line First: The Defence Costs Study (1994)
proposed streamlining tri-service command and support structures and outsourcing many functions
to the private sector, aiming to cut military and civilian personnel by 18,700 in 2000. The 1995 fleet
had eight fewer submarines, the same number of carriers, twenty-three fewer frigates/destroyers/
cruisers, and twenty-two fewer mine counter-measure vessels than in 1975. The Strategic Defence
Reviews of 1998 and 2002 reduced the operational fleet slightly and implemented more joint facilities
through Joint Rapid Reaction Forces and technological investment to respond to regional events and
international terrorism, as, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 there was no longer a
peer competitor to GB and its allies. (Till, 2001, pp. 27, 42, 51; Taylor, 2010, pp. 4-10; Dorman, 2001;
Johnman & Murphy, 2002, p. 227)
1.6 Into the twenty-first century

The Defence White Paper of 2003–4 continued to focus on readiness for expeditionary operations.
However, The Defence White Paper: Future Capabilities, September 2004 did not resolve platform and
procurement costs arising from national and service equipment differences (Taylor, 2010, pp. 4-10).
The MoD’s 2005 Defence Industrial Strategy encouraged BAe and VT Group to form a naval shipbuilding
joint venture to maintain the UK’s long-term naval shipbuilding capability. In 2008 a tenth of the
operational part of Portsmouth Dockyard was leased to this organisation which became BVT Surface
Fleet, then British Aerospace Systems (BAES). In 2009 BAES signed a fifteen year agreement with the
MoD guaranteeing a minimum annual £230 million of shipbuilding and support work, specifically
for aircraft carriers, Type 45 destroyers and Portsmouth base services (Jaffry et al., 2012, p. 18). The
rôle of the new carriers is to deploy expeditionary forces rapidly with British allies and is the focus
of current and future naval strategy (Till, 2001, pp. 61, 63-4). Shipbuilding took place from 2002 until
2014 in BAES Ship Halls A and B, the latter built over Dock No. 13.
Further changes, according to Portsmouth Naval Base Commander, Cdre Rigby in 2013, are that the
sum of naval ships based in Portsmouth will increase from 70,000 tonnes in 2013 to 200,000 tonnes by
2020, bringing in the region of another 2,000 sailors into the Portsmouth area. The new 65,000-tonne
carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, is due in 2016, the second, HMS Prince of Wales, by 2020, plus six new
Type 45 destroyers and eventually thirteen Type 26 frigates. With ships increasingly powered by
electricity, the naval base will need more than three times the power it currently requires when they
are alongside, therefore a new power plant is needed to heat and power the ships.
Captain Iain Greenlees, in charge of the Portsmouth transformation project, has sought to drive a
cultural change in management attitudes: ‘For the past 20 years we have looked at how we can
manage doing the same things with five per cent less each year.’ For the first time in 100 years an
innovative programme, analogous to the Dreadnought project, will transform Portsmouth Dockyard.
27
Dredging work in Portsmouth Harbour created a deeper channel for the carriers in 2014. Basin No.
3 will be divided (returning to its early twentieth century configuration), creating a tidal and a non-
tidal basin for more efficient ship maintenance. Engineering for the frigates and destroyers will be
focused on Fountain Lake and Basin No. 3. New cranes and caissons, strengthened jetties and more
accommodation are also required. There is already one new (2013) crane in the yard, but the rest
are over 45 years old and more are planned. To resolve car parking issues a central multi-storey car
park is being considered. Improved water taxis could bring workers from Gosport and Fareham and
reduce road usage by the increased personnel numbers. (Greenlees, 2013; Bannister, 2013a; 2013b)
A new dockyard model in naval HQ, made by apprentices, continues the practice of using models to
strategise and demonstrate future plans.
Devonport and Portsmouth were, in the late twentieth century, subject to divisive naval cuts, their
future often posed as alternatives, with the Coalition government perceived as threatening ‘severe
cuts, or even closure, of Devonport Naval Base and HM Dockyard Devonport.’ (Warships, 2010) The
2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review, which aimed to tackle the defence equipment spending
overdraft, was constrained by continuing conflict expenditure in Afghanistan. It planned a reduction
of 5,000 Royal Navy personnel to 30,000 by 2015 and 29,000 by 2020, and a decrease in the MoD civil
service by 25,000 to 60,000 in 2015. While the cuts would have affected Portsmouth and Devonport,
it recognised ‘a continuing requirement to sustain both bases. In the longer-term, the two new carriers
will be based in Portsmouth’ but reductions to the nuclear and submarine programmes will have an
impact on Devonport (SDSR, 2010, pp. 33, 38-9).
1.7 Dockyard and naval personnel
Fig. 20. Photograph of Portsmouth Artificers (784A/10/1 image supplied by PMRS) courtesy of
Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust.
Table 1.7.1 Overall dockyard personnel numbers, 1711–1901 (Coad, 2013, p. 5)

1711 1730 1790 1805 1815 1820 1834 1840 1857 1870 1880 1890 1901
6487 9618 8790 10000 14754 12725 5964 7965 15375 14980 17514 20663 30094
Table 1.7.2 Individual dockyard personnel numbers, 1895 (Brown, 2010, p. 123)
Chatham Sheerness Portsmouth Devonport Pembroke Total
Shipwrights 618 367 831 749 373 4839
Total workforce 1428 858 1973 1810 735 6370
Table 1.7.3 Dockyard officers and men, Portsmouth and Devonport Dockyards, 1905–14 (Johnston &
Buxton, 2013, p. 256)
1905–6 1906–7 1907–8 1908–9 1909–10 1910–11 1911–12 1912–13 1913–14
Portsmouth 9333 8327 8361 9410 9876 10815 11289 11400 12164
Devonport 8212 7291 7320 8111 8616 9758 9978 9896 11825
28
Table 1.7.4 Budgeted Manpower Numbers in Royal Dockyards 1905–6 and 1913–14 (adapted
from Brown, 2016, Docking the Dreadnoughts: Dockyard Activity in the Dreadnought Era, Table 8, citing Naval
Estimates, TNA, ADM 181/158 (1905), ADM 181/159 (1913))
% Increase in % Increase in per capita
1905–6 1913–14 % Increase
total cost of labour cost of labour
Home Yards 30,300 38,000 25.4 51.6 20.8
Table 1.7.5 Naval personnel 1900–2012 (Berman & Rutherford, 2012, p. 8)

1900 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2012
114900 139300 97800 86000 71900 63200 42800 38700 35500
Naval personnel statistics reflect the scale of operations, which have a direct impact on dockyard
employee figures, so these tables give a snapshot of dockyard employees, but should be treated with
care, as they derive from different sources. Coad’s figures are taken from Merriman, 1961, p. 373;
NMM ADM/BP/34b (14 December 1814) and TNA ADM 49/181 (1901 is actually 1805–December 1900,
which also includes Portland and Haulbowline), lists of workmen sent to the Navy Board. The source
of Brown (2010)’s figures is not cited and his bottom line actually totals 6,804, not 6370. PRDHT cites
23,000 as the peak for Portsmouth during the First World War, with women employed to do tasks
previously undertaken by men, but Johnston and Buxton’s numbers, taken from naval estimates, are
considerably lower. PRDHT cites Portsmouth numbers as 15,000 by 1937, rising to a record 27,000
during the Second World War. In 1963, Portsmouth Dockyard was employing about 12,000 people and
Devonport 14,000. By 1981 Portsmouth numbers were about 7,500. In October 1984 Portsmouth FMRO
had civilian numbers set at 2,800. This emphasises that statistical parameters and sources need to be
clarified for realistic comparisons, but some correlations can be made. (Coad, 2013, p. 5 (corrected in
consultation with the author); Johnston & Buxton, 2013, p. 256; Brown, 2010, p. 123; PRDHT)
1.8 Women in dockyards

Fig. 21. Photograph of female munitions workers, Electrical Engineers Department, Easter 1916.
Inset: Louis J. Steele MIEE Electrical Engineer, Mrs Heaster Chargewoman, W. Brand Esq Assist E.E.,
H. A. Knott Esq Assist E.E, Mr E. R. Roach Inspector, Miss Nepean Chargewoman. Image 1340A/1/5
supplied by PMRS, courtesy of Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust
Fig. 22. Photograph of women in Portsmouth Dockyard, some wearing triangular ‘On War Service’
badges or brooches to show they were employed on essential war work. Image 1340A/1/6 supplied
by PMRS, courtesy of Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust
Because the dockyard workforce worked traditionally from 6am to 6pm (more in summer), six days
a week and more during busy times, it relied upon wives, mothers and landladies to perform all
its basic support services. Women played significant rôles as apprentice mistresses and contractors
throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, probably much less by the nineteenth century.
They also continued contracts if their husbands died. When Portsmouth anchor smith John Timbrell
died in 1669 his widow petitioned for his place and was recommended by resident Commissioner
John Tippetts as “more fit to undertake the business than her late husband was.” (Coats, 2000; CSPD,
1668–69, 21.10 1669, p. 544) Mrs Harrison painted ships and Mrs Anne Wyatt continued her husband’s
contract to build ships at Bursledon near Portsmouth. In the 1680s Anne Voake hired out teams of
horses, needed constantly for hauling timber and pumping out docks, and another female contractor
washed the smiths’ towels. Mary Lacy, calling herself William Chandler, signed on as a ship carpenter’s
assistant, serving aboard Sandwich and Royal Sovereign from 1759 to 1763 during the Seven Years War. She
then served a shipwright apprenticeship under three masters for seven years at Portsmouth Dockyard
between 1763 and 1770. But in 1771 injuries incurred through lifting heavy timbers in all weathers
29
and rheumatism, an occupational hazard of both seamen and dockyard workers, forced her to cease
work aged 31 and reveal that she was a woman. She was granted a dockyard pension of £20.00 a year
in 1772, which she collected from Deptford Dockyard, and moved to Deptford, where she became a
house builder until her death in 1801. (Guillery, 2000, pp. 61-9)
During the nineteenth century women were employed in the Portsmouth and Chatham Colour Lofts
and Chatham and Devonport Roperies, and twinespinning at Devonport. In 1803 all yards were
instructed to employ women in the Colour Lofts to satisfy the increased wartime need for signalling
flags. Seven ‘Colour women’ were noted in an 1863 Portsmouth workforce return, and Mrs Gates was
‘the Colour woman appointed by Admiral Wellesley to clean the Chapel’ in 1868. Ryan also notes that
a few women tracers had been employed as civil servants from the end of the nineteenth century.
In 1865 women were selected specifically as ropespinners to replace male ropemakers at Chatham,
and in 1867 at Devonport because they would be cheaper to employ on the newly installed dockyard
steam-powered ropemaking machinery. The men were subsequently dismissed, with some taken on
as labourers. Welsh and Scottish women spinners were brought to become instructors. (Ryan, 2011,
pp. 1, 19, 48, 50-5, 56-7, 63-7, 68, 69-70, 72, 76, 79-87; Hamilton, 2005, pp. 173, 328; Chatham Dockyard
Historical Society. Workers of the Sail and Colour Lofts, 2011) Images of women working in the Block Mills
are on display in the Portsmouth Dockyard Apprentice Exhibition.
Ryan investigated whether women were employed as a reserve wartime workforce, as a form of
dockyard patronage or as a substitute pension to dockyard men’s wives or widows, accomplishing
a task at a cheaper rate than employing men, or reflecting wider social attitudes. She concluded that
until 1865 they were not employed instead of, or to displace men for reasons of economy in the
roperies. But after that date evidence indicates that increased mechanisation reduced the physical
labour and skill required. (Ryan, 2011, 1, 8, 14, 15, 38-9, 48, 50-5, 56-7, 63-7, 68-72, 87-8, 117-21)
In both world wars considerable numbers of women workers were taken on to augment the workforce
in areas outside traditional women’s preserves. The National Savings Committee Women’s War Work
Series stamps raised funds but also celebrated the diverse range of their industrial occupations. The
need for more industrial workers during the First World War led the government to negotiate first
with the craft unions over admitting unskilled or semi-skilled workers (dilutees), and then women.
Increased numbers of women clerical workers were not resented as this was accepted as permanent
female work, but their wartime entry into the constructive, engineering and electrical trades was
resisted by engineering unions as an infringement of their status, and demands for equal pay were
seen as threatening the male rôle as breadwinner. Nevertheless, at the end of 1917, 406 women
were employed at Portsmouth, with 1,750 in all yards, photographs in Riley and Clark showing them
carrying out a wide range of tasks. The NMRN library also holds details of local WRNS and WRAF
artificers in the First World War. Women employed in all government establishments amounted to
246,000 in November 1918 but decreased to 16,000 by October 1919. (Lunn & Day, 1999, pp. 135-7;
Brown, 2016; Riley & Clark, 2014; Clark, 2016)
Day noted that between the wars at Portsmouth ‘women could enter, or re-enter, as non-industrial
clerical workers and as tracers in the Drawing Office.’ She asserted that in the Second World War
women were recruited ‘in the place of men.’ When compulsory registration began in 1941, going
into the dockyard ‘was a preferred alternative to going into the services’ and was favoured by young
women’s parents. Day cites a wartime peak of 3,000 women out of a total c.25,000 workforce at
Portsmouth. They were typically given light industrial work, assisted by increased mechanisation,
which paid less than “skilled” work and were always supervised by male workers. While the Admiralty
agreed to equal wartime pay for equal work, women were always supervised and could not do night
work, therefore could not earn the same as men; in private shipbuilding, metal and engineering
industries they were earning only 62.5% of the average male wage. The government did not provide
a nursery in Portsmouth until June 1942, four more being added by May 1944, but they were not all
convenient for the dockyard. After the war women were again limited to clerical or non-industrial
work. (Ryan, 2011, pp. 1, 72, 76, 79; Day, 1998, pp. 363-9, 371, 376)
30
In the Second World War, royal dockyards were quicker than private yards to take on women dilutees.
Despite labour shortages, private yards did not employ women until 1941 in shipbuilding and 1943 in
repairing, due to prejudice against women workers, who were restricted usually to workshops away
from the berths. Lunn and Day located the prejudice as ‘centred around the acceptance of women
as substitutes for male workers and the problems involved in “de-skilling”, or in the subsequent
‘“feminization” of the work process.’ (1999, p. 128) The Shipbuilding Trades Joint Council agreed terms
in 1940 to accept women as temporary substitutes for men, with women’s rates and bonuses based
on those of men (Lunn & Day, 1999, pp. 138-9). Johnman and Murphy pointed out that more women
were employed at Rosyth Dockyard: ‘500 out of 892 women were employed in a productive capacity’,
compared with 292 women in five private Scottish yards (2002, pp. 65-7, 93, 256). Law stated that by
1944, ‘25 per cent of the Rosyth workforce was composed of women workers compared to between
12 and 16 per cent at southern yards.’ (1999, p. 156) At Portsmouth Mr Jones, shipwright, remembered
women coming into work during the war in No. 1 Shop as apprentices. One woman, known as ‘Fag
Ash Lil’, worked a crane and always shouted ‘give us a fag, give us a fag and I’ll give you a lift.’ (2002,
pp. 3-7) Women were employed in most departments at Devonport (A Brief History of Devonport Naval
Base, p. 29).
Was the admission of female dockyard apprentices (referred to as ‘girls’) in the late 1960s driven
by the poor retention of dockyard apprentices and skills already noted, or did it reflect what was
happening elsewhere in society? By the start of the 1960s, it was recognised nationally that traditional
apprenticeships often excluded women, but little reform of the ¼m apprenticeships occurred during
the decade. (Rudd et al., May 2008, p. 11; Steedman et al., Oct 1998, p. 21; Campbell et al., 2011, p. 367)
The Ford sewing machinists strike of 1968 led to the passing of the Equal Pay Act 1970 which came
into force in 1975. The admittance of female dockyard apprentices was debated in Parliament in 1969,
but initially a comprehensive policy was not applied throughout all yards. Joan Vickers (Plymouth
Devonport)
asked the Secretary of State for Defence in view of the fact that girls are being allowed to take
up apprenticeships at Her Majesty’s Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth, if he will grant the same
facilities at Her Majesty’s Naval Dockyard, Devonport.
Dr David Owen replied:
We are arranging to provide facilities to enable girls to work in H.M. Dockyard, Devonport,
and they will be offered apprenticeships when these facilities are available, which will be
during 1970. (House of Commons Debates, 22 January 1969, Written Answers)
Chatham Dockyard’s newspaper Periscope announced in 1968 that: “girls” would be accepted as
apprentices from 1969. The front page featured a cartoonist’s impression of what a female apprentice
would look like, while an article inside the newspaper stressed that female apprentices would be
selected on the same criteria as their male counterparts and that they would not be treated any
differently. It then goes on to describe, somewhat contradictorily, the types of work that female
apprentices would go in to do: “Main opportunities for girl apprentices would be in electronics, radio
and electrical work – many of the light and tricky jobs more easily handled by women.” (Quoted,
Taaffe, 2013, pp. 111-12) Portsmouth Dockyard’s first 5 female apprentices were admitted in September
1969, alongside 159 male apprentices. (Bannister, 21 January 2014). Rosyth Dockyard was first, with
their entry in August 1969. Chatham and Devonport followed in 1971. These women apprentices won
a breakthrough in equal rights: as apprentices and when they qualified, they were the first women to
get the same rate of pay as the men in the dockyard.
Vickers again took up their case during the Defence (Navy) Estimates, 1969–70 debate on 20 March
1969: ‘it is said that in the future girl apprentices will train along with the young men. Will they be
employed in the dockyard if they wish?’ Owen replied: ‘we certainly intend to employ girl apprentices
as craftsmen in the dockyard on completion of their apprenticeship. There would be little point in
doing it otherwise.’ (Hansard Debates They work for you, 20 March 1969)
31
Emma Taaffe’s doctoral thesis reported that in the early 1970s there was some resentment from male
apprentices that females were given preferential treatment and more interesting projects, and received
more publicity to attract further female apprentices. She recounted that in 1973 a parents’ evening
was held for apprentice trade selection. She quoted a letter sent to a female candidate, one of three
women indentured in 1973, which listed the trades available to potential girl entrants: shipwright,
joiner, sailmaker, fitter & turner, hose maker and electrical fitter, but omitted others advertised at the
parents’ evening: ‘plumbers, coppersmiths, smiths, iron caulkers and riveters, welders, boilermakers’.
The candidate recalled:
They told me, the management people that talked to me, told me it was the unions. They told
me they were having a great deal of difficulty getting the unions to accept women because
they felt it would lower, you know, would cause problems because women worked for lower
rates than men. (Quoted, Taaffe, 2013, pp. 113-14)
Taaffe notes that the letter ‘saying that she was successful in passing the Dockyard exam was sent to
[her] father, as was the majority of correspondence concerning her apprenticeship.’ In standard letters,
four years after female apprentices had been admitted, ‘no effort was made to amend them to reflect
the fact that she was female.’ The first letter read:
We are very pleased that your son has passed the entrance exam for a Chatham Dockyard
apprenticeship. The Royal Dockyard can be a very worthwhile and interesting career for any
boy who is prepared to learn. (Quoted, Taaffe, 2013, pp.114-15)
While letters to young men were also addressed to their fathers, and indentures were signed by the
apprentice, the father and the dockyard, as they were minors (Stanley, 2015, pers. comm.), it does
say something about Admiralty responsiveness that stationery had not been updated after four years.
In 1980 the then Baroness Vickers asked in the House of Lords whether the government ‘will state
how many girl apprentices have been trained in H.M. Dockyards since the inception of the scheme
for that purpose.’ The Minister of Defence, 4th Baron Strathcona and Mount Royal, replied that ‘since
the inception of the scheme in 1969 a total of 50 girls have completed training as apprentices in the
Royal Dockyards and a further 50 girls are under training at present.’ (House of Lords Debates, 10
March 1980) Despite their hesitant execution, dockyards implemented equal pay for equal work ahead
of private industry.
1.9 Fuel, ordnance, submarines and missiles

Steam driven warships were supported by coaling facilities such as the large coaling point at Portsmouth
(Coad, 2013, pp. 27-30, 35-8, 40-1). As iron, then steel ships became larger, their propulsion had to
become faster and more efficient. Although the dockyards built some small steam reciprocating
engines in 1900, in the main the Admiralty fostered close relationships with private engine builders
to develop higher pressure boilers and engines designed specifically for warships. These were first
based on the Thames, but by the mid-nineteenth century specialised companies were established on
the Tyne and Clyde. Reciprocating engines were used for pre-Dreadnoughts and turbines were developed
by Parsons for the Dreadnoughts (Johnston & Buxton, 2013, pp. 154-60). Boiler properties were debated
in the House of Commons in 1900 (House of Commons, 7.8.1900).
From 1900 the Admiralty supported oil exploration by William Knox D’Arcy in Persia. His company,
now part of Burmah Oil, discovered oil in 1908 and became Anglo-Persian Oil in 1909. From 1906
boilers were modified to use oil as well as coal, as the former had a higher calorific value. It therefore
needed less storage space, was easier to store and required fewer personnel to take on board and use,
reducing engineering staff. After 1913 all battleships and cruisers were oil fuelled and the oil supply
became more secure after the British government bought a majority share in Anglo-Persian Oil Co. in
1914. (Johnston & Buxton, 2013, pp. 161-2; Cain & Hopkins, 2001, p. 349)
32
From the beginning of the twentieth century gunnery technology drove warship design and construction,
with the focus on Dreadnoughts, the fastest warships to date. While the Royal Gun Factory at Woolwich
continued to produce ordnance, guns were increasingly supplied by private manufacturers, dominated
by Armstrong. New gun mounting shops were situated near the dockyard basins. (Johnston & Buxton,
2013, pp. 168-210; Till, 1982, pp. 103-4; Coad, 2013, p. 95)
After 1945, gas turbine engines and nuclear propulsion saved space and manpower. British missiles
were mostly based on American models. Blue Streak had been a British nuclear deterrent, designed
in the 1950s to replace the aging V bombers, but it was cancelled in favour of the US Skybolt, which
the Americans then cancelled because it was becoming too expensive. Prime Minister MacMillan and
Earl Mountbatten as Chief of Defence Staff wanted Polaris, which was acquired cheaply under the
Nassau Agreement of 1962. The British Sea Dart surface-to-air and the Australian Ikara anti-submarine
warfare missiles were installed in the 1970s. (Grove, 1987, pp. 234-9, 312-17)
Once the Third Arab-Israeli War of 1967 had demonstrated that missiles could be launched from
comparatively small ships, such ships could attack larger ships, and smaller nations could attack larger
ones. The potential firepower of smaller nations was further increased by the development of nuclear
missiles and nuclear submarines. In 1973 the first sea-to-sea missiles were launched, encouraging even
smaller attack vessels. Missiles launched from submarines can now access 70% of the world’s surface,
thus giving flexibility, while nuclear power allows submarines to stay below the surface for months
and avoid detection. (Till, 1982, pp. 176-8, 235-6; Till, 2001, pp. 66-8, 177-8)
The development of torpedoes, missiles and submarines distinguished the twentieth century, imposing
divergent rôles upon dockyards. The disconnect between submarines and the mainstream navy is
the underlying theme of Duncan Redford’s The Submarine. A Cultural History from the Great War to Nuclear
Combat (2010). Submarines were perceived from the start as a platform for torpedoes, although the
first British one was built to test anti-submarine measures. The first test dives of Holland 1-3 were
made in 1902 and in the same year a submarine section was set up, with Fort Blockhouse, later HMS
Dolphin, at Gosport, becoming the home submarine base for ninety years. By 1903 submarines were
also envisaged as an alternative to mines for port defence. Admiral Fisher, Commander-in-Chief at
Portsmouth in 1903, advocated their rôle in fleet manœuvres in 1904. When Fisher became First Sea
Lord in 1904 he incorporated them, with destroyers, in his flotilla strategy for home waters and the
North Sea, to release the battlefleet for distant waters. This controversial policy was opposed by
Admiral Lord Charles Beresford, whose campaign against Fisher’s naval reforms prompted the latter’s
early retirement and the replacement of the flotilla defence strategy by an enlarged battleship fleet:
from twenty-two to thirty-three in 1910–13. (Lambert, 2001, pp. ix-xxix, 35, 82)
However, with the average costs of the Queen Elizabeth class vessels rising to £2.7m, the navalist flotilla
strategy for sea denial became more attractive to Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty 1911–15 and
Fisher supporter, who in 1913 endorsed the use of more submarines in both home and European
waters. The Admiralty was ready to cancel two of the four battleships due to be constructed in 1914–
15 (which would have meant abandoning the two power standard) to allocate funds for destroyers and
submarines, when the First World War broke out. Fifteen overseas submarines capable of offensive
measures against the German fleet were based immediately at Harwich with support ship HMS
Maidstone and deployed to patrol the Heligoland Bight. In October 1914, Admiral Fisher again became
First Sea Lord and ordered more submarines in new classes and increased recruitment to submarines.
In the same month Admiral Jellicoe, Commander of the Grand Fleet, sent three E class submarines
into the Baltic to attack the German fleet and intercept German ships leaving to attack the British fleet,
which had no northern bases safe from U-boats at the start of the war. They were joined in 1915 by
five more to sink Norwegian ships carrying ore to Germany. (Carr, 1930, pp. 86-7).
Submarines’ innovatory First World War rôle in protecting British home waters was detailed by W.
G. Carr, who patrolled in G6 in the western approaches, the Bay of Biscay and the entrance to the
Baltic (1930, pp. 31, 194, 196-205). When U9 sank three British cruisers in the North Sea and U21 sank
the destroyer Pathfinder off the Firth of Forth in September 1914, Carr declared that it ‘made the world
33
realise for the first time the ferocious menace of the submarine.’ (1930, p. 92) Tucker claimed that the
submarine proved its capabilities as a commerce raider, signalling ‘the arrival of a new era in naval
warfare.’ (1998, pp. xiii, 55-56) Indeed, this was shown by the immediate success of E1 and E9 in
interrupting Swedish ore and iron supplies vital to Germany and attacking warships, preventing ‘the
enemy from being as aggressive as he might have been had there been no British submarines in the
Baltic.’ Carr contended that Uboats ‘nearly brought Britain to her knees. It became imperative that
they be destroyed in such numbers that the German shipbuilding yards could not keep pace with the
losses.’ (Carr, 1930, pp. 99, 104-5, 120, 130, 229; Ashmore, 2001)
In home waters smaller C boats were used first to carry out coastal defence patrols to locate German
minefields off Harwich, Dover and the Thames, often by being blown up. They also patrolled the
German coast, the entrance to the Baltic, the Norwegian coast, north of Scotland, the Irish coast and
the Bay of Biscay. Harwich was the chief operating depôt base, with Fort Blockhouse at Gosport the
training base. Further large bases were set up at Blyth, Gorleston, South Bank on the Tees, Rosyth,
Scapa Flow, Killybegs and Bantry Bay, plus additional smaller bases. Submarines also supported Q
ships in their successful 1915–16 campaign against Uboats attacking fishing boats in the North Sea,
and mine-laying in the Heligoland Bight. (Carr, 1930, pp. 157-69, 172-3, 210, 247) The Dardanelles
campaigns also demonstrated their endurance and competence in attacking enemy ports and vessels
to deny the enemy the sea in the Sea of Marmara, as well as advancing the submarine capabilities of
the B and E classes (Carr, 1930, chapters I-V). Carr contended that although British submarines ‘acted
largely as eyes for the fleet’, ‘U-boats had no fleet to act for’. He endorsed their effectiveness during
the First World War which succeeded in raising the status of their personnel, previously regarded
pejoratively as ‘The Trade’ (1930, pp. 18, 41, 137-8, 273, 276).
Chatham Dockyard built the majority of dockyard submarines during the First World War. Pembroke
Dock constructed a few. Devonport built A8 and A9 in 1914–15; J5 and J6 in 1915 and J7 in 1917; and
steam-driven fleet submarines K6 and K7 in 1916. Portsmouth built J1 and J2 in 1915; steam-driven fleet
submarines K1, K2 and K5 in 1916 and completed Vickers’ L26 in 1919 (Royal Navy ships of World War
I; Goodwin, 2016). During the Second World War four Triton class diesel electric submarines were built
at Portsmouth: Tireless and Token were launched in 1943 and Tiara and Thor were launched in 1944 but
not completed due to the war ending. In 1942 the Director of Naval Construction, Commander C. H.
Varley, who also owned Varley Marine Ltd on the River Hamble, developed X3, a prototype midget
submarine designed to place mines beneath German battleships. The X4 submarines were built at
Hull, Portsmouth and Devonport, assembled at Portsmouth in 1943.
Redford analysed eight twentieth century naval reviews between 1902 and 2005 to measure the
submarine’s increasing acceptance within both corporate (RN) and civilian culture by evaluating
their numbers, position and press notices. He located corporate acceptance by the time of the Anglo-
German Naval Agreement (1935); between then and 1965 the navy assimilated the submarine within
a balanced fleet. (2010, pp. 81, 118, 121, 127-46, 162)
Grove identified the ‘changing balance between surface forces and submarines’ after the Second
World War as ‘the development of nuclear propulsion [which] had given the submarine the size and
general characteristics of a capital ship’. The pace was slow, because submarines still occupied a
lower status within the Royal Navy hierarchy. The complex nuclear technology and related missile
development was too expensive for Britain to develop alone and required assistance from US research
and development. At the end of the war the UK had thirty-one submarines, forty-five in 1947, fifty-three
in 1949 and thirty-seven in 1952–53, with forty-three planned in 1955. UK production was allocated
to Vickers in Barrow, Cammell Laird at Birkenhead, Scotts at Greenock and Chatham Dockyard. New
construction of the Porpoise class was tied closely to research into hydrogen peroxide water turbines,
sonar and torpedo, with the new generation based on Fast Battery Drive propulsion. The first of the
Oberon class was laid down at Chatham Dockyard in 1957, commissioned in 1961. Vickers launched the
first nuclear propelled submarine in 1960, HMS Dreadnought, based on the US experience of building
the pressurised water cooled reactor for USS Nautilus and British nuclear research at Harwell and
34
Dounreay (HMS Vulcan). HMS Valiant, launched by Vickers in 1963, was the first all-British nuclear
submarine. (Grove, 1987, pp. 218, 220-32)
The submarine’s metamorphosis from pariah to frontline battleship was signified by the Queen
presenting the submarine service with her colour in 1959, predicting that the “striking power and
versatility of submarines will increase beyond all recognition with the advent of nuclear engines and
guided missiles” and the “nuclear submarine may well become the capital ship round which the Navy
of the future will be built.” Moreover, many of the new nuclear-powered submarines were given
traditional battleship names, signifying the change in perception of their status. Progress was driven
by Britain’s desire for Polaris submarines and thermonuclear anti-ballistic missiles. Following the
financially advantageous 1962 Nassau Agreement to boost NATO resources, the first of four Resolution
class submarines became operational in 1968 (Vickers and Cammell Laird building two each); the
missiles were built by the US and the warheads by the British Atomic Weapons Establishment. Redford
asserted that in 1963 nuclear powered and armed submarines symbolised Harold Wilson’s “white
heat of technology”, modernity and a virile national identity. As aircraft carriers and submarines
competed for limited naval resources, the cancellation of the aircraft carrier replacement programme
in 1966 boosted the submarines’ status. (Redford, 2010, pp. 170-1, 174, 178) Rosyth became the
Polaris refit yard in 1963. Although this yard never recovered its 1945 peak of 6,100 workers, from
1970 its numbers consistently topped 5,000, but fell to 3,283 in 1995. The increasingly technical
aspect of the work was indicated by the proportion of technical and professional non-industrial
workers rising from 10% to 25% of the workforce by 1980. A nuclear submarine base was established
at Faslane in 1968 for maintenance, and missiles were stockpiled nearby at Coulport. In 1965, when
the navy had thirty-seven submarines, Chatham became the refitting and refuelling port for nuclear
submarines until Devonport took over this rôle in the 1980s. (Grove, 1987, pp. 234-43; Law, 1999, pp.
155-6; Haxhaj, 2005)
By the time of the 1977 Silver Jubilee Review, the four Polaris SSBN R class submarines were the
‘sole repository of the United Kingdom’s strategic nuclear deterrent’, as Redford noted. Although the
SSBNs did not attend, 14 submarines formed 13% of the 101 vessels present, the 4 nuclear powered
SSNs leading the other conventionally powered vessels and stationed prominently opposite the largest
warships. Whereas in previous review brochures submarines had been mentioned last, the official
1977 souvenir brochure described the rôle of submarines before the other warships. (Redford, 2010,
pp. 4, 44-5)
In 1997 the MoD contracted Devonport Management Limited (DML) to design and build new and
upgraded facilities at Devonport for refitting and refuelling the Royal Navy’s nuclear submarines, to
‘ensure the effectiveness of this deterrent’. Improved facilities for the Vanguard class (the new Trident
missile submarines) were to be available for the first refit by February 2002. It was estimated that the
project would cost £576 million. With additional funds to prevent delays, HMS Vanguard entered the
dock on time in February 2002 to begin its refit. Upgraded refit facilities for non-Vanguard submarines
were also provided. The MoD met extra costs of £199 million (31%), resulting partly from the costs of
complying with enhanced nuclear safety regulations. (National Audit Office, 2002; Smith, August 2002).
Redford concluded that, by 2010, the submarine ‘has been transformed from being a weapon that
threatens British security to one that defends it.’ (2010, p. 244) The Royal Navy currently has five
Trafalgar class nuclear powered attack submarines dating from the 1980s/1990s whose armament
includes the Spearfish heavyweight torpedo, cruise missiles and Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles; four
Vanguard class nuclear powered ballistic firing submarines armed with Trident nuclear missiles, and
HMS Astute and Ambush, the first of a new hunter-killer class of seven to become operational, carrying
Tomahawk missiles (Submarines Royal Navy, 2014). They are based at Devonport and Faslane, their
future dispositions unaffected by the Scottish independence referendum ‘No’ vote (September 2014),
although the long-term political situation in Scotland remains somewhat uncertain.
35
1.10 Devonport Dockyard overview

The opening of the new docks of the Keyham Extension in 1907 expanded the types of facilities
first provided by the Steam Yard. A power station with a 200 foot high chimney was completed in
Keyham Yard in 1906, delivering electricity and extending working hours in winter. (A Brief History of
Devonport Naval Base, p. 19) Its name was changed to North Yard at the beginning of the twentieth century
(AdL, Vz 14/44, 1900–23). The introduction of multiple turrets on the Dreadnoughts required more heavy
equipment to handle them (a giant crane was installed in 1909) and greatly increased the need for
storage space; in 1911 a machinery shop was converted to a heavy gun store. The expanded fleet also
required new administrative facilities. In 1910 a new Central Office (N215 or COB III, 1903, 1910, II,
1378574, SX 45103 55598) was opened at Keyham. Much later, in 1966–70, this was supplemented by new
Central Offices: N235 (COB II) and COB I, which has since been demolished. It is unclear whether the
traditional hierarchical layout of offices survived the introduction of Burolandschaft (flexible office hierarchy
landscapes) in the mid-twentieth century. In 1932 Civil Engineers’ Offices opened at Keyham, and these
of necessity would have had different layouts from those intended for purely clerical and administrative
purposes. However, Central Office Block (N215), seen in 2013, retained traditional rooms off corridors.
At the beginning of the First World War Plymouth was the base for the Western Approaches Squadron
of mostly older warships. Devonport serviced the ships of the Grand Fleet and fitted out Q ships (A
Brief History of Devonport Naval Base, p. 28). Introduction of frozen foodstuffs on a large scale led to a
Cold Store Depôt being constructed on Wharf No. 5/6. Erected ‘as a War Measure by the Ministry
of Food’, it was ‘offered to Admiralty without financial charge for General Store Purposes subject to
being available again in case of emergency’ (AdL, Vz 14/43, 1908–23). It has since been demolished,
with a car park on its site. The battleships Nelson and Rodney, built during the 1920s, were wider than
any which had preceded them. Consequently, some basins and docks were widened – by 1939 Dock
No. 10 could take any ship in the navy, with the exception of HMS Hood. Workshops were extended
in the late 1920s, and in the 1930s a new Electrical Shop was built fronting Basin No. 4.
For the bulk of the Second World War, new building was limited at Devonport. Indeed, the most
significant result of the war was almost wholly destructive. The independent town of Devonport,
established in the 1820s and 1830s, had several notable public buildings by the architect John Foulston,
who was to be very unlucky in the fate of his buildings. The principal ones in Plymouth itself were
destroyed in the war, and most of those in Devonport were engulfed by the extension of the yard,
essentially destroying the townscape and reducing Devonport to a collection of council houses, some
more effective than others. After the war, plans, adjusted several times, were made for extensions, and
as a result, the dockyard wall was not completed until 1962.
During the late 1950s, a more creative extension resulted in the Goschen Yard Extension and its new
Electrical Factory. From 1970 two major developments brought the yard back to the cutting-edge
position it had enjoyed in the 1850s. Some shipbuilding and ship modernisation was carried out in the
1950s, but warship building ceased in the 1960s, the last warship to be launched being the frigate Scylla
in 1968. During the 1970s, the nuclear Submarine Refit Complex introduced a new technology to the
north end of Keyham Yard, with a new landmark in the shape of a massive crane for lifting nuclear
fuel containers in and out of the submarines. Cranes are of all pieces of dockyard equipment the most
visible from without the yard and the most vulnerable to changes in dockyard use. With the change
from vertical to low loading of the fuel, the crane became redundant, and was dismantled relatively
recently. (Smith, March 2009) Buildings between North Lock and Dock No. 10 were demolished in
1972. The complex was completed in 1981 with two dry docks, a wet berth and workshops. North
Lock was converted into Dock Nos 11 and 12 to take submarines, and a floating dock was brought
from Portsmouth (Wessex, 1999, Report 46311.22, p. 20). Starting in 1993, nuclear support facilities
have been the subject of an extensive redevelopment programme – new buildings comprising two
new Plant Houses, a Production Building, a Reactor Refuelling Production Building, an Entrance
Building, a Primary Circuit Decontamination/Alternative Core Removal Cooling Plant, a Low Level
Refuelling Facility, upgrading Dock Nos 14 and 15, a Power Range testing Berth, a new Equipment
Maintenance and Storage Facility and new offices.
36
Also commencing in 1970 was the other major development, the Leander class Frigate Complex,
encompassing nineteenth century Dock Nos 5, 6 and 7 (lengthening 5 and 6) (Wessex, 1999, Report
46311.22, p. 20). This can be seen as the late twentieth century equivalent of the great covered
building slips and the roofs added to the older Portsmouth docks in the nineteenth century, and marks
their continuing presence.
Other late twentieth century developments included new workshops in North Yard, the opening of
the Fleet Maintenance Base in 1978, and a new Jetty off South Yard to support weapons systems
training. Weston Mill was reclaimed from the River Hamoaze during 1972–79, and houses assault
ships (now supplemented by amphibious facilities). Following the closure of Portland, Flag Officer Sea
Training (which trains other NATO, as well as British, warships), was transferred to Devonport. By
1998, the yard was the home base for seven fleet submarines and twenty-four surface vessels (Wessex,
1999, Report 46311.22, p. 20).
The internal communications systems of the Devonport yards have been the subject of continuous
development. From being three disconnected yards, heavily serviced by connections to the main
line railway system, they have progressively been connected by road, with the rail connections
suppressed. With the shrinkage of South Yard, the civilian community of Devonport is regaining land
as public access to Foulston’s buildings is restored, and the MoD’s disposal of the whole of South Yard
is imminent.
1.11 Portsmouth Dockyard overview

The 1890s saw the first modernisation structures produced by the Naval Defence Act of 1889 and
Naval Works Act of 1895, with the building of Dry Dock Nos 14 and 15. In 1896 the Gunnery
Equipment Shop was built and Dock No. 14 was flooded for the first time. The first RN barracks were
built 1899–1903 on the site of the original Anglesey Army Barracks and later re-named HMS Victory
(c.100 acres with accommodation for 4,000 men, a canteen and concert hall). Portsea’s Lion Gate was
its first entrance, and Anchor Gate gave access from the north in 1906. In 1903 the Factory was built,
the ‘largest engineering workshop built in the yard up to that date.’ (Coad, 2013, p. 46) Signifying
a new era of communications and power, the telephone exchange was built in 1903 and the power
station in 1904–6. In 1906 the launch of HMS Dreadnought from Slip No. 5 signalled the production of
modern warships. Supporting the investment in docks and basins, (North) Pumping Station No. 4
was built in 1911, and C and D locks and Basin No. 3 in 1912. In 1913 a fire destroyed the Sail Loft
and the Semaphore Tower. Battlecruiser HMS Princess Royal was the first ship into C Lock where the
Coaling Station was once located, no longer required for new oil-fired ships. In 1914 the lengthening
of Dry Dock No. 14 was completed. Some damage was caused by the Zeppelin raid in 1916. During
the First World War 1,658 ships were docked at Portsmouth for refit or repair, Wessex noting: ‘1914 less
shipbuilding – more repair’ (1999, Report 46311.11, p. 7).
After the war, construction was limited to cruisers and smaller ships (PRDHT). Wessex reported a
‘dramatic decline in ship building though some rehabilitation work’ in the interwar years (1999, Report
46311.11, p. 7). New buildings were constructed in the 1920s, and the replacement Rigging House and
Semaphore Tower were completed in 1929. Portions of Portsea’s Lion Gate were re-used in the base of
the rebuilt Semaphore Tower and on 4 July 1930 the Semaphore Tower re-opened. South Railway Jetty
was reconstructed and in 1931 Dockyard East Gate opened, signalling a slow increase in work after
the recession. Boathouse No. 4 was a major new building constructed 1938–40 during the prelude to
the Second World War. In 1939 the eastern pocket was built in Basin No. 3 and the Light Plate Shop
Extension built.
During the Second World War the Main Gate was widened in 1943 to accommodate bigger vehicles.
In 1944 the new Marlborough Gate became a new entrance, three Portsea streets having been taken
into the dockyard. Repairs and refits were carried out, ‘plus construction of air raid shelters and dock
37
caissons’. Mulberry Harbours - the concrete pontoons used to construct artificial harbours for the
D-Day operations - were built in C and D Locks (WEA, 2010, p. 4).
During the 1950s Portsmouth carried out limited ship refits and rebuilds (Wessex, 1999, Report
46311.11, pp. 7, 22). St Ann’s Church, which had lost its west end through Second World War
bombing, was reconstructed in 1955 from the original 1785 drawings. In 1962, Fountain Lake Jetty
was rebuilt and in the 1960s the Ropehouse was remodelled as a storehouse capable of holding
modern machinery, its roof and windows altered. In 1964 the last Beerhouse closed and in 1967
300 years of sustained shipbuilding ceased with the launching of the frigate Andromeda. In 1977 the
dockyard rail link from Portsmouth’s main station closed. There was a minor land extension when
the new Unicorn Gate was built southwards along Unicorn Road and the original Unicorn Gate was
isolated on a roundabout. North Corner development began in 1979, combining North, Middle and
South Slip jetties into one new jetty. Dock Complexes 1 and 2 were built south of Basin No. 3 in
1979 and 1976 respectively. Nos 12, 13, 14 and 15 Dock Complex was built. The Block Mills closed in
1983. Defence cuts gradually reduced operations at Portsmouth and as a result of the 1981 Defence
Review Portsmouth Naval Base became a Fleet Operating and Maintenance Base in October 1984. Its
primary task was the support, maintenance and repair of Portsmouth-based operational ships, and
some ships underwent refit.
The 250 ton Arrol crane was removed from Basin No. 3 Promontory in 1984 and in 1990–91 Dock
Nos 7 and 10 were infilled for car parking. In 1998 Portsmouth was the home base for forty-six
surface vessels (Wessex, 1999, Report 46311.11, p. 22). In 1993 the new Naval Base Commander’s
HQ, Victory Building, was built and in 2002 shipbuilding recommenced over the infilled Dock No.
13. In 2010 the Old Iron Foundry was restored and converted into BAES offices. The 2010 Strategic
Defence and Security Review (SDSR) required the reduction of Royal Navy personnel by around 5,000
to a total of c.30,000 by 2015 and 29,000 by 2020 (SDSR, 2010, p. 32). Nevertheless, from April 2012
Jaffry identified Portsmouth as ‘the base port for 29 Royal Naval surface vessels and just under half the
crews’ (Jaffry et al., 2012, p. 17). Both Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers will be based in Portsmouth
(SDSR 2010, pp. 23, 32).
2. CHARACTERISATION
As this is a characterisation study, Devonport and Portsmouth Dockyards are characterised to place
them in context. Character distinguishes relationships between buildings and their meanings.
Character is subjective, affected by social, political and economic inputs which locate its meaning
within a time continuum. In an English Heritage discussion paper, ‘Sustaining the Historic Environment’,
Graham Fairclough defined “character” as “cherished and familiar local scene”, local distinctiveness,
sense of place, etc.’ He asserted that an historic building’s context should ‘include its relationship to
past uses, its place in the overall character of an area and its place in an individual’s memory or a
society’s culture.’ (1997, pp. 39-40)
Fig. 23. Large decorative scrolled abutments on Rochefort Dockyard Ropery (1666–69). A. Coats
2008. They are also used on Rodney (1847, NE/14), the Gymnasium south elevation roof gable
(1899), the gable on the north elevation of nearby Barham (1899, NE/82) in HMS Nelson Barracks,
and the date plaque (1903) on the north elevation of The Factory (1903, 3/82).
Fig. 24. Louis XIV’s personal ‘L’ emblem at Rochefort Dockyard Ropery (1666–69). A. Coats 2008.
Fig. 25. Former Naval Academy at Portsmouth (1729–32, 1/14), east elevation. A. Coats 2014.
Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 26. Former Naval Academy at Portsmouth (1729–32, 1/14) cupola. A. Coats 2014.
38
National distinctiveness in architecture has been related to the unique characteristics of a specific
realm. (Forty, 2000, p. 128 citing Burckhardt) However, nationals have visited each other’s dockyards
and exchanged personnel for centuries, so many features are universal: docks, slips, storehouses,
workshops and security walls, frequently associated with ropemaking, ordnance, victualling, hospital
and accommodation facilities. National characteristics may be distinguished by use of materials,
contemporary architectural style and detail, such as Louis XIV’s personalized baroque ropehouse
at Rochefort. However, the cultures of many European nations share a neoclassical architectural
language which has been dispersed around the world. Do Devonport and Portsmouth express
uniquely British dockyard characteristics? While storehouses are palpably generic, the Former Naval
Academy at Portsmouth does look distinctively British, due to a combination of neoclassical style
and use of local bricks. Most historic dockyard buildings which survived Second World War damage
have been adapted rather than demolished, due to their scheduling in the 1960s. The dockyards
have retained many historic characteristics which convey British state investment, durability and vertu.
Historic dockyard gateways employ specifically British symbols, such as royal standards or icons,
seen at Portsmouth’s Nelson and Unicorn Gates. The new Portsmouth Trafalgar Gate and link road,
named Princess Royal Way by HRH The Princess Royal on 29 June 2011, communicates its Britishness
through images of iconic warships on its approach and a softer message: ‘Welcome to HM NAVAL
BASE PORTSMOUTH Proud to Support our Fleet’, children’s paintings and maritime planting.
Fig. 27. South elevation of Portsmouth HMS Nelson/Main Gate (1734, 1899–1903) on Queen Street,
showing on the right the uninterrupted view of the Parade Ground which was reinstated in 1956.
A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 28. Welcome message borne on the electricity substation (c.1950, 3/156) at Portsmouth
Trafalgar Gate (2011). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 29. Portsmouth Unicorn Training Centre Gate (1980). A. Coats 2014. Reproduced with the
permission of the MoD.
Fig. 30. Images of the future navy, utilising wind power, designed by pupils of nearby Flying Bull
School at Portsmouth Trafalgar Gate (2011). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of
the MoD.
Fig. 31. Images of HMS Queen Elizabeth 2016 and HMS Princess Royal 1911 in Portsmouth Princess Royal
Way (2011). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 32. Maritime planting at Portsmouth Trafalgar Gate (2011). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the
Value is an essential part of character. In a recent Conservation Bulletin Paul Drury asserted that
‘understanding the materiality of the past is a pre-requisite to valuing it.’ He also identified a positive
“democratisation of heritage” since the 1990s, with English Heritage’s hierarchy of values: evidential,
historical, aesthetic and communal, becoming more subjective (Spring 2009, pp. 7-8). Writing in 2009,
Gibson and Pendlebury discussed the problems of treating ‘different cultural, historical and social
values as equal’ and the consequences of fixing ‘meaning and value’. They contended that value is
no longer just defined by experts, but involves supporting and valuing community stories, objects and
places. They also identified Fairclough’s Sustaining the Historic Environment: New Perspectives on the Future (1997),
English Heritage’s Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance (2006) and the Council of Europe Framework
Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (2005) as creating greater public engagement
(Gibson & Pendlebury 2009, pp. 1-4, 8-9). This study identifies value specific to twentieth century
dockyards and community narratives.
Cultural heritage was defined in the European Framework Convention as:
a group of resources inherited from the past which people identify, independently of ownership,
as a reflection and expression of their constantly evolving values, beliefs, knowledge and
39
traditions. It includes all aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between
people and places through time.
A heritage community was defined as ‘people who value specific aspects of cultural heritage which they
wish, within the framework of public action, to sustain and transmit to future generations.’ (Council of
Europe, 2005, Articles 2a, 2b, p. 3) Article 5a undertook to ‘recognise the public interest associated with
elements of the cultural heritage in accordance with their importance to society’, and 5b to ‘enhance the
value of the cultural heritage through its identification, study, interpretation, protection, conservation and
presentation’. Article 14c sought to improve access to ‘information relating to cultural heritage’. (2005, pp. 4, 7)
The Council of the European Union has recently (20 May 2014) recognised that:
cultural heritage consists of the resources inherited from the past in all forms and aspects
- tangible, intangible and digital (born digital and digitized), including monuments, sites,
landscapes, skills, practices, knowledge and expressions of human creativity, as well as
collections conserved and managed by public and private bodies such as museums, libraries
and archives. It originates from the interaction between people and places through time
and it is constantly evolving. These resources are of great value to society from a cultural,
environmental, social and economic point of view and thus their sustainable management
constitutes a strategic choice for the 21st century;
It emphasises the important rôle cultural heritage plays in developing social cohesion and its economic
impact in enhancing sustainable cultural tourism and generating diverse types of employment (Council
of Europe, 20 May 2014). This report will be made accessible online through Historic England and
Naval Dockyards Society websites to widen public knowledge and understanding of these dockyards.
Buckingham, McMillan and Wilson in Conservation Bulletin 62 reminded us that:
Local heritage assets can represent anything from street furniture to historic plantings, rural
buildings to industrial sites. Many not only provide the setting and context for nationally
designated assets, but also serve to document the “meaning of place” built around locally
significant events, people and traditions.
Additionally, they note that the knowledge of local people is invaluable in both characterising
local heritage assets and publicising Heritage Environment Records (HERs) as ‘key depositories for
information about the whole local historic environment’ (Autumn 2009, p. 11-12). This twentieth
century dockyards study has worked with local stakeholders to add resources to local HERs at
Devonport and Plymouth.
Broadbent noted Pevsner’s distinction between Lincoln cathedral as ‘architecture’ and a bicycle shed
as a ‘mere building’. (Broadbent, 1988, pp. x-xi; Pevsner, 1943, p. 23) As Broadbent commented,
both are climatic filters and both enclose space, but the cathedral is a ‘richer piece of design than the
bicycle shed.’ In a dockyard context bicycles signify the particular collective power and occupational
identity of the twentieth century ‘matey’, therefore bike sheds have been highly significant structures
within the dockyard landscape; albeit diminished somewhat at the end of the century by lower
employment numbers and increased car use. As dockyard workers were drawn from further away
than Portsea, for four centuries Portsmouth Dockyard’s neighbourhood, the remarkable lunchtime
bicycle exodus persisted until the mid-1970s. There is no doubt, however, that the more complex
types of twentieth century buildings, such as the Factory (3/82), Boathouse No. 6 (1/6) and North
Pumping Station (2/239) merited a greater input of design than bike sheds and substations, and this
will be discussed under architectural characteristics.
Fig. 33. Portsmouth D East Substation, built as Motor Generator House No. 18 and extended in 1950
(1939, 2/205), enhanced by a painted flagpole. A. Coats, 2013. Reproduced with the permission of
the MoD.
40
Fig. 34. Twentieth century Portsmouth bicycle shed near North Camber. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced
with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 35. Twenty-first century Portsmouth bicycle shed on Mountbatten Way. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 36. Twenty-first century Portsmouth bicycle shed near Dock No. 12. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced
Many twentieth century dockyard buildings are square or rectangular boxes with little specific
‘dockyard’ character: generic small substations or workshops whose utilitarian function is contained
within the simplest and most economical structure, built typically in unremarkable brick with minimal
decoration. They continue the function of similar lost small buildings constructed by local officers, which
have ‘rarely…made any significant architectural contribution.’ (Coad, 1913, pp. 144, 146) Having said
that, Portsmouth D East Substation (2/205, SU 63386 01048) is ornamented by a decorative flagpole.
Above this most basic level is a hierarchy of buildings whose design has been governed by specific
needs, such as pumping stations, power stations, gun mounting stores, boathouses, storehouses,
offices, ship halls or accommodation blocks. The sophistication of their design has been influenced
by the contemporary worth of their function, the cost of the process or equipment involved, and
the perceived power identity located within that building. A smaller category of buildings comprises
administrative centres and officer accommodation. Forty explored characterisation as a combining
form and atmosphere, which can concentrate on appearance, but should relate to function. (2000, pp.
120-2) These considerations apply to this study.
Historic dockyards which operate as naval bases are subject to the most pressing financial and
operational constraints, and Drury asked, how can ‘conservation obligations be reconciled with the
need to keep buildings in everyday use?’ Where the operational needs of the navy might conflict
with heritage values, he stipulated that ‘a statement of significance needs to indicate the relative
importance of the heritage values of a place, how they relate to its fabric, and any obvious tensions
between potentially conflicting values.’ (Spring 2009, pp. 1, 9-10) The same issues apply to commercial
users, such as Princess Yachts in Devonport South Yard. In the next decade the differing operational
profiles of Devonport and Portsmouth will cause divergent patterns of use, but Devonport lacks a
Conservation Area and a Conservation Management Plan for the naval base and Portsmouth lacks
a Conservation Area Statement for Conservation Area 22, and only a brief reference to the naval
barracks buildings in Conservation Area 18 Guidelines.
The debate of whose culture should be valued most highly, for example, when negotiating the relative
priorities between the naval/commercial needs and designation of buildings, should be assessed in
the light of informed argument. Historic England will hold discussions with interested parties within
Portsmouth naval base and heritage area on further designations of twentieth century buildings
to protect their specific characteristics. Twentieth century character and value at Devonport and
Portsmouth has therefore been assessed as a topic of interest to a wide section of owners, managers
and historians.
In Conservation Bulletin 60 Philip Davies evaluated design principles for new buildings or refurbishment
of older buildings within townscapes. He asserted that through a ‘heritage-values-led approach
(evidential, aesthetic, historic and communal), the character of an area could now be identified more
widely (2009, p. 12). Reviewing the ‘old-fashioned, fundamentalist dogma that architecture must
express the zeitgeist, or spirit of the age’, Davies argued that architects can select from ‘architectural
traditions and styles depending on what will best sustain the heritage value of a place.’ He contended:
‘when new buildings are designed in old places, we need to understand the role and purpose of a
building or group of buildings within the context and hierarchy of a place as a whole’ (Spring 2009,
pp. 13-14). Robert Adam, in Conservation Bulletin 62, echoed Davies’s revisionist arguments to refute the
principle of the 1964 Venice Charter and promoted by Le Corbusier: that ‘deliberate difference is an
obligation to the historic process’. Adam supported ‘a popular modern sentiment that historic places
41
with a valued character should have that character perpetuated, not altered or destroyed by explicit
contrast or difference.’ (2009, pp. 5-6) This study will evaluate the styles of new twentieth century
buildings within their settings.
In the same Conservation Bulletin, Ptolemy Dean highlighted the ‘completeness and continuity that had
made the designation of a conservation area valuable in the first place’ to convey the ‘very essence
of place’, rather than just valuing specific listed buildings. Conservation Area status should protect
character buildings from ‘insensitive change to their detailed external appearance’. A bland entrance bay
obscuring its magnificent frontage was added to Portsmouth’s Factory (3/82) in 1996, but it is outside
Conservation Area 22 (City of Portsmouth, 1981), therefore unprotected. Dean also underlined an
environmental and energy conservation issue which could in the future affect timber framed buildings
such as Portsmouth’s Boathouse No. 7 (1/29): ‘Increasingly it is required that all buildings, including
old and historic ones, must be made more thermally efficient.’ (Autumn 2009, pp. 8, 9) With its walls
and roofs ‘leaking energy like a sieve’ (Goodship, pers. comm., 2013), it seems unachievable to devise
ways of addressing this without destroying the building’s character and value. Modern insulation,
new heating systems and photovoltaics do not fit easily within listed buildings. The overall character
Conservation Area 22: H.M. Naval Base and St George’s Square has not been assessed as there is no
Conservation Area statement. This is a matter of concern as changes cannot be monitored over time.
Innovation is a crucial dockyard characteristic. The civilian administration of the dockyards often
introduced developments before private industry, such as time-work-discipline (clocks have been
displayed in dockyards since 1603) and built ropehouses rather than open air ropewalks. Edmund
Dummer introduced a palace-fronted terrace in 1695–98 in Devonport, which Coad suggests may
have been influenced by Robert Hooke’s Bethlehem Hospital or Les Invalides in Paris, both built in
the 1670s, but Mazeika and Richards claim that an earlier example existed at Deptford Dockyard. The
Officers’ Terrace at Deptford is depicted in a 1688 plan in BL, King’s MS 43 (Dummer’s 1698 Survey
of the Royal Dockyards), pre-dating the Plymouth terrace by at least ten years. While the Plymouth
Terrace is of a grander scale and a single build, the Deptford terrace forms the first palace front terrace
in a royal naval yard and possibly the first in England. Dummer’s stone altars, twin dock gates, dock
pumping mechanisms and wet basins to repair ships were revolutionary methods to facilitate efficient
working in the 1690s. Coad argued that by 1700 dockyards ‘were very much the industrial centres of
England, the combination of crafts and skills then probably without parallel in their diversity.’ (Coats,
2000, p. 10; Coad, 1983, pp. 344-7; Mazeika, 2013; Mazeika & Richards, 2015; Coad, 2001, p. 29)
The navy had coppered hulls in the 1770s, but Samuel Bentham applied scientific principles to
dockyard management by design. His use of steam power for pumping out Portsmouth reservoir
in 1799, ‘the first factory in the world to use machine tools for mass production’ of blocks, his 1802
wooden ship-caisson7 to improve on gates to open docks and basins, and fireproofing methods in
the 1770s storehouses and Portsmouth Pay Office 1808 all preceded their use in private industry.
Perhaps most importantly, Bentham and Simon Goodrich institutionalised collaboration with iron
masters, machine makers, toolmakers and foundrymen, who, along with Royal Engineers, became
an extension of the Admiralty and Navy Board research and design process. An Archaeological
Watching Brief for Dock No. 3 (built 1799–1803), carried out for the Mary Rose Trust in 2011, praised
‘the engineering skill and monumental effort needed to build such a large structure over a relatively
short period.’ They marvelled at ‘the accuracy and skill displayed by the stonemasons and [felt that]
the physical effort require to excavate enormous quantities of material would pose a serious challenge
to modern construction methods.’ Archaeologists found that its Portland limestone ‘was bonded with
a hard white Portland mortar’ which was normally dated 1830–1950, therefore ‘the use of this type
of mortar can be taken as evidence of an innovative early use of the material, a building technology
known to have been pioneered by the military at this time.’ (Watson, 2011, p. 61, para. 9.1.4, p. 64)
7
Bentham spelled the word ‘cassoon’, which may be the origin of its dockyard pronunciation. This spelling was
used in a description of Samuel Bentham’s patent for ‘an Invention for a secure and economical Mode of laying
Foundations applicable to the Projection of Wharfs and Piers into deep Water.’ (1812) Patents Lately Enrolled, The
Monthly Magazine, 33, p. 257.
42
Coad points out that not all Bentham’s plans were carried out: his 1812 planned Panopticon dockyard
offices, linking workshops and storehouses, would have rationalised workspace management at
Sheerness, but in that year Bentham’s post was abolished. However, Brunel’s steam-powered sawing
in 1814, dockyard use of concrete from the 1830s, factory design, the use of corrugated iron for
covering slips in the 1840s and cladding and early use of cast iron columns and cross struts at
Portsmouth to support the new reservoir supplying the fire main (later the Fire Station) in 1844
were ahead of commercial developments. Between 1844 and 1857 eighteen revolutionary widespan
iron buildings with cast and wrought iron frames and roofs and clad with corrugated galvanised
iron, were designed by Royal Engineers and fabricated by contractors, Fox Henderson, George
Baker and Son and Henry Grissell. At Portsmouth, Lieutenant Roger Beatson designed cast iron
columns and the exceptional under-trussed iron girders in Boathouse No. 6 in 1845 and Colonel G. T.
Greene’s 1858 four-storey Boatstore at Sheerness, ‘one of the earliest multi-story, iron frame buildings’,
became the precursor of modern factory buildings. Lake and Douet attribute the ‘logistically-efficent
factories in the sense that we recognise them today’ to the dockyard rebuilding, 1840–60. Captain
Henry James designed iron framing and corrugated iron cladding for the Portsmouth Smithery in
1849, completed 1855, their first combined use for a permanent workshop. Introduction of steam
power for motion paralleled industry, although development of steam powered ships was deferred
until the Admiralty could depend on engine and boiler reliability, hull strengthening, space for
engines and bunkers and coaling and maintenance facilities for long voyages. Hydraulic power,
generating equipment and accumulators were introduced throughout dockyards in the 1850s, closely
following their use in the London docks. In 1903 there was widespread investment in electrical
generation for motive power in all the yards. (Lake & Douet 1998 pp. 19, 57-8, 68; Coad, 2001, p.
28; Hawkins, 2014; Evans, 2004, pp. 35-7, 42-75; 88-105; Winter, 1970, pp. 45-51; Coad, 2013, pp.
12-13, Chapter 2, 66-9, 72-5, 77, 79, 83, 88-91, 94-5, 121, 126-7, 148, 164, 188-9, 194, 203-5, 208, 392)
The timeliness of this twentieth century characterisation study is highlighted by English Heritage’s
2008 survey of Heritage at Risk Conservation Areas (2009, p. 2), compiled from returns from 75% of Local
Authorities, which found:
• 1 in 7 of the conservation areas surveyed has deteriorated in the last three years
• 9% are expected to deteriorate over the next three years
• Urban conservation areas are twice as likely to be at risk than rural ones
• Public realm problems are 10 times worse in urban conservation areas than rural ones
• 48% of conservation areas still lack character appraisals.
This twentieth century characterisation of dockyards thus addresses the socially relevant ‘contemporary
past’ because ‘it relates directly to people’s everyday lives’ (English Heritage, Contemporary heritage and
character, 2013) and compares the results with Heritage England’s hierarchy of evidential, historical,
aesthetic and communal values.
2.1. Characterisation process

Philip Davies, editor of Valuing Places: Good Practice in Conservation Areas (2011), summarised the process:
The first step is to establish general agreement on what elements are architecturally or
historically significant, and why, and to assess their relative significance. The second is to
formulate policies that will protect those elements that are of greater significance, and to
provide guidance on the way those of lesser significance may be adapted or replaced to meet
changing needs. The third is to ensure that when new interventions are made they reinforce
local distinctiveness and historic character. (p. 3)
43
Following the 1990 White Paper, This Common Inheritance, Britain’s Environmental Strateg y, English Heritage
sought to integrate historic depth and character within landscape assessment, leading to its 1990s
Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) programme, pioneered in Cornwall in 1996 (Herring,
1998). According to Thomas (Winter 2004–5, p. 11), this focused on pre-eighteenth century historic
urban settings, although the Power of Place agenda brought industrial areas within the programme. Power
of Place stated that ‘We need to understand better the character of places and the value and significance
people ascribe to them. Character assessments are the key. They may be large or small scale’. (English
Heritage, 2000, p. 5)
According to Fairclough, head of the English Heritage Characterisation Team:
Historic landscape characterisation is concerned with recognising the many ways in which
the present countryside reflects how people have exploited and changed their physical
environment, and adapted to it through time. It considers this with respect to different social,
economic, technological and cultural aspects of life, and the varied underlying influences of
geography, history and tradition. It seeks to identify patterns of change and important relics of
past change, and to analyse how and why patterns consistently vary from one place to another.
The core premise of historic landscape characterisation and its application in planning and
conservation is that relationships between people and their environment are dynamic and ever
changing. (Fairclough et al., 2002, p. 69; citing Countryside Commission 1993; 1997; Fairclough
et al., 1999)
The HLC programme identified an approach based on universal character, published in Yesterday’s
World, Tomorrow’s Landscape (Fairclough et al., 1999). Historic landscapes are characterised using a
standard methodology. The premises of the HLC Programme were highlighted by Fairclough et al.
(2002 p. 70) and reviewed by Aldred & Fairclough in 2003:
• character is appreciated through its associations
• ‘historic landscape character now only exists in the present-day landscape’
• character is ‘indivisible, but locally distinctive’
• ‘historic landscape is an idea, not a thing’
• historic character is part of a ‘wider landscape character’
• historic landscape is ‘the product of change… an artefact of past landuse, social structures and
political decisions’
• ‘The role of complex historic process in the landscape needs to be given full recognition,
with particular reference to patterns and inter-relationships within and between areas and to
evolution, change and continuity, all of which are legible in the current landscape in various
ways.’
• ‘future landscape change is inevitable because landscape is and always has been a product of
change’
This study addresses these criteria.
While the Hampshire HLC project was predominantly directed at a rural and agricultural landscape,
its methodology encompassed Portsmouth (Fairclough et al., 2002, pp. 70, 73), comprising landscape
change, time-depth in the current landscape and historical attributes of the current landscape.
Appendix B, Hampshire Historic Landscape categories and types (2002, p. 83) includes
1. Field Patterns
8. Coastal
8.4 Reclaimed land
44
8.5 Harbours and marinas

8.7 Mud flats
12 Extractive & Industry
12.3 Industrial complexes and factories
12.5 Reservoirs and water treatment
12.6 Dockyards
14 Military and Defence
14.5 20thcentury (1914-)
S. C. Turner’s Devon Historic Landscape Characterisation Phase 1 Report included the categories and types
relevant to Devonport: 5. Military complex HLC type (dockyards in Plymouth). Following Cornwall’s
HLC (citing Herring, 1999, p. 21), it identified ten Industrial disused types, eleven Industrial active
types and fourteen Military types at Devonport Industrial and Military complex. Turner considered
that:
a single dominant character ‘type’ needs to be defined despite an area potentially having features
from several periods of land-use types contributing to overall character. This consideration
also leads to problems associated with ‘time-depth’; a ‘recent’ landscape (e.g. one created
by nineteenth-century enclosure) may conceal strong elements of another kind of landscape
(Turner, 2005, p. 7, citing Herring, 1998, pp. 106-9; Herring, 1999, p. 22)
This is true at Portsmouth, where twentieth century buildings succeeded timber storage spaces which
were previously the Commissioner’s meadow. It would be difficult to assign a single character type
to either dockyard, as chronologies overlap and buildings have had multiple uses over the centuries.
This twentieth century dockyards study is also map-based and chronological, treating landscape as
material culture produced by human action to create an ongoing characterisation. (Fairclough et al.,
2002, pp. 71-3) In 2004–5 Roger M. Thomas contended that ‘Characterisation attempts to define what
makes a place special. This allows an estimate to be made of how much change, and of what sorts,
a place can absorb without losing its distinctive qualities.’ (2004–5, p. 12) Character types are to be
defined and mapped, for example, ‘19th-century terraced housing where the street grid mirrors earlier
field boundaries.’ (2004–5, p. 17) The earliest building in Portsmouth Dockyard, the seventeenth
century Ropehouse, was aligned with the field strips of West Dock Field. Later buildings from the
eighteenth to the twentieth century continued this alignment long after the West Dock Field strips
had disappeared at the end of the eighteenth century. (Hodson, 1978, p. 80; Chapman, 1978, pp. 4-5)
The Wessex Archaeology (1999) characterisation study for Devonport and Portsmouth Dockyards noted
their significance because of their ‘roles in the rise of the Royal Navy to international supremacy in
the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.’ They also observed their significance ‘in the history of civil
engineering and industrialisation, making thereby a further contribution to the development of the
United Kingdom as a modern global power.’ The Wessex aim was to ‘to facilitate the management of
its below ground archaeological remains.’ It also created an online relational project database linked to
an integrated mapping system cross-referencing structures by unique index numbers. Structures were
to be classified by activity groups: ‘Maritime; Military; Industrial; Administrative; Social.’ Management
zones (fifty-six at Devonport; thirty-four at Portsmouth) were characterised to aggregate their functions
and arrive at a value/content according to period (currency), rarity, diversity (form) and period
(representativity). (Wessex Reports 46311.21 and 46311.11, pp. 2-3) At Portsmouth, each component
(structure) was given a unique index number, a description and its earlier names, and map location
(Wessex, 1999, Report 46311.11.II). However, grid references and building numbers were not assigned,
which would have made cross-referencing easier. Portsmouth Source Index linked the component
index numbers to primary sources (maps, elevations and plans), many of which are dated, held in
archives (Wessex, 1999, Report 46311.11.I). These provide useful sources for further study.
45
Anthony Firth reported in Conservation Bulletin 44 (June 2003, p. 36) that the Wessex project aimed to
identify below-ground remains and those which required scheduling or were deemed significant,
and to recommend archaeology management proposals for the two bases. The project divided the
bases into components/structures located on a Geographical Information System, cross-referenced to
previous archaeological investigations. Each dockyard was divided into management zones, proposing
scheduling changes at both bases. It did not, however, identify that Devonport South Yard lacked a
conservation management plan.
Difficulties in accessing the dockyards, copyright issues concerning twentieth century charts and
‘accessing information about post-1950 development’ prevented Wessex completing Objective 3 ‘to
identify and locate any significant areas of post-1945 development.’ It was therefore agreed with
English Heritage ‘not to pursue the C20th development of the Dockyard[s].’ (Wessex Reports 46311.21
and 46311.11, pp. 2-3)
Wessex Archaeology’s (2004) Conservation Statement for Portsmouth covers only Conservation Area 22,
that is, the Heritage Area extended north to Victoria Road to include Dock No. 6 and the Block Mills
(1/153); and west to include the Georgian buildings as far as Short Row (1/68-72), the Commissioner’s
Stables/Contract Cleaner Office (1/73) and Marlborough Gate. It therefore covers only c.22 acres,
equal to around 8.5% of the land area of the naval base. Their report is informed by an extensive
historiography, but twentieth century dockyard heritage lacks such an in-depth study or analysis, so
the current NDS report needed to break new ground. Compared with earlier periods of dockyard
studies, which are supported by an extensive bibliography such as Coad (1989), Lake and Douet
(1998), Evans (2004), Hamilton (2005), Evans (2006) and Coad (2013), few books have been written
about twentieth century dockyards.
As the 1999 and 2004 Wessex surveys did not provide sufficient twentieth century data for the two
dockyards to deliver the English Heritage Research Strateg y Agenda 2005–2010 (November 2005), the National
Heritage Protection Plan Project 6265 was implemented, leading to this NDS report (May 2012, p. 15;
English Heritage, July 2012, p. 4). Both industrial and military characteristics are pertinent for the
characterisation of Devonport and Portsmouth Dockyards in the twentieth century.
2.2 Military characteristics

Sir Neil Cossons stressed recently that ‘Britain’s rise as an industrial, imperial and global power and
as a trading nation put unprecedented and constantly changing demands upon the Navy.’ The state’s
‘culture of enterprise’ and investment in a stable bureaucracy, and the navy’s geopolitical success and
innovation:
allowed naval buildings and civil engineering works to be planned and constructed on a
scale and with a permanency that until the 19 th century could rarely, if ever, be rivalled by
commercial concerns, often subject to short term thinking and less predictable access to
capital. (Foreword to Coad, 2013, pp. ix, x)
Similarly, Mara also perceives that ‘regimented naval quarters and warehouses forming endless
vistas in Portsmouth’s 800-year-old Historic Dockyard convey an overwhelming sense of power’.
(Mara, 2013)
In 1995 Schofield and Lake in Conservation Bulletin 27, ‘Defining our Defence Heritage’ (pp. 16-18),
reported that ‘the remains of both World Wars and the Cold War are being considered seriously as
part of England’s heritage’, including dockyard defences (1660–1914). They were, however, looking at
defensive sites associated with dockyards, rather than dockyards themselves.
Lake and Douet’s (1998) landmark appraisal Thematic Survey of English Naval Dockyards merits detailed
scrutiny for the heritage context of Devonport and Portsmouth Dockyards, although it ends in 1914.
46
They compared industrial character and type survival with civilian examples and began with the
assessment that the royal dockyards were ‘places of profound historical consequence, reflective of
crucial developments in British history.’ They remarked that Devonport and Portsmouth became
more important during the eighteenth century and by the nineteenth century dominated the other
royal yards: ‘The fact that [they]…have the finest sequences of fortifications in the country is a direct
consequence of their prime strategic importance’ (1998, pp. 3, 11). Their evaluation of the strategic
and heritage importance of these two yards at the beginning of the twentieth century holds true for
the rest of the century.
In 2003 Lake’s Twentieth-Century Military Sites alluded to dockyards’ ‘enormous range and variety [as] a
direct reflection of the changing nature of threats to national security and the countermeasures built in
response to them’. While some structures, such as air raid shelters, ‘were only intended to last “for the
duration”’ and have been lost to later developments, sites as a whole are valued by local communities
‘for their connection with the global conflicts that many of their members have experienced’ (p. 3).
Some Portsmouth buildings have specific associations with the world wars, such as construction of
midget submarines inside Boathouse No. 4 during the Second World War, and the Trafalgar Building’s
Second World War and Cold War gas decontamination centre (1/91, now demolished) and Second
World War air raid shelters, which have probably all been demolished at both yards.
Lake outlined
criteria for determining sites of national importance (for purposes of scheduling for example)
and historic interest (for listing). Prominent among these are: the site’s survival or completeness
and the legibility of what remains; group value, which recognises the importance of networks of
defences and those with surviving spatial relationships; the rarity or representivity of examples
of distinctive site or building types (taking into account unfamiliar as well as commonplace
types); and historic importance.
He continued: ‘The degree of a site’s completeness or rarity is fundamental to its significance’, adding:
‘Their grouping in strategic locations is another factor to be considered; around ports, along vital
stretches of coastline….The great naval and dockyard establishments of Portsmouth, Plymouth and
Chatham are cases in point’. He used Plymouth as a case study, with the dockyard at the centre
of rings of defence (2003, pp. 11, 13). This pattern is of course shared by Portsmouth: while many
seventeenth and eighteenth century fortifications have been demolished to make way for urban
development, the circle of Victorian ‘Palmerston’s Follies’ is largely intact (Palmerston Forts Society).
2.3 Industrial characteristics

In 1995, David Stocker described how, in an era of rapidly closing industrial sites, with no organised
database to document industrial archaeology, a stepped plan was established to identify, survey and
report on single industries such as coal, gunpowder, copper, prior to statutory designation of assets
(1998, pp. 9-13). Dockyards differ from such single product sites because they encompass a range of
industries to build, repair and fit out ships. This omission was addressed by Martin Cherry in 1997,
within thematic programmes to survey industrial buildings such as the ‘entire building stock within a
specialised type in order to achieve as near a definitive set of designations as possible, eg the Royal
Naval Dockyards.’ He added: ‘Working with enthusiasts and specialists helps us identify areas in need
of further work’. Cooperation with the MoD allowed Lake and Douet to carry out detailed surveys of
the Royal Naval Dockyards (Cherry, 1997, p. 20).
Lake and Douet’s ground-breaking survey contended that ‘The dockyard storehouses of the eighteenth
century are among the most important in the country. They are practically without parallels in the
civil sphere.’ (1998, p. 76) Accompanied by docks, basins and slips, workshops and offices, they
dominate Devonport and Portsmouth Dockyards. This report will show that repetition of their type
and decoration continued into the late twentieth century, albeit with design changes reflecting their era.
47
Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6 (1845–48) they characterised as ‘an example of ‘the innovative,
experimental designs produced by the Royal Engineers.’ Designed by Captain James Beatson, ‘its
heavy iron frame is significant for the use of very large trussed cast iron beams to carry the boats on
the upper floors. The Boatstore must be among the last and largest instances of their use in building.’
It ‘has a wider significance outside the dockyard for its position within the development of iron
structural members.’ (1998, pp. 74, 79)
They noted:
As part of the expansion of the dockyards for the iron navy, all the major dockyards had big
new combined dock and hydraulic pumping stations: at Portsmouth, No 1 (1878), West (c1900)
and the biggest, North Pumping Station (1913); in the steam basin extension at Chatham
(1890s); and for the Dreadnought docks at Keyham (1905). These used multiple inverted
vertical triple expansion steam engines, though all have been scrapped. (1998, p. 39)
The authors remarked that ‘Murray’s pumping station at Portsmouth is also a good example of its
[hydraulic] type.’ Furthermore:
The large pumping stations at each of the main yards form an interesting comparison with
similar buildings for water supply. No.1 Pumping Station at Portsmouth, built in 1878 to the
designs of Col Sir Andrew Clarke, RE, is the finest example dating from the expansion of
the yard in the second half of the nineteenth century, and in combining architectural quality
with the functional demands expressed in its plan and morphology, merits comparison with
listed examples associated with urban water supply. The other examples at Portsmouth have
been more altered, and do not have the same architectural merit. The 1905 station in the
Keyham extension at Devonport is important for its strong architectural quality and its direct
association with No. 8 dock. (1998, p. 44)
Lake and Douet compared dockyards’ industrial characteristics with commercial applications, such
as iron construction (1998, pp. 20-7). Likewise, larger docks for larger steam-powered vessels at
Liverpool, Hull and Grimsby demonstrated a
clear functional relationship to outstanding individual buildings or complexes. From this period,
historical importance and group value become the determining factors, after completeness,
in assessing the importance of the basins and dry docks of the steam navy. These expanded
onto vast areas of new land at Portsmouth, Chatham and Plymouth. Portsmouth, for example,
occupied a 100 acre site into the 1860s, when it expanded onto 178 acres of mudflats and fields
to the north. (1998, pp. 42-3)
They judged that ‘Naval metal workshops dwarf in scale the small craft-based workshops’ which have
survived in private industry; most commercial metal-working centres have disappeared (1998, pp. 58-
9). In metal-working industries:
The building closest in character to the navy’s works is the Armstrong Gun Factory, an
H-shaped range with an iron internal frame which is an almost exact contemporary of the
Keyham Quadrangle. Despite its importance in the production of gun barrels, it was built on
a much more restricted scale, and is without the remarkable level of architectural attention
which distinguishes the naval factory. (1998, p. 59)
Lake and Douet concluded that ‘Factories of the scale and completeness of the Quadrangle simply do
not exist’ in the commercial realm (1998, p. 61). They described how Greene and his deputy William
Scamp reorganised the Devonport Quadrangle to create a covered flexible workshop by around 1864:
Within the one building, connected by an internal railway and with two huge chimneys
drawing all the furnaces, were large storehouses facing the steam basin, a central iron foundry
at the rear flanked by the chimney towers, with brass foundry and pattern shop either side,
and steam engines connected to shaft drives in both rear corners; boiler shop and heavy
48
turning shop were along the sides; and within the adaptable quadrangle itself varying uses
included areas for coppersmiths, armourers, platers, millwrights, and engineering students. For
its date, this represents a revolutionary concept in factory planning. The scale and inherent
flexibility of the building has meant that it has been adapted to numerous new uses since its
completion. (1998, pp. 57-8)
Colonel Greene’s new Portsmouth Smithery (1852) was described by them as ‘an all-metal construction,
square in plan with chimneys in each corner and an even larger one in the centre.’ His functional ‘Iron
Foundry forms a roughly L-shaped range, with the main foundry building on the front and a trimming
shop with machine tools for working the castings along one end, enclosing a yard with a rotating crane.’
(1998, pp. 55-6) At Devonport South Yard Greene combined an extended smithery with a saw mill.
‘Devonport South Smithery survives, attached to the remains of the 1776 courtyard block. It is similar in
plan to Greene’s Portsmouth smithery, square with corner chimneys and an internal frame of H-section
columns forming a central square, although the walls are of masonry.’ As with other innovations, the
navy was characterised as ‘the earliest organisation to develop steam-powered sawing.’ (1998, pp. 57, 68)
From the 1860s they noted that warships needed more armour plating and Colonel Sir Andrew Clarke
R.E. designed a large armour plate shop at Portsmouth in 1867: ‘The plan has some similarities with
that of the South Smithery, with four large corner chimneys. Little more than their stumps and sections
of heavy brick walls survive of the original structure.’ (1998, p. 56)
For composite ships with iron frames and wooden hulls they described a ‘Composite Shipbuilding
Shop which was built at Devonport in 1878–82, between the building slips, Scrieve Board, bending
shop and the new saw mills. This also had a combined iron and timber frame, with trussed timber
purlins and H-section stanchions, and was clad with corrugated iron.’ (1998, p. 66) They reflected that
‘Large sheds of this type for shipbuilding do not exist in the old civil yards except at Glasgow, where
the almost contemporary Govan works is a listed example.’ (1998, p. 68)
The authors stated that:
Largely by virtue of its strategic position, the base at Plymouth had by 1914 become the largest
in Europe. Five Dreadnoughts, in addition to other battleships and cruisers forming part of
Fisher’s expansion of the fleet, were constructed here prior to 1914. No. 8 dock, built in 1896
and extended twice prior to 1914, has been selected with its related pumping house as an
example of one of the largest shipbuilding docks built during this important period in naval
history. (1998, p. 43)
Recently, the heritage status of ‘Listed industrial buildings’ has been identified as ‘more at risk than
almost any other kind of heritage’: ‘10.6% of industrial grade I and II* listed buildings are at risk,
making industrial buildings over three times more likely to be at risk than the national average for
grade I and II* listed buildings.’ (Heritage at Risk, 2011, p. 3) Addressing this risk, English Heritage’s
Conservation Bulletin 67 contained a thoroughgoing review of this topic, asserting:
England’s industrial heritage belongs not just to its own people and the present generation – it
belongs to the world. Its primacy, as the cradle of global industrialisation, is internationally
recognised but it is a legacy that is fragile and very much at risk. (Autumn 2011, p. 2)
Jonathan Smith, Gloucester City Council City Archaeologist, highlighted the problem that ‘Heritage
assets from the industrial age…frequently fail to meet the conventional criteria for designation and…
as monuments to a period of unprecedented technological change, they often exhibit evidence of
continual modification.’ (Autumn 2011, p. 25) The Bulletin argued ‘as a principle, support for these
outstanding industrial places’ should be assured (Autumn 2011, pp. 2, 5). This is the aim for Devonport
and Portsmouth through this current Historic England project.
The Bulletin reported that an English Heritage online survey of 2,007 adults, conducted by BDHC
Continental in February 2001, found that ‘85% agree that industrial heritage should be preserved as
49
conserved monuments or museums, and 71% that its buildings should be re-used for modern-day
purposes making sure that their character is preserved.’ (Autumn 2011, p. 36) Continuing naval use of
Portsmouth Main (1/161) and North (2/239) Pumping Stations and The Factory (3/82) (not designated,
but their listing will be recommended in this Report), is assured by the Portsmouth NBC.
Alan Johnson, in ‘Public Industrial Heritage’, noted in 2011 that ‘22…Grade I and II* MOD buildings
and structural monuments remain on the national at risk register, while a further 33 Grade II or
curtilage buildings are noted as being at risk in the Government Historic Estates Unit’s Biennial
Conservation Report.’ However, he highlighted the removal of Portsmouth Block Mills from the At
Risk Register in 2008 following a major repair project. Since its splendid refurbishment however, its
sustainable re-use within the heritage area is still under negotiation.
Also relevant to this study, Johnson assessed railway heritage (Autumn 2011, p. 35). Dockyard railways
comprise a vital industrial component which expanded spectacularly, and then declined during the
twentieth century. Coad discusses the difficulties of introducing a rail network into an established
and in places cramped workspace, requiring turntables to give trains access to some buildings, which
explains why flexible horse teams using wagon ways were still being installed in dockyards in the
1840s. However, an estimate was submitted in the early 1840s for linking Woolwich steam factory
to the masting sheers, and the cost of expanding and linking Portsmouth Dockyard’s three miles of
railroad to the South Western Railway was estimated in 1857. Colonel G. T. Greene incorporated rail
tracks into his design of the 1855 iron foundry at Portsmouth, while William Scamp was concurrently
planning an extensive railway system at the Keyham Yard in Devonport (Coad, 2013, 83-6, 195).
Finally, Marilyn Palmer emphasised that ‘Work on industrial sites…requires some understanding of the
technology and economic background of particular industries, not just to make an adequate record
but also to interpret sites in their regional, national or even international context.’ (Autumn 2011, p.
9) It was therefore particularly valuable to utilise the industrial expertise of Professor Ray Riley in the
survey of Portsmouth Dockyard.
As Coad confirmed, British dockyards created the ‘first global industrial network’ and ‘the largest
industrial enterprise in the world by the middle of the 18th century’ which presented a visible expression
of ‘the Royal Navy’s hegemony’ until 1914. They were always connected to a broad supply chain, but
he noted that from the late eighteenth century dockyard innovation benefitted from partnership with
private industrial centres (Foreword to Coad, 2013, p. xviii). This became even more evident in the
twentieth century.
2.4 Material characteristics

Dockyard buildings have always been characterised visually by their materials. Portland stone has
provided architectural character for four centuries. This oolitic limestone was sourced and used by Sir
Christopher Wren in the fireproof rebuilding of London’s principal buildings in the late seventeenth
century for its structural and aesthetic qualities, thereby conveying status to those institutions, and
has been used since in principal national buildings. From the 1690s stone and brick was used instead
of timber in docks, basins and buildings for their durability and fireproofing qualities. At Portsmouth
Portland stone was used for Dummer’s 1690s docks and basin (which also used Purbeck limestone),
Victory Gate (1711) and stone dressings on the three Georgian storehouses. Early twentieth century
Portsmouth accommodation blocks used creamy-brown Doutling limestone from Somerset.
Geologically the dockyards were opposites: at Portsmouth, clay and sand needed to be made up by
dumping material, whereas at Devonport South Yard granite needed to be levelled. Devonport is
constructed predominantly of local limestone and granite, while Portsmouth is built mostly of brick.
Portsmouth had access to cheap local brick from Fareham’s extensive London Clay beds (British
Geological Survey, 2013) and those within Portsmouth Dockyard itself (Bernays, 1881, p. 227). A
50
distinctive dark red predominated until the late eighteenth century in the storehouses and office
blocks, with additional decorative glazed grey-blue headers for the prestigious Naval Academy (1/14-
1/19) to reflect its creation by the Board of Admiralty. From the 1780s to 1810s, yellow stock bricks
were used for the Commissioner’s House, later Admiralty House, and the School of Naval Architecture
(1/20, 1/22). (Pevsner & Lloyd, 1990, pp. 412-13; Coad, 2013, pp. 67, 389)
Fig. 37. Granite blocks from the dockyard re-used as seats in the Porter’s Garden in 2005. A. Coats
2008. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
At Portsmouth in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, granite, then industrial brick and concrete,
were employed for ‘durability in certain parts exposed to great wear and tear’ such as docks, locks,
wagon ways and coping stones, as attested by Director of Works Sir Andrew Clarke (Bernays et al., p.
226). Salisbury sculptor Roger Stephens was informed by the Natural History Museum that the granite
wagon ways re-used for the Portsmouth Porter’s Garden seats was from West Cornwall, probably from
Trevone, Bosnan or Spargo Downs (Stephens, 2005). The wall of the Tidal Basin was constructed
of bands of brick and concrete, faced with Portland stone at the top and granite coping stones. The
other harbour and wharf walls were similar, the Tidal Basin wall was also protected by a concrete
foreshore. Dock No. 12 used Portland stone for its altars, coped with granite, while the altar backing
was brick and granite and the lower part of the dock concrete. Dock No. 13 had a concrete and
Portland stone floor and altars similar to Dock No. 12, but with hoop iron bonds. The Deep Dock
was built with granite floor and altars and perpendicular sides of granite ashlar. The North and South
Locks (now A & B) had Portland stone altars with granite coping, with granite quoins to the slide
and step recesses. (Colson, 1881, pp. 125-6, 128, 131-3, 135-6) Bricks, as Clarke reminded engineers
in 1881, ‘were made on the site of the works, of clay obtained from the excavation.’ (Bernays, 1881, p
227) Brick was also used for the Portsmouth twentieth century pumping houses (1/161, 2/239-2/240)
and the Factory (3/82).
Concrete became a widespread building material during the twentieth century. It was not new, as
pozzolanic or hydraulic cement had been used for at least a millennium as mortar. Concrete was used
to build the Pantheon in Rome in 126 AD, but it had not previously been used so widely as a structural
material. Portland cement was patented in 1824, and modern cement made since 1845 by burning a
clay and chalk mixture until it clinkered, when it was then ground with gypsum. It was next mixed
into slurry and dried in a coal fired kiln. (Neville, 2011, p. 1-3) Coad noted that Navy Board Surveyor
of Buildings/Civil Architect (1823–37), G. L. Taylor, experimented with concrete for dock floors, at
Sheerness for the Port Admiral’s House in 1830, at Chatham to underpin a storehouse on Anchor
Wharf in 1834, and as concrete blocks for wharf walls at Chatham and Woolwich. Sir Andrew Clarke
RE, Director of Works (1864–67) and William Scamp, architect and civil engineer, used ‘Portland
cement on a large scale in the new works at Chatham and Portsmouth.’ Sargent reported that the
supervising engineer at Chatham, E. A. Bernays, found this ‘more reliable in practice than the lime and
Roman cement concretes and mortars.’ He also used it for facing, steps, and paving. Charles Colson,
‘for several years assistant engineer on the Portsmouth Dockyard Extension’ and Civil Engineer of
Portsmouth Dockyard in 1881–83, used Portland cement after testing Roman cement. He found that
the large quantities of mortar needed meant that Roman cement could not be used quickly enough
after mixing (Colson, 1881, p. 121; Obituary, Charles Colson, CB. 1839–1915, 1916, pp. 391-2). At the
end of the nineteenth century, the three Keyham drydocks had concrete foundations fourteen feet
thick. However, Clarke did not mention its nineteenth century use in docks, only in mills and bridges,
although Otter wrote in 2004: ‘By 1900 it would have been unusual, according to the evidence of the
Engineer’s articles, for a dock not to have been constructed in mass concrete.’ (Coad, 2013, pp. 77, 79,
179-80; Sargent, 2008, pp. 106-7; Clarke, 2009, p. 4-5; Otter, pp. 197-8).
At the beginning of the twentieth century, mild steel became available for reinforcement. It could be
bent easily for detailing and was used widely until the 1950s, when stronger but less flexible carbon
steel was produced, as well as standard size sheets of welded steel wire reinforcement which could
be used for floor slabs. (Odgers, 2013, p. 58) By the 1920s, concrete’s widening use and its discussion
51
within RIBA and other professional journals were overcoming the resistance of British clients and
architects. Its qualities as a modern structural material which did not require concealment through
cladding made it attractive to the International/Modern/Art Nouveau/Art Deco/Cubist movements. A
large number of windows which could be inserted without minimising its load-bearing qualities and
an open plan interior with few pillars defined its design elements. (Collins, 1959, pp. 107, 112, 117-19,
142, 182, 214, 263) Reinforced concrete was used in this way in Boathouse No. 4.
Odgers reported that Modern Movement buildings after 1945 used concrete for internal, as well as
external structural support. Use of reinforced concrete necessitated extensive mathematical calculations
by engineers and changed their relationship with architects, Forty emphasising that ‘what defined
reinforced concrete was not the material, but the presence of an engineer’, university educated,
who carried out quality control tests. (Odgers, 2013, p. 38; Forty, 2012, pp. 242-6) Its greater use,
particularly by the Perret Bros, also emphasised the collaboration needed between the contractor and
the architect, as Auguste Perret combined both rôles (Collins, 1959, pp. 186-7). In the interwar period
engineers such as Ove Arup became independent consultants with a greater rôle in design. Arup
asked rhetorically why architects were “determined to design their buildings in reinforced concrete
– a material that they knew next to nothing about – even if it meant using the concrete to do things
that could be done better and more cheaply in another material.” The answer given by Forty was that
it characterised modern design (Arup, 1969, quoted by Jones, 2006, p. 55 and Forty, 2012, p. 247).
While concrete became a material used in dockyards for utilitarian purposes, it acquired an aesthetic,
functional and heroic beauty in the Brutalist buildings (2/109-2/110, 2/139-2/140) at Portsmouth and
the NAAFI building at Devonport.
After 1945, building materials were in short supply and the previously noted dollar credit shortage
prevented the purchase of Scandinavian timber. Concrete was therefore used for elements such
as lintels that had been made traditionally of timber (2013, p. 38). The use of fair faced concrete
in Modernist public architecture expanded from the 1950s, driven by austerity and the shortages
of materials and labour. The two-man lift weight limit constrained the use of large prefabricated
panels until the 1960s, therefore pouring concrete in situ prevailed (Macdonald, 1996, p. 180). Large
prefabricated panel systems were widely adopted in the early 1960s to address the housing shortage,
but were affected negatively by the collapse of Ronan Point flats after a gas explosion in 1968. Other
systems used slabs which were cast on site and lifted into their location (Clarke, 2009, 72-3). In
1966 Arup Associates promoted the use of precast concrete walls in the Sir Thomas White Building
at St John’s College, Oxford, and in 1967 Howell, Killick, Partridge and Amis bolted Portland stone
facings onto a concrete frame and precast units at the Cambridge University Centre. By the 1970s
concrete’s imperfections and perceived ugly weathering generally deterred architects from its use,
but Forty noted that ‘it made a comeback in the 1990s.’ (Forty, 2012, pp. 48, 52-4, 57; University of
Cambridge, 2014)
The endurance of concrete depends upon the proportions of its ingredients, additives and mixing
conditions (Neville, 2011, pp. xvii, 2-19). It was used regularly during the nineteenth century for
foundations in Europe, and refined as an acceptable structural and decorative material by Coignet,
Semper, Hennebique, and in particular the Perret Brothers by the end of the century. The latter trained
their workmen to mix good quality concrete and make the formwork. It was therefore not necessarily
cheaper than other materials (although the perception that it was cheap persisted), and clients often
required it to be faced with other materials (Collins, 1959, pp. 19, 102, 105, 111, 122, 138-9, 186, 285).
The reinforced concrete of Boathouse No 4 is thought to have been guided by Reynolds’s Reinforced
Concrete Designer’s Handbook (1932). In the twentieth century rapid-hardening Portland Type III
cement was used where formwork was required to be removed swiftly for re-use ‘or where sufficient
strength for further construction is required quickly.’ (Neville & Brooks, 2010, pp. 25-6) An accelerator
such as calcium chloride was used to speed up the setting of steel reinforced concrete until the mid-
1970s (Clarke, 2009, p. 9). Inconsistency in mixing (water/cement ratio/additives) and setting concrete
can lead to corrosion of the embedded steel, causing cracking, spalling, delamination and reduction
of its load-bearing capacity. (Neville, 2011, pp. 247-9, 539-78; Neville & Brooks, 2010, pp. 150-1) While
52
British Standards for reinforced concrete require a design life of fifty years, Odgers asserts that ‘with
appropriate care and maintenance, the best-designed and best-built concrete structures are likely
to last far longer. Unfortunately, many concrete buildings have had to be demolished because of
premature deterioration.’ (2013, p. 147; Forty, 2012, 75) Concrete decay in Portsmouth Dockyard led
to the demolition of Central Office Blocks 1 and 2 (1965–95, 2/11; 1972–2010, 2/10) after only thirty
and thirty-eight years respectively.
Concrete is also affected by cycles of freezing and thawing during its lifetime, causing cracks which
weaken the integrity of the structure. Reaction to airborne salt or saltwater drenching increases this
tendency. (Neville, 2011, pp. 539-67) This is clearly an issue in any maritime dockyard and leads to
physical salt weathering and salts being retained in the concrete. Corrosion damage varies according
to exposure to sea (occasional wetting is more damaging than constant wetting), sun and usage of
the structure, and can lead to ‘scaling, spalling and softening’. Calcium sulphate is the predominant
environmental salt affecting concrete in the UK. (Neville, 2006, pp. 117-123)
Odgers explained that the corrosion of steel reinforcement is an electrochemical process, ‘involving
the movement of charged ions and electrons between anode and cathode.’ (2013, p. 160). Broomfield
described how a passive alkaline film of oxides and hydroxides protects the steel reinforcement from
the air and moisture held within the concrete pores, providing its alkalinity is maintained and not
affected by salt chlorides and atmospheric carbon dioxide (carbonation). When chlorides are dispersed
in solution through the concrete pores they attack this passive layer. The steel rusts, expanding to
ten times its volume, and cracks the concrete horizontally, delaminating the surface. Cutting out
damaged areas can spread the deterioration. It is also very difficult to patch in new concrete to match.
Electrochemical treatments include cathodic protection (CP), electrochemical chloride migration
(desalination) and realkalisation.
Cathodic protection, which rebuilds the passive alkaline layer and repels chloride ions, is being used in
accommodation blocks at Portsmouth. Odgers notes: ‘In 1824, Sir Humphrey Davy presented a series
of papers to the Royal Society describing how CP could be used to prevent the corrosion of copper
sheathing on the wooden hulls of British naval vessels by using iron as a corroding sacrificial anode.’
He warns that although it is successful within certain conditions, it can be expensive. Macdonald
argued its merits ‘where the reinforcement is continuous, and the wiring can be located in joints
or features’ (Broomfield, 1996, pp. 2-4; Odgers, 2013, p. 160; Macdonald, 1996, p. 181). Macdonald
also discussed realkalisation, which ‘offers the opportunity to reverse the carbonation process and
is relatively non-destructive’, while the ‘new corrosion inhibitors potentially offer the most optimistic
conservation solution for fair faced concrete buildings.’ Broomfield considered that some opaque
anti-carbonation coatings are effective in preventing further penetration if the leaks are repaired, but
Odgers warned that they need to be applied before corrosion has reached the steel reinforcement;
also that they change the surface texture and weather differently from the original concrete. Odgers
cautioned that they need to be re-applied every ten to fifteen years and Macdonald that long-term
maintenance programmes are not always kept up. (Broomfield, 1996, pp. 2-4; Odgers, 2013, pp. 156-7;
2013; Macdonald, 1996, p. 180-1)
Macdonald in 1996 noted that ‘reinforced concrete is…causing the most urgent, the most common,
and the largest scale problems in conservation terms.’ Issues are the ‘detail, material authenticity and
aesthetic authenticity’ of the original material in matching aggregates and finishes when making patch
repairs. Odgers reflects that ‘Despite some public antipathy towards its appearance and concerns
about its longevity and environmental impact, the importance of concrete to the nation’s architectural
heritage is gradually being acknowledged. Many concrete buildings have now been listed’ (2013,
p vii). Macdonald and Odgers agree that deterioration usually has a variety of causes, therefore
requires a mixture of repairs. They argue for individual analysis of each problem to identify specific
causes and for specialists to be independent of commercial processes. Macdonald provided a Table of
conservation solutions for reinforced concrete building structures and Odgers a more detailed Table
of Causes of Decay and Choosing the Appropriate Treatment and Repair. Odger reiterates: ‘as yet, the
53
number of concrete conservation projects is small and there has been little opportunity for long-term
monitoring of the results. Materials and methods will continue to evolve, through improvements in
understanding and technology, and as monitoring of treatments reveals more about good and bad
practice.’ (Macdonald, 1996, pp. 178-81; Odgers, 2013, pp. vii, 186)
From a design point of view Neville asserted that concrete ‘allows the use of an unlimited choice of
shape’ and that its composition, when designed for a specific use, should be durable with ‘a minimum
of maintenance.’ He claimed in 2006 that concrete held ‘a pre-eminent position in construction’ (2006,
pp. 270, 281). Palpably, concrete represented a modern material appropriate to post-Second World War
austerity and simplicity (Forty, 2012, pp. 14, 187), but in Portsmouth Dockyard late twentieth century
buildings were built predominantly with steel frames and brick or metal cladding. Few Portsmouth
buildings were constructed wholly of reinforced concrete: Boathouse No. 4, Trafalgar accommodation
block (NE/86), the two Brutalist buildings (2/110, 2/140) and COB1 and COB2 offices (2/10 and
2/11). Some repairs and alterations to Portsmouth eighteenth century brick buildings (1/34A and new
doorway entrances in the Ropehouse (1/65) and storehouses (1/62-1/64) have used concrete. It has
been employed more comprehensively in Devonport.
Fig. 38. Concrete architrave, north elevation, Portsmouth Storehouse No. 5 (1951, 1/34). A. Coats
2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 39. Concrete sill showing deterioration, Storehouse No. 34 (c.1786, 1/149), modified after Second
World War bomb damage. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
2.5 Architectural characteristics

2.5.1 Form and function
Architecture characterises buildings according to their function, form, use of space, power identity,
and style. Human usage determines all these, particularly in the continuity of classical elements and
in the evolving relationship between architects and engineers.
Coad reflects that ‘The Royal Navy is seldom thought of as a major patron of architecture’ (2013, p.
xvii). Indeed, at their inception, British dockyards were not designed by architects, but royal/naval
surveyors or even master shipwrights and master attendants, and from the early eighteenth century
military engineers, due to the propinquity of most dockyards to artillery defences. In the nineteenth
century the rôles of Royal Engineers, architects and naval surveyors overlapped; by the early twentieth
century civil engineers were playing a larger rôle (2013, pp. 64, 77-81, 392).
The study of the buildings and structures of the Royal Dockyards within mainstream architectural
writing is limited mostly to contemporary designs for dockyards. A search using ‘dockyard’ on the
RIBA library online catalogue brought up 166 articles, such as R. J. M. Sutherland’s ‘Conservation and
reuse of dockyard structures’, but predominantly they feature new developments at Devonport and
Chatham, with some at Portsmouth, Rosyth and Deptford. Journals included Architects’ Journal, Architecture
Today, Architectural History, Architectural Record, Blueprint, Building, Building Research and Practice, Design, Garden
History and Glass Age. Historic architecture of dockyards tends to be a niche item within the disciplines
of maritime history, archaeology and civil engineering. Knight wrote recently in The Mariner’s Mirror:
From the late 1960s Jonathan Coad, who worked for what is now English Heritage, had
been conducting research into the architecture and use of the buildings and plant of all the
dockyards, which because of security restrictions, were hitherto known neither to scholars
nor the general public. Coad wrote a number of long articles on the architecture of Royal
Dockyards in The Mariner’s Mirror before he wrote a scholarly introduction to the dockyards in
1983 and a large, authoritative work on dockyard and facilities and buildings in 1989. It was
largely due to his work that the eighteenth-century industrial buildings in Chatham Dockyard
were preserved and scheduled. (2011, p. 234)
54
Sutherland’s key article ‘Shipbuilding and the long span roof’ appeared in 1989 in the Transactions
of the Newcomen Society. A keyword search in this journal for Admiralty, Sir Samuel Bentham, Block
making machinery, Boulton and Watt, Joseph Bramah, Sir Marc Isambard BruneI, Copper sheathing,
Henry Cort, Chatham, Deptford, Devonport, Portsmouth, Sheerness, and Woolwich Dockyards,
Dock caisson, Simon Goodrich, Henry Maudsley, metal mills, naval engineering, John Rennie and Sir
Christopher Wren resulted in a multitude of articles from a range of historical disciplines. Archaeologia
Cantiana, journal of the Kent Archaeological Society, the journal of the Institution of Civil Engineering,
Construction History Society journal, Medieval Archaeolog y, International Journal of Nautical Archaeolog y, Post-
Medieval Archaeolog y, The Mariner’s Mirror, and Transactions of the Naval Dockyards Society, to name just some
of the specialist journals, also publish relevant articles (see Newcomen Society; Institution of Civil
Engineering; Medieval Archaeolog y Journal; International Journal of Nautical Archaeolog y; Society for Post-Medieval
Archaeology; The Mariner’s Mirror, Society for Nautical Research; Naval Dockyards Society). Dockyard
buildings are embedded within all these diverse specialisms, constraining a holistic study.
It is perhaps for this reason that historic dockyard architecture was largely ignored by architectural
historians unless carried out by notable architects such as Sir John Vanbrugh’s unproven direct input
into Chatham Gatehouse (Coad, 1989, pp. 82-3) or Sir Charles Barry at Keyham, Devonport, where his
input was regarded as demeaning by his family. (Coad, 2013, pp. 195-6; Lake & Douet, 1998, p. 57)
Lake and Douet identified this deviation from normal nineteenth century dockyard practice in using
a civilian architect to design a dramatic façade:
The plans [for the Keyham steam factory] were forwarded to a nationally renowned architect,
Sir Charles Barry, for him to prepare a suitable architectural clothing. His son noted wryly
that it was ‘the only example of his treatment of a class of buildings which it has been
common to despair of architecturally, and to surrender to the domains of plain and even ugly
utilitarianism’. (1998, p. 57)
This emphasises the dockyards’ most obvious perceived characteristic as industrial utilitarianism,
clearly abhorrent to the family of a leading architect, and ignoring the embodied aesthetics of
dockyards, further evidence of the perceived ‘self-contained’ world of the Royal Dockyards. (Evans,
2004, p. 130) It also overlooks the effect of Barry’s own neoclassical palazzo style, made famous
through the Travellers’ Club, Reform Club and Manchester Athenaeum. It subsequently become used
widely for warehouses, shops, mills, ironworks, engineering works and railway booking halls in
Manchester, Nottingham, Bradford, Birmingham, Glasgow, Halifax and the London Docks (Jones,
1985, pp. 85-100). Lake and Douet noted that Keyham was omitted from Barry’s obituary article in the
RIBA Journal but reflected changing professional patterns:
This building was clearly considered a major work, and one on a different scale to the already
over-stretched steam factories at Woolwich and Portsmouth. While Barry’s involvement was
both unprecedented and unrepeated in a naval context, the division between architect and
engineer on major industrial complexes was well established by the 1850s. (Lake & Douet,
1998, p. 57)
Evans crucially points out that the Keyham Factory was built ‘to a scale beyond the reach of private
manufacturers’. (2004, p. 104) Analysing the increasing capabilities of Woolwich steam yard in the
1840s and comparing British and French expenditure for 1848, when Cherbourg Dockyard impressed
the Admiralty with its ‘fine proportions and beauty of look’, Evans states that ‘Barry had clearly been
supplied with [Devonport Resident Engineer] Burgmann’s plans with the intention of clothing them in
some architectural finery.’ He suggests that Barry’s experience of collaboration and iron roofs gained
through building the Houses of Parliament, and ‘the Admiralty’s clear wish for a prestige building
to surpass the admired buildings across the Channel’ were the reasons for his appointment. (Evans,
2004, pp. 64-5, 72)
Function determines types of structures and buildings. Broadbent referred to Vidler’s (1978) rational
analysis of type which derived from the industrial revolution: a building seen as machine (Le Corbusier):
55
as a product of industrial processes or factories (prefabricated elements); as spaces for industrial work
methods (Samuel Bentham’s time-work-discipline methods introduced in the Block Mill prefigured
Taylorism); and whose internal space dimensions are not domestic but designed primarily to contain
machines (Broadbent, 1990, p. 201-2; Coats, 2006). Thus, covered slips and ship halls are large voids
to protect a ship being built or repaired. In the eighteenth century they were wooden with later
wooden trussed roofs, as in Devonport’s Slip No 1. Portsmouth Slip Nos 3 and 4 were covered by a
large 1840s iron span roof which survived until 1980. At the beginning of the twenty-first century,
Portsmouth’s Shiphalls A and B (2/121-2/122), essential for security and weatherproofing, are built of
metal, with slightly pitched roofs, to build sections of the Type 45 destroyers and the Queen Elizabeth
class aircraft carrier. Within a paradigm identified by Louis Sullivan, Lloyd Wright, Venturi and Rogers,
a ship shed or ship hall’s external form is driven by its interior space and its function, in contrast
to being designed from the outside in, as with the Sydney Opera House (Broadbent, 1990, p. 243;
Coad, 1983, pp. 358-9; Coad, 2013, pp. 97, 101; Rogers, 2013). Dockyard constructors have had long
experience of constructing such building types from the inside out.
Broadbent, analysing urban space, quoted Aldo Rossi from the 1960s: ‘architecture becomes a
determining factor in the constitution of urban facts when it is able to subsume the entire civil and
political dimensions of an era’. Rossi declared that “the forms themselves, in their materialization,
separate the functions”, and convey “original and practical social meaning”. (Broadbent, 1990, pp.
169, 202) Dockyard components are arranged around the workspaces which are the slips, basins and
docks. To build ships originally required no more than a sloping riverbank or beach with access to
timber and an imported workforce, but to secure supplies and sustain a skilled workforce to maintain
a permanent navy required a walled space, with facilities to hand: a dockyard.
The range of dockyard building types is circumscribed by function. Coad states that ‘the external
appearance of many dockyard buildings gives no hint of the quite substantial trades, such as
boatbuilding, that were once carried on inside.’ (2013, p. 142) Storehouses became a ubiquitous type
once the arsenal/magazine paradigm, deriving from Arabic and medieval Mediterranean states, was
instituted at Tudor Deptford, refined by Edmund Dummer in the seventeenth century and continued
through the nineteenth century. (Lane, 1973; Concina, 1998; Ehrman, 1953, pp. 88-9; Coad, 1989, pp.
121-39) Workshops, such as that at Devonport, illustrated in Coad (2013, p. 118), appeared externally
to be a storehouse, but was internally divided to house woodworking trades. By the end of the
eighteenth century, offices moved from being located in the respective officers’ houses, thus domestic
in style, to purpose-built offices, built of brick or stone, influenced by storehouse design, but lacking
large ground floor doorways (Coad, 2013, pp. 61-4, 162-3). Richards admired the ‘clarity of form and
a subtle modelling of solids and voids’, vertical and horizontal rhythm expressed through graduated
windows, ‘expressive use of materials and trimness of detail’, ‘vigorous’ and ‘robust’ qualities in early
industrial buildings, which are applicable to dockyard architecture. He considered that dockyards
‘contain probably the most concentrated collection of buildings, representing at its best that functional
tradition...that exists anywhere.’ (1958, pp. 21, 30, 45, 58 quoted) His detailed assessment merits
inclusion here:
Besides their strict adherence to the functional tradition, the notable thing about these buildings
is the equal virtuosity with which all the materials used are handled: brick, stone and timber as
well as iron, which is employed precociously but unselfconsciously. It is natural, owing to the
official nature of some of the buildings, that they should have been adorned in Georgian style
with moulded gables, quoins, doorways and even somewhat formally laid out (for example,
the quadrangle building at Sheerness, with its square clock-tower, dominating a range of
fine brick buildings planned by Rennie); but underlying this obedience to the sophisticated
idiom of the time (and in many buildings achieving a satisfying architectural effect without
any reference to it at all) is the older anonymous idiom of the shipwright and the marine
engineer, who have introduced into this architecture that combination of toughness, neatness
and economy of conception encountered in everything connected with the sea. (1958, p. 59)
56
Buildings were decorated in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by cast iron hoppers, pediments,
oculus windows, string courses, mouldings and dentilation. The parts bear a powerful relationship
to the whole, conveying both a narrative and a hierarchy of power, as in Portsmouth’s Georgian
storehouses (Forty, 2000, pp. 53-60, 66, 73-4; Coad, 2013, pp. 62-4). Early twentieth century buildings
continued many of these neoclassical features. Portsmouth’s Factory (1903, 3/82), West Pumping
Station (1909, 1/161) and North Pumping Station (1913, 2/239, 2/240) assert the primacy of engineering
technology, an aesthetic ideal, the tangible legacy of dockyard architects/engineers and the pride of
dockyard officers, as in Devonport’s Ropehouse which was the longest among the dockyards (Coad,
1983, p. 349). At the end of the twentieth century Portsmouth Victory headquarters (1/100), the seat
of power, has much more decoration, albeit through ‘masculine’ Tuscan columns, than the unadorned
functional lines of the Workshop Complex No. 1 (1979, 2/109-2/110).
Broadbent quotes Vidler’s three levels of meaning: the first “inherited from the ascribed means of the
past existence of the forms”; the second ‘derived from “the specific fragment and its boundaries”’; the
third “proposed by a recomposition of these fragments in a new context” (1990, pp. 201-2). All three
levels of meaning can be seen at Portsmouth. The first is represented by the late twentieth century
storehouses, which do not resemble eighteenth century storehouses because they can utilise greater
spanned roofs; the second by the Ropehouse (1/65), which, although still known as such, ceased this
function in 1868 and was modified extensively in 1960 (Coad, 1989, pp. 197, 205-6) when its internal
structure was completely changed; and the third by the 1867 Armour Plate Shop and 1880 Light
Plate Shop (2/172), now a multi-function workshop with a modern saw tooth roof which retains its
Italianate entrances and the base of its chimney, but lost its hydraulic accumulator in the 1980s.
Fig. 40. Neoclassical south entrance to Portsmouth Light Plate Shop/No. 1 Ship Building Shop (1867,
2/172). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Utilitarianism has invariably driven the design of dockyard buildings, decorated in a manner appropriate
to government buildings. In the twentieth century this predominantly functional approach included
social content, buildings to address the workforce’s needs such as dining rooms, toilets, shower
blocks, amenity centres, laundries and a barber’s shop. Some buildings have hosted fishing clubs.
The workforce had traditionally acquired cabins without authorisation for their personal possessions
(NMM, 1698, POR/A/101, fos 165-9) and petitioned for rooms to change clothes after being hot on
board, but in the twentieth century these facilities were provided officially. Such social investment
and entitlement was recognised as necessary to sustain such a large and strategic workforce which
reached over 11,000 each at Devonport and Portsmouth in 1913–14, compared with Openshaw’s 6,000
on Tyneside in 1914 (Johnston & Buxton, 1913, p. 258) and addressed workers’ physiological, safety,
belonging, self-esteem and self-actualisation needs identified by Maslow (1954, chapter 5).
In the past, teams of shipwrights and other trades and materials moved to where the ships were being
built, but power and machinery is now mostly fixed. Flexible techniques and spaces to allow future
changes and to save money were identified in the 1950s when Gropius acknowledged that flexibility
was necessary to cope with dynamic change in the twentieth century and extend the life or change
the use of a building. (Forty, 2000, pp. 142-8) Recent buildings have moving internal walls, such as the
Visitor Reception Centre (1/3) and Dauntless Building (2/112). Versatile ship halls are required to build
ships and install electronic systems, but prosaic handcrafts are still needed and mundane containers
holding tools and electronics proliferate as movable workshops. Mobile cranes complement flexibly
those that are fixed (on rails).
Fig. 41. Movable storage containers in a compound west of a Portsmouth substation (3/211) in 2013.
Fig. 42. Panel of photovoltaic cells to generate electricity at Portsmouth in 2013, south of the Lub Oil
Store (3/251). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
57
2.5.2 Spaces and vistas

Fig. 43. 23834/01 SU 6200/31. Aerial photograph of Portsmouth’s straightened Western Jetties and
North Corner from the west, showing Dock No. 6 cut off from the harbour, as is Monitor HMS M33
in Dock No. 1, with HMS Victory in Dock No 2 and Mary Rose in Dock No. 3 (11 Apr 2005).
©Historic England.
Fig. 44. 23834/16 SU 6300/35. Aerial photograph showing much of Portsmouth Conservation Area
22, the Georgian Dockyard, showing the heritage area from the east. Boathouse No. 6 (left centre)
was refurbished in 2001 (11 Apr 2005). ©Historic England.
Fig. 45. 15790/08 SU 6301/10. Aerial photograph of Basin No. 3 from the southeast showing the now
infilled Dock No. 13 (bottom centre) where Ship Hall B was built in 2002 (9 Sept 1997). ©Crown
copyright.HE.
Dockyard spaces are shaped as constructive, administrative and residential spaces. In the beginning
Portsmouth Dockyard was mostly empty space within the boundaries of the king’s lands, divided into
field strips (Hodson, 1978, p. 80) and an early drydock (1495–6, Oppenheim, 1896, pp. xxvi-xxvii,
xxxvi-xxxix, 142-64). Early in the seventeenth century the ropewalk was laid out across its widest
possible span. The double dock and a slip were constructed in the 1650s, and the Commissioner’s
house and the mast pond in the 1660s, the latter dug in a natural declivity within Quaternary river
terrace deposits (British Geological Survey, 2013). In the 1690s, further docks and a basin were built
at Portsmouth by Edmund Dummer, but large spaces remained until the mid-eighteenth century: the
Commissioner’s meadow in the centre became timber storage, the tenter field in the easternmost
boundary angle became the garden of the second Commissioner’s house; the Green remains. As ships
became larger in the twentieth century, Basin No. 3 itself became a colossal space compared with
Basin Nos 1 and 2 of the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. Today there are new large spaces
where buildings have been demolished, now used for car parks and container storage.
Spatial considerations linking specific buildings and structures to create efficient time and motion have
been articulated since Edmund Dummer created his wet docks to allow shipwrights to work supervised
on ship hulls close to stores to maximise work time and reduce embezzlement (BL, Lansdowne MS
847, 1694, fos 4, 22). This challenges Forty’s opinion that no-one had applied the concept of circulation
to architecture until the nineteenth century, despite William Harvey’s publication of his discoveries
in 1628. From 1850 buildings were discussed as discrete systems, containing communication, flow
and distribution, analogous to the human body. Viollet-le-Duc in 1872 and Le Corbusier in 1930
identified movement within a building as a crucial factor, with the latter’s statement that ‘architecture
is circulation’. (Forty, 2000, pp. 87-90, 100) The late twentieth century dockyard continues Dummer’s
model of spatially linked docks and support buildings in the Shipbuilding complex and Workshop
Complex (2/139-2/140; 2/121-2/122), while stores flow robotically through the Factory (3/82).
Broadbent highlighted Cullen’s depiction of space as drama experienced through vision, with vistas
opening up from one view to another. (Broadbent, 1990, pp. 218-9) Portsmouth’s Victory Gate opens
up two dramatic vistas: one to Basin No. 1 (diminished by the security fence) where HMS Victory and
the Mary Rose Museum become a new vista, with the Block Mills as a backdrop; one along College
Road to the Naval Academy, seen through an ornamental gate, although obscured by a large tree. This
vista then opens to the Green and the Commissioner’s House. Other dramatic vistas run westwards
along the Ropehouse to St Ann’s Church and in reverse eastwards to Storehouse No. 10, and in the
north, along the dramatic depth and length of C and D Locks. At Devonport Dummer designed the
dockyard officers’ vista from the Terrace over the dry and wet docks, to observe the workers (Coad,
2013, pp. 56-7, 162). One previous vista from Portsmouth’s early eighteenth century Parade to Basin
No. 1 has been lost, replaced by the view of Victory Building (1/100). There are intimate spaces
such as the sunken garden east of The Parade in Quaternary river terrace deposits, where there was
first a fishpond, then a horse pond (British Geological Survey, 2013, SU 63168 00733). Magnificent
vistas extend from the Promontory across Basin No. 3, and across the harbour from Flathouse Quay,
58
reinforcing the relationship between dockyard and harbour. From 1912 to 1984, the spectacular 250
ton Arrol crane on Basin No. 3 could be viewed from many vantage points across the city. It was
replaced by views of BAES Ship Halls, in particular from the M275, signifying Portsmouth Naval Base’s
restored shipbuilding rôle from 2002–14.
Broadbent admired Cullen’s 1966 space mapping to explore the art of relationship, which is perceived
by the senses. It divided use by human factors arising from “total human relationships” (“tenure,
work/leisure, association, integration, zests”) and physical factors, the “actual shape and arrangement
of the urban environment” (“community, pattern, landscape, optics, identity of place”) and their
interacting dynamics. Cullen’s view was that the environment of a place should determine its design.
Many of Cullen’s physical factors are relevant to dockyards, such as siting, regional characteristics,
growth, established patterns of industrial buildings, optics, including internal/external spaces such
as courtyards, the division and organisation of space, joining and separating functions. His identity
of place contained ambience, character, historical appraisal, vitality and significance, also hierarchy,
enclosure, scale, style, and surprise. (Broadbent, 1990, pp. 217-8, 220-3) As officers had to live on
site to monitor activities 365/24/7, they were provided with houses (‘lodgings’). According to status
these ranged from the palace fronted terraces at Devonport (1695) and Portsmouth (1719) to the ‘local
artisan vernacular’ of the Porter (1708). Formal walled gardens were an integral part of the residences,
to provide private social-cum-business spaces. Sixteenth century Deptford and Woolwich Dockyards
and the first commissioner’s house at Portsmouth (1666) had gardens from their inception. Eighteenth
century maps and the 1774 models show them formally laid out, the Portsmouth commissioner’s
garden having a mound at the end, upon which William III’s statue was first displayed (Coad, 2013,
pp. 147-59; BL, King’s MS 44, 1774; TNA, ADM 106/3568, 1774). Ambiences vary tremendously
between the quiet of Portsmouth’s the Parade, and the bustle of the Shipbuilding and Workshop
Complexes, the wateriness of Flathouse Quay and the surprise of seeing the archaic Round Tower and
Frederick’s Battery amidst the twentieth century Area 3.
A document prepared by the Joint Planning Team in 1974 stressed the need to apply a standard of
detailing to the visual environment at Portsmouth Naval Base:
No building or group of buildings, however well designed either aesthetically or functionally,
can enhance the visual scene and landscape unless equal thought and importance is given to
the design and treatment of spaces between or around buildings. (TNA, 1974, CM 1/157)
It continued: ‘spaces between buildings are not only to provide external access, circulation and
communication, but are also functional work spaces.’ To follow the ‘principle of a designed
environment’, all departments should urgently dispose of redundant buildings, equipment, and signs.
Prudently, the document urged that all salvageable materials, such as ‘granite blocks, granite setts,
handmade bricks and stonework etc, be retained as the property of the DOE/PSA for possible re-use
in the reinstatement of buildings and pavings of the conservation area.’ It noted that most buildings in
this southwest corner (north to Victoria Road and east to Marlborough Gate) of Portsmouth were also
scheduled monuments. Therefore their ‘external appearance’ would be maintained; in some cases
‘complete restoration’ would be required. The residential areas around the Green would have trees
and soft landscaping. The developing Royal Naval Museum would make changes to the colonnades
and walkways in front of Storehouse Nos 9, 10 and 11 and visitor facilities at Main Gate would be
enhanced. Elsewhere all the ‘old buildings, cranes and slips’ would be demolished ‘to make way for
new development’ at North Corner. Unicorn Gate would become the main industrial entrance, serving
the industrial and stores handling areas in the south and east of the base. A buffer area consisting of
COB 1 and 2 offices and the Top Deck Restaurant would separate the historical residential areas from
the industrial areas, incorporating soft landscaping and ‘a quiet place for seating and perambulation
for employees’. (TNA, 1974, CM 1/157)
The Joint Planning Team document identified the ‘threat of the motor car’ as the major problem,
creating fumes and noise, risking the safety of people and internal environments of buildings, and
encroaching on pedestrian comfort. Forty acres had been allocated for car parking which would be
59
zoned and controlled, alongside street furniture such as bollards, bus routes and bus stops. It noted
that the use of bicycles had declined ‘over the past years’, but a revival was anticipated following
increased fuel prices and the economic situation, therefore bicycle racks would be replaced. Roads
and paving would be suited to the traffic and provide a sense of direction, repose or hazard, or reduce
scale by a variety of finishes. (TNA, 1974, CM 1/157) Car parking has certainly been allocated to all
empty spaces, with clearly demarcated lines, internal buses pick up mornings and evenings, and there
are brand new bicycle racks (and still a few old ones).
More concrete than Cullen’s space mapping, the Oxford Character Assessment Toolkit was used to
help evaluate the dockyards and ‘identify the types of materials and street furniture that predominate
in an area, the relative significance of these to the character of the environment and the interaction
between the public spaces, the surrounding buildings and property boundaries.’ (p. 7) It contains
questionnaires on Initial Reactions, Spaces, Buildings, Views, Landscape, Ambience and Final Reaction
and Spirit of Place. It was developed from 2008 to 2010 within a context of revised national planning
policy frameworks, to justify change based on research and evidence ‘to improve the robustness of
assessments of character that inform planning decisions.’ (Oxford City Council, 2008–10, pp. 2-3)
2.5.3 Copying
Fig. 23. Large decorative scrolled abutments on Rochefort Dockyard Ropery (1666–69). A. Coats
2008. They are also used on Rodney (1847, NE/14), the Gymnasium south elevation roof gable
(1899), the gable on the north elevation of nearby Barham (1899, NE/82) in HMS Nelson Barracks,
and the date plaque (1903) on the north elevation of the Factory (1903, 3/82).
Leviathan), the Warrant Officers’ Mess in the former army Anglesey Barracks, incorporated in 1899
into the Naval Barracks (later HMS Nelson Barracks). It features the scrolled abutments seen on
Rochefort Dockyard Ropery (1666–69), on the Gymnasium south elevation roof gable (1899), the
gable on the north elevation of Barham (1899, NE/82) and the date plaque (1903) on the north
elevation of the Factory (1903, 3/82). The southern section was bombed during the Second World
War. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 47. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, Gymnasium (1893–1900, NE/81) south elevation roof gable.
Note the scrolled abutments similar to those on Rochefort Dockyard Ropery (1666–69), which also
support Rodney’s pediment (1847–48, NE/14), the gable on the north elevation of nearby Barham
(1899, NE/82) and the date plaque (1903) on the north elevation of the Factory (1903, 3/82). A.
Coats 2013.
Fig. 48. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, chimney gable on the north elevation of Barham (1899,
NE/82). It features scrolled abutments similar to Rochefort Dockyard Ropery (1666–69), which also
support Rodney’s pediment (1847–48, NE/14), the nearby Gymnasium south elevation roof gable (1899,
NE81) and the date plaque (1903) on the north elevation of The Factory (1903, 3/82). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 49. Date plaque 1903 on Portsmouth Factory (1903, 3/82) north elevation. A. Coats 2013. Note
the scrolled abutments which also support Rodney’s pediment (1847–8, NE/14), the Gymnasium
roof gable (1893–1900), the gable on the north elevation of Barham (1899, NE/82) and Rochefort
Dockyard Ropery (1666–9). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Architectural copying has been controversial, characterised since the mid-nineteenth century as
untruthful. Replicating functional structures such as docks and storehouses is axiomatic, but copying
of architectural styles has also persisted throughout the twentieth century. In the 1950s principles
of structural truth, that the outward appearance of the building should conform to its structure, the
properties of its materials and represent its time were revived. (Forty, 2000, pp. 289-302) Ove Arup in
1955 contended that “a regeneration of architecture in our new technical age must come through the
60
truthful expression of structure”. Pevsner was concerned with historical truthfulness in Pioneers of the
Modern Movement and The Buildings of England volumes in the 1960s. Discussion has polarised the separation
of art, aesthetics and science, deception and truth. Dockyards manifest copying on many levels.
One architectural nineteenth century historicist axiom, that new building ‘must make manifest the
decade in which’ it was built, has affected the twentieth century. Collins, writing in 1971, related it
to precedent and continuity, which in the past was also reinforced by using similar materials and
structures (Collins, 1971, pp. 26-7). In the dockyards there has been little public discussion regarding
new buildings, as MoD processes have not engaged the public realm for much of the twentieth
century for security reasons, but Arup’s twentieth century brick, glass and steel office block gained
notice as an exciting foil for the Grade II listed Round Tower (3/262) (HM Dockyard, Portsmouth,
Glass Age, 1979). As regards style and decoration, the early twentieth century Portsmouth Dockyard
continued Georgian proportions and decoration for its principal new buildings: the Factory (3/82),
MEWWS (2/165) and the Pumping Houses (1/161 and 2/239) echo the 1896 Painters’ Shop (2/191),
Greene’s Iron and Brass Foundry (1/140) and James’s Steam Factory (1/208) in ‘their use of red brick
with stone detailing and iron-framed windows and main doorways recessed within monumental blind
arcading.’ (See Coad, 2013, p. 195) Accommodation blocks reflect the periods when they were built:
at Devonport they were built in a concentrated period from 1879-97; at Portsmouth they extended
from 1899–2014. In the 1930s the designer uniquely utilised contemporary Modern/International/Art
Deco/Bauhaus styles for Boathouse No. 4 at Portsmouth to embody efficiency and technology. The
two workshop complexes (1976, 2/139-2/140, 2/209-2/210) stand out as rare examples of Brutalism.
The Receipt/Despatch Bay for the Pipe Shop (1993, 2/151) employs neo-Georgian decoration, while
classical principles were adopted for the large number of steel framed, redbrick clad workshops and
offices at North Corner and around Ship Production Halls A and B (2/121-2/122).
Such copying can be seen as an historical continuum of dockyard pride, an imperial discourse, and
a dialogue between the present and the past. Monumental structures at Portsmouth such as Victory,
Unicorn and Nelson Gates and early walls are retained as signifiers of earlier beliefs (Forty, 2000, pp.
132-5). Victory, then the Main Gate, was designed by the dockyard officers in 1711 as ‘a Handsome
Gateway’ in rusticated stone. The Navy Board considered that plain piers would be ‘handsomer as
well as cheaper than Rustick work’ (TNA, ADM 106/667, 1711; Coad, 1989, 81, fn. 61). This austere
policy reflected a nation at war and is echoed by late twentieth century operational naval concerns
regarding expenditure on unusable buildings. Retention of the gates marks a continuity of use and
form. Victory Gate represents an austere neoclassical style, Unicorn allusive neoclassical, Nelson
Imperial Baroque, and Trafalgar corporate and socially inclusive.
Fig. 50. Portsmouth Officers’ design for rusticated gate piers sent to the Navy Board (29 June 1711).
TNA, ADM 106/667 (1711). Navy Board In-letters, P. The Navy Board replied that plain piers would
be ‘handsomer as well as cheaper than Rustick work’ (Coad, 1989, p. 81, fn. 61; NMM, POR/A/5,
10.7.1711).
showing on the right the uninterrupted view of the Parade Ground which was reinstated in 1956. A.
Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 28. Welcome message borne on the electricity substation (c.1950, 3/156) at Portsmouth Trafalgar
Gate (2011). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 30. Images of the future navy, utilising wind power, designed by pupils of nearby Flying Bull
School at Portsmouth Trafalgar Gate (2011). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of
the MoD.
61
Fig. 31. Images of HMS Queen Elizabeth 2016 and HMS Princess Royal 1911 in Portsmouth Princess
Royal Way (2011). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 32. Maritime planting at Portsmouth Trafalgar Gate (2011). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the
Neoclassical or Palladian is a consistent style employed since the seventeenth century in buildings
associated with the monarchy to express political, social and economic power and ‘a symmetrical,
consistent and ordered society where everything possessed a designated place.’ Within the hierarchy
of decorum industrial buildings rank below palaces and cathedrals, but as buildings created by the
monarchy and the state they acquire its status and have therefore employed classical orders (Jones,
1985, 22-3). Neoclassical designs were used early in dockyards by nationally appointed figures: the
naval surveyor, contractors, royal and civil engineers, and also by dockyard principal officers: master
shipwrights and master house carpenters. Broadbent quotes Rossi: “History, the collective memory of
a certain past, is poured into the architectural object to make it intelligible, thus receiving its nature.”
(1990, pp. 159, 171-2) Engineers were educated in this government style to convey vertu (OED), so
that the authorities could be assured in their self-regard, visitors awed and workers feel awe but also
self-esteem, as they legitimately owned this characteristic as much as the monarch or the Admiralty.
Similarly, the ‘prestige associated with naval construction is reflected through money spent on stone
carvings and the Italianate design of the portico at Beardmore’s new shipyard offices in Dalmuir.’
(Johnston & Buxton, 2013, p. 18) Pevsner and Lloyd considered the style of the mid-nineteenth
extensions at Portsmouth as similar to that of Sir John Vanbrugh (1990, pp. 409, 416-17)
Modern use of such elements as string courses is itself copying: stone imitating the medieval joinery
of trabeated horizontal timbers; neoclassical pediments and columns continuing Greek temple fronts
and load-bearing structures, pilasters for non-load-bearing elements. Collins pointed out that the term
classicism conveys ‘the establishment of permanent values amongst the inconsistency of transient
fashions.’ (1959, pp. 166-70, 184, 200) The political establishment from the early seventeenth century
followed such Greek or Roman styles to reinforce the vertu of their rule, to invoke a divine essence, moral
excellence, manly strength and distinction (OED). Use of reinforced concrete or steel frames meant that
while these elements were still used decoratively to this end, as in Victory Building (1/100), they were
no longer needed for load bearing. Perret emphasised their traditional function of deflecting rain and
wind and thus protecting buildings from weather deterioration, especially with concrete, which reveals
rain streaks more than stone or brick, but Modernist architects often rejected architraves, cornices,
string courses and mouldings as unnecessary decoration (Collins, 1959, pp. 255-7, 263). Boathouse No.
4 (1/6), however, features a prominent cornice on the three completed walls, and a string course marks
the first floor.
Fig. 51. Oculus windows on the north elevation of Portsmouth Main Pumping Station No. 1 (1878,
Fig. 52. Neoclassical iron columns cast in an industrial style inside Portsmouth Main Pumping Station
No. 1 (1878, 2/201). A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 53. Tall windows on the east elevation of Portsmouth Painters’ Shop (1896, 2/191) to maximise
natural light. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 54. East elevation showing the 1994 brick gable pediment to the extension of Bay 1 of
Portsmouth Factory/100 Store (1903, 3/82), designed to appear similar to the original gable
pediments. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 55. East-facing neoclassical portico of Portsmouth Victory Building (1993, 1/100) including the
lion and the unicorn from Portsea’s former town gates, those images also incorporated into two
dockyard gates. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Classical unity through structure, scale, plan, façade, fenestration, entablature and materials (Collins,
62
1959, pp. 260-3), is also apparent in Victory Building. It manifests historicity as an uncompromisingly
neoclassical building, following the precedent for government buildings. It sits within the late
Georgian heart of Portsmouth Dockyard, a slightly enervated reflection of their ruggedness and
elegance. A neoclassical feature widely used in Portsmouth’s early twentieth century buildings is the
oculus window in the Multi-Functional Workshop (2/172), Pumping Stations (1909, 1/161; 1913, 2/239),
MEWWS (1896, 2/165) and the later Zincing Shop (1905, 1/197).
Collins also examined the dichotomy of precedent and creativity in design (1971, pp. 26-7). Both
approaches have been employed in Portsmouth Dockyard. Twentieth century docks/locks used new
materials: industrial brick and shuttered concrete, due to the reduced availability and increased cost of
granite and Portland stone, the latter also being less durable for massive metal ships. Brick continued
as the main material for Portsmouth buildings. Its early twentieth century workshops also clearly
followed precedent in using large iron framed windows to maximise light: the Factory (3/82), the Main
(No. 1) Pumping House (2/201) and the Painters’ Shop (2/191). Introduction of concrete for buildings
was limited. Apart from ubiquitous insertions and repairs to Second World War bomb damage, and
its use for foundations, plinths, cills, architraves and string courses in new buildings, it was used
unsuccessfully in accommodation and office blocks. COB1 and COB2 office blocks were demolished
after 30/38 years respectively while Trafalgar Block and Boathouse No. 4 need considerable remedial
work. Demolition of the then fifteen-year-old Nile Block (NE/87) was considered in 1998. More recent
accommodation blocks, which resemble private housing developments, are not expected to last for
much longer.
Fig. 38. Concrete architrave, Storehouse No. 5, Building 1/34, 1951. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with
the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 39. Concrete sill showing deterioration, Storehouse No. 34 (c.1786, 1/149), modified after Second
World War bomb damage. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Devonport’s 1970s Frigate Sheds and Portsmouth Dockyard’s later ship halls (as there had been no
dockyard shipbuilding for decades) have followed private shipbuilding models of a large utilitarian
structure made of light prefabricated metal panels which enclose all operations and materials, for
both security and efficiency. As Anthony Gormley pointed out, one of the three things which have
transformed the ‘post-war landscape of Britain has been…the arrival of the megashed.’ (Autumn
2007, p. 5) At Devonport, the Princess Yachts ship halls in South Yard and the Frigate Complex in
North Yard dominate the dockyard landscapes and impede vistas. The new steel frame and redbrick
workshops and storehouses at Portsmouth appear different in character from, but enclose space and
facilities in the same way as eighteenth century storehouses and workshops. Machinery and vehicle
size is now a determining factor; transporters and large machinery parts rather than wagons and trains
now need to enter buildings, so doors are larger. Fenestration is another notable difference. More light
now enters through rooflights, so windows tend to be inserted within the vertical steel frames which
form the structure. The BAES ship halls have no windows or rooflights, so are quite dark inside, but
this increases security for internal processes and materials. It is assumed that the modern redbrick
buildings have air conditioning, as their doors are usually closed, whereas the early twentieth century
workshops open their doors in hot weather. The most striking post-war designs at Portsmouth are
the two Brutalist workshop complexes, the steel framed glass Visitor Reception Centre, which can
configure its internal space flexibly, the reinforced concrete stairwell for Boathouse No. 6 and the
steel framed Mary Rose Museum (2013). The latter adopted complementary ship lines and wooden
planking rather than conventional masonry; influenced by the ship which it contains, the ship-shaped
dock in which it sits and ‘vernacular boat shed architecture.’ (ArchDaily, 2013) However, Moore
disapproves: ‘In general, structures in the Portsmouth docks follow a simple rule – if they’re designed
to float they use curves, if to stand they’re rectangular’ (Moore, 2013).
Genderisation of form has always been implicit in dockyards through use of masculine Doric or Tuscan
columns (although feminine Ionic or Corinthian have also been used), appropriate to an organisation
which expended more of the nation’s wealth than any other in constructing instruments of war,
63
thus epitomising state vertu. Forty (2000, pp. 45-7) noted Wotton’s distinction between masculine and
feminine and Inigo Jones’s characterisation of Ionic as “masculine and unaffected”, a term applied to
William Chambers’ Somerset House (for the Navy Board and other government departments, 1776–
80). Tuscan columns were used to support the verandah at Sheerness Former Pay Office (Building
104, 1828, RCHME, 1995, p. 2). Coad notes Tuscan stone colonnades at Stonehouse hospital (1796),
Ionic columns at Sheerness 1814 Dockyard Church, and both Tuscan and Corinthian cast-iron columns
employed in Sydney’s Garden Island 1880s naval barracks (2013, pp. 170, 298, 364). Docks are bi-
gender. Their structures are masculine for strenuous functions and stresses, articulated in dressed
limestone, granite, industrial brick and concrete for altars, culverts, keel blocks and slides. They
are accompanied by masculine rusticated stone dressings, cast iron or steel caissons, overhangs,
capstans, fairleads, mooring posts, cranes, crane tracks and railway lines. But they are also feminine
in the function of cradling and nurturing ship hulls. Modernists tended not to refer to gender, but
Forty stated that Pevsner used the term in Buildings of England (Forty, 2000, pp. 52-4). Pevsner and
Lloyd did not apply it to Portsmouth Dockyard, but used words to distinguish appearance such as
‘massive’, ‘austere’, ‘functional’, ‘strong’ applied to storehouses; ‘delicate’, ‘fine’ and ‘slender curved
braces’ (Pevsner & Lloyd, 1990, pp. 407-18). During the twentieth century more complex buildings
and machines have towered above the workforce, such as the Arrol crane and now the ship halls.
This tendency is also perceived as masculine, continuing a binary characteristic of “solid/light”,
“hard/soft” (Forty, 2000, pp. 60-1). The feminine end of the continuum is displayed in office blocks
and domestic houses, which use softer decorative features. Gendered spaces segregated men from
women in the early twentieth century, such as the men’s and women’s dining halls. Modernisation in
the 1960s continued gendered accommodation, dining and recreational spaces in HMS Nelson, while
the universal Port Royal Restaurant (3/68) was built in 1968 on the site of the 1902 Workman’s Dining
Rooms and the 1925 Women’s Dining Rooms.
Fig. 56. Decorative brick detail, Portsmouth Naval Offices (c.2000, 2/5). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced
2.5.4 Innovation
The lack of widespread information about dockyard buildings has led in the past to an underestimation
of the part they played in architectural development. Richards devoted a chapter to dockyard buildings
in The Functional Tradition (1958). Dockyards were also involved in the formation, both conceptual and
practical, of the Modern Movement, Jones arguing that ‘industrial structures were sometimes the
proving ground for new ideas in architecture and constructional engineering.’ (1985, p. 203) During the
1930s the Architectural Review had been the principal advocate of the Modern Movement in architecture,
and after the Second World War it extended its scope to cover early industrial buildings, few of which
had the cachet of being designed by a well-known architect. Within the functional tradition these often
unpretentious structures, such as Greene’s Sheerness Boatstore, were harbingers of modernism, despite
differing from the paradigms of Le Corbusier and Gropius (Evans, 2004, p. 130). British industrial
buildings had to be inexpensive to compete with German and American competitors and did not
merit high-ranking architects, but the economic upturn in the late 1930s created opportunities within
a continuing functional tradition (Jones, 1985, 220-2). Summerson attributed the lack of innovation
in Britain to the First World War. Young British architects in the 1930s looked abroad in the modern
cause: ‘Exaggerated horizontals and exaggerated verticals were “modern”.’ Leading members of MARS
(Modern Architectural Research Group, 1933–57), which was affiliated to the Congrès Internationaux
d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM), tended to be from overseas: ‘these people had a detachment, sharper
ambition, a fresher outlook than the average English architect.’ While he felt they produced ‘little that
has stood the test of time’, the group ‘provided a focus, a point of illumination, in a cultural scene
which was confused and overcast’ and linked ‘minority thinking’ in the 1930s to postwar acceptance
(Summerson, 1993, pp 303-9). Collins also pointed out that few government buildings employed
‘avant-garde architects’ before 1939, but used some form of classicism (1971, pp. 66-7, 194). The break
64
with neoclassical design was demonstrated at Portsmouth by Boathouse No. 4 in 1938. The Brutalist
buildings (1976, 2/110 and 2/140) were a response to financial limitations and clear expression of
materials.
Modernist or International architecture defined form and design as a tension between what the senses
experience and what the intellect defines (Forty, 2000, p. 24). It was influenced most notably by Le
Corbusier and the Russian architect Berthold Lubetkin, who arrived in London in 1931 and founded
the Tecton group. It focused on the analysis of building functions, modern materials, unornamented
lines and innovation per se which resulted in mass production, prefabrication, standardisation and
other industrial techniques (English Heritage Glossary; Forty, 2000, pp. 65, 104-5; Forty, 2012, pp. 22-
8, 39). This led to increased utilitarianism and emphasis on function in the 1920s; Bruno Taut stated
in 1929: “Beauty originates from the direct relationship between building and purpose.” (Quoted by
Forty, 2000, pp. 65, 107-8) Modernism has few exemplars at Portsmouth, but Boathouse No. 4 (1938,
1/6) is a clear example of functionalism to promote efficiency, influenced by Le Corbusier and Mies
van der Rohe in the International movement, also the Art Deco and Cubist movements (Broadbent,
1988, p. 389). It may not be a coincidence that Hilsea Lido had been built along International lines
in Portsmouth in 1933–35. Boathouse No. 4 maximises light gain through its large windows, and
its reinforced concrete walls create an unencumbered central space for boatbuilding and repairing.
Minimal decoration derives from a cornice and string course. Boathouse No. 4, the Ship halls and
Ove Arup’s redbrick buildings are palpably modern, in terms of their utilisation of industrial design
principles (Collins, 1971, pp. 83-4).
Portsmouth Dockyard also has two Brutalist buildings (2/109-110 and 2/139-140), a style of architecture
which flourished from the 1950s to the mid-1970s. The idea began in France with Le Corbusier. His
use of the term ‘raw concrete’, béton brut in French, was used in Britain by Alison and Peter Smithson
to coin the word ‘Brutalism’ in 1953. “It is [a] respect for materials, a realization of the affinity which
can be established between building and man – which was at the root of our way of seeing and
thinking about things that we called New Brutalism.” (English Heritage Glossary; Smithson, 1973,
p. 6, quoted in Spellman & Unglaub, 2005, p. 24) This philosophy sought a return to more formal
architecture where the function of the building and the materials were honest and exposed, featuring
the use of concrete and repeated angles. The style popularly came to be associated with large public
building projects of the 1960s and 1970s where utility, ugliness and failure in terms of function led to
its rejection, although its champions would declare this to be a misrepresentation of the theory. The
buildings also articulated Gottfried Semper’s structural rationalist axiom that materials should speak
for themselves. (Forty, 2012, p. 80)
In 1955, Banham saw it as ‘architecture of our time’, part of ‘the recent history of history’ and
‘the growing sense of the inner history of the Modern Movement itself.’ He concluded that what
characterises New Brutalism was ‘precisely its brutality’ and its ‘bloody-mindedness’, an aformalist
contrast to neo-Palladianism. He defined it as ‘1, Memorability as an Image; 2, Clear exhibition
of Structure; and 3, Valuation of Materials “as found.”’(2013, pp. 10, 12, 15) Reidel emphasises the
prevailing popular view of it as “anti-beauty” or “ugliness”, but Kubo, Grimley, & Pasnik argue that its
heroic aspects: ‘powerful, singular, iconic’, should be part of the discourse (Reidel, 2013, p. 127; Kubo,
Grimley, & Pasnik 2013, p. 167). Kovacs and Bierig observed that it ‘served bureaucracies’ in public
buildings, Calder pointed out the advantages of ‘economies of scale through Fordist mass production’
and Townsend that it gave architectural control over precast designs (Kovacs & Bierig 2013, p. 31;
Calder, 2013, p. 47; Townsend, 2013, p. 89).
Pertinent to its use at Portsmouth, Strak emphasises its ‘weight and muscularity’ which ‘begs for a
setting worthy of its stark and heroic forms.’ (2013, p. 97) Concrete is used uncompromisingly in an
industrial context for the two narrow two-storey workshops which fit neatly onto the promontories
between Dock Nos 12 and 138 and Dock Nos 14 and 15. They possess a monolithic style redolent
of sea or military defences which is appropriate, and are austere and simple and masculine: rugged
8
Dock No. 13 is now beneath Ship Hall B (2/122).
65
and ornamented by a striking curved and fluted cornice. Forty points out that although Brutalism
embodies austerity, it is anything but a cheap finish, as it requires skilled shuttering techniques and
expert quality control. (Forty, 2012, pp. 149, 170, 187-8, 234-5) At Devonport, the NAAFI building
dominates Wharf 10, thrusting up from its pilotis.
2.5.5 Usage
Design has often been driven by the axiom of Vitruvius that “Well building have five conditions;
commoditie, firmness and delight – on time and at the right price.” (Broadbent, 1988, p. vii, quoting
Wotton’s 1624 translation). Although he acknowledged that the other four rational conditions are
necessary, Broadbent identified delight as the most important condition characterising people’s
relationship with buildings through sensory experience, which can overshadow the others. Broadbent
also identified design as an iterative process, where the choice of structure is usually based on
cost related to environmental requirements, determining materials and practices. Fundamentally, he
asserted, buildings should be comfortable, which is a matter of individual perception. He suggested
that what people do to buildings to make them more comfortable should be studied by designers.
(Broadbent, 1988, pp. 430, 452) After Portsmouth’s Parade was completed in 1719 the officers requested
a double row of thirty-six lime trees which ‘would not only be a means to break off the weather from
the houses, but a very great ornament to the building’ (Coad, 2013, pp. 156-7). On 10 February 1970
Portsmouth MP Frank Judd ‘asked the Minister of Public Building and Works on how many occasions
between 17th December 1969 and 13th January, 1970, inclusive, the morning temperature in window
seats in the typing pool in Room 1231 of the Central Office Block in Portsmouth Dockyard was below
60 degrees Fahrenheit’. He further asked ‘Would he not further agree that these intolerable working
conditions are another example of inadequate design or inadequate construction, or both’? (House
of Commons Debates, 1970) As Broadbent states, ‘People will bring their expectations to bear on our
buildings, based on their past experience’ (1988, p. 274). Thus dockyard workshop doors are left open
for air circulation, and nets are added to prevent birds flying in, and cast iron light brackets from an
earlier building are attached to the later Weapon Electrical Workshop (1936, 2/152) - for decoration,
preservation or celebration? As Kevin McCloud concluded, ‘Architecture is the relationship you have
with a building.’ (McCloud, 2008)
Fig. 57. Modified south entrance to Portsmouth Armour Plate Shop/No. 1 Ship Building Shop/Multi-
functional Workshop (1867, 2/172) supplied with nets to keep out birds in the summer. A. Coats
Fig. 58. Original bay and entrance of Portsmouth Torpedo Workshop (1886, 3/69), with plastic strips
to keep out birds in summer. A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 59. South elevation of Portsmouth Gunnery Mounting Store (1896, 2/165) showing nets to keep
out birds in the summer. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 60. Portsmouth Central Boiler House plastic door strips to keep out birds in summer (1907,
Fig. 61. West elevation of Portsmouth Main Pumping Station No. 1 (2/201) with nets to keep out
birds in summer. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
the MoD.
Fig. 62. Cast iron light bracket, similar to those on Portsmouth North Pumping Station (1913, 2/239)
and the Gunnery Mounting Store (1896, 2/165), attached anachronistically to the Weapon Electrical
Workshop (1936, 2/152). A. Coats, 2015. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
66
Collins reduced the contextual model which should direct an architect’s judgement to four comprehensive
factors: ‘physical and economic environment’, ‘political context’ which includes statutory conditions,
‘sequential influence of ideas’ which comprises the design brief and selected architectural style and
the ‘historical context’. (Collins, 1971, pp. 50-1) Broadbent analysed empiricism versus rationalism
(1988, pp. 25-49, 58-62) to explain different design approaches which either aim to delight the senses,
or be self-consistent systems; pragmatically using what is already known, copying; new theories; or Le
Corbusier’s inside-to-outside progression. Rationally, basic issues such as light and noise are resolved
through environmental studies of visual, auditory or temperature performance, rather than subjective
feelings. Social distance is controlled predominantly by management decisions. (Broadbent, 1988,
pp. 146-63) The needs of users are paramount in design to achieve Alexander’s (1964) good fit for
context. The first three basic requirements of Alexander and Chermayeff, while directed at a house,
can be seen at Portsmouth’s Freight Centre (3/88A); the Factory (3/82) and the old Pipe Shop, now the
Amalgamated Pipe Shop (1974, 3/188): “efficient parking…adequate manoeuvre space”, “Temporary
space for service and delivery vehicles”; “Reception point…sheltered delivery and waiting….storage of
parcel carts”. (Broadbent, 1988, pp. 274-5, citing Chermayeff & Alexander, 1963)
Pertinent to the design process, Collins discussed differences between the training of civil
engineers and architects: civil engineers study problems inherent in design which can be reduced
to mathematics; architects ‘design total entities’. But beyond the initial stages architects rarely
construct what they design, and often focus on ‘the visualisation of conceptual novelties’ rather
than case studies of precedents. John Winter, who designed the Portsmouth Visitor Centre,
believed that architects should build their own houses, to understand how buildings were made.
While efficiency is related to mathematical precision, and appropriateness of form and function,
he argued that architecture should be a mixture of science and art, reason and sentiment and
professional solutions should aim to be simple (Collins, 1971, pp. 96-9, 113, 116, 142-3; Pearman,
Obituary, 2012). Broadbent concluded that architects tend to cluster at the soft, personal end of
the design judgement spectrum, while engineers are at the hard calculating end (1988, p. 362).
According to his biographer Peter Jones, the twentieth century Danish engineer Ove Arup viewed
construction holistically and philosophically, aiming to integrate engineers and architects at the
inception of any large project. He became a leading protagonist in the discourse between civil
engineers and architects, expressing his public persona through his companies’ achievements and his
institutional membership, lectures and publications. Experienced in using reinforced concrete for large
coastal engineering works during the interwar period, and influenced by Le Corbusier’s promotion
of its use in large open floor plans and roof spans, he argued that engineers played an overarching
rôle in concrete structures, while architects, whom he felt separated “design” from “building”, were
distanced from the process. Concrete, rather than merely substituting timber and steel in the structure,
and replicating architectural forms, could form one monolithic whole. As Arup and Arup in the UK
in the 1930s, he designed buildings for the War Office and local authorities. In 1936 he called upon
“the Architect and the Engineer to join the widest resources of the industrial system to the furthest
needs of society.” During the Second World War he urged the “Elimination of waste by planning and
standardisation” and advocated publicly funded research into building standards. (Jones, 2006, pp. 3,
26-8, 47, 54, 94, 123-4, 128)
In 1951 Arup participated in the Congrès internationaux d’architecture moderne (CIAM) meeting whose report
argued that “ideally the Architect, the Engineer and the Builder should be the same person” and the
“teaching of method is more vital than imparting information”. It stated that in contemporary building
“mechanical equipment and services”, and environmental control were becoming “governing factors”,
so “enquiry and experiment” should replace ‘the prevailing atmosphere of “learning”. He took this
argument further in 1954, endorsing Vitruvius’s axiom, but blaming Wotton for the separation of
engineer and architect, Arup reworked it as:
“Excellence = Basic Commodity x Excess Commodities x Delight
Cost”
67
He returned the debate to the architect’s brief: “the right decision on what to build is usually more
important than how to build it”, and the primary function of the building, and stressed how much
a building affects people psychologically. He emphasised that architects had once known how
buildings were constructed and techniques were performed, but no longer did, leaving the engineer
to deliver their concepts. Sydney Opera House tested this hypothesis, as Arup & Partners struggled
to translate Utzon’s conceptual drawings into a structure when there was little dialogue or trust
between architect and engineer. Utzon contended that all an engineer’s “work can be calculated: none
of an architect’s work can be calculated.” He articulated the higher status and leading rôle accorded
to architects as students of the arts, compared with engineers as practitioners of the sciences. Arup
argued provocatively in 1968 that “Engineering is not a science.” It merely makes use of scientific laws
to solve problems, and is therefore like an art: “there are many solutions”. He echoed Le Corbusier
in that “everything built is architecture.” Listing his six core ideas in 1973, he asserted that his own
ideas were “very simple”. They included: design and construction “are interdependent”; “simplicity
of design makes economic and aesthetic sense”; cost control is an initial consideration; and precise
calculations can only be based on a clear definition of the parameters. In 1982 Arup emphasised that
his firm had a commitment to “design efficiently for quality”, involving “fitness for purpose, inside a
given budget”, requiring a multi-skilled team led by an exceptionally able person. While Jones’s study
revealed Arup’s inconsistencies, he considered that Arup constantly ‘adopted empirical methods of
enquiry and practice’. Povl Ahm attested in the 1970s to the worth of his “combined team of engineers
and architects”. Arup himself averred that good design comes from skilled and experienced designers
who have learned to make judgements of “taste” appropriate to context. For half the twentieth century
the work of his companies expressed this philosophy. (Jones, 2006, pp. 151, 156-8, 240-7, 264, 272-3,
276, 287, 291-2, 299, 306) Portsmouth Dockyard has a number of Arup buildings. The reasons why
Arup was the selected architect merit further research (see Arup Papers and Oral History Archive).
Rationalism prioritises function, efficiency, technology and calculation over aesthetics and decoration.
Collins quoted Le Corbusier as critiquing rationalism for negating “the fundamental human function
of beauty, namely the beneficial and invigorating action which harmony has upon us”. He cited
Pevsner in the twentieth century aim of restricting decoration to new social needs. (Collins, 1971,
pp. 36-9, 146) Boathouse No. 4 is both a rational and harmonious twentieth century building, its
design and construction visible inside and out. It has a large three storey workspace, interrupted by
few pillars, and well lit by windows and roof lights. Decoration is minimal, limited to a cornice and
string course, but the interior space is experienced through the senses as beautiful and majestic: the
sound and vibration caused by the sea pounding the harbour gates, the cathedral-like inner space
and acoustics, the richness of the timber roof. Externally in winter it almost vanishes into a cloudy
sky. Viewed from Boathouse No. 6 in January and February, it becomes a radiant fireball at sunset.
Its designer probably did not plan these sensory aspects, but they form part of its present experience.
The redbrick workshops and offices are assumed to be rational.
3 CHANGES TO THE NAVAL ESTATE

In 2006 Jonathan Coad, Inspector of Ancient Monuments for English Heritage and its forerunners,
recalled that naval buildings at Portsmouth, Plymouth and Chatham dockyards had been scheduled
as ancient monuments in the late 1960s because ‘the Ministry of Public Building and Works was
responsible for both naval buildings and the scheduling of ancient monuments.’ Another reason was
that ‘the Royal Navy wished to keep the process clear from local authorities and to rely on inspectors
who had signed the Official Secrets Act.’ This resulted in ‘a unified approach to the assessment of
historic buildings’, establishing a framework when the naval dockyard estate began to be dispersed
in the 1980s with the closure of Chatham Dockyard. He observed that whereas ‘interest in dockyard
buildings in Britain has flourished during the past 30 years’, previously ‘redundant dockyard buildings
were demolished at Woolwich, Deptford and Pembroke due to a lack of knowledge and resources.’
While the eighteenth century Ropehouse at Portsmouth was not demolished, it was ‘gutted and
68
converted into warehouses’ and ‘Rennie’s Great Storehouse at Sheerness was demolished in the 1970s.’
(Adams, 2006) In 1993 Coad argued that a ‘small number of buildings still in naval ownership are of
such historic significance that, if appropriate naval uses cannot be found for them, they should be put
into secure hands, preferably with sufficient funding or at a price which allows this.’ He urged that
‘while in naval hands, the buildings should continue to be maintained to ensure that historic fabric
does not deteriorate.’ If passed to a Buildings Trust ‘they should come with a sufficient endowment
to put buildings and their infrastructure into good order.’ (Coad, 1993, p. 10-1) While many defence
sites have in the recent past been documented before service personnel withdrew, to show how
spaces were used, at Devonport and Portsmouth the spaces have typically been re-used by the navy,
although HE and PNBPT photographs show the condition of the Portsmouth storehouses before their
refurbishment as a museum in the 1980s. Helpfully, two years before Chatham Dockyard closed, the
MoD allowed crucial industrial machines to be saved. Preserved steam hammers, saddle tanks, steam
cranes, railway trucks, plans and hand tools allowed a ‘broader experience to visitors of the activities
in the dockyard.’ (Adams, 2006)
Modernisation resulted in the loss in 1979 of ‘two rare iron-framed roofs over building slips’ at
Portsmouth (Ship Shop Nos 3-4, Riley, 1999, p. 895). Sheerness Quadrangle Storehouse, a fireproof
building with iron structures and York stone flooring, was demolished in 1978–79 (Coad, 1989, 138).
However, Coad wrote: ‘in the 40 years since Ancient Monuments’ legislation was applied to buildings
and engineering works in the operational naval bases [Chatham, Portsmouth and Devonport], not one
of these structures has been demolished’ (Coad, 2009, p. 15).
Disposal of all or part of the dockyards by the MoD has involved considerable changes in their
management. By the 1970s, as Coad pointed out, increased conservation guidelines and legislation
and a wider comprehension of the historic and architectural value of the naval estate protected many
of the historic dockyard buildings from inappropriate change or demolition (2013, p. 394). The MoD
noted in 1982 that a ‘number of the facilities in the SW area of [Portsmouth] Naval Base will not be
required for the support of the Fleet after 1984.’ However, outside this area and dispersed among the
operational facilities were scheduled monuments whose designation would hamper full operational
use, such as the Block Mills (TNA, DEFE 13/1274, 1982). David Brock of English Heritage included
‘divestment’ in this situation, involving a transfer of legal guardianship. In 1981 the Ancient Monuments
Board for England Panel on Historic Naval Bases recalled that the principle of taking the Block Mills
into the ‘guardianship’ of the DoE, by which ‘the burden of maintenance could be taken away
from the Navy’, had been discussed ten years previously, but that there was now a moratorium on
guardianship. The Panel concluded that ‘there was a pressing need in all the dockyards for coherent
long term plans which took into account all the ancient monuments and the historical development of
the yards’ to ‘restore the original order and grandeur’. It considered that this would suit the navy better
in the long term than a piecemeal approach. (Brock, pers. comm., 2014; TNA, WORK 14/3301, 1981)
The durability and scale of redundant dockyard buildings has allowed new uses such as universities,
residences, commerce and museums. At Chatham the entire historic yard was taken over by a trust
and conserved for a mixture of museums, housing, a university and commerce. At Portsmouth the
Georgian sector, 11.25 acres (4.56 hectares), 4.23% of the land area of the Naval Base, was transferred
in 1985 under the 1982 Defence Review to the Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust for heritage use.
This augmented the buildings already used by the Royal Naval Museum and the Mary Rose Museum:
Boathouse No. 5 and Dock No. 3 where the raised Mary Rose was docked in 1983. (Coad, 2013, p. 394)
Boathouse No. 6 ceased its naval use in 1983 and was re-opened after considerable refurbishment as
an attraction in 2001. In 1985 Boathouse No. 7 was closed and refurbished for display purposes by the
PRDHT. HMS Warrior 1860 arrived in 1987 as a tourist attraction moored alongside a dedicated jetty.
In 1991 Storehouse No. 10’s cupola and clocktower, damaged in a 1941 air raid, were restored as part
of a programme of converting the two Georgian storehouses into museums. Storehouse No. 11 had
previously been modified for the McCarthy Museum in 1971.
Fig. 63. J356/01/72. Photograph of Portsmouth Storehouse No. 11, ground floor conversion to the
McCarthy Museum (28 Apr 1971). ©Crown copyright.HE.
69
These events transformed docks, storehouses or workshops into exhibition spaces. The internal
structure and appearance of Storehouse Nos 10 and 11 (1/59 and 1/58) and Boathouse No. 6 (1/23) have
undergone notable adaptations. Modification by wartime fire and bombing enabled the installation
of a lift in Storehouse No. 10 and a cinema in Boathouse No. 6. Not only have structures altered, but
also the use of internal space. Interior objects have been transformed – artefacts rather than ships’
stores; people have changed – curators, conservators, attendants and visitors rather than riggers and
storehousemen. Internal climatic conditions have been modified to conserve wood, textiles, paintings,
prints and books, necessitating the insertion of climate-controlled compartments and equipment. Some
buildings have become shops and cafés, such as the ground floor of Storehouse No. 9 and Boathouse
No. 7, such uses not drastically affecting their structures. They are still working spaces for employees,
but have also become leisure spaces for visitors. Their appearance has morphed from fairly dirty,
oily, dusty, shadowy and often unhealthy workspaces (Taaffe, 2013) into clean, spotlit, ventilated,
polished public spaces, because they are now marketed, and need to compete with other commercial
leisure activities. Building designations have constrained museum professionals in devising artefact
display and visitor comfort within historic spaces. The Mary Rose Museum is a completely new (2013)
structure sitting within an historic scheduled monument, Dock No. 3; Storehouse No. 10 holds a
completely refurbished (2014) ground floor twentieth century gallery of the Royal Navy which also
reveals the structure and materials of this eighteenth century building.
Progression to this point in both yards was affected by different funding processes. At Portsmouth it
took several years to set up funding to conserve the listed buildings within the heritage area. Thomas
ascribed the long process to ‘a lack of coherence because of the nature of the overlapping roles,
differing concepts, and to a certain degree, rivalries between the various trusts.’ He traced the plans of
Sealink British Ferries (which was sold to Sea Containers Ltd in 1984), Portsmouth Naval Heritage Trust
which represented the four museum trusts, and Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust, which had an
endowment of £6.5m and a 99 year lease to manage the 11.25 acre site from the MoD. Sealink British
Ferries’ 1986 plans for £3m capital provision were criticised by the Warrior Trust, which commissioned
their own report, as too commercial, aiming for too many (3.3m) annual visits and underfunding a
£30m project, therefore driving a “pursuit of funds” rather than understanding the “cultural assets of
the site”. Thomas considered that Sealink British Ferries’ 1989 submission for an initial sum of £6m
for a £26m plan was more purposeful, with 16% of the buildings allocated for catering and 10% for
retailing. He reported that John Winter’s design for a new building to replace Boathouse No. 4 had
been approved by the Royal Fine Art Commission, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission
and Portsmouth City Council. But while PCC had provided some administrative resources and £1.5m
for Warrior’s pontoon, he saw their status as that of an ‘observer’ compared with Hampshire County
Council, which had ‘bought itself in’ by offering money to the Royal Naval Museum.
Thomas, promoting a more inclusive approach, argued that ‘No specific period ought to be more
“authentic” than any other’ and called for the heritage area also to contain the industrial Block Mills
and the Steam Basin to more accurately represent Portsmouth’s heritage. He identified Warrior’s report
as polarising the debate between ‘gradual evolution and a “once and for all development solution”’
and delaying decisions. By February 1990 Portsmouth Naval Heritage Trust had withdrawn from
negotiations and the Sealink British Ferries’ proposal had been cancelled.
In May 1990 Sea Containers’ plans, which had evolved into £9m of refurbishment within a £26m
project, had been accepted by the Mary Rose Trust, but the Architects’ Journal warned in May 1990
that HCC, Warrior and the RNM had not accepted them, and that they had not yet been submitted for
planning permission. These plans, designed by John Winter and Associates, included a new building
for Mary Rose and its artefacts and a new catering and retail building to replace Boathouse No. 4. The
Architects’ Journal prediction proved to be accurate. Sea Containers’ asset values fell due to external
economic factors and could not cover this investment. Winter’s obituary claimed that his new build
design for Boathouse No. 4 was ‘vetoed by the Prince Charles tendency’, although his glass and
steel design for the Visitor Reception Centre resonated with nineteenth century engineering: “You’ll
find pretty well every feature of my design in the existing dock buildings.” The Visitor Centre was
70
approved by Portsmouth council in 1993 and opened in 1994, some recompense for the loss of the
larger scheme. (Conservation and reuse of dockyard structures, 1990, p. 201-2, 206, 207; Thomas,
April 1990, p. 24-6; Troubled waters for dock project, Architects’ Journal, May 1990, p. 11; Construction
News, 2 February 1990; Construction News, 5 July 1990; Pearman, 2012; Spring 1994, p. 26; Portsmouth
permission, Building Design, 1993, p. 5; Gale, 1995)
At Chatham, of the £11.35m given by the government in 1984, £3m was committed to refurbishing
the Ropery and £3.5m was needed to make the buildings weathertight, but the forty-seven ancient
monuments needed a further £25m for restoration. In 1990 the Trust could only ‘devote £100,000 each
year for stop-gap maintenance’ of the covered slips, as with no anticipated re-use, the full cost of
restoration could not be justified. The author posed questions to be considered in these circumstances:
‘how far should we go to preserve the authenticity of old structures even against current thinking on
durability and maintenance costs?’ and ‘when are recent additions part of the history of a structure
which need to be kept and when are they irrelevant and distracting accretions which should be
removed?’ (Conservation and reuse of dockyard structures, 1990, pp. 201-2, 206, 207)
At Devonport, Plymouth Naval Base Museum was given use of some buildings in South Yard (Fire
Station/Stables, Pay Office, Gilroy House, a post-war building used to store model ships and Mould
Loft/Scrieve Board) to care for a collection of artefacts. These are now accessible though Devonport
Heritage Centre which organises tours. However, the transfer of much of this yard to Princess Yachts
in 2010 and news in 2014 of a City Deal for marine industry development elsewhere in South Yard
(Marine News, 20 January 2014) means that Devonport Dockyard’s oldest heritage site has a future
under multiple commercial owners. While noting in 2009 that one third of naval figureheads existing
in 1914 and dispersed during the twentieth century had been lost, David Pulvertaft also regretted that
‘Unfortunately the Plymouth Naval Base Museum did not flourish and a more modest arrangement is
now being investigated’ (2009, pp. 84, 85).
Crown exemption from non-statutory notification procedures for planning has been changed. The
MoD announced in 2009 (Defence Estates, p. 11) that it has formally adopted the DCMS protocol for
the care of the government historic estate (English Heritage, 2009, Protocol) and was committed to
the following actions:
• MOD undertake condition assessments on a four yearly basis (quadrennial) for listed buildings
and a five yearly basis (quinquennial) for scheduled monuments
• MOD has in place a range of management plans including Integrated Rural Estate Management
Plans, site specific Environmental Management Systems and Integrated Estate Management Plans.
Conservation Management Plans and Conservation Statements are produced for sites of high
heritage value where a need is identified
• Heritage assets are identified within the sites Integrated Estate Management Plan and are
accompanied by a maintenance programme
• The MOD BAR Officer is in post, working to establish agreed costed plans to resolving
each BAR
• MOD applies DCMS guidelines to inform the disposal process
The MoD has been subject to Planning Acts since June 2006, and Scheduled Monument consent for
changes is required under DCLG Circular 02/06 (DCLG, June 2006). It has also adopted procedures to
raise awareness and improve the assessment of BARs. In 2008 it announced the removal of Portsmouth
Block Mills from the HARR and its winning of the Georgian Group Architectural Award in August 2008
and affirmed the promotion of public tours of its historic estate, linked to community engagement
initiatives (Defence Estates, 2009, pp. 18, 21, 27; MoD, 2014, Public access to military areas).
Defence Estates is one of the UK’s largest landowners, owning 1% of UK land in 2010, containing 793
Listed Buildings and 720 Scheduled Monuments, the government’s largest heritage portfolio. Conflict
71
between operational budgets and care for historic buildings was articulated by the National Audit
Office in that ‘Sites that are in poor condition or need considerable investment to make them fit for
purpose could be candidates for disposal.’ (NAO, 2010, Summary, para. 8. p. 7) The Comptroller and
Auditor General noted:
It is evident that the location and characteristics of many defence estate assets reflect historical
circumstances, which means they may not be a perfect fit for current operational requirements.
They may be located in the wrong place, require additional costs to maintain and may not be
fully compatible with operational needs. (NAO, 2010, Findings, para. 1.3, p.10)
The MoD’s aim is to have an estate of fewer, larger sites: ‘The MOD is committed to an estate that is
of the right size to support the needs of the Armed Forces.’ (DIO, 2011, p. 14) But the characteristics
of the estate limit what can be disposed of, in particular the listed status of buildings (National Audit
Office, 2010, pp. 13, 28).
In 2008, the MoD decided to keep Portsmouth Naval Base open. In 2010 the decision was taken to keep
the carriers; Portsmouth is the only naval base that these very large ships can access all year round.
In 2013, MoD confirmed that the ‘future of Portsmouth Naval Base is secure…and it will continue
to employ around 11,000 people in total following BAE Systems’ rationalisation of its shipbuilding
capability.’ (House of Commons, 18 Nov 2013, Column 702W) The carriers’ rôle was confirmed in
November 2013: ‘The Queen Elizabeth (QE) Class aircraft carriers will be multi-role platforms’ which
will ‘allow the Carrier Task Group to conduct operations at sea or deep inland, while still being able
to undertake Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations (NEOs)….at very short notice as part of joint,
multi-national and multi-agency forces.’ (House of Commons, 18 Nov 2013, Columns 694W, 695W)
Mike Hancock, MP for Portsmouth South, further asked the Secretary of State for Defence:
(1) what his policy is towards the two properties leased to BAE Systems in Portsmouth
Dockyard once the contract on such buildings expires in September 2014;
(2) how his Department plans to use the shipbuilding shed (a) once BAE Systems finish its
current work and (b) after the contract expires in November 2014; and how his Department
intends to use other buildings no longer required for shipbuilding work after November 2014.
(House of Commons, 18 November 2013, Column 705W)
Philip Dunne (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State and Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and
Technology, including Defence Exports) replied: ‘The Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) current planning
assumption is that the facilities used for this activity will be returned to the Department.’ Separate leases
covering other ongoing manufacture and repair facilities of Royal Navy craft would be negotiated. He was
also ‘looking at options to support employment-generating activity both in the dockyard and on adjoining
MOD-owned land.’ (House of Commons, 18 Nov 2013, Column 705W) In April 2014 it was announced
that the BAES 13-hectare site shipbuilding site occupying key locations will be marketed ‘to companies
in Britain and abroad’. Property consultants Lambert Smith Hampton expect ‘considerable interest from
those operating in marine, defence, aerospace and general engineering sectors.’ (Marine News, 4 April 2014)
The MoD is spending £¾bn on infrastructure and will employ 2K more naval personnel at Portsmouth
for the aircraft carriers and frigates by 2016. A channel forty metres wide has been dredged at the
harbour entrance on the Hamilton Bank because the carriers cannot turn sharp corners. The western
jetties at North Corner have had to be strengthened because twentieth century concrete added to
the eighteenth and nineteenth century jetties weakened them; a strong north easterly wind pushing
against the vast sides of the carriers could have dragged them away. There will also be
dredging of the main channel inside the harbour, deepening of berthing pockets and
refurbishment of various jetties. Dredging is set to start in 2014/15 and it is likely that material
will primarily be disposed of at the Nab Tower disposal site. (Greenlees, 2013; MMO, 2013, p.
126, citing Dredging Today, 2012)
72
In Devonport South Yard, MOD Heritage Report 2009–11 reported that Princess Yachts had
engaged with Plymouth City Council, the South West Development Agency and the MOD seeking
to lease part of South Yard, HMNB Devonport in order to set up a facility to build their new range of
larger luxury yachts. A Lease was agreed for a term of 125 Years from 1 May 2010. Princess Yachts
are now seeking to buy the freehold. A private treaty sale for their lease area and an additional
area of land has been agreed in principal, the sale would include 10 listed buildings (including
a Grade I, six at Grade II* and a BAR) and a scheduled monument (DIO, 2011, p. 14 para. 33b)
Princess Yachts acquired the ‘15 acre site… for the purpose of building a new line of 100 feet+
vessels’. It planned to make ‘significant modifications and enhancements to the current yard including
a new impressive production “hangar”.’ The plans also included ‘the covering and development of
the existing “shallow dock”’ and structural changes to Slip No. 3 (Super Yacht Times, 26 March 2010).
The following year Princess Yachts ‘completed the purchase from Defence Estates of a freehold
interest in the 18-acre South Yard site within the historic Devonport Naval Dockyard in September
2011.’ (Princess Yachts International, 2011) An additional three acres had been added, presumably
the East Ropery, which had not been included in planning application 10/00640/FUL, points noted
by the NDS to Plymouth City Council in 2010:
It is deduced from the Planning documents that Princess Yachts plans to acquire the East
Ropery and Tarred Yarn Houses and an exclusive entrance through Mutton Cove Gate. The
Transport Assessment refers to access to Princess Yachts through Mutton Cove Gate: ‘It
is hoped that the freehold would be acquired prior to build.’ (Princess Yachts Devonport
Transport Assessment, p. 9)
Also: ‘The design team has visited the existing neighbouring East Ropery building (S132,
Grade I listed) on 19th January 2010.’ (Design and Access Statement REV A) (Naval Dockyards
Society to PCC Planning Committee 28 June 2010)
In October 2011 Defence Infrastructure Interim Land and Property Disposal Strategy reiterated that ‘MOD only
holds land and property in support of operational defence capability’ and that land ‘identified as being
surplus to Defence requirements…is to be put up for disposal.’ A qualifying clause was that ‘Market sale
sites may also include those which are affected by either heritage or conservation designations, such
that a more detailed planning application would normally be required to be made by the purchaser.’
(DIO, October 2011, paras 3, 15, 54, pp. 5-6, 13) It is probable that Devonport South Yard fell within
the ‘12 per cent…identified as surplus to defence needs’ (NAO, 2010, Findings, para. 1.20. p. 18).
The Former Devonport Market House in South Yard had already been removed from the Devonport
Dockyard estate in 2005, when the land around it (the South Yard Enclave) was sold to English
Partnerships (Plymouth City Council, 2007, p. 14). The MoD Heritage Report 2009–11 also announced
that the freehold of Devonport North Yard had been sold to Babcock, including six listed buildings,
among them the Quadrangle (Grade I listed), and reported a new Listing, Building 13 (Receipt and
Issue Magazine), at Grade II (DIO, 2011, p.15, Table 6. MOD Disposals North Yard, p. 28).
Most recently in 2014, a City Deal
seeks to unlock land at South Yard in Devonport Naval Base. Plymouth City Council and the
Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership will begin detailed discussions with the
Ministry of Defence over releasing land at South Yard, which could provide a prime location for
the marine industry due to its close proximity to other companies in the sector and has access
to deep water which is needed for marine research, development, and testing. Agreement has
the potential to release 32,400 square metres of land (Marine News, 20 January 2014).
The UK Future Force 2020 strategy means that Portsmouth Dockyard will not dispose of any more
land, apart from some listed buildings to the heritage area. Since the 1990s, discussions at Portsmouth
between the MoD and the Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust about disposals have included the
release of the Block Mills (1/153), the Ropehouse (1/65) and the Former Naval Academy (1/14-1/19),
73
but progress has been impeded by concern for the security of nearby naval base buildings, such as
Admiralty House (1/20) and the danger arc (future range of explosive weapons). From 2016, 2,000
more naval personnel will need to be accommodated at Portsmouth for the new carriers, so the
Ropehouse and the Former Naval Academy are likely to return to operational use.
4 CONCLUSIONS
Collins insisted that familiarity with the site under discussion is imperative for both designer and critic
(1971, p. 51). Drury emphasised that ‘motivation…and scholarly endeavour has always run alongside
a desire to influence or validate the present.’ Layered skills arising from working on the site, or
generations of living near the site, obtained through community engagement and oral history, have an
important part to play in characterisation (2009, pp. 5-10). It has taken decades for project members
to acquire the research experience and skills to assess the built environment of these two dockyards.
Their long familiarity with these dockyards, has allowed team members to absorb the sites’ evidential,
historical, aesthetic and communal hierarchical values, including intangible continuities of ownership
by design teams and workforces. They focused on the relationship between past and present uses and
their place in memory and culture which made them special, and were mindful of past and present
stakeholders. They also became part of a chain of memory, Jonathan Coad, Ray Riley and Ann Coats
having worked with earlier dockyard historians such as R. S. Horne, Brian Patterson and Dennis Miles,
and David Evans with former Devonport dockyard archivist Graham Lang.
From the characterisation criteria identified, the team started from designations and map regression to
contextualise material remains, particularly in the completeness of structures carrying out functions,
group value, rarity and representivity. The survey addresses landscape changes and HLC character
types. Architectural drawings convey design aspirations, but buildings evolve through their lifetimes,
so they need to be studied in the field (Forty, 2000, pp. 37, 85).
Twentieth century dockyards are characterised by pragmatic design, based on four centuries of
continuity and innovation. Occasionally designs have had a shorter duration than expected, such
as COB1 and COB2 at Portsmouth. Some housing blocks have also proved defective. This aspect is
regarded by former dockyard workers as a deviation from normal dockyard characteristics: durability
and value for money. For surveyors, these targets now include environmental sustainability and
utilisation of embodied energy.
Docks are never big enough for warships, as Evans noted (2004, pp. 166-7) and Coad contended:
‘the biggest imponderable faced by the engineers was designing basins, docks and slips that would
still be of sufficient size to meet the requirements of the navy when built.’ If they were too large they
overstretched running costs by requiring more pumping and longer shores. (Coad, 2013, p. 175) In
1861 Dock No. 1 at the new Keyham Steam Yard was too shallow for Warrior, which could only just
be docked at Queen’s Dock, which was too short for the Minotaur ironclads, while Devonport jetties
were too short for Warrior to lie alongside (Evans, 2004, pp. 166-7). When Col. Sir Andrew Clarke was
questioned in 1881 about the necessity for building all the docks and locks in Portsmouth’s Great
Extension to such large dimensions, he answered that they were approved by naval constructors and
parliament to contain the future larger iron ships. He emphasised that larger docks were needed for
damaged battleships than for normal maintenance docking (Bernays et al., 1881, pp. 221-3, 226). Otter
cited civil engineer N. G. Gedye who noted rapid increases in shipping size from an “average gross
tonnage from just under 5000 tons in 1880 to around 20,000 tons in 1909.” Average lengths, beams
and loaded draughts increased accordingly. In 1909 Gedye recommended building graving docks able
to cope with the size of ships anticipated for the next fifteen years. (Otter, 2004, p. 199) Portsmouth
Dock Nos 9 and 12-15 and Locks A-D, built and enlarged between 1875 and 1914, accommodated all
twentieth century RN ships, but no British dock can take the new carriers (Greenlees, 2013); they will
take over the western jetties.
74
Rationalism is essential, with precise measurements and understanding of materials, calculations,

orderly orientation and spaces. Surveyors measuring Dock No. 3 in 2010 for the new Mary Rose
Museum were impressed by the accuracy of the eighteenth century dock altar measurements achieved
without modern technology. The scale of the 1903 Factory (3/82) is appreciated, the ‘largest engineering
workshop built in the yard up to that date.’ (Coad, 2013, p. 46) It is axiomatic that naval headquarters
should overlook iconic docks and basins, and that the architecture should express the political, social
and economic power of the state (Broadbent, 1990, pp. 79, 82-91, 96-8, 159). Thus Portsmouth’s Victory
Building sustains its rôle overlooking the older docks within the traditional administrative heart of the
yard, and at Devonport North Yard the Central Office Block (N215) overlooks the Quadrangle Factory
and the basins beyond.
Both Devonport and Portsmouth were heavily bombed in the Second World War, many buildings
being destroyed in Devonport. Subsequently many more buildings have been lost to redevelopment,
and many are still at risk. Changes to conservation legislation and guidance since the 1960s halted
this process, although some key dockyard buildings were lost. The MoD is currently deciding what
to retain as operational estate and what to release further to the heritage or commercial sectors.
Sustainable re-use of ‘redundant naval buildings’ is helped by their ‘durable construction’ and ‘sheer
scale’ (Coad, 2013, pp. 393-4).
Surviving historic buildings and some twentieth century buildings in these two remaining dockyards
require assessment for their future protection. Although Portsmouth Block Mills (1/153, 1802, Grade
1) were restored in 2008, they require a sustainable re-use. Buildings still at risk include the Iron
Foundry/Storehouse No. 35 (the east wing of 1/140, 1/136, Grade II*), The Parade (1/124-132, Grade
II*), the Former Naval Academy (1/14-19, Grade II*) and Storehouse No. 25 (1/118, Grade II*). They
occupy key spaces in the naval estate but have no current operational function beyond surrounding
the new Victory Building (1/100) with faded grandeur (English Heritage, October 2013, South East
Heritage at Risk Register, pp. 71-2). However, Portsmouth Dockyard’s current expanded operational rôle
includes plans to return The Parade and the Former Naval Academy to naval use.
It is timely that this study has been carried out as a new era dawns. In 2005, in ‘Historic Royal dockyards
continue to serve a military function or offer potential for redevelopment’, Schofield reiterated the
‘need to understand their heritage values prior to any redevelopment scheme or significant alteration
taking place.’ (p. 18) In 2007 Martin Cherry called for a continued campaign to raise the profile of
post-war heritage:
The post-war listing programme, carried out in the 1990s by English Heritage and many
partners, augmented systematic research with active publicity, and helped create a climate
where (by the year 2000) 75 per cent of people thought that the best of our post-war heritage
should be preserved (rising to 95 per cent of the 16–24 age group). But such high levels of
support cannot be guaranteed without sustained campaigns and public dialogue. (Cherry,
Autumn 2007, p. 32)
Government estates need to pay their way, no longer subsided by the public purse. They also need
to reflect the interests of the current population profile. Schofield raised the perspectives of younger
multi-ethnic generations whose conceptions of heritage differ from “traditional” English concepts:
By recognising the historic environment as an artefact – a construct, the result of the action
and interaction of natural and human factors – and by taking a long-term perspective on future
views of our own times, we can ensure that recent changes are recognised alongside those of
antiquity; and we can begin to recognise their evidential value, their capacity to teach us about
ourselves and about contemporary society. (Schofield, Autumn 2007, p. 2)
Schofield observed (Autumn 2007, p. 4) that Sefryn Penrose’s (2010) Images of Change. An archaeolog y of
England’s contemporary landscape is a ‘tool for understanding our own journeys on our own landscape’
and was aimed to start ‘a national discussion about history, memory and our experiences of the
75
landscape.’ Penrose argued that, contrary to some beliefs, the later twentieth century has not devalued
or destroyed previous landscapes. This is not the case in Portsmouth North Corner Development.
The indented Slip Jetties and historic Slip No. 5 where Dreadnoughts were built in the early 1900s (see
the 1910 photograph in Coad, 2013, p. 186) have been transformed for operational reasons into the
straightened western jetties serving the new aircraft carriers.
Fig. 64. 23852/14 SU 6201/4. Aerial photograph of Portsmouth North Corner from the east showing a
landscape which, apart from the Smithery and the Steam Factory, has changed completely since the
beginning of the twentieth century (11 Apr 2005). ©Historic England.
Justifying the relevance of this Historic England characterisation study, Coad concluded that ‘the
navy’s ships and bases helped shape much of this country’s modern history.’ (2013, p. 394) Like its
contextual British industry, in Cain and Hopkins’s memorable phrase, defence during the twentieth
century has undergone a ‘painful transition’ from ‘rust and dust to sunrise and silicon.’ (2001, p. 4)
Schofield asked ‘Is now the right time to consider our modern heritage?’ (Autumn 2007, p. 5) The NDS
considers that the present is always the right time to assess the past, but the situation is now urgent,
with new development taking place at both Devonport and Portsmouth. This study will also bring
these dockyards to the notice of wider audiences.
76
Part 1: Historical background and characterisation
Fig. 2. Photograph by Reginald Silk showing C3 submarine leaving Portsmouth

Harbour passing Semaphore Tower, a paddle steamer and HMS Dreadnought
moored at South Railway Jetty, entitled ‘Submarine passing the Dreadnought’.
HMS Dreadnought was the first ship of its class launched from Portsmouth Slip
Fig. 1. Photograph of the launch of No. 5 in 1906. Built by Vickers, Barrow-in-Furness, C3 was commissioned in 1906
super-Dreadnought HMS Orion on 20 and deliberately blown up during the Zeebrugge raid in 1918. PMRS, PORMG
August 1910. The ship was laid down 1945/653/16. Photograph reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth
29 November 1909 on Portsmouth Slip Museums and Records Service.
No. 5. PMRS, PORMG 1945/654/2.
Photograph reproduced with the kind
permission of Portsmouth Museums
and Records Service.
Fig. 4. ADM01 (June 1908) p. b. Numbers and Dimensions of Locks, Docks and
Basin Entrances in HM Dockyards. Admiralty Book. Reproduced by permission of
Historic England.
Fig. 3. Front cover, Gale and Polden

(July 1912). Official Programme of the
Great Naval Review, Spithead. London:
Gale and Polden Ltd. Reproduced
courtesy British Transport Treasures.
Right: Fig. 5. Photograph showing

a Phoenix Caisson for the Mulberry
Harbour under construction in C
Lock, the Royal Naval Dockyard
Portsmouth (27.1.1944). IWM Image
H 35374 (2003/583 PMRS) supplied
by PMRS, copyright courtesy the
Imperial War Museum.
Fig. 6. Plymouth Blitz “Bomb Book” page 40, noted as Air Raid 38, showing approximate location of bombs dropped on all areas of the central part of Plymouth on
21 Apr 1941. PWDRO, 1555/40. © Plymouth City Council (Arts and Heritage).
Fig. 7. Plymouth Blitz “Bomb Book” page 41, noted as Air Raids 38A, showing the approximate route of three specific raids and location of bombs
dealt with by the Bomb Disposal Squad and the times bombs exploded. Air raid number 38 (21–22 April 1941) from St Budeaux, Devonport, Victoria
Park, York Street, Treville Street, Embankment Road to Laira and Cattedown. Air raid number 39 (22–23 April 1941) from West Hoe, Millbay, Union
Street, Devonport Hill, Devonport, Ford, across Tavistock Road, Central Park towards Mutley and Thorn Park Avenue. Air raid number 40 (23–24 April
1941) from Embankment Road area, Sutton Harbour, city centre, north of Stonehouse, Devonport, Stoke, Camels Head, Weston Mill, east of King’s
Tamerton, Burrington, Pennycross and Torr Crescent. PWDRO, 1555/41. © Plymouth City Council (Arts and Heritage).
Fig. 8. Plymouth Blitz “Bomb Book” page 42, noted as Air Raids 39 and 40, showing the approximate location of bombs dropped on the city of Plymouth, including
Devonport and Stonehouse, 22–23 Apr 1941. PWDRO, 1555/42. © Plymouth City Council (Arts and Heritage).
Fig. 9. Plymouth Blitz “Bomb Book” page 2, showing the approximate location of unexploded bombs marked in blue and
dealt with by the Bomb Squad and also the times bombs were reported as having exploded (c.1944). PWDRO, 1555/2.
© Plymouth City Council (Arts and Heritage).
Fig. 10. Photograph Devonport, Fore Street, air raid damage, Fig. 11. Devonport Central Hall, Open Air Service,
c. October 1941. PWDRO, 1418/1360. © Plymouth City Plymouth, c.1942. PWDRO, 1418/1220. © Plymouth City
Council (Arts and Heritage) / courtesy of Western Morning Council (Arts and Heritage) / courtesy of Western Morning
News Ltd. News Ltd.
Fig. 12. HMS Achates, Devonport, Launch Fig. 13. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Miscellaneous. Portsmouth
by Lady Leatham, 20 September 1945. yard and Royal Navy barracks, showing passive defence measures, including
PWDRO, 1418/2303. © Plymouth City bombs dropped and buildings damaged, 1940–43. Scale: 1:1,666. Section
Council (Arts and Heritage) / courtesy of showing bomb falls in the southwest corner. TNA (1942). WORK 41/314.
Western Morning News Ltd. Reproduced with the permission of The National Archives.
Fig. 14. H M Naval

Dockyard, Portsmouth:
Miscellaneous.
Portsmouth yard and
Royal Navy barracks,
showing passive defence
measures, including
bombs dropped and
buildings damaged,
1940–43. Scale: 1:1,666.
Section showing bomb
falls in the Western
Jetties and North Corner.
TNA (1942). WORK
41/314. Reproduced
with the permission of
The National Archives.
Fig. 15. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Miscellaneous.

Portsmouth yard and Royal Navy barracks, showing passive defence
measures, including bombs dropped and buildings damaged, 1940–
43. Scale: 1:1,666. Section showing bomb falls in the Tidal Basin
and Basin No. 3. TNA (1942). WORK 41/314. Reproduced with
the permission of The National Archives.
Right: Fig. 16. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Miscellaneous.

Portsmouth yard and Royal Navy barracks, showing passive defence
measures, including bombs dropped and buildings damaged, 1940–
43. Scale: 1:1,666. Section showing bomb falls in Area 3.
TNA (1942). WORK 41/314. Reproduced with the permission
of The National Archives.
Left: Fig. 17. H M

Naval Dockyard,
Portsmouth:
Miscellaneous.
Portsmouth
yard and Royal
Navy barracks,
showing passive
defence measures,
including
bombs dropped
and buildings
damaged, 1940–
43. Scale: 1:1,666.
Section showing
bomb falls in the
Accommodation
Area. TNA
(1942). WORK
41/314.
Reproduced with
the permission
of The National
Archives.
Fig. 18. H M
Naval Dockyard,
Portsmouth:
Miscellaneous.
Portsmouth
yard and Royal
Navy barracks,
showing passive
defence measures,
including
bombs dropped
and buildings
damaged,
1940–43.
Scale: 1:1,666.
Section showing
bomb falls
near Dock Nos
12-15 and the
Accommodation
Area. TNA
WORK 41/314.
Reproduced with
the permission
of The National
Archives.
Fig. 19. UK Total government debt in the twentieth

century (UK Public Spending, 27 Aug 2013),
reproduced courtesy Christopher Chantrill.
Above: Fig. 20. Photograph of Portsmouth Artificers

(784A/10/1 image supplied by PMRS) courtesy of
Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust.
Left: Fig. 21. Photograph of female munitions workers,

Electrical Engineers Department, Easter 1916. Inset:
Louis J. Steele MIEE Electrical Engineer, Mrs Heaster
Chargewoman, W. Brand Esq Assist E.E., H. A.
Knott Esq Assist E.E, Mr E. R. Roach Inspector, Miss
Nepean Chargewoman. Image 1340A/1/5 supplied
by PMRS, courtesy of Portsmouth Royal Dockyard
Historical Trust.
Fig. 23. Large decorative scrolled abutments at Rochefort

Dockyard Ropery (1666–69). A. Coats 2008. They are also
used on Rodney (1847, NE/14), the Gymnasium south
elevation roof gable (1899), the gable on the north elevation
Fig. 22. Photograph of women in Portsmouth Dockyard, of nearby Barham (1899, NE/82) in HMS Nelson Barracks,
some wearing triangular ‘On War Service’ badges or brooches and the date plaque (1903) on the north elevation of the
to show they were employed on essential war work. Image Factory (1903, 3/82).
1340A/1/6 supplied by PMRS, courtesy
of Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust.
Fig. 24. Louis XIV’s personal ‘L’ emblem at

Rochefort Dockyard Ropery (1666–69).
A. Coats 2008.
Fig. 25. Former Naval Academy at Portsmouth (1729–32, 1/14), east

elevation. A. Coats 2014. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 27. South elevation of Portsmouth HMS Nelson/Main Gate (1734,

Fig. 26. Former Naval Academy at Portsmouth 1899–1903) on Queen Street, showing on the right the uninterrupted
(1729–32, 1/14), cupola. A. Coats 2014. view of the Parade Ground which was reinstated in 1956. A. Coats
Reproduced with the permission of the MoD. 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 28. Welcome message borne on the electricity substation Fig. 29. Portsmouth Unicorn Training Centre
(c.1950, 3/156) at Portsmouth Trafalgar Gate (2011). A. Coats Gate (1980). A. Coats 2014. Reproduced with
2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD. the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 30. Images of the future navy, utilising wind power, designed by pupils of nearby Flying Bull School at Portsmouth
Fig. 31. Images of HMS Queen Elizabeth 2016 and HMS Princess Royal 1911 in Portsmouth Princess Royal Way (2011).
Fig. 33. Portsmouth D East Substation, built as Motor

Fig. 32. Maritime planting at Portsmouth Trafalgar Gate Generator House No. 18 and extended in 1950 (1939,
(2011). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission 2/205), enhanced by a painted flagpole. A. Coats, 2013.
of the MoD. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 34. Twentieth century Portsmouth bicycle shed near Fig. 35. Twenty-first century Portsmouth bicycle shed on
North Camber. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the Mountbatten Way. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the
permission of the MoD. permission of the MoD.
Fig. 36. Twenty-first century Portsmouth bicycle shed

near Dock No. 12. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the
Fig. 37. Granite blocks from the dockyard re-used as seats in

the Porter’s Garden in 2005. A. Coats 2008. Reproduced with
the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
Above: Fig. 38. Concrete

architrave, north
elevation, Portsmouth
Storehouse No. 5 (1951,
1/34). A. Coats 2013.
Reproduced with the
Left: Fig. 40.

Neoclassical south
entrance to the Light Fig. 39. Concrete sill showing deterioration, Portsmouth
Plate Shop/No. 1 Ship Storehouse No. 34 (c.1786, 1/149), modified after Second
Building Shop at Portsmouth (1867, 2/172). A. Coats 2013. World War bomb damage. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced
Reproduced with the permission of the MoD. with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 42. Panel

of photovoltaic
cells to
generate
electricity at
Portsmouth in
2013, south
of the Lub Oil
Store (3/251).
A. Coats 2013.
Reproduced
with the
permission
Fig. 41. Movable storage containers in a compound west of a Portsmouth of the MoD.
substation (3/211) in 2013. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the
Fig. 43. 23834/01 SU 6200/31. Aerial photograph of Portsmouth’s straightened Western Jetties and North Corner from the
west, showing Dock No. 6 cut off from the harbour, as is Monitor HMS M33 in Dock No. 1, with HMS Victory in Dock No
2 and Mary Rose in Dock No. 3 (11 Apr 2005). ©Historic England.
Fig. 44. 23834/16 SU

6300/35. Aerial photograph
showing much of Portsmouth
Conservation Area 22, the
Georgian Dockyard, showing
the heritage area from the east.
Boathouse No. 6 (left centre)
was refurbished in 2001 (11
Apr 2005). ©Historic England.
Below: Fig. 45. 15790/08 SU

6301/10. Aerial photograph of
Portsmouth Basin No. 3 from
the southeast showing the now
infilled Dock No. 13 (bottom
centre) where Ship Hall B was
built in 2002 (9 Sept 1997).
©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 46. Stone pediment on the east elevation of Rodney at Portsmouth

(1847–48, NE/14, now Leviathan), the Warrant Officers’ Mess in
the former army Anglesey Barracks, incorporated in 1899 into the Fig. 47. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks,
Naval Barracks (later HMS Nelson Barracks). It features the scrolled Gymnasium (1893–1900, NE/81) south elevation
abutments seen at Rochefort Dockyard Ropery (1666–69), on the roof gable. Note the scrolled abutments similar to
Gymnasium south elevation roof gable (1899), the gable on the north those at Rochefort Dockyard Ropery (1666–69),
elevation of Barham (1899, NE/82) and the date plaque (1903) on the which also support Rodney’s pediment (1847–48,
north elevation of the Factory (1903, 3/82). The southern section was NE/14), the gable on the north elevation of nearby
bombed during the Second World War. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced Barham (1899, NE/82) and the date plaque (1903)
with the permission of the MoD. on the north elevation of the Factory (1903, 3/82).
A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission
of the MoD.
Left: Fig. 48. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, chimney gable on the north
elevation of Barham (1899, NE/82). It features scrolled abutments similar to
Rochefort Dockyard Ropery (1666–69), which also support Rodney’s pediment
(1847–48, NE/14), the nearby Gymnasium south elevation roof gable (1899,
NE81) and the date plaque (1903) on the north elevation of The Factory (1903,
Above: Fig. 49. Date plaque 1903 on Portsmouth Factory (1903, 3/82) north
elevation. Note the scrolled abutments which also support Rodney’s pediment
(1847–48, NE/14), the Gymnasium roof gable (1893–1900), the gable on the
north elevation of Barham (1899, NE/82) and Rochefort Dockyard Ropery
(1666–69). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Left: Fig. 51.

Oculus windows
on the north
elevation of
Portsmouth
Main Pumping
Station No. 1
(1878, 2/201).
A. Coats 2013.
Reproduced
Above: Fig. 50. Portsmouth Dockyard officers’ design for rusticated gate piers sent to the Navy Board with the
(29 June 1711). TNA, ADM 106/667 (1711). Navy Board In-letters, P. The Navy Board replied that permission
plain piers would be ‘handsomer as well as cheaper than Rustick work’ (Coad, 1989, p. 81, fn. 61; of the MoD.
NMM, POR/A/5, 10.7.1711). Reproduced with the permission of The National Archives.
Fig. 52. Fig. 53. Tall

Neoclassical windows
iron columns on the east
cast in an elevation of
industrial Portsmouth
style inside Painters’ Shop
Portsmouth (1896, 2/191),
Main Pumping to maximise
Station No. 1 natural
(1878, 2/201). light. A.
A. Coats 2015. Coats 2013.
Reproduced Reproduced
with the with the
permission of permission
the MoD. of the MoD.
Fig. 54. East elevation

showing the 1994 brick gable
pediment to the extension Right: Fig. 55.
of Bay 1 of Portsmouth East-facing
Factory/100 Store (1903, neoclassical Fig. 56. Decorative brick
3/82), designed to appear portico of detail, Portsmouth Naval
similar to the original Portsmouth Victory Building (1993, 1/100) including the Offices (c.2000, 2/5). A. Coats
gable pediments. A. Coats lion and the unicorn from Portsea’s former town gates, 2013. Reproduced with the
2013. Reproduced with the those images also incorporated into two dockyard gates. A. permission of the MoD.
permission of the MoD. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 57. Modified south entrance to

Portsmouth Armour Plate Shop/No. 1 Fig. 58. Original bay and entrance
Ship Building Shop/Multi-functional of Portsmouth Torpedo Workshop Fig. 59. South elevation of Portsmouth
Workshop (1867, 2/172) supplied with (1886, 3/69), with plastic strips Gunnery Mounting Store (1896, 2/165)
nets to keep out birds in the summer. to keep out birds in summer. A. with nets to keep out birds in the summer.
A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the Coats 2015. Reproduced with the A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the
permission of the MoD. permission of the MoD. permission of the MoD.
Fig. 62. Cast iron light

bracket, similar to those
on Portsmouth North
Pumping Station (1913,
2/239) and the Gunnery
Mounting Store (1896,
2/165), attached
anachronistically and
non-functionally to
the Weapon Electrical
Workshop (1936,
2/152). A. Coats, 2015.
Reproduced with the
Fig. 60. Portsmouth Central Fig. 61. West elevation of

Boiler House plastic door Portsmouth Main Pumping
strips to keep out birds in Station No. 1 (2/201) with nets
summer (1907, 2/19). A. to keep out birds in summer. A.
Coats 2013. Reproduced with Coats 2013. Reproduced with
the permission of the MoD. the permission of the MoD.
Right: Fig. 63. J356/01/72. Photograph of Portsmouth

Storehouse No. 11, ground floor conversion to the McCarthy
Museum (28 Apr 1971). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 64. 23852/14 SU 6201/4. Aerial photograph of Portsmouth North Corner from the east showing a landscape which,
apart from the Smithery and the Steam Factory, has changed completely since the beginning of the twentieth century
(11 Apr 2005). ©Historic England.
PART TWO
DEVONPORT DOCKYARD IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The dockyard at Devonport was known as Plymouth Dock until 1843, when Queen Victoria and
Prince Albert announced the change on their visit to Devonport Dockyard. Devonport ‘Naval Base’ is
the total RN area which includes both operational and accommodation areas. It comprises 650 acres,
including accommodation for the shore base HMS Drake. From south to north, facing west over the
River Tamar and the Hamoaze, it consists of the original South Yard and Morice Ordnance Yard, and
Keyham North Yard, which was developed from the 1860s and further extended at the beginning of
the twentieth century.
Fig. 65. HMNB Devonport map. Royal Navy (2010). Devonport Naval Base Handbook. Plymouth: Plymouth
HIVE/DE&S, p. 5.
The original yard then became known as South Yard and the new yard as North Yard, linked by a
tunnel and railway beneath Morice Ordnance Yard from c.1857. At its south end, the tunnel passed
through the North Smithery, requiring the removal of a blast furnace. In 1963, the MoD linked Morice
Yard and South Yard by a flyover; Morice Yard and North Yard were linked in 1964. Use of the
dockyard railway tunnel ended in 1966 and a bus service was introduced. (Flyovers to Make Dockyard
One Unit, 1962) Babcock International owns one third of the Naval Base, but does not maintain the
HMS Drake accommodation area. Princess Yachts acquired the freehold of its premises in Devonport
South Yard in 2011, but Babcock International maintains the remaining buildings in that yard. Morice
Yard is wholly owned by the MoD but Babcock International maintains the buildings, boundary walls
and roads. The ‘Dockyard’ is the operational area owned by Babcock International since it took over
from Devonport Management Ltd in 2007. This company had managed Devonport Royal Dockyard
since 1987 as part of the MoD’s reforms to introduce commercial management to its facilities. In 1997
Devonport Royal Dockyard was privatised, but the MoD retained a special share in Devonport Royal
Dockyard Ltd (DRDL), which was transferred to Babcock International in 2007.
There are over 500 structures on the site. The characteristics of pre-twentieth century buildings are
illustrated by the following images, but this report is concerned primarily with the significant late
twentieth century structures. Grid references are included in the listing descriptions only, because the
team was unable to obtain all the building details.1
Fig. 66. AA98/04662. Devonport Covered Slip No. 1 (1774–75) photograph by Eric de Mare showing
the roof timbers added in the nineteenth century (1956). The only remaining intact eighteenth century
slip within a royal dockyard (Coad, 1989, p. 197). Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 67. BB96/03858. Devonport South Yard South Smithery (S126) photograph along north side of
central building from northeast (29 Feb 1996). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 68. BB96/03859. Devonport South Yard South Smithery (S126) photograph detail of evidence of
the line shaft on the north side of central building (29 Feb 1996). ©Crown copyright.HE.
1
The only sources not publicly available were the plans supplied by Babcock International, derived from digital
copies held by them.
77
Fig. 69. BB96/03867. Devonport South Yard South Smithery (S126) photograph of interior central
building, view from southeast (29 Feb 1996). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 70. BB96/03891. Devonport South Yard South Smithery (S126) photograph of north elevation of
centre building (29 Feb 1996). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 71. BB96/03865. Devonport South Yard South Smithery (S126) photograph of Cowans Sheldon
driven capstan (1926) (29 Feb 1996). ©Crown copyright.HE.
2.2 FROM 1895 TO THE SECOND WORLD WAR

Fig. 72. ADM01 (June 1908). Numbers and Dimensions of Locks, Docks and Basin Entrances in
HM Dockyards. Admiralty Book, p. c. Devonport Dock Dimensions. Reproduced by permission of
Historic England.
Fig. 73. ADM01 (June 1908). Numbers and Dimensions of Locks, Docks and Basin Entrances in HM
Dockyards. Admiralty Book, p. 100. Devonport North Yard (Keyham Extension) Dock No. 9, North
midship section and outline of entrance. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Dockyards. Admiralty Book, p. 102. Devonport North Yard (Keyham Extension) Dock No. 9, South
Dockyards. Admiralty Book, p. 104. Devonport North Yard (Keyham Extension) Dock No. 10, North
Dockyards. Admiralty Book, p. 106. Devonport North Yard (Keyham Extension) Dock No. 10, South
Dockyards. Admiralty Book, p. 117. Devonport North Yard (Keyham Extension) Prince of Wales
Basin outline of entrance. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Two highly innovative nineteenth century designers, Colonel Godfrey Greene R.E. and Admiralty
architect William Scamp, had provided Devonport with the remarkable Quadrangle factory building
(1852–61, N173-7, N186-91, N203, Grade I, 1378566, SX 44902 55661), and, in collaboration with the
engineering firm of Fox, Henderson, an iron-framed Smithery (1771, 1853–55, 1890, S126, II*, 1392692,
SX 44935 54234). With the great northward extension of Keyham Yard, completed between 1895 and
1907, which doubled the dockyard’s previous size, the yard was not provided with, and, indeed, did
not require, any more pioneering structures for much of the twentieth century.
The 118 acre extension was required for the increased size of naval ships and to improve repair
facilities in case of war. The work was carried out under the direction of Major Sir Henry Pilkington,
Admiralty Civil-Engineer-in-Chief, with Charles Colson as Deputy Civil-Engineer-in-Chief responsible
for the design. Sir Whately Eliot was the resident Superintending Engineer and G. H. Scott was Sir John
Jackson’s Agent and Engineer. Eliot and Scott wrote accounts of the construction for the Institution
of Civil Engineers. The contract, awarded to Sir John Jackson, added three drydocks, two of which
opened into a tidal basin, all three opening into a closed basin; a lock also opened into the closed
basin. A retaining wall was built along the eastern boundary with the parade ground and barracks,
which was twelve feet above the level of the extension. Underlying soil conditions consisted of mud
overlaying rock to an average depth of forty feet. Much rock debris had also been deposited on the
site from excavating the first Keyham docks. The underlying rock was called shillet, mostly soft and
friable shale, but in places very hard. As the mud was too soft to support wagon roads and locomotives
for excavation, experimental mud scoops and electric cableways were used. Building materials
78
Part 2: Twentieth century Devonport Dockyard
included granite from Cornwall and Norway for the dock floors and altars and extension wall, local
limestone, and concrete, containing shingle from Start Bay and the Needles. The limestone and granite
were dressed at the quarries and shipped to the site. Concrete, totalling 1,300,000 cubic yards, was
mixed on the Royal Naval Engineering College recreation ground. Small concrete blocks faced with
granolithic concrete were used for facework in the upper walls of the docks and lock because there
was insufficient limestone for facing, but the closed basin was faced with irregular coursed limestone.
All the walls were founded on solid rock; in places concrete piles were sunk through more than fifty
feet of mud. The entrance between the closed basin and the Hamoaze had both a sliding caisson and
a ship caisson in case tides caused difficulties while warping in a ship. Sliding caissons were built at
the entrances to all the docks, the lock and the closed basin, and ship caissons in Dock Nos 5 and 6
and the entrance to the closed basin. Excavated rock was deposited on the mud in Weston Mill Lake
north of the barracks, to create a drill ground; mud was dumped at sea four miles south of Plymouth
breakwater. (Eliot, 1908, pp. 2-8, 10-12, 18, 21; Scott, 1908, pp. 30, 33-7, 39, 40, 43)
HRH the Prince of Wales formally opened the Keyham Extension on 20 February 1907, sailing into
Basin No. 5, thereafter also known as the Prince of Wales Basin. Within two years the non-tidal basin
was dredged to a depth of 37 feet and Dock No. 8 was lengthened further. (A Brief History of Devonport
Naval Base, p. 24) In 1909 the northern arm of the Keyham Extension was selected as the site for a
mechanised Coaling Depôt and four electrically powered coal transporters began to be installed in
1910 (where the present Defiance building stands). This remained the principal coaling site until coal
was replaced as the principal fuel for warships.
In 1903 a map records the change of name from Keyham Steam Yard to North Yard.
Fig. 78. Change of name from Keyham Steam Yard to North Yard. AdL, Vz 14/44 (1900–1923). H.M.
Dockyard Devonport North and South Yards Keyham Steam Yard and Naval Barracks, Compiled
by E. J. Powell from Mr. Townshend’s Survey of North and South Yards and the Ordnance Survey.
Director of Works Office 1903. Defence Estates Plans. Scale 1”:16’. Courtesy MoD Admiralty Library
Naval Historical Branch, Portsmouth.
In 1908 the SCE asked for ‘instructions as to what is to become of the Pigeon Loft, as since disposal of
Pigeons… the Loft has been unoccupied’. The pigeon loft was ‘completed in 1897 at cost of £329. & is
in good condition. The C. in C suggests that grounds enclosing it could be added to Admiralty House
without expense to the Crown’. Several human houses could have built at that time for that money!
In 1908 the British Admiralty replaced carrier-pigeons with wireless sets, but reverted to using them
during the First World War (Smith, 2014, p. 71).
In 1920 a Cold Store which had been erected in North Yard as a First World War Measure by the
Ministry of Food, marked with a red M, was offered to the Admiralty ‘without charge for General Store
Purposes subject to being available again in case of emergency.’ The offer was accepted. (ALNHBP,
AdL, Vz 14/43, 1908-23. Devonport Dockyard Defence Estates Plans)
Fig. 79. Cold Store site marked M on the wharf near North Lock, 1920. Devonport North Yard.
AdL, Vz 14/43 (1908-23). Devonport Dockyard Defence Estates Plans. Scale 1:2500. Courtesy MoD
Admiralty Library Naval Historical Branch, Portsmouth.
By 1924 that perennial problem, the size of dockyard facilities relative to ship size, prompted the
widening of the entrance to Basin No. 5. An ICE article by G. S. Jacob, Civil Engineer-in-Charge,
reflected on pre-First World War policies and First World War experience. He cited Admiral Earl
Jellicoe’s observation in 1919 that German battleships had thicker armour running along the full
length of their vessels which gave them greater protection against underwater attack, enabling more
of their ships to survive such damage. The Germans had also built ‘proper dock accommodation first
and designed the ships subsequently’, whereas Britain had enlarged the Dreadnoughts without having
docks to hold them. Jellicoe had reflected: ‘Docks make no appeal to the imagination of the public
and cost a great deal of money. The result was that August 1914 found us with a superiority in ships,
but woefully lacking in dock accommodation.’ (Jacob, 1930, pp. 83-6)
79
Owing to the greater size of post-war capital ships and the additional bulges added to pre-war vessels,
none could now enter Basin No. 5 through the entrance or the lock, so they had to be repaired while
berthed alongside the outer river wall, leading to ‘a considerable increase in cost and loss of time;
furthermore ‘it was not possible for these ships to be served by the 160-ton cantilever crane provided
on the east wall of the basin.’ It was decided therefore to widen the direct entrance from 95 to 125 feet
and the caisson chamber by 30 feet. It was resolved to carry out the entrance work using dockyard
labour and to construct the new caisson by contract. Jacob reported that while the original sill and
entrance walls had been faced with granite blocks, ‘it was decided in view of the reliable nature of
modern cement concrete to omit this facing from the new work and only to use granite for the sliding-
ways and stops for the caissons.’ The entrance work started on 1 May 1926 and was completed by the
end of November 1926, with granite dressings completed on 12 December. A new electrically powered
caisson was fitted in 1927. The total cost was estimated at £230,000 but was actually £131,000, due to
‘the economical method of carrying out the work’, a fall in prices, especially steel for the caisson, and
the absence of any accidents, which saved a budgeted £25,000. Most of the labour force, averaging
about 85 and reaching a maximum of 120, had been recruited from the local Labour Exchange, with
senior hands transferred from within Devonport. (Jacob, 1930, pp. 89, 91-2, 94-5) The dockyard thus
sought to boost local work during a period of high unemployment. In the ensuing discussion Sir
Leopold Savile, Admiralty Civil Engineer-in-Chief during the project, emphasised that the lower cost
was due to using existing caissons as dams. Mr N. G. Gedye noted Savile’s ‘tendency towards economy
in the construction of naval dock works which had first been shown, he believed, in the Rosyth works
by the substitution of concrete for granite in suitable positions’. (Savile et al., 1930, pp. 114, 121)
Extra docking facilities were provided in 1925 with the addition of a 680 foot floating dock moored in
Weston Mill Lake. (A Brief History of Devonport Naval Base, p. 24) In 1939 Dock No. 10 was also widened.
An ICE article highlighted points raised in Part 1 about contractors and design. Contractors were
Messrs Nuttall. Writing in 1947, Donald Hamish Little AMICE, commented that despite the difficulties
of working around ship movements during the rush of rearmament, ‘the Contractors became almost
another department in the Dockyard and entered into its “give and take” life, to the mutual benefit
of everyone.’ Demonstrating ingenuity, dangerous flying granite fragments released by blasting the
original wall were caught by torpedo nets. Little noted that the ‘excellence of the existing work, which
had been done forty or fifty years ago, when the dock was built’ had aided the process of installing
new groove sills at the entrances. Relative to Otter’s comment (Part 1, 1.2.2) about old fashioned altars,
Little explained that cutting away the altars of both walls and adding new concrete to the backs would
have entailed much more work. The new straight walls at Singapore naval base ‘decided the general
profile of the new walls for the reconstructed docks at Devonport and Gibraltar.’ He reflected that the
‘docks look strange with an old fashioned wall on one side and a modern wall on the other side, but
they were efficient, and the cost was considerably lower than that of new docks.’ Ship caissons were
used because widening the entrances did not leave room for sliding caissons. (Bertlin et al., 1947, pp.
24, 32, 35-36, 39)
2.3 THE SECOND WORLD WAR AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

Fig. 80. HM Dockyard Devonport: aerial photographs. TNA, WORK 69/19 (1951). Reproduced with
This is one of a series of aerial photographs taken in 1951, many of which show the bomb damage to
the parts of Devonport adjacent to the yard. These will be referred to later.
The yard had adequate docking and refuelling facilities, but the development of warships necessitated
the provision of additional storage. The pre-Dreadnought battleships had four twelve-inch guns as their
principal armament, but the first Dreadnoughts mounted no less than ten, and subsequent larger designs
increased the calibre to 13.5, and then to 15 inches. As a consequence accommodation was required
for the greatly increased numbers of heavy guns, and in 1911 a machine shop was converted to
80
a heavy gun store. As the drawing shows, an unremarkable building remained an unremarkable
building, and the construction of practical sheds devoid of any architectural touches was to remain
the norm for decades.
Fig. 81. Devonport Dockyard, machinery shop, 1911. Conversion of machine shop to heavy gun
store. PWDRO, 663/320. © Plymouth City Council (Arts and Heritage).
As will be seen, the mindset this engendered in those responsible for the built environment of the
dockyard was to remain deeply ingrained.
The proven lethality of submarine attack during the First World War resulted in the application of
anti-torpedo bulges to capital ships, which necessitated the widening of docks to accommodate
them. Consequently, after the war, the Prince of Wales’s Basin entrance was widened and in 1939 the
widening of Dock No. 10 was completed. All capital ships with the exception of HMS Hood could then
be accommodated.
After the devastating bombing of Plymouth during the Second World War, the Superintending
Naval Store Officer wrote to the Admiral Superintendent in November 1941 with suggestions for the
reconstruction of the yard. The most pertinent suggestions for the purposes of this study were those
for roads, siting of buildings, and type of new constructions. Roads were:
perhaps the most generally unsatisfactory feature…generally narrow, ill paved, badly lit, full
of blind corners and often, judging from the constant attention they seem to require, only of
semi-permanent construction. Administrative and non-productive buildings should occupy
sites away from water frontage and railway lines. Ample open space should be left around
those buildings which handle large quantities of bulky materials…When the time comes to
settle the types of buildings to be erected full consideration should be given to the monolith
type of concrete building in which the upper floors are reached by inclined planes instead
of by stairs or lifts…with the use of small petrol driven trucks running from floor to floor, it is
possible to do much more work there than could be done in any building of equal size served
by stairs, lifts and/or hoists and with no local foci of congestion.
It is remarkable that these last comments needed to be made twenty years after Matteo Trucco’s Fiat
factory, and shows how the development of the yard had proceeded in a wholly unsystematic manner
(apart from the docking facilities and cranage). The charitable explanation would be that everything on
the building side of the dockyard was done as cheaply as possible with no consideration of long-term
efficiencies.
In June 1942, representatives of the City of Plymouth, accompanied by Professor Abercrombie, visited
the Admiral Superintendent to determine whether the Admiralty would wish to acquire any areas
adjacent to the dockyard (which had in many cases been occupied by substandard accommodation
and were severely bombed) for post-war expansion. This was necessary information for Abercrombie
to be able to prepare his plan for the reconstruction of Plymouth. Some preliminary information was
provided, with the proviso that it was impossible to state definite post-war requirements.
The following month, the Director of Dockyards was present at a second conference where it was
decided that ‘taking a long view, a good case could be made for taking in a substantial additional
area. The existing position offered a unique opportunity (not – it is hoped – likely to recur) of having
more space for development on rational lines than has hitherto been available. Development of the
Yard and its economical working has, in the past, been severely restricted by the close proximity of
the Town.’ A plan indicated the options available. (Fig. 82)
Abercrombie’s 1943 Plan for Plymouth accepted the Admiralty’s arguments for reserving a very large
area for post-war expansion. ‘it is manifestly in Plymouth’s interest to encourage anything that will
make her chief industry more secure.’ However, ‘He would be a bold person who would be dogmatic
on such a subject with world events and conditions changing as they have done during the past few
81
years. There is, therefore some justification for the request to have included in this Report a possible
alternative layout for the reconstruction of the Devonport business area, as circumstances might
render abortive the Admiralty scheme.’ All that need be said here is that this alternative scheme would
have ruthlessly destroyed old Devonport.
Abercrombie’s concern was a grand vision for the total recasting of Plymouth city centre on Beaux-
Arts lines (though realised without Beaux-Arts buildings) and he made no mention of John Foulston’s
buildings which had celebrated the rebranding of Plymouth Dock as Devonport. Of the three towns
which made up the City of Plymouth: Devonport, Stonehouse and Plymouth, Plymouth was to be
redeveloped at the expense of the others.
So the Admiralty’s proposals were effectively rubber-stamped by Abercrombie, and the bomb-damaged
areas by the dockyard were tidied up but no attempt was made to reconstruct them pending their
swallowing up by the dockyard, as some aerial photographs taken in 1951 show (Figs 83 and 84).
Fig. 82. Proposed Devonport Dockyard boundary enlargement (1942). TNA, ADM 1/17810 (1942–44).
Naval Stations: Post war reconstruction and development of Devonport and Plymouth: proposals
and plans. Reproduced with the permission of The National Archives.
It has to be added that the Admiralty have now released the appropriated land and Devonport is now
being redeveloped, with the surviving buildings of Foulston’s day now accessible to the public again.
It also means that the buildings constructed by the Admiralty in that area have now been demolished
and so do not need to be considered in this survey.
In April 1943, the Civil Engineer-in-Chief proposed two ambitious schemes, one for the construction
of a very large new graving dock at the former Gun Wharf site in South Yard, and the other for the
redevelopment of Weston Mill Lake as a new basin, so anticipating future events. (Figs 85, 86 and 87)
Fig. 85. Naval Stations: Post war reconstruction and development of Devonport and Plymouth:
proposals and plans (1943). TNA, ADM 1/17810 (1942–44). Reproduced with the permission of
Nothing came of these proposals, but they show that the Admiralty was deeply committed to the
future of the yard. A very large number of files are preserved in the Plymouth and West Devon Record
Office recording minutely the surrender of the new territories to the yard through the 1950s, but these
relate rather to the melancholy history of the collapse of Devonport as a proudly independent town
than to the dockyard.
At the end of 1953 plans were drawn up showing the dockyard in its current state, and identifying the
different buildings. (Figs 88, 89 and 90)
(1953). Reproduced with the permission of The National Archives.
82
The next year a development schedule was drawn up to cover the period up to 1961. This indicated
that the principal developments in the newly appropriated areas were to be in Fore Street, Goschen
Street, Albert Road, Queen Street, Tamar Street, William Street, Moon Street, and James Street. None
of these buildings, or those to be constructed in the existing yard, was of any innovative type.
2.4 A NEW ERA BEGINS

The two major developments at Devonport in the second half of the twentieth century were facilities
for the nuclear refitting of submarines and frigate maintenance, but they took a long time to come to
fruition. The first British nuclear submarine, HMS Dreadnought, was launched in 1960. The future nuclear
fleet would need to be provided with refitting facilities, and seven sites were considered. At first it
appeared as if Devonport was not going to be among them; there was no sign of this in 1963. Joan
Vickers, MP for Plymouth Devonport, asked in December 1963 for ‘a detailed programme of the work
to be done in the Royal Dockyard, Devonport, for the year 1964–65.’ The Civil Lord of the Admiralty,
John Hay, replied
The programme includes completing the modernisation of “H.M.S. Eagle”, and provides for at
least one other aircraft carrier to be in hand throughout the year. It also provides for the refit
of a cruiser and a destroyer, as well as the usual refits of frigates, submarines and smaller craft.
The construction of a frigate will continue.
Joan Vickers further asked ‘how many men, women and apprentices will be employed in the Royal
Naval Dockyard, Devonport, during the year 1964–65 as non-industrial and industrial workers,
respectively.’ John Hay, replied
The numbers expected to be employed in 1964–65, in the Professional Departments of the
Royal Naval Dockyard, Devonport, are:
Industrial Non-Industrial
Men 10,730 1,252
Women 100
Apprentices 1,670
12,500 1,252
It is not possible to specify the proportions as between men and women in the non-
industrial figure, since a number of posts can be filled either way. (House of Commons
Debates, 16 December 1963)
In July 1963 Miss Vickers asked about a plan for ‘a prefabricated shop that is for making frigate parts.’
She asserted that:
Throughout last winter the frigate parts had to be prefabricated in the open; and hon.
Members will remember the very bad weather conditions last winter. The men had to work
in the snow and a good deal of illness resulted. This meant the men working in extremely
difficult conditions. The sort of construction that has been under consideration for one or
two years shows how work can be handicapped by lack of essential equipment. We ought to
have up-to-date working conditions for our dockyard men. (Hansard Debates They work for
you, 1 July 1963)
83
At a meeting of the Nuclear Powered Warships Safety Committee on 1 October 1964 chaired by Sir
Solly Zuckerman, Chief Scientific Adviser to the government, it was decided that ‘the Committee
could not recommend Devonport as an acceptable site for a refitting yard for nuclear submarines.’
In a paper of July 1965, the Director General of Dockyards and Maintenance assessed the risks. Any
berth selected could only be a few hundred yards from the Dockyard wall, and as the prevailing
winds were from the west or south-west, any accident leading to a release of airborne hazard ‘would
be carried straight over the fairly densely populated areas of Devonport or Keyham.’ Two locations at
Devonport had been proposed by the Dockyard Department. If enclosed berths were not necessary,
8 and 9 docks in North Yard appeared to be the most suitable. If enclosed berths were needed, then
2 and 3 docks in South Yard were to be used.
Fig. 91. Refitting of nuclear submarines: use of Portsmouth or Devonport Dockyards, with maps.
1965. TNA, ADM 329/7 (1964–65). Reproduced with the permission of The National Archives.
The relative hazards of the various dockyards and shipbuilding yards were assessed as follows:
Rosyth 1.0
Chatham 1.5
Belfast 15
Portsmouth 22
Devonport 27
Barrow 32
Birkenhead 32
These figures were arrived at by considering the effect of the maximum credible accident in relation to
the density of population in the immediate neighbourhood of the yard. But, significantly, it was added
that ‘These calculations are so imprecise that there seems plenty of scope for a reassessment which
would admit Devonport and Portsmouth to the list of acceptable yards and, of course, there is no
need to stress how damaging to future developments the present recommendation is. [The Director’s]
thoughts so far…indicate that, safety considerations apart, the best advantage will almost certainly lie
in starting in 1967 to adapt Portsmouth for nuclear refitting.’ No paper has been located in TNA to
indicate the reason for the decision to switch from Portsmouth to Devonport. Quite possibly this is to
be found in AB62/514 (correspondence with the Atomic Energy Authority 1966–75) which, although
catalogued among Devonport documentation, has been retained by the Department.
In 1969 there was parliamentary confusion about Devonport’s rôles. Miss Vickers asked about ‘Devon-
port Dockyard becoming the “lead” yard for the Leander class frigates. When does the hon. Gentleman
think this will begin, and does he think that we may be able to have another ship built there? It is
very soul-destroying only to do repairs.’ She also questioned the White Paper’s ‘needs in the 1970s.
The 1970s are very close; does this refer to 1971 or 1979? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us where
in the dockyard it is proposed to have the facilities for these nuclear refits?’ Sir Frederick Burden
(Gillingham) asserted that ‘We are now to have two [dockyards], at Chatham and Devonport. After
a period, Chatham will be used solely for repairs and refits of nuclear submarines, though in the
meantime, it will continue to maintain our conventional submarines—’. Gerald Reynolds (Islington
North) confirmed that ‘Chatham will be the main yard for the repair of nuclear Fleet submarines’, Sir
Frederick Burden adding ‘that, in the mid-1970s, Devonport will also be a nuclear yard.’ Dr David
Owen, Labour MP for Plymouth Sutton and Under-Secretary of State for Defence, summed up:
Between them, Chatham and Rosyth should meet our nuclear requirements up to 1973–74,
when additional nuclear docking facilities will be needed and then further refit facilities. It
has been announced in the White Paper that Devon-port will be our third nuclear dockyard.
(Hansard Debates They work for you, 20 March 1969)
84
The first nuclear refits took place at Rosyth and Chatham, in line with the original recommendations,
but when the final draft of the schemes for Dockyard Development was drawn up in April 1971, in
addition to such general recommendations for all yards to rationalise and modernise workshops and
the need to carry out systematic layouts of all new and existing workshops to make layouts more
effective, Devonport was singled out for the provision of a Special Refit Complex for fleet submarines.
The division of North Lock to provide two new medium-sized docks (11 and 12) was to be completed
by the end of the year.
The primary function of the new docks will be programmed dockings and Dockyard Assisted
Maintenance Periods of Fleet submarines.…The northerly of the two docks will be sufficiently
large to accommodate a Polaris submarine if required in emergency. The frigate refitting
complex…is now at the detail design stage and comprises three docks, Nos 5, 6 and 7, suitably
enlarged and modernised associated with refit berths in Basin Nos 2 and 3. To enhance the
supporting facilities particularly in the wet and windy climatic conditions at Devonport, the
three docks are being covered with support stores and cranage within the covers.
Figs 92 and 93 show a model of the complex produced the next year.
The most significant stage in the upgrading of Devonport was then flagged up.
Ultimately, Devonport is planned to be able to deal with a two-stream, or even a three-stream,
flow of nuclear submarine refits and refuellings by the late 70’s. A complete complex is now at
the sketch design stage for two new graving docks and a wet refit berth sited in the NW of No
5 basin. The associated buildings are designed to take account of the proximity of the Fleet/
Submarine maintenance base also planned for the North side of No 5 basin.
The buildings to service the North Lock were due to be completed at the end of 1975. On May 16 of
that year it was the subject of a short article in Building Design. Architects were Scott, Brownrigg and
Turner, and the contractors Balfour Beatty. PSA architects were reported as ‘wildly enthusiastic about
this long, low structure’ which ‘has the slimness and grace of the modern warships it will service, an
effect complemented by the lead-faced cladding of the upper level.’
1971–Dec 1972). PSA: Devonport: Works Projects. Reproduced with the permission of The National
Archives.
Fig. 93. Photograph albums. Frigate complex: evidence of progress (1972). TNA, CM 20/91 (Jan 1971–
Dec 1972). PSA: Devonport: Works Projects. Reproduced with the permission of The National Archives.
The ‘long, low structure’ was actually two buildings, N093 and N125, the latter being in two sections.
Fig. 94. Babcock Site Atlas (2011). Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
N093 is the Plant House, the drawing of the plan from SB & T’s office being dated April 1972 and the
elevations September 1972 (Figs 95 and 96).
Fig. 95. Building N093. Babcock Drawing no. AB3/12B (1972). Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 96. Building N093. Babcock Drawing no. AB3/16B (1972). Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Building N125 is in two sections. The northern part held the nuclear facilities, shown here in two plans.
Fig. 97. Building N125 ground floor. Babcock Drawing no. AB2/11 (1972). Reproduced with the
Fig. 98. Building N125 first floor. Babcock Drawing no. AB2/12 (1972). Reproduced with the
85
Fig. 99. Sections through Building N125. Babcock Drawing No. AB1/80 (1972).
Fig. 100. Building N125, plan of part of main block which ties in with part of the above sections.
Babcock Drawing no. AB1/109. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 101. Building N125, main block elevations. Babcock Drawing no. AB1/83 (1972).
Fig. 102. Building N125, main block elevations. Babcock Drawing no. AB1/84A (1972).
Fig. 103. Building N125, main block cladding. Babcock Drawing no. 2916/1A (1972).
These buildings were intended for intermediate refitting of nuclear submarines, and it is clear from the
plans that there was no provision for refuelling or any heavy work. In parallel with the redevelopment
of the North Lock was the construction of the Frigate Complex whose completion was expected to
be in December 1976. This building, N217, was an in-house design by the Directorate of Defence
Works, the structural engineers being Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners (whom we shall meet again).
The elevations, like the first drawings for the North Lock buildings, are dated April 1972. Each
elevation is split up into several sheets, of which only sections are reproduced here. These buildings
are the modern equivalent of the great mid-nineteenth century slip roofs and worthy successors in
architectural terms. The shed can accommodate three ships at once in the 435 foot long covered
drydocks, reducing refit time. The doors are 40m high to contain the ships’ radar and communication
antennae and each open in four vertical leaves. Flap gates were used instead of caissons to close
the docks. They were intended to hold frigates into the twenty-first century, but the Type 22 Batch
3 vessels would be too long (Gibb, pp. 21-2; Evening Herald, 11 April 1987, p. 10) In 1989, Pevsner and
Cherry considered it ‘impressive both in its chillingly colossal scale and in its well-managed detail.
The dominant feature is the row of six tall concrete piers on the seaward side which house the
mechanism for the vertical sliding doors.’ (p. 653)
Fig. 104. Building N217, part of east elevation, Frigate Complex, April 1972. Babcock Drawing no.
ABG/16E. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 105. Building N217, part of west elevation, Frigate Complex, April 1972. Babcock Drawing no.
ABG/17C. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 106. Building N217, part of section, Frigate Complex, April 1972. Babcock Drawing no.
ABG/20F. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
The construction process, from June 1973 to June 1976, was recorded in a series of photographs.
About 30 are available and a small selection is reproduced below.
PSA: Devonport: Works Projects. Reproduced with the permission of The National Archives.
Fig. 111. Photograph albums. Frigate Complex book no 7 (1975). TNA, CM 20/74 (1975).
86
Fig. 112. Photograph albums. Frigate Complex book no. 9 (October 1975). TNA, CM 20/76 (1975–76).
Fig. 113. Photograph albums. Frigate Complex book no. 9 (June 1976). TNA, CM 20/76 (1975–76).
A contemporary Navy Days account in 1976 described: ‘on June 2, water gushed into No.2 basin
through the new balancing culvert to a depth of three feet. Six days later the basin and three docks
were fully flooded.’ It continued: ‘Thousands of tons of hand faced granite were removed to provide
the three new covered docks, longer and deeper than the originals and with vertical walls replacing
the traditional stepped sides.’ (Frigate docks flooded, 1976)
The roof covers when built were expected to last thirty years; in 2013 they were expected to last another
twenty years, nearly twice the original life expectation. They are clad internally with Galvasbestos
(1970s) which is being monitored by a specialist asbestos contractor. Recent capital expenditure
projects have included replacement of the three massive doors and re-cladding, and new offices to
house the warship support team. (Sutherland heads for the sheds, January 2014 p. 17) When the new
doors were inserted in 2013, more birds entered and disturbed asbestos debris, probably from the
original installation, which was a cause for concern, but the debris was cleared.
Of these two projects, the North Lock intermediate refit facility was originally estimated at £1.1
million, and came out at £3.85 million. The Frigate Complex, originally estimated at £5 million, ended
up at £17 million. These figures paled by comparison with the combined figures for the Submarine
Refit Complex and the Fleet Maintenance Base, which both occupied the North Arm of Keyham.
The original sum for the maintenance base was £1.2 million, which rose to £7.5 m, and the refitting
complex went from £13.5m to £42 m. (Building, February 4, 1977)
2.5 THE MODERN MOVEMENT ARRIVES AT DEVONPORT

In 1971, design and development of the Fleet Maintenance Base and the Submarine Refit Complex
was awarded to the architectural partnership of Howell, Killick, Partridge and Amis (afterwards
referred to as HKPA), with Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners as the structural engineers. The partners
all had impeccable Modernist pedigrees, having worked for the LCC’s Architects’ Department on
Alton West Estate, Roehampton. They developed a characteristic vocabulary in their buildings for the
University Centre at Cambridge and St Antony’s College, Oxford, and used significant elements of this
at Devonport, so that in the (probably) unlikely event of any alumni working in the buildings they
would instantly have felt at home. Their efforts were to bring a naval dockyard into rare prominence
in the architectural press. The partner in charge of the project was Stanley Amis, in collaboration with
Steven Osgood.
Taking the Fleet Maintenance Base (FMB) first…
Fig. 114. Babcock (2011). Site Atlas. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
A plan published in the RIBA Journal (April 1979, pp. 160-3) after the completion of the project shows
the buildings as they were then, with their functions. They have since been added to and altered, as
the above plan shows.
N009 SRC entrance control
N005 FMB utilities
N007 FMB stores, FMB naval offices and NAAFI
N019 FMB electronics maintenance room, FMB periscope workshop and tower and FMB workshop
N017 FMB water plant house
87
N018 FMB utilities

N020 FMB electrical plant house
At the Tamar estuary entrance to Basin No. 5, a locked basin, is a retractable caisson
N008 SRC central management offices
N016 SRC Submarine support facility
N022 SRC project control offices and workshops
Taking the buildings of the Fleet Maintenance Base from the top of the Babcock plan, N003 is not
part of the new development. It is a redbrick building seen at top left here, and was originally
a machine shop of 1932 to serve the floating dock moored nearby, then a support workshop for
conventional submarine refits. When conventional submarines were phased out, it was used by riggers
as a workshop. The machine shop took this form in 1956. This is typical of a dockyard building
devoid of any architectural interest which was to be completely eclipsed by the new development. It
is now extended by N002 and is a very sizeable building for waterfront naval stores. N002B & N002C
are extra portakabins. N005 is a Lifting Equipment Store and boiler house.
Fig. 115. Photograph albums. Fleet Maintenance Base Devonport: Foundations book no. 1 (1974).
TNA, CM 20/77 (1973–74). PSA: Devonport: Works Projects. Reproduced with the permission of The
National Archives.
N009 is the entrance control complex. This is atypical of the rest of the buildings, being asymmetrical,
with a two-storey block holding the messroom, amenity centre, lavatories, recorder’s office, transformers
and switchgear, and a single storey reception area covered by a space-frame. (Fig. 116)
Fig. 116. Submarine Refit Complex. Babcock Drawing no. AD8/7. Reproduced with the permission
of the MoD.
By its very nature, this was the last building of the complex to be built, this particular plan dating
from March 1977. The complex was officially opened by HRH Prince Charles on 23 May 1980. (A Brief
History of Devonport Naval Base, p. 26)
Fig. 117. Photograph albums. Nuclear Submarine Refit Complex book no. 7 (July 1979). TNA, CM
20/67 (1978–79). PSA: Devonport: Works Projects. Reproduced with the permission of The National
Archives.
The remainder of the buildings along the north side of the wharf all have similar external characteristics.
All were steel-framed buildings but there any similarity to what had become in the twentieth century
the traditional dockyard workshop/store as exemplified in Figure 2 ended. N005 is taken first.
Fig. 118. Building N005, Submarine Refit Complex. Babcock Drawing no. AD3/24A. (n.d.)
This building housed the boiler house, demineralised water plant house and shore/ship electrical gear.
The next two buildings, N259 and N260, as the numbering indicates, were not part of the original
Maintenance Base but part of a further building campaign of the 1990s. N260 is an accommodation
building for ships undergoing refits, by Yorkon Ltd, a firm specialising in modular steel-framed
buildings. Far from a cutting-edge design, though no doubt gratifyingly inexpensive, elevations of a
plan of 1994 are shown below.
Fig. 119. Building N260, Submarine Refit Complex. Babcock Drawing no. M1979/08 (1994).
Fig. 120. Building N007 Submarine Refit Complex. Babcock Drawing no. AB2/1B (n.d).
88
The N007 complex completes the northern edge of the wharf, and comprises, from east to west, ships
stores, naval control offices, and the NAAFI.
Fig. 121. Building N007 Submarine Refit Complex. Babcock Drawing no. AB2/3A (n.d.).
Fig. 122. Building N007 Submarine Refit Complex. Babcock Drawing no. AB2/5B (n.d.).
Fig. 121 shows the elevation of the whole range of buildings, in two sections. Fig. 122 shows a
section through the Stores end of the NAAFI building and Fig. 123 the second floor plan of the
NAAFI building.
Fig. 123. Second floor plan of the NAAFI building, N007, Submarine Refit Complex. Babcock
Drawing no. AB2/14D (n.d). Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
The NAAFI building is supported by pilotis. (Fig. 123) When completed, the complex formed a striking
visual unity. (Figs 123 and 124) This is a remarkable example of a Modernist interior transposed from
a Cambridge University building by the same architects into a completely different context. As such it
is probably unique and clearly deserving of attention. The inside and electrics are satisfactory - it has
probably been redecorated inside a couple of times, driven by inspection/as needed – but essentially is
unchanged from its original design. The windows have had to be replaced because of salt corrosion of
steel fittings, as the western elevation faces the harbour/weather side. The concrete on west elevation
also suffers from algae. As it is the first building that personnel from incoming ships see, thus creating
a first impression of the Naval Base, Estates try to keep it clean. (Welch, pers. comm., 2013)
Fig. 124. NAAFI building (July 1977). TNA, CM 20/80 (1976).2 PSA: Devonport: Works Projects.
Photograph albums. Fleet Maintenance Base Devonport: book no. 4. Reproduced with the
permission of The National Archives.
Fig. 125. NAAFI building (March 1979). TNA, CM 20/80 (1976). PSA: Devonport: Works Projects.
To the left of the above picture is N019, the FMB workshop complex, HMS Defiance. As Fig. 125 shows,
this is part of the unified design. However, it has suffered roof damage due to gutter leaks and
seagull activity: making nests and breaking seashells. The steel behind the cladding has rusted and
the cladding is loosening. All its steel windows have been replaced with uPVC. It has always had the
same use: offices/workshop. (Welch, 2013)
Fig. 126. NAAFI building (July 1977). TNA, CM 20/80 (1976). PSA: Devonport: Works Projects.
The projecting element at the left of the workshop building is the Mast and Periscope Shop. Still to be
constructed when this photograph was taken was the Periscope Tower (Figs 127 and 128).
Fig. 127. N019, Periscope Tower. Babcock Drawing no. AD1/44B (n.d.). Reproduced with the
Fig. 128. Mast and Periscope Shop (September 1979). TNA, CM 20/80 (1976). PSA: Devonport: Works
Projects. Photograph albums. Fleet Maintenance Base Devonport: book no. 4. Reproduced with the
The other buildings in the FMB area are more concerned with nuclear systems, and this a therefore
2
TNA, CM 20/80 date range appears to extend beyond 1976.
89
an appropriate place to break off the survey of the buildings with an account of the place the
Devonport buildings have in HKPA’s œuvre. Unity is given to all their buildings at Devonport through
uniform concrete cladding. The rapid ageing and discolouration of concrete surfaces was accepted
and even celebrated in works of a slightly later period, such as Lasdun’s National Theatre, but during
the late 1950s many designers sought various means of countering the effects of weather. These have
most recently been summarised in Adrian Forty’s Concrete and Culture (2012) where Partridge is quoted
as being concerned ‘to aim defensively at ensuring that the effects are negligible and insufficiently
damaging to the general design.’ The HKPA design was intended to weather attractively, and fits into
the story of Brutalist architecture.
Precast panels made from Cornish granite aggregate to a high quality were used to this end in the
Wolfson Building at St Anne’s College, Oxford (1960–79), shown in Architectural Review (August 1964)
and St Antony’s College, Oxford (1966–71), as seen in Cantacuzino (1981). The HKPA partner involved
in the design of the precast panels at Devonport was Steve Osgood, and he contributed an article
‘Precast concrete walling for a naval base’ to Concrete (August 1978). The FMB buildings were steel-
framed, while the Nuclear Submarine Complex was to be concrete framed. Different fixings were
therefore designed for the two constructional types.
So far the similarities of finish between HKPA’s college buildings and the Devonport complex can be
seen. The NAAFI building also gave the opportunity to display a similar internal spatial ploy. The
finished building, surely the magic moment where a NAAFI met the Modern Movement head on,
derived its grand dining room from the dining hall of the University Centre, Cambridge (1963–67). In
neither building is the distinctive feature very evident from the outside when seen from pedestrian
level. Fig. 129 shows a building which, compared with the dockyard buildings of the preceding part
of the twentieth century, might have descended from another planet. Fig. 130 reveals the dining
room roof, which presents many more opportunities to be seen from above at Devonport than
does its antecedent at Cambridge. The sectional drawings in Cantacuzino’s monograph display the
almost clone-like characteristics (1981, pp. 73, 108). Perhaps it need hardly be said that no Admiralty
document seen has commented on this fact, or, indeed, on the quality of the architecture at all.
Pevsner and Cherry observed that it was ‘distinguished by a large canted glazed wall overlooking the
water.’ (1989, p. 653)
Fig. 129. NAAFI building (September 1979). TNA, CM 20/80 (1976). PSA: Devonport: Works
Projects. Photograph albums. Fleet Maintenance Base Devonport: book no. 4. Reproduced with the
Fig. 130. NAAFI building, September 1979. Detail from Fig. 125. TNA, CM 20/80 (1976). PSA:
Devonport: Works Projects. Photograph albums. Fleet Maintenance Base Devonport: book no. 4.
Before considering the nuclear submarine complex it is appropriate to consider a further project
which the PSA appointed HKPA to carry out on March 16 1972. This was for a feasibility study of
Planning the spaces between and around the buildings…relative to Landscaping, Hardscaping,
Street Furnishings, etc., in order to provide the best possible functional and aesthetic environment
for this area…the intent of the study was not to be a civic design operation as such, but an
investigation into spatial organisation leading to an integrated set of recommendations for
fixtures and finishes. Thus the Dockyard operation is looked at, and solutions put forward
from a rather different point of view to that normally associated with Dockyard planning.
This view rests on the premise that a disciplined image and visual organisation will influence
practical working discipline.
New buzz words were introduced to the yard. ‘We believe the Dockyard can and should develop a
strong corporate identity akin to the developing PSA identity in order to rationalise guidelines for future
design issues.’ Haphazard and uncoordinated use of wharfsides and spaces between buildings ‘must
be considered a thing of the past.’ To ensure all of this, it was recommended that an environmental
90
officer responsible to the Port Admiral should be appointed. HKPA had no difficulty in illustrating
examples of bad practice in their Report.
Figs 131 and 132. Naval base development; feasibility study on proposed development of the North
Arm of the dockyard. TNA, CM 20/48 (1974). PSA: Devonport: DoE Directorate of Defence Works.
Dockyard buildings made four principal demands upon the space outside them, as indicated in the
following diagram.
Fig. 133. Naval base development; feasibility study on proposed development of the North Arm
of the dockyard. TNA, CM 20/48 (1974). PSA: Devonport: DoE Directorate of Defence Works.
Because of the historically formed layout of the yard, ‘the spatial attributes which would be given
priority on a contemporary industrial estate are unattainable.’ This leads to the support space around
buildings conflicting with the road system, causing traffic hold-ups and the temporary shut-down of
the whole system on occasion to allow safe arrival and departure of personnel. It was noted that the
circulation space must be kept empty at all times; however, the presence of often empty space made
its appropriation for parking and storage a habitual practice, producing the chaos shown in Fig. 131.
In the 1970s a workforce of 13,000 wished to bring in their cars.
The development of the North Arm from scratch has allowed support spaces to be clearly distinguished
from roadways through their very materials, changes of materials only happening where there was
‘a functional change in the use of the surface’. The function of different areas and objects should be
reflected in their design, but a new set of skills needed to be brought into play, as this entailed ‘a
particular skill generally found only in people with a high level of visual training and expertise.’ The
sub-text of this would have been displeasing to constructors and planners who had spent their working
lives accustomed to chaos and acceptance of disorder. The choice of colour for standardised elements
and objects should also promote clarity and associate ‘linked and related elements’. Fortunately, a
tradition of colour coding was already in existence in the navy (Figs 134 and 135).
It will come as no surprise to anybody with a slight knowledge of the acceptance of the Modern
Movement in Britain that here we have a direct reference to the Nautical Style, the subject of a
seminal article in the January 1938 issue of Architectural Review. The author, John Piper, had just made
the transition from abstraction to the highly stylised renderings of British landscape and architecture
that were to make him one of the major artists this country produced during the twentieth century. To
see his name invoked in a report on dockyard planning must have struck some readers as a strange
and perhaps unwanted innovation. The use of varying textures to indicate different spatial uses was a
key feature of another concept advocated by Architectural Review after the war, that of Townscape. HKPA
probably thought that enough unfamiliar material had already been inserted in their report, so made
no mention of this.
Their recommendations were graphically illustrated. Fig. 135 shows the varying materials and textures
that were to be used to differentiate the different functional spaces in the North Arm. A similar
initiative was urged at Portsmouth in 1974 (TNA, 1974, CM 1/157).
Fig. 135. Site plan in the feasibility study on proposed development of the North Arm of the
dockyard. TNA, CM 20/48 (1974). PSA: Devonport: DoE Directorate of Defence Works naval base
development. Reproduced with the permission of The National Archives.
Note the FMB Stores building labelled ‘Supermarket’. That must have grated as well. The proposals
were further illustrated by two more diagrams.
91
Finally, consideration was given to the provision of shelters for the workers employed in refitting and
maintenance. These had to be simple to move and be capable of being combined to form a modular
unit. These structures did, of course, exist, but did not fit in with HKPA’s vision, being all too readily
part of the old clutter.
To replace this motley collection HKPA proposed a new standardised design, which incidentally
would fit in alongside their permanent structures, while being capable of easy transport and able to
form multiple combinations.
Finally, the construction of a number of brick planters ‘growing up out of the paving and located at
the crest end of the Fleet Maintenance Base buildings’ was recommended.
In 1976 the PSA Joint Planning Team followed up the HKPA report with one of their own, which
generally took on board the architects’ recommendations, though tactfully omitting all references to
architectural literature and theory. This was not enough, however, to appease an unknown but clearly
very senior dockyard official, who pinned to the front page of the copy of the report retained at TNA a
note stating ‘Another glossy “magazine” produced at enormous expense.’ The subtext of this does not
need to be spelt out. The examples given of new buildings at Devonport which were ‘good examples
of material and colour co-ordination whilst maintaining freedom of architectural expression’ were the
unremarkable Central Office Blocks 1 and 2 in North Yard, the Apprentice Training Centre at Goschen
Yard, and, perhaps surprisingly, given their wish to play safe, the DoE Daily Issue Store in South Yard,
an uncompromisingly Brutalist building now demolished with the return of the area to Devonport.
Fig. 141. External Planning Guide by Joint PSA and MoD Planning Team: a study of spaces around
and between buildings. TNA, CM 20/55 (1976). PSA: Devonport: Publication and Research Studies.
Fig. 142. External Planning Guide by Joint PSA and MOD Planning Team: a study of spaces around
and between buildings. TNA, CM 20/55 (1976). PSA: Devonport: Publication and Research Studies.
Unsurprisingly, HKPA’s specially designed mobile shelters were not mentioned: instead standard
Portakabins were illustrated. Indeed, none of HKPA’s designs were illustrated.
While work started on the FMB another project got under way. This was not a completely new
facility in a new location, but rather an implementation of one of the recommendations of the 1971
Dockyards Development Plan, for the consolidation and rationalisation of workshop facilities. Long
92
term development was outlined in 1978 until 1998, including a programme of works for Weston Mill
Lake, extensions to the FMB and SRC, improvements to Wharf No. 8 and Basin No. 3, Quadrangle
Refurbishment, Goschen Yard and the ‘Historical Enclave’ in South Yard (TNA, CM 20/47, 1978).
At Devonport the location of the Weapons/Radio Afloat and Combined Weapons Equipment
workshops were satisfactory, but those of the Weapons/Radio and Electrical Factories were not.
In almost all cases the buildings had not been designed for these activities. The buildings were
distributed unsystematically all over the yard, as the figures below show.
Fig. 143. Production and support activities for combined weapons equipment workshops: and
associated administrative and ancillary facilities; phase 2. TNA, CM 20/54 (1974). PSA: Devonport:
Publication and Research Studies. Reproduced with the permission of The National Archives.
It was recommended that all these activities were to be concentrated on the area of the Combined
Weapons Equipment Workshop in South Yard.
This complex of buildings, S056 and S057, was to accommodate the Combined Weapons Equipment
Workshop, the Magnetic Minesweep Shop, the Weapons/Radio Factory, the Nuclear Calibration Annexe,
the Wind Tunnel, the Electrical Factory, and various associated facilities. A volumetric projection as to
the appearance of the complex in 1984 was drawn up.
Fig. 146. Buildings S056 and S057. Babcock Drawing No. 2300/ZG/01 (n.d.). Reproduced with the
It was clearly thought that HKPA had enough on their hands without this additional work, and the
design was apparently done in-house, the drawings emanating from the Exeter based South West
Division of the Mott, Hay & Anderson Group of Consulting Engineers. These show that the depiction
above was not realised. They also date from the re-cladding of the buildings in 1988, when DML
had the management of the yard (having taken over in April 1987), and so the authorship of the
design given here cannot be positive. They also show a reversion to traditional dockyard styling and
construction.
Fig. 147. East elevation of Building S057. Babcock Drawing no. 2300/ZG/05 (c.1988).
Fig. 148. West elevation of Building S056. Babcock Drawing no. 2300/ZG/09 (c.1988).
Another project which began at this time was the beginning of the execution of the wartime plan to
reclaim Weston Mill Lake, which began in 1972.
Fig. 149. January 1977 top, June 1977 below. Weston Mill Lake: land reclamation evidence of
progress; book no 2. TNA, CM 20/83 (Jan 1974–Dec 1979). PSA: Devonport: Works Projects.
Photograph albums. Reproduced with the permission of The National Archives.
From 1986–89 a new jetty and facilities were installed in Weston Mill Lake to berth six Type 22
frigates, by casting and sinking twenty-nine concrete caissons. Mouchel was appointed in 1983 by PSA
to make recommendations for the site and was appointed lead and civil engineering consultants for
the project, with PSA as project manager. Pearce and Lohn, Mouchel directors, likened the caissons
93
to the Second World War Mulberry Harbour units. A two-storey amenity building was constructed
at the centre of the jetty, constructed on its own raft foundation on the reclaimed land. Costain’s
engineer described construction problems and solutions. The caissons were cast on reclaimed land
on the north-western shore of Weston Mill Lake by slip-fill and floated to the site, moored to the bed
and keyed together. The major problems were establishing coordination of construction vessels with
naval vessels, achieved through radio communication with Harbour control; and obtaining security
clearance for transient workers, obtained through cooperation with the authorities. (MacIntyre, 1992,
pp. 227-8, 234; Pearce & Lohn, 1992, pp. 235, 241, 242, 244) The redevelopment of this as a working
basin is still proceeding; for example, following the phasing out of the Type 22s it has become the
principal base for the navy’s Amphibious Flotilla.
2.6 THE SUBMARINE REFIT COMPLEX

Stage 1 of the construction began in 1973, and involved the preparation of the site prior to Stage
2, which began in 1975. Stage 1, a civil engineering project undertaken by Costains, began by the
construction of a cofferdam to enclose the site.
Fig. 150. Cofferdam completed. TNA, CM 20/61 (1973–74). PSA: Devonport: Works Projects.
Photograph albums. Nuclear Submarine Refit Complex book no. 1. Submarine Refit Complex
December 1974. Reproduced with the permission of The National Archives.
The water was pumped out, the silt cleared from the floor of the basin, and the wall strengthened. Stage
2, like the FMB, was the responsibility of Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners and HKPA. Foundations for
the complex were begun in 1975.
Fig. 151. Submarine Refit Complex (May 1975). TNA, CM 20/62 (1975). PSA: Devonport: Works
Projects. Photograph albums. Nuclear Submarine Refit Complex book no. 2. Reproduced with the
Unlike the buildings of the FMB, this portion of the SRC, the main support buildings, was founded on
the bedrock of the original basin, and was of massive reinforced concrete construction.
Fig. 152. Submarine Refit Complex (January 1976). TNA, CM 20/63 (1976). PSA: Devonport: Works
Projects. Photograph albums. Nuclear Submarine Refit Complex book no. 3. Reproduced with the
The most publicly visible part of the complex was the 80 ton crane required to lift the nuclear core
and its container out of the submarine berthed in one of the dry docks which flanked the main
support buildings. Unlike preceding dockside cranes, this was to be an integral part of the structure
of the building, and its massive base became evident early in the construction process. The whole
of Dock No. 9 and its surrounding infrastructure buildings were designed to conform to a Design
Based Event (DBE): a 1:10,000 year earthquake possibility. This included anything which would
affect nuclear safety: cranes, rails/tramway and concrete structures. The large cantilever crane (1977)
was not permitted under the DBE assessment and was removed in September 2008 (Plymouth Herald,
September 27, 2008), the complex process described by Malcolm Smith:
As part of the MoD programme, a refuelling crane with a lifting capacity of 80 metric tons
has had to be removed and recycled. The crane was one of the largest in Western Europe,
had been a feature of the local Plymouth skyline for over 30 years and reached the end of its
design life. It had to be dismantled to make way for a new low-level facility that would, owing
to its lower height, improve future safety and include a reactor access house and rail system.
The hammerhead cantilever-design crane had been constructed in the 1970s to carry out lifts
when nuclear submarines were being refitted and refuelled. It was located in the centre of the
Submarine Refit Complex at Devonport, spanning the central office structures between two
94
docks (Docks 14 and 15). (March 2009, p. 27; also see The Naval Engineering Review, Winter 2009,
pp. 3-12.)
The Central Management Office was removed at the same time in 2008 because of safety procedures.
A new de-fuelling cover is to be built to make lower level de-fuelling safer.
Fig. 153. Submarine Refit Complex (September 1976). TNA, CM 20/64 (1976–77). PSA: Devonport:
Works Projects. Photograph albums. Nuclear Submarine Refit Complex book no. 4. Reproduced with
By January 1977 the characteristic HKPA cladding was evident.
Fig. 154. Submarine Refit Complex, view from the west (January 1977). TNA, CM 20/64 (1976–77).
PSA: Devonport: Works Projects. Photograph albums. Nuclear Submarine Refit Complex book no. 4.
The main support buildings were in two principal blocks, N016 and N022, as seen in Fig. 114, Babcock
(2011). Site Atlas. Both are seen under construction above, flanking the 80 ton crane.
Fig. 155. Building N016, Submarine Refit Complex, west elevation. Babcock Drawing no. AW4/3M
(n.d.). Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 156. Building N022, Submarine Refit Complex, west elevation. Babcock Drawing no. AW4/3M
Fig. 157. Building N016, Submarine Refit Complex plan, reference 7137/N/9030 (n.d.). Babcock
Drawing no. illegible. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
The plan (floor not identified on this copy) of N016 shows that this was the building which contained
the stainless steel pond in which the extracted cores were deposited by the crane. This core pond is
seen in Fig. 158.
Fig. 158. Submarine Refit Complex (September 1978). TNA, CM 20/67 (Jan 1978–Dec 1979). PSA:
Devonport: Works Projects. Photograph albums. Nuclear Submarine Refit Complex book no. 7.
Fig. 159. Building N022 Submarine Refit Complex plan. Babcock Drawing no. AB5/1A (n.d.).
This figure shows that N022 was a mechanical workshop, while N016 dealt with the nuclear refuelling.
To the north of the main support buildings was N008, the Central Management Offices (CMO). This
was a nine-storey building visually linked with the other buildings by the precast HKPA granite
aggregate cladding panels. Probably for the same reasons that required the railway lines serving the
nuclear refuelling facility to be capable of withstanding a high degree of seismic shock, it has been
replaced by a much lower building, N008G Amenity Office, a single storey Portakabin-type building
which is weathering very well.
Fig. 160. Building N008, Submarine Refit Complex, north elevation. Babcock Drawing no. AW3/1J
Fig. 161. Submarine Refit Complex (April 1978). TNA, CM 20/65 (Jan 1977–Dec 1978). PSA:
Devonport: Works Projects. Photograph albums. Nuclear Submarine Refit Complex book no 5.
As seen above, this building was connected into the circulation system by means of a raised
overpass. Turning to the remainder of the nuclear support buildings on the North Arm, N017 was the
Demineralised Water Plant House.
95
Fig. 162. Submarine Refit Complex Building N017. Babcock Drawing no. AB4B/28B (n.d.).
Next to it, N020 was the Nuclear Utilities Electrical Power House, building in three sections.
Fig. 163. Submarine Refit Complex Building N020. Northern section and part of central building,
Babcock Drawing no. AB4B/20 (n.d.). Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 164. Submarine Refit Complex Building N020. Part of central building and southern section,
Babcock Drawing no. AB4B/11 (n.d.). Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 165. Submarine Refit Complex Building N020. Section through high level plant room. Babcock
Drawing no. AB4B/16. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
This range of buildings forms another handsomely unified group. The southernmost building in
the group, with N017 and N020, is N021, the Caisson Control Centre, illustrated in Submarine Refit
Complex (RIBA Journal, April 1979). This appears to be an in-house PSA design.
Fig. 166. Submarine Refit Complex Building N021. Babcock Drawing no. AB1/1 (n.d.). Reproduced
Behind this row of buildings was N018, the nuclear effluent treatment plant house. This was a building
of sections, as seen when under construction.
Fig. 167. Submarine Refit Complex, N018 (November 1975). TNA, CM 20/78 (1975). PSA: Devonport:
Works Projects. Photograph albums. Fleet Maintenance Base Devonport: Foundations book no. 2.
The building was used to store intermediate level nuclear waste (ILW) in the form of ion exchange
resin beads which were used in the purification and decontamination processes. For a thorough
account of this see Wolff, Ion Exchange Resins for use in Nuclear Power Plants (2012). A sufficient quantity of
this decayed within a few years to be reclassified as low level waste which was sent by rail to Drigg in
Cumbria. ILW was stored in two types of container, Resin Catch Tanks (RCTs) and Magnox flasks. The
RCTs were dumped at sea until 1983. The western side (on the right) dealt with storage of the nuclear
containers, the eastern side with the administrative and office side of things and maintenance of the
equipment, as seen in a plan prepared in 1992 when major alterations were about to be made. The
project, D154, was described in the local press as extending and upgrading the ‘facilities for storing
intermediate-level radioactive waste material, making DML independent of any national intermediate-
level waste storage site. DML now have the capacity to store on site all the intermediate-level nuclear
waste generated at Devonport until the level of radioactivity drops to the point where the waste
is reclassified as low-level waste. It is then disposed of using the low-level waste route.’ (Plymouth
Reference Library press-cuttings)
These modifications were carried out by Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners, and left the building,
externally, virtually as HKPA left it.
The new internal arrangements of Building N018 were shown in a photograph reproduced in an
important article, The D154 project: Redevelopment of the Submarine Support Facilities at Devonport
Royal Dockyard, written by Malcolm Smith (Aug 2002) in Ingenia, to which extensive reference will be
made later on.
N018 was supplemented by N018A, for drum storage of processed chemical effluent. This was another
characteristic HKPA building in appearance, though in fact a sympathetic design by the Plymouth
based Form Design Group.
Fig. 168. Submarine Refit Complex Building N018A. Babcock Drawing no. SWP/A/106/80 (n.d.).
96
To the south of this was N020A, the Direct Current Powerhouse, containing three sets of transformers,
regulators and rectifiers on the ground floor, with two switch rooms on the upper floor. This was also
by the Form Design Group.
Fig. 169. Submarine Refit Complex Building N020A. Babcock Drawing No. SWP/A/281/80 (n.d.).
No drawings for N021A, the Transformer Building, have been located. To complete the survey of the
original development of the FMB and the Submarine Refit Complex the buildings on the eastern side
of Dock No. 14 should be mentioned. These are N008A, N008B and N008C. Drawings for these, dating
from March 1977, show four buildings, for Degaussing, Flammable Stores, Bottle Stores, and NUPM
Stores (function of the last is unknown).
Fig. 170. Submarine Refit Complex. Babcock Drawing no. AB7/14C (n.d.). Reproduced with the
Fig. 171. Submarine Refit Complex. Babcock Drawing no. AB7/14C (n.d.). Reproduced with the
It is not known which three of these are now present, or which is which. By September 1979, the
buildings were essentially completed, the docks operational, and the cofferdam which enclosed the
submarine complex within the basin was being removed. (Fig. 172) This shows the 80 ton crane
completed. A gantry crane had been considered, but was rejected in favour of a cantilever crane. This
was built by Stothert and Pitt of Bath, celebrated as crane designers but now defunct as a manufacturer.
HKPA were involved in the design: ‘We insisted’ the HKPA architect-on-site, Leonard Goodchild, was
quoted as saying. They wished to change the structure from a conventional open lattice to a box-
type structure, but the wind resistance made this impossible. The result was a compromise, but a
memorable one.
Fig. 172. Submarine Refit Complex with 80 ton crane, 1979. TNA, CM 20/68 (1979). PSA: Devonport:
Works Projects. Photograph albums. Nuclear Submarine Refit Complex book no. 8. Reproduced with
By April 1979, the whole area was sufficiently complete for the RIBA Journal to publish a laudatory
article, singling out the
Submarine Refit base…by far the most impressive part of the site. The scale is Piranesian.
He would certainly have enjoyed the crane.…Probably the greatest aesthetic problem in
dockyard design is to achieve cohesion and unity in an assemblage of differently sized and
used buildings, to offset the inevitable visual clutter of stores equipment, cranes, etc. In recent
years this has rarely been attempted, still more rarely obtained, and the result is that in most
of our ports the chance for visual excitement is lost in tawdriness and mess. Like Brunel and
Hartley, HKPA, in association with the engineers, have deliberately developed a vocabulary of
structural and cladding forms to bring consistency to the various structures, sufficiently flexible
to let individual buildings do their own thing, yet creating a controlled backdrop to the busy
dockyard activity.…The result is an appropriately ship-shape and handsome set of buildings
where heavy engineering, high technology, ships and architecture meet at the water’s edge.
This glowing review from the mouthpiece of the architectural establishment was reinforced the next
year by the Civil Engineering fraternity, when the complex won the Building category for the Concrete
Society’s annual awards. The judges echoed the RIBA correspondent’s words: ‘In this great complex,
a considerable range of concrete construction techniques has been used but the whole blends into a
unity. Dominated by a crane of massive proportions, the final building draws the eye with its shape
and finish. A powerful building for a powerful purpose!’ Pevsner and Cherry in 1989 praised the
integration of the cranes with the buildings. In particular: ‘The varied heights and shapes are neatly
unified by rectangular cream-coloured precast concrete cladding panels.’ (p. 653)
97
Fig. 173. Submarine Refit Complex, 1980. TNA, CM 20/68. (1979). PSA: Devonport: Works Projects.
Photograph albums. Nuclear Submarine Refit Complex book no. 8. Reproduced with the permission
Before leaving the redevelopment of the North Arm, N259 must be mentioned. This building was Part
1 of Stage 2 of the FMB extension.
Fig. 174. Building N259. Babcock Drawing no. 85007/AD1/8 (n.d.). Reproduced with the permission
of the MoD.
Fig. 175. Building N259. Babcock Drawing no. 85007/AD1/1 (n.d.). Reproduced with the permission
of the MoD.
These plans, from 1987, were the work of the Plymouth based architects Stride Treglown. Workshops
and storage were on the ground floor, with offices, including the Property Management office, above.
Another major development around Basin No. 5 was in the offing for the 1990s.
2.7 A GREEN POLICY IS FORMULATED FOR DEVONPORT

In December 1978, a forward planning policy document for the yard was produced. Its authors were
clearly impressed by the consistency of style represented by the HKPA designs, which contrasted with
previous twentieth century buildings. ‘The introduction of red bricks…was an example of a material
which did not relate to the total concept; and from that time an increasing variety of new materials
of different textures and colours have been used to the detriment of the general dockyard scene.’
Modern materials could work well alongside traditional ones, and this was most satisfactorily achieved
by use of a warm mid-grey in a variety of textures.
This tacit approval of the HKPA design strategy was followed by a proposal which was very advanced
for its date. The future sources of energy for the base were considered. It was foreseen that this would
in a foreseeable time affect future developments. Self-sufficiency in oil was likely to last until the
mid-1990’s, and oil might have to be restricted to space heating. Natural gas reserves were estimated
to last 20 to 25 years, depending on the accuracy of estimates and the possibility of new discoveries.
Not foreseeing the events of the 1980s, an annual output of 165 million tonnes was estimated by 2000.
There was currently a surplus of generating capacity for electricity, which was expected to last another
eight years. To a certain extent, oil or coal could be used for some power stations. Major decisions still
had to be made over future nuclear generating stations.
Renewables, it was generally thought, would not be able to contribute more than 2% to 5% of the
national requirements. But, if the Quadrangle (1852–61, N173-177, N186-191, N203) were to be re-roofed
with a space-frame the better to handle and update Scamp’s vision of a fully flexible workspace, then
solar energy panels might be sufficiently advanced to be incorporated in the roof structure. Sections
were drawn up to illustrate this.
Fig. 176. Quadrangle, longitudinal section. TNA, CM 20/57 (1978). PSA: Devonport: Publication
and Research Studies. Master Development Plan: future development; vol. 2. Reproduced with the
Fig. 177. Quadrangle, cross-section. TNA, CM 20/57 (1978). PSA: Devonport: Publication and
Research Studies. Master Development Plan: future development; vol. 2. Reproduced with the
The space-frame was never inserted, and the building remains essentially as Greene and Scamp left
it. Now, with the building listed, the installation of appropriate solar panels on the Quadrangle would
not necessarily be precluded. Approval could be given for ones that did not harm the historic fabric or
appearance. However, this proposal is well worth noting as being well ahead of its time, and shows
that the yard authorities were prepared to think well ahead for environmentally friendly solutions.
98
2.8 MODERNISATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF NUCLEAR SUBMARINE

SUPPORT FACILITIES
In 1992, Devonport Management Limited - DML (who had taken over operations in the Yard since
1987) prepared a planning application document with the above title. Both DML and the MoD put
forward alternative schemes for this. The layout as existing in 1992 was first illustrated, then the DML
scheme, and then the MoD scheme. Neither of these schemes was adopted in full. Both schemes were
based around the redevelopment of the Western Promontory and the drastic re-handling of Dock Nos
9 and 10 for the use of nuclear submarines.
The Dock No. 10 project was described in the local press: ‘Leviathan: A 7,500 tonne earthquake-proof
concrete wall replaces the steel gate on No. 10 Dock’ (Plymouth Reference Library cutting).3 This,
completed in late 1997, was because DML:
needs to retain the ability to dock attack submarines while redeveloping submarine docks
(Nos 14 and 15 in the Submarine Refit Complex) and so No. 10 dock was brought up to
the latest nuclear standards for use as an interim non-refuelling dock while the submarine
refit complex docks are out of commission…the conversion has been designed to render
the dock earthquake-proof up to seismic shocks of 0.25g. The dock structure of granite
and mass concrete sits on bedrock but to enhance stability during seismic shock, the west
wall was physically tied into the bedrock by 70-metre deep rock anchors set at one-metre
intervals. The old welded steel dock gate was discarded and replaced by a multi-cellular
7,500 tonne reinforced concrete leviathan.
This wall seals on a flat sliding surface rather than being wedged in a slot, so relative movement
between the dock gate and dock structure under seismic shock does not result in crushing of the gate.
New concrete ‘arrestor’ cradles were built in the dock bottom round the dock blocks on which the
submarine rests. These ensure that in the event of a catastrophic failure leading to a massive inrush
of water, the submarine will be safely held in place.’
Improvements in storing and handling nuclear waste were a key part of the project, though these left
little external evidence in the buildings, and have been dealt with previously in the refurbishing of
building N018. The decision taken in 1993 that Devonport would become the single refitting base for
nuclear submarines meant that the new and larger Vanguard class (12m in diameter and 150 m long)
would have to be accommodated, and Dock No. 9 would need to be enlarged for this purpose. The
different size of the vessels was graphically shown in the article referred to below.
This was the D154 project, the contract for which was agreed in March 1997. In August 2002
Malcolm Smith, the former Technical Director of the project, published a well-illustrated
article, ‘The D154 Project’, in Ingenia, the journal of the Royal College of Engineering. This article
was thought so important that it was reprinted in February 2003 in Engineering Technolog y, and
in the May/June 2004 issue of The Nuclear Engineer. As the authoritative study, this has been
drawn upon here. DML published a set of plans showing the proposed phasing of construction.
Key to both proposals was the decision to change the technique of loading and unloading nuclear
fuel into the submarines. The 80 ton crane would eventually become redundant with nuclear fuel rods
being lifted from the docked submarine into a Reactor Access House (RAH) which spanned the dock
on beams, and the nuclear flasks would not be lifted at all. They would be moved horizontally by the
RAH and then transferred to a Low Level Refuelling Facility (LLRF) where they would be loaded for
transport by rail out of the dockyard.
The DML proposals were set out in a series of phased diagrams going up to 2003. The whole new
redevelopment of the nuclear submarine facilities was illustrated in a well produced booklet issued
3
Plymouth Reference Library holds files of local press cuttings, notably of the Evening Herald (11 April 1987), a
Devonport Dockyard picture special, (September 19, 1998) and a special issue (February 2000), showing the
reconstructed submarine facilities and the HKPA administration block demolished and replaced by a lower
building with a larger footprint.
99
by DML in March 2002. This described the principal new facilities as ‘the Vanguard Class refitting and
refuelling facility at 9 Dock; two Swiftsure and Trafalgar Class refitting and refuelling facilities at Docks
14 and 15; upgraded berths and wharves; power range testing facilities for all submarines’ and various
buildings and plant to support these. The exact sequencing of all this work is not known, nor are the
numbers – and hence the drawings and location – of many of these buildings. Consequently only the
Low Level Refuelling Facility (LLRF) and the buildings around Dock Nos 9 and 10 are dealt with here.
The MoD proposals for the siting of the LLRF were the ones which were acted on. The building was
numbered N006, and the first plans located are dated March 1997. It was described in the local press
as follows. ‘To service all the new nuclear docks, a new low-level refuelling facility is being built in
the corner of Basin No. 5. To meet the earthquake requirements, a 25,000 tonne foundation block
was cast directly on to the bedrock under the basin, and this was then anchored to the bedrock using
tensioned steel rods. An image was shown in a press cutting held in Plymouth Reference Library:
‘Taking shape: the new low level refuelling building under construction. It stands on a concrete pad
anchored by steel cables to the bedrock.’
A more detailed scientific explanation was given in ‘Installing rock anchorages in a nuclear-licensed
dock site’ (Chapman et al., 2006). Rock anchorages had been installed in submarine refit complex
in the 1970s to stabilise existing basin walls during the construction of the dividing wall which
created Docks 11 and 12, and in constructing the promontory between Docks 14 and 15. More rock
anchorages were fitted during the D154 Project. (Chapman et al., 2006, pp. 63-4, 73) The building
houses the storage pits used for new and used fuel elements, together with a low-level fuel-handling
crane.
Smith (2002, pp. 29, 31, 33) illustrated the interior of the LLRF building during its construction and one
of the Reactor Access Houses with a cradle straddling Dock No. 9. Docks 14 and 15 were upgraded
with a Butterley Crane (2002) and equipped with low level fuel handling facilities. This was illustrated
in the Evening Herald of September 19, 1998, which shows the refuelling crane removed and the multi-
storey management offices replaced by a lower building to reduce the risk of collapse during an
earthquake.
Turning to the new buildings to serve the rebuilt Dock Nos 9 and 10, neither of the original layouts
made by DML and the MoD was exactly followed. The final solution was shown in Ingenia (2002, p. 32)
Fig. 178. Babcock (2011). Site Atlas. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
By 1997, Dock No. 10, as proposed by DML, had been brought up to standard for use as a non-fuelling
maintenance dock while Dock Nos 14 and 15 were being upgraded. The dock, as stated earlier, was
made earthquake-proof and the steel dock gate replaced by a 7,500 ton reinforced concrete gate.
N094, a production building, was erected on its eastern side, seen on the general plan. (Fig. 179)
Fig. 179. D154 Phase 3 Location Plan sheet no. 15 (n.d.). No Babcock drawing number. Reproduced
The buildings are clearly visible in a 2010 Google aerial photograph (Fig. 180), in an illustration from
the 2002 DML booklet and in NAO (National Audit Office) (6 December 2002). Ministry of Defence: The
Construction of Nuclear Submarine Facilities at Devonport.
Fig. 180. Google aerial photograph of Devonport Dockyard. Retrieved from Google Earth in 2013.
At the head of Dock No. 9, reconstructed to refit and refuel Vanguard class submarines, is N099, the
PWR2 (Pressurised Water Reactor) Training Rig. The Vanguard class is powered by a new pressurised
water reactor, PWR2, which had double the service life of previous models. Also at the head of Dock
No. 9 is N102, the PCD/ARC building. This houses the Primary Circuit Decontamination/Alternative
Core Removal Cooling plant. This cools the reactor and, in the words of the DML brochure, ‘provides
a means by which decontamination and boronation chemicals can be injected into the submarine’s
primary circuit. Boronation chemicals are used to absorb neutrons and suppress nuclear fission.’
100
Building N102, a complex building, according to the Ingenia article, ‘contains 92 rooms with equipment
and plant connected by over 20 km of pipework and 150 km of electrical cable.’ This work had
been anticipated by the construction of a new Pipe Shop, for which no dated plan has been located.
Clearly, facilities must have also been built to house and maintain such a quantity of cable. Pipe Shop
N110 was converted, when Vanguard came in 2002, to a Layapart Store for Vanguard items as they were
removed. It is now HQ Store and Office for Vanguard class operations, supporting the nuclear fleet. It
also stores items from surface ships in refit. No real changes have occurred to the external structure,
but some offices have been installed internally for Vanguard class operations. A concrete wall, now
gone, used to divide ferrous from non-ferrous pipes. Cranes run lengthwise within the building. Dark
coloured pneumatic compressed air tubes which carried communications and drawings between
offices still remain. The hot air blower heating system no longer functions. In the 1970s other metals
were added because copper became too expensive and there was a shortage for tubing, so alloys
were used which corroded. These cannot be repaired so it is defunct. Infrared heaters now operate.
At the north end on the eastern side of Dock No. 9 is N117, the Electrical Plant House. The principal
building serving Dock No. 9 is the Reactor and Refuelling Production Building (RRPB).
Babcock Marine took over running the yard in 2007. But before that they had added a further chapter
to the story of the Submarine Refit Complex. They had designed a moveable lightweight roof to cover
Dock No. 14 while refitting operations took place. It can be removed as each refit is completed.
Submarine refits used to take 2.5 years; they now take 1.5 years.
By the time Babcock’s Principal Engineer published an article on the structure in 2008 (Baird, Design
and construction of an environmental enclosure for a refitting dock) it had been used for two refits during the previous
five years. The roof is shown in the illustration of the refit of Triumph. Although not a permanent
structure by definition, it is conceivable that it may last as long as such an apparently permanent a
fixture as the 80 ton crane, which was demolished in September 2008 after having performed its final
refuelling on that very submarine in April of that year.
The Management slab block N008, as mentioned earlier, has also now been replaced, though it still
figured on the 2011 Babcock Site Atlas. The replacement is shown in an illustration published in the
Plymouth Evening Herald of September 19, 1998 and a plan in the Ingenia article.
As part of the D154 project Docks 14 and 15 were strengthened, the floors raised and the entrances
sealed with multi-cellular caissons. The rail system for transferring nuclear containers was extended
and seismically qualified. Since the 1990s further rock anchorages have been installed to address
corrosion and stress corrosion cracking affecting the 1970s anchorages, to meet more stringent nuclear
safety case requirements for all the nuclear docks and facilities. After installation of bar anchorages
in May 1999 in the LLRF, housing new and used nuclear fuel, water was found to be leaking through
the heads of several of the anchorages in August 1999. It was penetrating the boreholes in which
the anchorages were fitted, either from the underlying rock or from Basin No. 5, through the mass
concrete slab. This was resolved by filling the sealing cap voids with pressurised grease. (Chapman et
al., 2006, pp. 63-4, 73).
2.9 MODERNISATION AND CHANGING ROLES OF EARLIER BUILDINGS

A museum has existed at Devonport in some form since the early nineteenth century, one artefact being
the flag under which Nelson fell at the Battle of Trafalgar. Ten items, including a model of the Dockyard
Gates, ‘were carried in the Procession of Dockyard Employees in honour of the Coronation’ of William
IV and Queen Adelaide in 1831. The artefacts were kept in a shed known as the Adelaide Gallery,
but it was destroyed in the Dockyard Fire of 1840. In 1911 the Rigging House in South Yard housed a
painting of the Channel Fleet approaching Plymouth Sound ‘Painted on wood by J. Pengelly, labourer,
1862’, seventy figureheads, twelve ship models, twenty-four boats or parts of ships, four carvings, and
twenty-three ‘Relics’, including a piece of the keel of the Royal George, recovered from the wreck in 1840.
(Admiralty, April 1911, pp. 33-9; Dicker, 1970) Shown on an 1888 map lying south of Dock No. 1, the
101
area was bombed during the Second World War; the Glass Fibre Shop is now on this site.
From 1941, Stanley Greenwood of the Naval Stores Department at Devonport gathered artefacts and
was influential in persuading Admiral ‘Dick’ Wildish, the last Admiral Superintendent of the Dockyard
in the 1960s, Norman Chaff, his Civil Secretary, and Dockyard Welfare Officer Councillor Fred Stott, to
set up a new museum. Chaff appealed for items in the local press. (Devonport Dockyard Museums)
On Monday April 28 1969, Basil Greenhill, Director of the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich,
opened Plymouth Dockyard Museum in the old Fire Station in South Yard. It moved in the 1970s to
the former St Lo church near Fore Street Gate and to its current location within the former Pay Office
(c.1780, S32, Grade II*, 1388408, SX 44972 54625) in South Yard in the late 1970s (New Museum Tells
Dockyard Story, 1969). Its collection of figureheads are now somewhat confined within the former
Fire Station. David Pulvertaft’s authoritative study describes Devonport’s naval figureheads which
remain or have been lost or scattered (Pulvertaft, February 2009, pp. 81-5).
Plymouth Naval Base Museum was managed from 1993 until 2007 by Commander Charles Crichton
OBE and cared for by volunteer Friends. Its collection and submarine HMS Courageous in Basin No. 3
are now open to the public through the Devonport Naval Heritage Centre, which brings visitors into
Devonport Naval Base via pre-booked coach tours. The collection is distributed currently within the
Fire Station/Stables (1851, SO32, II, 1378506, SX 44941 54598), the Pay Office (SO32), a post-war
building housing the model ship collection, Gilroy House and the Mould Loft/ Scrieve Board (S122),
but it is likely that it will be moved in the next few years. In 2014 Plymouth City Council bid for HLF
funds to refurbish and extend the City Library and Museum and Art Gallery on North Hill (Rossiter,
2014). The grant of £12.8m will create a history centre, expected to open in 2019, within listed
buildings on North Hill. These will house five heritage collections in one building: ‘Plymouth City
Museum and Art Gallery; Plymouth and West Devon Record Office; South West Film and Television
Archive; South West Image Bank and the Local Studies and Reference Collection from the Central
Library.’ (HLF, 27.5.2014) This will remove the collection from its original location, and among such
competition only a fraction will be displayed.
Near Fore Street Gate is Gilroy House (former Porter’s Lodge), which contains four police cells
and a Lighthouse exhibition. Badly damaged in the Second World War and repaired, the remaining
original building is possibly of a similar age to Portsmouth Porter’s Lodge (c.1708). The orbs from the
original Fore Street Gate pillars are in the front garden. Fore Street Gate Police Station (1854, N223,
II, 1378576, SX 45126 55496) was a Dockyard Police Museum in 2008 which has now closed. Outside
was a revolvable wooden sentry box (to avoid the wind) relocated from Clarence Steps at Royal
William Yard. Also in 2008 some decorative cast iron urinals from outside Ferry Road Gate, broken
into large pieces, were stacked near the White Yarn House (1796, S135, Grade II*, 13785030).
The Master Ropemaker’s Office, later the first Dockyard School (c.1816, c.1868, S103, Grade II, 1378518,
SX 45102 54452), has been renovated, as has the Joiners’ Shop/Hemp Store (1766, S95, Grade II,
1378520, SX 45082 54395). After a £300,000 conversion it opened in April 2005 as a business making
rigging, ladders, fenders and shackles for RN tugs, employing ex-dockyard workers and maintaining
dockyard skills.
The first manifestation of change to South Yard was Princess Yachts’ acquisition in 2011 of the East
Ropery (1763–71, S132, I, 1388400, SX 45188 54215) and Tarred Yarn Houses (White Yarn House, 1763,
S135, II*, 1378503, SX 45185 54296; Tarred Yard Store, 1769, S138, II*, 1378504, SX 45217 54200; Tarring
and Wheel House S136 and Tarred Yarn House S137, 1763, II*, 1378505, SX 45205 54238) an exclusive
entrance through Mutton Cove Gate and land to erect ship halls. The physical and visual impact of
the ship halls and a steel security fence has reduced the cohesion of the historic buildings as an
integrated group. Vistas are now very different from the 1922 view of South Yard looking towards the
Tamar illustrated in A Brief History of Devonport Naval Base (pp. 6-7). The Relay Warehouse Building (1903,
S173), among others, was demolished to prepare for Princess Yachts acquisition of part of South Yard
(Architects Design Group, 2010, Design and Access Statement). The following images record some of
the changes.
102
Fig. 181. DP130113. Devonport South Yard: photograph of Building S173 recorded before demolition.
General view looking northeast across the dockyard towards S172 and S173 (8 Feb 2011). King’s Hill
Gazebo (1822, S186) and the newly roofed Covered Slip No. 1 are on the right. S173 was constructed
as a Plumbers’ Shop as part of the project dating from 1900 to supply the building of Dreadnoughts on
nearby Slip No. 3 (English Heritage, Aug 2010, Listing Advice Report Building S173). Princess Yachts
vessels are seen on the left. ©Historic England.
View of S173 looking towards the west end doorway on the west elevation (8 Feb 2011). King’s Hill
Gazebo (1822, S186) can just be seen behind it to the right, with new fencing to secure Princess
Yachts’ land. Shallow Dock is in the bottom right hand corner. ©Historic England.
Fig. 183. DP13021. Devonport South Yard: photograph (8 Feb 2011) of Building S173 recorded before
demolition. Stone dated 1903 on the west elevation. ©Historic England.
Cast iron lamp bracket on the southwest corner of S173 (8 Feb 2011). ©Historic England.
Interior with Cowans Sheldon overhead gantry dated 1941 (8 Feb 2011). ©Historic England.
Nearby Slip No. 3 was also altered in 2011 when it was taken over by Princess Yachts (Architects
Design Group, 2010, Design and Access Statement). The Gazebo (1822, S186, Grade II*, 1388430, SX
45164 54042) is now isolated among Princess Yachts buildings. Slip No. 4 is being refurbished to take
Landing Craft. The Scrieve Board (1814–21, S122, SM 1002575/Grade II*, 1388417, SX 44859 54124) is
now used for museum items stored previously in the Ropery. The North Smithery (1808, S23, Grade
II*, 1388402, SX 44862 54618), also known as The Old Smithery, needs an estimated £3-6m to make
the building safe. It is considered now to be beyond a level where this would be practicable. The roof
is detached. South Saw Mills (SO128, SO148-150, Grade II*, 1388413, SX 44986 54180) are considered
salvageable, but SO128 and SO149 are in a very poor condition. The Boathouse Complex north of the
Camber Channel is used by Babcock for timber work. The Gunstore (S119), a machine shop converted
to a heavy gun store in 1911, was a monument to the Dreadnought era. It was on Jetty No. 1, but has
now gone.
In North Yard the Keyham Extension Gate was removed in 2013 because it was collapsing, as its ramp
was beyond repair. The river wharves of Basin Nos 2 and 3 give a magnificent view of the Quadrangle
frontage and the caissons can be seen in Basin No. 5. Samuel Bentham spelled the word ‘cassoon’,
which is still the common dockyard pronunciation in both dockyards. New ship caissons have been
installed by Ravenstein: J/08 in 2009 and Q/10 in 2012 (Ravenstein, 2009; 2012). The windows of the
Dock Pumping Station (1905, N114-N115, Grade II, 1378571) have been replaced like-for-like.
Fig. 186. Section of a map showing the Quadrangle workshops in 1903. AdL, Vz 14/44 (1900–1923).
H.M. Dockyard Devonport North and South Yards Keyham Steam Yard and Naval Barracks,
Compiled by E. J. Powell from Mr. Townshend’s Survey of North and South Yards and the Ordnance
Survey. Director of Works Office 1903. Defence Estates Plans. Scale 1”:16’. Courtesy MoD Admiralty
Library, Naval Historical Branch, Portsmouth.
The initial flexible design of the Quadrangle (1852–61, N173-7, N186-91, N203, Grade I, 1378566, SX
44874 55635) has allowed extensive modernisations to be carried out within its original shell and
under its original roof. ‘The Quadrangle, now part of the Factories Group, is still used for what it
was originally intended. The design intent of the internal courtyard still applies to its covered areas.’
(Welch, 2013) In the late twentieth century the building was always a support workshop. Windows
are original or like-for-like. Brickwork has been re-pointed where necessary and the external face
has been recently cleaned. The original entrance opens onto the Basin No. 3. Just inside are the
original stairs. Two archways aligned with the Quadrangle’s northern elevation to the west and east
gave access to the railway line. The old travelling cranes have been replaced. In 1993 brick/concrete/
block (earlier divisions had used corrugated iron) partitions were inserted to divide the space further
103
and some internal brick structures were inserted. Iron girders are all original, neo-classical design.
There is plentiful evidence of crossing tramlines and original flagstones, and wall fixtures for hanging
services.
The building is divided into five bays, each with separate functions, all manufacturing items for ships
in refit. It is the centre of Devonport refit activities, handling all functions except wooden support.
More facilities will be moving into the Factory to be fully centralised. In the 1970s it had 110 workers;
in 1913, 52. More women are gaining apprenticeships and becoming employed, causing changes to
facilities and attitudes.
In the Foundry (now the Cleaning Bay) were furnaces with granite pits, and tram rails. One bay has
the original bricks and iron beams. The Foundry’s original Diocletian (Palladian) windows on the
western and eastern elevations ventilated fumes and heat. The Pipe Shop opened in the Factory in 1976
and closed in 2000. The Bottle Shop is an original Quadrangle building which cleaned air bottles for
submarines (Evans, 2004, Building the Steam Navy). The Boiler Makers’ and Shipwrights’ area is defined by
corrugated iron that is at least sixty years old. Tramlines (filled in) remain. In the Water Pressure Test
Bay is a 15 cwt Power Hammer (Alldays & Onions Birmingham & London, c.1991), originally from the
North Yard Smithery. An old press for shaping edges is still used today and for training apprentices.
In Sheer Alley is an air-driven guillotine still used to cut steel plates. Most current cranes are four to
ten years old, but one red crane, used to move big plates, dates from 1948. A Sedgwick Plate Bending
Machine was still in use until 2013, then de-commissioned. There is a new pipe-bending machine for
6 inch diameter pipe, but an old pipe-bending machine for 8 inch diameter pipe is still in use.
Within HMS Drake, Devonport Naval Barracks, the Chapel of St Nicholas (1905–7, Grade II, 1386364,
SX 44852 56796) still holds services. Devonport’s newest building here is for Haslar Company, a
rehabilitation centre for disabled personnel. It is a light yellow brick building, in contrast to the local
limestone of the rest of the blocks.
The future of South Yard is certain; its disposal by the MoD is under way. Plymouth and the South West
Peninsula City Deal announced plans in 2014 to ‘Unlock 32,400 square metres of new marine workspace
as part of a potential phased release of the South Yard site at Devonport Naval Base that could, in
the long term, unlock 85,000 square metres of new marine workspace.’ Incorporating the Ministry
of Defence, Plymouth City Council and other local authorities, the Homes and Communities Agency
and the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership, it will develop a “whole-site” strategy
for South Yard, including small amount of housing. (pp. 4, 5) An identically named booklet identifies
South Yard as the ‘flagship’ campus to ‘facilitate the international relocation and development of
supply chain companies and enable the growth of local marine sector companies.’ (pp. 2, 8)
Fig. 187. Devonport’s concrete Frigate Complex June (1973–76, N217) and the limestone North Yard
Offices (N215, 1903, 1910), visible over the dockyard wall. A. Coats 2013.
At Devonport the sea is evident from most of the naval base, as the facilities have extended north
along the estuary rather than inland. Early twentieth century buildings are mostly Edwardian baroque
in limestone, while post-Second World War buildings, reflecting their technological functions, steel
framed and concrete clad. More recent additions have been Portakabins, which in an era of rapidly
changing fleet requirements are flexible to serve immediate requirements. There are large car parks at
the gates and within the naval base, but 350-400 workers still cycle into the yard.
Devonport’s future was regarded as being in some doubt at the time of the 2010 Strategic Defence and
Security Review, and occasional concerns about its long-term prospects have surfaced since then, so it
is not entirely inconceivable that the yard will ultimately face closure. However, it remains an essential
facility for the Royal Navy. It will undertake the refits of the new Astute class submarines, and almost
certainly also those of the Trident successor boats.
104
Fig. 65. HMNB Devonport map. Royal Navy (2010). Devonport Naval Base Handbook. Plymouth: Plymouth
HIVE/DE&S, p. 5.
Left: Fig. 67. BB96/03858.

Devonport South Yard
South Smithery (S126)
photograph along north
side of central building from
northeast (29 Feb 1996).
Above: Fig. 66. AA98/04662. Devonport Covered Slip No. 1 (1774–75) photograph by Eric de
Mare showing the roof timbers added in the nineteenth century (1956). The only remaining
intact eighteenth century slip within a royal dockyard (Coad, 1989, p. 197). Reproduced by
permission of Historic England.
Left: Fig. 68.

BB96/03859.
Devonport South
Yard South
Smithery (S126)
photograph detail
of evidence of the
line shaft on the
north side of central
building (29 Feb
1996). ©Crown
copyright.HE.
Fig. 69. BB96/03867. Devonport South Yard South Smithery

(S126) photograph of interior central building, view from
southeast (29 Feb 1996). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 71. BB96/03865. Devonport

South Yard South Smithery (S126)
photograph of Cowans Sheldon driven
Fig. 70. BB96/03891. Devonport South Yard South Smithery (S126) photograph capstan (1926) (29 Feb 1996). ©Crown
of north elevation of centre building (29 Feb 1996). ©Crown copyright.HE. copyright.HE.
Fig. 72. ADM01 (June 1908). Numbers and Dimensions Fig. 73. ADM01 (June 1908). Numbers and Dimensions
of Locks, Docks and Basin Entrances in HM Dockyards. of Locks, Docks and Basin Entrances in HM Dockyards.
Admiralty Book, p. c. Devonport Dock Dimensions. Admiralty Book, p. 100. Devonport North Yard (Keyham
Reproduced by permission of Historic England. Extension) Dock No. 9, North midship section and outline
of entrance. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Admiralty Book, p. 102. Devonport North Yard (Keyham Admiralty Book, p. 104. Devonport North Yard (Keyham
Extension) Dock No. 9, South midship section and Extension) Dock No. 10, North midship section and outline
outline of entrance. Reproduced by permission of Historic of entrance. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
England.
Admiralty Book, p. 106. Devonport North Yard (Keyham Admiralty Book, p. 117. Devonport North Yard (Keyham
Extension) Dock No. 10, South midship section and outline Extension) Prince of Wales Basin outline of entrance.
of entrance. Reproduced by permission of Historic England. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 78. Change of name from Keyham Steam

Yard to North Yard. AdL, Vz 14/44 (1900–1923).
H.M. Dockyard Devonport North and South
Yards Keyham Steam Yard and Naval Barracks,
Compiled by E. J. Powell from Mr. Townshend’s
Survey of North and South Yards and the
Ordnance Survey. Director of Works Office 1903.
Defence Estates Plans, Scale 1”:16’. Courtesy
MoD Admiralty Library, Naval Historical Branch,
Portsmouth.
Fig. 79. Cold Store site marked M on the wharf near

North Lock, 1920. Devonport North Yard. AdL,
Vz 14/43 (1908-23). Devonport Dockyard Defence Fig. 80. HM Dockyard Devonport: aerial photographs. TNA,
Estates Plans. Scale 1:2500. Courtesy MoD Admiralty WORK 69/19 (1951). Reproduced with the permission of The
Library Naval Historical Branch, Portsmouth. National Archives.
Fig. 81.
Devonport
Dockyard,
machinery
shop, 1911.
Conversion
of machine
shop to heavy
gun store.
PWDRO,
663/320.
© Plymouth
City Council
(Arts and
Heritage).
Right: Fig. 82. Proposed Devonport Dockyard boundary enlargement

(1942). TNA, ADM 1/17810 (1942–44). Naval Stations: Post war
reconstruction and development of Devonport and Plymouth: proposals
and plans. Reproduced with the permission of The National Archives.
Fig. 83. HM Dockyard Devonport: aerial photographs. Fig. 84. HM Dockyard Devonport: aerial photographs. TNA,
TNA, WORK 69/19 (1951). Reproduced with the WORK 69/19 (1951). Reproduced with the permission of
permission of The National Archives. The National Archives.
Fig. 85. Naval Fig. 86. Naval

Stations: Post war Stations: Post war
reconstruction reconstruction
and development and development
of Devonport of Devonport
and Plymouth: and Plymouth:
proposals and proposals and
plans (1943). plans (1943).
TNA, ADM TNA, ADM
1/17810 1/17810 (1942–
(1942–44). 44). Reproduced
Reproduced with with the
the permission permission of The
of The National National Archives.
Archives.
Fig. 87. Naval

Stations: Post war
reconstruction
and development
of Devonport
and Plymouth:
proposals and
plans (1943).
TNA, ADM
1/17810
(1942–44).
Reproduced with
the permission
of The National
Archives.
Fig. 88. HM Dockyard Devonport: plans for development

and modernisation. TNA, ADM 1/26498 (1953).
Fig. 89. HM Dockyard

Devonport: plans
for development and
modernisation. TNA,
ADM 1/26498 (1953).
Reproduced with the
permission of The
National Archives.
Fig. 90. HM Dockyard

Devonport: plans
for development and
modernisation. TNA,
ADM 1/26498 (1953).
Reproduced with the
permission of The
National Archives.
Right: Fig. 92.

Photograph albums.
Frigate complex:
evidence of progress
(1972). TNA, CM
20/91 (Jan 1971–
Dec 1972). PSA:
Devonport: Works
Projects. Reproduced
with the permission
of The National
Archives.
Right: Fig. 93.

Photograph albums.
Frigate complex:
evidence of progress
(1972). TNA, CM
20/91 (Jan 1971–
Dec 1972). PSA:
Devonport: Works
Projects. Reproduced
with the permission
Fig. 91. Refitting of nuclear submarines: use of of The National
Portsmouth or Devonport Dockyards, with maps. 1965. Archives.
TNA, ADM 329/7 (1964–65). Reproduced with the
Fig. 94. Babcock Site Atlas (2011). Reproduced

Right: Fig. 95. Building N093. Babcock

Drawing no. AB3/12B (1972). Reproduced
Fig. 96. Building N093. Babcock Drawing no. AB3/16B (1972). Fig. 97. Building N125 ground floor. Babcock
Reproduced with the permission of the MoD. Drawing no. AB2/11 (1972). Reproduced with the
Fig. 98. Building N125 first floor. Babcock Drawing

no. AB2/12 (1972). Reproduced with the permission
of the MoD.
Fig. 99. Sections through Building N125. Babcock Drawing No.

AB1/80 (1972). Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 100. Building N125, plan of part of main block which ties in with part of
the above sections. Babcock Drawing no. AB1/109 (1972). Reproduced with
Fig. 102. Building N125, main block

elevations. Babcock Drawing no.
AB1/84A (1972). Reproduced with
Left: Fig. 101. Building N125, main

block elevations. Babcock Drawing no.
AB1/83 (1972). Reproduced with the
Fig. 104. Above: Fig. 103. Building N125, main

Building N217, block cladding. Babcock Drawing no.
part of east 2916/1A (1972). Reproduced with the
elevation, Frigate permission of the MoD.
Complex, April
1972. Babcock
Drawing no.
ABG/16E.
Reproduced with
the permission of
the MoD.
Fig. 105. Building N217, part of west elevation, Frigate Fig. 106. Building N217, part of section, Frigate Complex,
Complex, April 1972. Babcock Drawing no. ABG/17C. April 1972. Babcock Drawing no. ABG/20F. Reproduced
Fig. 107. Photograph albums. Frigate Complex book no. 2 Fig. 108. Photograph albums. Frigate Complex book no.
(1973). TNA, CM 20/69 (1972–73). PSA: Devonport: Works 3 (1973). TNA, CM 20/70 (1973–74). PSA: Devonport:
Projects. Reproduced with the permission of The National Works Projects. Reproduced with the permission of
Archives. The National Archives.
Fig. 109. Fig. 110.

Photograph Photograph
albums. Frigate albums. Frigate
Complex book Complex
no. 4 (1974). book no. 6
TNA, CM 20/71 (1975). TNA,
(1973–74). PSA: CM 20/73
Devonport: (1974–75). PSA:
Works Projects. Devonport:
Reproduced with Works Projects.
the permission Reproduced with
of The National the permission
Archives. of The National
Archives.
Fig. 111. Photograph albums. Frigate Complex book no 7 Fig. 112. Photograph albums. Frigate Complex book
(1975). TNA, CM 20/74 (1975). PSA: Devonport: Works no. 9 (October 1975). TNA, CM 20/76 (1975–76).
Projects. Reproduced with the permission of The National PSA: Devonport: Works Projects. Reproduced with the
Archives. permission of The National Archives.
Fig. 113. Photograph albums. Frigate Complex book

no. 9 (June 1976). TNA, CM 20/76 (1975–76). PSA:
Devonport: Works Projects. Reproduced with the
permission of The National Archives. Fig. 114. Babcock (2011). Site Atlas. Reproduced with the
Fig. 115. Photograph albums. Fleet Maintenance Fig. 116. Entrance control complex, Submarine Refit Complex.
Base Devonport: Foundations book no. 1 (1974). Babcock Drawing no. AD8/7 (1977). Reproduced with the
TNA, CM 20/77 (1973–74). PSA: Devonport: Works permission of the MoD.
Projects. Reproduced with the permission of The
National Archives.
Fig. 117. Photograph albums. Nuclear Submarine Refit Complex Fig. 118. Building N005, Submarine Refit Complex.
book no. 7 (July 1979). TNA, CM 20/67 (1978–79). PSA: Babcock Drawing no. AD3/24A (n.d.). Reproduced
Devonport: Works Projects. Reproduced with the permission with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 119. Building N260, Submarine Refit Complex. Babcock Drawing Fig. 120. Building N007 Submarine Refit
no. M1979/08 (1994). Reproduced with the permission of the MoD. Complex. Babcock Drawing no. AB2/1B (n.d.).
Fig. 121. N007 Submarine Refit Complex. Babcock Drawing no. Fig. 122. N007 Submarine Refit Complex.
AB2/3A (n.d.). Reproduced with the permission of the MoD. Babcock Drawing no. AB2/5B (n.d.).
Fig. 123. Second floor plan of the NAAFI building, Fig. 124. NAAFI building (July 1977). TNA, CM 20/80 (1976).
N007 Submarine Refit Complex. Babcock Drawing no. PSA: Devonport: Works Projects. Photograph albums. Fleet
AB2/14D (n.d.). Reproduced with the permission of Maintenance Base Devonport: book no. 4. Reproduced with the
the MoD. permission of The National Archives.
Fig. 125. NAAFI building (March 1979). TNA, CM 20/80 Fig. 126. NAAFI building (July 1977). TNA, CM 20/80
(1976). PSA: Devonport: Works Projects. Photograph (1976). PSA: Devonport: Works Projects. Photograph
albums. Fleet Maintenance Base Devonport: book no. 4. albums. Fleet Maintenance Base Devonport: book no. 4.
Reproduced with the permission of The National Archives. Reproduced with the permission of The National Archives.
Fig. 127. N019, Periscope Tower. Babcock Drawing no. Fig. 128. Mast and Periscope Shop (September 1979).
AD1/44B (n.d.). Reproduced with the permission of TNA, CM 20/80 (1976). PSA: Devonport: Works Projects.
the MoD. Photograph albums. Fleet Maintenance Base Devonport:
book no. 4. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 129. NAAFI building (September 1979). TNA, Fig. 130. NAAFI building, September 1979. Detail from
CM 20/80 (1976). PSA: Devonport: Works Projects. Fig. 125. TNA, CM 20/80 (1976). PSA: Devonport: Works
Photograph albums. Fleet Maintenance Base Devonport: Projects. Photograph albums. Fleet Maintenance Base
book no. 4. Reproduced with the permission of The Devonport: book no. 4. Reproduced with the permission of
National Archives. The National Archives.
Figs 131 and 132. Naval base development; feasibility study on proposed development of the North Arm of the dockyard.
TNA, CM 20/48 (1974). PSA: Devonport: DoE Directorate of Defence Works. Reproduced with the permission of The
National Archives.
Fig. 133. Naval base development;

feasibility study on proposed
development of the North Arm of
the dockyard. TNA, CM 20/48
(1974). PSA: Devonport: DoE
Directorate of Defence Works.
Reproduced with the permission
Fig. 134. Naval base development; feasibility study on Fig. 135. Site plan in the feasibility study on proposed
proposed development of the North Arm of the dockyard. development of the North Arm of the dockyard. TNA,
TNA, CM 20/48 (1974). PSA: Devonport: DoE CM 20/48 (1974). PSA: Devonport: DoE Directorate of
Directorate of Defence Works. Reproduced with Defence Works naval base development. Reproduced with
the permission of The National Archives. the permission of The National Archives.
Fig. 136. Naval base development; feasibility study on Fig. 137. Naval base development; feasibility study on
proposed development of the North Arm of the dockyard. proposed development of the North Arm of the dockyard.
TNA, CM 20/48 (1974). PSA: Devonport: DoE Directorate TNA, CM 20/48 (1974). PSA: Devonport: DoE Directorate
of Defence Works. Reproduced with the permission of The of Defence Works. Reproduced with the permission of The
National Archives. National Archives.
Fig. 138. Naval

base development;
feasibility study
on proposed
development of the
North Arm of the
dockyard. TNA,
CM 20/48 (1974).
PSA: Devonport:
DoE Directorate
of Defence Works.
Reproduced with
the permission Fig. 139. Naval base development; feasibility study on
of The National proposed development of the North Arm of the dockyard.
Archives. TNA, CM 20/48 (1974). PSA: Devonport: DoE Directorate
of Defence Works. Reproduced with the permission of The
National Archives.
Fig. 140. Naval Fig. 141. External

base development; Planning Guide
feasibility study by Joint PSA and
on proposed MoD Planning
development of the Team: a study
North Arm of the of spaces around
dockyard. TNA, and between
CM 20/48 (1974). buildings. TNA,
PSA: Devonport: CM 20/55 (1976).
DoE Directorate PSA: Devonport:
of Defence Works. Publication and
Reproduced with Research Studies.
the permission Reproduced with
of The National the permission
Archives. of The National
Archives.
Fig. 142. External Planning Guide by Joint PSA

and MOD Planning Team: a study of spaces around
and between buildings. TNA, CM 20/55 (1976).
PSA: Devonport: Publication and Research Studies.
Reproduced with the permission of The National
Archives.
Fig. 143.
Production
and support
activities for
combined weapons
equipment
workshops:
and associated
administrative and
ancillary facilities;
phase 2. TNA,
CM 20/54 (1974).
PSA: Devonport:
Publication and
Research Studies.
Reproduced with
the permission
of The National
Archives.
Fig. 144. Production and support activities

for combined weapons equipment workshops:
and associated administrative and ancillary
facilities; phase 2. TNA, CM 20/54 (1974).
PSA: Devonport: Publication and Research
Studies. Reproduced with the permission of
Fig. 145. Production and support activities

for combined weapons equipment workshops:
and associated administrative and ancillary
facilities; phase 2. TNA, CM 20/54 (1974).
PSA: Devonport: Publication and Research
Studies. Reproduced with the permission of
Fig. 147. East elevation of Building S057. Babcock Drawing

no. 2300/ZG/05 (c.1988). Reproduced with the permission
of the MoD.
Fig. 146. Buildings S056 and S057. Babcock Drawing No.

2300/ZG/01 (n.d.). Reproduced with the permission of
the MoD.
Right: Fig. 148. West elevation of Building S056. Babcock

Drawing no. 2300/ZG/09 (c.1988). Reproduced with the
Fig. 150. Cofferdam completed. TNA, CM 20/61 (1973–74). PSA:

Devonport: Works Projects. Photograph albums. Nuclear Submarine
Refit Complex book no. 1. Submarine Refit Complex December 1974.
Above: Fig. 149. January 1977 top, June 1977 below. Weston Mill Lake: land reclamation evidence of progress; book no
2. TNA, CM 20/83 (Jan 1974–Dec 1979). PSA: Devonport: Works Projects. Photograph albums. Reproduced with the
Fig. 151. Submarine Refit Complex

(May 1975). TNA, CM 20/62
(1975). PSA: Devonport: Works
Projects. Photograph albums. Nuclear
Submarine Refit Complex book no.
2. Reproduced with the permission of
Fig. 152. Submarine Refit Complex

(January 1976). TNA, CM 20/63
(1976). PSA: Devonport: Works
Projects. Photograph albums. Nuclear
Submarine Refit Complex book no.
3. Reproduced with the permission of
Fig. 153. Submarine Refit Complex (September 1976). Fig. 154. Submarine Refit Complex, view from the west
TNA, CM 20/64 (1976–77). PSA: Devonport: Works (January 1977). TNA, CM 20/64 (1976–77). PSA:
Projects. Photograph albums. Nuclear Submarine Refit Devonport: Works Projects. Photograph albums. Nuclear
Complex book no. 4. Reproduced with the permission Submarine Refit Complex book no. 4. Reproduced with the
of The National Archives. permission of The National Archives.
Fig. 155. Building N016, Submarine Refit Complex, west elevation. Babcock Drawing no. AW4/3M (n.d.). Reproduced with
Fig. 156. Building N022, Submarine Refit Complex west elevation. Babcock Drawing no. AW4/3M (n.d.). Reproduced with
Fig. 158. Submarine Refit Complex (September

1978). TNA, CM 20/67 (Jan 1978–Dec 1979).
PSA: Devonport: Works Projects. Photograph
Fig. 157. Building N016, Submarine Refit Complex albums. Nuclear Submarine Refit Complex book
plan, reference 7137/N/9030 (n.d.). Babcock no. 7. Reproduced with the permission of The
Drawing no. illegible. Reproduced with the National Archives.
Fig. 159. Building N022 Submarine Refit Complex Fig. 160. Building N008, Submarine Refit Complex, north
plan. Babcock Drawing no. AB5/1A (n.d.). elevation. Babcock Drawing no. AW3/1J (n.d.). Reproduced with
Reproduced with the permission of the MoD. the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 161. Submarine Refit Complex (April 1978). TNA, Fig. 162. Submarine Refit Complex Building N017.
CM 20/65 (Jan 1977–Dec 1978). PSA: Devonport: Works Babcock Drawing no. AB4B/28B (n.d.). Reproduced with
Projects. Photograph albums. Nuclear Submarine Refit the permission of the MoD.
Complex book no 5. Reproduced with the permission of
Fig. 163. Submarine Refit Complex Building N020. Northern section and part of central building, Babcock Drawing
no. AB4B/20 (n.d.). Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 164. Submarine Refit Complex Building N020. Part of central

building and southern section, Babcock Drawing no. AB4B/11 (n.d.).
Right: Fig. 165. Submarine Refit Complex Building N020. Section

through high level plant room. Babcock Drawing no. AB4B/16. (n.d.).
Fig. 166. Submarine Refit Complex Building N021. Babcock Drawing

no. AB1/1 (n.d.). Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Right: Fig. 167. Submarine Refit Complex, N018 (November 1975).

TNA, CM 20/78 (1975). PSA: Devonport: Works Projects. Photograph
albums. Fleet Maintenance Base Devonport: Foundations book no. 2.
Fig. 168. Submarine Refit Complex Building N018A. Babcock Drawing no. SWP/A/106/80 (n.d.). Reproduced with the
Fig. 169.
Submarine
Refit Complex
Building
N020A.
Babcock
Drawing No.
SWP/A/281/80
(n.d.).
Reproduced
with the
permission
of the MoD.
Fig. 170. Submarine Refit Complex. Babcock Drawing no.
AB7/14C (n.d.). Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 171. Submarine Refit Complex. Babcock Drawing no.

AB7/14C (n.d.). Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 173. Submarine

Refit Complex,
1980. TNA, CM
20/68. (1979).
PSA: Devonport:
Works Projects.
Photograph albums.
Nuclear Submarine
Refit Complex book
no. 8. Reproduced
with the permission
of The National
Above: Fig. 172. Submarine Refit Complex with 80 ton crane, 1979. TNA, CM 20/68 (1979). Archives.
PSA: Devonport: Works Projects. Photograph albums. Nuclear Submarine Refit Complex
book no. 8. Reproduced with the permission of The National Archives.
Fig. 174. Building N259. Babcock Drawing no. 85007/AD1/8 Fig. 175. Building N259. Babcock Drawing no.
(n.d). Reproduced with the permission of the MoD. 85007/AD1/1 (n.d). Reproduced with the permission
of the MoD.
Fig. 176. Quadrangle, longitudinal section. TNA, CM 20/57 (1978). PSA: Devonport: Publication and Research Studies.
Master Development Plan: future development; vol. 2. Reproduced with the permission of The National Archives.
Fig. 177. Quadrangle, cross-section. TNA, CM 20/57 (1978). PSA: Devonport: Publication and Research Studies. Master
Development Plan: future development; vol. 2. Reproduced with the permission of The National Archives.
Fig. 178. Babcock (2011). Site Atlas. Reproduced Fig. 179. D154. Phase 3 Location Plan sheet no. 15 (n.d.). No Babcock
with the permission of the MoD. drawing number. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 180.
Google aerial
photograph
of Devonport
Dockyard.
Retrieved from
Google Earth in
2013.
Fig. 181. DP130113. Devonport South Yard: photograph

of Building S173 recorded before demolition. General view
looking northeast across the dockyard towards S172 and
S173 (8 Feb 2011). King’s Hill Gazebo (1822, S186) and the
newly roofed Covered Slip No. 1 are on the right. S173 was
constructed as a Plumbers’ Shop as part of the project dating
from 1900 to supply the building of Dreadnoughts on nearby
Slip No. 3 (English Heritage, Aug 2010, Listing Advice Report
Building S173). Princess Yachts vessels are seen on the left.
©Historic England.
Fig. 184. DP13023. Devonport

South Yard: photograph of
Building S173 recorded before
Fig. 182. DP130116. Devonport South Yard: Fig. 183. DP13021. demolition. Cast iron lamp
photograph of Building S173 recorded before Devonport South Yard: bracket on the southwest corner
demolition. View of S173 looking towards the west photograph (8 Feb 2011) of S173 (8 Feb 2011). ©Historic
end doorway on the west elevation (8 Feb 2011). of Building S173 recorded England.
King’s Hill Gazebo (1822, S186) can just be seen before demolition. Stone dated
behind it to the right, with new fencing to secure 1903 on the west elevation.
Princess Yachts’ land. Shallow Dock is in the bottom ©Historic England.
right hand corner. ©Historic England.
Fig. 185. DP13028. Devonport South Fig. 186. Section of a map showing the
Yard: photograph of Building S173 Quadrangle workshops in 1903. AdL, Vz 14/44
recorded before demolition. Interior with (1900–1923). H.M. Dockyard Devonport
Cowans Sheldon overhead gantry dated North and South Yards Keyham Steam Yard and
1941 (8 Feb 2011). ©Historic England. Naval Barracks, Compiled by E. J. Powell from
Mr. Townshend’s Survey of North and South
Yards and the Ordnance Survey. Director of
Works Office 1903. Defence Estates Plans. Scale
1”:16’. Courtesy MoD Admiralty Library, Naval
Historical Branch, Portsmouth.
Fig. 187. Devonport’s concrete Frigate Complex

June (1973–76, N217) and the limestone North
Yard Offices (N215, 1903, 1910), visible over the
dockyard wall. A. Coats 2013.
PART THREE
PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY1
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The twentieth century topography of Portsmouth Dockyard can be related first to the geology and
geography of Portsea Island and secondly to the technological development of warships and their
need for appropriately sized and furnished docks and basins.
In 2013, Portsmouth Naval Base covered 300 acres of land, with 62 acres of basin, 17 dry docks and
locks, 900 buildings and 3 miles of waterfront (Bannister, 10 June 2013a). The Portsmouth Naval Base
Property Trust (Heritage Area) footprint is 11.25 acres (4.56 hectares) which equates to 4.23% of the
land area of the Naval Base or 3.5% of the total Naval Base footprint including the Basins (Duncan,
2013). From 8 or 9 acres in 1520–40 (Oppenheim, 1988, pp. 88-9), the dockyard was increased to 10
acres in 1658, to 95 acres in 1790, and gained 20 acres in 1843 for the steam basin and 180 acres by
1865 for the 1867 extension (Colson, 1881, p. 118). Surveyor Sir Baldwin Wake Walker warned the
Admiralty in 1855 and again in 1858 that the harbour mouth needed dredging,
as those [ships] of the largest Class could not in the present state of its Channel go out of
Harbour, even in the event of a Blockade, in a condition to meet the Enemy, inasmuch as the
insufficiency of Water renders it impossible for them to go out of Harbour with all their Guns,
Coals, Ammunition and Stores on board.
He noted further in 1858 that the harbour itself “is so blocked up by mud that there is barely sufficient
space to moor the comparatively small Force at present there,” urging annual dredging to allow the
larger current ships to moor there. (Quoted by Hamilton, 2005, pp. 46-7)
Paradoxically the 1867 extension derived from the increasing needs of the steam navy, and the
completion of HMS Warrior and Palmerston’s circle of forts surrounding Portsmouth to protect the
dockyard from a steam driven naval attack. By 1860 Portsmouth needed longer docks and deeper
basins for the ironclads, to maintain its strategic position in the Channel. As the eighteenth century
fortifications surrounding Portsea were “no longer required for defensive works”, the land was
transferred from the War Department to the Admiralty, the remainder consisting of Pesthouse Field.
(Hamilton, 2005, pp. xxix-xxx, xxxvi, 57-61; House of Commons, 1860, Report of the Royal Commission
appointed to consider the defences of the United Kingdom; Chapman, 1978, pp. 3, 4, 6, 9) The remaining five acres
comprised further small parcels acquired in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Victoria Road
followed the seventeenth century shoreline. The rising gradient from Victoria Road, south along the
Parade is notable in front of the Brass and Iron Foundry (1/140) at SU630624 007854. Historic England
maps MD95/03032 (1850–1955), MD95/03033 (1898) and MD95/03034 (1900) show pre-twentieth
century development and the situation at the beginning of the twentieth century.
Fig. 188. MD95/03032. (1850 annotated to 1955). Plan of Portsmouth Dockyard in 1900 showing
development and enlargement from 1540 to 1900, PSA Drawing shows Portsea fortifications and
Pesthouse Field, over which much of Area 3 was constructed, based on 1850 map showing changes
in yellow and later buildings in red dotted lines. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 189. MD95/03033. (1898). Second Edition Ordnance Survey, Hampshire Sheet LXXXIII.7.
Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
1
A bold Fig. no. indicates that the image is captioned more than once in Part 1 and/or Part 3, leading to some
numbers appearing to be out of sequence.
105
Fig. 190. MD95/03034 (1900). Her Majesty’s Dockyard at Portsmouth showing development and
enlargement from 1540 to 1900. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 191. MD95/03039 (1936). Plan Showing Proposed Revision of Boundary of HM Dockyard
Portsmouth. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Three topographical areas characterise an accelerated evolution of scale and function within
Portsmouth’s operational naval base, determining to a great extent the architecture of the buildings.
Buildings are listed by area in the MoD (1974) HM Naval Base Building Location Numerical Index, the HM
Naval Base Property Register (HMNBPR, 1992) and BAES (2013) Dockyard (Portsmouth) Revised Building List. A
fourth area comprises HMS Nelson Barracks but excludes HMS Nelson Wardroom.
Area 1: Sail (fifteenth to nineteenth centuries)
Area 2: Steam (nineteenth to twentieth centuries)
Area 3: Coal to oil to electricity (nineteenth to twentieth centuries). Coal facilities were
decommissioned in 1914 and oil in the 1990s; gas turbines; selected Avcat (aviation gas) fired;
electricity: engines replaced externally following their use in commercial liners.
Area 4: HMS Nelson accommodation and services. This is excluded from the three operational
areas, but is contained within the Naval Base. It lies between the 1865 boundary wall and the
current perimeter wall. Design of these buildings was not driven by marine technology, but
social and domestic considerations. Some date from 1847, but most from the 1899 to the late
twentieth century.
Fig. 192. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Miscellaneous. Sketch plan of naval establishments,
showing Portsea, Gosport, Haslar and Bedenham (section). Drawing no. B4. Scale not shown.
Director of Works, Admiralty. TNA (1910). WORK 41/310. Reproduced with the permission of The
National Archives.
Fig. 193. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Miscellaneous. Dredging progress chart, 1935–1938:
section showing depths and hatching of work executed during 1935–1936. TNA (1936). WORK
Fig. 194. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Miscellaneous. Dredging progress chart, 1935–1938:
section showing the hatching key. TNA (1936). WORK 41/311. Reproduced with the permission of
Fig. 195. MoD (1974) HM Naval Base Portsmouth Building Location/Numerical Index map showing the three
operational areas. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 196. HM Naval Base Portsmouth, Site Plan. Ministry of Defence: Defence Infrastructure
Organisation (2012). Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
The three operational periods/areas are detailed in the MoD (1974) HM Naval Base Building Location
map and BAES (BAE Systems) 2013 map. Dockyard (Portsmouth) Revised Building List. Commander
Lambert’s (1993) unpublished Portsmouth Dockyard and its Environs. A Chronological History, based on the HM
Naval Base Property Register (1992), has also been very informative on details and changes which were
known within the dockyard, but which might not otherwise have been recorded. Data from the three
successive lists can build up a sequence of recent events.
This survey of Portsmouth Dockyard buildings with twentieth century significance follows the
numerical sequence of the MoD (1974) and BAES (2013) lists, constructed during three historical
sequences: Georgian (Area 1), early and later Victorian (Area 2) and twentieth century (Area 3),
considering changes that have been effected in the twentieth century. The substantive listing of each
structure will be accompanied by its date of origin, if known, its dockyard building number, its
106
Part 3: Twentieth century Portsmouth Dockyard
scheduled/listed status and number and Conservation Area Number (CA) where applicable, whether
it is occupied by the Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust (PNBPT), MoD or BAE Systems (BAES)
(about 10% of the buildings are owned by BAES) and its grid reference. Thus Boathouse No. 6
notation is (1845, 1/23, Grade II* 1244594, CA 22, PNBPT, SU 630466 004237). Conservation Area 22
covers the southeastern sector enclosed by the original dockyard wall to the north and Victoria Road
to the west; Conservation Area 18 includes the Naval Barracks listed buildings. Listing and scheduling
descriptions can be consulted in Appendix 4. Descriptions derive from field visits and archival or
published sources. Part 3’s Appendix summarises the most significant twentieth century changes
Within the twentieth century naval base new buildings were erected or existing structures modified
because of successive technologies, fire damage and Second World War bombing. However, one of the
most significant changes affecting Portsmouth Naval Base in the twentieth century has been the MoD
release in 1985 of the south western quarter of Area 1 to become a heritage area. This has resulted
in modifications of the built environment through refurbishment and conversion of storehouses,
boathouses, workshops and docks into museums. PNBPT was established on 14 November 1985 by
the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and Portsmouth City Council under a 99-year lease. It was granted £6
million by the MoD to maintain buildings in the 11.25 acre heritage area, following their redundancy
for naval base purposes (Riley, 1987). This was a significant change of management style, with the
PNBPT behaving like a commercial property development agency and an historic buildings trust,
specialising in the preservation and re-use of historic buildings and structures within Portsmouth
Dockyard heritage area, contributing to its ambience and funding. This separation led to the installation
in 1987 of a security fence and two Security Offices (1/101 and 1/102) in Main Road. The heritage area
comprises mostly Georgian buildings, but includes some Victorian and twentieth century buildings.
However, a larger number of Georgian buildings still remain within the naval base.
Three museums pre-dated this development. First, in 1903 Mark Edwin Pescott-Frost (1859–1953),
Secretary to the Portsmouth Admiral Superintendent, ‘began collecting artefacts and historical items
relating to Portsmouth Dockyard. By 1906 the collection had grown and Pescott-Frost was able to
persuade the Admiral Superintendent to allocate space at the end of the Great Ropehouse to be
used for a Dockyard museum. The museum was opened in 1911.’ (PRDHT History; National Portrait
Gallery) Postcards in the possession of George Malcolmson indicate that it was in one of the three
Georgian storehouses. After Pescott-Frost’s retirement in 1919 the collection was dispersed, some
artefacts going into the new Victory Gallery. The second museum, the Victory Gallery (1/57), was
new-built 1929–38 to house HMS Victory artefacts after the ship was docked in Dock No. 2 in 1922
(Aberg, 2005, p. 360). Thirdly, the McCarthy Museum was established in Storehouse No. 11 in 1971
(HE, NMR J356/01/72, 28 Apr 1971).
The evolving operational changes to the naval base are detailed in Part 1. Its current status followed
the Ministry of Defence’s 2005 Defence Industrial Strategy which encouraged BAE and VT Group to
form a naval shipbuilding joint venture to maintain the UK’s long-term naval shipbuilding capability. In
2008 much of the operational part of the dockyard was leased to this organisation which became BVT
Surface Fleet, then BAES. In 2009 BAES signed a fifteen-year agreement with the MoD guaranteeing
a minimum annual £230m of shipbuilding and support work, specifically for aircraft carriers, Type
45 destroyers and Portsmouth base services. (Jaffry et al., 2012, p. 18) Further changes will occur after
2014 following the announcement of the end of BAES Shipbuilding in Portsmouth.
3.2 GEOLOGY
The present dockyard retains evidence of its earlier geology and land use. The original shoreline is
denoted by the mid-nineteenth century Victoria Road. Sir Jonas Moore’s map of 1667 (Hodson, 1978,
p. 80), shows that the earliest building in Portsmouth Dockyard, the seventeenth century Ropehouse,
occupying the same site as the present building (1/65), is aligned with the east/west field strips
of West Dock Field. Its later eighteenth century Hemp Storehouses (1/63 and 1/64) continued this
107
alignment. The twentieth century Freight Centre, c.1970, 3/88A, Store 123 (ex-Electrical Shop No. 1,
3/88, 1945) and General Purpose Store (c.1995, 3/117, built over part of the railway marshalling yard),
also lie parallel to West Dock and Pesthouse Field strips (Chapman, 1978, pp. 4-5). The Extension
Convicts’ Workshops, Timber Sheds, Brickmaking Machines and proposed Seamen’s Barracks shown
in 1881 were aligned north/south perpendicularly to the east/west field strips. Reclamation added land
at North Corner 1764–84, the Steam Basin in the 1840s and further extensions from the 1860s to 1914.
In Area 1, Watering Island, south of Basin No. 1, consists of a Wittering formation of sand, silt and clay
(Eocene). Immediately north of Basin No. 1 are river terrace deposits of sand and gravel (Quaternary),
although at SU 627443 007879 is made/artificial ground. Underlying North Corner is London clay:
clay, silt and sand (Eocene). Assistant Engineer during the Portsmouth Dockyard Extension (1865–81)
and Civil Engineer 1881–83 at Portsmouth, Charles Colson reported in 1881 that the harbour was
denuded of London Clay, the surface covered with a layer of mud from two to forty feet deep, beneath
which were layers of ‘dark greenish clayey sand, compact and retentive, containing masses of hard
shell rock from 1 foot to 4 feet thick’. Meÿer clarified that the mud was mostly ten to twenty-five feet
deep and confirmed that the ‘beds are undisturbed and regular; the outcropping edges of the strata
were covered by the comparatively recent mud of the harbour’, suggesting that the ‘action of strong
currents’ might have caused the disappearance of the strata. (Colson 1981, pp. 119, 124; Meÿer 1981,
p. 177) Running north from College (Colson 1881, pp. 119, 124; Meÿer 1881, p. 177) Running north
from College Road, beneath the Ropehouse, the Docks east of Basin No. 1 and the Block Mills, are
on river terrace deposits of sand and gravel (Quaternary). In Area 2, underlying the Lock Complex,
Basin No. 3 and Shipbuilding Complex, is London clay: clay, silt and sand (Eocene), which is also
the composition of Area 3. Colson reported (1881, p. 127, 130-2) that the foundations of Dock No. 12
were partly in London clay and partly in sand, including shell rock. The dock foundations required
beech piles of fourteen to sixteen feet, often hitting areas of rock; Dock No. 13 was also piled, even
though the underlying soil was tested and found to be solid. Elsewhere Bernays et al. described the
main subsoil as ‘stiff, hard, solid clay’ enabling Deep Dock (No. 9) and the locks to be built without
piles, although their entrances were piled, but with deeper concrete foundations. (Bernays et al., 1881,
pp. 207-8) This split is shown clearly in a drawing of the WNW-ESE aligned boundary between
London Clay and Reading Beds and the Bracklesham group beds and Sands, which runs through
the area of the 1867–81 Extension. (Dix & Scaife, 2000, pp. 8-10) Coad shows the underlying alluvial
subsoil in a photograph of the excavation for Dock No. 15 in 1904 (2013, p. 175). Slight recorded a
layer of sand, in some places a few inches deep, at others nine feet deep, lying beneath clay ‘under
the Gas works, descending in a zig-zag manner under the Unicorn-gate,2 across the moat to the
outer wall, where it sinks.’ (1828, p. 14) In Area 4, HMS Nelson is built over river terrace deposits of
sand and gravel (Quaternary), as is HMS Nelson Wardroom. There is a clear demarcation between
the geology of reclaimed ‘made’ and ‘raised marine deposits’ lying north of the seventeenth century
shore line and the Georgian slips and enlarged Basin built over river terrace deposits south of the
original shoreline, laid down in the Eocene (approximately 56-34 million years ago) and Quaternary
(beginning approximately 2.6 million years ago) periods. (British Geological Survey, 2013)
Rudkin in Hampshire Treasures II suggests one reason for the meagre evidence of prehistoric human
settlement on Portsea Island compared with Hayling Island, which shares a similar geological, sealevel
and prehistoric profile. He hypothesised that when the greatest building took place, in the nineteenth
century, comparatively little was known about archaeology: ‘A vast amount of archaeological material
must have been built over and, even worse, dug away with the brickearth used to make the bricks
for building houses.’ Little prehistoric or Roman evidence comes from Portsea Island: one Neolithic
antler pick was found in Portsmouth Dockyard in the nineteenth century, some flint scrapers and
waste flakes were found in disturbed contexts around the present shoreline; there were possibly some
Iron Age coins; and 927 4th century AD silver Roman coins were found in Southsea in 1897 when
houses were being built. Settlements in central (higher) parts of Portsea Island date from before the
11th century, while Old Portsmouth and the dockyard area were above sea level in the 12th century.
2
This was before Unicorn Gate was moved, in 1865.
108
(Rudkin, 1986, pp. 5-8) Another explanation for the lack of archaeology around Portsea Island’s
shoreline, based on the engineers’ evidence above, is that the harbour’s scouring tides, each carrying
an estimated 13,500,000 tons of water (Bernays et al., 1881, p. 215), had washed away the relevant
strata, including evidence deposited in the mud. It is worth pointing out, however, that Hayling Island
was subject to similar tidal scour.
3.3 CHARACTERISATION
Portsmouth Dockyard Conservation Area 22: H.M. Naval Base and St George’s Square was designated
in 1981, but documentation is still to be prepared (City of Portsmouth, 2005). However, the City
of Portsmouth has carried out an Urban Characterisation Study (2011). This states that H.M. Naval Base
‘accommodates two thirds of the surface fleet and provides facilities for ship building and repair. It
also represents one of the largest employers in the city.’ It remains the ‘prime economic and cultural
focus’ and ‘has had a significant impact on the growth and present character of the city’. Despite severe
Second World War bombing, much of the ‘character and architecture of the Naval Base’ survived. It is
defined as ‘predominantly industrial in character’, with ‘ship docking and maintenance facilities’ and
‘fabrication and assembly’ activities. (2011, pp. 10, 15, 83, 84) It states that the naval base embodies the
‘greatest concentration of listed buildings of any area’ in the city: ‘Forty listed buildings / structures:
Five listed as grade I including the three main Georgian storehouses, Nos. 9, 10 and 11, which are
clearly visible on entering the Historic Dockyard. Fifteen are listed Grade II*, and twenty listed at
Grade II. Two of the structures are also scheduled ancient monuments. The working part of the base,
including HMS Nelson, also contains 10 listed buildings.’ (2011, pp. 84-6)
It asserts that visually, the historic dockyard differs from the rest of the Naval Base in the uniformity
of its ‘classically inspired layout and Georgian architecture.’ This displays a ‘limited palette of materials
– red brick, stone, slate and timber and a restricted architectural style characterised by neoclassical
formalism and ornamental restraint.’ It claims rightly that Portsmouth shares characteristics and national
significance with the other English historic dockyard towns such as Plymouth and Chatham. (City of
Portsmouth, 2011, pp. 85-6) In contrast, it characterised the working naval base generally as lacking
‘the intimate qualities of the Historic Dockyard (derived from the tight grain of the buildings)’, being
of ‘more utilitarian character’, with ‘radically differing styles of architecture from different periods’. It
particularly notes ‘the large BAE Systems assembly shed which dominates the heart of the base.’ It
points out that the naval base is separated from the rest of the city by a network of high walls and
the harbour. (City of Portsmouth, 2011, pp. 85-7, 170)
This NDS twentieth century study concurs that the Portsmouth heritage area does contain a higher
proportion of Georgian buildings, but the operational naval base contains more buildings, some of which
are not within Conservation Area 22. Moreover, neoclassical decoration has continued within the
active naval base throughout the twentieth century – in the Pumping Houses, the Factory, the Pipe
Shop and Victory Building, to name some notable examples. Furthermore, the visual elements of
Georgian utilitarian buildings such as storehouses and workshops have been continued in Arup’s
1970s functional buildings.
3.4 ROAD NAMES

Current road names perpetuate early eighteenth century heritage such as Marlborough Row (SU 632013
006905), celebrating the Duke of Marlborough’s victories 1704–11, during the War of the Spanish
Succession. Aldrich Road (SU 63415 00921) is termed ‘formerly Marlborough Road’. The name could
allude to David Aldridge who was a Master Ropemaker at Portsmouth Dockyard in the 1690s, and
also operated a private ropewalk outside the dockyard (Coats, 2000, chapter 5). The Talbot Edwards
1716 survey of Portsmouth Common shows a Rope Walk running south from the approximate area
of the current Aldrich Road, which was then outside the dockyard. It is also shown on John Peter
109
Desmaretz’s 1750 map (Hodson, 1978, no. 21b, 1716, pp. 20-1; no. 28a, 1750, p. 28).
Former bucolic settings are reflected in the early Ivy Lane (SU 631229 007799) and Stony Lane (SU
630315 005716), while Sunny Walk (SU 630474 005160) is evocative, and Camber Road (SU 62844
00433) topographical. Victoria Road (SU 6312799 008563) and Mountbatten Way (SU 638291 009485)
are rare royal allusions. Twentieth century names encompass the more prosaic Frigate Road (SU
631680 009932) and Fleet Way (SU 636768 008170). Guardhouse Road (SU 639173 011410) recalls
convict heritage. Approximately a quarter of the distance from the west along Stony Lane on the south
side of Scott Road Offices (1/84), on the edge of what was the seventeenth century commissioner’s
garden, is a slab (probably concrete) inserted into the brickwork just above ground level. Brought to
attention by Dennis Miles, it is inscribed ‘Under this Stone theres A water Beer’. It is thought that the
stone may be a marker for an old well or possibly a water tank. Both sorts of installations were found
in all the ‘old’ yards. (Coad, pers. comm., 2012)
Fig. 197. Aldrich Road, formerly Marlborough Road, Portsmouth (c.1704–11). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 198. Stony Lane runs east-west along the north wall of the Portsmouth Great Ropehouse (1771,
Fig. 199. Set into the south elevation of Portsmouth Building 1/81 is a dressed Portland stone or
replacement concrete plaque which reads ‘Under this Stone theres a water Beer’, marking an old
well or water tank surviving from the seventeenth century dockyard. This would have supplied the
garden to the original Commissioner’s House (1666) which lay north of Stony Lane until the house
was demolished in the 1780s. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 200. Ivy Lane runs east-west between the north side of Portsmouth Long Row Officers’
Houses (1715–19, 1/124-132) and the south of the Iron and Brass Foundry (1854, 1/140), then turns
north, following the west side of the 1711 dockyard wall, meeting Victoria Road. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 201. Guardhouse Road sign on the former Portsmouth Lime and Cement Store (1878, 3/218)
which survives as one of the convict workshops shown on Colson’s 1881 map. A. Coats 2013.
3.5 MATERIALS
Use of concrete and modern brick has given twentieth century buildings and additions a different
character from previous centuries, when Portland stone and locally manufactured brick predominated.
Reinforced concrete lent itself to large sections of buildings being prefabricated uniformly and en masse
from the 1950s. It is thought that calcium chloride has been deliberately added to concrete at times
to reduce the load-bearing time and contract costs. In some cases it has caused the concrete to burst,
leading to demolition or repair of buildings in the late twentieth century. With their demolition,
Portsmouth has retained the predominance of red brick in its later twentieth century buildings.
3.6 BUILDINGS
3.6.1 Area 1
Fig. 202. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. Engineer Admiral T. Gurnell, CB. View of the Georgian
Dockyard looking south. Reproduced by kind permission of the Trustees of the National Museum of
the Royal Navy.
Fig. 203. Portsmouth HM Naval Base Area 1 (1974). MoD HM Naval Base Building Location/Numerical
Index. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
110
Fig. 50. Portsmouth Officers’ design for rusticated gate piers sent to the Navy Board (29 June 1711).
TNA, ADM 106/667 (1711). Navy Board In-letters, P. The Navy Board replied that plain piers would
be ‘handsomer as well as cheaper than Rustick work’ (Coad, 1989, p. 81, fn. 61; NMM, POR/A/5,
10.7.1711). Reproduced with the permission of The National Archives.
Fig. 204. Photograph of the north elevation of the Main (now Victory) Gate in 1895, showing its
original width. Courtesy of Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust.
Fig. 205. Admiralty plaque to mark the widening of the then Portsmouth Main Gate (November
1943). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 206. Pre-1985 photograph of the Main Gate, Cellblock (1883, 1/2), Search Rooms (1/2B and
1/2C), Clocking Station (1949, 1/2D) and Romney Hut Boathouse (1948, 1/5). Courtesy of Portsmouth
Royal Dockyard Historical Trust.
The earliest existing entrance, 3 Main/Victory Gate (1711, Grade II*, 1244581, CA 22, PNBPT, SU
630082 003040) was designed by the Master Shipwright and built by the dockyard masons and
house carpenters. It was widened from twelve feet to twenty-two feet in November 1943 to give
access to wide loads. To allow the western pier to be shifted, the associated pedestrian entrance was
demolished and a replica built further west. At the same time the decorative iron arch and lantern
between the piers were removed. It was renamed Victory Gate around 1994 when the new Visitor
Reception Centre was built.
The first Dockyard Wall (1711, Grade II*, 1244581, CA 22, SU 63098 00391) marked the extent of the
‘King’s lands’ which were surveyed in the 1660s, although the boundary between private owners and
the king was not agreed until 1700 (Coats, 2000, pp. 142-6; NMM, 1700, SER/104; TNA, 22.1.1699[1700],
SP44/204, fos 255-6). The fortifications line was represented on De Gomme’s 1666 map and Sir Jonas
Moore’s 1667 map, depicted as a embankment with ramparts projecting into the fields: ‘The worke
which cast upp in the Yeare’ [1666]. (The Dock Field Portsmouth, 1666; TNA, Moore, MPE 513, 1667;
BL, Add. MS 16,371, 1700; TNA, 1700 ADM 1/3588; BL, Desmaretz, K. Top. XIV. 30, 1750) The earliest
section (0.75 mile) from this gate on Portsea Common Hard to the original Marlborough Gate was
erected in 1711 of red brick in English bond on a limestone foundation visible inside the wall east
of the Porter’s Lodge (1/8), where the ground level is approximately eighteen inches lower than on
the outside. Three insertions in a paler red brick with concrete lintels were made during the Second
World War or later to the section of wall now located in the Porter’s Garden, to allow more employees
access at muster time.
Fig. 207. Broad arrow incorporated into the Dockyard Wall near Victory Gate. A. Coats 2012.
Fig. 208. Blocked gateway through the Dockyard Wall at Bonfire Corner which was aligned with the
first (1704–c.1784) Dockyard Chapel. A. Coats 2012. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 209. Original 1711 Portsmouth Dockyard Wall, this section now within the Naval Base between
the new and original Marlborough Gates, taken inside the yard as the Marlborough Salient in 1944.
Fig. 210. Twentieth century fouled anchor on the outside of the Dockyard Wall built c.1944 after the
Marlborough Salient was taken into the Dockyard. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission
of the MoD.
In the wall section north of Bonfire Corner leading to Marlborough Gate, to the rear of Admiralty
House (1/20, 1784), is inserted a red brick archway with brick piers and a stone plinth, infilled with
similar red brickwork. Wessex (2004/2) suggests a late eighteenth century date, linked to the building
3
An early Northeast Gate was closed in 1700 (Coats, 2000, Chapter 5, pp 142-7).
111
of the then Commissioner’s House. An alternative suggestion made by the NDS is that it gave Portsmouth
Common residents and dockyard workers access to the 1704 Dockyard Chapel (TNA, Prince George,
1703), as it is in alignment with the chapel which was demolished c.1784 to build Admiralty House.
Fig. 211. Former Portsmouth Naval Recruiting Office (1862, 1/1, PNBPT) with the additional wing
created by Portsmouth City Council for use as a Tourist Information Centre (2001). A. Coats 2013.
Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
Fig. 212. Tourist Information Centre Richard Partington Architects: Elevations, No. 2023.005A.
PNBPT, 9.10.2001. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
Fig. 213. Tourist Information Centre Richard Partington Architects: Ground Floor Plan, No.
2023.003C. PNBPT, 9.10.2001. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base
Property Trust.
Just outside Victory Gate is the small, decorative former Naval Recruiting Office (1862, 1/1, CA 22,
PNBPT, SU 629944 002840) whose function has changed on a number of occasions, more recently as
a Portsmouth City Council Tourist Information Centre from 2001-12, and as a maritime bookshop and
art gallery. It was refurbished by PCC in 2001, to add a new rear extension and entrance and raised
viewing terrace to the eastern elevation. This has a timber frame, horizontal zinc cladding and a zinc
roof. A disabled WC was installed in the original building. (PNBPT: Naval Recruitment Office/Tourist
Information Office, Lease Agreement with PCC, 10 May 2002, Richard Partington Architects plans and
elevations 2001)
Fig. 214. J473/03/71. Photograph of the Cell Block Interior: ground floor looking east/west
(8 Oct 1971). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 215. J473/07/71. Photograph of the Cell Block Interior: first floor cell door (8 Oct 1971).
Fig. 216. J473/11/71. Photograph of the Cell Block Interior: urinal (8 Oct 1971). ©Crown copyright.HE.
The widening of the gate also resulted in the demolition of the Police Office in the Cell Block (1883,
1/2, Grade II, 1244585, CA 22, SU 629894 002909). The latter was externally refurbished in 1993–94
with a new parapet and chimney stacks (The Princes Regeneration Trust, 2006). In 2011 PNBPT was
awarded funds from the Regional Growth Fund to convert the cells into studios for start-up businesses
run by young people. The University of Portsmouth will mentor creative businesses to create private
sector jobs. The Search Rooms (1/2B and 1/2C, PNBPT), the Clocking Station (1949, 1/2D, PNBPT), a
tiny, narrow, single storey, brick building with time recording clocks by Gledhill-Brook, Huddersfield,
and Romney Hut Boathouse (1948, 1/5), built on the site of the Working Mast House (1700) were
removed in 1993 (Lambert, 1993) to permit the construction of the Visitor Reception Centre (1994,
1/3, CA 22, PNBPT, SU 629844 003021). Designed by architects John Winter Associates, this building
is single storey with a galvanised steel frame and glazed walls, giving attractive views of the dockyard
environment. A flexible open-plan interior, it houses offices, ticketing desks, an information centre
and a coffee shop, indicative of the changing face of the area from workplace to museum quarter,
tourism and heritage area regeneration.
Fig. 217. 15767/34 SU 6200/4. Aerial photograph of HMS Warrior 1860 and Jetty (1987) from the
northwest (9 Sept 1997). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 218. HMS Warrior 1860 Jetty at Portsmouth (1987, PNBPT). A. Coats 2014. Reproduced with the
kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
The Visitor Reception Centre gives access to HMS Warrior 1860. This, the navy’s first ironclad launched
in 1861, was salvaged from Pembroke Dock, where it had been employed as a pontoon, refurbished
at Hartlepool and brought to Portsmouth in 1987. In 1985 a new berth 26 feet deep was dredged near
Portsmouth Harbour railway station and a new jetty constructed in preparation:
112
On 1 March [1985] the Lord Mayor of Portsmouth, Councillor John Marshall, inaugurated the
start of the dredging operation off the Hard to precede the construction of the £1,500,000
jetty. This is being built by the Portsmouth City Council to be ready for Warrior’s arrival. In
conjunction with Marine Consultants - Captain Colin McMullen and Associates — the Ship’s
Preservation Trust will provide the heavy anchors and cables to moor the ship so that two
angled brows can be placed at upper deck level to allow embarkation and disembarkation of
visitors at all states of the tide. (Wells, 1985, pp. 165-6)
Portsmouth City Council contributed £1.3 million for the concrete HMS Warrior 1860 Jetty (SU 628774
002510), to boost the tourist attraction of the dockyard and indeed Portsmouth. The vessel is moored
with a 20 ton and an 80 ton sea anchor, and a 5 ton sinker which maintains the tension. The 5 ton
sinker goes up and down with the tide.
Fig. 219. Photograph of Portsmouth Muster Bell (1791), mounted inside the Main Gate until 1922.
Courtesy of Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust.
Fig. 220. Photograph of the Muster Bell Plaque. Courtesy of Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust.
The grey metal tube mounted on a granite plinth inside the Main Gate (CA 22, PNBPT, SU 629952
003366) indicates the site of the Muster Bell, cast in 1791 which weighed four hundredweight and
was mounted originally on a post inside the Main Gate. The bell was rung at the start and end of the
working day by the sergeant in charge of the gate. It was later moved to Unicorn Gate. The bell post
was removed in 1922, when sirens took the place of bells for mustering, a brass plaque recording its
removal. In 1992 PNBPT planned to return the bell and the brass plaque to their original site near
Victory Gate. As the bell needed some conservation, it was restored by Mary Rose technical staff. The
present location of the bell and the plaque is not known.
In Main Road outside the Visitor Reception Centre is a length of smooth granite Cartway (1825, CA 22,
PNBPT, SU 629875 003305) (as opposed to a tramway which has rails for flanged wheels). This used to
run from Victory Gate to a mast house with an extension close to Dock No. 1 (q.v.), making it easier
to haul heavy loads, particularly masts, given that road surfacing in the early years of the nineteenth
century comprised cobbles or setts. The slabs are two feet wide and six feet from centre to centre, thus
giving considerable flexibility for variations in axle width. This section was imaginatively laid down,
as were the accompanying granite setts, in 1995. Unfortunately there is no information in place as to
the function of the slabs or setts.
Immediately to the north of the Visitor Reception Centre is a patent slip whose two sets of iron
rails are visible, if rusty, comprising the remains of the Romney Hut Boathouse (1948, 1/5, SU
629625 003180). The location of the associated winding engine is unclear. This is the only usable
and operational slipway in the naval base, and employed for Landing Craft operations. The space
is now home to a collection of anchors, a 6 pounder cannon c.1780 which for many years was a
bollard at Slip No. 5 (q.v.), a 12 pounder cannon c.1795, formerly a bollard at Victory Gate, and, more
impressively, a compressed air capstan c.1914 salvaged from Pitch House Jetty (q.v.) A landing jetty
between the slip and Boathouse No. 4 was constructed in 1994 to allow visitors to take harbour tours
and boat trips (The Princes Regeneration Trust, 2006).
Fig. 221. MD95/03032 (1850 annotated to 1955). Plan of Portsmouth Dockyard in 1900 showing
development and enlargement from 1540 to 1900, PSA Drawing based on 1850 map showing
changes in yellow and later buildings in red dotted lines. Section showing Portsmouth Mast Houses,
indicating that the site was ‘Destroyed by Fire 1941 (Enemy Action)’, not acknowledging that
Boat House No. 4 was there by then. It also shows the ‘New Site of Muster Bell’. Reproduced by
Fig. 222. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. Engineer Admiral T. Gurnell, CB. View of Portsmouth
Mast Houses and slips before Boathouse No. 4 (1937–40) was built. It may be surmised that the
model-maker began at the southwest corner and did not amend it to reflect actual later changes
113
in the dockyard. Reproduced by kind permission of the Trustees of the National Museum of the
Royal Navy.
North lies Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6, CA 22, PNBPT, SU 629213 003577). The original 10½ bay
plan designed by E. A. Scott and J. D. W. Ball of the Civil Engineer-in-Chief’s Office, Admiralty
Department (PNBPT, New Boathouse Drawing 1098/37, 24.7.37; PNBPT, New Boathouse Sections,
Drawing 1096/37, 24.7.37) extended as far south as the Cell Block, to follow the footprint of the earlier
masthouses and slips (HE, MD95/03032, 1850/1955). The 1938 Model shows the Mast Houses, which
are also shown on the 1924 map and HE, MD95/03032 (1850/1955). The intervention of the war
caused the south elevation of corrugated steel, supported by a timber frame, to be erected temporarily
in May 1940, when only 5½ bays had been constructed. The three walls are of reinforced concrete. It
cost £150,000 plus £14,000 for machinery (Lowe & Preston, p. 26). The structure is supported by mild
steel frames with four bays carrying three gantry cranes. One is missing – a result of bomb damage
on 12 August 1940 which slightly damaged the steel structure (TNA, ADM 1/10949). Two of the cranes
bear camouflage paint, thought to have been applied before the roof was constructed. The large
Crittall windows and the east-facing glazing of the saw-toothed roof, which gives its north elevation a
ridge and furrow profile, maximise light availability. The west and east elevations have a low parapet
in front of a box gutter which collects rain water. In the south-west corner is a dry dock some sixty
yards long and five yards wide, with vertical shuttered concrete walls, giving directly into the harbour.
Taking advantage of the tall steel framework of the building, the electrically powered dock gate is of
the guillotine variety, the only one of its type in the dockyard, a point not generally appreciated. The
gantry cranes could lift vessels from the dock and transfer loads within the boathouse; the principle
of lifting, but not transferring, vessels in this way was pioneered in Boathouse No. 6 (q.v.) in 1845. An
original spiral staircase leads to the northwest gallery.
Fig. 223. New Boathouse HM Dockyard Portsmouth Elevations, Sheet 16. MPBW Drawing no. 1111/37,
24.7.37. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
Fig. 224. New Boathouse HM Dockyard Portsmouth Ground Floor Plan, Sheet 4. Drawing no.
1098/37, by E. Scott for Civil Engineer in Chief, 24.7.37. Reproduced with the kind permission of
Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
Fig. 225. New Boathouse HM Dockyard Portsmouth Retaining Walls Sections. Drawing no. 1096/37,
by J. D. W. Ball, 24.7.37. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Property
Trust.
Fig. 226. Proposed M.E.D. Offices over existing Tool Store Elevations. HM Dockyard Portsmouth
No. 4 Boathouse. MPBW Drawing no. AB1/1, 13.6.67. Reproduced with the kind permission of
Fig. 227. Gallery Plan and Section, HM Dockyard Portsmouth Boathouse. Drawing no. 73036,
(no date visible but probably associated with AB1/1). Reproduced with the kind permission of
During the Second World War Boathouse No. 4 constructed midget submarines and landing craft and
maintained small craft. In 1942 the Director of Naval Construction, Commander C. H. Varley, who
also owned Varley Marine Ltd on the River Hamble, developed X3, a prototype midget submarine
designed to place mines beneath German battleships. The bow of X4 was built at Hull, the control
room at Portsmouth, and the tail in Devonport, assembled at Portsmouth in 1943. (Malcolmson, pers.
comm. 15.8.2013; Henry, 2005, pp. 172-3; Arthur, 2005) Oral history evidence indicates that more than
one was built:
They were building one-man submarines behind huge partitions [in Boathouse No. 4]. You
weren’t supposed to know what was going on but there was a veranda up top so you could
see what was going on. Where the water came in they tested them by putting them in the
water at night. (Jones, 2002, pp. 3-7)
114
George VI inspected the three-man submarine (X4) being constructed on 30 September 1942. The
king wrote: ‘In the Dockyard I saw a 3 man submarine in sections. One is already in comm n. & has
a range of 1000 miles. One man and Two man S/Ms are also being constructed.’ (Royal Archives,
GVI/Priv/Diary: 30.9.1942; Barrie-Smith, pers. comm. 16.2.15). In 1956–58 the Portsmouth Dockyard
Modernisation and Development Programme planned to extend the boathouse for the Manager
Constructive Department, allowing MCD to give up Boathouse Nos 5 and 7 (q.v.), which ‘are of
wooden construction and cannot provide modern appliances’ and therefore to be replaced. (TNA,
1956–58, ADM 1/26499).
To afford access to the Mast Pond on the east side of Main Road, and to ensure that the water level
therein was constant, a pound lock was constructed and a tunnel built under Main Road. The lock
chamber itself was actually inside the old boathouse, and when Boathouse No. 4 was erected, the
same strategy was adopted. The lock gate at the seaward end faces the sea, while that at the landward
end faces the Mast Pond; both are standard mitre structures. This arrangement is unusual since in
canal practice both lock gates face toward the higher level of water, but here water does not originate
from the higher level. The chamber between the lock gates is roofed over with concrete, thereby
creating work space. The entrance to the tunnel beneath Main Road has a stone arch; this is in good
condition, so this may have been refurbished when Boathouse No. 4 was built. By contrast the eastern
portal has large voussoirs in Portland stone, suggesting an earlier date. Both lock gates were rebuilt
in 1999; they are of wood, but hydraulic, thus removing the need for space-consuming swing arms.
For the latter reason, it is likely that the gates were similarly operated in 1940 at the inception of the
building. The south-western elevation projects over the tidal camber, supported by a substructure
of reinforced concrete V beams over pre-cast concrete piles and caps. Minimal decoration derives
from a cornice and a projecting string course. On the northern elevation rainwater is collected in a
galvanized steel trough behind the gable parapet.
Fig. 228. BB97/09275. Photograph of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 from the north west corner
(28 July 1997). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 229. BB97/09274. West elevation of Boathouse No. 4 showing the concrete supporting trusses
at high tide (28 Jul 1997). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 230. West (harbour) elevation of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6). A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 231. Southern extent of the concrete and steel trusses forming the undercroft of Portsmouth
Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6) on its west (harbour) elevation. A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the
Fig. 232. West elevation of the undercroft of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6) at low tide,
showing its beams and trusses. A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth
Naval Base Property Trust.
Fig. 233. Northern extent of the concrete and steel trusses forming the undercroft of Portsmouth
Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6) on its west (harbour) elevation, showing the shuttered concrete west
seawall. A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Property
Trust.
Fig. 234. Northern extent (east end) of the concrete and steel trusses forming the undercroft of
Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6) showing the eighteenth century Portland stone north
seawall and slipway stones. Concrete repairs to the trusses were carried out in 2014–15. A. Coats
2015. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
Fig. 235. Lowest level of the eighteenth century Portland Stone slipway stones, held in place by
a line of wooden posts, visible beneath a layer of solidified bags of concrete, below Portsmouth
Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6). A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth
115
Fig. 236. Underside of a Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6) concrete truss, showing its
corroded iron reinforcing bar. A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth
Fig. 237. Unused reinforced concrete beams lying beneath Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6).
A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
Fig. 238. Underside of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6) showing the shuttered concrete
surface with twentieth century repairs using steel wire which has corroded. Concrete repairs were
carried out in 2014–15. A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval
Base Property Trust.
Fig. 239. Southern extremity of the seawall of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6), sitting on the
older and only operational patent slip in the naval base. A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the kind
permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
Fig. 240. Lock entrance to Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6), showing the wooden lock
gates which connect the channel running beneath Boathouse No. 4 and into the Mast Pond with
the harbour. On the right is the battered eighteenth century Portland Stone sea wall, at the top a
reinforced concrete beam supporting the building, and on the left shuttered concrete above Portland
stone. A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Property
Trust.
Fig. 241. Dock entrance to Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6) on the west (harbour) elevation.
A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
Fig. 242. Interior of the corrugated steel wall forming the south elevation of Portsmouth Boathouse
No. 4 (1940, 1/6), showing the newly constructed stairway and mezzanine floor. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 243. Exterior of the corrugated steel wall forming the south elevation of Portsmouth Boathouse
No. 4 (1940, 1/6). A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base
Property Trust.
Fig. 244. Interior steel frame and beam of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6). A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 245. BB97/09263. Photograph of the spiral staircase in north end of Boathouse No. 4,
Portsmouth (28 Jul 1997). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Within the context of contemporary industrial architecture the Boathouse is not innovatory, but within
contemporary dockyard architecture it is significant because it is the ‘only boathouse known to have
been constructed in a home dockyard during the rapid rearmament period of the 1930s.’ (Lowe &
Preston, Conservation Management Plan, 2013, p. 3) It also marks a notable break at Portsmouth
from nineteenth century revivalist neoclassical buildings. For these reasons the team considers that
it should be listed. Modernism has few exemplars at Portsmouth, but Boathouse No. 4 (1938-40, 1/6)
is a clear example of its use of functionalism to promote efficiency, influenced by Le Corbusier and
Mies van der Rohe through the International style. A 1993 feasibility study for Boathouse No. 4 saw it
as ‘the 20th Century cousin to the equally functional but now justly celebrated Boatstore at Sheerness
Dockyard’. Whelan considered it was ‘executed with considerable flair, a concern for structural truth’
and designed by ‘someone with a full appreciation of the roots of the modern movement.’ On its
western elevation he saw its whiteness in contrast with the surrounding Georgian red brick as an echo
of Inigo Jones’s Banqueting Hall set among Tudor red brick, but also saw ‘the strong balance between
the vertical and horizontal as expressed in Albert Kahn’s design for the Fisher Body Plant (Cleveland,
Ohio, 1935)’. The eastern elevation he felt ‘combines a grouping of “classical” window forms, first
revealed in the Peter Behrens AEG Turbine Factory (Berlin, 1909).’ (Whelan, 1993, para. 2.4)
116
In 1999 the mast pond lock gates in a channel connecting the Mast Pond to the Harbour, running
beneath Boathouse No. 4 and the road, were replaced. In that year Southern Archaeological Services
(SAS) carried out a survey (SAS, 1999, pp. 12-13; Fig. 10), establishing that the channel is stone-lined,
built in at least two phases, in the same position as that shown on maps dating from 1668. These
suggest that in 1668 the channel was open to the top, with a gate near the inner (eastern) end, with
the outer (western) end wider than the centre. By 1716 the gate is shown as wider, probably carrying
a walkway. A map of 1743 shows most of the eastern end covered, with faint lines possibly delineating
a tunnel, the style of stonework consistent with this date. The report refers to a boathouse being built
in the nineteenth century, with the western end of the tunnel lined with stone. The three gate system
dates from this period. Coad, 1989, p. 180 shows a Boathouse in 1850 south of the channel. Two of the
three gates form a lock, reflecting a change of use from a ‘simple cut, with water levels controlled by
a single gate, which would allow easy passage of masts’ to ‘use of the Mast Pond to include extensive
work on boats.’ (SAS, 1999, pp. 12-13; Fig 10)
The survey found that the floors of the lock chambers and tunnel are of stone, covered with timber
in places. At the west end of the western chamber the floor stones are cut to fit the angle of the gates.
The battered lock walls are made of 1 x 0.75m squared and dressed ashlar blocks. The blocks of the
bottom two courses are smaller: (1 x 0.24m), slightly offset. The ashlar is cut each side by two vertical
channels, interpreted as cuts for stop-boards to control water levels. An inlet on the north side of the
lock chambers is thought to connect with the system of culverts running beneath the dockyard. A
twentieth century timber mat bolted to the stone floor is associated with a fixed vertical panel which
blocked the channel. The entrance to the tunnels is marked by large quoins of a later date than the
tunnel itself. There is a handrail designed to pull boats through by hand. The tunnel roof is of dark red
local brick, mostly laid with stretchers parallel to the long axis of the tunnel. SAS note that the gates
appear to be too close together to allow passage of boats used in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. No trace was found of de Gomme’s defensive structures. (SAS, 1999, pp. 13-14, Fig. 11) This
investigation demonstrated changes in the use of this site (from a mast house to a boathouse) and use
of the Mast Pond for boats rather than masts, deriving from the building of Boathouse No. 6 in 1845.
Fig. 246. Photograph of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 tunnel: west opening, view south, ready for
pintles (PNBPT, 22.9.1999 no. 38). Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base
Property Trust.
Fig. 247. Photograph of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 tunnel: east opening, view south, ready for
pintles (PNBPT, 22.9.1999 no. 40). Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base
Property Trust.
Fig. 248. Photograph of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 lock gates: east opening (PNBPT, 3.11.1999
no. 48). Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
Fig. 249. Photograph of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 lock gates: adjustments to gates (PNBPT,
1.3.2000 no. 53). Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
By 1995 the MoD had no further use for Boathouse No. 4, as the reduced navy required fewer ships’
boats, and it passed to PNBPT, whose small boat collection was then serviced by a team of volunteers.
Exhibitions and open day entertainments are intermittently held within, while without an assemblage
of flag signals spelling ‘DISCOVER PORTSMOUTH HISTORIC SHIPS’ was displayed on the south
elevation in 2013. In November 2013 PNBPT was awarded a grant of £3.75m from the Heritage Lottery
Fund (HLF) for its Boatbuilding & Heritage Skills Training Centre project which will train apprentices
and allow visitors to observe the process. It is due to open in 2015.
This plan for a viable reuse aimed to extend the life of the building through a conservation management
plan of refurbishment and maintenance. The reinforced concrete undercroft and parts of the walls
and roof are affected by chloride ingress and carbonation-induced corrosion. The worst damage
has occurred in the undercroft within the splash zone, much of which has been patched. Lowe
and Preston suggested that future specialist treatment could comprise impressed current cathodic
117
protection or a galvanic system of protection. In the building itself chloride ingress and carbonation-
induced corrosion are localised around leaking windows and areas of roof. Because the southern
elevation was not completed, ineffective roof drainage has caused rain water pooling and corrosion to
the gutter lining. Repairs to windows and roofs will address further deterioration, with the application
of impressed current cathodic protection to the worst affected areas, ‘such as the integral gutters on
the NW wall.’ The external elevations are suffering from carbonation-induced corrosion which could
be treated by anti-carbonation paints. On the western elevation, chloride ingress will be treated
with impressed cathodic protection in conjunction with treatment of the undercroft. When built,
the windows were zinc sprayed, which is not as durable as hot-dip galvanised. They could have
been stripped; grit blasted; damaged sections repaired or replaced; hot-dip galvanised and powder
coated or replaced with Crittall Corporate W20 windows. Portsmouth City Council advised that any
treatment of the windows should be applied throughout. Installation of secondary glazing is also
being investigated. A new entrance is proposed through the south elevation and new mezzanine
floors for exhibitions and staff facilities. (Lowe & Preston, 2013, pp. 3, 35, 43-6, 51-3) The undercroft
trusses were repaired 2014–15, refurbishing the concrete and installing sacrificial anodes to consume
future oxidation. A University of Portsmouth student, Ahmed Alwaal, is assessing the longevity of
concrete repairs made previously to BH4, and testing the current repairs for his PhD, ‘Heritage concrete
structures’, completion due 2018 (supervisors Dr Stephanie Barnett and Dr Robert Inkpen).
Fig. 250. BB97/012856. Photograph of the northwest corner of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 with
Boathouse No. 4 Annex on the north side (28 Jul 1997). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Attached to its north elevation is Boathouse No. 4 Annex and Toilets (1956, 1/6A, CA 22, PNBPT, SU
62921 00391). This two storey extension with a shallow pitched roof was part of the original design
as Paint and Oil and Hoop Stores, retaining its original ground floor windows. The first floor was
modified in 1956, given Georgian style sash windows and a steeper pitched roof. (Lowe & Preston,
pp. 10-11) From 1982 to 2014 it was the meeting place and office of the Portsmouth Royal Dockyard
Historical Trust Support Group (PRDHTSG), many of whose members were retired following the 1982
Portsmouth rundown. They started to collect artefacts and record data for the permanent Dockyard
Apprentice Exhibition which opened in 1994 in Boathouse No. 7.
Fig. 251. Statue of William III (1718) in the Porter’s Garden at Portsmouth. A. Coats 2008.
Fig. 252. Statue of Captain Robert Falcon Scott (1915) at the entrance to the Porter’s Garden at
Portsmouth. A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base
Property Trust.
On the opposite side of Main Road (SU 628964 004366) from the Visitor Reception Centre is the Porter’s
Lodge (1708, 1/8, Grade II*, 1244584, CA 22, PNBPT, SU 630166 003202), the oldest building in the
yard and, since the 1980s PNBPT offices. It was refurbished in 1994. (Lambert, 1993) It is of stuccoed
brick, with a limestone and brick basement which could possibly date from the earlier Porter’s Lodge
recorded in King’s MS 43 (BL, 1698). While it represents the lowest grade of vernacular architecture
for dockyard officers, and is much less grand than the officers’ houses in Long and Short Rows, it was
superior to the local artisans’ houses. Deceased Porter Thomas Butler’s contents auctioned in 1800
included a ‘Capital Collection of Prints’, a four post bedstead, mahogany tables, a marble chimney
piece, Brussels and Kidderminster carpets, a dumb waiter and matching furnishings (Portsmouth Telegraph,
1800).4 Refurbishment of the roof and chimney stacks by John Winter and Associates in 1994–95 also
disposed of ‘an unsightly single storey ground floor extension’ whose removal the Ancient Monuments
Board Panel on Historic Naval Bases had requested in 1981, ‘thus reinstating its original form.’ (The
Princes Regeneration Trust, 2006; TNA, WORK 14/3301, 23–25 February 1981) On its east side a
separate house at 19 College Road (1908, 1/9, PNBPT, SU 630232 003212) was constructed for the
Police Superintendent to manage the greater number of employees arising from rearmament and the
4
Thanks to Porter’s Gardener Charlotte Frost who found the newspaper article.
118
building of the Dreadnoughts. It has three storeys in red brick with the large windows associated with
Edwardian domestic architecture, the whole indicative of the importance of a worthy in charge of
dockyard security. It is used as offices. The house was built in the Porter’s Lodge garden, which has
been brought to life by the volunteer Friends of the Porter’s Garden who since 2000 have nurtured
plants and shrubs which might have been present in the eighteenth century. Landscape architect
Robert Camlin designed the outline, based on eighteenth century maps and research carried out by
Hampshire Gardens Trust. A wrought iron gate forged by Southsea blacksmith Peter Clutterbuck was
fitted on 25 March 2002 and a matching pair of gates, also made by Peter Clutterbuck, was installed
on 20 April 2003. The paths were laid with Breedon gravel on 21 April 2005. On 24 May 2005
three recycled granite seats, sculpted by Roger Stephens, were installed along the dockyard wall,
representing the hull profiles of Mary Rose, HMS Victory and HMS Warrior 1860. The statues of William
III (Grade II, 1272288) and Robert Falcon Scott (Grade II, 1272287) have featured in the garden since
2000, Scott having moved from The Parade after the Second World War to the west side of South
Office Block Annexe (1/87C), and William III moved nearby from The Green (after originally being
in The Parade at the eastern end of the first Commissioner’s Garden). (Lambert, 1993; TNA, 1969,
WORK 14/3075; Pevsner & Lloyd, 1990, p. 411; Patterson, 2000) Hampshire Treasures states that Scott was
damaged in the war and restored in 1968; William III was restored in 1967 (1986, pp. 42-3) Beyond
the garden in College Road is further evidence of the security associated with the Main Gate. The
Guard House (1807, 1/10A, PNBPT, SU 63120 00408) and a two storey addition, Police Quarters (1909,
1/10, PNBPT), were vacated in 1951 and used by the Mary Rose Trust as offices since the late 1980s.
Fig. 253. Photograph of College Road, 1980s, as part of the naval base, showing on the right the
nineteenth and twentieth century buildings beyond the Porter’s Lodge, then the Police Quarters and
the Naval Academy in the distance. The unrefurbished Boathouse No. 6 is in the right, beyond the
Sail Loft. Courtesy of Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust.
Fig. 254. Photograph of College Road, late 1990s, after the nineteenth and twentieth century
buildings have been demolished, to reveal the Dockyard Wall. Courtesy of Portsmouth Royal
Dockyard Historical Trust.
Fig. 255. Interior of Portsmouth Pay Office (1808, 1/11), showing the cast iron bases to the vaulted
brick ceiling columns. A. Coats 2012. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval
Despite suffering from extensive bombing in the early years of the Second World War, most of the
damaged buildings in the dockyard were returned to their original condition. This does not apply to
the Pay Office (1808, 1/11, Grade II, 1244597, CA 22, PNBPT, SU 630922 004012) which lies in College
Road adjacent to the Police Quarters and beyond the security fence. Proposed by Samuel Bentham,
Coad states that ‘it is the earliest naval building to use cast iron as a major part of its fireproof
structure.’ (2013, p. 164) Moreover, this use of fireproof cast iron piers is ‘perhaps an early example of
the use of cast iron on the same lines as the work done at Ironbridge.’ (TNA, WORK 14/3301, 23–25
March 1981) The Pay Office was badly damaged in 1941 and rebuilt as a single storey structure; it has
been in office use for some time. Serious rain ingress on the north elevation through the join between
the original building and the repairs made in 1941 is causing damage to the brickwork which requires
urgent assessment.
An Office and Store (1/12, CA 22, PNBPT, SU 63071 00388) and Garages (1/12A, CA 22, PNBPT) were
built in 1947 to replace stables which had existed since the eighteenth century at the eastern end of the
Porter’s Garden; a Gas Meter House (1/13, PNBPT, SU 63111 00400) was built in 1965. (Lambert, 1993)
Fig. 256. P241/53 FL00981/01/001. Photograph showing progress of the reconstruction of the Former
Naval Academy’s cupola, following its bomb damage in 1941 (09 Mar 1953). Reproduced
by permission of Historic England.
In the southeast corner of Conservation Area 22 is the Former Naval Academy (1729–32, 1/14 and
1/16-1/19, Grade II*, 1244573, CA 22, MoD, SU 631572 004530). The listing description statement that
119
the central cupola was added in 1808 when it became the Royal Naval College is refuted by Rick
Bolger, BAES Historic Estate Conservation Manager:
“Inconsistencies with the Listing Description.” The cupola was actually constructed as part of
the original building between 1729 and 1733, as evidenced by unpublished research carried
out by Alan Webb (Lt Cdr RN Ret’d) in 2013. Academy students were required to carry out
a measured drawing of the Academy building, many of which survive from its earliest days,
some held at the National Maritime Museum Greenwich and elsewhere, all showing the cupola
(example reproduced in Appendix 9.1, CMP, 2014). The superb model of Portsmouth Dockyard
dated 1774 held at the National Maritime Museum clearly shows the cupola in place (Fig. 9,
Conservation Management Plan, 2014; National Maritime Museum, SLR2147).
In 1875 the College was moved to Greenwich, but a Pilotage Course was continued. In 1906, after
remodelling in 1905, it was renamed the RN Navigation School, HMS Dryad, using the tenders HMS
Dryad, Plucky and Harrier. During the First World War the building was used for officer accommodation
but re-opened as HMS Dryad in 1918. In 1938 a new block closed off the fourth side of the courtyard
with a chart room and lecture rooms. Air raid damage on the night of 10 March 1941 caused HMS Dryad
to move to Southwick. The front elevation and cupola were damaged worst and were buttressed with
shores, although still used as an officers’ mess. (Carding, 2014, pp. 164, 166, 167, 170-1) Demolition
was proposed, but according to Lambert (1993) and Pevsner and Lloyd (1990, p. 412), it was saved
by ‘Hodgeman, an Australian civil engineer’, Works Officer W. G. Aitken and reconstruction officers,
who supported the cupola which had dropped a foot when the front wall bulged. In 1981 the Ancient
Monuments Board for England Panel on Historic Naval Bases called for landscaping to ‘re-establish
the sense of the great square’, enhance their formal setting and link the buildings. It excluded shrubs
or flowers. The building was wholly restored as a naval officers’ mess, but since its abandonment by
the Royal Navy in 2007, problems with water ingress in the southern wing are causing dry and wet
rot (English Heritage, October 2013, p. 71). The large tree in front obscures its features and prevents
a clear link to the Commissioner’s House, the Pay Office and The Green.
North is Admiralty House Residence (formerly the second Commissioner’s House) (1784, 1/20, Grade
II*, 1244604, CA 22, MoD, SU 631172 005055), also damaged in 1941. The house escaped damage from
three unexploded bombs, but suffered a severe hit on 17 April 1941 which destroyed the ballroom and
the main staircase. The ballroom was not rebuilt and became offices. (Lambert, 1993) The previous
St Ann’s chapel (1704), built in the present garden, had been demolished in the belief that it had
never been consecrated, but a consecration stone was found in 1785 which stated that it had been
consecrated on 21 August 1704. The stone survived until the 1960s but is now lost. (Smith, 2001, p. 8)
NDS suggests that the blocked up gateway through the dockyard wall was built to allow Portsmouth
Common inhabitants to attend this chapel.
West of Admiralty House is South Terrace (1816, 1/22, Grade II, 1244545, CA 22, MoD, SU 629969
004693) built as the School of Naval Architecture which closed in 1830, reopened in 1848 as the Central
Mathematical School and again closed in 1853, the School moving to Kensington. The consequence
of the building’s mostly educational use is that the current offices of Fleet Engineering have not
undergone much internal change. In 1905 it became the RN War Course College. By 1930 it was
mainly offices, and during the Second World War became the Tactical School. Post-Second World War
it became NATO HQ and in 1972 housed the Ship Maintenance Authority. (Lambert, 1993; Hamilton,
2005, p. xxviii)
Lying between them is The Green (1/21, CA 22, SU 630547 004843), an almost square garden including
a tennis court and topiary. During the eighteenth century this area was used for timber storage,
woodworking, saw pits and the house carpenters’ and carvers’ shops. In the nineteenth century it
became a garden and the statue of William III was moved from The Parade to the centre of The
Green. There was an air raid shelter in the southeast corner (Lambert, 1993), which is no longer there.
Fig. 257. AA98/04652. Photograph of the west elevation of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6 showing
120
boats hauled onto its ramp and the Mast Pond holding many dockyard boats (1956). Reproduced by
Fig. 258. BB012873. Photograph of the west elevation of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6 with fewer
boats in the Mast Pond after the heritage area was established and before refurbishment in 2001 (11
Jun 1991). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 259. Pre-1985 photograph of Boathouse No. 6. Courtesy of Portsmouth Royal Dockyard
Historical Trust.
Fig. 260. BB012872. Photograph of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6 from the southwest before
refurbishment in 2001 (11 Jun 1991). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 261. BB012875. Photograph of the ground floor interior of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6 from the
northeast, before refurbishment in 2001 (11 Jun 1991). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 262. BB012878. Photograph of the first floor interior of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6 from the
west, before refurbishment in 2001 (11 Jun 1991). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 263. 15790/04 SU 6200/8. Aerial photograph from the west of the bombed Storehouse No. 6
(right of centre) before its refurbishment in 2001, and the buildings to the south of College Road
(centre right) before they were demolished to create the Porter’s Garden in 2000 (9 Sept 1997).
Fig. 264. Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6. Photograph of the ground floor, looking east showing the
cast iron pillars and trusses. PNBPT Record Photograph no. G41 (June 1998). Reproduced with the
Fig. 265. Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6. Photograph of the south elevation. PNBPT Record
Photograph no. E02 (June 1998). Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base
Property Trust.
Fig. 266. Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6. Photograph of the east end, south and east elevations,
showing the missing roof after the air raid. PNBPT Record Photograph no. E07 (June 1998).
Fig. 267. Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6. Ground Floor Plan (25.10.98). PNBPT, MacCormac Jamieson
Prichard drawing no. 9615/530 PA. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base
Property Trust.
Fig. 268. Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6. Ground Floor Mezzanine Plan (20.10.98). PNBPT, MacCormac
Jamieson Prichard drawing no. 9615/531 PA. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth
Fig. 269. Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6. First Floor Plan (20.10.98). PNBPT, MacCormac Jamieson
Prichard drawing no. 9615/532 PA. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base
Property Trust.
Fig. 270. Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6. Second Floor Plan (20.10.98). PNBPT, MacCormac Jamieson
Prichard drawing no. 9615/533 PB. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base
Property Trust.
Fig. 271. Boathouse No. 6 East Elevation Survey (16.11.98). PNBPT, MacCormac Jamieson Prichard
drawing no. 9615/522 A. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base
Property Trust.
Fig. 272. Boathouse No. 6 North Elevation Survey (16.11.98). PNBPT, MacCormac Jamieson Prichard
drawing no. 9615/521 A. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
121
Fig. 273. Boathouse No. 6 South Elevation Survey (16.11.98). PNBPT, MacCormac Jamieson Prichard
drawing no. 9615/523 A. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
Fig. 274. Boathouse No. 6 Section AA Survey (16.11.98). PNBPT, MacCormac Jamieson Prichard drawing
no. 9615/525 A. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
Fig. 275. AA026355. Photograph of the eastern interior of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6 showing the
cinema structure inserted within the area damaged by a bomb in the Second World War (2001).
©Historic England.
North of College Road is Boathouse No. 6 (1845, 1/23, Grade II*, 1244594, CA 22, PNBPT, SU 630466
004237). A boathouse had been on this site since 1680. The present building was built by Lt Roger
Beatson R.E. (Evans, 2004, p. 53; Coad, 2013, pp. 203-5) Its eastern end was damaged in an air raid
in 1941 (Lambert, 1993). This damage resulted in temporary roofwork at the rear of the building,
but PNBPT undertook substantial refurbishment 1999–2001 with architects MacCormac Jamieson
Prichard. A tiered auditorium on steel supports, which mesh well with the massive interior iron
beams, was inserted at the rear, now in use as a commercial cinema, partly supported by PNBPT
and Portsmouth City Council. The upper floor was converted to office use. Access to the first and
second floors is by external lift and staircase enclosed in glass, a contemporary touch which seems
not out of place. The ground floor is the scene of Action Stations, an activity centre interpreting the
modern navy, science and technology. A small café added to the successful re-use of the Boathouse.
Photographs and drawings show the changes which have taken place. Externally the large double
wooden doors on the west side, opening onto the Mast Pond, were replaced by two glass windows
and one glass siding door. A wooden walkway was laid over the stone ramp used to draw the boats
into the building, but the latter is still visible. On 20 March 2009 a Raised Garden was added to the
south-east approach, designed by architect Professor Sir Colin Stansfield Smith and PNBPT Surveyor
Peter Lambert. It features a flight of granite steps, a double wall flowerbed and a piazza laid with
Breedon gravel. (Coats, 2012)
An archaeological watching brief was completed by Southern Archaeological Services Ltd during the
refurbishment of the boathouse (SAS, 1999). In Trench 1 concrete-filled trenches were found below the
lines of the iron pillars. Finds from Trench 2 comprised three fragments of post-medieval earthenware
pottery, fragments of post-medieval and Modern pantiles, early Modern and Modern peg-tiles and
roof tiles; fifty-nine fragments of clay tobacco pipes thought to be early eighteenth century and mid-
nineteenth century; two fragments of onion bottle bases; twenty fragments of iron nails and bolts and
twenty-four shavings of Pinus sp., Quercus sp. and a stake of possibly Castanea cf. sativa, one fragment of
charcoal and two oyster shell valves. A cobbled surface was found at the northern section of Trench
2, thought to be ‘part of a road, path or hardway and post-dates the boathouse.’ A line of north-south
stakes cutting part of Trench 2, associated with a decayed wooden spread, could indicate control of
water flow. Clay pipe fragments were found around this area. Examination of the ramp leading from
the Boathouse to the Mast Pond ‘showed that rails had been replaced by a set of rollers to facilitate
the movement of craft in and out of the work area.’ (SAS, pp. 2, 7-11) This evidence confirmed that
the area presently occupied by Boathouse No. 6 had been used for boatbuilding and control of water
flow since the early eighteenth century. (SAS, 1999, p. 2)
West of Boathouse No. 6 is the former Mast Pond (1665, SAM397, 1001852/Grade I, 1272267, CA 22,
SU 629859 003930), dug by garrison soldiers and dockyard labourers (and possibly Dutch POWs,
TNA, 1964–65, CM 1/163). The defensive pallisadoes around the yard did not encompass the pond
until c.1695, when its shape was an irregular polygon connected to the harbour by a culvert. Moore’s
shading implies that it did not have vertical walls. (TNA, De Gomme, 1666; TNA, Moore, 1667; BL,
King’s MS 43, 1698) By the mid-eighteenth century it had acquired almost a regular rectangular shape
(BL, Desmaretz, 1750). The pond is now fed from the harbour through a narrow channel. In 1797, a
pair of lock gates was inserted to maintain the water level. Before land to the west of the pond was
reclaimed there was a narrow bridge over the open channel to give access to the yard. With the advent
122
of steam powered ships the Mast Pond lost its function and became a Boat Pond. Two wooden framed
and clad buildings were erected on iron piers over the south and north parts of the pond, with arches
to hold the masts underwater.
Fig. 276. PK318/11 FL00982.02.001. Photograph of the conversion of Boathouse No. 5 (1/28) and the
Sail Loft (1/27) into the Mary Rose Museum (8 Mar 1984). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Boathouse No. 5 (1882, 1/28, Grade II, 1272290, CA 22, PNBPT, SU 630031 003690) lost its function
of repairing small boats in 1973, and in 1984 was leased to the Mary Rose Trust for an exhibition of
artefacts and a small cinema. The entrance on Main Road was modified with the construction of a
display window for the Mary Rose shop. The entrance to the Mary Rose Museum until 2013 was via
the much smaller wooden clad building (Sail Loft 1912, 1/27, Grade II, 1272290, CA 22, PNBPT, SU
630091 003543) formerly of two storeys but now one only, adjacent to the south side of Boathouse
No. 5, but not lying over the Mast Pond. In 2014 it reverted to being a boathouse while Boathouse
No 4 was refurbished as a Boatbuilding Academy. On the north side of the Mast Pond and parallel
with Boathouse No. 5 is Boathouse No. 7 (1875, 1/29, Grade II, 1272291, CA 22, PNBPT, SU 629672
004249), converted in 1993/4 to house a large café, shop, a cash point and the Dockyard Apprentice
Exhibition. Of significance in the latter are four of Marc Brunel’s pulley block-making machines,
formerly in the possession of Portsmouth Museums and Records Service. The machines comprise a
mortising, a scoring, and a shaping machine, together with a corner saw. Considering their importance
in engineering history, these machines are not given the publicity they deserve. Inside the entrance
is a modern maquette of the Georgian yard. To the north of Boathouse No. 7 is a Clocking Station
(1938, 1/30, PNBPT, CA 22, SU 629366 004293); a toilet was added in 1956.
Fig. 277. BB003709. Photograph of the interior of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 7 from the northwest
before its refurbishment in 1993–94 to house the Dockyard Apprentice Exhibition, a café and a
nautical shop (11 Jun 1991). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 278. Entrance to Sunny Walk Offices (1950, 1/31). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the
Fig. 38. Concrete architrave, north elevation, Storehouse No. 5 (1951, 1/34). A. Coats 2013.
Within the naval base, further north on the eastern side of Main Road is the impressive central
entrance to Sunny Walk Offices (1835, 1950, 1/31, CA 22, MoD, SU 629641 004684), the refurbished
remnant of the eastern section of Second World War bomb damaged Storehouse No. 8. Until 1991
it housed the RN Film Corporation, then in the 1990s the CNH Reserves Offices (Lambert, 1993); it
now houses the Department of Community Mental Health. In the space created by the demolished
western section, in considerable contrast, are twentieth century wooden clad Offices (1963, 1/32, CA
22, MoD, SU 629385 004546), a small Electricity Sub-Station (1963, 1/33, CA 22, MoD, SU 629297
004734), a brick Store (1/34, CA 22, MoD) and Snack Bar and Rest Room (1/34A, CA 22, MoD), were
built. The western end of No. 8 Store (1835) was rebuilt as Storehouse No. 5 (1951, 1/34, CA 22, MoD,
SU 629219 004568). It is single storey, square in plan, in red brick; the east and west elevations have
a wide concrete architrave beneath the guttering. The opportunity was taken to use the space to the
west, formerly occupied by a curving rail track and earlier cartway entering the building, to site the
new shipwrights’ workshop to the west of the original.
On the opposite side of Main Road, in the heritage area, is Storehouse No. 9 (1782, 1/35, Grade I,
1272283, CA 22, PNBPT, SU 628895 004116). Remarkably little has changed since its construction; the
ground floor doors facing onto Main Road were removed in 1980, making a visitors’ internal walkway
along the length of the building. For some time there was a Victory shop at the north end of the
ground floor, but this has since been converted into a café. The other half of the ground floor is leased
to a high quality antiques shop. Since the 1990s the floor above has been the storeroom for PNBPT
archives in the care of the Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust Support Group, a group of
123
volunteers, many of whom formerly worked in the yard. Outside the northern end of the storehouse
is a rail weighbridge, while above it, fixed to the corner of the building are the base plates of a crane,
the jib, which transferred goods between rail and the first floor, having been removed. By the 1960s
the use of the dockyard railway was diminishing, finally to close in 1978. There is a Camber Road
sign on the south elevation.
Storehouse No. 4 (1/36, CA 22, MoD, SU 62859 00419) was built in 1938 where there had previously
been a weighbridge until c.1930. In the 1990s it was used by PSTO(N). An Amenity Centre (1/37,
CA 22, MoD, SU 62869 00403) was built in 1894 as a Dining Hall. It has been unused since 1990.
(Lambert, 1993)
The area within the naval base to the west of the Camber is known as Watering Island.5 Access is
by bridge supported by circular iron piers. To facilitate the unloading of vessels at low tide, in 1804
a caisson was provided, prior to the present fixed link c.1850. The road surface is no more than a
decade old, as are the pedestrian walkways on each side.
West of Storehouse No. 9 lies the Hydraulic Engine House (1861, 1/38, Grade II, 1272286, CA 22, MoD,
SU 628803 003806) with its characteristic hydraulic accumulator tower constructed by the dockyard
engineer John Murray, extended in 1904 and modified in 1928 (Lambert, 1993). At its peak the system
powered eight cranes, nine capstans, nine lifts, and for a time the mechanism in the Chain Test House
(q.v.) (Riley, 1986, p. 191). By 1929 it was the last hydraulic engine house to be working in the Yard.
West of the Hydraulic Engine House is a Store (c.1859, 1/39, CA 22, MoD, SU 628573 003630) in dark
red brick with two gables and a slate roof, with twentieth century alterations, used by Hythe Marine
Services. It was formerly Oil Storehouse No. 3, built on piles at the south end of South Camber, using
unused space when ships became too large to use the Camber. (Lambert, 1993)
Fig. 279. Semaphore Tower and Rigging House fire 1913, saluting party. Image 1499A/3 supplied by
PMRS, courtesy of Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust.
Fig. 280. Photograph by Stephen Cribb, ‘The last of the Old Semaphore Tower falling down after the
day of the fire in 1913.’ PMRS, PORMG 1945/652/5. Photograph reproduced with the kind permission
of Portsmouth Museums and Records Service.
Fig. 281. Eastern elevation of the former Sail Loft/Rigging House (1784, 1/40-49), Portsmouth
Semaphore Tower (1810–24 1/40) and Lion Gate (1778, 1/50A). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the
Fig. 282. Lion pediment of Portsmouth Lion Gate (1778, 1/50A), one of Portsea’s town fortifications
(formerly situated close to the entrance to Anglesey Barracks and the present HMS Nelson Gate),
incorporated into the west (seaward) arch of the Sail Loft/Rigging House (1784, 1/40-49) and
Semaphore Tower (1810–24, 1/40) in 1929. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the
MoD.
Fig. 283. Portsmouth Semaphore Tower (1922–23). 1/50. Record Drawing, HM Dockyard Portsmouth.
Proposed Reconstruction of Semaphore Tower A.E., SCE, Drawing no. L286. BAES. Reproduced with
Fig. 284. Portsmouth, Rigging House and Semaphore Tower, Basement and Ground Floor Plans,
(2.11.1926). 1/50. Record Drawing no. 1, A22/26, by A. C. Hodges et al., CE-in-C Admiralty. BAES.
5
This area, with sufficient depth of water and close to the harbour entrance, supplied ships with water in
the seventeenth century through a wooden water pipe. Sir Anthony Deane, Portsmouth Commissioner 1672–75
sketched a ‘New watering place’ and a ‘New pipe’ leading from a ‘New well’ in the area of The Green (1/21).
(TNA, SP29/341, fos 218, 218v, 25 February 1672/3).
124
Fig. 285. Portsmouth, Rigging House and Semaphore Tower, 1st and 2nd Floor Plans, (2.11.1926).
1/50. Record Drawing no. 3, A23/26, L291 by A. C. Hodges et al., CE-in-C Admiralty. BAES.
Fig. 286. Portsmouth, Rigging House and Semaphore Tower, Flag pole removed, sections and south
elevation (2.11.1926). 1/50. Record Drawing No. 5, A26/26 A. C. Hodges et al., CE-in-C Admiralty.
BAES. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 287. Portsmouth Rigging House and Semaphore Tower, east elevation (2.11.1926) 1/50. Record
Drawing no. 6, A27/26 by A. C. Hodges et al., CE-in-C Admiralty. BAES. Reproduced with the
Fig. 288. Portsmouth, Rigging House and Semaphore Tower, Detail of Upper Portion of Tower West
Front, central flagpole removed, elevation (2.8.1927) 1/50. Record Drawing no. 9, 38/27 by A. C.
Hodges. CE-in-C Admiralty. BAES. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 289. 15790/05 SU 6200/7. Aerial photograph of the Semaphore Tower and Rigging House from
the west (9 Sept 1997). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 290. 15800/33 SU 6200/17. Aerial photograph of the Semaphore Tower and Rigging House from
the east. (9 Sept 1997). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Dominating the road leading to Watering Island is the Semaphore Tower (1810–24, 1923–29, 1/40, CA
22, MoD, SU 627986 003991). On 20 September 1913 the tower was destroyed by fire, but was rebuilt
1924–29. Portsea’s old Lion Gate (1778, 1/50A, Grade II, 1272303, CA 22, MoD, SU 627986 003991), which
had been in store since the 1870s when it was removed from Portsea’s town fortifications (situated close
to the entrance to Anglesey Barracks and the present HMS Nelson Gate), was built thoughtfully into the
arch in 1929 (Ordnance Survey, 1861, Hampshire Sheet LXXXIII.7.25). A sketch of the numbered stones
dates from 1900 (TNA, WORK 41/328). Upon the harbour elevation is inscribed: ‘THE LION GATEWAY
PORTSEA BUILT 1778 INCORPORATED IN THIS BUILDING IN THE YEAR 1929’. This gate is known as
the Gateway to Empire. The steel of the 126 foot mast is said to have been taken from German cruiser
Nürnburg, which surrendered to the Grand Fleet in 1918 and was scuttled on 21 June 1919 at Scapa Flow.
The vessel was salvaged and used as a target off the Isle of Wight in 1920, so it may well have been
berthed at Portsmouth Dockyard between trials and the metal removed (Buxton, pers. comm., 2014). It
was noted later on two drawings that the flagpole was removed (BAES, annotated 1926 drawing No. 5
and 1927 drawing No. 9). The original tower was slotted into the space between two other buildings,
the Sail Loft (1784, 1/40, CA 22, MoD, SU 628161 003704) to the south and the Rigging Store/Store
28 (1784, 1/49, CA 22, MoD, SU 627761 004354) to the north. The Sail Loft was gutted in the 1913 fire
and rebuilt as a five storey office block in rich red brick, now used by the Flag Officer Portsmouth
and the Harbour Control Centre. Its south elevation is signed BAE Rigging Department; added to the
east elevation is a late twentieth century red brick stairwell. Solid brickwork on the north elevation
‘anticipated a north wing to balance the south wing comprising the rigging store and offices, but this
never transpired.’ (BAES, PSA, Building Management SE, Dec 1991, p. 2) The ground floor of the
Rigging Store was considered worth saving, the original brickwork and Portland stone base being
much in evidence, although the windows have been given concrete lintels. It is now used as a Sea
Cadet Store.
In 1983 PSA (Property Services Agency) surveyed Lion Gate as follows.
The arch when approached from the East (Dockyard) is approximately 7 metres high to the
apex and about 4.5 metres wide with a smaller rectangular opening on either side. The West
elevation (to the harbour) has a smaller central arch with two round headed arched openings
originally for pedestrian traffic, one of which is now glazed. The main arch is crowned by a
pediment incorporating a lion moulding with two circular column projections either side of
the arch. There are also bullseye windows over each pedestrian arch. Within the gateway the
flank walls are faced mainly in red engineering brick with high level semi-circular windows,
125
with stone and concrete dressings. There are windows in the main central section which have
been replaced with modern windows which are not in keeping with the original type. (BAES,
PSA, 1983)
A 1991 PSA survey found that:
The building is supported by loads from stanchions transmitted to pile groups. Information
on general arrangement drawings indicates that the reconstruction has utilised the foundation
construction from the original building, which comprised counterfort brick piers supported
some 5.8m below ground level, by a square raft and pile group in square of nine. As the
original building dated back to the 19th century, it is likely that both raft and raft group are of
timber, but no details are available as to timber species. (BAES, PSA, 1991)
In 1995 Sawyer Architects noted:
Modern electrical fittings and signage have been fixed to the gate’s stonework. At present these
are not severely damaging to the stone but over a period of time the metal hangers will in all
probability begin to affect the stonework. (BAES, Sawyer, 1995)
Fig. 291. AA045925. Photograph of the interior of the Chain Test House looking south. (9.7.2003).
©Historic England.
Fig. 292. AA045923. Photograph of the floor of the Chain Test House, the pathway consisting of
Portsmouth Dockyard cast iron ballast pigs (9.7.2003). ©Historic England.
West of the Semaphore Tower is the Chain & Cable Test House & Store (1843, 1/41, Grade II, 1272294,
CA 22, MoD, SU 627836 003466), having this function from 1905 to the 1970s, with its own independent
hydraulic pressure mechanism, the most recent by Greenwood & Batley, Leeds, installed in 1929. Prior
to this it was a chain store. On 12 August 1940 a raid demolished the greater part of the roof and
windows, badly damaging machinery (TNA, ADM 1/10949). For a few years in the late 2000s it was a
store for Mary Rose Trust items recovered when the Mary Rose stem was excavated in 2005, but is now
empty. On the edge of South Railway Jetty originally stood the decorative Royal Navy Railway Shelter
(1893, 1/45, Grade II, 1272292, CA 22, MoD SU 62968 00423) at the terminus of the single track branch
railway line from Portsmouth Harbour station. However, following doubts as to the strength of the
Jetty, and to clear space on the quay, the Shelter was moved c.2000 a short distance to the edge of the
Camber (SU 627580 004860), where it is in incongruous isolation, no railway line ever having passed
this way. The railway line crossing the Hard had a swing bridge adjacent to the Jetty which was
dismantled in 1946. Remains of the circular iron columns and cast iron fittings are extant. The coping
stones marking the edge of the Jetty prior to the 1929 extension seawards are still visible. The rail
track that can be seen at the edge of the Camber was that of a travelling crane. The present site of the
Royal Shelter was formerly that of the Buoy Workshop (1900), its presence indicated by a collection of
metal buoys of various descriptions outside it. The location was one of the last cobbled surfaces in the
Yard. Nearby a number of ballast pigs have been set into the surface. The single storey Storehouse No.
1 (1905, 1/46, CA 22, MoD, SU 627511 004166) is also empty. It has no particular architectural merit,
but is important since it represents the move away from multi-storeyed stores, while the use of steel
girders for the roof span obviates the need for internal piers, facilitating interior movement. Associated
with the original site of the Railway Shelter was the small Former Railway Station and Waiting Room
(1878, 1/47, Grade II, 1272293, CA 22, MoD SU 627293 004579), complete with typical railway canopy
valancing above the iron piers made by local ironfounder W. H. Sperring. It is now empty.
Fig. 293. Remaining cast iron elements of the Portsmouth Railway Swing Bridge to South Railway
Jetty, c.1876. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
126
Fig. 295. Portsmouth Railway Shelter (1893, 1/45) on South Railway Jetty, re-sited since c.2000 on the
west quay of the North Camber. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
On the north-facing quay of the Camber, west of Storehouse No. 10, is Storehouse No. 12 (c.1880, 1/51,
CA 22, MoD, SU 628736 003916). Built c.1880 as a Shipping Store (Lambert, 1993); since 1998 it has
held the Library of the National Museum of the Royal Navy, Portsmouth. Its narrow plan allowed the
use of iron beams without internal support, perhaps one reason for its present-use selection.
West of Storehouse Nos 9, 10 and 11 is the quay onto which goods were unloaded from the Camber.
(The elegant appearance of these buildings facing Main Road was actually their back elevation). When
ships arriving in the mid-nineteenth century became too large to gain access to the Camber, the quay
space was put to other uses. Thus to the west of Storehouse No. 11 the Jettyman’s Store (c.1870,
1/52, CA 22, MoD, SU 628211 004823) was built. More accurately this might be described simply as
boathouses; there are thirteen bays facing the Camber, four with double doors, with a Portland stone
course close to the footing, suggesting that the modification might have been early twentieth century,
and four bays on the northern elevation. It is used by Admiralty pilots.
Fig. 296. Former Office for the Portsmouth Captain of the Yard/Harbour Master (c.1850, 1/53), now
the Disposal & Reserve Ships Organisation. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the
MoD.
At King’s Stairs is the former Office for the Captain of the Yard/Harbour Master (c.1850, 1/53, CA 22,
MoD, SU 627258 005399) now the Disposal & Reserve Ships Organisation (DRSO), dating from 1906.
It stored the C-in-C’s and Royal Yacht’s boats in the 1930s. Nearby is the Captain of the Port’s Flagstaff
which was at Victory Gate but was moved in the early 1990s to make way for HMS Warrior 1860. The
title ‘Captain of the Port’ was introduced to Portsmouth in July 1969. Nearby, Store No. 20A (1/54) was
an Air Raid Shelter built in 1939, a single story red brick building with a reinforced concrete roof, now
gone, possibly destroyed in the air raid on 12 August 1940, see below (Lambert, 1993; Donnithorne,
pers. comm. 2013)
Fig. 297. ‘Two low buildings with steam coming out of pipes, railway line in front, dock in right
foreground.’ (c.1920) Photograph looking southwest towards the buildings, formerly on the site of
the Victory Gallery, which included a caulkers’ cabin, a divers’ gear store and an engine house
office (The Princes Regeneration Trust, 2006; Lambert, 1993). Dock No.1 is in the foreground and
the Former Office for the Captain of the Yard/Harbour Master (1/53) is in the background. Image
404A/6/17 supplied by PMRS, courtesy of Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust.
Fig. 298. Rainwater hopper dated 1927, Portsmouth Victory Gallery (1938, 1/57, NMRNP). A. Coats
2013. Reproduced by kind permission of the Trustees of the National Museum of the Royal Navy.
Fig. 299. Stone laid by W. L. Wylie in 1929, re-cut in 1988, Portsmouth Victory Gallery (1938, 1/57,
NMRNP). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced by kind permission of the Trustees of the National Museum of
the Royal Navy.
Fig. 300. Rainwater hopper dated 1962, Portsmouth Victory Gallery (NMRNP, 1938, 1/57). A. Coats
Immediately north of Storehouse No. 11 is the Victory Gallery (1938, 1/57, CA 22, PNBPT, SU 627711
005816). Previously on the site were a caulkers’ cabin, a divers’ gear store and an engine house office
(The Princes Regeneration Trust, 2006; Lambert, 1993). A museum was required to store Nelson relics
during and after the restoration of HMS Victory, as future plans did not allow space on board for the
artefacts. This site, with a lawn in front, did not obscure the view of HMS Victory from the harbour.
(Aberg, 2005, p. 362-3) The Gallery was built in three stages after W. L. Wyllie R.A. laid a stone on
22 May 1929. In 1930 George V opened Wyllie’s panorama during his visit to the first Whale Island
Tattoo. Lambert (1993) records that previously the museum had been located at the east end of the
Ropehouse. The Gallery was opened on 25 July 1938, ready for Navy Week in July 30–August 6
127
(Illustrated London News, July 30, 1938; Issue 5180). It is one of only three principal twentieth century
buildings in the oldest part of the dockyard. Its purpose was to amplify the deeds of Nelson and HMS
Victory, which appropriately faces the Gallery from Dock No. 2 (q.v.). In red brick, the two wings are
single storey, while the main structure is much taller with a substantial round-headed window above
the entrance. The roofs are flat topped. It is now an essential part of the National Museum of the Royal
Navy. On the south west corner is a stone inscribed ‘THIS STONE WAS LAID BY W L WYLIE R.A.
AS A TRIBUTE TO THE MEMORY OF NELSON AND HIS OLD SAILING NAVY MAY 22 1929’. It was
recut during renovations in 1988 which also re-clad the roof with copper following the October 1987
hurricane. Rainwater hoppers bear the inscriptions ‘GR 1927’, ‘AD 1931’ and ‘ER 1962’.
Fig. 301. Dockyard apprentices monitoring HMS Victory for hull movement in Portsmouth Dockyard,
c.1954. Reproduced courtesy P. Nex.
HMS Victory was berthed in Dock No. 2 in 1922 and restored by the Admiralty with funds raised
by the Society for Nautical Research, its docking costs provided by the Admiralty (Aberg, 2005, pp.
358-68). The fabric of the ship has changed considerably since it was docked, restored to Trafalgar
condition, with the Royal Navy, and since 2012 the National Museum of the Royal Navy, responsible
for maintaining and interpreting the ship with continuing SNR support. HMS Victory was gifted on 29
March 2012 to the HMS Victory Preservation Trust, incorporated within the HMS Victory Preservation
Company. The Ministry of Defence donated timber (600 cu m of teak, mahogany, and oak) to be
used in her preservation and conservation, with further Crown-owned timber also available for the
preservation of the ship. During ‘the next 10-20 years, it is projected that a sum in the region of
£30.625million (at current costs) will be expended in bringing the Ship to (something close to) new
condition.’ (NMRN, 10 December 2014, p. 35)
Fig. 302. J186/01/71. Photograph of the west elevations of Storehouse Nos 9, 10 and 11 (28 Apr
1971). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 303. AA98/04645. Portsmouth Dockyard prints FL00981. Photograph of the eastern elevation of
Portsmouth Storehouse No. 11 taken from outside South Office Block Annexe (1931, 1/87C) by Eric
de Mare (1956). The statue of Captain Robert Falcon Scott was in this spot following the Second
World War until 2000, when it was moved to the Porter’s Garden. Reproduced by permission of
Historic England.
Fig. 304. Three postcards of Portsmouth Dockyard Museum (n.d.), probably within one of the three
Georgian storehouses. Courtesy George Malcolmson Collection.
Fig. 305. J057/01/72. Storehouse No. 11, north end, conversion to the McCarthy Museum (28 Apr
Fig. 306. J057/03/72. (28 Apr 1971). Photograph of Storehouse No. 11, ground floor conversion to the
McCarthy Museum. ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 307. J106/04/72. Photograph of Storehouse No. 11, ground floor conversion to the McCarthy
Museum (28 Apr 1971). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 63. Photograph of Storehouse No. 11, ground floor conversion to the McCarthy Museum (28 Apr
1971). HE NMR, J356/01/72. Reproduced with the permission of Historic England.
The earliest of the impressive eighteenth century stores is Storehouse No. 11 (1763, 1/58, Grade I,
1272285, CA 22, PNBPT, SU 628070 005410). On 12 August 1940 it suffered a ‘near miss’ to the
northwest corner, causing severe damage to the cellar where the Dockyard Area HQ was situated and
two people were killed (TNA, ADM 1/10949). Another near miss occurred in 1963: A. E. Chatterton
of the Ministry of Public Buildings and Works (MPBW) wrote to G. W. Newton, MPBW Senior Civil
Engineer, regarding the replacement of Storehouses 10 and 11 by a modern office block, emphasising
the significance of the historic buildings grouped around HMS Victory and declining to prepare any
128
further such schemes. He reported that Rear Admiral Sir John Walsham, Admiral Superintendent at
Portsmouth Dockyard, ‘is most perturbed at the suggestion that these buildings might be pulled down’
and ‘intends to write to somebody at the Admiralty about it.’ Chatterton informed Walsham that the
MPBW had ruled that ‘modernisation of a building should only be resorted to if the estimated cost
of conversion does not exceed two-thirds of the estimated cost of a new building’. Furthermore, ‘any
excess costs over the two-thirds would have to be related to the degree of importance attached to any
preservation order’. He queried why they had not been listed in view of their historical significance
and proximity to HMS Victory. (TNA, 1950–65, CM 18/3) In 1981 the storehouses were visited by the
Ancient Monuments Board for England Panel on Historic Naval Bases, including Dr Basil Greenhill
and Jonathan Coad. They reported that it was ‘unthinkable that they should ever be removed. If this
could be accepted by the Navy as an immutable fact, then the sooner the roof and timber repairs
were put in hand the better it would be for all concerned’. They urged: ‘At the same time careful
thought would need to be given to appropriate uses for the Storehouses. An imaginative conversion
was required which would retain as much of the original structure and design as possible.’ They
observed that
the adaptation of the ground floor for use by the naval museum, which had completely
concealed the structure by internal panelling, was inappropriate as well as expensive, and
could only be regarded as an example of how not to use the existing structure. (TNA, 1981,
WORK 14/3301)
In discussing a proposed bridge link with Storehouse No 10 in 1989, the view of one member of
the Panel was that ‘the bridge should not be overdesigned and that it should resemble something
which may have been erected by the Dockyard.’ (PNBPT, 12 September 1989) The storehouses were
not in fact listed (they had been scheduled monuments) until 1999, following Lake and Douet’s
recommendation, but it was due to such individuals that many buildings survived the modernisation
movement of the 1960s and naval base development in the 1980s.
The storehouse passed to the Royal Naval Museum in 1986. Here the ground floor doors have been
replaced by windows above a lower brick wall and there is no visitors’ walkway. In 1987–79, English
Heritage made a grant following the October 1987 hurricane for a new lead and slate roof and
dormer windows (The Princes Regeneration Trust, 2006; PNBPT Storehouse No. 11 roof repairs, 1987).
Approval was given for a Bridge Link between Storehouses 10 and 11 and refurbishment of Storehouse
11 and Victory Gallery: conversion of the 1st and 2nd floors of Storehouse 11 as a library, offices and
storage of museum exhibits and an external fire escape (PNBPT Stores 10, 11, 1987–1989). Designs for
new floor layouts for the museum were submitted in 1989 (PNBPT Storehouses 9, 10, 11, 1989). The
Library opened as a public resource in 1990. The ground floor comprises a gallery, the floors above
now used as offices and conference room, the whole being serviced by a lift enclosed in a glass
surround installed in 1997. The clock in the central pediment came from the RN Armament Depot,
Lodge Hill, Rochester, in 1963 (Lambert, 1993). The restoration of Storehouses 9, 10 and 11, excellent
examples of eighteenth century industrial architecture, is a great asset to the heritage area.
Fig. 308. J186/05/71. Photograph of Storehouse Nos 9, 10 or 11 (28 Apr 1971). ©Crown copyright.HE.
It is hoped that the particular storehouse can be identified.
Fig. 309. J186/06/71. Photograph of Storehouse No. 9, 10 or 11 (28 Apr 1971). ©Crown copyright.HE.
It is hoped that the particular storehouse can be identified.
Fig. 310. J360/06/72. Photograph of Storehouse Nos 9, 10, 11: Mr Hartley’s fire plates on first floor
joists and floorboards (c.1971). ©Crown copyright.HE.
To the north of Storehouse No. 9 is Storehouse No. 10 (1776, 1/59, Grade I, 1272284, CA 22, PNBPT, SU
628470 004779) whose former wooden ground floor doors facing Main Road have been replaced by
opaque glass doors. The central clock tower was destroyed in the Second World War, but was restored
in 1991–92, as far as possible replicating the original design by using pre-war photographs. Timbers
129
infested by beetle (Xestobium Tessellatum) were renewed. (PNBPT, Entablature and Capital to Clock
Tower, Project No. 61, Drawing PX61/5K/2, 16.11.89) The clock itself, manufactured in 1878, came
from Bristol Grammar School at a cost of £50,000 (Lambert, 1993). A metal weather vane, thought to
have originated from the Fire Station, was placed above the tower. Since 1972 the ground floor has
been used by the National Museum of the Royal Navy (Portsmouth) (until 2009 known as the Royal
Naval Museum) for exhibitions. Its recent refurbishment for the twentieth century Babcock Galleries
(2014) has revealed the structure and the story of the building.
Fig. 311. AA98/04650. Portsmouth Dockyard prints FL00981. Photograph by Eric de Mare of the
eastern elevation of Portsmouth Storehouse No. 10, with the railway track in evidence. (1956). The
doorways were modified for the NMRN twentieth century Babcock Galleries (2014). Reproduced
by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 312. Ground floor of Portsmouth Storehouse No. 10 (1776, 1/59) looking south along the eastern
bay, showing renewed brickwork and timber pillars and beams during its refurbishment for the
twentieth century Babcock Galleries (2014) A. Coats 2013. Reproduced by kind permission of the
Trustees of the National Museum of the Royal Navy.
Fig. 313. Ground floor of Portsmouth Storehouse No. 10 (1776, 1/59) detail of renewed brick arches
displaying twentieth century ordnance in the twentieth century Babcock Galleries (2014) A. Coats
Fig. 314. Currently the rear (west) elevation of Portsmouth Storehouse No. 10 (1763, 1/59), which was
originally the front elevation facing the North Camber, showing the new glazed entrance refurbished
for the twentieth century Babcock Galleries (2014). A. Coats 2014. Reproduced by kind permission
of the Trustees of the National Museum of the Royal Navy.
Fig. 315. A rear (west) door of Portsmouth Storehouse No. 10 (1776, 1/59), facing the North Camber.
A. Coats 2014. Reproduced by kind permission of the Trustees of the National Museum of the Royal
Navy.
Fig. 316. A refurbished rear pediment of Portsmouth Storehouse No. 10 (1776, 1/59), showing the
access doors to the upper floor and cast iron bracket (2014). A. Coats 2014. Reproduced by kind
permission of the Trustees of the National Museum of the Royal Navy.
Fig. 317. J188/01/71. Photograph of Storehouse Nos 15, 16 and 17 (28 Apr 1971) from the west,
showing the former site of Storehouse No. 14 or West Sea Store (1771), which suffered a direct hit on
24 August 1940. ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 318. J188/03/71. Photograph of Storehouse Nos 15, 16 and 17 (28 Apr 1971) from the east,
showing ‘GR 1771’ inserted in darker bricks on the east elevation of Storehouse No. 16. ©Crown
copyright.HE.
North of the Security Office, turning east from Main Road, is Sunny Walk (SU 630474 005160). On
its north side was Storehouse No. 14 or West Sea Store (1771), a Georgian building which suffered a
direct hit on 24 August 1940, demolishing its western end (TNA, August 1940, ADM1/10949). In its
place a small Electricity Sub-Station (c.1960, 1/60, CA 22, MoD) was constructed in red brick in 1957,
and to its east, space was made for a car park, very much a land-use of the late twentieth century
dockyard. To the east of the car park are three fine Georgian stores. Storehouse No. 15 or East Sea
Store (1771, 1/62, Grade II*, 1272262, CA 22, MoD, SU 629771 005060), Storehouse No. 16 or West
Hemp House (1771, 1/63, Grade II*, 1272263, CA 22, MoD, 630361 005248), and Storehouse No. 17
or East Hemp House (1782, 1/64, Grade II*, 1272265, CA 22, MoD, SU 630999 005448). Storehouse
No. 15 suffered fire damage in 1941 and all have undergone slight modifications in the post-Second
World War period, notably the insertion of new larger doorways with concrete surrounds and folding
doors. By 1910, Storehouse No. 16 incorporated a reading room, which in 1930 was replaced by an
officers’ billiard room (Lambert, 1993). Storehouse No. 16 has ‘GR 1771’ inserted in darker bricks on
130
its eastern elevation. Parallel to Sunny Walk, north of the above storehouses, is Anchor Lane (SU
630361 005391), so called because it was used to store anchors, gantry cranes being fitted above.
No trace of these remains, nor of the stone setts put down in 1930 to support the anchors. A late
twentieth century security gate has been erected at its western end.
Fig. 319. Arches cut through the former Portsmouth Great Ropehouse (1771, 1/65), north elevation,
when it ceased making rope in 1868. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 320. Keystone (probably twentieth century) on the north elevation of the vehicular arch cut
through the former Portsmouth Great Ropehouse (1771, 1/65) in 1868. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced
Fig. 321. AA98/04648. Portsmouth Dockyard prints FL00981. Photograph (1956) by Eric de Mare
of the western gable of Portsmouth Great Ropehouse (1771), before the roof and windows were
substantially altered in the 1960s. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 322. P96/01/60. Photograph of the interior of the Ropehouse, undergoing conversion (June
1960). Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Lying between Stony Lane to the north and Anchor Lane to the south is Storehouse No. 18/Great
Ropehouse (1771, 1/65, Grade II*, 1272305 (listing shared with 1/75), CA 22, MoD, SU 630230 005510).
Its location has not changed since it was built in the seventeenth century across the dockyard’s widest
axis. Fires in 1760 and 1770 necessitated its rebuilding in situ, preventing it from being moved to land
to the north which had not yet been reclaimed (Coad 1989, p. 204). In 1859 the House of Commons
Report of the Committee on dockyard economy and the 1861 House of Commons Report of the
Commissioners appointed to inquire into the control and management of Her Majesty’s yards led the Admiralty to introduce
new steam powered machinery to increase rope production at Chatham and Devonport. In 1868, 76
Portsmouth rope makers and spinners were discharged with pensions or gratuities among a total of
2,000 discharges, the result of “reconstruction of the navy by the substitution of ironclad ships”, the
ropehouse locked, with its machinery still within. (House of Commons, 1859; Ryan, 2011, pp. 74-9,
86, citing the Western Daily Mercury 20 May, 13 June 1868; Hamilton, 2005, pp. liii, 63) The arches were
cut through for access.
It appears that a ‘large and interesting’ Dockyard Museum was opened in the Ropehouse in 1911 by
Mark E. Pescott-Frost (1859–1953), Secretary to the Admiral Superintendent. Aberg cites the ‘Dockyard
Museum then [1924] held in the “Old Ropewalk”’ (2005, pp. 360, 363; NMM, SNR/7/2, 7 March 1924–9
July 1924). After Pescott-Frost’s retirement in 1919, and according to Robert Sutherland Horne, the
collection was dispersed to other museums or destroyed.6 (PNBPT; National Portrait Gallery; TNA,
1964–65, CM 1/163) McMurray states that it received around 17,000 visitors a year, but was closed during
the First World War. After the war it declined and it was decided by the SNR during discussions about
the new Victory Gallery that this should supercede the Dockyard Museum, with ‘a substantial number
of Dockyard Museum artefacts’ being incorporated. (McMurray, 2012, pp. 24-5) David Pulvertaft cited
Douglas Owen’s 1913 articles on figurehead collections which referred to ‘“Mr Frost’s delightful little
museum”, the contents of which had also been catalogued and form the basis of today’s collection at
the Royal Naval Museum.’ He noted that ‘the museum was founded in 1906–10’ and its catalogue was
published by Pescott-Frost in 1911. Pulvertaft further recorded that the Royal Sovereign (Queen Victoria)
and Frederick (Frederick, Duke of York, second son of George III) figureheads ‘stood originally just
inside the entrance to the Dockyard Museum but in the 1920s were moved to HMS St Vincent’, where
they had decayed by 1957. (Pulvertaft, 2009, pp. 77, 81, 86) Further clues to the location of the museum
are given in three postcards dating from c.1911–12 (Fig. 304). They show the two figureheads at the
6
Horne noted that the Works Department had a collection of old plans stored in the Pigeon Loft. In 1939 a selection
was made of which should be kept, stored in the Area Office of the Ministry of Public Buildings and Works in
the Dockyard; the rest were destroyed. (TNA, 1964–65, CM 1/163) He ‘worked as an architectural assistant in the
drawing offices of the Department of the Civil Engineer-in-Chief, Navy Works Department and Ministry of Public
Building and Works at HM Dockyard Portsmouth and nearby establishments, circa 1954–1971.
131
foot of a staircase and indicate a location in one of the three Georgian storehouses; the beams, wooden
columns and the stair newel need to be compared with what survives. (G. Malcolmson Collection).
In 1953 The Ropehouse’s reconstruction was a priority, as its floors could not take ‘sufficient weight
for economical storage.’ It became the subject of a Major Works Programme 1957–58 to reconstruct it
for SNSO. (TNA, ADM 1/26499) Five new entrances with folding doors were added to both the north
and south elevations in 1960 and very large entrances were inserted at the western and eastern ends.
All the dormer windows have been removed and a new roof constructed, also in 1960. A plaque
records: ‘No 18 STORE 1095 FEET LONG ORIGINAL ROPE HOUSE BUILT ABOUT 1655 REBUILT
THREE TIMES AFTER FIRES IN 1760, 1770 AND 1775 MODERNISED AND REROOFED 1959–1961’.
The length is significant within the context of intra-dockyard rivalry. Plymouth’s 1774 Ropehouse was
1200 feet long and Chatham’s 1792 Double Ropehouse was 1128 feet long (Coad, 1989, pp. 197, 215).
Effectively the exterior structure is only a skin for the interior steelwork which bears the weight of
the machinery within. In 2014 it was in use as a workshop and to store HMS Victory’s masts while her
hull is refurbished.
East of Storehouse No. 17 is St Ann’s Church (1785, 1/66, Grade II, 1386817, CA 22, MoD, SU 63171
00567). Air raids on 17–18 April and 3 May 1941 badly damaged the west end, roof beams and east
window:
The first, in April 1941, demolished the north-west corner of the church. A fortnight later,
blast from a second bomb entered the open space at the west end and caused further damage
inside the church. Two days later small pieces of brick and other materials began to fall from
the west wall, and later another part tumbled to the ground, taking with it main roof beams
and the belfry. (HE NMR, 1738/41)
The west end was clad in corrugated iron until 1955, repaired by A. E. Cogswell and Son, supervised
by M. J. Dew and Mr Hodgeman, using the original drawings, with new drawings by Diana V. Cundall
but sixteen feet shorter. The ceiling rose survived the bombing. Fragments of the east window were
reused in a memorial fanlight shield by Hugh Easton over the north door. A new east window was
designed by Easton showing a bird’s eye view of the dockyard in 1945, funded by an appeal through
the News and an Admiralty grant, dedicated in 1947. The Chaplain’s offices were built in 1961.
(Lambert, 1993; Smith, 2001, pp. 12-14, 16-18) Together with Devonport Naval Barracks HMS Drake
Chapel of St Nicholas (1905–7, Grade II, 1386364), it still holds services.
Fig. 323. E 48/39. Detail of the west elevation of St Ann’s Church, Portsmouth. Reconstruction
Drawing 1939, signed Diana V. Cundall. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 324. E 48/39. Detail of Cupola, St Ann’s Church, Portsmouth. Reconstruction Drawing 1939,
signed Diana V. Cundall. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Short Row Numbers 10-14 (1787, 1/68-1/72, Grade II*, 1244549, CA 22, MoD, SU 63207 00616) are five
terraced houses designed by Thomas Telford for dockyard officers of a lower rank than those living
in Long Row, built of local red brick in the angle of Bonfire Corner. Two cast iron lamp standards in
front bear the inscription ‘VR 1865’.
Inhabitants 1910 Inhabitants 1993

No. 10 Master Rigger FO Royal Yacht
No. 11 Electrical Engineer COS to CNH
No. 12 Chief Boatswain Commodore HMS Nelson
No. 13 Naval Stores Officer MG Royal Marines
No. 14 Command Surgeon Captain of the Port (Lambert, 1993; HMNBPR, 1992)
132
The Commissioner/C-in-C’s Stables and Coach Keeper’s Quarters dating from 1740 or possibly earlier,
became the ex-Photographic Section Laboratory (closed) (c.1740, 1/121, Grade II, 1244550, CA 22,
MoD, SU 63187 00687). A garage has replaced part of the stables. It is next to a hole made c.1960 in
the original dockyard wall to give access to the two Central Office Blocks 2/11 and 2/10; COB1 was
built in 1965; COB2 in 1972.
At the east end of the Ropehouse on the north side is a covered, vaulted passageway over Stony Lane
(SU 630315 005716) linking it to the Hatchelling House and Hemp House or Store No. 19 (1771, 1/75,
Grade II, 1272305 (shared with 1/65), CA 22, MoD, SU 631518 006360). In 1993 the Hemp House
contained the Naval Base Badminton Court (Lambert, 1993).
To the west along Stony Lane is the red brick Telephone Exchange (1910, 1/76, CA 22, MoD, SU
630896 006173), extended once by 1924 and on three more occasions since then, as the use of this
means of communication has grown. Reflecting the importance of the Exchange is its staggered
entrance, designed to minimise damage from bomb blast.
Fig. 325. PK318/10. Photograph of the Fire Station personnel, police and divers on Parade (c.1900).
HE. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 326. AA034962. Photograph of Portsmouth Fire Station (former water tower), north end looking
south, with the Ropehouse in the background (2005). ©Historic England.
Fig. 327. Original corrugated iron and fittings inside Portsmouth Fire Station (1843, 1/77). A. Coats
Next to it is the Fire Station (1843, 1/77, Grade II, 1272306, CA 22, PNBPT, SU 630704 006224), used
to store Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust Support Group artefacts, having lost its water
tank in 1950. In 1981 the building housed a telephone exchange. The Ancient Monuments Board for
England Panel on Historic Naval Bases contended that it was ‘essential that the basic frame should
be preserved.’ (TNA, 1981, WORK 14/3301) In 1993 it housed the MoD Police Traffic Division
(Lambert, 1993).
Across The Parade is the two storey Laboratory (1848, 1/78, MoD, SU 630058 005841) in light red
brick with stone string courses and cornices, some replaced by concrete. It remained the Central
Dockyard Laboratory until 1991, when it became the Occupational Health Centre, now being used by
the Defence Information Infrastructure.
Storehouse No. 21 (c.1950, 1/79, MoD, SU 630165 006204) south of Jago Road was originally a timber
shed. It has notably large windows and a reinforced concrete frame with brick infill. There is an
internal gantry with a safe working load of 1 ton. At present the building is empty.
Fig. 328. Rainwater hopper dated 1961, west elevation of Portsmouth Fleet Headquarters, Jago Road
Between Admiral’s Walk and Jago Road is Fleet Headquarters (1961, 1/80, MoD, SU 629621 006110),
a four storey red brick structure whose west elevation, facing HMS Victory, has a Georgian air, with no
less than forty-four windows. The rainwater hopper on the western elevation is dated 1961. This is
the rear of the building, the east elevation having the main entrance, very much a modern affair with
steps and a glazed doorway. A map of 1924 indicates that the site was then a shed for timber storage.
Fig. 329. Western entrance to a Portsmouth nineteenth century courtyard surrounded by stores and
workshops (c.1850–90, 1/81) on the site of the original Commissioner’s House (1666). A. Coats
Fig. 330. In Portsmouth Admiral’s Walk, a seven foot wide section of setts running along the north
side of 1/81 (c.1850–90). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 199. Set into the south elevation of Portsmouth Building 1/81 is a dressed Portland stone or
133
replacement concrete plaque which reads ‘Under this Stone theres a water Beer’, marking an old
well or water tank surviving from the seventeenth century dockyard. This would have supplied the
garden to the original Commissioner’s House (1666) which lay north of Stony Lane until the house
was demolished in the 1780s. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
The DSG Medical and Dental Servicing Section (c.1850–90, 1/81, MoD, SU 62975 00576) is entered
from the west through double wooden gates with an embedded cannon at either side. Within the
courtyard formed by the outer ring of two-storey red brick buildings is the two storey, irregularly
glazed corrugated iron former Wheelwright’s Shop (c.1850, 1/82). Used as such until the 1950s, this
is now a store, built on the site of an earlier building. Thales workshops occupy the buildings around
the central courtyard, accessed through a northern set of double gates. On the north and south sides
respectively are Latrines 1/83A and 1/83. There is a first floor link from Storehouse No. 21 above
1/83A. In 1924 the whole complex, occupying the same footprint, comprised Workshops; the same
plan shown on the 1900 HE map MD95/03034. Lambert (1993) stated that the complex was originally
the site of a Deal Yard at the east end and a Mason’s Yard established after the first Commissioner’s
house was demolished in the 1780s. By 1850 the east store was a Paint Store, with a Smithery, Joiners’
Shop and Store Rooms located around the central open space by 1890. Lean-to buildings were built
along the south side, in Stoney Lane, by 1880 for stores, quarters for the Fire Engine Man, Stables, and
a Mortuary. The Mortuary was demolished c.1987. Along Admiral’s Walk on the north side of 1/81,
running for approximately fifty feet, is a seven foot wide section of setts.
Scott Road Offices, formerly the Hemp Tarring House, then the Boiler Shop West (1771, 1/84, Grade
II, 1272313, MoD, SU 629311 005491), lie between Stony Lane and Scott Road. Part is now used as
a Firearms Training Centre. At the eastern end, oriented south-north, is a smaller building (1/84A)
with distinctively different architecture. It has purely aesthetic gables above three large round-headed
windows at each end and a partly glazed roof. First noted on an 1807 map, called the Tar House
in 1860, an 1887 map describes it as a mortuary (Wessex Archaeology, 2004); some rebuilding was
carried out in the early twentieth century. It is has since 2004 stored archives of the Naval Historical
Branch.
Fig. 331. Rainwater hopper dated 1931 on Portsmouth South Office Block Annexe (1931, 1/87C). A.
At the Main Road end of Scott Road is South Office Block Annexe (1931, 1/87C, MoD, SU 628843
005335). This is a single storey building in light brown brick with a pitched roof and particularly
decorative window surrounds facing Main Road, creating a neo-Georgian appearance. A rainwater
hopper is dated 1931. It was linked to another building attached to the Ropehouse. Almost certainly
this was the original entrance, a view supported by the presence in front of a small garden with chain
railing. The building was used as a Naval Stores Office and in 1992 the Command Communications
Office. It is now empty. The statues of William III and Captain Robert Falcon Scott were in front of
the building from before 1967 until 1999/2000, facing the three storehouses. After the Second World
War, Commander Peter Scott had been ‘disappointed to see his father’s statue hidden by shrubs in
the Parade, where it had been damaged by German bomb splinters and pigeon droppings.’ In 2000
they were moved to the Porter’s Garden near Victory Gate. (Pevsner & Lloyd, 1990, p. 411; Patterson,
2000, pp. 1-2)
Facing HMS Victory is South Office Block (1786, 1/88, Grade II*, 1272314, MoD, SU 628955 005620).
The west wing is one of the few buildings in the old part of the Yard fulfilling its original function.
The east wing was converted from a store in the nineteenth century.
North of South Office Block and between Dock Nos 2, 3 and 4 were a number of small buildings,
all removed in 2010 for the new Mary Rose Museum. The Destroyer’s Store (1900, 1/92, PT) was
used by the Mary Rose Trust and known as the Shiphall Workshop. The Dock Shed (1900, 1/93, PT)
was rebuilt in 1972 and then leased to the Mary Rose Trust. The Bath House (1935, 1/95, PT) was
refurbished in 1972 and after 1982 was a Mary Rose Trust store. Buildings 1/91-1/95 were demolished
134
in 2010 under Conservation Area Consent (08/02220/CON, 2009), under which Gifford recorded
Buildings 1/91 to 1/94 to English Heritage Level 2 and Building 1/95 to English Heritage Level 1, to
preserve by record their character and relationships to the historic development of the dockyard.
(English Heritage, 2006, p. 14)
Fig. 332. 23852/25 SU 6300/79. Aerial photograph of the Mary Rose Ship Hall in Dock No. 2 from
the northwest, before its redesign and the demolition of the buildings either side in 2010 (11 Apr
2005). ©Historic England.
Building 1/91: Trafalgar Building
1887–1901 - the former working shed was built (1901 OS map).
1910–1933 - a possible small extension was added to the east end (1933 OS map).
1939–1959 - it was converted to a First Aid Station during the Second World War and the
Cold War, including a decontamination room in case of aerial gas attack. A basement was
constructed as a bomb refuge, two storey boiler house and chimney and exit baffles to
mitigate bomb damage were added.
1962–1978 - A storey was added, plus an extension to the west and an external flight of
stairs to the east end projection, with an alteration to the south west extension.
Post 1978 - During 1993 the building was refurbished with uPVC windows. A suspended
polystyrene tile ceiling was added in 2001. From the 1990s part of the building was used
by HMS Victory tour guides and crew and visitors. Probably only the external walls survived
from the original working shed. The basement of the east range is entered from stairs at
the south east of the building. The walls are double thickness pink-brown bricks in English
bond. The ceilings are concrete slabs supported by concrete beams resting on iron or steel
joists. (Gifford, 2009)
Building 1/92: Mary Rose Ship Hall a former Destroyer’s Store;
1887–1901 - a possible store and saw house are shown partially within the footprint of
Building 1/92 on a map from 1774. There was no evidence of them above ground. No
buildings are shown in the 1887 map. On the 1901 OS map they are labelled together as a
Working Shed.
These buildings first appear on the 1910 OS map respectively as the Destroyer’s Store and
Working Shed. Elements dating from this period are English bond brickwork, bull’s eye
brick detailing at the gable end of 1/92, shallow buttresses, wooden framed sash windows,
and riveted double fink type steel trusses.
1951–1977 - a 1962 architect’s plan proposed alterations to add a hot water system: blocking
up the louvre within the east gable bull’s eye and adding a new door at the gable end
to provide access to the new boiler. Corrugated metal roof and panelling may have been
added to the elevations of 1/93 between the 1950s and 1977. By 1977 the two buildings had
become one structure.
Building 1/94: Latrine Block
There were some earlier sheds on the site since at least 1910. It was constructed as a latrine
between 1951 and 1962. Post 1951 or 1962 a ramp and double doors were possibly added
to the north elevation. It went out of use as a latrine by the 1980s and was used for storage
by the Mary Rose Trust.
Building 1/95: Shower Block/shed, a former workshop
1933–1937 - the building first appears as a wash house on the 1937 OS map.
135
1970–1977 - the building was altered internally with structural repairs to the south and west
elevations and another door added to the north elevation with an access ramp. Architects’
plans show an officers’ washroom to the east and the ratings’ washroom to the west; a
central boiler house, drying rooms and projecting oil store. It was declared unsafe in the
early twenty-first century.
For all these buildings see Gifford (2009).
On Main Road at the junction of the heritage area and naval base is a small glass-fronted and timber-
backed octagonal Security Office (1986, 1/101, SU 629014 004604), known as Lion Gate, where
permits are issued to visitors wishing to enter the Naval Base. The office was created when the steel
fencing was erected in 1986 round the boundary of the heritage area as a precaution against IRA
terrorism, the threat of which caused the Yard to be closed to visitors between November 1984 and
January 1985 (Riley, 1987). Ironically a Health and Safety official commented that the pointed tops
to the railings were potentially hazardous. A second rectangular glass fronted Security Office (1/102)
and gate are adjacent to Victory Arena (SU 628430 005732).
Fig. 333. MD95/03099 (c.1797). Plan and Sections, Great Basin Entrance and South Dock, Plan
of Improvements proposed by Samuel Bentham. HM Dockyard, Portsmouth. Reproduced by
Fig. 334. J195/01/71. Photograph of Basin No. 1 and Docks 1-5 looking east pre-Mary Rose and
pre-Monitor HMS M33 (28 Apr 1971). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Facing Victory Building (1/100) to the west, across Main Road, lie Basin No. 1 (1698, 1801) and six
docks (SAM397, 1001852/Grade I, 1272267, CA 22, SU 627961 007185) dating from between 1698 and
1803, arguably one of the finest collections of stone docks in Britain, if not in the world. Inevitably
structures so elderly have been modified, but fundamentally little has changed, certainly in the
twentieth century, since the modern navy has scant need for such small docks. From around 1815
until at least the 1880s, Dock Nos 3-6 had wooden roofs (Coad 1989, pp. 110-13; Hawkins, 2014).
In the 1980s their future was not assured, as ‘there were suggestions for a car park in the area.’ The
Ancient Monuments Board for England Panel on Historic Naval Bases recommended that ‘they should
be maintained in a reasonable condition….that those docks in the best condition should be repaired
in real stone’, the others to be repaired in concrete, ‘provided it was done more skillfully than in the
past.’ (TNA, 1981, WORK 14/3301)
Fig. 335. Dock No. 1 (6.1.1909). Photograph of completed extension, looking northeast. TNA,
ADM 195/79 (1857–1915). 100 photographs depicting construction works at Portsmouth Dockyard.
Dock No. 1 (1801, SAM397, 1001852/Grade I, 1272267, CA 22, SU 627708 006263) has been modified
at its head to maximise the space available for iron-hulled ships’ bows. The extension work, consisting
of shuttered concrete, was completed in 1909. On 12 August 1940 the dock wall on the south side
was ‘severely damaged, water and air mains severed.’ (TNA, ADM 1/10949) It was evidently hit
again on 10 March 1941, a section of the upper vertical wall on the south side near the dock head
being demolished (photograph held by NMRN). The dock was finally closed in 1984. Compressed
air capstans, dated 1902 and 1911, are located at the entrance, but in fact the dock has been cut
off from the Harbour following the construction of Victory Jetty as a berth for naval vessels in the
1990s. Before this took place the First World War monitor, M33, later named HMS Minerva, owned by
Hampshire County Council, entered the dock, where it was refurbished and opened briefly to the
public. It has been refitted in a joint project with the National Museum of the Royal Navy to mark the
100th anniversary of the 1915 Gallipoli campaign (National Historic Ships Register), opening to the
public as HMS M33 in 2015.
Dock No. 2 (1802, SAM397, 1001852/Grade I, 1272267, CA 22, SU 628477 006170) is the least altered
of the group, partly because since 12 January 1922 HMS Victory has been positioned within, a concrete
136
lock gate sealing off what is a permanently dry dock from the Basin. The pattern of the stone steps
on the floor of the dock may be seen thanks to the location of Victory on a cradle which equates her
level at sea with that of the surrounding quayside. To the east of the dock were sited a two storey,
narrow Amenity Centre (1935, 1/91, q.v.) for staff serving on Victory, and associated buildings 1/921-
1/95 already described, demolished in 2010 to create space for the new approach to the Mary Rose.
A cast iron lamp standard inscribed ‘VR’ is close to the dock on the southeast corner.
Fig. 336. Cross-section of Mary Rose within Dock No. 3 (1803). Wilkinson Eyre Architects, 2012.
Fig. 337. Lower ground floor plan of Mary Rose within Dock No. 3 (1803).
Wilkinson Eyre Architects, 2012.
Fig. 338. Western profile of the new timber-clad Mary Rose Museum at Portsmouth (2013). A. Coats
2013. PNBPT. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
Dock No. 3 (1803, SAM397, 1001852/Grade I, 1272267, CA 22, SU 628908 006726) was at one time
covered with a wooden roof. In 1859 the shipwright officers advised retaining the roof, since it “is
the only dock at this yard suitable for extensive repairs to large ships.” The Surveyor, Sir Baldwin
Wake Walker, concurred. But this had been removed by 1910, when such roofs were considered
unnecessary for working on metal ships. The dock head was lengthened in 1858, making it 263 feet
6 inches long, with further length to be added at the stern. In June 1859 the Director of Works, Col.
G. T. Greene, agreed that a caisson would be substituted for the gate. (Hamilton, 2005, pp. 48-9) In
1982 the dock became home to the hull of the Mary Rose, which was then enclosed within a temporary
structure.
An Archaeological Watching Brief commissioned by the Mary Rose Trust investigated ‘various large
stone-built dock-side structures, both contemporary with, and post-dating the Dry Dock itself,…
along with a stone-built drainage culvert that may pre-date the dock.’ (Watson, 2011, p. 4) Technically
innovative mortar dating from 1799–1803 has been noted in Part 1. The archaeologists found that in
1924 ‘the upper altars of the south wall were in-filled with mass concrete to facilitate the construction
of a platform to support crane rails’ and in 1934 the dock floor was reconstructed with an in situ
concrete floor slab. Mary Rose and her support frame were placed in the dock in 1983, supported by
a ‘number of brick and concrete plinths’ resting on the dock floor and altars, and a lightweight roof
was built to cover the ship. In 1989 a permanent concrete dam replaced the ship caisson. (Watson,
2011, pp. 13-15, 61)
The new Mary Rose Museum (2013) fits within the ‘geometry of the dry dock where the Mary Rose
is berthed’, fittingly close to where her keel was originally laid in 1509. Engineers Bouygues Warings,
with ECE Architects and CSC Engineers, placed the main steel structure on four piled supports
outside and spanning the dock, producing a low building, with a lighter internal frame bearing partly
within the dock. (AJ Buildings Library, 2012; Mary Rose, Portsmouth Historic Dockyard, 2013; Current
Archaeology, 2013; Jackson, 2013; Ijey, 2013) The hull’s ‘toroidal geometry’ generated Wilkinson Eyre’s
elliptical ship hall. Pringle Brandon Perkins+Will designed the museum ‘from the inside-out’, with
intentionally claustrophobic galleries and inclined walkways. The north and south pavilions housing
ancillary functions have been criticised as “boxy limpets”, lacking the strength of the hall and limiting
views to the waterfront, although Mara considers that the curves encourage ‘the eye to look around
and beyond’ the building. Its considerable internal volume and void will be environmentally controlled
until the water has been removed from the hull in 2017. Ijey perceives the ‘“black hole” profile’ as
a ‘void’, and reflects that the ‘restrained architecture…creates a palpable and compelling sense of
absence’, but to Mara it is a ‘bulky sarcophagus-like volume’. Its external black carvel planking to
Wainwright evokes the ‘timeless, primitive sense of an ancient vessel’. (CABE, 2009; Wainwright,
2013; Ijey, 2013; Mara, 2013) The timbers are ‘stained black to reflect England’s vernacular boat shed
architecture. Inscriptions drawn from the ciphers used by the crew of the Mary Rose to identify their
personal belongings have been carved into the shell.’
137
New Mary Rose Museum Statistics:

Architect: Wilkinson Eyre Architects
Interior Architects: Pringle Brandon
Exhibition Design: Land Design Studio
Structural Engineers: Ramboll
Mechanical & Electrical Engineers: Ramboll
Area: 4,500m²
Value: £27m
Completed: May 2013 (Wilkinson Eyre, 2013)
Dock No. 4 (1772, SAM397, 1001852/Grade I, 1272267, CA 22, SU 628824 007220) was in 1859
extended at the head to 263 feet 6 inches and further lengthened at the stern, with a caisson to replace
the gate. The roof required extensive repairs so the Director of Works, Col. G. T. Greene ordered it
to be removed. (Hamilton, 2005, pp. 48-9) The dock was further modified by the construction of a
travelling crane on its north side; since these devices were not introduced until after the First World
War, this was probably interwar. In order to give the crane jib maximum reach, the top five steps of
the dock side were blocked with concrete and one of the crane tracks was built above it, making the
dock sides asymmetric. One of the tracks is still visible. The dock was closed in 1983. During the First
World War an emergency electric power station was built on the north side of the Dock; the engine
was a Ljunstrom steam turbine (Anon, 1929, p. 20).
Erected between Dock Nos 4 and 5 was a Dock Shed (c.1900, 1/99, PNBPT, SU 628580 007463),
becoming a store in 1913 and much later in 1990 used as a workshop by the HMS Minerva M33/
Restoration Team. Free space between these docks is allocated to car parking.
Dock No. 5 (1698, SAM397, 1001852/Grade I, 1272267, CA 22, SU 628855 007688) had its timber roof
removed c.1910, while the head was slightly extended eastwards to accommodate the bows of metal
vessels, probably at the same time. A travelling crane was built into the north side, the top three steps
forming the concrete base for one of the tracks. The dock was closed in 1983.
Fig. 339. Portsmouth Dock No. 6 (1700), showing disintegration of the lower altar stones through
weathering. Following the straightening of the western jetties for the new Queen Elizabeth class
aircraft carriers in the early 2000s, it is no longer connected to the harbour and no longer has the
environmental protection of seawater. A. Coats 2012. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Dock No. 6 (1700, SAM397, 1001852/Grade I, 1272267, CA 22, SU 627961 008166) closely retains its
eighteenth century form since the proximity of its head to the Block Mills (q.v.) militated against it
being lengthened by more than few yards, again in shuttered concrete. It had a wooden roof from at
least 1832 until after 1875 (Coad, 1989, pp. 110, 113). The rebuilding of Sheer Jetty (1800–4) in the
1990s resulted in the dock losing its access to the harbour; it is now an isolated structure since its
closure in 1984, protected only by its listed status. Re-use for such a structure is not apparent. As the
stonework is no longer submerged in water it is exposed to weathering by sun and frost and the lower
altar stones are disintegrating: ‘The dock is suffering from rotation and mortar joints on the stonework
altars on the north side have opened up.’ (English Heritage, 2013, South East Heritage at Risk Register, p. 72)
In comparison with the surrounding docks, Basin No. 1 (1698, 1801, SAM397, 1001852/Grade I,
1272267, CA 22, SU 627961 007185) has been little altered since its 1801 extension. The chief change
has been the removal of fixed cranes, a travelling crane on the north side, the 25 ton capacity sheer
legs on the west side, one of whose base plates survives, and the 30 ton capacity sheer legs on
the harbour side. The sheer legs were scrapped c.1920 and replaced with cranes. There were also
travelling cranes on Pitch House Jetty (1690–1700) (where some pitch houses remained until c.1910)
and Sheer Jetty giving on to the harbour, respectively south and north of the entrance to the Basin.
138
Sheer Jetty (1800–4), also known as Masting Sheers Jetty in c.1830, was extended westward into
the harbour in the 1920s and 1930s beyond the sea wall, using reinforced concrete; it was further
extended c.2000 and is now termed Victory Jetty, blocking the former entrance to Dock No. 6. The
entrance to the Basin may have been retained, but the new linear jetty on the seaward side of this
area of the yard is indicative of its function – no building, no repairing facilities; simply berthing
accommodation. Boathouse Jetty lay between King’s Stairs and Dock No. 1. When Basin No. 1 was
extended to the south in 1790–1810, and the three storehouses had been built, it may have referred
to the boathouses west of Storehouse No. 11. At the northwest corner of the yard, North Railway
Jetty (1780, 1790) was rebuilt in stone in 1790 to form the entrance to the new North Camber. It
became North Railway Jetty when the yard’s line was extended there in 1870. (Lambert, 1993) In the
1760s four slips and jetties were built on reclaimed land, a fifth in 1845. Around 1900 the slips were
modified for the rearmament programme, producing South, Middle and North Slip Jetties.
North Wall Jetty extended along the northern face of the reclaimed land as far as the first entrance
into Basin No. 2. After 1876, when the entrance to Basin No. 2 was re-sited, it was renamed North
Corner Jetty, its continuation forming the southwest wall of the Tidal Basin, which became South
West Wall. South Wall Jetty (1840s) runs along the south of the Tidal Basin between Basin No. 2 and
Dock No. 9. North Wall (1863–72) opposite was originally the south side of the old Coaling Point; it
is now the north side of the Tidal Basin, ‘70 ft from cope to cope’. Movement was observed in 1891
and recorded regularly, although the report stated that the recordings had not been correlated. In
1949 it was decided to strengthen the wall by a large shingle bank and restore berths lost by wartime
bombing by a reinforced concrete slab jetty supported on pre-stressed concrete piles, to carry cranes,
railways and services. This was carried out in four stages between the early 1950s and 1963. (TNA,
CM 1/277) North West Wall Jetty (1867) was originally the side of the Fitting Out Basin No. 3; it now
forms the northwest side of a reduced Pocket in Basin No. 3. When Fountain Lake Jetty (1867) was
completed it included a north entrance into Rigging Basin No. 4. This was closed c.1912 when access
to Basin No. 3 was through C and D Locks. The jetty was widened to accommodate travelling cranes.
(Lambert, 1993) It was hit by a bomb on 24 August 1940, demolishing thirty feet of masonry (TNA,
ADM 1/10949).
Fig. 340. Portsmouth Joiners Shop 3.2.1911. TNA, ADM 195/79 (1857–1915). 100 photographs
depicting: construction works at Portsmouth Dockyard. Reproduced with the permission of
Fig. 341. Portsmouth Victory Building 1/100 (Feb 1992). BAES. The [former] Site. Defence Works
Service (Nov 1991). Option Study Annex A. Cecil Denny Highton for Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick,
HQ 2SL/CNH HMNB Portsmouth. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 342. Portsmouth Victory Building 1/100 (Feb 1992 ). BAES. Cecil Denny Highton for Scott
Wilson Kirkpatrick, HQ 2SL/CNH HMNB Portsmouth, Location of New Building. Defence Works
Service (Nov 1991). Option Study Annex A. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 343. Portsmouth Victory Building. 1/100 (Feb 1992). BAES. Cecil Denny Highton for Scott
Wilson Kirkpatrick, HQ 2SL/CNH HMNB Portsmouth, west, south, east elevations. Defence Works
Service (Nov 1991). Option Study Annex A. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 344. Portsmouth Victory Building 1/100 (Feb 1992). BAES. Cecil Denny Highton for Scott Wilson
Kirkpatrick, HQ 2SL/CNH HMNB Portsmouth, north elevation. Defence Works Service (Nov 1991).
Option Study Annex A. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 345. Portsmouth Victory Building 1/100 (Feb 1992). BAES. Cecil Denny Highton for Scott
Wilson Kirkpatrick, HQ 2SL/CNH HMNB Portsmouth, plan. Defence Works Service (Nov 1991).
Option Study Annex A. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 346. 15800/32 SU 6200/16. Aerial photograph of the Victory Building from the southeast
(9 Sept 1997). ©Crown copyright.HE
139
Fig. 347. One of the concrete entrance piers, east of Portsmouth Victory Building (1993, 1/100),
dated 1984. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 55. East-facing neoclassical portico of Portsmouth Victory Building (1993, 1/100) incorporating
the lion and the unicorn from two of the dockyard gates. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the
Lying between the docks and The Parade, the wide space between the front of Long Row and the
four great Georgian storehouses has undergone considerable late twentieth century alteration. It was
used originally for timber storage and associated saw pits. Subsequently another Joiners’ Shop (1911,
1/107) and a Timber Storehouse (1894, 1/115) were erected. The latter ran parallel to Main Road and
was unusual in having a rail-side raised platform to facilitate movement to and from wagons. Other
edifices such as a Medical Records Store (1939, 1/110), a Mould Loft (1891, 1/119), an Amenity Centre
(1966, 1/112), and a Surgery (1902, 1/116), approximating 9,877m2 overall, have been replaced by
Victory Building (1993, 1/100, MoD, SU 629727 007191), none of the former deemed to have been of
‘any architectural or historic interest’. The headquarters of the Naval Base Commander was designed
by Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick to ‘emulate the naval architecture of neighbouring historic buildings’,
the foundation stone being laid in 1992. It is a modern neoclassical three storey steel-framed office
complex aligned north-south in an H plan, with three internal courtyards including a fish pond. The
pitched roof is of Welsh slate and its bricks have the colours light red and blue merging, causing the
new building to stand out from the surrounding Georgian reds. The main entrance faces east towards
The Parade, the doors beneath a large reconstituted stone pediment bearing a low relief of a lion
and a unicorn and supported on reconstituted stone columns. Both the north and south elevations
boast twin pediments, as does that facing west over Basin No. 1 (q.v.), bearing fouled anchors, white
painted pilasters being much in evidence. First floor storey-height sash windows disperse natural
light throughout the building. Testifying to contemporary workers’ transport is a car park at the front,
taking up an area similar to the building itself. The date on the entrance pier is 1984, indicating an
earlier design phase. (BAES, Unicorn, Nov 2001, Technical Inspection Report, pp 2, 8; BAES, 13 Dec
1995, MSG Study 09/95/01, Plans and elevations)
To the north of Fleet Headquarters in Jago Road and Storehouse No. 21, bounded by Jago Road (SU
630032 006307) on the south and Murray’s Lane (SU 629935 008135) to the north, are located four
Georgian buildings forming a rectangle, all with similar characteristics: rectangular in plan with a
central covered yard, around which were small workshops, giving the appearance of a flatted factory.
That to the south-west is Storehouse No. 24 (1789, 1/117, Grade II*, 1244580, CA 22, MoD, SU 629696
006516); it originally included a mould loft, but in 1930 was substantially altered by the addition of an
upper storey and converted internally in 2004 to house the MoD Admiralty Library, Naval Historical
Branch, Portsmouth. Contractors working in the central courtyard in 1984 revealed a cobblestone
floor. To the south-east Storehouse No. 25 (1786, 1/118, Grade II*, 1244578, 1244578, CA 22, SU 630283
006554) had a mould loft on the upper floor, operational until the 1980s. Twentieth century buildings
in the courtyard were demolished in 2011 (Bolger, pers. comm. 2013). It is reported to be ‘In fair
condition but vacant. Future use uncertain.’ (English Heritage, October 2013, p. 72) The original
roadway separating the stores has been covered by a concrete slab and a one storey link.
Fig. 348. J198/01/71. (28 Apr 1971). Photograph of Storehouse No. 25, southwest corner. ©Crown
copyright.HE.
Fig. 349. J198/04/71. Storehouse No. 25 doorway (28 Apr 1971). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Facing the storehouses and The Parade are 1-8 Long Row and Mountbatten House (1715–19, 1/124-
1/132, Grade II*, 1272307, CA 22, MoD, SU 63095 007720), a terrace of nine very fine houses built to
house the Principal Officers who were previously scattered elsewhere in the dockyard (Coad, pp. 52-
4; HE, MD95/03034). They were stuccoed in the early nineteenth century. In 1832 the southernmost
house, now called Mountbatten House, was enlarged for the Admiral Superintendent and its entrance
moved to face south. In the garden is an Icehouse (1/119, MoD, SU 63117 00648). Hampshire Treasures
140
(1986, p. 43) dates this to c.1840, stating that ice was brought from the Baltic each spring and that it
was used as an air raid shelter in the Second World War. It now contains toilets. The NDS suggests
that it could originally have been the mound at the end of the first Commissioner’s garden upon which
William III’s statue was first displayed in 1718. Nos 1-8 were converted to office use c.1990.
Occupants 1910 Occupants 1993
1 Captain of the Yard FOSF Residence
2 Manager Constructive Department FOSF Offices
3 Manager Electrical Department FOSF Offices
4 A/Captain of the Yard FOSF Offices
5 Electrical Engineer FOSF Offices
6 Constructor FOSF Offices
7 Commander in Chief’s Secretary RN Positive Vetting Unit
8 Admiral’s Secretary RN Positive Vetting Unit
9 Admiral Superintendent Flag Officer Portsmouth (Lambert, 1993)
On The Parade are three cast iron lamp standards dated 1845 (Hampshire Treasures, 1986, p. 43) To the east at
the rear of Long Row the Top Deck Canteen (1/134) was built in 1973 to serve the adjacent Central Office
Blocks. It was demolished in 2005 due to structural defects in the concrete (Bolger, pers. comm. 2013).
Fig. 350. Portsmouth Iron Foundry and Subsidiary Buildings, Basement and Ground Floor Plans,
BAES. MPBW (June 1964). 1/136 and 1/140. Drawing no. 980/64. Reproduced with the permission
of the MoD.
Fig. 351. Portsmouth Iron Foundry Structural Appraisal, First Floor Detail section drawing. 1/136.
BAES. Evans Grant via Unicorn (Feb–Apr 1997). Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
On the south side of Victoria Road, in an architectural style matching the Iron and Brass Foundry (q.v.)
and the Post Office (q.v.), and contiguous with the latter, is the Gunnery Gear Store and Pattern Shop
(1857, 1/136, Grade II*, 1272310 (shared with 1/140), MoD, SU 631594 008265), the east wing of the
Iron and Brass Foundry. It remains unused and at risk due to water ingress. (English Heritage, 2013,
South East Heritage at Risk Register, p. 71) By 1930, pattern-making had been moved into the upper floor of
the south-western part of the Iron and Brass Foundry, whose roof beams are dated 1875, the building
becoming a Dining Room, although pattern making was still operation in 1983. Evans Grant reported
‘We understand that the last smelting in the Foundry took place in 1983 with machinery being shipped
out in 1984.’ (BAES, Evans Grant, Feb 1997, Structural Survey, p. 2) It is now termed the Auto Control
Workshop. A survey carried out in 1997 found that first floor timber joists rested on 100mm thick
brick arches supported by primary steel plate girder beams and secondary cast iron beams. Water was
penetrating the west elevation. (BAES, Evans Grant, Feb 1997, Structural Survey, pp. 4-5)
Fig. 352. Former Portsmouth Chief Inspector’s Office (1857, 1/138) at the western side of the first
Marlborough Gate, adjoining the original Dockyard Wall (1711). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with
Fig. 353. Cannon protecting the northeast corner of the former Portsmouth Chief Inspector’s Office
Fig. 354. Western gate pier of the first Portsmouth Marlborough Gate (1711, 1/138). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 355. Plinth bearing a broad arrow at the base of the western gate pier of the first Portsmouth
Marlborough Gate (1711, 1/138). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
141
Fig. 200. Ivy Lane runs east-west between the north side of Portsmouth Long Row Officers’
Houses (1715–19, 1/124-132) and the south of the Iron and Brass Foundry (1854, 1/140), then turns
north following the west side of the 1711 dockyard wall, meeting Victoria Road. A. Coats 2013.
Some original structures remain of the early Victorian Yard, in some cases a consequence of listing.
On the eastern side of Marlborough Road, attached to the original dockyard wall, is the small, square
in plan, two storey building known as the Whitley Rooms (1857, 1/138, Grade II, 1272309, MoD, SU
631825 008399), also known as Ivy Lane Cottage. This was the Chief Inspector’s office at the western
side of the original Marlborough Gate. A notice outside describes it as gunnery gear store, but since
the entrance doors are narrow – one being stepped – it can hardly have been a conventional store. It
is now empty. The pillar on the east elevation bearing a broad arrow on its plinth may have been the
gate pier to which the gate was fixed. The building on the east side of the gate, constructed in 1848
and later used as a drawing office, was demolished in 1955.
On the north-east corner of the Iron Foundry is the former Marlborough Gate Post Office (1857, 1/139,
MoD, SU 631622 008427), sited there from c.1905 to 1990. Marlborough Gate, termed Factory Gate in
1854, was relocated further south to Bonfire Corner in 1944, after which the premises became trades
union offices.
Fig. 356. West elevation of the refurbished Portsmouth Iron and Brass Foundry (1854, 1/140), now
BAES HQ. A. Coats 2012. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
To the east of The Parade is the monumental Iron and Brass Foundry (1854, 1/140, Grade II*, 1272310
(shared with 1/136), MoD, SU 631244 008193). In 1956–58 the Modernisation and Development
Programme planned to demolish and reconstruct it on the same site to ‘Conform to new Foundry
Regulations’ and ‘modernise for efficient output.’ It noted that if this were not carried out, the Foundry
would have to be extended into the Post Office site and improvements would need to be made to
the cupola furnaces (TNA, 1956–58, ADM 1/26499). This was not carried out and it closed in 1982,
becoming No. 35 Store. The original building housed (Lambert, 1993):
140A Sailmakers/Laggers’ workshop and offices
140B Lay-apart Store
140C
Workshop
140D Store
140E Pattern Trimming Shop
140H Liferaft Repair Shop
140J Patternmakers’ Workshop
Later were added:
140K Telecom Test House 1948
140L Paint Store 1939
FM2 Store 1939
The foundry was modified in 2011 by the removal of external pipework, wall crane, and stairways and
restoration of inner brickwork and ironwork in conversion to BAE Systems offices, with appropriate
glazed entrance doors to The Parade.
To the south of Basin No. 2, across Victoria Road, is the Brass Foundry/34 Store (1848, 1/142, Grade II,
1272308, MoD, SU 630410 008355), now a store/office, with no trace of its original function, although
the gantry crane is dated 1860. It is named the Lancelot Building, for the Commodore Portsmouth
Flotilla. It has concrete cills with some granite and some brick footings, and three double metal
142
doors inserted into the northern entrances. The Steel Foundry (1925, 1/143, MoD, SU 630063 008355)
is a relatively small single storey brick edifice with structural steel by Dorman Long, sporting an
interior gantry crane, but now used as a store. At its closure in 1983 a 3-phase electric arc furnace
was still in place. Outside in Murray’s Lane until 1985 remained one of the yard’s railway turntables
by Kilmarnock Engineering, the solution to the problem of moving railway wagons in and out of
buildings where there was insufficient space for curved rail track. It has plaques bearing the date on
each end of the south elevation. To the east of the Brass Foundry is the Georgian North Office Block,
Main Road, (1791, 1/144, Grade II, 1272311; Victoria Road (1791, 1/144, Grade II, 1272312, MoD, SU
629586 008354), which in 1993 took staff from the COBs.
Fig. 357. Storehouse No. 33 before reconstruction after fire 23.3.1908, photograph no. 99. TNA,
ADM 195/79 (1857–1915). 100 photographs depicting: construction works at Portsmouth Dockyard.
Fig. 358. Wrought iron lamp bracket on Portsmouth Storehouse No. 33 (1786, 1/150). A. Coats, 2013.
The north-eastern of the group of four Georgian storehouses is Storehouse No. 34 (c.1786, c.1955,
1/149, MoD, SU 630246 007904), originally a Joiners’ Shop. It was badly damaged in 1941, the only part
considered to be worth saving being the ground floor on the south side, above which a new storey
was built. The remainder of the site was rebuilt as a single storey in matching architectural style with
that on the south side. The whole is now used by BAES for non-magnetic bulk parts. On the south
side of Murray’s Lane is the north-western of the four storehouses. Storehouse No. 33 (1786, 1/150,
Grade II*, 1272289, MoD, SU 629652 007885) suffered a fire in 1908 which appears to have gutted the
top floor. A picture was taken after the fire and before reconstruction (TNA, 23.3.1908, ADM 195/79,
photograph no. 99). It was given an additional floor in 1939 with a steel frame and reinforced concrete
slab floor. It was damaged on 24 August 1940, blast and flying debris causing damage to nearby
buildings, estimated to cost £11,000 to clear and repair:
the bomb pierced the slate roof and concrete slab and, bursting on the first floor, blew the
walls out and thus collapsed the building as the R.C. slab broke up into very large areas
as much as 10’ and 20’. A length of approximately 70-ft from the West end was completely
demolished to ground level (TNA, ADM 1/10949)
In 1981 the Ancient Monuments Board for England Panel on Historic Naval Bases noted that it was
being used for flagmaking, employing an ‘old manually operated rope-making machine’ which was
‘18th century and could well predate the machinery at Chatham Ropery.’ The Panel urged that it be
recorded, ‘this being the sort of object which could easily be scrapped when it became redundant.’
(TNA, 1981, WORK 14/3301) It was formerly the office of the Yard Services Manager; it is now
occupied by Defence Estates. An oil lamp bracket lingers above a door in Murray’s Lane, indicative of
the means of lighting before the advent of electricity.
From the foregoing it is clear that while Georgian buildings dominated what may be termed the
Georgian dockyard, nineteenth and twentieth century buildings are also present. By the same token a
small number of eighteenth century structures are found north of the old shoreline which represents
the southern margin of the early Victorian yard marked by Victoria Road. In fact three building slips
were constructed on made ground north of the shoreline, known as North Corner, between 1764 and
1784. The early Victorian yard is the area associated with the Steam Basin, constructed in 1848 as the
navy began to switch to steam-driven vessels.
The area north of Victoria Road and west of Basin No. 2 or Steam Basin (1848, SU 630205 010079),
terminating at North Corner Jetty, has undergone more fundamental changes than elsewhere in the
dockyard. Whereas most of the buildings in the Georgian yard have lost their original use, but have
been retained largely consequent upon their listed status, this part of the yard possessed only four
such structures, making it possible for virtually everything else to be cleared after the 1981 Fleet
143
Review (Secretary of State for Defence, 1981). Chiefly because of the growing reliance on nuclear
submarines, the review scaled down the number of surface vessels, reducing the need for repair
facilities, resulting in the concentration of activities in the more modern parts of the yard to ‘retain a
large and versatile ocean-going surface fleet.’ Royal Navy numbers were to be reduced by 8,000-10,000
by 1986, and UK civilian jobs by 15,000-20,000 (Secretary of State for Defence, 1981, pp. 8, 12, 13).
The principal function of the area is now that of a car park, the use of motor vehicles dramatically
contrasting with earlier years when pedalling dockyardmen would dominate surrounding Portsea
roads at in- and out-muster times.
North of Victoria Road and the West Pumping Station were Dock No. 7 (1849) and Dock No. 10
(1858), infilled in 1989 and 1993 respectively, their former presence signalled by iron bollards bearing
the letters ‘VR’ by the side of the road. A bomb struck the ground and pierced the brick arch of the
vaults beneath Dock No. 7 on Saturday 24 August 1940. The Admiral Superintendent reported: ‘Little
structural damage was done, but as the vault was used as a shelter, there were casualties to personnel.’
(TNA, ADM 1/10949)
Fig. 359. MD95/03057. Ordnance Survey, Hampshire Sheet LXXXIII.7.8. HE (1893–94). Plan of Jetty
at North Wall, HM Dockyard, Portsmouth, showing North Corner at the beginning of the twentieth
century. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 360. Damage to Portsmouth No. 1 Slip Jetty looking east, 1.2.1915, with the Smithery and
the Steam Factory in the background. TNA, ADM 195/79 (1857–1915). 100 photographs depicting:
construction works at Portsmouth Dockyard. Reproduced with the permission of The National
Archives.
Fig. 361. Portsmouth No. 2. Slip and S. Side Laying Out Shop looking west, 1.2.14. TNA, ADM 195/79
(1857–1915). 100 photographs depicting: construction works at Portsmouth Dockyard. Reproduced
with the permission of The National Archives.
North of Dock No. 10, which gave into the harbour, was the small Slip No. 1 (1764), rebuilt by 1925
as a Steel Store. To the north again was Slip No. 2 (1764, c.1890), a much more substantial affair used
later for hauling up torpedo boat destroyers rather than building. Jetties ‘between the slips were built
or extended in 1863 and 1868’ (Hamilton, 2005, p. 51). At the head of Slip No. 2 was an 1896 steam-
driven winding engine built by Cowans Sheldon inside a corrugated iron shed. There were two iron
tracks for the cradles whose emergency brake was the tried and tested ratchet acting on a central
toothed rail. The whole was demolished in 1979.
Next in a northerly direction was Slip No. 3 (1784), adjacent to Slip No. 4 (1838); they were covered by
an interconnected metal roof of 1845–46, thought to have been the widest iron span roof in Britain at
the time. As the size of ships increased, these structures’ use as building slips diminished and, c.1900,
the slips were filled in, the seaward ends being blocked off from the harbour, becoming Ship Shop
Nos 3-4. Important as the roof was in construction engineering history, it was not listed, resulting in
its destruction in 1980. It was argued that a better example was to be found in Chatham Dockyard.7
changes in yellow and later buildings in red dotted lines. Section showing Portsmouth North Corner
showing Slip No. 5 enlarged in 1912 and Dock No. 5 infilled in 1898. Reproduced by permission of
Historic England.
Fig. 363. HM Dockyard Portsmouth Harbour (1907–12), showing North Corner changes made to
7
J. Coad remembers being told that proposals to relocate Ship Shop Nos 3 and 4 to a northern industrial museum
had to be abandoned when a structural survey revealed that the iron frames were largely crystalline and would
fracture into little pieces if disturbed. Fortunately the Chatham examples were not in a similar state. (Coad, pers.
comm., 13.12.2014)
144
Slip No. 5 for building Dreadnoughts. Defence Estates Plans. Scale 1:2500. AdL, Vz 14/115 (1897–1907).
Courtesy MoD Admiralty Library, Naval Historical Branch, Portsmouth.
Fig. 364. MD95/03045 (1930). Western Frontage Plan for Proposed Reconstruction, HM Dockyard
Fig. 365. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. Engineer Admiral T. Gurnell, CB. North Corner from the
west. Reproduced by kind permission of the Trustees of the National Museum of the Royal Navy.
south. Reproduced by kind permission of the Trustees of the National Museum of the Royal Navy.
north. Reproduced by kind permission of the Trustees of the National Museum of the Royal Navy.
Fig. 368. J297/06. Photograph of Ship Shop Nos 3-4, south of Slip No. 5, before their demolition in
1980 (23 June 1971). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 369. J297/11. Photograph of the interior of Ship Shop Nos 3-4 before their demolition in 1980
(23 June 1971). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Adjacent to the north lay Slip No. 5 (c.1845, 1900), after extension some 666 feet in length for the
construction of the Dreadnought class of battleship. The slip was roofless since metal ships were not
harmed by weather during construction; this too was demolished in 1979. Not only did the head of
the slip come close to the Steam Factory (q.v.) but a ship under construction was almost the same
height, creating a powerful visual image. This was the slip used for the construction and launching of
some of the best known battleships of the rearmament era. Other battleships were built in dry docks
and simply floated out in the absence of the éclat accompanying slip launching. Photographs of vessels
sliding down the slip, such as that of HMS Iron Duke on 12 October 1912, cheering crowds apart, indicate
the rudimentary derrick cranes still in use. By the Second World War hammer head cranes had been
put up beside the slip. These were dismantled in 1978. Arguably the nearby Engine Smithery No. 3
(1903) with its corrugated iron walls, fourteen metal chimneys and ventilators protruding through its
roof presented an even weightier impression. The date of its demolition is uncertain, but it was not in
place in the 1970s. Illustrating the way naval architecture was constantly effecting structural change
on the ground, was the fate of Dock No. 9 (1850).8 Although it had the advantage of opening directly
into the harbour, this space was needed for the stacking of steel plates for use on Slip No. 5. It was
infilled in 1898. Two photographs in Patterson’s The Royal Navy at Portsmouth since 1900 (2005, pp. 84, 149)
show North Corner with Slip Nos 5 and 2 and Ship Shop Nos 3-4 in 1969, compared with the same
site in c.2005.
The Slips described gave rise to six knuckles, known as the South Slip, Middle Slip and North Slip
Jetties, which were extended into the harbour in the 1920s and 1930s. At the same time North
Corner Jetty was constructed on an east-west line at right angles to Middle Slip Jetty (see map HE
NMR M95/03034, 1900). The Western Frontage Plan for Proposed Reconstruction, HM Dockyard (HE,
MD95/03045, 1930) shows work carried out during the 1930s.
In 1981–82 the Way Ahead group, planning works relating to Portsmouth’s transition to a naval
base, noted that reconstruction of North, Middle and South Slip Jetties would be completed in 1983,
reconstruction of North Corner Jetty was under discussion, but that of North Railway and Sheer Jetties
was ‘not active’. (TNA, 1981–82, DEFE 69/668) In the late 1980s the Jetties were rationalised to give
a long linear berth to the west of the original knuckles, renamed Middle Slip Jetty and Sheer Jetty
or Victory Jetty to its south. The linear quay now extends as far south as the entrance to Basin No.
1, greatly improving berthing facilities. In 1999 those jetties constructed in the 1920s and 1930s not
covered by the SAM397/Grade I designation 1001852 (which covers the whole of Basin No. 1, including
8
Not to be confused with the 1875 Dock No. 9.
145
the old sea wall frontage to Pitch House and Sheer Jetties and Dry Dock Nos 1-6), were demolished.
Groundworks were centred to the south and west of the substation on North Railway Jetty. The
existing substation was enlarged and new cable ducts were installed to service the new Western
Jetties refurbishment for the new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. Gifford & Partners carried out an
excavation of the Western Jetties, reported as follows.
The Western Jetties are thought to have been constructed of timber and cast iron between
1840 and 1870, extending from the south Camber to Dock No. 9. These were replaced in the
1920s and 1930s with concrete jetties, Middle Slip Jetty being replaced in the 1990s. (Gifford,
2000, pp. 1, 3, 6)
Excavation around the substation exposed 30m of the back of the sea wall, which was in poor
condition due to the insertion of service ducts and a culvert in c.1905. A number of facing
stones had been replaced by concrete. At its greatest width the wall was 3m thick, constructed
of dressed stone with a rubble core. In the south west corner a stepped footing (0.28 x 2.5m)
was observed. It did not run the length of the wall and may have been built to strengthen
the corner. A short section of the southern end of the sea wall was exposed. Its northern face
consisted of dressed stone blocks similar to the western wall. A buttress was seen 2m east of
the south west corner (0.66m x 1.9m), also of dressed stone blocks. (Gifford, 2000, pp. 1, 4-5)
A large bollard whose foundation was c.1m3 was removed from the south east corner of the
excavation, retained for use elsewhere. A capstan base (6m x 2m), marked on the 1905 Engine
House plans, was uncovered north of the bollard. (Gifford, 2000, p. p. 5)
At the junction of two trenches excavated north of the substation another capstan base was
uncovered, c.1m x 2m, with brass fittings and without a housing for a motor. This capstan was
also marked on the 1905 Engine House plans. To the north of this capstan base the northern
face of a wide brick structure was seen, faced in large stone blocks. (Gifford, 2000)
Fig. 370. PK318/07 FL00982.02.001. Photograph of the Block Mills from the southeast (n.d. c.1970s).
Fig. 371. PK318/07 FL00982.02.002. Photograph of the Block Mills from the southwest with the head
of Dock No. 6 on the left (n.d. c.1970s). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 372. 23852/27 SU 6300/81. Aerial photograph of the Block Mills from the southwest, before
its refurbishment in 2007–8, when the external staircases were removed (11 Apr 2005). ©Historic
England.
Fig. 374. South elevation of the Portsmouth Block Mills (1802, 1/153), with the external twentieth
century fire escapes removed. A. Coats 2010. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 375. Interior of the Portsmouth Block Mills (1802, 1/153), showing new roof timber and two
beams where traditional scarf joints bond old and new timber. A. Coats 2010. Reproduced with the
Located to the east of Dock No. 6 are the Block Mills (1802, 1/153, SAM395, 1001851/ Grade I,
1078288, CA 22, MoD, SU 628586 008154). Probably because of their importance in the history of
both engineering and production engineering, the three buildings comprising the Mills are remarkably
little changed. In 1956–58, the Portsmouth Dockyard Modernisation and Development Programme
planned to demolish and reconstruct the building, as it was ‘Outdated and a serious fire risk. A metal
furniture shop is an urgent requirement which will be incorporated into the new building.’ (TNA,
1956–58, ADM 1/26499) It survived, however, and in 1981 the building was still being used for hose-
making, but the Ancient Monuments Board for England Panel on Historic Naval Bases suggested that,
as ‘a working exhibit’ it could demonstrate how blocks were made and provide additional interest
to visitors to HMS Victory. Some production of wooden pulley blocks was still in process until 1983,
146
by which time demand was negligible. A few machines had by then been transferred to Boathouse
No. 6; that which remains in situ – the swing arm circular saw – does so because it is built into the
timbering itself. A second is a treenail-making machine. Otherwise the buildings are empty. They are
in the naval base but their divestment to the heritage area has been discussed since the 1980s. In the
early 1970s the Block Mills were recommended for guardianship by the Ancient Monuments Board
for England and were to be taken into care as soon as the hose-makers vacated the building. By the
time they vacated it in 1984 there was a moratorium on guardianship and the opportunity had been
lost (Coad, pers. comm. 13.12.2014).
Work began at the end of 2006 to remove the Block Mills buildings from the At Risk Register. The
North Range roof was extremely fragile, with missing slates, ridge lead flashing ripped away and lead
guttering in the valleys worn to almost nothing. ‘It was at the end of its life.’ (Steve Barrett, White
Young Green (WYG) Management Services, quoted in Coats, 2009)
One enigma was a disappearing course of bricks running from east-west in the North Range south-
facing wall, below the top range of windows. It meant that window frames and cills were misaligned.
This was corrected, the whole top section of the wall and roof parapet being rebuilt with mostly new
bricks by Cathedral Works. Lambs Bricks & Arches. The new imperial bricks look much brighter than
the 200 year-old grimed bricks, but were colour-matched to the inside of the originals. Where possible
originals were retained, including glazed headers. The roof is now the same height as the south roof,
but with a slightly different pitch, and without the west-facing rooflight of the south roof. This could
be inserted later. Steel trusses were used to support the roof, as 11m spans of timber were unavailable.
Timber rafters topped them, then sarking boards (75% were retained) to take the slates. Portland stone
was used for the coping stones.
All window frames were taken out and rebuilt individually by joiners who set up their woodwork shop
inside Block Mills for a year. Sound wood was retained and frames remade according to the existing
pattern, testimony to changes made over 200 years. They were pivoted in the existing manner. All
woodwork was painted.
Rubbed brick arches over doors and windows were replaced by Cathedral Works. Bricks were
repointed. A large piece of concrete between two doors on the south front between the first and
second floors was faced by new brickwork. Cement mortar could not be replaced throughout due to
cost restraints, but in the worst areas it was replaced with lime mortar, carefully tested to match the
original composition.
The former ships’ timbers used in the north-south first floor corridor were rotten, as lead flashings
had perished. Windows were replaced to the same design and lead flashings applied in very difficult
positions. English Heritage approved the use of lead to replace the shallow pitched slate roof.
The lead-lined roof gutter on the South Range was worn and its shallow pitch had allowed water
to rise by capillary action, therefore a steeper pitch was designed. Richardson Roofing did all the
leadwork. Ffestiniog slates were used for the roof.
A major change to the building’s appearance was removal of the twentieth century fire escapes from
the south front. In all 400 pieces of iron (brackets, nails etc) were removed, as rust was pushing apart
the brickwork.
In the central ground floor range lights were remade with cedar, replicating the existing pattern.
Where rain had penetrated from the crossing corridor, roof-mounted machinery had to be carefully
surveyed and taken down to replace the cross beams, incorporating a very complex scarph joint. Wall
plates of 3m in the south-facing north wall had to be replaced by reclaimed timber from France.
Inside the North Range ground floor timbers, badly rotted from the water below, were replaced, with
a damp proof membrane added. Wessex Archaeology recorded them as they were removed. (Coats,
147
2009; see English Heritage, March 2010, p. 40) Ironically, since the Block Mills became weathertight
but lack any regular use which would ventilate the buildings, the smell rising from the underground
reservoir has become quite noticeable.
To the east of the Block Mills, their south elevations aligned, are two small single storey buildings in
red brick: Office (1945, 1/152, SU 628868 007985) and Office (1966, 1/151, MoD, SU 629018 007991).
On this site until 1930 was a Shipwrights’ Shed, appearing on a map of 1849. Immediately to the north
of these tiny offices is the RN Film Corporation (1929, 1/154, MoD, SU 628993 008116). It has two
storeys of red brick, string courses above the windows and a slate roof. Previous occupancy of the
site was a Plumbers’ Shop. It was originally the Central Estimating Office, and one of the few interwar
structures in the yard.
North of the Block Mills, on Victoria Road, is the Water Distillation Plant (1960, 1/159, MoD, SU 628593
008504). Visually it is an unusual structure comprising reinforced concrete piers with brick infill,
topped by metal holding tanks, the weight of which accounts for the strength of the piers. West of
the latter, north of Dock No. 6, is the West Pumping Station (1909, 1/161, MoD, SU 628211 008454).
There are two storeys in quality red brick with window cills of glazed blue brick and round windows
in the gable ends. The height of the building indicates that the original machinery was likely to have
been vertical triple or quadruple expansion steam engines, the most efficient means of pumping
at that time. Unfortunately, interior access was not possible. The original chimney is in situ, and its
modified flue indicates that it is still in use. The relatively impressive architecture is indicative of the
contemporary view of industrial pump houses which were regarded as key elements of dock areas.
On the dock side of the Pumping Station is an Amenity Centre (1959, 1/161A, MoD, SU 62814 00859),
single storey in red brick; there is a strong possibility that this originally housed electric pumps which
require very much less space than steam-powered equipment of comparable capacity. West of the
Pumping Station is the Western Area Boiler House (1909, 1/162, MoD, SU 627949 008504), completely
rebuilt, encased in reinforced concrete piers with brick infill with a flat topped roof. Waste gases are
expelled via the 1909 chimney. Adjacent to and south of the chimney, overlooking Dock No. 6, are
the small Shore Squadron Offices (1955, 1/163, MoD, SU 627574 008516), constructed as the Small Craft
Planning and Production Office; in the late 1980s the first floor housed the Yard Rat Catcher’s Office
(Lambert, 1993).
Fig. 376. Portsmouth Steam Factory (1847, 1/208), east elevation, showing the 10 ton gantry crane.
Fig. 377. ‘VR’ bollard near Portsmouth Steam Factory (1847, 1/208). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with
Fig. 378. Portsmouth Steam Factory (1847, 1/208), rainwater hopper, east elevation, dated 1847. A.
The key feature of the early Victorian Dockyard, flanking Basin No. 2, is the architecturally impressive,
long, narrow Steam Factory or Ship Shop No. 2 (1847, 1/208, Grade II*, 1272270, MoD, SU 629368
010191), its survival doubtless a consequence of its listing. When the Factory (q.v.) was completed in
1903, this became the main Shipfitting Shop (Malley, pers. comm. 2011). The manual gantry cranes
which spanned the width of the building were still in situ in the 1980s. At this time part of the upper
floor was used by the hosemakers and the sailmakers, whose machine tables were by Singer, 1929. It
is now used as offices, workshops, stores and a gymnasium. The undoubtedly impressive appearance
of the Steam Factory apart, the most unusual feature of the east elevation, facing Basin No. 2, is the 10
ton gantry crane by Stothert & Pitt, one set of whose wheels runs on a track fixed high on the wall,
the other conventional set being at the edge of the Tidal Basin. This arrangement has the advantage
of consuming less quay space than that of a travelling crane, but can only be employed when there is
a convenient building for the aerial track. This occurs nowhere else in the dockyard. Until the 1930s
there were steam-driven swan neck cranes, whose curved iron jibs extended from the base plate to
the pulley wheels. They may have had a lifting capacity of up to 40 tons, but they were immobile,
148
lacking the flexibility of gantry or travelling cranes. The round-headed windows on the first floor of
each bay could be opened, materials being moved by a small wall crane. Most of these have been
removed, but a new crane has been constructed, probably in the 1950s, in the second bay from the
south. A few quayside bollards, some bearing the letters ‘VR’, are still in place.
Fig. 379. Former 80hp Portsmouth Engine House (1849, 1/209) from the northeast, with the Steam
Factory in the background. A. Coats 2014. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
In the centre of the west elevation of the Steam Factory, almost attached to it, is a series of buildings
extending westwards the same distance as the Smithery, the largest of which, at the western end, was
the 80hp Engine House (1849, 1/209, MoD, SU 628593 010035), in architectural style not dissimilar to
that of the Steam Factory. Since it was single storey, the engine was probably horizontal, powering
pumps linked to the Steam Basin and the Harbour. The Engine House was subsequently used to feed
the dockyard compressed air grid through electric Bellis & Morcomb pumps (Riley, 1987, p. 12). None
of this machinery remains. All three buildings have the same dockyard notation as the Steam Factory,
even though they were not functionally linked to it. At present they are leased to the firm of Burgess
Marine, a partner of BAE Systems, and to Outboard Motor Workshops.
Fig. 380. Former Portsmouth Smithery (1852, 1/209), south and west elevations, showing the original
western chimney bases dated 1852. A. Coats 2014. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
At the head of former Slip Nos 1 and 2 is the large Smithery (1852, 1/209, MoD, SU 628850 009655),
now Store No. 30, which until the 1980s retained its massive steam hammer and other elements of
heavy engineering; it now houses a squash court, various stores, offices, messrooms, an amenity
room and a self-service laundry built into its west elevation – very much an all purpose facility. The
west and south elevations have been reclad and painted grey, with some remaining brickwork. The
contractors were Brazier & Son, carrying out the work in 1993. Its five chimneys have been removed.
Other than the buildings described, this part of the yard is given over to car parking, containers which
are their own storehouses, and some circular fuel storage tanks. There are new roadways facilitating
vehicular traffic, some of the car parks are designated ‘long term’ and there are even bus stops with
shelters, the whole being redolent of an industrial estate rather than a dockyard, or since 1984, a
naval base.
Fig. 381. Portsmouth Final Sketch Design Fig. 2 Existing Site Plan, showing original docks and slips
at Portsmouth North Corner, 1/223. BAES. FMBF (June 1978). Item FB45, PSA, DOE, Directorate of
Defence Services II (June 1978). Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 382. Portsmouth Final Sketch Design Fig. 8 East Elevation, 1/223 (June 1978). BAES. FMBF Item
FB45, DOE, PSA, Directorate of Defence Services II. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 383. Portsmouth Final Sketch Design, Fig. 8 North and South Elevations, 1/223. BAES. FMBF
(June 1978). Item FB45, DOE, PSA, Directorate of Defence Services II. Reproduced with the
Fig. 384. Portsmouth Final Sketch Design Fig. 8 West Elevation, 1/223. BAES. FMBF (June 1978).
Item FB45, DOE, PSA, Directorate of Defence Services II. Reproduced with the permission of
the MoD.
Fig. 385. Portsmouth Slip Jetties Reconstruction, PSA, DOE Stores & Ablutions Block, Elevations,
Sections. Unicorn (Sept 1976). 1/225. F83, Drawing no. XB2/7C. BAES, Unicorn (Feb 1998).
Technical Support. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 386. Portsmouth Slip Jetties Reconstruction, PSA, DOE, Block 2, East, South, West Elevations.
BAES. Unicorn (Sept 1979). 1/225. F83. Drawing no. AB2/4C. Unicorn (Feb 1998). Technical Support.
149
Fig. 64. 23852/14 SU 6201/4. Aerial photograph of Portsmouth North Corner from the east showing a
landscape which, apart from the Smithery and the Steam Factory, has changed completely since the
beginning of the twentieth century (11 Apr 2005). ©Historic England.
Fig. 43. 23834/01 SU 6200/31. Aerial photograph of Portsmouth’s straightened Western Jetties and
North Corner from the west, showing Dock No. 6 cut off from the harbour, as is Monitor HMS M33
in Dock No. 1, with HMS Victory in Dock No 2 and Mary Rose in Dock No. 3 (11 Apr 2005).
©Historic England.
Fig. 387. Typical rich red brick of the late twentieth century Portsmouth buildings: Admin Offices
North Corner (1982, 1/224). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
North Corner Development alongside the new Middle Slip Jetty (see the discussion of the jetties
above) comprises a group of entirely new structures, designed in 1978 to replace the ‘inadequate’
buildings around Slip Nos 1, 2 and 5. South is the Triton Galley (1/220, post-1993, SU 62793 01058),
a Portakabin-like structure on the site of a 1960 substation; west and north are four medium sized
buildings of one or two storeys in rich red brick, including a Garage (1982, 1/214, MoD, SU 62748
01068). The Joiners’ Department (1982, 1/223, MoD, SU 62815 01106) is the largest, designed to have
‘spaces functionally related but in such a manner as to be sufficiently flexible to accept modification.’
(BAES, FMBF FB45 Final Sketch Design June 1978, p. 6) It includes large workshops, small specialist
workshops, with roof glazing and overhead travelling cranes in the large workshops. It is constructed
of reinforced concrete, clad in brick, the Workshop block having a steel frame, supported by RC
ground beams bridging Slip No. 5 and concrete piles elsewhere. The roof is double-pitched with
steel sheets. The Fleet Engineering Office (1982, 1/224, MoD, SU 62778 01108), which was built in
the same project, houses welfare facilities (divided into junior and senior ratings sections) and offices
with demountable partitions and bears the logo ‘Portsmouth Engineering Group Partnering at Work’
on the seaward side, Its roof is of concrete covered with asphalt. Next is the Base Main Store (1982,
1/225, MoD, SU 62746 01138) (BAES, FMBF FB45 Final Sketch Design June 1978, p. 3; Fig. 2 Existing
Site Plan, Building 1/223; BAES, Unicorn, Dec 2000, Technical Inspection, p. 2, Building 1/224)
3.6.2 Area 2
Fig. 388. Portsmouth HM Naval Base Area 2 (1974). MoD HM Naval Base Building Location/Numerical Index.
Fig. 389. T85 FL00981/01/002. Aerial photograph of Portsmouth Harbour looking northeast with
Whale Island at top centre. It shows the Tidal Basin with a bridge link and the docks and locks
west of Basin No. 3 (1965). Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 390. MD95/03054 (1874). Basins and Locks North Yard Extension Plan. ‘Plan shewing by a Red
Tint the Work included in the first Contract, two locks, one deep dock, two ordinary docks, two
dock entrances, basin and harbour walls.’ Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 391. MD95/03056 (n.d.) Extension of Dockyard Plan and Sections, Docks, Locks and Basins
showing the dimensions of the excavations. HM Dockyard, Portsmouth, probably close to HE
MD95/03054 (1874). Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 392. Portsmouth Dockyard Extension: Plan Shewing state of the works in Jany. 1875 (progress
since 1865). To accompany Colonel Pasley’s Report of Feb. 1875. Director of Works. Defence Estates
Plans. AdL, Vz 14/111 (1875). Courtesy MoD Admiralty Library Naval Historical Branch, Portsmouth.
Fig. 393. Map showing the swing bridge and timber staging removing surplus excavated material
from the Great Extension which enlarged Whale Island. AdL Vz14/111 (1875). Portsmouth Dockyard
Extension: Plan Shewing state of the works in Jany. 1875 (progress since 1865). To accompany
Colonel Pasley’s Report of Feb. 1875. Director of Works. Defence Estates Plans. Courtesy MoD
Admiralty Library, Naval Historical Branch, Portsmouth.
150
Fig. 394. His Majesty’s Dockyard at Portsmouth Defence Estates Plans, Scale 1:2500. West section
of Portsmouth Basin Nos 3, 4 and 5 to 2 and 3 ‘before’ changes. AdL, Vz 17/16 (1896, corrected to
1909). Courtesy MoD Admiralty Library Naval Historical Branch, Portsmouth.
Fig. 395. His Majesty’s Dockyard at Portsmouth. Defence Estates Plans, Scale 1:2500. Portsmouth
Basin Nos 3, 4 and 5 to 2 and 3 ‘after’ changes. AdL, Vz 17/16, (1896, corrected to 1909). Courtesy
MoD Admiralty Library, Naval Historical Branch, Portsmouth.
Fig. 396. His Majesty’s Dockyard at Portsmouth). Defence Estates Plans. Scale 1:2500. East section of
Portsmouth Basin Nos 3, 4 and 5 to 2 and 3 ‘after’ changes. AdL, Vz 17/16 (1896, corrected to 1909).
Fig. 397. Portsmouth Dockyard Extension Works 1881. Plate 4. Colson, C. (1 January 1881).
Portsmouth Dockyard Extension Works (including Appendices and Plate at back of volume).
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineering, 64(1881) Part II, 118-173. Courtesy Institution
of Civil Engineers Virtual Library.
Fig. 398. MD95/03042. (1905 corrected to 1913). Portsmouth Harbour Plan of Fountain Lake
(coloured), HM Dockyard Portsmouth. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 4. Numbers and Dimensions of Locks, Docks and Basin Entrances in HM Dockyards, June 1908.
Admiralty Book. HE NMR, ADM01 (1908) p. b. Reproduced with the permission of
Historic England.
Fig. 399. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. Engineer Admiral T. Gurnell, CB. View of the Great
Extension Basins, Locks and Docks looking west, with North Corner in the distance. Reproduced
by kind permission of the Trustees of the National Museum of the Royal Navy.
Fig. 400. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. Engineer Admiral T. Gurnell, CB. View of the Great
Extension Docks looking south, with the infilled Dock No. 13 in the centre and the Factory on the
left. Reproduced by kind permission of the Trustees of the National Museum of the Royal Navy.
Fig. 401. 15800/20 SU 6301/13. Aerial photograph looking west from Basin No. 3 towards the Tidal
Basin and Basin No. 2, with (left to right) Dock No. 9, A Lock, B Lock, C Lock and D Lock in the
centre. On the left Dock No. 15 can be seen full of water, with a vessel in Dock No. 14 near left.
Beyond is Dock No. 8 opening into Basin No. 2 and Dock No. 11 with its caisson in situ (9 Sept
Developments in the early Victorian dockyard hinged round the appearance of steam warships, but
such were the rapid strides made in shipbuilding technology, steam propulsion and gunnery, coupled
with the perception of the public and the government that France was posing a real military threat,
that the state of the yard had once more to be reviewed. In 1864 the Admiralty obtained parliamentary
sanction for what came to be called the Great Extension, beginning in 1867 and terminating in 1881.
The works trebled the area of the dockyard, half of the new ground, some ninety-five acres, being
reclaimed from the Harbour. Three enormous basins, each larger than the Steam Basin/Basin No. 2,
were constructed for fitting out, rigging and repairing, access to the Harbour being via two locks, while
three docks were built, provision being made for two more. To achieve this a dam was constructed,
enclosing the area to be drained and excavated, but since the mud was in some places as much as
thirty-five feet thick, excavating machinery had to be mounted on wooden piling, as did the railways
delivering masonry and removing spoil, much of which was deposited on Whale Island. Steam-driven
gantries were constructed above the locks and docks, allowing the heavy blocks of masonry to be
positioned precisely, a method which years later came to be standard practice in the shipbuilding
industry. The entire system involved a high degree of technical sophistication, although something
similar had been employed in the construction of the port of Holyhead in Anglesey (Riley, 1985,
pp. 22-5). While employing the latest steam technology, Plan E, approved by Portsmouth Dockyard
officers in March 1865 and adopted, also utilised convict labour. This was estimated annually at
151
£50,000 (1866–69), compared with annual contractor costs of £200,000 (1866–67 and 1868–69) and
£250,000 (1867–68), and dredging costs of £10,000 and £12,000 in 1866–67 and 1867–68 respectively.
The tinted areas on Plan E marking areas to be built by convict labour show that they were involved
in constructing all three basin and wharf walls and the six docks and two locks entering the Repairing
Basin, as well as the wharves running along the south side of the earlier Tidal Basin. (Hamilton, 2005,
pp. xiii, 60-1, plan E endpaper) 9
Huge as this project may have been, some elements proved to be inadequate for the ever increasing
size of warships, driven by the rearmament race with Germany. Between 1910 and 1914 two larger
entrance locks had to be constructed and the three basins amalgamated. In ‘Equipment Used in the
Extension of Portsmouth Dockyard 1868–74 and 1910–13’, Riley analysed differences in the equipment
used in the two periods, such as steam-driven, rail-mounted pile drivers, steam-driven dredgers and
overhead gantries, from contractors’ photographs, the crucial difference being the presence of up to
twelve metres of mud which had to be excavated in the earlier period (1995, pp. 395-401).
To isolate all these works from Portsea a Dockyard Extension Wall, Circular Road and Flathouse
Road (Grade II, 1244592, SU 63999 00829) was built between 1863 and 1865 of light grey Purbeck
stone edged with three string courses of dark red brick. The wall boasted bartisans at intervals on
its outer side. It is popularly believed that the weapon slits were for the use of guards overseeing
convict workers. But since convicts were employed as labourers and brick-makers inside, not
outside the yard, it is clear that this belief is a myth. The bartisans are aesthetic, not functional.
The wall may date from the 1860s, but with the exception of two small extensions in the twentieth
century, it enclosed all the substantial developments effected in the yard leading up to the two
world wars.
Fig. 402. Decorative bartisan in the Portsmouth Great Extension wall, Circular Road (1863–65), built
by convicts. It was then facing outwards (south), but following the building of the Naval Barracks
c.1899, came within the current Naval Base. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of
the MoD.
Fig. 403. Head of Portsmouth Dock No. 8, 1850, showing limestone setts, granite coping stones and
walls, and cast iron fittings to reduce wear. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of
the MoD.
Fig. 404. Head of Portsmouth Dock No. 8, 1850, showing granite sliders and cast iron fittings to
reduce wear, and limestone setts. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 405. Clarkson & Beckitt capstan, 1905, north of Dock No. 8. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with
Fig. 406. Cowans Sheldon capstan, 1956, southeast of Portsmouth Basin No. 2. A. Coats 2013.
On the north side of Victoria Road, opposite the Iron Foundry, is Dock No. 8 or South Inlet Dock
(1850, SU 631352 008804). Its northern entrance has been rebuilt in concrete, possibly a result of
wartime damage on 5 December 1940. HMS Cameron was under refit when it was hit by a bomb during
an air raid on Portsmouth and set on fire. It was ‘Bodily moved off supporting blocks and flooded
by fire-fighting.’ (Royal Navy and Naval History Net, 1998–2014; NavSource Naval History, 2014).
However, the 1905 capstan by Clarkson & Beckitt of Maryhill, Glasgow has survived intact. Judging
by the flotsam in the dock it is seldom used. The travelling crane on the south side of the dock is
by John Boyd, 1977; an identical crane is located to the west on the edge of the Basin. Earlier a 10
ton electric travelling crane by Cowans Sheldon dated 1920 was in position at the edge of the dock
(Anon, 1929, p. 14). In the Basin on the north side of the dock entrance were sheer legs with a 30
9
House of Commons Sessional Papers (1865). Papers relating to the proposed extension of basin and dock accommodation in the royal
dockyards, 1865, no. 227, vol. xxxv, part I, 1865, pp. xi, 615, 623 for both endpapers.
152
Fig. 188. MD95/03032. (1850 annotated to 1955). Plan of Portsmouth Dock yard in 1900 showing development and enlargement from 1540 to 1900, PSA Drawing shows
Portsea fortifications and Pesthouse Field, over which much of A rea 3 was constructed, based on 1850 map showing changes in yellow and later buildings in red dotted
lines. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.

Fig. 189. MD95/03033. (1898). Second Edition Ordnance Survey, Hampshire Sheet LXXXIII.7. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 190. MD95/03034 (190 0). Her Majest y’s Dock ya rd at Portsmout h showing development a nd enla rgement from 1540 to 190 0. Reproduced by permission of
Historic Engla nd.

Fig. 191. MD95/03039 (1936). Plan Showing Proposed Revision of Boundary of HM Dockyard Portsmouth. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 192. HM Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Miscellaneous. Sketch plan of naval establishments, showing Portsea, Gosport,
Haslar and Bedenham (section). Drawing no. B4. Scale not shown. Director of Works, Admiralty. TNA (1910). WORK
Fig. 193. HM Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Miscellaneous. Dredging progress chart, 1935–1938: section showing depths
and hatching of work executed during 1935–1936. TNA (1936). WORK 41/311. Reproduced with the permission of The
National Archives.
Fig. 194. HM Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Miscellaneous.

Dredging progress chart, 1935–1938: section showing the hatching
key. TNA (1936). WORK 41/311. Reproduced with the permission
Right: Fig. 195. MoD (1974) HM Naval Base Portsmouth

Building Location/Numerical Index map showing the three
operational areas. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 196. HM Naval Base Portsmouth, Site Plan. Ministry of Defence: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (2012).
Fig. 197. Aldrich Road, formerly Marlborough Road, Fig. 198. Stony Lane runs east-west along the north wall of
Portsmouth (c.1704–11). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced the Portsmouth Great Ropehouse (1771, 1/65). A. Coats 2013.
with the permission of the MoD. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 200. Ivy Lane runs east-west between the north side of
Portsmouth Long Row Officers’ Houses (1715–19, 1/124-132)
and the south of the Iron and Brass Foundry (1854, 1/140),
then turns north, following the west side of the 1711 dockyard
wall, meeting Victoria Road. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with
Fig. 199. Set into the south elevation of Portsmouth Building

1/81 is a dressed Portland stone or replacement concrete
plaque which reads ‘Under this Stone theres a water Beer’,
marking an old well or water tank surviving from the
seventeenth century dockyard. This would have supplied the
garden to the original Commissioner’s House (1666) which Fig. 201. Guardhouse Road sign on the former Portsmouth
lay north of Stony Lane until the house was demolished in Lime and Cement Store (1878, 3/218) which survives as one
the 1780s. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the convict workshops shown on Colson’s 1881 map. A.
of the MoD. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 202. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. Engineer Admiral T. Gurnell, CB. View of the Georgian Dockyard looking
south. Reproduced by kind permission of the Trustees of the National Museum of the Royal Navy.
Fig. 203. Portsmouth HM Naval Base Area 1 (1974). MoD HM Naval Base Building Location/Numerical Index. Reproduced
Fig. 205. Admiralty plaque to mark the

Fig. 204. Photograph of the north elevation of the Main (now Victory) widening of the then Portsmouth Main Gate
Gate in 1895, showing its original width. Courtesy of Portsmouth Royal (November 1943). A. Coats 2013.
Dockyard Historical Trust. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 206. Pre-1985 photograph of the Main Gate, Cellblock Fig. 207. Broad arrow incorporated into the Dockyard
(1883, 1/2), Search Rooms (1/2B and 1/2C), Clocking Station Wall near Victory Gate. A. Coats 2012. Reproduced
(1949, 1/2D) and Romney Hut Boathouse (1948, 1/5). Courtesy with the permission of the MoD.
of Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust.
Fig. 208. Blocked gateway Fig. 210. Twentieth century

through the Dockyard Wall fouled anchor on the outside of
at Bonfire Corner which was Fig. 209. Original 1711 Portsmouth Dockyard Wall, the Dockyard Wall built c.1944
aligned with the first (1704– this section now within the Naval Base between the new after the Marlborough Salient
c.1784) Dockyard Chapel. A. and original Marlborough Gates, taken inside the yard was taken into the Dockyard. A.
Coats 2012. Reproduced with as the Marlborough Salient in 1944. A. Coats 2013. Coats 2013. Reproduced with
the permission of the MoD. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD. the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 211. Former Portsmouth Naval Recruiting

Office (1862, 1/1, PNBPT) with the additional
wing created by Portsmouth City Council for use
as a Tourist Information Centre (2001). A. Coats Fig. 212. Tourist Information Centre Richard Partington Architects:
2013. Reproduced with the kind permission of Elevations, No. 2023.005A. PNBPT, 9.10.2001. Reproduced with
Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust. the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
Fig. 213. Tourist Information

Centre Richard Partington
Architects: Ground Floor Plan,
No. 2023.003C. PNBPT,
9.10.2001. Reproduced
with the kind permission
of Portsmouth Naval Base
Property Trust.
Fig. 214. J473/03/71. Photograph Fig. 215. J473/07/71. Photograph of Fig. 216. J473/11/71. Photograph of
of the Cell Block Interior: ground the Cell Block Interior: first floor cell the Cell Block Interior: urinal (8 Oct
floor looking east/west (8 Oct 1971). door (8 Oct 1971). ©Crown copyright. 1971). ©Crown copyright.HE.
©Crown copyright.HE. HE.
Fig. 218. HMS Warrior 1860 Jetty at

Fig. 217. 15767/34 SU 6200/4. Aerial photograph of HMS Warrior Portsmouth (1987, PNBPT). A. Coats 2014.
1860 and Jetty (1987) from the northwest (9 Sept 1997). ©Crown Reproduced with the kind permission of
copyright.HE. Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
Fig. 220. Photograph of the Muster Bell

Plaque. Courtesy of Portsmouth Royal
Dockyard Historical Trust.
Above right: Fig. 221. MD95/03032 (1850 annotated to 1955). Plan of
Portsmouth Dockyard in 1900 showing development and enlargement from
Fig. 219. Photograph of Portsmouth Muster 1540 to 1900, PSA Drawing based on 1850 map showing changes in yellow
Bell (1791), mounted inside the Main Gate and later buildings in red dotted lines. Section showing Portsmouth Mast
until 1922. Courtesy of Portsmouth Royal Houses, indicating that the site was ‘Destroyed by Fire 1941 (Enemy Action)’,
Dockyard Historical Trust. not acknowledging that Boat House No. 4 was there by then. It also shows the
‘New Site of Muster Bell’. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 222. NMRNP,

Dockyard Model [1938].
Engineer Admiral T.
Gurnell, CB. View of
Portsmouth Mast Houses
and slips before Boathouse
No. 4 (1937–40) was built.
It may be surmised that
the model-maker began at
the southwest corner and
did not amend it to reflect
actual later changes in the
dockyard. Reproduced
by kind permission of the
Trustees of the National
Museum of the Royal Navy.
Fig. 223. New Boathouse HM Dockyard Portsmouth Elevations, Sheet 16. MPBW Drawing no. 1111/37, 24.7.37.
Fig. 224. New Boathouse HM Dockyard Portsmouth Ground Floor Plan, Sheet 4. Drawing no. 1098/37, by E. Scott for Civil
Engineer in Chief, 24.7.37. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
Above: Fig. 225. New Boathouse HM

Dockyard Portsmouth Retaining Walls
Sections. Drawing no. 1096/37, by J.
D. W. Ball, 24.7.37. Reproduced with
the kind permission of Portsmouth
Left: Fig. 226. Proposed M.E.D. Offices over

existing Tool Store Elevations. HM Dockyard
Portsmouth No. 4 Boathouse. MPBW
Drawing no. AB1/1, 13.6.67. Reproduced with
the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base
Property Trust.
Fig. 227. Gallery Plan and

Section, HM Dockyard
Portsmouth Boathouse. Drawing
no. 73036, (no date visible
but probably associated with
AB1/1). Reproduced with the
kind permission of Portsmouth
Fig. 228. BB97/09275. Photograph of Portsmouth Fig. 229. BB97/09274. West elevation of Boathouse No. 4 showing
Boathouse No. 4 from the north west corner (28 July the concrete supporting trusses at high tide (28 Jul 1997). ©Crown
1997). ©Crown copyright.HE. copyright.HE.
Fig. 230. West (harbour) elevation of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6).
A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base
Property Trust.
Fig. 231. Southern extent

of the concrete and
steel trusses forming the
undercroft of Portsmouth Fig. 232. West elevation of the
Boathouse No. 4 (1940, undercroft of Portsmouth Boathouse
1/6) on its west (harbour) No. 4 (1940, 1/6) at low tide,
elevation. A. Coats 2015. showing its beams and trusses. A.
Reproduced with the kind Coats 2015. Reproduced with the
permission of Portsmouth kind permission of Portsmouth Naval
Naval Base Property Trust. Base Property Trust.
Fig. 233. Northern extent of the concrete and steel trusses Fig. 234. Northern extent (east end) of the concrete and steel
forming the undercroft of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 trusses forming the undercroft of Portsmouth Boathouse
(1940, 1/6) on its west (harbour) elevation, showing the No. 4 (1940, 1/6) showing the eighteenth century Portland
shuttered concrete west seawall. A. Coats 2015. Reproduced stone north seawall and slipway stones. Concrete repairs
with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base to the trusses were carried out in 2014–15. A. Coats 2015.
Property Trust. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval
Fig. 235. Lowest level of the eighteenth Fig. 236. Underside of a Portsmouth Fig. 237. Unused reinforced
century Portland Stone slipway stones, held Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6) concrete beams lying beneath
in place by a line of wooden posts, visible concrete truss, showing its corroded Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940,
beneath a layer of solidified bags of concrete, iron reinforcing bar. A. Coats 1/6). A. Coats 2015. Reproduced
below Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 2015. Reproduced with the kind with the kind permission of
1/6). A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the permission of Portsmouth Naval Portsmouth Naval Base
kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Base Property Trust. Property Trust.
Property Trust.
Fig. 238. Underside of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4

(1940, 1/6) showing the shuttered concrete surface with
twentieth century repairs using steel wire which has
corroded. Concrete repairs were carried out in 2014–15.
A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the kind permission of
Fig. 239. Southern Fig. 240. Lock entrance to

extremity of Portsmouth Boathouse No.
the seawall of 4 (1940, 1/6), showing the
Portsmouth wooden lock gates which connect
Boathouse No. 4 the channel running beneath
(1940, 1/6), sitting Boathouse No. 4 and into the
on the older and Mast Pond with the harbour. On
the right is the battered eighteenth
only operational
century Portland Stone sea wall,
patent slip in the
at the top a reinforced concrete
naval base. A. Coats beam supporting the building,
2015. Reproduced and on the left shuttered concrete
with the kind above Portland stone. A. Coats
permission of 2015. Reproduced with the kind
Portsmouth Naval permission of Portsmouth Naval
Base Property Trust. Base Property Trust.
Fig. 241. Dock entrance to Fig. 242. Interior of the corrugated Fig. 243. Exterior of the corrugated steel wall
Portsmouth Boathouse No. steel wall forming the south elevation forming the south elevation of Portsmouth
4 (1940, 1/6) on the west of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 (1940, Boathouse No. 4 (1940, 1/6). A. Coats 2015.
(harbour) elevation. A. Coats 1/6), showing the newly constructed Reproduced with the kind permission of
2015. Reproduced with the stairway and mezzanine floor. A. Coats Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
kind permission of Portsmouth 2015. Reproduced with the kind
Naval Base Property Trust. permission of Portsmouth Naval Base
Property Trust.
Fig. 244. Interior steel

frame and beam of Fig. 245. BB97/09263.
Portsmouth Boathouse Photograph of the
No. 4 (1940, 1/6). A. spiral staircase in north
Coats 2015. Reproduced end of Boathouse No.
with the kind permission 4, Portsmouth (28
of Portsmouth Naval Base Jul 1997). ©Crown
Property Trust. copyright.HE.
Fig. 246. Photograph of Portsmouth

Boathouse No. 4 tunnel: west opening,
view south, ready for pintles (PNBPT,
Fig. 247. Photograph of Portsmouth Fig. 248. Photograph of
22.9.1999 no. 38). Reproduced with the
Boathouse No. 4 tunnel: east Portsmouth Boathouse No.
kind permission of Portsmouth Naval
opening, view south, ready for 4 lock gates: east opening
pintles (PNBPT, 22.9.1999 no. (PNBPT, 3.11.1999 no. 48).
40). Reproduced with the kind Reproduced with the kind
permission of Portsmouth Naval permission of Portsmouth Naval
Base Property Trust. Base Property Trust.
Fig. 250. BB97/012856. Photograph of the northwest

Fig. 249. Photograph of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 lock gates: corner of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 with Boathouse
adjustments to gates (PNBPT, 1.3.2000 no. 53). Reproduced with No. 4 Annex on the north side (28 Jul 1997). ©Crown
the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust. copyright.HE.
Fig. 251. Fig. 252. Statue

Statue of of Captain Robert
William III Falcon Scott
(1718) in the (1915) at the
Porter’s Garden entrance to the
at Portsmouth. Porter’s Garden
A. Coats 2008. at Portsmouth.
Reproduced A. Coats 2015.
with the kind Reproduced
permission of with the kind
Portsmouth permission of
Naval Base Portsmouth Naval
Property Base Property
Trust. Trust.
Fig. 253. Photograph of College Road, 1980s, as part of

the naval base, showing on the right the nineteenth and
twentieth century buildings beyond the Porter’s Lodge, then
the Police Quarters and the Naval Academy in the distance. Fig. 254. Photograph of College Road, late 1990s, after
The unrefurbished Boathouse No. 6 is in the right, beyond the nineteenth and twentieth century buildings have been
the Sail Loft. Courtesy of Portsmouth Royal Dockyard demolished, to reveal the Dockyard Wall. Courtesy of
Historical Trust. Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust.
Fig. 255. Interior Fig. 256. P241/53

of Portsmouth FL00981/01/001.
Pay Office (1808, Photograph
1/11), showing the showing
cast iron bases to progress of the
the vaulted brick reconstruction
ceiling columns. of the Former
A. Coats 2012. Naval Academy’s
Reproduced cupola, following
with the kind its bomb damage
permission of in 1941 (09 Mar
Portsmouth Naval 1953). Reproduced
Base Property by permission of
Trust. Historic England.
Fig. 257. AA98/04652. Photograph of the west elevation of Fig. 258. BB012873. Photograph of the west elevation of
Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6 showing boats hauled onto Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6 with fewer boats in the Mast
its ramp and the Mast Pond holding many dockyard boats Pond after the heritage area was established and before
(1956). Reproduced by permission of Historic England. refurbishment in 2001 (11 Jun 1991). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 259. Pre-1985 photograph of Boathouse No. 6. Fig. 260. BB012872. Photograph of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6
Courtesy of Portsmouth Royal Dockyard from the southwest before refurbishment in 2001 (11 Jun 1991).
Historical Trust. ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 261. BB012875. Photograph of the ground floor Fig. 262. BB012878. Photograph of the first floor
interior of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6 from the northeast, interior of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6 from the west,
before refurbishment in 2001 (11 Jun 1991). ©Crown before refurbishment in 2001 (11 Jun 1991). ©Crown
copyright.HE. copyright.HE.
Fig. 263. 15790/04 SU 6200/8. Aerial

photograph from the west of the
bombed Storehouse No. 6 (right of
centre) before its refurbishment in
2001, and the buildings to the south of
College Road (centre right) before they
were demolished to create the Porter’s
Garden in 2000 (9 Sept 1997). ©Crown
copyright.HE.
Fig. 265. Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6. Photograph of the

south elevation. PNBPT Record Photograph no. E02 (June
Fig. 264. Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6. Photograph of the 1998). Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth
ground floor, looking east showing the cast iron pillars and Naval Base Property Trust.
trusses. PNBPT Record Photograph no. G41 (June 1998).
Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval
Right: Fig. 266. Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6. Photograph of

the east end, south and east elevations, showing the missing
roof after the air raid. PNBPT Record Photograph no. E07
(June 1998). Reproduced with the kind permission
of Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
Fig. 267.
Portsmouth
Boathouse No.
6. Ground Floor
Plan (25.10.98).
PNBPT,
MacCormac
Jamieson Prichard
drawing no.
9615/530 PA.
Reproduced
with the kind
permission of
Portsmouth Naval
Base Property
Trust.
Fig. 268. Portsmouth

Boathouse No.
6. Ground Floor
Mezzanine Plan
(20.10.98). PNBPT,
MacCormac Jamieson
Prichard drawing
no. 9615/531 PA.
Reproduced with the
kind permission of
Portsmouth Naval
Fig. 269. Portsmouth

Boathouse No. 6. First
Floor Plan (20.10.98).
PNBPT, MacCormac
Jamieson Prichard
drawing no. 9615/532
PA. Reproduced with
the kind permission
of Portsmouth Naval
Fig. 270. Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6. Second Floor Plan (20.10.98). PNBPT, MacCormac Jamieson Prichard drawing no.
9615/533 PB. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
Fig. 271. Boathouse No. 6 East Elevation Survey (16.11.98). PNBPT, MacCormac Jamieson Prichard drawing no. 9615/522
A. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
Fig. 272. Boathouse No. 6 North Elevation Survey (16.11.98). PNBPT, MacCormac Jamieson Prichard drawing no.
9615/521 A. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
Fig. 273. Boathouse No. 6 South Elevation Survey (16.11.98). PNBPT, MacCormac Jamieson Prichard drawing no.
9615/523 A. Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
Fig. 274. Boathouse No. 6 Section AA Survey (16.11.98). PNBPT, MacCormac Jamieson Prichard drawing no. 9615/525 A.
Fig. 275. AA026355. Photograph of the Fig. 277. BB003709. Photograph of the Fig. 278. Entrance to Sunny
eastern interior of Portsmouth Boathouse interior of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 7 from Walk Offices (1950, 1/31). A.
No. 6 showing the cinema structure the northwest before its refurbishment in Coats 2013. Reproduced with
inserted within the area damaged by a 1993–94 to house the Dockyard Apprentice the permission of the MoD.
bomb in the Second World War (2001). Exhibition, a café and a nautical shop (11 Jun
©Historic England. 1991). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 276. PK318/11 FL00982.02.001. Photograph of the conversion Fig. 279. Semaphore Tower and Rigging House fire 1913,
of Boathouse No. 5 (1/28) and the Sail Loft (1/27) into the Mary saluting party. Image 1499A/3 supplied by PMRS,
Rose Museum (8 Mar 1984). ©Crown copyright.HE. courtesy of Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust.
Fig. 280. Photograph Fig. 281. Eastern

by Stephen Cribb, elevation of the
‘The last of the former Sail Loft/
Old Semaphore Rigging House
Tower falling down (1784, 1/40-
after the day of 49), Portsmouth
the fire in 1913.’ Semaphore
PMRS, PORMG Tower (1810–24
1945/652/5. 1/40) and Lion
Photograph Gate (1778,
reproduced with 1/50A). A.
the kind permission Coats 2013.
of Portsmouth Reproduced with
Museums and the permission
Records Service. of the MoD.
Fig. 282. Lion pediment of Portsmouth Lion Gate

(1778, 1/50A), one of Portsea’s town fortifications
(formerly situated close to the entrance to Anglesey
Barracks and the present HMS Nelson Gate),
incorporated into the west (seaward) arch of the Sail
Loft/Rigging House (1784, 1/40-49) and Semaphore
Tower (1810–24, 1/40) in 1929. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 284. Portsmouth, Rigging House and Semaphore

Tower, Basement and Ground Floor Plans, (2.11.1926). Fig. 283. Portsmouth Semaphore Tower (1922–23). 1/50.
1/50. Record Drawing no. 1, A22/26, by A. C. Hodges Record Drawing, HM Dockyard Portsmouth. Proposed
et al., CE-in-C Admiralty. BAES. Reproduced with the Reconstruction of Semaphore Tower A.E., SCE, Drawing no.
permission of the MoD. L286. BAES. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 285.
Portsmouth,
Rigging House
and Semaphore
Tower, 1st and
2nd Floor Plans,
(2.11.1926).
1/50. Record
Drawing no. 3,
A23/26, L291
by A. C. Hodges
et al., CE-in-C
Admiralty. BAES.
Reproduced with
the permission of
the MoD.
Fig. 286. Portsmouth, Rigging House and Semaphore

Tower, Flag pole removed, sections and south elevation
(2.11.1926). 1/50. Record Drawing No. 5, A26/26 A. C.
Hodges et al., CE-in-C Admiralty. BAES. Reproduced with
Right: Fig. 288. Portsmouth, Rigging House and Semaphore

Tower, Detail of Upper Portion of Tower West Front, central
flagpole removed, elevation (2.8.1927) 1/50. Record Drawing
no. 9, 38/27 by A. C. Hodges. CE-in-C Admiralty. BAES.
Fig. 287.
Portsmouth
Rigging House
and Semaphore
Tower, east
elevation
(2.11.1926) 1/50.
Record Drawing
no. 6, A27/26
by A. C. Hodges
et al., CE-in-C
Admiralty. BAES.
Reproduced with
the permission of
the MoD.
Fig. 289. 15790/05 SU 6200/7. Aerial photograph of the Semaphore Tower and Rigging House from the west (9 Sept 1997).
Fig. 290. 15800/33 SU 6200/17. Aerial photograph of the Semaphore Tower and Rigging House from the east. (9 Sept
Fig. 291. AA045925. Photograph of the Fig. 292. AA045923. Photograph of Fig. 293. Remaining cast iron
interior of the Chain Test House looking the floor of the Chain Test House, elements of the Portsmouth Railway
south. (9.7.2003). ©Historic England. the pathway consisting of Portsmouth Swing Bridge to South Railway Jetty,
Dockyard cast iron ballast pigs c.1876. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced
(9.7.2003). ©Historic England. with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 294. Portsmouth Railway Fig. 295. Portsmouth Railway Shelter Fig. 296. Former Office for the Portsmouth
Waiting Room (1878, 1/47) on (1893, 1/45) on South Railway Jetty, re- Captain of the Yard/Harbour Master (c.1850,
South Railway Jetty. A. Coats sited since c.2000 on the west quay of the 1/53), now the Disposal & Reserve Ships
2013. Reproduced with the North Camber. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced Organisation. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced
permission of the MoD. with the permission of the MoD. with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 297. ‘Two low buildings with steam

coming out of pipes, railway line in
front, dock in right foreground.’ (c.1920)
Photograph looking southwest towards
the buildings, formerly on the site of the
Victory Gallery, which included a caulkers’
cabin, a divers’ gear store and an engine
house office (The Princes Regeneration
Trust, 2006; Lambert, 1993). Dock No.1
is in the foreground and the Former Office
for the Captain of the Yard/Harbour
Master (1/53) is in the background.
Image 404A/6/17 supplied by PMRS,
courtesy of Portsmouth Royal Dockyard
Historical Trust.
Fig. 298. Rainwater hopper Fig. 299. Stone laid by W. L. Fig. 300. Rainwater hopper dated 1962,
dated 1927, Portsmouth Victory Wylie in 1929, re-cut in 1988, Portsmouth Victory Gallery (NMRNP,
Gallery (1938, 1/57, NMRNP). A. Portsmouth Victory Gallery (1938, 1938, 1/57). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced
Coats 2013. Reproduced by kind 1/57, NMRNP). A. Coats 2013. by kind permission of the Trustees of the
permission of the Trustees of the Reproduced by kind permission of National Museum of the Royal Navy.
National Museum of the Royal Navy. the Trustees of the National Museum
of the Royal Navy.
Fig. 301. Dockyard apprentices monitoring Fig. 302. J186/01/71. Photograph of the west elevations of Storehouse
HMS Victory for hull movement in Portsmouth Nos 9, 10 and 11 (28 Apr 1971). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Dockyard, c.1954. Reproduced courtesy P. Nex.
Fig. 303. AA98/04645. Portsmouth Dockyard prints FL00981. Fig. 304. Three postcards of Portsmouth Dockyard
Photograph of the eastern elevation of Portsmouth Storehouse Museum (n.d.), probably within one of the three
No. 11 taken from outside South Office Block Annexe (1931, Georgian storehouses. Courtesy George Malcolmson
1/87C) by Eric de Mare (1956). The statue of Captain Robert Collection.
Falcon Scott was in this spot following the Second World
War until 2000, when it was moved to the Porter’s Garden.
Fig. 305. J057/01/72. Storehouse No. 11, north end, Fig. 306. J057/03/72. (28 Apr 1971). Photograph of
conversion to the McCarthy Museum (28 Apr 1971). Storehouse No. 11, ground floor conversion to the
©Crown copyright.HE. McCarthy Museum. ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 307. J106/04/72. Photograph of Storehouse No. 11, Fig. 308. J186/05/71. Photograph of Storehouse Nos 9, 10
ground floor conversion to the McCarthy Museum (28 Apr or 11 (28 Apr 1971). ©Crown copyright.HE. It is hoped
1971). ©Crown copyright.HE. that the particular storehouse can be identified.
Fig. 311. AA98/04650.

Fig. 309. J186/06/71. Photograph of Portsmouth Dockyard prints
Storehouse No. 9, 10 or 11 (28 Apr 1971). FL00981. Photograph by Eric
©Crown copyright.HE. It is hoped that the de Mare of the eastern elevation
particular storehouse can be identified. of Portsmouth Storehouse No.
10, with the railway track in
Fig. 310. J360/06/72. Photograph evidence. (1956). The doorways
of Storehouse Nos 9, 10, 11: Mr were modified for the NMRN
Hartley’s fire plates on first floor twentieth century Babcock
joists and floorboards (c.1971). Galleries (2014). Reproduced by
©Crown copyright.HE. permission of Historic England.
Fig. 313. Ground floor of

Portsmouth Storehouse
No. 10 (1776, 1/59) detail
of renewed brick arches
displaying twentieth
century ordnance in the
twentieth century Babcock
Galleries (2014) A. Coats
2013. Reproduced by kind
permission of the Trustees
of the National Museum
of the Royal Navy.
Above: Fig. 312. Ground floor of Portsmouth Storehouse No. 10 (1776, 1/59) looking south
along the eastern bay, showing renewed brickwork and timber pillars and beams during its
refurbishment for the twentieth century Babcock Galleries (2014) A. Coats 2013. Reproduced
by kind permission of the Trustees of the National Museum of the Royal Navy.
Fig. 314.
Currently the
rear (west)
elevation of
Portsmouth
Storehouse
No. 10
(1763, 1/59),
which was
originally
the front
elevation
facing the North Camber, showing Fig. 315. A rear (west) door of Fig. 316. A refurbished rear pediment of
the new glazed entrance refurbished Portsmouth Storehouse No. Portsmouth Storehouse No. 10 (1776, 1/59),
for the twentieth century Babcock 10 (1776, 1/59), facing the showing the access doors to the upper floor
Galleries (2014). A. Coats 2014. North Camber. A. Coats 2014. and cast iron bracket (2014). A. Coats 2014.
Reproduced by kind permission Reproduced by kind permission Reproduced by kind permission of the Trustees of
of the Trustees of the National of the Trustees of the National the National Museum of the Royal Navy.
Museum of the Royal Navy. Museum of the Royal Navy.
Fig. 317.
J188/01/71.
Photograph of
Storehouse Nos
15, 16 and 17 (28
Apr 1971) from
the west, showing
the former site
of Storehouse
No. 14 or West
Sea Store (1771),
which suffered
a direct hit Fig. 318. J188/03/71. Photograph of Storehouse Nos 15,
on 24 August 16 and 17 (28 Apr 1971) from the east, showing ‘GR 1771’
1940. ©Crown inserted in darker bricks on the east elevation of Storehouse
copyright.HE. No. 16. ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 320. Keystone

(probably twentieth
century) on the
north elevation of
the vehicular arch
cut through the
former Portsmouth
Great Ropehouse
(1771, 1/65) in
1868. A. Coats 2013.
Reproduced with
the permission of
the MoD.
Fig. 319. Arches cut through the former Portsmouth Great Ropehouse
(1771, 1/65), north elevation, when it ceased making rope in 1868.
Fig. 323. E 48/39. Fig. 324. E 48/39.

Detail of the west Detail of Cupola,
elevation of St Ann’s St Ann’s Church,
Church, Portsmouth. Portsmouth.
Fig. 321. AA98/04648. Portsmouth Fig. 322. P96/01/60.
Reconstruction Reconstruction
Dockyard prints FL00981. Photograph of the interior of
Drawing 1939, signed Drawing 1939,
Photograph (1956) by Eric de Mare the Ropehouse, undergoing
Diana V. Cundall. signed Diana V.
of the western gable of Portsmouth conversion (June 1960).
Reproduced by Cundall. Reproduced
Great Ropehouse (1771), before Reproduced by permission of
permission of Historic by permission of
the roof and windows were Historic England.
England. Historic England.
substantially altered in the 1960s.
Reproduced by permission of
Historic England.
Fig. 325. PK318/10. Photograph of the Fire Station Fig. 326. AA034962. Photograph of Portsmouth Fire Station
personnel, police and divers on Parade (c.1900). HE. (former water tower), north end looking south, with the
Reproduced by permission of Historic England. Ropehouse in the background (2005). ©Historic England.
Fig. 327. Original Fig. 329. Western entrance to a Portsmouth nineteenth century
corrugated iron and fittings courtyard surrounded by stores and workshops (c.1850–90,
inside Portsmouth Fire 1/81) on the site of the original Commissioner’s House (1666).
Station (1843, 1/77). A. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Coats 2012. Reproduced
with the permission of the Fig. 328. Rainwater hopper dated 1961, west elevation of Portsmouth Fleet Headquarters,
MoD. Jago Road (1961, 1/80). A. Coats 2014. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 330. In Fig. 331.

Portsmouth Rainwater hopper
Admiral’s Walk, dated 1931 on
a seven foot wide Portsmouth
section of setts South Office
running along
Block Annexe
the north side of
1/81 (c.1850–90). (1931, 1/87C).
A. Coats 2013. A. Coats 2013.
Reproduced with Reproduced with
the permission of the permission of
the MoD. the MoD.
Fig. 333. MD95/03099 (c.1797). Plan and Sections,

Fig. 332. 23852/25 SU 6300/79. Aerial photograph of the Mary Great Basin Entrance and South Dock, Plan of
Rose Ship Hall in Dock No. 2 from the northwest, before its Improvements proposed by Samuel Bentham. HM
redesign and the demolition of the buildings either side in 2010 Dockyard, Portsmouth. Reproduced by permission of
(11 Apr 2005). ©Historic England. Historic England.
Fig. 334. J195/01/71. Photograph of Basin No. 1 and Docks Fig. 335. Dock No. 1 (6.1.1909). Photograph of completed
1-5 looking east pre-Mary Rose and pre-Monitor HMS M33 extension, looking northeast. TNA, ADM 195/79 (1857–
(28 Apr 1971). ©Crown copyright.HE. 1915). 100 photographs depicting construction works at
Portsmouth Dockyard. Reproduced with the permission of
Fig. 336. Cross-section of Mary Rose within Dock No. 3 Fig. 337. Lower ground floor plan of Mary Rose within Dock
(1803). Wilkinson Eyre Architects, 2012. No. 3 (1803). Wilkinson Eyre Architects, 2012.
Fig. 339. Portsmouth Dock No. 6 (1700), showing

disintegration of the lower altar stones through weathering.
Following the straightening of the western jetties for the
Fig. 338. Western profile of the new timber-clad Mary Rose new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers in the early 2000s,
Museum at Portsmouth (2013). A. Coats 2013. PNBPT. it is no longer connected to the harbour and no longer has
Reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Naval the environmental protection of seawater. A. Coats 2012.
Base Property Trust. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 340. Portsmouth Joiners Shop 3.2.1911. TNA, Fig. 341. Portsmouth Victory Building 1/100 (Feb 1992).
ADM 195/79 (1857–1915). 100 photographs depicting: BAES. The [former] Site. Defence Works Service (Nov
construction works at Portsmouth Dockyard. Reproduced 1991). Option Study Annex A. Cecil Denny Highton
with the permission of The National Archives. for Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick, HQ 2SL/CNH HMNB
Portsmouth. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 342. Portsmouth Victory Building 1/100 (Feb Fig. 343. Portsmouth Victory Building. 1/100 (Feb
1992 ). BAES. Cecil Denny Highton for Scott Wilson 1992). BAES. Cecil Denny Highton for Scott Wilson
Kirkpatrick, HQ 2SL/CNH HMNB Portsmouth, Kirkpatrick, HQ 2SL/CNH HMNB Portsmouth, west,
Location of New Building. Defence Works Service (Nov south, east elevations. Defence Works Service (Nov
1991). Option Study Annex A. Reproduced with the 1991). Option Study Annex A. Reproduced with the
permission of the MoD. permission of the MoD.
Fig. 344. Portsmouth Victory Building 1/100 (Feb 1992). Fig. 345. Portsmouth Victory Building 1/100 (Feb 1992).
BAES. Cecil Denny Highton for Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick, BAES. Cecil Denny Highton for Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick,
HQ 2SL/CNH HMNB Portsmouth, north elevation. HQ 2SL/CNH HMNB Portsmouth, plan. Defence Works
Defence Works Service (Nov 1991). Option Study Annex A. Service (Nov 1991). Option Study Annex A. Reproduced
Fig. 347.
One of the
concrete
entrance
piers, east of
Portsmouth
Victory
Building
(1993,
1/100), dated
1984. A.
Coats 2013.
Reproduced
with the
permission of
the MoD.
Fig. 346. 15800/32 SU 6200/16. Aerial photograph of the Victory
Building from the southeast (9 Sept 1997). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 348. J198/01/71. (28 Apr 1971). Photograph of Storehouse Above right: Fig. 349. J198/04/71. Storehouse No. 25
No. 25, southwest corner. ©Crown copyright.HE. doorway (28 Apr 1971). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 351. Portsmouth Iron Foundry Structural

Appraisal, First Floor Detail section drawing.
Fig. 350. Portsmouth Iron Foundry and Subsidiary Buildings, Basement 1/136. BAES. Evans Grant via Unicorn
and Ground Floor Plans, BAES. MPBW (June 1964). 1/136 and 1/140. (Feb–Apr 1997). Reproduced with the
Drawing no. 980/64. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD. permission of the MoD.
Fig. 352. Former Portsmouth Chief Fig. 353. Cannon protecting the Fig. 354. Western gate pier of the
Inspector’s Office (1857, 1/138) at the northeast corner of the former first Portsmouth Marlborough Gate
western side of the first Marlborough Gate, Portsmouth Chief Inspector’s Office (1711, 1/138). A. Coats 2013.
adjoining the original Dockyard Wall (1857, 1/138). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of
(1711). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
the permission of the MoD. the MoD.
Fig. 355. Plinth bearing a broad arrow at the base Fig. 356. West elevation of the refurbished Portsmouth
of the western gate pier of the first Portsmouth Iron and Brass Foundry (1854, 1/140), now BAES HQ. A.
Marlborough Gate (1711, 1/138). A. Coats 2013. Coats 2012. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 358. Wrought iron

lamp bracket on Portsmouth
Storehouse No. 33 (1786,
Fig. 357. Storehouse No. 33 before reconstruction after fire 23.3.1908, photograph no. 1/150). A. Coats, 2013.
99. TNA, ADM 195/79 (1857–1915). 100 photographs depicting: construction works at Reproduced with the
Portsmouth Dockyard. Reproduced with the permission of The National Archives. permission of the MoD.
Fig. 359. MD95/03057. Ordnance Survey, Hampshire Sheet LXXXIII.7.8. HE (1893–94). Plan of Jetty at North Wall,
HM Dockyard, Portsmouth, showing North Corner at the beginning of the twentieth century. Reproduced by permission of
Historic England.
Fig. 360. Damage to Portsmouth No. 1 Slip Jetty looking

east, 1.2.1915, with the Smithery and the Steam Factory in Fig. 361. Portsmouth No. 2. Slip and S. Side Laying Out
the background. TNA, ADM 195/79 (1857–1915). 100 Shop looking west, 1.2.14. TNA, ADM 195/79 (1857–
photographs depicting: construction works at Portsmouth 1915). 100 photographs depicting: construction works at
Dockyard. Reproduced with the permission of The National Portsmouth Dockyard. Reproduced with the permission
Archives. of The National Archives.
Fig. 363. HM
Dockyard
Portsmouth
Harbour (1907–
12), showing North
Corner changes
made to Slip No.
5 for building
Dreadnoughts.
Defence Estates
Plans. Scale
1:2500. AdL, Vz
14/115 (1897–
1907). Courtesy
MoD Admiralty
Library, Naval
Historical Branch,
Portsmouth.
development and enlargement from 1540 to 1900, PSA Drawing based on 1850 map showing changes in
yellow and later buildings in red dotted lines. Section showing Portsmouth North Corner showing Slip No. 5
enlarged in 1912 and Dock No. 5 infilled in 1898. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 364. MD95/03045 (1930). Western Frontage Plan for Proposed Reconstruction, HM Dockyard Portsmouth.
Fig. 365. NMRNP, Dockyard Model Fig. 366. NMRNP, Dockyard Model Fig. 367. NMRNP, Dockyard Model
[1938]. Engineer Admiral T. Gurnell, [1938]. Engineer Admiral T. Gurnell, CB. [1938]. Engineer Admiral T. Gurnell,
CB. North Corner from the west. North Corner from the south. Reproduced CB. North Corner from the north.
Reproduced by kind permission of by kind permission of the Trustees of the Reproduced by kind permission of the
the Trustees of the National Museum National Museum of the Royal Navy. Trustees of the National Museum of
of the Royal Navy. the Royal Navy.
Fig. 368. J297/06. Photograph of Ship Shop Nos 3-4, Fig. 369. J297/11. Photograph of the interior of Ship Shop Nos
south of Slip No. 5, before their demolition in 1980 (23 3-4 before their demolition in 1980 (23 June 1971). ©Crown
June 1971). ©Crown copyright.HE. copyright.HE.
Fig. 370. PK318/07 FL00982.02.001. Photograph of the Fig. 371. PK318/07 FL00982.02.002. Photograph of the
Block Mills from the southeast (n.d. c.1970s). ©Crown Block Mills from the southwest with the head of Dock
copyright.HE. No. 6 on the left (n.d. c.1970s). ©Crown copyright.HE.
Fig. 372. 23852/27 SU 6300/81. Aerial photograph of the Block Mills from the southwest, before its refurbishment in
2007–8, when the external staircases were removed (11 Apr 2005). ©Historic England.
Fig. 373. West

elevation of the
Portsmouth
Block Mills
(1802, 1/153),
showing the
rebuilt North
Range. A.
Coats 2010.
Reproduced
with the
permission of
the MoD.
Fig. 375. Interior of the Portsmouth Block

Mills (1802, 1/153), showing new roof
timber and two beams where traditional scarf
Fig. 374. South elevation of the Portsmouth Block Mills (1802, 1/153), joints bond old and new timber. A. Coats
with the external twentieth century fire escapes removed. A. Coats 2010. 2010. Reproduced with the permission of
Reproduced with the permission of the MoD. the MoD.
Fig. 376. Portsmouth Steam Factory Fig. 377. ‘VR’ bollard near Portsmouth Fig. 378. Portsmouth Steam Factory
(1847, 1/208), east elevation, showing Steam Factory (1847, 1/208). A. Coats (1847, 1/208), rainwater hopper, east
the 10 ton gantry crane. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission elevation, dated 1847. A. Coats 2013.
2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD. Reproduced with the permission of
of the MoD. the MoD.
Fig. 379. Former 80hp Portsmouth Engine House (1849, 1/209) from the northeast, with the Steam Factory in the
background. A. Coats 2014. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 380. Former Portsmouth Smithery (1852, 1/209), south and west elevations, showing the original western chimney bases
dated 1852. A. Coats 2014. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 381. Portsmouth Final Sketch Design Fig. 2 Existing Fig. 382. Portsmouth Final Sketch Design Fig. 8 East
Site Plan, showing original docks and slips at Portsmouth Elevation, 1/223 (June 1978). BAES. FMBF Item FB45,
North Corner, 1/223. BAES. FMBF (June 1978). Item DOE, PSA, Directorate of Defence Services II. Reproduced
FB45, PSA, DOE, Directorate of Defence Services II (June with the permission of the MoD.
1978). Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 383. Portsmouth Final Sketch Design, Fig. 8 North Fig. 384. Portsmouth Final Sketch Design Fig. 8 West
and South Elevations, 1/223. BAES. FMBF (June 1978). Elevation, 1/223. BAES. FMBF (June 1978). Item FB45,
Item FB45, DOE, PSA, Directorate of Defence Services II. DOE, PSA, Directorate of Defence Services II. Reproduced
Fig. 385. Portsmouth Slip Jetties Reconstruction, PSA, DOE Fig. 386. Portsmouth Slip Jetties Reconstruction, PSA,
Stores & Ablutions Block, Elevations, Sections. Unicorn DOE, Block 2, East, South, West Elevations. BAES. Unicorn
(Sept 1976). 1/225. F83, Drawing no. XB2/7C. BAES, (Sept 1979). 1/225. F83. Drawing no. AB2/4C. Unicorn
Unicorn (Feb 1998). Technical Support. Reproduced with (Feb 1998). Technical Support. Reproduced with the
the permission of the MoD. permission of the MoD.
ton capacity working until the 1930s. Unrelated to the dock, slightly to the west on the edge of Basin
No. 2, is another capstan, by Cowans Sheldon, dated 1956, in 2015 newly painted black and white.
Fig. 407. MD95/03045 (1930). Western Frontage Plan for Proposed Reconstruction, HM Dockyard
Portsmouth. Section showing the Marlborough Salient (Marlborough Row, Gloucester and
Frederick Streets), which was taken into the yard in 1944. Marlborough Gate was moved south
to its present position at the easternmost point of Bonfire Corner. Reproduced by permission of
Historic England.
Fig. 408. S. Cribb’s late nineteenth century photograph of workers leaving the original Marlborough
Gate. Courtesy of Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust.
Fig. 409. New Portsmouth Marlborough Gate, 1944. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission
of the MoD.
Fig. 209. Original 1711 Portsmouth Dockyard Wall, this section now within the Naval Base between
the new and original Marlborough Gates, taken inside the yard as the Marlborough Salient in 1944.
An area acquired in 1944 comprised the three parallel streets of Marlborough Row, Gloucester Street
and Frederick Street. Marlborough Gate itself was shifted south to the spur to the east of Short Row
(SU 632652 006229). The new gate is a functional affair. The gates are of blue painted thin metal, the
gate posts are of blue engineering brick topped with Portland stone, above which, at least until 1982,
was a decorative linking iron arch with a central lantern. On the west side of the gate is a seldom used
pedestrian gate. The short enclosing red brick wall of the acquired plot has six bricked up sections
with concrete lintels which could have been pedestrian gates were it not for the fact that the blocking
brickwork appears identical to that of the wall itself. Perhaps there was a change of plan. Adjacent
to the pedestrian gate is a tiny Gas Meter House (c.1960, 2/1, MoD, SU 632558 006179), the door to
which appears not to have been opened for some time.
An indication of the present-day importance of road traffic is the construction of a Security Office
(c.1990, 2/2, SU 632852 006535) in the centre of the road close to the gate. On the eastern side of
Gloucester Road is Store No. 20 (1960, 2/3, MoD SU 63284 00657) which has a reinforced concrete
frame with brick infill, the three storeys having a variety of window shapes. Further north, on the
western side of Gloucester Road, are located Naval Offices (c.2000, 2/5, MoD, SU 632271 006991) in
high quality red brick similar to those used for the buildings at North Corner. The roof line is unusual:
the upper floor of the three has the appearance of a pagoda placed above a conventional structure,
and the latter boasts subtle coloured brick dentilation below the guttering.
Fig. 410. 23835/03 SU 6200/53. Aerial photograph of the west of Portsmouth Dockyard from the
east, showing COB2 (1972) in the centre foreground before its demolition in 2010 (11 Apr 2005).
©Historic England.
Fig. 56. Decorative brick detail, Portsmouth Naval Offices (c.2000, 2/5). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced
with the permission of the MoD. Reproduced with the permission of Historic England.
The offices are those of COMMCEN (Communications Centre) Portsmouth, Information Systems and
Services, moved from Fort Southwick in 2001. To the north, reaching Victorian Road, is a car park,
formerly the site of Central Office Blocks 1 and 2 (1965, 2/11; 1972, 2/10). COB1 was built on land
taken into the yard in 1944 land at the northwest end of Gloucester Street, and COB2 on land east of
Marlborough Row. These were conventional 10-storey tower blocks, demolished in 1994–95 and 2010
respectively, as their fabric was deteriorating and more appropriate accommodation such as Victory
Building became available.
Fig. 411. Portsmouth EEM Workshops Marlborough Salient, Machine Shop Plan and Section. SCE
Department (Jun 1947), Drawing no. 253/47. 2/12. BAES. Reproduced with the permission of
the MoD.
153
Fig. 412. 2/12. No. 2 Electrical Shop, Floor Plans, Section, Drawing 145/65. MPBW (Jan 1965). BAES.
Facing Victoria Road is Electrical Workshop No. 2 (1954, 2/12, BAES, SU 632733 007841), a steel
framed three bay structure with brick elevations, aligned north-south, bearing date 1954, built over
Frederick Street (part of the Marlborough Salient taken into the dockyard) to replace and enlarge the
earlier 1905 Electric Shop located east of Frederick Street, destroyed in the war. It is now the Light
Fabrication Shop. A new first floor and roof was added in the 1960s. In 1998 it had a corrugated
aluminium and asbestos panelled roof. A 10-tonne travelling crane dated 1953 runs the length of the
building (BAES, MRM Partnership (May 1988). Structural Report, para. 5, Light Fabrication Shop)
Oriented east-west alongside the dockyard wall is a Store and Amenity Centre (1904, 1939, 2/17, MoD,
SU 63348 00725) which has had many functions. It was originally used for meter testing and armature
repairs, additionally containing a Welding Equipment store and a Ready-Use Workshop. A Boiler
Makers’ Workshop was added in 1917. Much of it was rebuilt in 1939; visually it gives the impression
of an assortment of structures.
To the north, on the south side of Victoria Road is the New Electric Light and Power Station (1907,
2/19, MoD, SU 63334 00792), now the Central Boiler House. It was on the site of an earlier station,
probably built in 1896. The new facility was subsequently enlarged in 1912 as the demand for electricity
increased, especially for the new cranes round Basin No. 3 (q.v.). A map of 1924 shows the power
station further south of Victoria Road, indicating that the present tall building adjacent to the road is
an extension. Certainly the girth of the truncated chimney at the north-east corner suggests that it
was part of the extension rather than of the original. The truncation predated 1970. This is thought to
be the last English dockyard power station.10 The building is now BAES’s Central Boiler House (2/19).
Facing Victoria Road is the Barber’s Shop, one of the social facilities available in the yard. The Boiler
House’s double door uses anti-bird strips in hot weather.
Fig. 60. Portsmouth Central Boiler House plastic door strips to keep out birds in summer (1907,
2/19). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of Historic England.
Fig. 413. HM Dockyard Portsmouth, Proposed Workshop No. 2, 2/25. (n.d, possibly 1920s).
BAES. Electrical Engineers Department, SCE, Drawing no. 1/1 312. Unicorn (30.1.1997). Structural
Assessment Report. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 414. Portsmouth HM Dockyard, No. 4 Weapons Machine Shop (2/26) Extension West Side, plan,
sections and elevation Drawing no. AB1/1A (23.3.1970). MPBW, Unicorn (30.1.1997).
Structural Assessment Report. BAES. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 415. South elevation of Portsmouth No. 4 Weapons Machine Shop (2/25-26) showing rebuilt
western bay after bomb damage. BAES. Unicorn (3.7.1996). Structural Assessment Report.
Also on the south side of Victoria Road is the Electrical Workshop and Store (1896, 2/20, MoD, SU 63369
00797), constructed in what was the Convict Prison which had closed in 1873. One of its principal
tasks was the assembly of searchlights. It was Control Room No. 20, but is now BAES’s Paint Shop;
the Central Registry of Lifting Gear is also within. The third part of this industrial cluster is a Workshop
(1939, 1945, 2/25-2/26, MoD, SU 63716 00789), now designated as the Joiners’ Shop. Unicorn in 1996
considered it to be 80–100 years old. Its plan is certainly similar to that of the Electrical Engineering
Workshop shown in the 1924 map, built on the site of the former Convicts’ Prison. An undated drawing
for 2/25 from the Electrical Engineers’ Department shows an internal railway track connecting it to the
docks and locks. Two bombs exploded next to the western elevation in 1940–43, damaging the south
and west elevations and requiring rebuilding of the western bay in 1970. In 1962 it was an Electrical
10
Rosyth Dockyard, Dunfermline, retains its Dockyard Power Station, built 1910–15 as an L-plan power station,
which supplied energy to the whole dockyard (British Listed Buildings).
154
Engineering Workshop and a 1970 drawing show it as No. 4 Weapons Machine Shop. The mezzanine
floor was built in 1975 and in 1992 2/26 was in use as glass reinforced plastics workshop. In 1994
an air raid shelter (2/26B & C, 1939) remained but is now gone. (BAES, Evans Grant, March 1992, p.
4; BAES, Building Management SE Ltd, Jan 1994, p. 6; BAES, Unicorn, 3.7.1996, paras 1.1, 2.3; BAES,
Unicorn, 30.1.1997; Lambert, 1993) It is an example of an architecturally undistinguished building
which over the decades has performed a variety of valuable functions.
Set back from Anchor Gate Road is Spithead House Residence (2/27, MoD, SU 63414 00745), formerly
Anchor Gate Residence, built in 1898 for the Commodore of the Naval Barracks on land previously
taken by the Convict Prison. It was occupied by the Commodore of the Barracks until September
1993, when it was taken over by Flag Officer Portsmouth. Spithead House Cottage Residence (2/27A;
SU 63400 00709), formerly Anchor Gate Cottage Residence, was built in 1898 to the south of the
Commodore’s residence against the dockyard wall, for use by the Commodore’s staff. (Lambert, 1993)
Fig. 416. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. Engineer Admiral T. Gurnell, CB. Convict Prison (c.1834)/
Naval Detention Quarters/RM School of Music and Holy Trinity Church (1839) from the south.
Reproduced by kind permission of the Trustees of the National Museum of the Royal Navy.
Fig. 417. North elevation of the ruins of Portsmouth Holy Trinity Church (1839, 2/37), bombed in
the Second World War. A. Coats 2014. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 418. North elevation of Portsmouth Holy Trinity Church Gateway (1839, 2/37) abutting the wall
built to separate the church from Portsea in 1907. A. Coats 2014. Reproduced with the permission
of the MoD.
Fig. 419. Portsmouth Holy Trinity Church (1839, 2/37) south wall section (north elevation) with the
dockyard wall (1907) beyond. A. Coats 2014. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Purchased for social reasons in 1906, the Vicarage to the Holy Trinity Church in Lennox Row (1840,
2/36, MoD, SU 634821 007234), now Trinity House, was bought as a senior naval officer residence;
in 1992 it was the quarters of the Flag Officer Training and Reserves. Holy Trinity Church (1839, 2/37,
MoD, SU 634890 006890) was also purchased in 1906, the Church and Vicarage being enclosed by
the dockyard wall in 1907. The Church was severely damaged by bombing in 1941 and remains a
ruin (Lambert, 1993).
changes in yellow and later buildings in red dotted lines. Section showing additions made 1852–53
to Portsmouth Convict Prison by Joshua Jebb, R.E. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 421. South elevation of the former Portsmouth Garrison Prison Cell Blocks (1846, 2/44), built
for Anglesey Barracks then used as Royal Naval Detention Quarters when the Naval Barracks were
built c.1899. The western Anchor Gate pier (1900) is in the foreground. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced
The Garrison Prison Cell Blocks (1846, 2/38-44, SU 63550 00654) were built for Anglesey Barracks,
then used as Royal Naval Detention Quarters when the Naval Barracks were built c.1899, and are now
occupied by the Royal Marines’ School of Music. HE, MD95/03032 confirms the 1852–53 additions
made to the Convict Prison by Joshua Jebb, R.E, the bulk of whose ‘civilian work related to his
secondment to advise the Home Office on the building of prisons.’ Appointed Inspector-General of
military prisons in 1844, he ‘recognized opportunities for profit in convict labour and, as a military
officer, he saw the advantage of using such labour to improve Britain’s defences.’ (Jebb, 2004)
When the fortifications were removed and the yard was extended in 1867, Circular Road was built
westwards from Anchor Gate along the north side of the new perimeter wall (1863–65). Unicorn
Gate, set at right angles across the wall near Anchor Gate (Royal Navy, 1974 Renaming Ceremony), was
155
moved eastwards to its present position. Circular Road can be seen clearly following the new wall
on Colson’s 1881 map, shaded on both sides by trees. Anchor Gate was then the gateway into the
dockyard, but now gives access to HMS Nelson from the operational naval base. Anchor Gate Police
Offices (2/46, MoD, SU 63601 00671) were built in 1900. Sailors moved ashore when Anglesey
Barracks were purchased by the Admiralty to become HMS Victory barracks in 1903.
Fig. 422. New Anchor Gate 12.9.1907. TNA, ADM 195/79 (1857–1915). 100 photographs depicting:
construction works at Portsmouth Dockyard. Reproduced with the permission of The National
Archives.
Fig. 423. South elevation of Portsmouth Anchor Gate showing the Police Office (1900), with the
Steel Production Hall (1975, 2/56) and Ship Hall B (2002, 2/122) in the background. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 424. Portsmouth Heavy Plate Shop, General Sections through Building, North-South, East-West
Sections. 2/56. Ove Arup Partnership, DOE Job no. DW(NBD) 70033, Drawing no. AA 252, Aug
1972. BAES. Unicorn (Jan 1995). Professional Structural Appraisal. Reproduced with the permission
of the MoD.
One of the largest buildings in the Yard is the Steel Production Hall (1975, 2/56, BAES, SU 636840
007691), built as the Heavy Plate Shop by the Ove Arup Partnership, and termed the Constructive
Workshop in the 1990s. It is a single-storey, steel framed building 18m tall, in three spans which
support crane beams and twenty-six bays with rooflights, and an attached two-storey structure for
offices. It has one sliding door 2.5m high on the west elevation, three on the north elevation, three
on the north elevation and two sliding doors almost the full height on the south elevation. It has
cavity brick walls, its southern elevation fronted with trees (a unique feature, a final remnant of the
trees marking Circular Road when it was built) and a grass embankment (rare too). (BAES, Jan 1995,
Professional Structural Appraisal, pp. 4-6, Building 2/56) It is on the site of the Boiler Shop, which in
1929 employed 475 men (Anon, 1929, p. 23). To the east is the Diamond Building (1979, 2/60, MoD,
SU 636946 007760), offices with a rich red brick ground floor and a first floor entirely glazed.
Fig. 425. Portsmouth Diamond Building (1979, 2/60). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the
Fig. 426. Junction of the original Portland stone masonry and the concrete eastern Pocket extension
in Basin No. 3, constructed in 1939. A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 427. Roller fairlead by Cowans Sheldon & Co Ltd dated 1939, linked to the contemporaneous
construction of the nearby eastern Pocket extension of Portsmouth Basin No. 3, constructed in
1939. A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 428. Dock No. 12 (1876) caisson in situ, viewed from Portsmouth Basin No. 3. A. Coats 2013.
East of the south-eastern Pocket of Basin No. 3, whose construction in 1939–40 had necessitated
the demolition of the Coppersmiths’ Shop, is Dock No. 12 (1876, 1903, BAES, SU 637411 009410).
This dock was part of the Great Extension plan, but the increasing length of warships resulted in an
extension to 500 feet; at some stage a metal overhang three feet in width on metal angle supports was
added to both sides of the Dock. A conventional floating caisson closed the entrance. A 10 ton electric
travelling crane was in situ on the east side of the dock during the First World War. A photograph of
1984 depicts a crane at work, but there is now no crane on this quay, which is used entirely as storage
space for scaffolding. On the knuckle on the east side of the dock entrance is a roller fairlead by
Cowans Sheldon, 1939, meshing with the construction of the nearby Pocket extension of 1939. The
junction of the original Portland stone Basin No. 3 masonry and the concrete Pocket extension can
be seen in the southeast corner of the Basin.
156
Fig. 429. Former dock shed for Portsmouth Dock No. 12, now The White House (1914, 2/103-104).
Fig. 430. Setts and crane track on the wharf between Portsmouth Dock No. 12 (1876) and the White
House (1914, 2/103-104). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 431. Engineering bricks edging the roadway next to the wharf between Portsmouth White
House (1914, 2/103-104) and Dock No. 12 (1876, 1903). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the
Along almost the whole length of the east side of the dock is the original dock shed, now termed The
White House (1914, 2/103-2/104, BAES, SU 637830 009354), so called since its brickwork is painted
white. At its southern end are the Consignment Stores, at the northern end the premises of RAPID
Welding and Industrial Supplies Ltd. North of the White House is a small brick building, the Library
(1968, 2/105, MoD, SU 637005 009529), housing White House Records Storage. The area between this
building and Dock No. 12 was stacked high with stores in early 2013, but empty in 2014.
Fig. 432. Portsmouth Brutalist Workshop Complex No. 1 (1979, 2/109-110), south end, showing its
roof storage in use. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 433. Fluted concrete cornice detail on the north elevation of the Brutalist Portsmouth Workshop
Complex No. 1 (1979, 2/109). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 434. Portsmouth Brutalist Workshop Complex No. 1 (1979, 2/109-110), north end, showing its
roof storage in use. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 435. Portsmouth Brutalist Workshop Complex No. 1 (1979, 2/109-110), cleared of stores after
shipbuilding ended in 2014. A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
The west side of Dock No. 12 once contained Ship Shop No. 5, but this was demolished in favour
of Workshop Complex No. 1 (1979, 2/109-2/110, BAES, SU 637083 009285), an umbrella term for
workshops, offices and amenities. Sited between Dock Nos 12 and 13, this is a two storey building
with a flat roof carried on concrete columns, the substantial edge of the roof comprising fluted
concrete; the ends of the building are curved, redolent of interwar styling. As a piece of Brutalist
architecture it is like only one other, slightly earlier structure to the west when it was erected, both
sharing the same structural features. The roof is designed to take equipment craned from ships in the
docks and has road access via a roller shutter door to a steel-framed rich red brick clad Layapart Store
(1979, 2/111, BAES, SU 63720 00836) and substation lying east-west. The asphalt road surface was in
poor condition in 1993. Its survey noted that ‘the modern design of straight uninterrupted elevations
and recessed pointing attracts and retains water’, substantiating Perret’s argument that architectural
elements had a function in deflecting rain and were not merely decorative. (BAES, (1993) Technical
Inspection, pp. 6-15; see Part 1, Architectural characteristics) On the east side of Dock No. 12 there is
now no crane in place, but one existed in 1984. The quayside is used simply as a space for containers.
Fig. 436. Portsmouth Basin No. 3 Facilities, Stage 1, Phase 2, East Office Block, North and East
Elevations 2/112. Technical Inspection Report, Ove Arup, DOE, May 1976. BAES. Unicorn CS Ltd
(July 1997). Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 437. Portsmouth Basin No. 3 Facilities, Stage 1, Phase 2, East Office Block, South and West
Elevations 2/112. Technical Inspection Report, Ove Arup, DOE, May 1976. BAES. Unicorn CS Ltd
(July 1997). Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
At the west of the ship halls is the Dauntless Building (1984, 2/112, BAES, SU 636190 008629),
called East Office Block when it was designed by the Ove Arup Partnership in 1981. It is a visually
striking building of three storeys with the plant room on the centre of the roof, aligned north-south,
parallel with Dock No. 14. Internally it has two courtyards, so forms a rectangular figure eight in
plan. It is constructed of reinforced concrete flat waffle slabs, on reinforced concrete columns on a
157
reinforced concrete slab, with a flat asphalt covered concrete roof. The ground floor is clad with red
semi-engineering brick, the upper floors with double glazed curtain walling which is cantilevered at
45 degrees. It houses storage/workshops on the ground floor and offices on the upper floors; a small
snackshop is on the ground floor. There are glazed rooflights at the head of the stairwells. It had
suffered long term water penetration through the staircase cavity walls, but that was thought to have
been rectified by the outer skin being rebuilt. One problem reported in 1997 was that pigeons were
trapped in the lightwells and flying into the curtain walls; netting was recommended. The glazed
curtain walling provides natural light to all floors, but sunlight glare was a problem on the east and
west elevations; solar reflective film was advised. The open plan ground floor has internal block and
partition walls and the mainly open plan office floors, articulating the flexibility intended for this
building. (BAES, Unicorn, Feb 1996, para. 2; BAES, Unicorn July 1997, pp. 2-5) An aerial photograph
in Patterson’s The Royal Navy at Portsmouth since 1900 (2005, p. 134) shows Dauntless in 1990. The whole
shipbuilding area before the new buildings can be seen in Fig. 45. HE, 15790/08 SU 6301/10 (9 Sept
1997).
Fig. 438. Portsmouth Dockyard Extension Works 1881. Plate 5, Figs 7, 8, showing Transverse Section
of Dock No. 13, now infilled beneath Ship Hall B (2/122). Colson, C. (1 January 1881). Portsmouth
Dockyard Extension Works (including Appendices and Plate at back of volume).
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineering, 64(1881) Part II, 118-173. Courtesy Institution of
Civil Engineers Virtual Library.
Fig. 45. 15790/08 SU 6301/10. Aerial photograph of Basin No. 3 from the southeast showing the now
infilled Dock No. 13 (bottom centre) where Ship Hall B was built in 2002 (9 Sept 1997). ©Crown
copyright.HE.
Fig. 439. 23852/15 SU 6301/21. Aerial photograph of the north elevation of Ship Halls A and B
(2002, 2/121-122) on Basin No. 3, flanked on the left by the Brutalist Workshop Complex No. 1
(1979, 2/109-110) and on the right by the similar Workshop Complex No. 2 (1976, 2/139-140). Ship
Hall A was built over the Gunnery Gear Pattern Store, the Fitters Afloat Shop and Offices there
in 1924, replaced by No. 5 Shop (Shipfitting), Plumbers Shop and an Engine and Boiler House,
serviced by railways, demolished 1977–78. Ship Hall B was built over infilled Dock No. 13 (1876,
1903) (11 Apr 2005). ©Historic England.
West and parallel with Dock No. 12 is Dock No. 13 (1876, 1903, BAES SU 636 00939), lengthened to
564 feet at the later date, making it the longest dock in the yard at that time. It was supported by
piling, Portland cement concrete, Portland stone and brickwork in Portland cement and lined with
granite. It possessed a conventional floating caisson gate. Almost certainly in 1979 when Nos 12 and
13 Docks Complex was built, considerable quay space was created for the travelling crane track on the
east side by reinforced concrete piles based on the broad altar, more than half the depth of the dock.
The original steam cranes were replaced by 10 ton electric travellers, and by 1925 these had been
supplanted by units of 30 ton capacity. On the Basin edge to the west of the entrance were the largest
sheer legs in the yard. They had a lifting capacity of 100 tons, were made by Cowans Sheldon and
installed in 1901, the back leg screwed by a steam engine. They had a lift of 137 feet with an overhang
of 53 feet. The traverse of the back leg was so long that it ran between the Fitters Afloat Shop on its
east and the Gunnery Gear Pattern Store on its west. An aerial photograph in Patterson’s The Royal
Navy at Portsmouth since 1900 (2005, p. 134) shows Dauntless in 1990. The whole shipbuilding area before
the new buildings can be seen in Fig. 45. HE, 15790/08 SU 6301/10 (9 Sept 1997). Subsequently there
were a number of changes. A major modification occurred when BAES took the decision to enclose
the whole of the dock for its Ship Halls A and B (2002, A: 2/121; B: 2/122, BAES, SU 636465 009360),
designed and built by AMEC. Dock No. 13 had a concrete cofferdam placed across its entrance and
was filled with various grades of fill, including sand pumped via a large pipe from a barge on the
western side of Basin No. 3. A concrete slab was then built across the dock entrance, with some piling.
At the entrance of Dock No. 13 piles were positioned in Basin No. 3 to create an apron (viewable
on Google Maps) from the ship hall to allow loading onto transport barges. Thus Dock No. 13 is no
158
longer a dock, but has the potential to be restored as a dock. On the west side of the former entrance
is a mooring post by Bean. Set in the south elevation of the ship hall are large doors, making it
possible for loads to be moved by lorry.
It will be recalled that only the entrance to Dock No. 14 (1876, 1896, 1914, SU 635583 009041)
was constructed as part of the Great Extension scheme. By the 1890s, it became apparent that a
complete dock was required. One contractor, J. Price & Co, Westminster, was appointed, working
under the general supervision of Major Pilkington RE11 and Charles Colson, Assistant Engineer during
the Portsmouth Dockyard Extension and Civil Engineer 1881–83 at Portsmouth (Obituary, Charles
Colson, 1916, pp. 391-2). The dock was 564 feet in length. Testament to the ever-increasing length
of battleships, only a decade later a substantial extension was put in hand, giving the dock some
723 feet (Patterson, 1989, p. 57). Surprisingly, given that electric power was available, the original
travelling cranes on both sides of the dock, by Stothert & Pitt, were steam driven (Anon, 1929, p. 13).
Subsequently a two foot overhang above metal angle supports was put in on the western side of the
dock to create additional space. The 30 ton cranes shown on the 1924 map are very likely to have
been electrically powered. The travelling crane now on the western edge of the dock is by Stothert
& Pitt, and has a lifting capacity of 125 tons. The dock is now tidal, its caisson being moored in the
Basin. The space between this dock and Dock No. 15 to the west has been taken up by a similar
Brutalist concrete structure to that between Dock Nos 12 and 13, and given the prosaic title Workshop
Complex No. 2 (1976, 2/139-2/140, BAES, SU 635246 008985) It includes workshops, offices and
amenity rooms where planning for the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier and work for the Oman Navy was
under way in 2013. Three Air Raid Shelters and Bath House No. 6 were demolished to make way for
this building (Lambert, 1993). It is a two storey, mainly reinforced concrete building with pre-stressed
concrete columns and a steel stanchion frame, attached to the Layapart Store (1976, 2/141, BAES,
SU 63504 00795). Its roof was designed as a loading platform and storage area for equipment to be
craned to and from the drydocks, with an asphalt road service leading to the high level roller shutter
door in the Layapart Store. The floor decks have strengthening beams spanning the building, cast into
large concrete ring beams which are supported on reinforced columns. In 1992 the road surface was
in poor condition. Floors are of concrete slab construction. The walls have a lower semi-engineering
brickwork section c.2m high with curtain walling above. The pre-stressed concrete parapet wall cast
in the perimeter of the roof deck gives a salient outline to the building, emphasising its fit within the
space between Dock Nos 14 and 15. Areas for senior and junior rates were separated, as were the
toilets. (BAES, May 1992, Technical Inspection, pp. 3-14) An aerial photograph in Patterson’s The Royal
Navy at Portsmouth since 1900 (2005, p. 134) shows the two Brutalist buildings in 1990. NDS considered
that these two buildings should be listed for their stylistic rarity as dockyard buildings.
Fig. 440. Steps and engineering bricks at the head of Portsmouth Dock No. 15 (1876). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 441. Dock No. 15 (1876) overhung quay and the Portsmouth Brutalist Workshop Complex No. 2
(1976, 2/139-140) which preceded the matching Workshop Complex No. 1 (1979, 2/109-110). A. Coats
The fourth of these great docks, No. 15 (1876, 1896, 1907, SU 634940 009298), like No. 14, comprised
an entrance only until J. Price & Co built the dock to 564 feet in length. But in order to take account
of the bilge keels, or stabilisers, which assisted the accuracy of guns, No. 15 was twelve feet broader
and squarer in section than No. 14. An extension to 612 feet was later executed. Electric travelling
cranes of 10 tons were provided on each side of the dock. In 2013 there was a 20 ton Clark Chapman
crane on each side, and a 25 ton Stothert & Pitt crane (1965) on the east side; in August 2015 there
was a movable new crane on the west side, replacing the earlier Clark Chapman crane. A metal
overhang has been added to both sides of the dock, the metal supports extending as far down as
11
Major Sir Henry Pilkington KCB, RE was appointed Admiralty Director of Engineering and Architectural Works
1890–95 and Civil Engineer-in-Chief of the Admiralty Naval Works Loan Department 1895–1906, where he was
responsible for the extension of all major dockyards.
159
the broad altar. On the east side are mooring posts by Spittle, Newport, Mon, and two roller fairleads
by Douglass & Grant at the head of the dock. It is now tidal. At the head of the dock is a red brick
Electrical Workshop (1976, 2/141, BAES, SU 635102 007935). In 1993 it was a single storey Layapart
Store, located to the south of, and linked to, Workshop Complex No. 2. It has a steel framed structure
clad with bricks, supported on reinforced concrete beams on mass concrete foundations. Remedial
works were carried out to the parapet walling in 1983. The long flat roof over 2/140 and 2/141 has a
central ridge for drainage, its covering replaced in 1992. In 1997 Unicorn stated that it was ‘designed
as a loading platform and storage area for equipment to be craned to and from the dry docks’, but
seemed mostly to be used for scrap plant. There was a travelling crane at roof level with crane beams
along the north and south elevations. (BAES, Evans Grant, Feb 1993, paras 1-4; BAES, Unicorn, Feb
1997, p. 6) On this site, but much smaller, was Bath House No. 4, opened in 1920. A First Aid Station
was added in 1940 and a small school attached to the Bath House (Lambert, 1993). In the 1924 map
the road running north-south alongside Dock No 15 was a 30 Ton Crane Road. Some original railway
track survives where this road meets Victoria Road.
Fig. 442. New Portsmouth Pay Room 7.1.1909. TNA, ADM 195/79 (1857–1915). 100 photographs
depicting: construction works at Portsmouth Dockyard. Reproduced with the permission of
Fig. 443. New Portsmouth Pay Room (interior) 30.3.1909. TNA, ADM 195/79 (1857–1915). 100
photographs depicting: construction works at Portsmouth Dockyard. Reproduced with the
Fig. 444. Pipe Shop (1993, 2/152). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 445. Pipe Shop keystone (1993, 2/152). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission
of the MoD.
Fig. 62. Cast iron light bracket, similar to those on Portsmouth North Pumping Station (1913, 2/239)
and the Gunnery Mounting Store (1896, 2/165), attached anachronistically to the Weapon Electrical
Workshop (1936, 2/152). A. Coats, 2015. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
To the west of Aldrich Road was Store No. 10 and Workshop (1909, 2/151, BAES, SU 63434 00882), now
a Receipt/Dispatch Bay for the Pipe Shop (1993). Previously on the site was a Pay Office (described as
new on 7.1.1909, TNA, ADM 195/79) on the site of the Cart Pound (built in 1867 when Sluice Bastion
was demolished). It is single storey in high quality red brick, the south elevation having a recessed
blind arch outlined in blue and raised mustard bricks, above which is the date of construction in the
keystone. It is among a significant number of new industrial buildings in the yard. It is about a third of
the length and mostly the same width as the older Pipe Shop (2/152, BAES, SU 63437 00936) adjoining
it to the north, built of a light-coloured brick and dated 1936 by Lambert (1993), with an earlier period
cast iron lamp bracket attached to the eastern elevation. A number of buildings were demolished in
1992 to make way for the Pipe Shop. Marlborough Cottages Nos 1 & 2 (1945, 2/149 & 149A) were at the
north end of Anchor Gate Road to house first the Leading Turncock and Inspector of Penstocks and
Caissons, then the PSA Plumber (Turncock) and Base Services Utilities Office. The Paint Laboratory
(1939, 2/150) was between the Cottages. The Weapon Electrical Workshop (1936, 2/152) was on the
east side of Marlborough Road, now Aldrich Road, where Dock No. 15 Shed and a group of stables
had stood since about 1895. It also covered an area which in the late 1920s and 1930s contained
barriers to keep dockyard men in the correct lanes to receive pay from the Pay Office. (Lambert, 1993)
Building 2/154 (1924, BAES, SU 63444 00985) was Bath House No. 5 and a Boiler House on vacant
land and appears to be attached to 2/155, built of painted brick. Building 2/155 (1935, BAES, SU 63433
00985), originally a Ferrobestos workshop built on vacant land, has been rebuilt recently in red brick
and is now a Composite Department Building. Building 2/156 (1899; post-war, BAES, SU 63426 01003)
originally Latrine No. 46, then a sullage stand in the 1930s, a bomb damaged area in the Second World
War, and post-war Latrine No. 24 (Lambert, 1993), has been demolished since 2012 and its site is now
an enclosure for equipment.
160
In Aldrich Road, contiguous with the Gunnery Equipment Store, is a two storey, white painted
Training Centre (c.1990, 2/164, BAES SU 63352 00904). Facing Victoria Road, and close to Basin No.
3, the Gunnery Mounting Store (1896, 2/165, BAES, SU 63338 00936)/No. 39 Store, is now the MEWW
Workshop. From 1911–12 plans, it looks as though the architecturally distinctive twin oculus windows
above the main entrance were added then, when its height was increased. Two revolving doors were
also added to the south entrance, above a granite cill. (BAES, 1911–12, Extending Gun Mounting Shop)
Following the 1981 Defence Review (Secretary of State for Defence, 1981), the Factory (3/82) and
Weapons Equipment Shop Nos 1, 2 and 3 were amalgamated and reduced to a combined workshop,
and machines were relocated here. (BAES, MEWW) That section parallel to Victoria Road now has
white plastic cladding round its first floor. This feature seems to be characteristic of a number of
industrial buildings put to new uses. It is one of the older workshops, like 2/19 and the rear of 2/201,
which have nets hung in front of their large doors to stop birds flying in. An adjacent Workshop (1896,
2/165H, BAES) has railway station valancing above its entrance; it is now occupied by Waterfront
Services.
Fig. 446. 2/165, Store for Gun Mountings, Plan and Sections AA, BB, SCE, Drawing No. P40
(18 Feb 1910). BAES. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 447. 2/165, Extending Gun Mounting Shop, HM Dockyard Portsmouth, North, South and West
Elevations (1911–12). BAES. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 448. 2/165, Extending Gun Mounting Shop, HM Dockyard Portsmouth AE, Vote 10, Subhead B,
Part 1, Detailed Elevation of South End, SCE, Drawing No. 5 (1911–12). BAES. Reproduced with the
Fig. 449. 2/165, Gun Mounting Store Extension, HM Dockyard Portsmouth, Floor Plan showing
existing and new railway track and existing gantry, Section AB and Details of Roof Truss, SCE,
Drawing No. 1 of 2; P29. (n.d.). BAES. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 450. North elevation of the Gunnery Mounting Store (1896, 2/165H) showing valanced cornice.
Fig. 59. South elevation of Portsmouth Gunnery Mounting Store (1896, 2/165) showing nets to keep
out birds in the summer. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
To the east of the Armour Plate Shop, across Navy Road, is Store No. 36 (1971, 2/167, MoD, SU 63276
00943), constructed on the site of Smithery No. 2, built in 1896. In fact the south end of the former
Smithery was rebuilt as a separate Store (1973, 2/166, MoD, SU 63277 00895), which has been converted
to the two storey, red brick ground floor and turquoise metal clad first floor Daring Building housing
BAES Administration. These offices front Victoria Road.
Fig. 40. Neoclassical south entrance to the Light Plate Shop/No. 1 Ship Building Shop (1867, 2/172).
Fig. 57. Modified south entrance to Portsmouth Armour Plate Shop/No. 1 Ship Building Shop/Multi-
functional Workshop (1867, 2/172) supplied with nets to keep out birds in the summer. A. Coats
To the north of Dock No. 8 is the Armour Plate Shop/No. 1 Ship Shop/Multi-functional Workshop
(1867, 2/172, MoD, SU 63188 00940) (Evans, 2004, p. 191; Lambert, 1993). This was one of the last
industrial buildings in the yard on which money was spent to create notable architecture, but was not
listed because it ‘survives only in fragmentary condition.’ (Lake & Douet, 1998, p. 34) The neoclassical
entrances on both the north and south elevations remain, although the doors once accommodating
railway wagons have been modified. Only the base of the chimney at the north-west corner is
extant. Five bays of modern saw tooth roofing were in place by 1983. It shut in 1983 and is now used
as a multifunctional workshop. In front of the south entrance was a hydraulic accumulator tower
161
in matching architectural style, which can be seen in the 1940 photograph of the damaged HMS
Cumberland (NavSource Naval History, 2014). By 1970 it had been increased in height by the addition
of light coloured brickwork, suggesting that greater pressure could thereby be generated. It was
demolished in the 1980s since it was not listed and hydraulic power was no longer used. Now actually
part of the same building is the larger Light Plate Shop/No. 1 Ship Building Shop (1880, 2/172, MoD,
SU 63225 00946), which by 1910 held a blacksmiths’ stores, a shipbuilding shed and a machine shed,
which in the 1950s was converted into the Shipwright Apprentices Training Centre. It too closed in
1983. Like the Armour Plate Shop, it has been covered with five bays of saw tooth roofing.
Fig. 451. Stuccoed Office (1900, 2/179) alongside the South Wall of Portsmouth Tidal Basin near
Excellent Steps, from the west. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 452. Stuccoed Office (1900, 2/179) alongside the South Wall of Portsmouth Tidal Basin near
Excellent Steps, from the east. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 453. Gaslight standard (1891) alongside the South Wall of Portsmouth Tidal Basin, near
Excellent Steps. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 454. Lamp standard (J. & S. Allanson & Son, Glasgow, n.d.) alongside Portsmouth South Wall of
the Tidal Basin near Excellent Steps. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 455. Top of lamp standard (J. & S. Allanson & Son, Glasgow, n.d.) alongside the South Wall of
Portsmouth Tidal Basin near Excellent Steps. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of
the MoD.
At the western end of the South Wall of the Tidal Basin is a small Office (1900, 2/179, MoD, SU
631002 010752), doubtless brick but now wholly stuccoed and used by the Coastguard Service. With
the Porter’s Lodge (1/8), Long Row (1/124-1/132), North Office Block (1/144) and a section of North
Pumping Station (No. 4, 2/239/2/240), it comprises a small number of stuccoed buildings in the yard.
A canopy has been added on the north side. It was originally a waiting room for the convenience of
people moving to and from the hulks Excellent, Calcutta, Ariadne and Vernon. Excellent Steps (SU 630997
010889) were originally sited at the 1876 entrance to Basin No 2, moved to allow access for ironclads.
They were carved out of the sea wall in 1873–75. In the 1920s the building became a telephone room,
later a NAAFI and a barber’s shop. Close to the canopy are the stems of two lamp standards, one of
which is not only decorative and freshly painted, but also bears the date 1891, making it a former
gaslight. The other, taller example is by J. & S. Allanson & Son, Glasgow. The quayside features ribbed
mooring posts. Nearby, to the north-west of the Office, is the 1876 entrance to the Steam Basin/
Basin No. 2. The caisson gate has been dispensed with, making the Basin tidal, which is no great
disadvantage since the amplitude of the Harbour is not great. On each side of the entrance are recesses
which took the caisson splines. The original 1848 entrance to the Basin was found to be insufficiently
wide for the new ironclads, so its iron caisson was simply sunk in situ, to be revealed when the railway
track was being lifted in 1984 (Riley, 1984). At the side of the entrance is an electrically powered 16
ton capacity capstan by Rolls Royce on the site of an earlier appliance.
Fig. 456. Portsmouth Dock No. 11 (1865) from the east. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the
Fig. 457. Gantry crane north of Portsmouth Dock No. 11 (1970s). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the
On the north side of Dock No. 11 is a series of modern single storey brick buildings, Workshops
and Stores (1974, 2/183, 2/184, MoD, SU 631677 010429). They were erected on the site of the Motor
Generating House No. 19, c.1920, and some air raid shelters. Straddling these structures is a gantry
crane capable of lifting materials from the South Wall of the Tidal Basin to the side of Dock No. 11,
also probably also dating from the 1970s. The date of Dock No. 11 or North Inlet Dock (1865, SU
631458 010173) hardly suggests that it was part of the Steam Basin era, but it was in fact part of the
162
original plan of 1843 and for reasons not entirely clear its construction was postponed. The result was
that the increasing length of warships could be accounted for – the dock is twice the length of those
round Basin No. 1 – making it appropriate for present day use. In 1929 an electrically powered 30 ton
transporter linked the Tidal Basin, immediately to the north, with the dock (Anon, 1929, p. 8). This
may have been a gantry, but it no longer exists. At its head is the 90hp Engine House (1885, 2/186,
MoD, SU 63241 01022), a single storey building with a stone cornice on all sides, now the Waterfront
Crane Office. Adjacent is a small brick Pump House (1950s, 2/187, MoD, SU 63237 01013) housing the
electric motors for the dock.
Fig. 53. Tall windows on the east elevation of Portsmouth Painters’ Shop (1896, 2/191), to maximise
natural light. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
To the west of Pumping Station No. 1 is the elegant single storey brick Painters’ Shop (1896, 2/191,
MoD, SU 63295 01002), in 2013 used by Smith Brothers, flooring contractors. It has one pediment on
the south elevation, two on the north elevation, two sets of double wooden doors on the north and
Portland stone string courses and cills. Arched iron framed windows take up most of the height of the
building. It bears a notice for the PRDAC fishing club. Its image contrasts with the nearby mundane
Zincing Shop (1905, 2/197, MoD, SU 63305 01026), closed in the mid-1950s and presently occupied by
the contractor Anixter, which has an infilled oculus window in the eastern gable end.
Fig. 458. Portsmouth Dockyard Foundations for Engine and Boiler Houses (Main Pumping
Station No. 1) (7.7.1874). Drawing no. X7. BAES. Unicorn (June 2000). 2/201. Structural Appraisal.
Fig. 459. Portsmouth Dockyard Extension of Pumping Station Engine House, AE 1903–04, Part 1,
Subhead B, Item 6, Details of Pump Wells, Plans, Elevations and Sections, Drawing no. 2, X31,
6.10.1893. BAES. Unicorn (June 2000). 2/201. Structural Appraisal. Reproduced with the permission
of the MoD.
Fig. 460. Portsmouth Dockyard, Main Pumping Station, Building for Oxygen Producing Plant, Tank
on Roof, Ground Plan, South and West Elevations and Sections. SCE, Drawing No. X50, 1.12.1918.
2/201. BAES. Unicorn (June 2000). Structural Appraisal. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 461. North door of Portsmouth Main Pumping Station No. 1 (1878, 2/201). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 51. Oculus windows on the north elevation of Portsmouth Main Pumping Station No. 1 (1878,
Fig. 52. Neoclassical iron columns cast in an industrial style inside Portsmouth Main Pumping Station
No. 1 (1878, 2/201). A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 61. West elevation of Portsmouth Main Pumping Station No. 1 (2/201) with nets to keep out
birds in summer. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 462. AA045931. Photograph of the exterior of Portsmouth Pumping Station No. 1 (2/201) from
the north (9.7.2003). ©Historic England.
Main Pumping Station No. 1 (1878, 2/201, Grade II, 1272260, MoD, SU 63374 00987) served Dock Nos
9, 11-15. The main engine house is single storey but expressed as two storeys in six bays, with a series
of vaults in the east basement, and constructed with a cast iron frame and red brick and masonry
walls. The roof is constructed of concrete roof planks, spanning onto cast iron girders and columns
with glazed rooflights in the north and south, giving natural light and ventilation. On the pumphouse
roof is a disused cast iron salt water tank linked to a firefighting main, supported by an independent
cast iron structure (Building for Oxygen Producing Plant, Tank on Roof 1.12.1918, SCE, Drawing No.
X50). The building is embellished with Portland stone coping, cornices, entablatures, cills and window
arches and courses of blue glazed bricks. The windows are painted metal casements, the doors painted
163
timber. Unicorn characterised it as ‘a fine example of ornate Victorian industrial architecture.’ (BAES,
Unicorn March 1994, Technical Inspection Report, pp. 2-5, 14, 22) The pumphouse originally housed
two inverted compound steam engines capable of dealing with 18,000 tons of water per hour, not
surprising in view of the new docks which had been built. It also housed drainage pumps and steam
driven air compressors; some of the latter were electrically powered by 1929 (Anon, 1929, p. 19). By
this date one air compressor was driven by a Brotherhood oil engine. The signal tower on the roof
which relayed messages from the Semaphore Tower was removed in the 1950s (Lambert, 1993). The
pumping machinery was removed in 1992, as were the boilers from the unusual glazed boiler house
which has the appearance of a large orangery, although the disused brick chimney 110 feet high with
steel bands and Portland stone cornice has been retained. Like the Gunnery Equipment Store, oculus
windows offer a notable visual image, with arched windows similar to those of the nearby Paint Store.
The south elevation of the Main Pumping Station No 1 (2/201) is joined to a later structure with a
double pitched roof and a tall entrance for railway wagons; the track has been lifted, and the entrance
is covered with movable netting.
Fig. 463. Extension of Portsmouth Motor Generator House No. 18 (2/205), General Arrangement
and Details, Civil Engineer in Chief’s Dept, Plans, Elevations, Sections, Drawing No. 333/50B,
8.8.1950. BAES. Unicorn (Dec 1997). Technical Inspection Report. Reproduced with the permission
of the MoD.
the MoD.
To the north of the Pumping Station is the small and architecturally unexceptional Portsmouth D East
Substation, built as Motor Generator House No. 18 and extended in 1950 (1939, 2/205, SU 63386
01048). Nevertheless, it is distinguished by a decorative flagpole, evidence that workspaces signify
more than mere sites of work. (BAES, Unicorn, Dec 1997, enclosing drawing no. 333/50B, 8.8.1950)
Fig. 464. ADM01 (June 1908). Numbers and Dimensions of Locks Docks and Basin Entrances in HM
Dockyards. Admiralty Book, p. 54. Portsmouth Deep Dock/No. 9 midship section and outline of
entrance. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 465. Portsmouth Dock No. 9/Deep Dock (1875), showing the vertical upper half of the
northern dock wall and the supporting metal framing for the Stothert & Pitt crane. A. Coats 2015.
North of the Zinc Shop and Pumping Station are the locks and docks of the Great Extension, urgently
needed to provide longer docks, more wharfage, coal storage and deeper basins for the ironclads,
which needed more frequent docking to clean their hulls than wooden ships. It utilised land no
longer required for Portsea fortifications and the last of Portsmouth’s open fields, Pesthouse Field.
Plan E was chosen, to be completed between 1869 and 1873, to increase wharfage, ‘transport the
largest ship from one basin to another’ while the inner basin could ‘contain all the ships likely to be
employed there at one time.’ (Hamilton, 2005, pp. xxix-xxx, xxxvi, 53, 57-61, 363-4, 375-7, end paper;
House of Commons, 1860, Report of the Royal Commission appointed to consider the defences of the United Kingdom;
Portsmouth Dockyard Act, 1864, 27 & 28 Victoria, c. 103; Chapman, 1978, pp. 3, 4, 6, 9) The first is Dock
No. 9 or Deep Dock (1875, MoD, SU 633305 010810), its epithet referring to its depth which allowed
ships to be docked irrespective of the state of the tide. A further innovatory feature was the use of a
sliding rather than a ship caisson; this may have been a strategy to allow repairs to be made to the
sliding caisson. There is now a weight restriction on the roadway above the caisson housing on the
north side of the dock entrance. Running along almost the whole of the north side of the dock wall
are metal supports for one of the travelling crane tracks; they have the appearance of dating from the
1950s. In the older docks, with their stepped sides from top to bottom, footings for travelling cranes
could be created by blocking off the top three or four steps with concrete; here the upper half of
the dock wall is vertical, hence the supporting metal framing. This is unique in the yard. The crane
164
is by Stothert & Pitt with a 12.5 ton capacity. On the south side of the dock is a length of disused
standard gauge railway track, used for an early steam powered travelling crane since no railway is
marked on the 1924 map. Travelling steam cranes were small enough to operate on track of this
gauge; the larger electric cranes needed a much broader gauge. Before the introduction of electric
power, travelling steam cranes were useful, although their maximum load was only 5 tons; as their
coffee pot boilers needed constant attention they were quickly dispensed with. Additionally drivers
had to fire up before work each day. An indication of the sudden flowering of crane technology in the
early years of the twentieth century is the existence of simple derricks on the south side of the lock
as late as 1901 (Navy and Army Illustrated, October 1901). Also on the south side are two capstans: that
on the west with a 16 ton capacity is by Clyde Booth & Rodley, Leeds; that on the east with an 18 ton
capacity is by Stothert & Pitt, Bath, dated 1978. Beyond the head of the dock, running along the edge
of the Basin, was a short section of track for one of the yard’s first electric travelling cranes, capable
of lifting 10 tons, by Sir William Arrol, dated 1912. The novelty caused the quay to be termed 10 Ton
Crane Road on the 1924 map. The track and crane are no longer in place. On the north side of the
dock are three buildings, from east to west: Deep Dock Shed (c.1890, 2/231, MoD, SU 63386 01111)
used as a Submarine Store and Workshop until the late 1940s, and rebuilt in 1972 as Motor Generator
House No. 1; Ready-Use Store (1972, 2/232, MoD, SU 63345 01111); and Caisson Store (1920, 2/233,
MoD, SU 63279 01112).
Fig. 466. Portsmouth Dockyard Extension Works 1881. Plate 6, Fig. 17, showing Entrance to South
[A] Lock through Tidal Basin. Colson, C. (1 January 1881). Portsmouth Dockyard Extension Works
(including Appendices and Plate at back of volume). Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institute of Civil
Engineering, 64(1881) Part II, 118-173. Courtesy Institution of Civil Engineers Virtual Library.
Fig. 467. Portsmouth Dockyard Extension Works 1881. Plate 6, Fig. 15, showing the Caisson Camber
at the Entrance to South [A] Lock through Tidal Basin. Colson, C. (1 January 1881). Portsmouth
Dockyard Extension Works (including Appendices and Plate at back of volume). Minutes of the
Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineering, 64(1881) Part II, 118-173. Courtesy Institution of Civil
Engineers Virtual Library.
Fig. 468. Portsmouth Dockyard Extension Works 1881. Plate 7, Figs 32, 33, 34, showing a ship
caisson and the caisson section at the Entrance to the Tidal and Fitting Basins. Colson, C. (1 January
1881). Portsmouth Dockyard Extension Works (including Appendices and Plate at back of volume).
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineering, 64(1881) Part II, 118-173. Courtesy Institution of
Civil Engineers Virtual Library.
Fig. 469. Capstan between Portsmouth South/A Lock (1875) and North/B Lock (1876) on the west
side. It was made by Clarke Chapman Marine, dated 17.4.96. A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the
Fig. 470. Inner face of the sliding caisson connecting South/A Lock (1875) to the Tidal Basin.
HM Dockyards. Admiralty Book, p. 59. Portsmouth South Lock/A Lock outer entrance C, midship
section and outline of entrances. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
HM Dockyards. Admiralty Book, p. 56. Portsmouth North Lock/B Lock outer entrance B, midship
section and outline of entrances. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
To the north of and parallel to Deep Dock is the first of the two locks giving access to the Repairing
Basin (q.v.). It was originally known as South Lock, later as A Lock (1875, SU 63332 01142). The
lock was closed at its western or Tidal Basin end by a sliding caisson, but at the eastern end by a
conventional floating structure. On the south side of the Lock is a now disused travelling crane by
Sir William Arrol with a capacity of 20 tons, dated 1959. The complicated nature of the jib metalwork
165
certainly suggests that it is not exactly a modern example. Its presence indicates that the lock was
once used for lifting materials, not only as a means of access to the Basin. On the north side of the
lock is the Battery Workshop No. 2 (1915, 1970s, 2/235, MoD, SU 633346 011726), having the enviable
distinction of being on the site of the last earth closet in the yard; it is now a 1970s rich red brick
Lay Apart Store. It is a long narrow single storey building with a clerestory throughout its length
which continues the neoclassical design and has decorative brick cornice. It was formerly served by
a 10 ton travelling crane running from the Basin; since the workshop was concerned with weighty
submarine batteries this must have been a real advantage. To the north of these buildings is North
or B Lock (1876, SU 633277 012032), having the same dimensions and operating principles as the
parallel A Lock.
Fig. 473. Portsmouth Battery Workshop No. 2/Lay Apart Store (1915, 1970s, 2/235). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 474. South elevation of Portsmouth North Wall (1881) leading to the former Coaling Point.
Fig. 475. Western point of Portsmouth North Wall (1881), which would have led to the former
Coaling Point, but was rounded off in 1913 when C Lock was built. A. Coats 2015.
The buildings on the north side of B Lock relate to the completion of C Lock in 1913 rather than
to the opening of B Lock in 1876. Since a visual inspection of the basins and gates, which existed
only between 1876 and 1908–14, when the huge modification project began, is impossible, a general
description of the situation in these years is given below. A full account of the building, with plans,
is given in Bernays, et al. (1881; Colson, 1881; Meyer, 1881).
Fig. 397. Portsmouth Dockyard Extension Works 1881. Plate 4. Colson, C. (1 January 1881).
Portsmouth Dockyard Extension Works (including Appendices and Plate at back of volume). Minutes
of the Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineering, 64(1881) Part II, 118-173. Courtesy Institution of Civil
Engineers Virtual Library.
The plan as originally conceived was for vessels to move from the Tidal Basin, which was part of the
harbour, through South and North Locks into the Repairing Basin which was provided with Dock Nos
12 and 13, on its south side. The entrances to two further docks, Nos 14 and 15, were constructed,
but no further work was then undertaken. From the Repairing Basin vessels could move north to
the Rigging Basin through a caisson gate. Access to Fountain Lake (part of the harbour) could be
achieved via a caisson gate set in its north wall. From the Rigging Basin ships could pass westwards
to the Fitting Out Basin via a gate set in the south-west corner of the Rigging Basin, and then to the
Tidal Basin through another caisson gate on the south side of the Fitting Out Basin. There was thus
a generalised anti-clockwise flow through the three basins.
C. H. Meÿer (1881, p.175), engineer in charge of the temporary works and plant, gave the
dimensions of the works:
Repairing Basin 22 acres; entrances 80 and 82 feet
Fitting Out Basin 15½ acres; entrances 80 and 82 feet
Rigging Basin 15¾ acres; entrances 80 and 82 feet
Tidal Basin 8¾ acres; 30 feet deep at low water
Ship caissons were used for the entrances to the docks and locks for the Repairing Basin, but sliding
caissons were used for the Deep Dock, Locks and Tidal Basin entrance to the Fitting Basin. The ship
caissons, which permitted access to roadways and railways, consisted of ‘a wrought iron body covered
in by a deck or roadway of the best Dantzic oak planking 4 inches thick.’ Colson justified caissons
over gates because they took up less space and were easier to maintain. They could be moved in
166
twenty minutes. The seven sliding caissons were of box form, open at each end to allow water to
flow above and below the air chamber. Iron and water ballast adjusted the flotation. Wrought iron
girders fixed to the masonry prevented the caissons lifting accidentally. Their keels and stems were
constructed of English oak, their roadway decks of six inch Dantzic oak planks. Admiralty Director
of Works during the Great Extension, Sir Andrew Clarke, also justified the use of sliding caissons by
their greater ease of working, ‘whilst for repairing or removing they were preferable to gates.’ He
added that they ‘could have their roadway removed and be run into their chambers by one man in five
minutes’. Colson reported that the costs of dock gates and bridges would have been equal if not more
than caissons, ‘without affording the same advantages’. The sliding caissons, penstocks and capstans
were worked by compressed air, selected by Colson after it was found that ‘a greater reserve of power
was available at less cost’ than hydraulic power. Hydraulic machinery was also limited by the water
freezing in cold weather. It would have been wasteful to produce a constant supply of steam power
for the intermittent requirements of this equipment so steam was not considered. (Colson, 1881, pp.
134, 146-8; Bernays et al., 1881, pp. 226, 231, 235-7) Surplus excavated material was transported by
railway to Whale Island over a swing bridge across Fountain Lake. Two men could open the bridge in
half a minute (Meÿer, 1881, p. 194).
Fig. 393. Map showing the swing bridge and timber staging removing surplus excavated material
from the Great Extension which enlarged Whale Island. AdL Vz14/111 (1875). Portsmouth Dockyard
Extension: Plan Shewing state of the works in Jany. 1875 (progress since 1865). To accompany
Colonel Pasley’s Report of Feb. 1875. Director of Works. Defence Estates Plans. Courtesy MoD
Admiralty Library, Naval Historical Branch, Portsmouth.
While the scale of all this construction work was enormous, innovatory was the establishment of
specialised quayage for the bunkering of vessels, known as Coaling Point, on three acres of a knuckle
southwest of the Fitting Out Basin. In 1863 a plan for a covered “Experimental Store”, designed by
Portsmouth Assistant Civil Engineer John Wood for Watering Island, was considered for the Extension
Coaling Point, to contain “13,540 superficial feet of storage space and 42’ 6” height, equal to about
12,000 tons”. A complex system of eight storage cells would have used elevators on the jetty to
unload the coal from railway wagons without breaking it in the dumping process, but it was not built.
(Evans, 1996, pp. 181-2) No less than 18,000 tons of coal could be stocked on the Point to meet the
voracious appetite of the continually growing steam engines. Ten hydraulic cranes with a capacity
of 30 cwt were installed to shift the coal; in recognition of the amount of dust generated cabs were
provided for the drivers. The cranes were of a new kind, having four legs and a counterbalancing
weight behind the jib, giving them a radius far greater than the swan neck variety. Gray stated that the
hydraulic hoists at Portsmouth and Portland ‘could reportedly discharge at 500 tons per hour, a rate
around double what could be achieved with manual labour [but] only cruisers could coal alongside.
Battleships therefore still had to be coaled by lighter, although the bags were transferred from the
dockside by cranes.’ (2015, p. 172).12
Alterations to the docks giving on to the Repairing Basin after 1881 are readily understood, since
essentially an extension process was undertaken. However, alterations to the Basins themselves were
more complicated, the 1906 plan hingeing on drastic simplification of the Basins and the creation of
new entrances from the Harbour. Since North and South Locks, at 468 feet in length, were wholly
inadequate for new vessels, they would either have to be extended or entirely new locks built. The
latter strategy was decided upon, but the downside was the concomitant need to remove the Coaling
Point, despite its advantages for bunkering. Fortunately the new leviathans were powered by oil-fired
steam turbines, while the requirements of conventional ships came to be met by a coal depôt ship
which could hold 12,000 tons, arriving in the yard in 1904 (Riley, 1985, p. 23). Considering that ocean-
going bulk carriers of this capacity did not appear until the 1950s, this was an early and important
innovation. Not so easily resolved was the problem created by the reduction in size of the Fitting Out
Basin by two-thirds to allow the construction of the new locks, which were, at 850 feet in length,
12
See Gray (2015, pp. 168-83) and Gray (2014) for the dangers and discomforts of coaling.
167
almost twice that of the older locks. The very much smaller area came to be termed The Pocket; other
arrangements were made for fitting out. The caisson on the south side of what was the Fitting Out
Basin giving access to the Tidal Basin was subsumed within the new construction, its site becoming
part of the quay on the south side of C Lock.
Fig. 476. ADM01. Numbers and Dimensions of Locks, Docks and Basin entrances in HM Dockyards,
June 1908. Admiralty Book, p. 62. Portsmouth Proposed New Lock [C or D Lock] outer entrance
midship section and outline of entrances. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 477. Portsmouth photograph entitled ‘No. 642 New Locks. Removal of Coaling Point Sept
1912’. PMRS, PORMG 2009/124/17. Photograph reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth
Museums and Records Service.
Work on the two new Locks, C and D, which had begun in 1908, was completed in 1913 and 1914
respectively, the contractors being Morrison & Mason, Glasgow. The sliding caissons at their western
end, operated by compressed air, were made by Swan Hunter & Wigham Richardson. The broad quay
separating the Fitting Out and Rigging Basins interfered with navigation at the eastern extremity of the
new Locks and it too was removed, together with the caisson between the two Basins, which became
a single entity. The northern quay of the Rigging Basin, known as Fountain Lake Jetty, was pierced
by a caisson which was retained despite its being of use to the largest ships only at the highest tides;
it was eventually closed in 1923. Since the plan called for one large basin in place of the existing
three, and because it interfered with access to the locks, much of the wall between the Rigging and
Repairing Basins was demolished together with its caisson, leaving an eastern remaining section,
known as the Promontory. See the HE 1900 map MD95/03034 showing the Fitting Out, Rigging and
Fitting Out Basins.
Fig. 478. Concrete infilled section (1923) of the northern quay of the Portsmouth Rigging Basin
(Fountain Lake Jetty) where previously a caisson had accessed Fountain Lake. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 479. Date detail (1923) of infilled section of the northern quay of the Portsmouth Rigging Basin
(Fountain Lake Jetty). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
This civil engineering work was unquestionably the greatest physical development in the yard during
the entire twentieth century. Since no reclamation from the harbour was necessary, the elaborate
system of the Great Extension was not required, but even so the scale of the project was impressive
by any standard. Manual labour was replaced by pile drivers; some sheer legs were still worked by
labourers, but steam cranes, of which six varieties were employed, were at the core of the operation,
which arguably was at the cutting edge of contemporary civil engineering (Riley, 1995).
Fig. 480. Second World War brickwork repairs to the north side of Portsmouth C Lock (1913, 1940)
following Second World War bomb damage. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of
the MoD.
Fig. 481. North side of Portsmouth C Lock (1913), looking east. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the
Fig. 482. Portsmouth C Lock, western sliding caisson (1913). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the
Fig. 483. Roller fairlead (1911) by Stothert & Pitt Ltd Engineers Bath on the western jetty between
Portsmouth C Lock (1913) and D Lock (1914), part of the former Coaling Point. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 5. Photograph showing a Phoenix Caisson for the Mulberry Harbour under construction in
C Lock, the Royal Naval Dockyard Portsmouth (27.1.1944). IWM Image H 35374 (2003/583 PMRS)
supplied by PMRS, copyright courtesy the Imperial War Museum.
168
In C Lock (1913, SU 632715 012945) below the granite coping stones and brick walls (the first use of
such engineering bricks at Portsmouth) there are three deep altars; the brickwork on the north side
is varied, probably resulting from war damage. The sliding caisson at the western end of the lock
has been (in April 2013) removed from its position, exposing the camber. It was positioned a few
yards to the west, the pressure of water in the harbour forcing it against the masonry of the Lock.
This arrangement was not entirely satisfactory, requiring motor pumps to deal with leakage. The
reason for this temporary situation was the need to undertake repairs within the camber. During the
Second World War C Lock suffered damage. On 12 August 1940 two bombs fell on the south side,
one near the northeast corner of the Tidal Basin, damaging the operating gear of B Lock caisson and
one damaged the railway track and main dock pumping culvert, also wrecking Rigging House No 3,
a boiler house, stores and offices on the quay between C Lock and B Lock, causing one death and
nine casualties. One bomb fell on the north side, causing the dock wall to bulge by three feet and
demolishing rail and crane tracks. Another fell on the north side on 24 August 1940, to the west of
the previous one, causing a smaller bulge but a deeper fracture in the dock structure. It also shattered
railway and crane tracks and mains services. The same raid damaged D Lock, a bomb falling on a
capstan pit at the west end on the north side, ‘demolishing the capstan machinery’ and ‘cracking the
wall of the caisson chamber vertically’, while another bomb demolished thirty feet of the southern
end of the North-West Wall. (TNA, August 1940, ADM 1/10949)
Fig. 484. Portsmouth Dockyard, Pumping Engine House, Plan and Sections. SCE, Drawing No. S393,
23.3.1908. 2/239. BAES. Unicorn (1997). Technical Inspection. Reproduced with the permission of
the MoD.
Fig. 485. Portsmouth Dockyard, New Lock C, Pumping Engine House, Elevations. SCE, Drawing
No. S394, 23.3.1908. BAES. Unicorn (1997). 2/239. Technical Inspection. Reproduced with the
Fig. 486. Portsmouth Dockyard, New Lock C, Pumping House Details of Steelwork, SCE, Drawing
no. S399, 23.3.1908. BAES. Unicorn (1997). 2/239. Technical Inspection. Reproduced with the
Fig. 487. Portsmouth Dockyard, New Lock C, Boiler House Roof Details, SCE, Drawing no. S400, 23.3.1908.
BAES. Unicorn (1997). 2/239. Technical Inspection. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 488. Portsmouth Dockyard, Plan of Foundation Plinths for Diesel Generator, PSA, DOE,
Drawing no. SK1/1, Sept 1989. 2/239. BAES. Unicorn (1997). Technical Inspection. Reproduced with
Fig. 489. South elevation, Portsmouth North Pumping Station (No. 4) and Boiler House/Store 38
(1913, 2/239-240). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 490. Window, south elevation of Portsmouth North Pumping Station (No. 4) and Boiler House/
Store 38 (1913, 2/239-240), showing stucco over the underlying lower brick plinth, whereas the
eastern elevation has Portland stone. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 491. East elevation and main entrance of Portsmouth North Pumping Station (No. 4) (1913,
2/239) and Boiler House/Store 38 (1913, 2/239-240) with George V 1913 date plaque. A. Coats
Fig. 492. George V 1913 date plaque on the east elevation of Portsmouth North Pumping Station
(No. 4) (1913, 2/239) and Boiler House/Store 38 (1913, 2/239-240). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced
Fig. 493. Cast iron lamp bracket and rainwater hopper, northeast corner of Portsmouth North
Pumping Station (No. 4) and Boiler House/Store 38 (1913, 2/239-240). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced
Fig. 494. Entrance with rainwater hoppers, south elevation of Portsmouth North Pumping Station
169
(No. 4) and Boiler House/Store 38 (1913, 2/239-240). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the
Fig. 495. Entrance, north elevation of Portsmouth North Pumping Station (No. 4) and Boiler House/
Store 38 (1913, 2/239-240). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
On the south side of C Lock at its western end is a capstan by Clyde Booth & Rodley with a capacity of
16 tons. To the south-east is the elegant two storey North Pumping Station (No. 4) and Boiler House/
Store 38 (1913, 2/239-2/240, MoD, SU 633415 012471); the one storey boiler house has the higher
number, the engine house the lower. The boiler house is single storey with five bays, each marked with
Portland stone arches, as is the entrance at the western elevation, above which are the date and letters
‘GR’ set in stone. The brick walls have copings, lintels and dressings of Portland stone. In Georgian
style the slate roof is almost hidden behind a parapet, decorative rainwater headers appearing at the
gutter line. Cast iron lamp brackets remain at the eastern corners. Predictably the three bay engine
house is almost twice as tall to allow for steam driven machinery. It was equipped with two horizontal
impeller type main dock pumps each capable of dealing with 15,000 tons of water per hour. One
of the two smaller drainage pumps (2,000 tons per hour) was electrically driven. Within the pump
house four wells of seventeen to twenty metres deep and four metres wide are brick lined. In 1989
it was powered by a Rolls Royce engine. Variation in the brickwork indicates repair work at different
dates, but the particularly impressive naval arms with date and ‘GR’ above the east elevation appears
untouched. The lower six feet of the wall of both boiler and engine houses is stucco; doubtless it
might originally have been mistaken for stone, but the underlying brick is exposed in many places.
Some brick spalling, missing render, vegetation growing in damp brickwork, and missing mortar in
stonework and glazed brickwork joints was noted in 1987 and 1994. In 1997 roof tiling needed to be
replaced and windows in the south and west elevations needed replacement due to decay. The 1908
elevation shows its original intended design; the 1966 plan shows slight differences, probably in the
final execution, its position in relation to B and C Locks, and the floor plan showing the position of
the wells and functions in 1966. Stone dressings observed on the west end of the south elevation
appear to have been renewed or cleaned in the recent period. (BAES, MRM, April 1987, Structural
Report, paras 5, 6; BAES, Evans Grant, Feb 1994 Structural Appraisal, para 4; BAES, Unicorn, 1997,
Technical Report, p. 4) The team considered that North Pumping Station (No. 4) should be listed for
its continuation of neoclassical architecture and function in serving the docks and locks to the north
and south since the early twentieth century. Facing the west elevation of the Boiler House is a small
Motor Generator House (2/241, MoD, SU 632990 012502), the date 1912 advanced by Lambert, but it
is unlikely that this building would have been built obscuring the fine Boiler House entrance until
somewhat later. Along the entire south edge of C Lock is a 20 ton capacity travelling crane by John
Boyd dated 1976. Such a facility, by Stothert & Pitt, was in place in 1929.
Immediately to the west of the North Pumping Station is the single storey Hydraulic Workshop
(c.1980, 2/242, MoD, SU 63291 01233), notable for its ribbed plastic walling sitting above three feet
of brickwork. Adjacent to the north is the Safety and Quality Office (c.1990, 2/243, MoD, SU 63171
01245), a three storey brick office block with square windows rather smaller than might be expected
for such a function. In this area was also a Degaussing Station (1941, 2/253) which no longer exists.
On the north edge of the C Lock is a 30 ton travelling crane by John Boyd Branch-Annan dated 1976,
replacing one of similar capacity by Stothert & Pitt, 1930. There is a capstan at the western end by the
General Engineering & Boiler Co, New Cross, London, and a number of long lasting roller fairleads
by Vaughan & Son, Manchester, 1911, and Stothert & Pitt, also 1911. On the north side of the lock is
a four storey brick building with large windows: D Lock Production Offices and Industrial Amenity
Room (c.1975, 2/261, MoD, SU63219 01338), now C/D Lock Complex Workshop and Offices. To the
east is a long building housing a variety of Workshops and Stores (1975, 2/262-2/264, MoD, SU 63340
01338), replacing the Shipwrights’ Store of 1911. It consists of a ground floor of breeze blocks and a
first floor of ribbed plastic; at the centre is the Boiler House for C and D Locks.
North of and parallel to C Lock is D Lock (1914, SU 632715 012838). Apart from the east end caisson,
170
which has the usual function but whose plates are angular and appear to have an anti-rust coating, D
Lock is similar to C Lock. At the time of the visit (April 2013) a Wightlink Isle of Wight car ferry was
in the lock, which was thus being used as a dry dock, emphasising commercial applications. A further
sign of the times is a short-stay car park immediately to the south-west of the lock, while on the south
side at the eastern end is a 35 ton travelling crane by NDC Cranes, Oosterhout in the Netherlands,
dated 2013, marking a change to installing non-British cranes in the yard. The north side travelling
cranes are both by John Boyd Branch-Annan, 1975, but are unusual for their lifting capacity; one can
deal with a 100 ton load, but the second can cope with no less than 250 tons. The reason for this
is that a very limited radius is required since the vessels to be serviced were berthed in The Pocket
and the width of the quay for D Lock and The Pocket was small. Nevertheless this represents a real
advance on the 30 ton Stothert & Pitt travelling cranes working here in 1915. There are capstans at the
western end of the Lock by Douglass & Grant, Kirkaldy (two), by Cowans Sheldon 1941, and another
by Clarke Chapman Marine with a capacity of 16 tons. At the eastern end are capstans by Douglass
& Grant and by Cowans Sheldon, 1940, together with a roller fairlead by Stothert & Pitt, 1911. In
2015 a new caisson was in place at the eastern end, connecting D Lock to Basin No. 3. In 2013 the
quay between D Lock and The Pocket was littered with containers laden with ships’ stores, giving the
impression of a real working environment. Amid them is a new, small Office (c.2000, 2/279, MoD, SU
63186 01433) with a red brick ground floor topped by ribbed plastic, used by the Base Commander
Air Stores Returns.
Fig. 496. Portsmouth North West Wall quay, its width extended and supported by concrete pillars
on the harbour side, added c.1914. A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 497. Original Portland stone inner face of Portsmouth North West Wall with concrete coping in
the Pocket, created when D Lock was built in 1914. A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the permission
of the MoD.
Fig. 498. Concrete inner face of Portsmouth North West Wall in the Pocket, constructed when D
Lock was built in 1914, abutting the original Portland stone inner face. A. Coats 2015. Reproduced
Fig. 499. Original Portland stone inner (south-facing) wall of Portsmouth North West Wall in the
Pocket. A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Along North West Wall (which separates The Pocket from the harbour), there is a small brick electricity
Substation (1976, 2/283, MoD, SU 63154 01462), and then a two storey brick latrine (1910, 1975, 2/285),
now painted white, the upper floor of which was probably added in the 1975 refurbishment. Beyond
is a long Ships Lay Apart Store (1975, 2/286, MoD, SU 63198 01512) with a brick base topped by ribbed
metal sheeting. At the corner of The Pocket is the Northern Switch House (1975, 2/287, MoD, SU),
a small brick structure. On the harbour side of the Wall is a 25 ton travelling crane by John Boyd
Branch-Annan dated 1975 and Oil Tanks (1975, 2/288, MoD, SU 63118 01422). Contractors who were
ground stabilising in April 2015 on a section of Fountain Lake Jetty near The Pocket stated that the
inner fill of the jetty comprised loose gravel. They were coring down 10m and applying polyurethane
resin to prevent water penetration.
3.6.2.1 Railways
Fig. 293. Remaining cast iron elements of Portsmouth Railway Swing Bridge on South Railway Jetty,
c.1876. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 295. Portsmouth Railway Shelter (1893, 1/45) on South Railway Jetty, re-sited since c.2000 on the
west quay of the North Camber. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
171
Fig. 500. MD95/03038 (1932 annotated to 1944). Crane and Railway Track Layout Plan HM Dockyard
Fig. 501. Southern gate (1849), Edinburgh Road dockyard railway crossing. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 502. West stanchion, south gate (1849), Edinburgh Road dockyard railway crossing.
A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 503. Route of the single track railway line (1849) running north from Edinburgh Road to
Unicorn Gate. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 504. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Elevation and sections of new railway
gate at Unicorn entrance. Scale: 1 inch to 2 feet. SCE Department. TNA (1882) WORK 41/326.
Fig. 505. Railway track west of Portsmouth Dock No. 15 (1876). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the
Fig. 506. Section showing railway track near the Promontory, east of Basin No. 3 (1881), convicts’
workshops and timber sheds on the site of the later Factory (1903, 3/82). Colson, Portsmouth
Extension Works, Plate 4, Minutes of Proceedings of The Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. LXIV. Session 1880–
81, Part II, 118-173. Courtesy Institution of Civil Engineers Virtual Library.
Fig. 507. Railway track near Portsmouth Basin No. 3 (1881). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the
Fig. 508. Route of the single track railway line (1849) running north from Portsmouth Town Station
to Unicorn Gate via Unicorn Road. Drawing no. 301/49, 1949. BAES. Main/Nelson Gate, Plan for
Works & Buildings. Portsmouth R.N. Barracks & Subsidiary Establishments. Reproduced with the
Fig. 509. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Miscellaneous. Plan of dockyard showing programme
of work on railways, 1951–1954. Annotated with reference notes. Scale: 1:1,666. SCE’s Department.
Drawing no. 486/51, drawn by F. T. Haisman. Section showing new works near the docks. TNA
of work on railways, 1951–1954. Annotated with reference notes. Scale: 1:1,666. Superintendent Civil
Engineer’s Department. Drawing no. 486/51, drawn by F. T. Haisman. Section showing new works
in Area 3 and the South East Gate and East Gate (now Trafalgar Gate), in use. TNA, WORK 41/315.
of work on railways, 1951–1954. Annotated with reference notes. Scale: 1:1,666. Superintendent Civil
Engineer’s Department. Drawing no. 486/51, drawn by F. T. Haisman. Section with the key to the
years when work was carried out. TNA, WORK 41/315. Reproduced with the permission of The
National Archives.
An internal horse-drawn tramway existed from c.1825, with many turntables to access buildings,
but the Great Extension from 1867, which doubled the size of the dockyard, provided space for
locomotives to haul materials. Railways were also crucial to the building of the Extension and were
able to operate more easily within the extra space. Marden suggested that a ‘rudimentary tramway had
connected to the dockyard by 1849’, but a branch line from the Portsmouth Terminus to the Dockyard,
crossing War Department land, was approved in February 1856, to enter near the East Gate. In the
same month John Penn and Son were directed to send machinery ‘to the Yard by Railway.’ A single
platform at Unicorn Gate was completed in March 1857. (Marden, 2011, pp. 1, 2, 7, 109; Hamilton,
2005, pp. 4-5, 27) The 1864 south elevation of Unicorn Gate (TNA, WORK 41/316) shows a temporary
172
Railroad Gateway west of the gate. Further drawings show timber railway and side gates (TNA, WORK
41/324, c.1869–79; WORK 41/325, 1878).
The railway depôt was at the eastern end of the yard and there were twenty-five miles of track at its
peak. Over forty steam, and from the 1950s, diesel locomotives were in operation, the earliest in 1869,
the last transferred from Devonport in 1969. They were typically four-wheeled to manage the tight
turns. Marden includes many pictures of locomotives, some posing in front of dockyard buildings, but
others in scrap yards. He includes some useful information about dockyard contractors. Leather, Smith
and Co were involved from 1867–75 in building Fountain Lake Jetty, four new basins, entrance locks
A and B, Dry Dock Nos 12 and 13, and entrances to Dry Dock Nos 14 and 15. They used thirteen
locomotives (as well as convicts) in constructing the Extension between 1867 and 1875, which had
thirteen miles of rail track, and transported spoil to Whale Island by rail. John Price had the contract
for dry dock numbers 14 and 15 in 1893–96, using four locomotives. From 1908–16 contractors
Morrison and Mason converted the three enclosed basins into one and built two larger lock gates,
using six Barclay locomotives and one Hawthorn, Leslie. A powerful 0-4-0T Barclay diesel No. 1403
worked for the Dockyard Engineering Department from 1915 to c.1960. Marden included pictures of
Basin No. 3, Dry Dock Nos 14 and 15 and Lock C. (2011, pp. 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 40, 109, 125, 129)
The substantial modifications to Unicorn Gate coincided with the last throes of the single track railway
line (1849) which entered the dockyard running along the east side of Unicorn Road. For two decades
after the closure of the dockyard railway system there was a somersault signal on the corner of Alfred
and Unicorn Roads, while an unusual slotted semaphore signal, together with iron gates closing the
line off from pedestrians on Edinburgh Road, were remnants of the earlier transport age. The chimney
of the keeper’s hut at Edinburgh Road stood at an angle of forty-five degrees, giving the impression
of a rocket bomb protruding through the roof. In 1876 a further branch line was connected to South
Railway Jetty on Watering Island via a viaduct and swing bridge from the Harbour Station. The Royal
Naval Railway Shelter was completed in 1893. This line became the main arrival and departure point
for personnel, but was damaged by bombing in the Second World War and demolished. Remnants of
track remain, as well as the Royal Naval Railway Shelter (1/45) and the Waiting Room (1/47).
The 1938 extent of railway track is marked on the baseboards of Engineer Admiral Thompson Gurnell’s
1938 Dockyard Model in the National Museum of the Royal Navy. On 12 August 1940 the railway
line entering the yard at Unicorn Gate was blown up during an air raid, but the crater was filled in
and the track swiftly reinstated (TNA, ADM 1/10949). The Crane and Railway Track Layout Plan HM
Dockyard Portsmouth (HE, MD95/03038 1932 annotated to 1944) shows new lines added during the
Second World War and bomb damage. Rail traffic declined after the 1950s with the increase of road
transport, dropping drastically in the 1970s. The last train ran in November 1977 and the line closed
in December 1978, with a few locomotives retained for internal haulage until 1979. (Marden, 2011, pp.
1, 2, 7, 109) The Alfred Road level crossing gates have been preserved and re-sited (in shrubbery) just
outside the new entrance to the yard, in fact close to HMS Nelson barracks railway station, removed
in 1978. The level crossing gates over Edinburgh Road are still in situ, permanently open. A plaque
dated 1990 commemorates the planting of plane trees adjacent to what was the railway line, marking
‘improvements to Market Way by Hampshire County Council’. With trees on one side and the Unicorn
Training Centre and its ornate wrought iron gate abutting the new red brick dockyard wall, this yard
entrance is impressive.
3.6.3 Area 3
Fig. 512. Portsmouth HM Naval Base Area 3 (1974). MoD HM Naval Base Portsmouth Building Location/
Numerical Index. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 513. Plan of part of HM Dockyard Portsmouth before its enlargement, annotated to 1895.
Thomas A. Mould, Captain R. E., 4/1/1851. Director of Works Office, 3.1.1851. Defence Estates Plans.
173
Section showing the original locations of Unicorn and Lion Gates within Portsea’s fortifications.
AdL Vz 14/110 (1851–1895). Courtesy MoD Admiralty Library, Naval Historical Branch, Portsmouth.
Fig. 514. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall (1864). Elevation showing proposed
reconstruction of Unicorn Gate and additions to wall. Drawing No. 101. Scale: 1 inch to 8 feet. SCE’s
Department. With additions to wall in red ink. TNA, WORK 41/316. Reproduced with the permission
Fig. 515. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. Engineer Admiral T. Gurnell, CB. View of the re-sited
Unicorn Gate from the north-west. Reproduced by kind permission of the Trustees of the National
changes in yellow and later buildings in red dotted lines. Section showing Portsmouth Unicorn Gate
(1779) moved in 1868 and the streets taken into the Yard in the 1970s, the most recent Dockyard
acquisition. It notes that the gates (now missing) were renewed in 1955. Reproduced by permission
of Historic England.
Fig. 517. North elevation of Portsea’s Unicorn Gate (1779) moved in 1868 to its present position.
Fig. 518. South elevation of Portsea’s Unicorn Gate (1779) moved in 1868 to its present position.
Fig. 519. Unicorn pediment on the south elevation of Portsmouth Unicorn Gate (1779) moved in
1865 to its present position. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 520. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Unicorn gate: plan, sections and front
and rear elevations of small entrance gates (c.1869–79). Scale: 1 inch to 1 foot. TNA, WORK 41/324.
Fig. 521. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Unicorn gate: elevations of proposed
grille and main, side, and railway gates (1878). Scale: 1 inch to 2 feet and 1 inch to 1 foot. SCE
Department. TNA, WORK 41/325. Reproduced with the permission of The National Archives.
Fig. 522. J251/01/71. Photograph of Muster Bell at Portsmouth Unicorn Gate (18 May 1971).
Fig. 523. J270/09/64. Photograph of Outmuster at Portsmouth Unicorn Gate (23 Oct 1964).
Fig. 524. Plaque and metal box which formerly housed a gas jet for workers to light their pipes
and cigarettes in the 1863–65 Portsmouth Great Extension wall near Unicorn Gate, refurbished by
dockyard apprentices in 1979. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Unicorn Gate (1779, Grade II, 1244587, MoD, SU 638615 007823) was originally a gateway through
Unicorn Ravelin in Portsea fortifications, then moved and re-erected within the new 1865 perimeter
wall. The 1864 drawing instructed that:
The Masonry of the Old Gateway is to be taken down and reset without redressing any part of
it, should repair to the Stonework be necessary it is to be done after the Work is set–
The additions of side Arches and sub Plinth are to be formed of Old Stone arranged in such
manner as to dimensions as the Stone will admit.
It is supposed that the Old Gates may be used adding to them at the bottom. (TNA, WORK
41/316, Unicorn Gate south elevation, 16.8.1864. Drawing no. W 101)
174
In 1977, Victory Gate was closed to vehicular traffic and cannon bollards set in the roadway. Land
acquired to the east of Unicorn Road, edging Flathouse Road, which followed the Great Extension
wall, provided a much wider road entrance to the new Main (Unicorn) Gate. Due to this extension
Unicorn Gate lost its function as a dockyard entrance, becoming a monument at the centre of a
roundabout. The creation of the latter necessitated the removal of part of the wall which abutted the
gate on each side. Rather than simply cutting back the wall, each side was imaginatively rebuilt in
1979 in a style closely resembling the original as a curve on each side of Unicorn Road. The eastern
curve has been fitted with an original metal box which formerly housed a gas jet for the convenience
of workers lighting their pipes and cigarettes at out-muster – no smoking being allowed in the yard.
The plaque states that it was refurbished by apprentices of the nearby Training Centre in 1979. On the
south-western edge of the roundabout a Latrine (1979, 2/62, MoD, SU 63843 00754) and a Gas Meter
Test House (1979, 2/63, MoD, SU 63834 00748) were constructed, both in rich red brick.
A number of streets forming the third twentieth century acquisition – Copenhagen, Abercrombie, Nile,
Trafalgar, Duncan, Conway and Chalton Streets – which had largely been cleared of housing (Fig. 516),
were taken into the yard, forming a wedge-shaped plot between Flathouse Road and Market Way. The
result was that the western stretch of Flathouse Road, some 300 yards in length, was closed to the
public, as was the north-western part of Unicorn Road. From 1954–94 St Agatha’s Church was a naval
store within the dockyard, but in 1981–82 a contract for a wall to separate it from the transport section
was awaiting approval. (TNA, 1981–82, DEFE 69/668) The extension is enclosed on the Market Way
border by a rich red brick wall, broken at frequent intervals by metal railing.
Fig. 525. Junction of the 1981–82 Portsmouth Dockyard wall with the 1863–65 Great Extension wall,
Market Way. A. Coats 2014. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 526. Section of the Portsmouth Great Extension wall (1863–65) east of Unicorn Gate, with the
1981–82 rich red brick wall running parallel, creating pedestrian access to the Motor Transport
Complex. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
At the entrance is the notable Apprentice or Unicorn Training Centre (1980, 3/1, MoD, SU 639615
007304), a large concrete framed two storey, generously glazed structure. Its south-eastern corner is
currently used by 1710 Naval Air Squadron. There is a Police Office (1980, 3/3, SU 639046 006866),
with the new gate and checkpoint (1980, 3/4, SU 639183 006985) established some 150 yards to the
south-east in Unicorn Road. The Great Extension wall was breached at two points on Circular Road
to give access to the Transport Operations Centre (1980, 3/5-3/6, MoD, SU 640096 008029) having a
brick base and generous glazing above; it includes garages, offices and vehicle park. Immediately to
the south lies the 1710 Naval Air Squadron Hangar (c.2000, 3/8, MoD, SU 640390 007554) an accident
investigation facility. Its tall ground floor has unusual horizontal curved bright metal fluting, above
which is a white, metal windowless cover.
As late as the interwar period, to the east and south-east of Basin No. 3, there was still empty land
and a railway marshalling yard. A good many of the buildings thus belong to the second half of the
twentieth century, creating a very different ambience from the heritage area. Commencing just to
the north of the old Portsea town gate, Unicorn Gate (q.v.), is the Portsmouth Naval Base Health
Safety and Environment Group premises (1993, 3/56, MoD, SU 638452 008460), a rectangular, red
brick two storey building with a pitched roof; it is on the site of the former house and garden of
the Chief Inspector of Police, set out in 1902 (Lambert, 1993). Adjacent, to the east, is the Port Royal
Restaurant (1968, 3/68, MoD, SU 638777 008404, BAES), a two storey structure of fluted concrete.
The site was the original location of the Workmen’s Dining Rooms of 1902 and in 1925 the Women’s
Dining Rooms. To the east is the brick former Torpedo Depôt (1886, 3/69, MoD, SU 639508 008648),
now the Returns Processing Facility, which originally had three pedimented features; that which
remains has a particularly decorative low relief. The depôt was extended in 1925. In 1992 it was in
175
multi-use: Workshop, Sea Cadet Store, Store, Management Centre and Safety Training Centre (Lambert,
1993). The north elevation, facing the Factory, is single storey with a low gable capped by Portland
stone. Added on to the east of the depôt is Store No. 78 (1960, 3/76, MoD, SU 640352 008829), a brick
structure with a variety of current uses: Export Store, Storewrights’ Shop Annex and Returns Bulk
Layapart Area.
Fig. 527. Rear of Portsmouth Torpedo Workshop (1886), now a brick Storewrights’ Workshop (3/67).
Fig. 58. Original bay and entrance of Portsmouth Torpedo Workshop (1886, 3/69), with plastic strips
to keep out birds in summer. A. Coats 2015. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 528. Portsmouth Torpedo Workshop (1886, 3/69) south elevation. A. Coats 2015.
Fig. 529. Portsmouth Torpedo Workshop (1886, 3/69) dated pediment. A. Coats 2015.
The Edwardian piece de resistance is the Factory/100 Store (1903, 1994, 1996, 3/82, MoD, SU 639315 009623),
at 580 feet longer than Dock No. 12 and a clear height of 33 feet. It was built on the site of earlier
timber sheds and the brickfields where the convicts worked. It was the largest engineering workshop
in the yard at the time of its construction, its date marked by stone plaques set in the brickwork
over the main west door and a north pediment, and it is still the largest building. Its size was partly
made possible by the use of steel, a lighter and stronger material than wrought and cast iron. The
peripheral brick walls, some ‘of a massive thickness,’ are mainly loadbearing and support the roof;
it was suggested in 1989 that the roof was originally of slate, but from wartime records it must also
have had some glass. It was noted in 1990 that ‘every third truss in the high level roofs has as its
lower boom, a built up lattice beam-column, presumably to transfer wind forces across the trusses.’
There are five bays in red brick, two being taller than the others, the western elevation of these two
having wide entrances, with headings of gauged brick, above which are large windows stretching
almost to the roof line. Its power requirement was such that the Factory was accorded its own engine
house, the three bays of which are located on the north elevation, the central bay having a date of
1903, behind which is a clerestory, suggesting that this was the Boiler House (3/82J). In 1929 there
was internal specialisation: Bays 1 and 2 were the Torpedo Shop, Bays 3 and 4 the Erecting Shop, and
Bay 5 the Fitting Shop. At this time 725 men were on the strength, the machine shafting was driven
by electric motors and hot air heating was supplied by a Buffalo Forge system (Anon, 1929, p. 22). A
water drinking fountain was also in place. On the north side an Oil Purifying Plant was operational
in 1929, but this has been removed.
workshops and timber sheds on the site of the later Factory (1903, 3/82). Colson, Portsmouth Extension
Works, Plate 4, Minutes of Proceedings of The Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. LXIV. Session 1880–81, Part II,
118-173. Courtesy Institution of Civil Engineers Virtual Library.
Fig. 530. HM Dockyard Portsmouth – New Factory, AE 1902–03, Part 1, Subhead B, Item 7,
Transverse Sections looking East and West. SCE, Drawing no. 10/K10. 3/82. BAES. Unicorn
(March 1996). Structural Appraisal. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 531. HM Dockyard Portsmouth – New Factory, AE 1902–3, Part 1, Subhead B, Item 7, Ground
Plan. SCE, Drawing no. 2/K2, 3.1.1903. 3/82. BAES. Unicorn (March 1996). Structural Appraisal.
Fig. 532. New Factory Portsmouth, AE 1902–03, Part 1, Subhead B, Item 7, Offices, Testing House,
Boiler House & Coal Store, Plan. Elevation, Sections. SCE, Drawing no. 20/K20, 3.2.1903. 3/82.
BAES. Unicorn (March 1996). Structural Appraisal. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 533. HM Dockyard Portsmouth – New Factory, AE 1902–03, Part 1, Subhead B, Item 7, West
176
and East Elevations, Drawing no. 7/K7, Oct 1903. 3/82. BAES. Unicorn (March 1996). Structural
Appraisal. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 534. H M Dockyard Portsmouth – New Factory Half North Elevation AE 1902-3. SCE, Drawing
No. 8/K8, Oct 1908. 3/82. BAES. Cecil Denny Highton (July 1996). Plan 100 Store Phase 2,
CDH REF 91077. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 535. H M Dockyard Portsmouth – New Factory South Elevation, AE 1902-3, SCE, Drawing no.
9/K9, Oct 1908. 3/82. BAES. Cecil Denny Highton (July 1996). Plan 100 Store Phase 2, CDH REF
Fig. 536. Portsmouth Factory (1903, 3/82) east elevation showing the original gables. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 537. Portsmouth Factory (1903, 3/82) north elevation showing the three bays of the engine
house. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 49. Date plaque 1903 on Portsmouth Factory (1903, 3/82) north elevation. A. Coats 2013. Note
the scrolled abutments which also support Rodney’s pediment (1847–48, NE/14), the Gymnasium
roof gable (1893–1900), the gable on the north elevation of Barham (1899, NE/82) and Rochefort
Dockyard Ropery (1666–69). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 538. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. Engineer Admiral T. Gurnell, CB. The Factory (3/82)
from the west. Reproduced by kind permission of the Trustees of the National Museum of the
Royal Navy.
On 12 August 1940 a bomb caused a large crater at the Factory’s northwest corner, fracturing services,
demolishing railway track and damaging offices, windows and glass in the roof (TNA, ADM 1/10949).
In the 1950s the Portsmouth Dockyard Modernisation and Improvements Programme planned to
rebuild the SE Corner: ‘Reinstate area lost by enemy action and to provide additional space necessary
to relieve existing congestion and for Apprentices Training Area.’ (TNA, ADM 1/26499, 1956–58). The
BAES drawing dated 27.5.1960 shows wall foundations to be strengthened in this corner.
Fig. 539. Portsmouth HM Dockyard, SE Corner of MED Factory, Foundation Layout and Details of
Foundations, Navy Works Dept, Admiralty, Portsmouth District, Plans, Sections of Wall Foundations,
Drawing no. 583/59, 27.5.1960. 3/82. BAES. Cecil Denny Highton (July 1993). Reproduced with the
A number of modifications have taken place. The Factory lost its manufacturing function in 1984,
having worked flat out prior to the Falklands Conflict two years earlier, and was converted to a Store in
1986 with a new Plant Room. Its external walls are of smooth red brick, with an artificial stone coping
and an insulated roof. The building is now Store No. 100, a warehouse equipped with sophisticated
machinery, including an electronically operated dark warehouse. (BAES, MRM Partnership, 1989,
Structural Report, para.5; BAES, MRM Partnership, Nov 1990, Structural Report, paras 5.1, 5.2; BAES,
Unicorn, March 1996, Structural Survey, para. 2.2; BAES, Unicorn March 2001, Professional Structural
Survey, p. 3)
Fig. 540. HM Naval Base Portsmouth, Conversion of Building No. 3/82 to Store, Ground Floor Plan,
PSA, DoE, Drawing no. L(20)03, Oct 1985. BAES. Cecil Denny Highton (July 1993). Reproduced with
Fig. 541. HMNB Portsmouth, Store, New Amenities and Plant Room Block, Elevations, Section and
Plan, PSA, DoE, Drawing no. L(20)06, Jan 1986. 3/82. BAES. Unicorn (March 1996). Structural
Appraisal. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
In 1986 the Factory was converted into a warehouse with four bays of high lift pallet racking and
storage. In 1994 an extension to Bay 1 was built at the east end of the north elevation for Issue Receipt
177
offices which doubled the bay width. A stone date plaque was inserted into the gable end, the design
having similarities with the originals, an example of dockyard pride in continuing a former style.
However, the gable is higher and more steeply pitched, and the decorative stonework around the
windows is not present in the older structure. The roof line is lower than the gable, the ribbed metal
sides extending almost to the Engine House, bearing a sign Main Entrance (for pedestrians). A new
roof has been erected of corrugated sheeting on timber boards for the south faces and translucent
sheeting for the north faces, pierced by skylights. In 1996 the western elevation was fronted by a
cantilevered canopy and service building for deliveries by road, thus obscuring the low relief devices
above the main entrances. While the external walls were found to be ‘satisfactory’ in 1996, it was
noted that there were two vertical cracks on the west elevation which appeared to be widening. On
the south elevation the lower three feet of many of the windows have been bricked up, probably
related to internal machinery, and at the eastern end of the same side brickwork has been replaced
by grey painted metal cladding incorporating fenestration identical to that in the western section,
probably to repair wartime bombing. (BAES, Cecil Denny Highton, July 1996, Plan 100 Store Phase 2,
CDH REF 91077; BAES, Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick, 1996 Plan 100 Store Proposed Link; BAES, Unicorn,
March 1996, Structural Survey, paras 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 3.2)
Fig. 542. 100 Store Phase 2, South, East Elevations, CDH ref. 91007 (July 1996) show the Miniload
(3/82M) running along the east face of 3/82, the 1993 brick gable pediment to the extension of
Bay 1 and the roof height of the bay. BAES, Cecil Denny Highton for Scott, Wilson Kirkpatrick.
Fig. 543. Plan Extension to 100 Store, HMNB Location Plan, CDH REF 91034, Drawing no.
AL(0)200/0. BAES. Cecil Denny Highton (July 1993). 3/82. Reproduced with the permission
of the MoD.
Fig. 54. East elevation showing the 1994 brick gable pediment to the extension of Bay 1 of
Portsmouth Factory/100 Store (1903, 3/82), designed to appear similar to the original gable
Fig. 544. East elevation showing the 1994 date plaque within the new brick gable pediment to the
extension of Bay 1 of Portsmouth Factory/100 Store (1903, 3/82). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with
Fig. 545. North elevation showing the extension to Bay 1 of Portsmouth Factory/100 Store (1903,
3/82) and the rear of the brick gable pediment, designed to appear similar to the original gable
Fig. 546. South elevation of Portsmouth Factory (1903, 3/82) showing the raised window sills.
Fig. 547. South elevation of Portsmouth Factory (1903, 3/82), showing the eastern section of grey
painted metal cladding incorporating fenestration modelled on that of the western section.
Fig. 548. Portsmouth Factory/100 Store (1903, 3/82), its splendid original west entrance partly
hidden by the 1996 cantilevered canopy and service building. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the
Running along the entire length of the east elevation of 3/82 at ground floor level is an enclosed
way in ribbed metal, termed Miniload (3/82M), a monorail linked to the Portsmouth Freight Centre
(PFC, 3/88A), providing all weather protection. This conforms to plans submitted by Scott Wilson
Kirkpatrick (who designed Victory HQ) in 1996 for 100 Store Development Phase 2 to install a Thyssen
automated rail running crane system within 100 Store to store/distribute small parts via bar coding in
trays which had been delivered from the PFC by monorail. With PFC, Central Receipts Facility, Central
Packing Facility and General Purpose Support Store, 100 Store was part of the combined Central
178
Storage & Distribution Facility which was opened on 27 January 1999 to reduce personnel and meet
80% of the surface fleet’s non-explosive stores requirement from Portsmouth. It had 135 staff working
‘under one roof’. (BAES, MRM Partnership, Nov 1990, Structural Report, paras 5.1, 5.2; BAES, Cecil
Denny Highton, July 1993, Plan Extension to 100 Store, CDH REF 91034; BAES, Cecil Denny Highton,
July 1996, Plan 100 Store Phase 2, CDH REF 91077; BAES, Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick, 1996 Plan 100
Store Proposed Link; BAES, Unicorn, March 1996, Structural Survey, paras 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 3.2; BAES, Dec
1998, Project Manager’s Report, 100 Store Development Phase 2, paras 2, 3; BAES, Unicorn, March
2001, Professional Structural Survey, p. 3)
Fig. 549. 3/82. Central Storage & Distribution Facility, Formal Opening, One Roof Complex.
NBC Portsmouth (27.1.1999). BAES. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 550. Central Storage & Distribution Facility, Formal Opening, Covered Monorail Link, p. 6.
NBC Portsmouth (27.1.1999). 3/82. BAES. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 551. Miniload (1999, 3/82M), joining Portsmouth Factory (1903, 3/82) on its eastern side.
Fig. 552. Miniload (1999, 3/82M), running east-west from Portsmouth Factory (1903, 3/82) to the
Freight Centre (1945, 3/88) with the General Purpose Store in the background (c.1995, 3/117).
Despite its modifications, the team considers that the Factory should be listed for its Edwardian
neoclassical style, and its status in the early twentieth century rearmament period. Unicorn had
thought that it was Grade II listed until they checked the list of buildings due for Quadrennial
Inspection in 1996, and concluded ‘in view of the extension currently under construction, is probably
not listed at the present time.’ (BAES, Unicorn, March 1996, Structural Survey, para. 4.4)
By climbing the stairs over the Miniload linking The Factory and the Freight Centre, two buildings
are visible. The more northerly is the Chemical Store (1939, 3/85, MoD, SU 640646 010210) which
has a concrete frame with brick infill; all the windows have been bricked up. It was originally No. 4
Wardens’ Post and the Tool Room in 1944, built on the railway marshalling yard, then No. 101 Store.
Parallel is Store No. 55 (1936, 3/86, MoD, SU 640633 009873) on the site of the Converted Timber Store
of 1920. This building is now the Mechanical Handling Equipment Training Facility. (Lambert, 1993)
Fig. 553. Red brick former Portsmouth EEM Workshop/Electrical Shop No. 1 (1945, 3/88) in the
background, now part of the Portsmouth Freight Centre (c.1970, 3/88A), showing the covered
reception area, with the east elevation of the metal clad First Outfits Unstows & De-stores
(c.2000, 3/93) on the left. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Between Stores 64, 79, 88 and 108 and Circular Road is the entrance to a large apron for lorries to
deliver materials to the Portsmouth Freight Centre (c.1970, 3/88A, MoD, SU 64191 00982), a single
storey brick structure with a large canopy under which lorries can unload. Adjacent and physically
linked to it is the very much larger, five storey building (1945, 3/88, MoD, SU 64192 01017). It is actually
a slim structure with fourteen bays and generous fenestration, but with only three bays at each end.
Goods are moved from the canopy of the Freight Centre at ground floor level. The large entrance at
the east end is fringed with stone, together with a projecting cornice at its head. The latter is easily
reconcilable with the need to move stores, but the five floors do suggest another function. It was built
as the EEM Workshop, designed to carry out electrical work, later becoming Electrical Shop No. 1. It is
very close to Flathouse/East Gate (1931). The site was originally part of the railway marshalling yard.
It is now part of 123 Store/Supply Chain Offices.
Fig. 554. Formal Opening, One Roof Complex, 1999. NBC Portsmouth (27.1.1999). 3/82. BAES, Central
Storage & Distribution Facility (1945, 3/88). Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 555. MD95/04038. Site plan detail of Portsmouth Dockyard New Gun Mounting Store (1900).
179
AE 1900-1901, Part 1 Item I1 Drawing no. 1 (10.5.00), SCE. To accompany letter to Director of Works
(14/12/00). Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 556. MD95/04038. End (southwest) elevation of Portsmouth Dockyard New Gun Mounting Store
(1900) AE 1900-1901 Part 1 Item I1 Drawing no. 1 (10.5.00) SCE. To accompany letter to Director of
Works (14/12/00). Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 557. MD95/04038. Floor plan detail of Portsmouth Dockyard New Gun Mounting Store (1900),
showing concrete floor and wood block paving. AE 1900-1901 Part 1 Item I1 Drawing no. 1 (10.5.00)
SCE. To accompany letter to Director of Works (14/12/00). HE. The plan notes: ‘Floor of Building to
be 3” above general Ground Level.’ Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 558. Metal clad Portsmouth First Outfits Unstows & De-stores (c.2000, 3/93) building. A. Coats
On the north side of Circular Road are four buildings lying parallel in a north-south plane. The large
Store No. 80/First Outfits Unstows & De-stores (1917, c.2000, 3/93, MoD, SU 641583 010985), now
clad with ribbed metal and plastic, lacking windows, was built on part of the Gun Mounting Store of
1915 (see HE NMR MD95/04038) and on part of the Paravane Workshop of the same date. Store No.
79 (c.2000, 3/94, MoD, SU 64097 00940) is of high quality red brick with eleven bays buttressed with
light blue brickwork. Store No. 64 (1939, 3/95, MoD, SU 64078 00923) is single storey of standard
brick, built partly on the site of the Boiler Tube and Torpedo Net Store; folding doors have been
inserted at the south elevation. It is now the First Outfits Unstores and De-store. Store No. 108 (1936,
3/96, MoD, SU 64062 00936) is one storey, consisting of run of the mill brick, with corrugated metal
above. It is on the site of the Boiler Tube and Torpedo Net Store of c.1901, and is now the Battery
Processing Facility.
To the north of the former railway marshalling yard was Store No. 121 and Office (1960), used as
a Receipt and Dispatch Store, also built on part of the marshalling yard. There were plans for its
demolition in 1994 (Lambert, 1993). In its place is a General Purpose Store (c.1995, 3/117, MoD, SU
641558 010954), entirely metal clad, windowless, taller than the adjacent Supply Chain Offices with a
single small door giving on to Circular Road. The Factory apart, it is the largest building to the east of
Basin No. 3 and is now connected to the Factory (1903, 3/82) by the Miniload (1999, 3/82M), creating
the One Roof Complex (BAES, NBC Portsmouth, 27.1.1999).
Fig. 559. East elevation of the Portsmouth South East Gate (Second World War) on Flathouse Road,
giving road access to the railway marshalling yard. Its concrete and brick piers carrying iron lamp
brackets were inserted into the Great Extension Wall (1863–65) with a late twentieth century steel
gate added. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 560. Welcome message borne on the electricity substation (c.1950, 3/156) at Portsmouth
In the north-east corner of the yard, close to Trafalgar Gate, is an Electricity Substation (c.1950,
3/156, MoD, SU 641977 012441). It has a concrete frame with louvred infilling. Perhaps an indication
of its age is a decorative lamp bracket at one corner. It carries the notice: ‘Welcome to HM NAVAL
BASE PORTSMOUTH Proud to Support our Fleet’. East Gate Police Office (2009, 3/160, MoD, SU
642165 012504) replaced the original gate office of 1930. It was rebuilt as Trafalgar Gate Office when
Trafalgar Gate opened in 2011. The replacement is single storey, larger, has high quality red brick
walls with large windows, and a gently pitched roof. Store No. 54 or the Flammable Store (1959,
3/163, MoD, SU 641840 013135) is on the other side of the main entrance road a single storey brick
building replacing the Inflammable Store, of c.1920.
Fig. 561. Timber-slatted south elevation of Portsmouth Store No. 52 (1973, 3/179). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 562. A881503. Chatham Dockyard prints FL0624. Photograph of Chatham Dockyard Timber
180
Drying Shed (1770s), showing vertical timber slats to allow air to circulate (Nov 1988).
West of Trafalgar Gate is the Gas Store (1973, 3/178, MoD, SU 640390 012466), a single storey structure
with ribbed metal walls put up south of the former Coal Stacking Area, as was the much larger Store
No. 52 (1973, 3/179, MoD, SU 639865 012373). This is clad with ribbed metal on the eastern elevation,
but its south elevation comprises two staggered layers of vertical timber slats to allow air to circulate,
similar to the early timber drying sheds installed in the dockyards on the orders of the First Lord of
the Admiralty the Earl of Sandwich in the eighteenth century (Fig. 562); it is storing timber and pipes.
HE, A881503; Coad, 1989, pp. 128-9). South of Trafalgar Gate in 1924 was the Locomotive Shed,
an unpretentious and workaday structure. To the west on empty land, was erected Store No. 51 or
Timber Store, now Scaffold Store (1955, 3/182, MoD, SU 640877 011935); it is notable for its four open
ended bays with conventional pitched roofs.
Fig. 563. North elevation of the former Portsmouth Coppersmith’s Shop/Store No. 56 (1890, 3/187),
now the Small Boat Centre of Excellence Store. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of
the MoD.
Fig. 564. Former Portsmouth Coppersmith’s Shop/Store No. 56 (1890, 3/187), now the Small Boat
Centre of Excellence Store. A rolled metal door and concrete surround has been inserted into the north
elevation in the late twentieth century. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 565. West elevation of the former Portsmouth Coppersmith’s Shop/Store No. 56 (1890, 3/187),
now the Small Boat Centre of Excellence Store. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of
the MoD.
Fig. 566. Former Portsmouth Coppersmith’s Shop/Store No. 56 (1890, 3/187), now the Small Boat
Centre of Excellence Store. Rolled metal doors and concrete surrounds have been inserted into the
south elevation in the late twentieth century. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of
the MoD.
To the south of the Gas Store and Store No. 52 on the south side of Military Road is one of the few
buildings in this part of the yard dating from the late nineteenth century, Store No. 56 or Coppersmith’s
Shop (1890, 3/187, MoD, SU 640452 011541); it is of brick with twenty-one large windows along its
length. The north elevation has two bays: that on the east having a masonry arch entrance, that on the
west a linear masonry entrance. The west elevation has a huge arched central entrance, the heading
being glazed. Above each bay is recessed brickwork with dentillated upper edge. Its present use is
the Small Boat Centre of Excellence Store.
Fig. 567. North elevation of Portsmouth Amalgamated Pipe Shop (1974, 3/188). A. Coats 2013.
Immediately to the west is the Amalgamated Pipe Shop (1974, 3/188, MoD, SU 639683 011448). It has
a battered brick base with blue-green ribbed metal cladding above ground floor windows; the roof
is topped with a clerestory. It is a large building which replaced a number of smaller ones put up in
the nineteenth century, demolished in 1971: a White Metal Shop, a Store and office, a Blacksmiths
and Fitting out shop, a Blacksmith’s forge shop, an Acid House, a Dredging Machine Store, a General
Store and a cycle rack. (TNA, 1969, WORK 14/3075) A Saw Mill and Brick Bin dating from 1910 were
also demolished (Lambert, 1993). It is now used partly as a Rations and Sea Survival Centre. A canopy
covers the west elevation loading bay.
Fig. 568. Eastern entrance to the former Portsmouth Contractor’s Workshop (1901, 3/216), now
Store No. 12 Compound, showing stone setts and metal gate posts. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with
Fig. 569. Retaining masonry wall of the former Portsmouth Contractor’s Workshop (1901, 3/216),
181
now Store No. 12 Compound, possibly erected after 1918 re-using stone from the wall dividing the
former Rigging and Repairing Basins. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 570. Detail of the retaining masonry wall of the former Portsmouth Contractor’s Workshop
(1901, 3/216), possibly re-used stone from the wall dividing the former Rigging and Repairing
Basins. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
To the west across Guardhouse Road was a Retail Store, formerly a Contractor’s Workshop (1901)
until c.1947, then a Lagging Store until c.1970 (Lambert, 1993). The building was demolished c.1995,
the space now being used for the storage of chemical drums. Effectively now part of the same space
is Store No. 12 Compound (1901, 3/216, MoD, SU 639040 011473), whose 1901 stone setts remain,
as do the metal gate posts, but the gates themselves have been removed. The team suggests that the
west and north masonry retaining walls at SU 63879 01114 were built using stone from the wall which
divided the present Basin No. 3 at SU 63540 01261 into the Rigging and Repairing Basins before its
removal in 1918. The wall is shown on the 1924 map.
Fig. 571. Former Portsmouth Lime and Cement Store, with the road sign ‘Guardhouse Road’ on
its eastern elevation, now Retail Store No. 2 (1878, 3/218). This survives near the former convict
workshops shown on Colson’s 1881 map. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of
the MoD.
workshops and timber sheds on the site of the later Factory (1903, 3/82). Colson, Portsmouth
Extension Works, Plate 4, Minutes of Proceedings of The Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. LXIV. Session
1880–81, Part II, 118-173. Courtesy Institution of Civil Engineers Virtual Library.
Immediately to the south is Retail Store No. 2 (1878, 3/218, MoD, SU 639127 011085), a long narrow
single storey building, originally the Lime and Cement Store, which has concrete cills. The road sign
‘Guardhouse Road’ fixed to the building may be original. The footprint of the westernmost of the
convict workshops shown on Colson’s 1881 map is identical to the plan of this building. Also on the
1881 map a railway line led south to the ‘Brickfields’, which are now beneath the Factory, as was
the Guard House itself. Exposed sections of railway track remain at the junction of Guardhouse and
Military Roads, north of the Factory.
On the eastern quayside of Basin No. 3 is a 20 ton travelling crane by John Boyd, 1979; probably
because of the presence of the sheer legs there was no travelling crane at this point until the removal
of the legs. South of the Boyd crane in 2013 was the modern equivalent of a hulk – the three floor
Hillside Accommodation Barge (then at SU 638093 010638), belonging to Sanderson Maritime -
mounted on a pontoon, partly moored in the Pocket of Basin No. 3, but it was not there in 2014.
Across the road is the Boatswain’s Workshop (1923, 3/231, MoD, SU 638449 010620), now Halmatic
Workshop and Store, one of the few corrugated iron buildings in the yard.
Fig. 572. Hillside Accommodation Barge alongside the east quay of Portsmouth Basin No. 3 in 2013.
Fig. 573. Corrugated iron former Boatswain’s Workshop at Portsmouth (1923, 3/231). A. Coats 2013.
Sheer legs had been mounted formerly on hulks, enabling tasks such as mast fitting to be undertaken
afloat, but in the early years of the twentieth century floating cranes made their appearance, usually
working in Basin No. 3. One such, with a capacity of 150 tons by Cowans Sheldon, the hull by
Denny, shipbuilders of Dumbarton, arrived in 1912. Another, with an even greater capacity of 200
tons, electrically operated to boot, was towed into Portsmouth from Kiel in 1923, although it did
possess its own steam propulsion facility. It was part of the post-war reparation arrangements; the
original plan was for the assembly to be undertaken by German personnel, but in the event Cowans
Sheldon did the work. It was, and still is popularly believed that this crane was built in Portsmouth
182
by German prisoners of war actually during the war. A much smaller floating crane, with a capacity
of a mere 25 tons by Cowans Sheldon, arrived in the yard in 1928; it possessed a triple expansion
steam engine which could propel it at 8-9 knots, and generated its own electricity. Probably also part
of reparations was a 5 ton floating crane from Germany, dated 1921 (Anon, 1929, p. 15). Floating
cranes disappeared from the yard during the 1980s, the largest being moored at Fountain Lake Jetty
as late as 1988.
Fig. 574. Three Portsmouth dock/lock caissons moored on the west side of Basin No. 3 in 2015.
Floating in Basin No. 3 are caissons belonging to the dock and locks, depending on which are
open. South of the Promontory along the wall of Basin No. 3 was once another novel feature of the
dockyard – a set of sheer legs by Taylor with a lifting capacity of 70 tons, a lift height of 120 feet and
an overhang of 40 feet, installed in 1874 and working until the 1930s. Such was the force needed to
screw the third (back) leg to attain the desired overhang that the sheers had their own steam engine
house. The site of the latter is now occupied by containers. The sheers might have been able to shift
great weights, but they could only move in a fixed line, requiring the vessels they were serving to
adjust their berthing position as appropriate. To facilitate this, the south-east corner of the Basin was
extended southwards in 1939, known as The Pocket. East of the Basin and south of the Promontory
is a long, single storey brick building, now Store No. 44 (1889, 3/236, MoD, SU 638536 011813). It falls
into two sections. The northern has four bays on each side of the main entrance, the heading to each
being graced by Portland stones separated by gauged bricks. All the bays are now blocked off, but
there is certainly a marked contrast with other more modern buildings in this part of the yard. The
southern section has eight bays, but lacks the architectural flourish of its fellow. There are windows in
most of the bays. The whole was originally the Hydraulic Gear Store, including a plating workshop,
a pump house and a grindstone shed. In the Second World War it became a Gun Mounting Store and
in 1980 a Tool Box Shed and Dining Room. Each worker possessed his own tool box, which was
not only heavy, but also needed to be stored in an accessible fashion; this was achieved through an
inverted V-shaped metal structure with stepped sides The building now has two occupiers: the Small
Boat Centre of Excellence Amenity Area, and the Director of Ships Weapon Engineering. A cookhouse
was added to the north of the building in the 1920s but removed in the 1980s and a separate rich red
brick building constructed with a slate roof. (Lambert, 1993)
Fig. 575. West elevation of Portsmouth Hydraulic Gear Store/Store No. 44 (1889, 3/236), from the
north. A. Coats. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 576. West elevation of Portsmouth Hydraulic Gear Store/Store No. 44 (1889, 3/236), from the
south. A. Coats. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 577. Blocked original west door of Portsmouth Hydraulic Gear Store/Store No. 44 (1889, 3/236).
A. Coats. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 578. North elevation of Portsmouth Hydraulic Gear Store/Store No. 44 (1889, 3/236), showing
the blocked northeast entrance, the 1980s building 3/237 and evidence of a removed building, with
BAES Ship Hall B (2002, 2/122) in the background. A. Coats. Reproduced with the permission of
the MoD.
Fig. 579. East elevation of Portsmouth Hydraulic Gear Store/Store No. 44 (1889, 3/236), showing
blocked windows. A. Coats. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Facing Basin No. 3, north of the Promontory, is a tiny brick MG House (1932, 3/243, MoD, SU 638433
012679), north of which is the brick East Area Boiler House (c.1995, 3/247, MoD, SU 638433 012916),
built of recent red brick with grey brick quoins and metal doors, and north again the Shower Block
(1955, 3/248, MoD, SU 638408 013260), notable for its white painted external pipework. To the east
is the Lub Oil Store (c.1995, 3/251, MoD, SU 638908 012829), a light metal ribbed building with an
extensive canopy on its east side to shelter deliveries by lorry. It is now closed.
183
(coloured), HM Dockyard Portsmouth. Section showing a triangular plot taken into yard in 1888
east of Fountain Lake Jetty and the Gun Store Ground. Reproduced by permission of Historic
England.
At the far east of Fountain Lake Jetty, on a tiny plot of land taken into the dockyard in 1888, is the
Portakabin-like Diving and Maritime Store (c.2000, 3/260, MoD, SU 639402 013716), single storey and
walled with what appears to be gypboard. It is on the site of an air compressor house erected in 1924.
On the quayside is a remaining stretch of railway track. Within the overlooked land on the other side
of the dockyard wall is a gasometer which measured gas supplies from the Flathouse gasworks of the
Portsea Island Gas Light & Coke Co. The gasometer is no longer in use, the closure almost certainly
being the consequence of the advent of North Sea methane in 1967–68.
Fig. 581. North elevation, Frederick’s Battery at Portsmouth (1843–48, 1868, 3/250). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 582. West elevation, Frederick’s Battery at Portsmouth (1843–48, 1868, 3/250). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 583. West elevation, south corner, Frederick’s Battery at Portsmouth (1843–48, 1868, 3/250),
showing the east-west 1865 Great Extension wall. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission
of the MoD.
Fig. 584. Doorway with insignia, Frederick’s Battery at Portsmouth (1843–48, 1868, 3/250). A. Coats
Fig. 585. Insignia, Frederick’s Battery at Portsmouth (1843–48, 1868, 3/250). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 586. Doorway with cartouche dated 1868, when Frederick’s Battery (1843–48, 1868, 3/250) was
moved to this site at Portsmouth. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 587. Cartouche dated 1868, Frederick’s Battery at Portsmouth (1843–48, 1868, 3/250). A. Coats
Floating Dock Jetty (q.v.) was linked to the yard’s railway, whose construction necessitated the
demolition of the northern half of Frederick’s Battery (1843–48, 1868, 3/250, Grade II, 1244588,
MoD, SU 639340 013041), which itself had been re-sited from its original location as a result of the
Great Extension (1867–81). The Battery had run northwest from the Water Gate (later Anchor Gate)
Guard House in the Sluice Bastion to the Round Tower. At the southern end of the seven remaining
casemates of Frederick’s Battery is a square tower complete with weapon slits. The keystone above
the entrance is dated 1868. This created some historical confusion. The Round Tower and Frederick’s
Battery listings state that they were built in 1843–48 under the direction of Captain H. James R.E., then
dismantled and re-erected in their present position in 1867. At the southern end of the Battery two
round-arched entrances have ashlar tympana bearing the date 1868 and a cipher. The Battery could
have been named after Lord Frederick Fitzclarence KCB, son of William IV and Lieutenant General
of Portsmouth in 1847–51, the period when the Battery was originally built. However, Pevsner and
Lloyd (1990, pp. 425-6) asserted that the Tower ‘was built in 1683 on the harbour shore’ and in ‘1688
Frederick’s Battery was built alongside’. They commented that the Tower is ‘a highly interesting piece,
one of the few relics of the once extensive seventeenth century defensive works in Portsmouth;
the mock medievalisms on the Tower and Battery are intriguing.’ Annotations on HE, MD95/03032
(1850–1955) also followed Pevsner and Lloyd, and the date on the Battery keystone is ambiguous.
However, HE, MD95/03034 (1900) showed later buildings on the original site of Round Tower and
Frederick’s Battery, and their present location. The illustrated plans confirm their nineteenth century
origins. Apparently the Tower was used for aircraft spotting in the Second World War and aircraft
recognition images were painted inside the parapet. (Malley, pers. comm., 2015)
184
Fig. 588. MD95/03032. (1850 annotated to 1955). Plan of Portsmouth Dockyard in 1900 showing
development and enlargement from 1540 to 1900. PSA Drawing based on 1850 map showing
changes in yellow and later buildings in red dotted lines. Section showing Portsmouth Frederick’s
Battery and Round Tower. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 589. MD95/03034 (1900). Her Majesty’s Dockyard at Portsmouth Showing Development and
Enlargement from 1540 to 1900. Section showing original site of Portsmouth Frederick’s Battery and
the Round Tower and later buildings on their former site. Reproduced by permission of Historic
England.
Fig. 590. MD95/03034 (1900). Her Majesty’s Dockyard at Portsmouth Showing Development and
Enlargement from 1540 to 1900. Section showing new site of Portsmouth Frederick’s Battery and
the Round Tower. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 591. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. Engineer Admiral T. Gurnell, CB. Portsmouth re-
sited Frederick’s Battery and the Round Tower, the Floating Dock and coal, from the southwest.
Reproduced by kind permission of the Trustees of the National Museum of the Royal Navy.
Fig. 592. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Plans and sections of round tower at
north-east angle of extension works (1868). Scale: 1 inch to 8 feet. SCE’s Department; drawing no.
W80. Signed by John Murray. Extract showing the Round Tower adjoining the gallery of Frederick’s
Battery in section and plan to indicate new works. TNA, WORK 41/320. Reproduced with the
Fig. 593. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Plan no. 11 showing numbers and
position of piles used in the foundations of the round tower and retaining wall near gasworks
(1869). Drawing no. W76. Scale: 1 inch to 10 feet. Superintendent Civil Engineer’s Department.
TNA WORK 41/323. Reproduced with the permission of The National Archives.
Fig. 594. Portsmouth Round Tower (1843–48, 1868, 3/262) from the north, with the adjoining rich
red brick Offices (1979, 3/261). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 595. Portsmouth Round Tower string course above the battered ground floor storey
(1843–8, 1871, 3/262). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 596. Portsmouth Round Tower false machicolation and south facing clock, added in 1964
(1843–8, 1871, 3/262). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 597. Battered walls of the south elevation of Ove Arup Partnership’s Offices (1979, 3/261)
adjoining and echoing the walls of Portsmouth Round Tower (1843–48, 3/262). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 598. Dynamic blend of old and new. From left to right: the rich red brick of Ove Arup
Partnership’s Offices (1979, 3/261), Portsmouth Round Tower (1843–48, 3/262) and Frederick’s
Battery (1843–48, 3/250). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
At the land base of Floating Dock Jetty is the Round Tower (1843–48, 1868, 3/262, MoD, Grade II,
1244590, SU 639090 013923), part of Frederick’s Battery and also re-sited from its original position
at New Buildings in 1868 (HE, MD95/03034, 1900; TNA, 23.5.1868, WORK 41/313). A clock was
installed when refurbishment was undertaken in 1964. The Round Tower acts as a staircase to a
glazed walkway leading into rich red brick Offices (1979, 3/261, MoD, SU 638927 013360) in two
storeys, built on what was formerly a coal stacking ground. The ground floor entrance is labelled
SERCO Ltd, a British government company responsible for fleet support. This 1979 office, store
and workshop complex was connected to the Round Tower by Ove Arup Partnership, making use
of the Round Tower’s internal stairwell. Echoing its associated buildings, it is slightly battered and
the profile of its southern stairwell reflects the Round Tower and Battery towers. (HM Dockyard,
Portsmouth, Glass Age, 1979, pp. 28-9)
185
Fig. 599. Photograph by W. L. Lawrence: ‘Stand easy Flathouse’, the Floating Dock. PMRS, PORMG
1945/619. Photograph reproduced with the kind permission of Portsmouth Museums and Records
Service.
Fig. 600. Link to Portsmouth Floating Dock Jetty (1911). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the
Fig. 601. Cast iron base of the link to Portsmouth Floating Dock Jetty (1911). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 602. Portsmouth Floating Dock Jetty link rivets (1911). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the
Fig. 603. Portsmouth Floating Dock Jetty link iron hooks to secure cables (1911). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 604. Portsmouth Floating Dock Jetty link lamp post (1911). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with
Fig. 605. Portsmouth Floating Dock Jetty lamp post at the eastern corner (1911). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 606. Portsmouth Floating Dock Jetty crane at the northeastern corner (1911). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 607. Wooden block floor surface to absorb vibration in the workshop (c.1930, 3/303) on the
western section of Portsmouth Floating Dock Jetty (1911). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the
Fig. 608. Wooden block floor surface detail of the workshop (c.1930, 3/303) on the western section of
Portsmouth Floating Dock Jetty (1911). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 609. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. Engineer Admiral T. Gurnell, CB. Portsmouth Floating
Dock, lying parallel to Fountain Lake Jetty. Reproduced by kind permission of the Trustees of the
National Museum of the Royal Navy.
At the eastern extremity of Fountain Lake Jetty on its north side is the Floating Dock Jetty (1911, SU
638408 013260) projecting northwards into Fountain Lake. The Floating Dock itself was delivered in
1912. The link between Fountain Lake and Floating Dock Jetties is carried on riveted iron bridging
mounted on four sets of granite piles. On the west side of the bridge are hooks which formerly
supported cables and ducts. Several original electric lamp posts survive. All the stores, workshops,
waiting room, offices, cycle rack and cookhouse (1911, 3/301-3/306) on the Dock Jetty itself were
cleared in 2012, leaving some areas of woodblock surface.
Made by Cammell Laird at Birkenhead, the Floating Dock had a lifting capacity of 32,000 tons,
considerably in excess of any existing warship, being equipped with its own workshops, electricity
generators, both electric and steam cranes, and 8 sets of pumps able to move 48,750 tons of water in
4 hours. At the outbreak of war in 1914 it was towed to Invergordon, returning to Portsmouth in 1919
(Anon, 1929, pp. 16-17). It was transferred to Malta in 1939.
An account states that another floating dock was acquired by the Admiralty from the Southern
Railway in 1939–40, moved to Portsmouth and renamed AFD 11. It had been built in 1924 for
Southampton Docks and was the biggest in the world, but had become superfluous with the expansion
to accommodate the Queen Mary. (HM Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Floating dock. Plan of berth for
Southampton Dock. Scale: 1:500, TNA, WORK 41/263, 1939; Marden, 2012) It remained there until
1959 when it was acquired by the Rotterdam Dock Co. In 1984 it was being towed to Brazil when it
was lost off the coast of Spain. (Southampton Floating Dock)
186
Another floating dock by Blaithwaite Burn & Jessup, made in Bombay in 1944, took its place in 1959.
AFD 26 travelled via Trincomalee, Malta, Gibraltar and Chatham, where it stayed from 1947–51, then
Harwich until 1954, Falmouth until 1955, Portland until 1958, and finally Portsmouth in 1959. During
its time at Portsmouth it docked 400 submarines and 17 other vessels, but in 1984 there was no further
need for such facilities. According to Wessex, it was moved from Portsmouth to Devonport (Wessex,
1999, Report 46311.22, p. 20), but as indicated by World Naval Ships Forum, it was towed to Tilbury
for a refit in May 1984, then went to Rosyth Dockyard. In 1995 it was sold to an Icelandic company
in Rekyavik Harbour. (Paul Rowse and Paul Santillo, pers. comm., 2015; AFD 26 (2009). Admiralty
Floating Docks. World Naval Ships Forum)
On the basin side of Fountain Lake Jetty are a series of small buildings: the Fleet Squash Court (1940,
3/316, MoD, SU 63444 01503), easily identified by its sloping roof, MG House No. 6 (1913, 3/318,
MoD, SU63386 01517), a Store (1965, 3/320, MoD, SU63343 01533) and a Switch House (1965, MoD,
3/322, SU 63331 01539). The tracks of the 20 ton electric travelling crane by T. Smith & Son, 1912, no
longer in place, are evident on the basin side of the jetty. On the sea side of the jetty there is a 10
ton travelling crane by John Boyd Branch-Annan, 1980, and much evidence of railway track. Despite
the presence of the crane, two lorry-mounted cranes were servicing naval vessels at the time of the
visit in 2013.
Fig. 610. North elevation of Portsmouth Promontory (1910) the remnant of the wall that originally
separated the Repairing and Rigging Basins and was demolished in 1918. It is suggested that
salvaged stones were re-used in the retaining wall of Store No. 12 Compound (3/216). A. Coats
Fig. 611. Photograph of the 250 ton Arrol crane in Portsmouth dockyard (1959–60). Despite its long
service at Portsmouth, its picture is rare. PMRS, PORMG 1990/559. Photograph reproduced with the
kind permission of Portsmouth Museums and Records Service.
Fig. 612. Crane track on Portsmouth Promontory, Basin No. 3 (1881). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced
Protruding from the eastern side of Basin No. 3 is the Promontory (1910, MoD, SU 637399 012595). It
will be recalled that this was the remnant of the wall that originally separated the short-lived Repairing
and Rigging Basins, demolished in 1918. Its retention provided two berths, but more memorably it
formed the site of the gargantuan 250 ton electric hammerhead crane by Sir William Arrol, constructed
in 1912. Its height made it visible to much of Portsmouth, resulting in it becoming a city icon. The
crane was immobile and with such a secure base its working radius extended to 100 feet, enabling
vessels on both sides of the Promontory to be serviced. The crane lacked a conventional moving jib, a
travelling bogie working along a horizontal structure secured on the cantilever principle. The control
cab was spacious, the operator, who had to stand, facing a battery of dials and levers, which then
must have been the height of sophistication. It was dismantled in 1984. The track which skirted the
legs on both north and south sides is still to be seen, but nothing remains of the base of the crane.
Even the existing roller fairleads bear no maker’s name or date. There is a photograph of the crane in
1972 in Patterson’s The Royal Navy at Portsmouth since 1900 (2005, p. 97) and two photographs taken from
inside the crane cabin in Patterson and Riley (1984, pp. 24, 25). There is also a reference in Johnston
and Buxton (2013, pp. 148-9).
187
3.6.4 Area 4 HMS Nelson accommodation and services

Fig. 613. Land east of Portsmouth Dockyard occupied by Portsea fortifications became Anglesey
Barracks, then RN Barracks and part of the Great Extension. Portsmouth Plan No. 2. Ordnance
Survey 1896, Order-in-Council 26.11.03. Defence Estates Plans. AdL, Vz 14/113 (1896–1903).
Fig. 614. Portsmouth Seamens’ Quarters (1899–1903) demolished in the 1960s, Ground Floor Plan.
Drawing no. 301/49. BAES. Main/Nelson Gate, Portsmouth RN Barracks & Subsidiary Establishments
(1949). Plan for Works & Buildings. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 615. Portsmouth Seamens’ Quarters (1899–1903) demolished in the 1960s, First & Second
Floor Plans. Drawing no. 301/49. BAES. Main/Nelson Gate, Portsmouth RN Barracks & Subsidiary
Establishments (1949). Plan for Works & Buildings. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 616. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. Engineer Admiral T. Gurnell, CB. RN Barracks: Seamens’
Quarters and Parade Ground. Reproduced by kind permission of the Trustees of the National
Fig. 617. AFL03/A229825. Portsea: Aerial Views: HMS Nelson/RN Barracks with former
accommodation blocks and Nile Building (1973). Local Studies Collection Illustrations. © Historic
England (Aerofilms Collection).
By the end of the nineteenth century the Admiralty deemed it unhealthy to lodge on hulks in the
harbour seamen who were between commissions or whose ships were in dock, and unsuitable for
long service personnel after continuous service was introduced in 1853. This move came later for
seamen than convicts - Portsmouth convicts had been housed in a purpose-built prison since 1852.
The Admiralty had built barracks for marines in dockyard towns from the mid-eighteenth century and
police barracks after 1860, and decided to build barracks in the three manning ports of Devonport,
Chatham and Portsmouth. (Coad, 2013, pp. 375-6). The 1881 map showed plans to house them at the
eastern end of the Extension (Colson, 1881, plate 4), but instead the Admiralty purchased from the
War Office Anglesey Barracks and the site of the Duke of York’s Bastion in the Portsea fortifications,
which had been demolished 1870–76. The former Garrison Hospital within Townsend’s Bastion was
acquired for the Wardroom. New buildings in dark red brick and Doulting stone dressings were
designed by Superintending Engineer Colonel Sir Henry Pilkington R.E., modelled on Devonport’s
limestone Naval Barracks (1879–1907) and very similar to Chatham Naval Barracks, built 1897–
1902, also designed by Pilkington, except that Portland stone was used there for dressings. (BAES,
Opus, 2011, pp. 2-3; Chatham Royal Naval Barracks) An aerial photograph taken in 1950s shows
the spacious parade ground with only the modern Trafalgar Block encroaching (Royal Navy, 1974,
Renaming Ceremony). Music, theatre and gymnasium facilities demonstrate that the Admiralty was not
erecting mere dormitories and canteens with the funds raised by the Naval Works Acts, but grand and
spacious buildings to recreate and develop the personnel.
The Barracks were ready on 30 September 1903, ‘and 4,000 men marched up Queen’s Street from
their old home in the Hulks, Duke of Wellington, Marlborough, Hannibal and Asia.’ In December 1903
‘Edward VII commanded that the men of RNB should wear Victory cap tallies – to ensure that the
name of Victory should not disappear from the Royal Navy.’ This had led to the ‘odd and confusing
situation of two Victory’s [sic] in one place’, resolved in 1974 by renaming the RNB HMS Nelson.
(Royal Navy, 1974, Renaming Ceremony) With the establishment of naval barracks in each home port, the
Admiralty decided in 1902 that trophies from paid off ships would be transferred to the captain of the
respective naval barracks until the ship was re-commissioned. The April 1911 edition of the Catalogue
of Pictures, Presentation Plate etc listed them. Portsmouth Dockyard had seventeen named figureheads
or stern ornaments, twenty-six ship models, the oldest of Rupert (3rd rate, Harwich, built 1665), plus
further un-named ship models or ship parts, two anchors, two bells, the Nun Buoy (c.1821), a piece
of hemp cable recovered by General Pasley in 1843 from the wreck of the Royal George (sunk 1782), a
188
rolling indicator from the Captain which foundered in 1870 and a shot carrier for carrying heated shot.
Three larger items were a howitzer taken by Centurion from a fort at Shan-hai-kwan in 1901, the stone
removed from the hull of HMS Pique on her arrival from Labrador in 1835, which is now in the Porter’s
Garden, and the bronze statue of William III (q.v.), also now in the Porter’s Garden. The Dockyard
Chapel plate is listed separately. (Admiralty, 1911, Admiralty Letter 9 February 1904, pp. 29-33) The
nationalistic 1912 Spithead Review Programme (Gale & Polden, pp. 11-12) questioned the ‘wisdom of the
huge shore barracks for the training of British seamen today, and wonder if it would not be better
to train them at sea on the ships in which they would have to fight.’ It ignored the reality of the
unhealthy living conditions aboard rotting old hulks, which the barracks were designed to remedy, as
well as providing a greater range of physical and educational facilities.
The Barracks suffered some wartime damage. On 12 August 1940 a bomb falling in Queen Street
damaged window frames and shattered windows in the Wardroom Officers quarters, wrecked a
stewards’ block and wrecked thirty to forty yards of the Barracks boundary wall (TNA, ADM 1/10949).
A photograph in Smitten City (1944, p. 13) shows the damaged railing, which allowed the public to see
the parade ground.
Fig. 618. Redevelopment of RN Barracks plan, Portsmouth (HMS Victory) in five stages (1963–74).
Minutes of Meetings and enclosures. TNA, ADM 1/28540. Reproduced with the permission of
Fig. 619. Portsmouth Royal Naval Barracks, 1966 Model. TNA, ADM 1/28540 (1963–74).
From 1963 the MoD modernised Barracks facilities and accommodation to sustain naval personnel in
the 1970s. The 1966 model depicted the existing site, continuing the Navy Board practice of using 3-D
models to plan changes. Nelson Block (demolished at the end of the twentieth century) was occupied
in September 1966. While it was reported to be ‘spacious and well furnished’, users complained that
it was ‘consistently hot and humid due to inadequate ventilation.’ A new Rum Bar (a few years before
its issue ceased in 1970) of 320 square feet in the Victualling Store was an important feature of daily
life, to be ‘sited on the main traffic flow of male Junior Rates on the route to the Dining Hall.’ The new
Rum Store next to the Rum Bar was 480 square feet to store 60 half hogshead casks of 27 gallons,
constructed to maximum security, with no windows. A new Cold Room with insulated access doors
stored meat, and a Deep Freeze, Butcher’s Shop, Bulk Provision Store, Vegetable Store, Catering and
Cook’s Offices, cleaning stores, staff restrooms, ranked toilets and a vehicle bay were constructed.
(TNA, ADM 1/28540)
In 1967 the MoD planned a large Court Martial Room, deemed necessary because courts martial were
held two or three times a week as ‘Portsmouth Command is becoming more and more the Prime Naval
Command.’ Assessing numbers of ratings to be accommodated in twelve and four storey blocks was
more problematic, ‘owing to the many factors involved, most of which were closely bound up with
the size and shape of the future Navy.’ A figure of 2,500 ratings was agreed, based on the ‘phasing
out of aircraft carriers’ and ‘the number of men who will be returning from abroad in the next few
years’. They agreed on accommodation for an extra 90 senior rates in a high rise building, as Trafalgar
Block was being shared by POs and CPOs in overcrowded conditions; a new PO’s block was urgently
needed. A block for senior and junior WRNS ratings was to be constructed 1966–68, with separate
recreational and dining facilities. Until it was ready, from 1966 WRNS were housed temporarily at the
rear of the Wardroom so that the Duchess of Kent Barracks (the present City Museum in Museum
Road) could be vacated. Regarding officers, ‘changes in Government policy relating to the Navy
would undoubtedly have their repercussions on the officers forward bearing through the Barracks;
it was agreed to plan for 200 male and 40 female (WRNS) officers. It was recorded in January 1967
that the new blocks would have ‘a Trafalgar/Victory flavour’ by being named after admirals who
served on HMS Victory and ships which took part in the Battle of Trafalgar. The new Petty Officers’
block would occupy the ‘old Field Gun Training Track, at present, a clear site.’ The old Nelson Block
189
(vacated in April 1965), old O.D.C., Chapel, Anson East End and Rum Stores, Howe East End and
Frobisher buildings, were planned to be demolished in 1967 to make way for the new buildings.
These were the original Seamens’ Quarters, which MoD decided would not be worth converting as it
would ‘produce sub-standard results.’ A new Cinema Room would not be exclusively for recreational
films, but would also be used for instructional purposes. The NAAFI was also due for demolition, but
could not move to the Jervis Blocks area until they were redeveloped in 1970. (TNA, ADM 1/28540)
showing on the right the uninterrupted view of the Parade Ground which was reinstated in 1956.
The main entrance on Queen Street is HMS Victory/Nelson: Main Gate (1734; 1899–1903, Grade II,
1387174, MoD, SU 63731 00440). Pilkington reused Ionic columns and the segmental pediment from the
former Portsea Quay Gate in 1902 to create a Romanesque formal entrance to the first naval barracks in
Portsmouth. Four piers support a central archway for vehicles, and outer pedestrian archways. The piers
are formed of bands of red brick and Doulting stone from Somerset, used in the contemporary Barracks
buildings, with pyramidal capstones. The central arch tympanum carries the royal coat of arms and the
keystone a naval crown and fouled anchor, all carved and painted. The arches contain decorative iron gates.
The gate was originally attached to low brick boundary walls topped by cast iron railings but is now
free standing. On 4 November 1906 the ‘On the Knee Mutiny’ led to metal sheeting being erected
along the Edinburgh Road railings, to stop the public viewing the parade ground, a patent example of
how behaviour transforms the built environment. Lt Collard, a gunnery officer, mustered the evening
duty watch in heavy rain. When dismissed, some of the men, particularly the stokers, complained
about being mustered in the rain when they could have stood in the Gymnasium, and Collard recalled
the men and ordered them to the Gymnasium. He dismissed all but the stokers and gave the order
‘On the Knee’, usually only used in gunnery drill, so that the rear ranks could see him. After verbal
complaints the order was eventually obeyed and they were dismissed. However, further discontent
developed in the Canteen that evening among the approximately 300 stokers when they were teased
by seamen, feeling that they had been humiliated. Their frustration erupted into destruction of
windows and furniture, with some rushing to the Main Gate, which was closed before they could
get out. Three stokers were arrested but the rest occupied the parade ground and demanded their
release. Eventually they dispersed, believing their demands had been met, and the Commodore of
the Barracks, W. G. Stopford believed the matter was resolved, but the next evening trouble again
broke out in the Canteen and Commander Drury-Lowe gave the order to sound the assembly, calling
out all the men, including the stokers from the Canteen. He failed to obtain order and Commodore
Stopford closed the Main Gate, which meant returning servicemen could not enter and gathered
outside, communicating with the men inside and attracting the attention of civilians, who joined in
the disturbance. The police could not cope and the Royal Marine Artillery from Eastney Barracks and
armed ships’ parties were called out, gradually forcing the crowd to disperse along Queen Street. In
the Commons the Admiralty Secretary deemed the event an ‘unpremeditated outbreak’, continuing:
The second disturbance (on Monday, 5th November) was of a more serious nature, inasmuch
as a contemporaneous riot on the part of civilians and other persons took place immediately
outside the barracks. This disturbance would not have occurred had those in authority taken
precautionary measures to prevent a recurrence of the disorder of the previous day. No such
measures were taken. (House of Commons Debates, 17 December 1906).
The Secretary also reported that the Admiralty had directed that ‘the drill order “On the knee” is not
to be used for other than drill purposes.’ The sentence of hard labour imposed on Stoker Moody
was reduced from five to three years and the sentence of imprisonment of Stoker James Day reduced
by six months. Collard was court martialled on 26 November 1906, ‘convicted of an act to the
prejudice of good order and naval discipline’. The event was reported widely in national, local and
colonial newspapers and commemorated by several postcards dating from 1906/7. The metal sheeting
remained until 1956 when ‘Commodore J. Y. Thompson obtained the Commander-in-Chief’s approval
190
to remove it, saying, “Nothing occurs on the parade ground of which I am ashamed and there is
plenty going on of which I am proud”’, and a new security gate and guardhouse were installed to the
north of the gate. (Winton, 1989, pp. 120-4; House of Commons Debates, 12 November 1906; House
of Commons Debates, 17 December 1906; New Zealand Herald, 19 December 1906, p. 7)
Fig. 620. Cartoon alluding to the On the Knee Mutiny of 1904. Courtesy George Malcolmson Collection.
Fig. 621. Pre-1956 view of Portsmouth HMS Nelson Main Gate showing the metal sheeting which
was removed at the end of that year. BAES, Gifford (Feb 2004). Main/Nelson Gate. Structural
Appraisal, Fig. 1, p. 1. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 622. Portsmouth Main/Nelson Gate (1899–1903) South elevation. BAES, Opus (2011). Historical
Building Quadrennial Inspection. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 623. Flagpole in the remaining section of Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks Parade Ground in
2013, with the figurehead from H.M. Yacht Victoria & Albert 1899–1954 at its base. A. Coats 2013.
The MoD decided to rebuild and realign the main entrance in 1966, which allowed only single line
traffic (which held up traffic and allowed limited headroom), and rebuilt the guardhouse to ‘blend
in with the architecture of the modernised barracks’ (TNA, ADM 1/28540). The lion on Dreadnought
guardhouse survives from its predecessor. In 1997 Heritage announced that the front gates had been
restored. In 2004 Gifford noted that stonework had weathered, especially at the west end and where
rainwater dripped, exacerbated by the use of Portland cement repairs; there was an historic crack and
vegetation around mouldings and paint was peeling. However, the paintwork was observed in 2014
to be a fairly good state of repair. (BAES, Denny Highton. Jan 1978, para 1; BAES, Cathedral Works,
Summer 1997, Heritage. p. 2; BAES, FSLM, Apr 2004, p. 4; BAES, Gifford, Feb 2004, pp. 1-4, 6; BAES,
Opus, 2011, p. 2).
Fig. 624. Portsmouth Jervis Gate (c.1980) at the northeast corner of HM Nelson Barracks, showing a
section of the Great Extension wall (1863–65) and Unicorn Gate (1779), re-sited in 1865. A. Coats
Giving further access to Area 4 from Unicorn Gate is Jervis Gate (SU 638121, 007396), while Anchor
Gate Police Station (2/46, MoD, SU 63601 00671) marks another entrance from Anchor Gate Road. A
new gateway was built into the extension wall at Anchor Gate in 1907 (TNA, 12.9.1907, ADM 195/79).
Swiftsure (NE/1, SU 636990 004773) is on the site of the Guard House in the 1924 map. The site of
Orion Medical/Dental Block (1967-9, NE/2-N/3, SU 636346 004841) in 1924 occupied the site of the
southernmost block containing an east-west range of Seamens’ Quarters. It contains support services
for personnel. Initially planned to be built in two phases (first Admin/Dental; second Medical), this
was reviewed for cost reasons; completion due mid-1969. (TNA, ADM 1/28540)
To the west of Orion, in the promenade, is a figurehead of Nelson in the uniform of a Rear Admiral.
The plaque states: ‘MADE IN 1938 FOR TRAINING SHIP HMS CONWAY (EX-HMS NILE) PRESENTED
TO HMS NELSON BY THE TRUSTEES OF HMS CONWAY IN 1974’. It is executed in carved wood
on a concrete plinth. Nearby is the silver ‘NELSON BELL 1928 FORTITER DEFENDIT TRIUMPHANS
PRESENTED TO H.M.S. NELSON BY THE INHABITANTS OF TYNESIDE REID & SONS NEWCASTLE-
ON-TYNE’, claimed to be the largest silver bell ever cast, weighing over 1½ cwts. It celebrates
HMS Nelson, the first of two Nelson class battleships, built by Armstrong within the constraints of the
1922 Washington Naval Treaty and launched in 1925. They face the figurehead of a lion couchant
holding the royal coat of arms, bordered by ‘Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense’ mounted on the cornice of
Dreadnought.
Fig. 625. East elevation from the north of the surviving northern portion of Rodney at Portsmouth
(1847–48, NE/14 now Leviathan), bombed during the Second World War, part of the former army
191
Anglesey Barracks, incorporated into Naval Barracks (later HMS Nelson Barracks) in 1899. A. Coats
Fig. 626. NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938]. Engineer Admiral T. Gurnell, CB. West (rear) elevation of
Rodney (1847–48), inherited from Anglesey Barracks. The section to the right of the pediment was
bombed in 1942. Reproduced by kind permission of the Trustees of the National Museum of the
Royal Navy.
Leviathan), the Warrant Officers’ Mess in the former army Anglesey Barracks, incorporated in 1899
into the Naval Barracks (later HMS Nelson Barracks). It features the scrolled abutments seen at
Rochefort Dockyard Ropery (1666–69), on the Gymnasium south elevation roof gable (1899), the
gable on the north elevation of Barham (1899, NE/82) and the date plaque (1903) on the north
elevation of the Factory (1903, 3/82). The southern section was bombed during the Second World
War. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 627. Eastern (inner) elevation of the Anglesey Barracks wall at Portsmouth (1847) which then
formed the boundary of the Naval Barracks, later HMS Nelson Barracks, near Rodney (1847–48,
NE/14, now Leviathan). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Leviathan (NE/13, SU 636902 005441) includes HMS Nelson Stores Complex (South) and Rodney
(1847–48, NE/14, Grade II, 1387148, MoD, SU 635840 005679), described in the 1924 map as CPO’s
Mess and Quarters. At The National Archive is a plan made by Superintendent Civil Engineer’s
Department showing ‘Warrant officers’ mess: plans and details of steelwork, reinforced floors and
roofs, mess room fireplace and doors. (TNA, 1921, WORK 41/556) It was part of the former army
Anglesey Barracks, incorporated into HMS Nelson barracks in 1899. It is now houses a chaplaincy
and other support services. Initially the symmetrical thirty-five bay building including the central
pedimented bay was almost twice as long as now; the sixteen southern bays were bombed in 1942
and later demolished, so it is now has an unbalanced appearance. It was aligned north-south and
overlooked the parade ground, built of red brick with Portland stone plinths, first floor string course,
cornice and cills. The original pitched roof has been replaced by a flat concrete and asphalt roof.
The first and second floors are supported on cast iron beams. The western elevation has a first floor
balcony supported by circular cast iron columns. The brickwork has survived well, but some bricks
are spalling, thought to have been exacerbated by the use of cement mortar and water saturation
from cleaning in 1994. There is some vertical cracking on the west and east sides at the north end.
Some original staircases, chimneys, doors with fanlights and sash windows survive. (BAES, PSA,
June 1992, p. 1; BAES, FSLM, May 2005, p. 3; BAES, Opus, 2011, pp. 2-16) Hampshire Treasures (1986,
p. 36) described the carved stone lion in the pediment, but the listing entry dated 1972 states that it
had been moved to the Wardroom garden across Queen Street, Unicorn reporting that it had been
removed because it was insecure. The oculus in the pediment now encloses a clockface. (BAES,
Unicorn (Oct 2001). Quadrennial Inspection, Rodney Block, p. 3)
Fig. 628. East elevation of the gateway from Portsmouth Naval Barracks/HMS Nelson Barracks
(c.1899) into York Place. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Two garages now flank the blocked gateway (SU 635533 004604) into York Place. Along the southern
wall of HMS Nelson are workshops and stores (SU 636071 004523) where in 1924 was located the Gun
Drill Battery.
Sirius (NE/23, SU 636902 005441), Phoebe (NE/24, SU 636352 005548), Naiad (NE/25, SU 636415
006323), Euryalus (NE/26, SU 636983 006648), Neptune (NE/50, SU 636971 006085) are all relatively
new blocks, which in 1924 were on the site of two blocks, separated by a lawn, each containing three
east-west ranges of Seamens’ Quarters. Britannia (1960s, NE/49, SU 637546 006560), Hardy (NE/89,
SU 637646 005123) and Vanguard (SU 637596 005773) in 1924 were within the former Parade Ground.
Dreadnought (NE/90, SU 637540 004741) was at the southern end the Parade Ground in 1924. The
192
new Dreadnought is the guardhouse. RMSM Stores (NE/28, SU 636965 006385) is on the south side
of an inner wall which bounds a short stretch of road used as a car park. A Water Meter House
on the south side of the 1865 wall in 1924 (NE/47-NE/48, SU 636965 006385) is now a Gas Meter
House/Substation RNB3. The present Sea Cadets’ building in dark red brick (1847–8, NE/34, Grade
II, 1387144, MoD, SU 635983 006223) was the Old Management School, formerly the Army Barracks
canteen, one of the oldest canteens in an English barracks.
Fig. 629. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, east elevation of Jervis (1899, NE/64). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 630. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, west elevation of Jervis (1899, NE/64). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 631. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, west elevation of Jervis (1899, NE/64), showing the
chimney gable. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 632. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, tympanum carved in Doutling limestone from Somerset
over the north elevation entrance of Jervis (1899, NE/64). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the
Fig. 633. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, cast iron rainwater hopper on Jervis (1899, NE/64) dated
1899. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 634. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, cast iron Doulton drain cover by the south entrance of
Jervis (1899, NE/64). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Jervis (1899, NE/64, SU 638308 006716), shown in the 1924 map as Seamen’s Quarters, is now the
RN Pre-Deployment Training Centre. Originally there were two more linked accommodation blocks
to the east, shown in 1924, which were due for demolition in the early 1970s (TNA, ADM 1/28540).
They can be seen in an aerial photograph of the 1950s, which highlights the unity of the rooflines
shared by all the accommodation blocks and Barham, Eastney and the Gymnasium. (Royal Navy
1974, Renaming Ceremony) Jervis now has three storeys aligned north-south, with four-storey entrance
bays at the north and south elevations whose first floor windows are embellished by arches featuring
fouled anchors in Doutling limestone from Somerset. It is built of a mid-red brick with stone string
courses and keystones over the windows, and tall chimneys. The rainwater hoppers are dated 1899.
Original plans show a Seamen’s Mess and Dormitory and Hammock Racks on the ground floor,
with a separate dormitory for Leading Stokers. A further Seamen’s Mess and Dormitory, Chaplain’s
Office, Signal School classrooms and Hammock Racks were on the second floor. Warrant Officers’
quarters were on the third floor, next to Wireless and Telegraph rooms. Timber floors are suspended
on a steel frame spanning between the external walls and internal stanchions. The ground floor
is of poured in situ concrete covered with ceramic tiles. Stoves set on concrete hearths provided
heating, waste gases ventilated by the chimney flues. It retains timber sash windows and panelled
or part glazed timber doors. A Doulton’s drain cover set in a ceramic surround is located outside the
southern entrance. (BAES, Unicorn, 23.1.1996; BAES, FSLM, May 2005, p. 4) In 1967 MoD discussed
refurbishment of Jervis to house the Barrackmaster’s and Barrack Engineer’s workshops, Vocational
Training workshops, Supply Department Stores and Offices, Passive Defence and Navy Days Offices,
Accommodation Officer, General Stores, Motor Transport Offices, Ministry of Public Buildings and
Works workshops and Training facilities. (TNA, Jan 1967, ADM 1/28540) It is strange that this block,
which must have been one of the first accommodation blocks to be built specifically for seamen at
Portsmouth, was not listed. The team considers that Jervis should be listed, to complement the group
value of other listed buildings in this area.
Fig. 635. Portsmouth Naval Barracks Canteen/Eastney NE79, West Elevation. Record Drawing no. 5/
AA219. 20.1.99/Oct 06/1907. BAES. Unicorn (Jan 2002). Structural Appraisal. Reproduced with the
193
Fig. 636. Portsmouth Naval Barracks Canteen/Eastney NE79. East and South Elevations, Record
Drawing no. 4/21S, Oct 06/1907. BAES. Unicorn (Jan 2002). Structural Appraisal. Reproduced with
Fig. 637. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, Eastney (c.1907, NE/79), south elevation. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 638. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, Eastney (c.1907, NE/79), north elevation. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 639. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, Eastney (c.1907, NE/79), west elevation. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 640. Johnson & Phillips electric lamp standard east of Eastney (c.1907, NE/79), beside a
Portsmouth bike shed, HMS Nelson Barracks. This Charlton company made equipment for laying
undersea cables, but also more prosaic electric lighting (Johnson & Phillips Ltd). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 641. Base of the Johnson & Phillips electric lamp standard east of Eastney (c.1907, NE/79),
in need of some paint, Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the
Eastney (c.1907, NE/79, Grade II, 1387140, CA 18, MoD, SU 638308 006716), was formerly the Canteen
and Theatre, designed by Superintending Engineer Colonel Sir Henry Pilkington R.E. Unicorn (2002,
p. 3), reported that the previous fortifications on the site were demolished in the 1870s and ‘it is
believed that the present structure was constructed on the rubble of this building.’ It consists of a
basement, ground floor with auditorium and canteen, a first floor and second floor towers on the
north elevation. It is built of red brick with a brick plinth and stone keystones, cills, coping and string
courses to the stair towers. The chimneys are original, but the building lost five original lantern lights
in the roof refurbishment which removed much natural light and ventilation. Some original lath and
plaster ceilings remain, but it has lost doors, internal glass partitions and windows, and suspended
ceilings have been installed. In 2001 the west elevation was reported as having been re-pointed with
cement mortar in a proud joint, causing spalling; the other three elevations required repointing. The
two main entrances to the north and south retain their original doors, frames and panels, but have a
mixture of glass. The 1907 map marks the north entrance for seamen and the south entrance for petty
officers. The north entrance retains its rope moulding and the north staircase its timber balustrade and
handrail. Most of the sash windows were original in 2001, but on the west elevation five double sash
windows had been replaced by poor quality casements with unsuitable ironmongery and in the north
towers three round windows had been replaced in an unsuitable style. Later extensions were built
from the east elevation into the dockyard wall. Modern additions include a fire escape bridge to the
Gymnasium. In the narrow space between Eastney and the dockyard wall is a lamp standard bearing
the names Johnson & Phillips Ltd London. According to the History of the Atlantic Cable & Undersea
Communications, the company was founded in 1875 and manufactured electric light equipment.
(BAES, Unicorn, 31.1.1997, p. 3; BAES, Unicorn, Oct 2001, pp. 7-20; BAES, 1907, Portsmouth Naval
Barracks Canteen, Ground Plan; BAES, Unicorn, Jan 2002, p. 3; History of the Atlantic Cable &
Undersea Communications, 2012)
Fig. 642. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, Gymnasium (1893–1900, NE/81), west elevation. A. Coats
Fig. 643. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, Gymnasium (1893–1900, NE/81), main entrance carved
in Doutling limestone from Somerset and a cast iron rainwater hopper dated 1899. A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 644. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, Gymnasium (1893–1900, NE/81), stencilled sign ‘P.D.
First Aid Station’ by the main entrance. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
194
Fig. 645. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, Gymnasium (1893–1900, NE/81), one of the north
entrances. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 646. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, Gymnasium south elevation pavilion (1893–1900, NE/81).
Fig. 647. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, Gymnasium south elevation pavilion tympanum (1893–
1900, NE/81). A. Coats 2014. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 648. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, Gymnasium (1893–1900, NE/81) south elevation,
rainwater hopper dated 1899. A. Coats 2014. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 47. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, Gymnasium (1893–1900, NE/81) south elevation roof
gable. Note the scrolled abutments similar to those at Rochefort Dockyard Ropery (1666–69), which
also support Rodney’s pediment (1847–48, NE/14), the gable on the north elevation of nearby
Barham (1899, NE/82) and the date plaque (1903) on the north elevation of the Factory (1903,
Fig. 649. Portsmouth Gymnasium (1893–1900, NE/81), Roof Section A-A proposed repairs, showing
the rear of the south elevation. PSA South East Region HQ, Drawing no. 1L(27)02, Dec 88. BAES.
Unicorn (Jan 2002). Structural Appraisal. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Gymnasium (1893–1900, NE/81, Grade II, 1387143, CA 18, MoD, SU 63902 00544) was originally built
as the Drill Hall for the Duke of York’s Wessex Regiment (one window tympanum bears the lamb
which is the device of the Regiment or of the Third Volunteer Battalion of the Hampshire Regiment,
the Duke of Connaught’s Own) and taken over by the naval barracks. The south elevation terracotta
tympanum displlays three roses in a shield, with laurel leaves below. However, the rainwater hoppers
are dated 1899, like Barham and Jervis. By the main entrance on the western elevation there is a
stencilled sign: ‘P.D. First Aid Station’. Unicorn (2002, p. 3), reported that this building too was on the
site of the fortifications demolished in the 1870s. It comprises a quadrangle gymnasium, surrounded
by two storeys of other sports facilities and a six storey clock tower in the northwest corner. On 12
August 1940 a bomb exploded on the triangular bandstand lawn near the flagmast (now occupied by
Trafalgar), creating a crater fifteen feet deep and thirty to thirty-five feet across, smashing the glass
in the roof lanterns and damaging much of the roof covering (TNA, ADM 1/10949). This could also
have caused the shrapnel damage in the clock tower referred to in a Conservation Practice tender
document, while Heritage (1997) reported that the pre-war pitched slate roof had been restored and
the clock tower restored. When the MoD was modernising the Barracks in the 1960s, demolition and
rebuilding of the Gymnasium was considered but rejected as the building was structurally sound,
and funds were lacking (TNA, ADM 1/28540). The interior has since been heavily modernised, and
the building lost most of the south elevation when Alfred Road was widened in the 1970s (TNA,
ADM 1/28540), a heavy steel frame supporting the gable end. There is a 1988 drawing showing
roof repairs It shares group value with the nearby Barham, the Wardroom and the Roman Catholic
Cathedral. (BAES, The Conservation Practice (April 1995). Tender Clock Tower, HMS Nelson, p. 9;
BAES, Cathedral Works, 1997, Heritage, p. 2; BAES, Unicorn (Oct 2001). Quadrennial Inspection,
Gymnasium, pp. 4-5; BAES, Unicorn (Jan 2002). Quadrennial Inspection, Gymnasium, p. 3; BAES,
Opus (Oct 2011). Quadrennial Inspection, Gymnasium, pp. 2-4) A short stretch of dockyard wall
curving from this building westwards around the corner to Unicorn Gate is new, probably dating from
when the new Unicorn Gate entrance was built in 1977–79.
Fig. 650. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, west elevation of Barham (1899, NE/82). A. Coats 2013.
Fig. 651. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, Barham portico with Doutling limestone from Somerset
(1899, NE/82). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
Fig. 652. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, east wing of Barham (1899, NE/82). A. Coats 2013.
195

Fig. 48. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, chimney gable on the north elevation of Barham (1899,
NE/82). It features scrolled abutments similar to Rochefort Dockyard Ropery (1666–69), which also
support Rodney’s pediment (1847–48, NE/14), the nearby Gymnasium south elevation roof gable
(1899, NE81) and the date plaque (1903) on the north elevation of The Factory (1903, 3/82).
Fig. 653. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, ventilator on Barham’s east wing roof (1899, NE/82).
Fig. 654. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, rainwater hopper dated 1899 on Barham (1899, NE/82).
Barham (1899, NE/82, Grade II, 1387139, CA 18, MoD, SU 638271 006304) initially housed the Naval
Depôt Offices, designed by Pilkington in the Georgian Revival Style. The rainwater hoppers are
dated 1899. In its red brick, slate roof and stone dressings at plinth, string courses, cills, cornices
and chimneys, Barham relates closely to the nearby Gymnasium, Wardroom and Roman Catholic
Cathedral. While the building is judged sound, some external stonework has weathered and eroded,
with some water penetration, and internally many original features such as chimney pieces have been
lost. (BAES, Opus, 2011, pp. 3, 7) The smaller Mail Room (building NE/85) appears to be newer (it is
not on the 1924 map) with a slate roof, but with concrete sills.
Fig. 655. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, west elevation of Trafalgar (1950s, NE/86) with the
clock tower of Gymnasium (1893–1900, NE/81) on the right. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the
Fig. 656. Portsmouth HMS Nelson Barracks, west entrance to Trafalgar (1950s, NE/86). A. Coats 2013.
Trafalgar (1950s, NE/86, SU 638702 005935) is a large Senior Rates’ Mess facing the Parade Ground/
car park. Its site in 1924 was part of the Parade Ground, with a Band Stand towards its western end. It
has a ground floor and semi-basement of concrete with a projecting concrete portico and four floors
of brick above. It has had remedial work for deteriorated concrete. On the north elevation there is a
link to the nine storey Nile (c.1975, NE/87, SU 638702 005935), whose site in 1924 was occupied by
the Wireless Telegraph Experimental Huts. Nile was built of reinforced concrete frames, with precast
or reinforced concrete floors supported on a ten metre single span beam. Its long glazed elevation
faces the prevailing southwest winds. A mosaic strip decorates each floor and the parapet but some
tiles have become detached. Demolition of the then fifteen year old Nile Block was considered in
1998. (BAES, Alan Marshall Consulting Civil and Structural Engineers for PSA, Jan 1984, p. 1; BAES,
Evans Grant, March 1992, p. 2; BAES, Unicorn Consultancy Services Ltd, June 1997, p. 3; BAES,
Comley & Sons, Odiham, 1998, Proposal to demolish)
Since the 1970s the Parade Ground has become almost completely covered with accommodation
blocks, the most recent, Falklands, being completed in 2014.
3.7 CONCLUSIONS
Worth repeating is the point that almost all the modifications and building work undertaken after
the mid-nineteenth century have been effected within the boundary wall of 1865. Were it not for
three land acquisitions in the twentieth century, everything would have been contained within the
Great Extension and the Anglesey Barracks limits. The first small land acquisition was Holy Trinity
Church and its Vicarage, purchased in 1906 and enclosed by the dockyard wall in 1907. The second
extension stemmed from the need for additional space during the Second World War. The area of the
1944 acquisition was modest, approximately 200 yards long by 100 yards in width, comprising the
196
three parallel streets of Marlborough Row, Gloucester Street and Frederick Street. These roads were
almost entirely surrounded by dockyard land known as the Marlborough Salient, making it a simple
task to enclose them.
It may seem paradoxical that as the dockyard workforce dwindled after the effective cessation of
the Cold War, that there should have been an increased demand for space. But as much as motor
transport is much more flexible than rail, garages, parking facilities and indeed roads are required.
Thus in 1977 the third acquisition was land to the east of Unicorn Road, edging Flathouse Road to
provide vehicle space and a much wider road entrance to Unicorn Gate. Copenhagen, Abercrombie,
Nile, Trafalgar, Duncan, Conway and Chalton Streets – which had largely been cleared of housing,
were taken into the yard, forming a wedge-shaped plot between Flathouse Road and Market Way.
The extension is enclosed on the Market Way border by a rich red brick wall, broken at frequent
intervals by metal railing. It is significant that this area was included in a 1936 map (HE, MD95/03039),
showing that such rationalisation was planned during the rearmament period.
Fig. 191. MD95/03039 (1936). Plan Showing Proposed Revision of Boundary of HM Dockyard
Fig. 559. East elevation of the Portsmouth South East Gate (Second World War) on Flathouse Road,
giving road access to the railway marshalling yard. Its concrete and brick piers carrying iron lamp
brackets were inserted into the Great Extension Wall (1863–65) with a late twentieth century steel
gate added. A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD.
of work on railways, 1951–1954. Annotated with reference notes. Scale: 1:1,666. Superintendent
Civil Engineer’s Department. Drawing no. 486/51, drawn by F. T. Haisman. Section showing new
works in Area 3 and the South East Gate and East Gate (now Trafalgar Gate), in use. TNA WORK
Not an extension of the dockyard, rather a modification of the Great Extension wall, was the opening
of the South East Gate (SU 64241 01105), probably during the Second World War. The hinges of the
former gates are visible in the gateposts, one of which is topped by the remains of a light fitting.
The current gate is of metal and slides sideways on wheels and looks in good condition. The razor
wire on top of the wall is noticeable at this point. To the north in Flathouse Road is East Gate (1931,
MoD, SU 64220 01289). Despite Unicorn Gate improvements in the 1970s, these were later considered
inadequate and in 2011 this became the current main gate, termed Trafalgar, with a dedicated slip
road from the M275 – Princess Royal Way. Trackways for sliding gates cross the roadway. There are
no immediate plans to add an imposing ambience comparable to that possessed by Victory, Nelson
and Unicorn Gates.
(coloured), HM Dockyard Portsmouth. Section showing a triangular plot taken into yard in 1888 east
of Fountain Lake Jetty and the Gun Store Ground. Reproduced by permission of Historic England.
Fig. 657. Post-1924 brickwork closing off the former entrance to the Portsmouth Gun Store
Ground (c.1914) made in the Great Extension wall (1863–65) near Trafalgar Gate. A. Coats 2013.
As though to emphasise the truism that there are exceptions to every rule, there was one instance of
land being acquired by the dockyard in the nineteenth century and then actually being relinquished
in the twentieth. The plot was admittedly of meagre size, measuring eighty yards in length and sixty-
five in width. This was the Gun Store Ground in the extreme north-east of the yard, to the east of
Flathouse gasworks and south of Flathouse quay, owned by the Council. The space is not shown on
the 1881 map, but it existed in 1914 when a 150 ton electric overhead traveller mounted on a gantry,
made by Vaughan & Son, was on site (Anon, 1929, p. 12), suggesting that the ground came into
operation during rearmament when the size and weight of guns became considerable. It is marked
197
on a 1924 map, but judging from the brickwork closing off the gap in the Great Extension wall, it
must have fallen into the hands of the Council shortly afterwards, eventually becoming part of Albert
Johnson Quay.
Some historic Portsmouth buildings have been designated at risk (Appendix 4), the greatest threat
occurring when buildings are vacant because they are not being heated, ventilated or monitored on
a daily basis. PDP Green Consulting Limited have undertaken extensive condition surveys for BAE
Systems and have produced a full scope of works for construction works on Nos 2-8 The Parade, the
Former Naval Academy and Storehouse No. 25 (Bolger, pers. comm. 2013). The Pay Office (1/11) has
had long term rain ingress through the junction between eighteenth century brickwork and the 1940s
modifications, but is not on the At Risk Register.
Building materials changed during the twentieth century. The use of corrugated iron continued from
the nineteenth century. The Fire Station, with unique corrugated iron fixings, manifests ‘one of the
first uses of galvanised corrugated iron for any major building in the UK.’ (Kerry-Bedell, 2012, p. 41)
Ferrobestos and asbestos were insulating and fireproofing materials which have subsequently seriously
affected dockyard workers’ health (Ferrobestos Workshop, 1935, 2/155; Taaffe, 2013). During the
twentieth century steel reinforced concrete was introduced. Some buildings, such as COB1 and COB2
(2/11 and 2/10), have had a short life compared with eighteenth century stone or brick buildings. The
mid-twentieth century Trafalgar Accommodation Block (NE86) needed extensive remedial repair and
the installation of cathodic protection of the steel structure, both internally and externally, as part of
a full repair/refurbishment programme. The most recent buildings such as Falklands accommodation
block show a return to brick.
Some changes in Admiralty policy affected buildings, such as the Rum Store built in 1966, a few years
before Admiral Hill-Norton, Second Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Personnel abolished the rum issue
in 1970. Despite the Nott Review in 1982, considerable investment continued through the 1980s due
to the shifting government policies following the Falklands Conflict in 1982.
Many historic buildings have been updated for today’s use: both Portsmouth foundries to offices and
storehouses to museums, having a continuing but evolving identity as working spaces.
Building styles changed during the twentieth century. There was evidence of Edwardian and Modernist
styles in Buildings 1/91-1/95, demolished in 2010 to make space for the new Mary Rose Museum
(2013). The Factory (1905, 3/82), West Pumping Station (No. 3) (1909, 1/161) and North Pumping
Station (No. 4) (1913, 2/239) continued the neoclassical style, whereas Boathouse No. 4 (1/6) marked
a distinct break in a Modernist style. The rare (to the dockyard) Brutalist style is represented by
Workshop Complex No. 1 (1979, 2/110) and Workshop Complex No. 2 (1976, 2/140).
Many technological changes are recorded through buildings. The zincing process was introduced
in 1905 and continued until the mid-1950s (2/197). There is reference to torpedoes in 1899 (3/69),
torpedo nets c.1901 (3/95), paravane maintenance from 1917 (3/93), degaussing in 1940 (2/249 Crew
Mess; 2/253 Station 1941; 2/251 Station 1955) and Radar in 1991 (2/259). Evidence of telephone
use comes from Building Nos 1/47C and 1/76-1/76A, a Telephone Exchange (1903), a telephone
cable compound in 3/79 (1966), and a new Telephone Exchange in 2/5 (1993). Riley’s ‘All will
be revealed? Equipment in some buildings in Portsmouth Dockyard’ also shows some industrial
machinery associated with twentieth century buildings (2014, pp. 3-11).
Buildings record activities. New twentieth century uses appeared, for example canteens, health
centres, amenity centres, bath houses, a laundry, an Industrial Trade Union Office and latrines,
which presumably did not exist in the nineteenth century. An indication is given under Battery
Workshop No. 2, which was built on the site of the last Earth Closet in 1915 (2/235). By 1956 these
facilities were called toilets (1/30A). The Dining Hall (1860, 1/37) and Dining Room (1890, 1/159)
were nineteenth century forerunners of these ‘social’ buildings. Other social provisions include a
yard barber in Building 2/179. In 2013 there was a barbershop in Building 2/19 (in 2014 it was selling
198
maritime paintings). The Canvas Painting Shop (1/87) and Upholstery Store (1/109) record activities
which might otherwise be forgotten in the twenty-first century. The Radioactive Store was built in
1945 (3/88-3/88A). Lambert records barriers for men to queue for their wages from Building 2/151
in the 1920s and 1930s, an activity which would not have been recorded on maps. (Lambert, 1993)
Physical evidence of women in buildings post-dates our knowledge that they worked in the yard
before and during the First World War (War, Women and Versailles; Riley & Clark, 2014; Brown, 2016;
Clark, 2016). Segregation of men and women is demonstrated by Women’s Dining Rooms, built in
1925 near the Workman’s Dining Rooms of 1902 (3/68). The MCD Women’s Rest Room was in use
from the 1950s (2/243/A).
The distinction made between Fleet Latrines (1975, 2/285) and other Latrines implies segregation
between naval and dockyard personnel. It could be connected to the note under RN Detention
Quarters (1846–1977, Buildings 2/38-2/44D) that sailors did not move ashore within the dockyard
until the fortifications were removed and HMS Victory Barracks were ready in 1903. (Royal Navy, 1974,
Renaming Ceremony)
Power sources are indicated, such as hydraulic power in the 1880 Armour Plate Shop (2/172).
Electricity is indicated in the New Electric Light and Power Station (1907, 2/19) and by the numerous
substations throughout the dockyard, the earliest being South Railway Jetty Substation (1925, 1/44),
Substation V (1927, 2/177) and East Grid Substation (1939, 3/156). There is plentiful evidence of coal
as a former fuel, stored 1850 to 1900 on the later site of Building 1/116; a Coal Stacking Ground on
the later site of Building 3/179 (1973); north of Building 1/159 during the mid-war years was a Coal
Testing House; the Coaling Point on North Wall Jetty; and a three acre Coaling Point west of the
Fitting Out Basin. Oil, as a lubricant and fuel, is evident in building names. Oil Storehouse No. 3 on
the Camber (1/39) dates from 1839, with Oil Drum Shed (1/39A) nearby. Ready Use Oil Drums were
stored in Building 1/46 in the 1990s. Building 1/91 included an Oil and Paint Store; Building 2/13
houses Oil Fuel Tanks; Building 2/162 is an Oil Store, built in 1932. Oil Tanks (2/288) were built in
1975. Building 3/181 was built over underground oil tanks in 1940. Gas is indicated by the 1975 Gas
Meter House (2/1).
The late twentieth century illustrates the prevalence of car parking facilities over bike sheds, many of
which, however, remain.
The fortunes of Portsmouth Dockyard in the twentieth century have ebbed and flowed as might
be predicted of a facility geared to hostilities. From peaks in the two world wars followed by an
uneasy Cold War peace, there was a near terminal decline in the last two decades of the century, a
consequence of a shift to a smaller number of vessels and the introduction of missiles and nuclear
submarines. Cost-cutting by a series of governments has emphasised the trend. But throughout the
century technological innovation has ensured constant change, irrespective of whether the dockyard
was on a war footing. The survey has identified many of these changes:
1. The constant re-use of buildings to mesh with ever changing requirements.
2. Substantial redundancy of buildings and structures/ docks of earlier periods.
3. The construction of new buildings and docks better suited to the needs of particular eras.
4. The use of ribbed plastic and light metal cladding on buildings in the last decades of the
century, but also the consistent and unifying use of good quality red brick buildings, in
particular by Arup in the 1970s, which continues the traditional Portsmouth colour palette.
5. Damage occasioned by the Second World War caused few changes.
6. Many buildings and docks are now underused, and many buildings are in multiple use.
199
7. Once the principal means of transport, railways have been superseded by roads. The
dissolution of the former made space available, particularly in the eastern areas of the yard;
the development of the latter has called for new roads and the modification of gates.
8. Substantial areas have become devoted to car parking, but bicycle racks are still plentiful.
9. The use of road-borne containers has reduced the need for conventional storage space.
10. The listing of some buildings and docks has ensured their retention.
11. The management of listed buildings in the heritage area by Portsmouth Naval Base Property
Trust has contributed an income, and at the same time has created a tourist attraction.
12. Large areas of the yard at the end of the century were operated by BAE Systems, part of the
political belief in the value of privatisation.
13. The question arises: what is the future of many, or most, dockyard buildings and docks?
Should BAE Systems decide to discontinue operations, always a possibility under market
conditions, and not be replaced by another firm, what will be the scenario?
Appendix: Summary of significant twentieth century changes at Portsmouth Dockyard
Twentieth century built environment changes derived from successive technologies ousting or moving
previous buildings, fire and Second World War air raids. New buildings reflect social changes, such
as the introduction of dining halls, bath houses and shower blocks, and a health and safety building
in 1993. This summary demonstrates that a significant number of buildings were constructed in the
interwar years; also that some 1960s/1970s buildings had a short life and were demolished due to
concrete defects.
Structures adapted to heritage or related uses

• Naval Recruiting Office (1/1, 1862) refurbished as Tourist Information Centre 2002;
Bookshop 2012, other use 2015
• Cell Block (1/2, 1883) refurbished for start-up creative businesses 2014–15
• Boathouse No. 4 (1/6, 1938–40) Boatbuilding 1984; Boatbuilding Academy 2015
• Guard House (1/10A, 1807) and Police Quarters (1/10, 1909) Mary Rose Offices, Stores 1980s
• Pay Office (1/11, 1798) Mary Rose artefact storage facilities 1980s
• Boathouse No. 6 (1/23, 1845) refurbished as Action Stations, café and cinema 2001
• Boathouse No. 5 (1/28, 1882) Mary Rose Museum 1984; Boatbuilding 2014
• Boathouse No. 7 (1/29, 1875) refurbished as a café, shop and Dockyard Apprentice
Exhibition 1994
• Storehouse No. 9 (1/35, 1782) Antique Shop, café and PNBPT Archive, 1990s
• Storehouse No. 11 (1/58, 1763) 1981; ) modified for the McCarthy Museum on the ground
floor 1971, the Royal Naval Museum 1986, refurbished 1987–89; the National Museum of the
Royal Navy 2009
• Storehouse No. 10 (1/59, 1776; modified as the Royal Naval Museum 1986; the National
Museum of the Royal Navy 2009
• Dock No. 1 (HE list no. 1272267, 1801) to hold RMAS/HMS Minerva/Monitor M33/C33(M),
May 1997, opened to the public in 2015
• Dock No. 3 (HE list no. 1272267, 1803) modified to hold Mary Rose 1983; 2013
200
New structures
• Gymnasium (NE/81) 1893–1900
• The Factory/Store No. 100 (3/82) 1903
• Eastney (NE/79) 1907
• Power Station (2/19) 1907
• West Pumping Station (No. 3) (1/161) 1909
• Arrol 250 ton electric hammerhead crane 1912
• C Lock 1913
• North Pumping Station (No. 4) (2/239, 2/240) 1913
• D Lock 1914
• Dock shed/The White House (2/103-2/104) 1914
• Store No. 80 (3/93) 1917
• Boatswain’s Workshop (3/231) 1923
• RN Film Corporation (1/154) 1929
• Victory Gallery (1/57) 1929–38
• South Office Block Annexe (1/87C) 1931
• Store No. 55 (3/86) 1936
• Store No. 108 (3/96) 1936
• Store No. 64 (3/95) 1939
• Chemical Store (3/85) 1939
• Boathouse No. 4 (1/6) 1940
• Supply Chain Offices (3/88) 1945
• Electricity Substation (3/156) c.1950
• Store No. 51/Timber Store, now Scaffold Store (3/182) 1955
• Shower Block (3/248) 1955
• Store No. 54/Flammable Store (3/163) 1959
• Store No. 78 (3/76) 1960
• Store No. 121 and Office (3/117) 1960
• COB1 (2/11) 1965
• Port Royal Restaurant (3/68) 1968
• Library (2/105) 1968
• Freight Centre (3/88A) 1970
• COB2 (2/10) 1972
• Gas Store (3/178) 1973
• Store No. 52 (3/179) 1973
• Steel Production Hall (2/56) 1974
• Amalgamated Pipe Shop (3/188) 1974
• Workshop Complex No. 2 (2/139-2/140) 1976
201
• Workshop Complex No. 1 (2/109-2/110) 1979

• Diamond Office Building (2/60) 1979
• Transport Operations Centre (3/5-3/6) 1980
• Unicorn Training Centre (3/1) 1980
• Dauntless Office and workshops (2/112) 1984
• Security Office (1/101) 1986
• Jetty for HMS Warrior 1860 1987
• Victory Building (1/100) 1993
• Receipt/Despatch Bay for the Pipe Shop (2/151) 1993
• Jetty by Boathouse No. 4 for harbour tours 1994
• General Purpose Store (3/117) c.1995
• Lub Oil Store (3/251) c.1995
• New Telephone Exchange (2/5) and Main Incoming Substation (2/7) 1993
• Portsmouth Naval Base Health Safety and Environment Group (3/56) 1993
• Visitor Centre (1/3) 1994
• Store No. 79 (3/94) c.2000
• Ship Halls A and B (2/121-2/122) 2002
• Trafalgar Gate Office Block (3/160) 2009
Demolished structures
• Storehouse No. 14/West Sea Store (1/60, 1771), west end demolished in 1940 air raid
• Store No. 25 (1786, 1/118) twentieth century courtyard buildings demolished 2011 because
not original
• Railway swing bridge to South Railway Jetty (1876) was demolished 1946
• Wall between Rigging Basin and Repairing Basin (1878) demolished 1918 to create the
Promontory
• Workman’s Dining Rooms (1902) and the Women’s Dining Rooms (1925), demolished 1968
for Port Royal Restaurant (3/68)
• HMS Victory Galley and Amenity Area (1/91-1/91C, 1887–1901, 1939–59, 1962–78, 1993),
Store (1/92, 1901, 1951, 1977), Shed (1/93, 1901, 1977), Latrine (1/94, 1951/2), Shower Block
(1/95, 1933/7, 1970s), demolished 2010 for new Mary Rose Museum (2013)
• Arrol 250 ton electric hammerhead crane (1912) dismantled 1984
• Three Air Raid Shelters and Bath House No. 6 (1939–45) were demolished 1975 to make
way for Workshop Complex No. 2 (2/139-2/140)
• Victory Gate Search Rooms (1/2A-1/2B-1/2C, 1949), Clocking Station (1/2D, 1949); Romney
• Hut Boathouse (1/5, 1948), demolished 1994 for new Visitor Reception Centre (1/3)
• Store No. 121 and Office (3/117, 1960), demolished 1994 for the General Purpose Store
• COB1 (2/11, 1965), demolished 1994–95 due to concrete defects
• COB2 (2/10, 1972), demolished 2010 due to concrete defects
• Top Deck Canteen (1/134, 1973) demolished 2005 due to concrete defects
202
Adapted structures
• Storehouse No. 18/Great Ropehouse (1/65, 1771): three arches were cut for access in 1868,
twelve double doors, new dormer windows and a new roof were installed in 1960
• Storehouse No. 34 (1/149, c.1786): damaged by an air raid in 1941, a new first floor built
c.1955
• Storehouse No. 33 (1/150, 1786): a fire in 1908 gutted the top floor, a steel framed and
reinforced concrete slab upper floor was added in 1939; damaged by an air raid on 24
August 1940 and rebuilt
• Storehouse No. 24 (1/117, 1789): an upper storey added 1930, converted internally for the
Naval Historical Branch 2004
• Dock No. 14 entrance built 1876: dock built 1896; extended 1914
• Dock No. 13 (1876), lengthened 1903, had a concrete cofferdam placed across its entrance
and infilled c.2002 for Ship Halls A and B (2/121-2/122)
• The Factory (3/82, 1903): 100 Store, refurbished 1999 as a Storage & Distribution Facility
• Semaphore Tower (1/40, 1810–24): fire 1913; rebuilt 1923–29
• St Ann’s Church (1/66, 1785) damaged April/May 1941 by air raids, rebuilt 1955 without its
western bay
• Storehouse No. 12 (1/51, c.1880): refurbished as the Library of the National Museum of the
Royal Navy, Portsmouth in 1998
• Tar House/Mortuary (1/84A, pre-1807): Naval Historical Branch archive 2004
• Storehouse No. 8 (1/31, 1835): western end damaged in a Second World War air raid and
rebuilt as Storehouse No. 5 in 1951 (1/34)
• Iron and Brass Foundry (1/140, 1854): refurbished as BAE Systems offices 2011
• Block Mills (1/153, 1802) refurbished 2006–8 to remove from HARR for possible eventual
release to the heritage area
Moved structures
• Statue of William III (1718, HE list no. 1272288) originally at the eastern end of the first
Commissioner’s Garden; then The Parade; by 1860 was on The Green; moved after the
Second World War to the west side of South Office Block Annexe on Main Road facing
Storehouse No. 10; 2000 to the Porter’s Garden
• Lion Gate (1/50A, 1778, HE list no. 1272303): removed 1870s from Portsea’s town
fortifications (close to the entrance to Anglesey Barracks and the present HMS Nelson Gate);
1923–29 incorporated into the rebuilt Semaphore Tower (1/40)
• Portsea Quay Gate incorporated into HMS Nelson Victory Main Gate (1734, 1899-1903, HE list
no. 1387174).
• Unicorn Gate (1779, HE list no. 1244587): moved from Unicorn Ravelin in Portsea
fortifications, re-erected in the new 1865 perimeter wall; in 1977 became a monument at the
centre of a roundabout
• Round Tower (3/262, 1843–48, HE list no. 1244590): moved from New Buildings in 1868 to
the east end of Floating Dock Jetty.
• Frederick’s Battery (3/250, 1843–48, HE list no. 1244588): moved in 1868 from New
Buildings to near Floating Dock Jetty to form the new northeast dockyard boundary, its
northern half demolished in 1871 to make way for railway track
203
• Royal Navy Railway Shelter (1/45, 1893, HE list no. 1272292): moved c.2000 from South
Railway Jetty to the North Camber on Watering Island
• Statue of Robert Falcon Scott (1915, HE list no. 1272287): originally on the west side of the
Parade; moved after the Second World War to the west side of South Office Block Annexe
on Main Road facing Storehouse No. 10; 2000 to the Porter’s Garden
Naval Base adaptation of old technology areas into current core operational areas
• Dock No. 13 (1876): lengthened 1903; infilled c.2000 for Shipbuild Complex No. 2 and Ship
Halls A & B (2/121 and 2/122, 2002)
• North Corner Development (1979–82) to support the Queen Elizabeth Class Infrastructure
Project demolished Ship Shop Nos 3-4, Slip Nos 2 and 5 and a Steel Store
• A continuous (bar two entrances) western jetty has refurbished and straightened (c.2000)
the original irregular jetties between Watering Island and North Corner (south to north:
South Railway Jetty (South), South Railway Jetty (Centre), Sheer Jetty, Victory Jetty, Middle
Slip Jetty (South), Middle Slip Jetty (North)), to allow more efficient berthing for Type 45
destroyers and new carriers HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales
• Complex No. 3 (C & D Locks), NW of Basin No. 3: refurbished 2002 as Shipbuild Complex
No. 1
Land extensions and one reduction
• North Corner reclaimed (1690–1798); land north of the original shoreline reclaimed 1790s
to 1881
• Steam Yard Extension (1843–48)
• Great Extension (1867–81) 95 acres (some reclaimed) enclosed by a new wall 1863–65
• Holy Trinity Church and Vicarage, purchased in 1906, enclosed by the dockyard wall 1907
• Marlborough Salient (Marlborough Row, Gloucester Street and Frederick Street) acquired
1944 for workshops and an electrical substation
• Unicorn Wall and Gate Extension 1977 for 1980 Transport Operations Centre (3/5-3/6):
Copenhagen, Abercrombie, Nile, Trafalgar, Duncan, Conway and Chalton Streets lying
between Flathouse Road and Market Way.
• Gun Store Ground in the extreme north-east of the yard, east of Flathouse gasworks and
south of Flathouse quay, acquired early twentieth century, relinquished after 1929
204
PART FOUR
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The final focus of this report is to develop the local, national and international contexts of the
two dockyards to highlight specific areas of future research. Future discussion of Devonport and
Portsmouth as distinct designed landscapes would coherently organise the many strands identified in
this report. The Museum of London Archaeology Portsmouth Harbour Hinterland Project carried out
for Heritage England (2015) is a promising step in this direction.
It is emphasised that this study is just a start. By delivering the aim and objectives, it has indicated
areas of further fruitful research.
Project aim: to characterise the development of the active naval dockyards at Devonport and
Portsmouth, and the facilities within the dockyard boundaries at their maximum extent during the
twentieth century, through library, archival and field surveys, presented and analysed in a published
report, with a database of documentary and building reports.
This has been delivered through Parts 1-4 and Appendices 2-4.
Project objectives
1 To provide an overview of the twentieth century development of English naval dockyards, related
to historical precedent, national foreign policy and naval strategy.
2 To address the main chronological development phases to accommodate new types of vessels and
technologies of the naval dockyards at Devonport and Portsmouth.
3 To identify the major twentieth century naval technological revolutions which affected British naval
dockyards.
4 To relate the main chronological phases to topographic development of the yards and changing
technological and strategic needs, and identify other significant factors.
5 To distinguish which buildings are typical of the twentieth century naval dockyards and/or of
unique interest.
These objectives have been delivered through Parts 1-4 and Appendices 2-4.
Limitations were imposed on the project by problems of access and weather. The weather during
winter/spring 2013 was very cold, wet and windy, making it too arduous to remain at Portsmouth
Naval Base for more than two hours at a time. Some planned visits had to be cancelled. Effecting
access to Devonport Naval Base took eight months. The short time available to see the Devonport site
from a car did not allow detailed comparison with the listing descriptions and archival evidence, and
the researchers were not allowed to take photographs. Some buildings were viewed internally, such
as the Quadrangle (N173-177, N186-191, N203), North Yard Offices (N215) and the former Pipe Shop
(N110). This was converted in 2002 into a Layapart Store for removed Vanguard items and now the HQ
Store and Office for Vanguard class operations, supporting the nuclear fleet. It was only possible to see
the Refuelling Facility (D154) and Frigate Complex (N217) from the outside. The second day of the
Devonport visit in September 2013 was very wet, which affected visibility. Lack of data also affected
the writing up of Part 2. Devonport Part 2, unlike Portsmouth Part 3, does not show all the building
numbers and grid references because the team was unable to obtain all the relevant details.
205
It is emphasised that much of the two sites is inaccessible to the public. Visitors to the Devonport
Naval Heritage Centre can see the yard by bus and visit HMS Courageous, and the southwest corner of
Portsmouth Dockyard is a public heritage area, from which some of the naval base can be viewed;
it can also be seen from the nearby Spinnaker Tower. Both yards can also be viewed on Google
Earth. Nevertheless, their material culture is largely invisible, so this report goes some way to impart
this evidence. Now that the report is in the public domain, its findings can be further explored. It is
expected that this material on the two twentieth century dockyards will stimulate future researchers
to delve much more deeply within the historical sources indicated and reveal further unknown
information and attitudes.
4.1 Primary findings

The project has demonstrated:
1. Some significant earlier dockyard buildings were demolished during the twentieth century,
but those which remain are largely protected by listing and give a unique character to both
dockyards.
2. Those structures still at risk, such as the South Saw Mills (S128, S148-150), South Smithery
(S126) and the Turncock’s House (part of S103) at Devonport; at Portsmouth nos 2-8, The
Parade (1/125-1/132), the Former Naval Academy (1/14, 1/16-1/19), the east wing of the Iron
and Brass Foundry (1/136), Dock No. 6 and Store No. 25 (1/118), some of which have not been
in use for decades, will require £millions to restore them. Portsmouth Block Mills (1/153) is
in an excellent refurbished state, but it needs additional means of access to the upper floors
to be usable and its continued lack of use renders it vulnerable to ongoing decay. Current
government policies do not make such expenditure likely in the near future.
3. Already gone are almost all Portsmouth’s Victorian/Edwardian Barracks, Devonport and
Portsmouth air raid shelters, Devonport and Portsmouth’s giant cranes and Portsmouth Floating
Dock. Less of Portsmouth’s rail track remains than at Devonport, while 1970s-era cranes at
Portsmouth are being replaced, so its wharf and dock scenes are changing. South Yard, Devonport
will soon be lost as a dockyard and will change drastically through commercial redevelopment.
4. MoD documents of the 1960s and 1970s show that in the thrust for modernisation the survival
of some historic buildings was due to lack of money in specific budgets to demolish and
rebuild, rather than an appreciation of their significance.
5. Pre-twentieth century dockyard buildings have adapted remarkably well to the current needs
of the MoD, commercial businesses and museums. A few examples at both dockyards (South
Saw Mills (S128, S148-150), and South Smithery (S126) at Devonport and the Block Mills (1/153)
at Portsmouth) have not found a naval re-use due to the cost of renovating them fully, or other
re-use through problems of security access.
6. From the beginning of the twentieth century, new worksites and accommodation aimed to
improve hygienic and recreational conditions to develop personnel confidence and self-esteem
beyond merely providing a progressive environment for living and working.
7. Neoclassical styles of architecture in both dockyards continued well into the twentieth century
before new building types made an appearance, such as the Modernist Boathouse No. 4 at
Portsmouth (1940, 1/6) and the 1979 Brutalist NAAFI at Devonport and Workshop Complexes
at Portsmouth (1976 and 1979, 2/139-140 and 2/109-110). Late twentieth century buildings
continued neoclassical elements, creating a tapestry of old and new building styles. Strands of
influence can only be touched upon in a report such as this, but they will bear further fruitful
research.
8. The MoD has preserved some historic buildings by moving them. Portsea’s Unicorn Gate was
re-sited in 1868, the Round Tower (1843–48, 3/262) and Frederick’s Battery (1843–48, 3/250)
206
Part 4: Conclusions and recommendations
were carefully relocated rather than demolished in the 1860s. The columns and pediment
from the former Portsea Quay Gate were incorporated into HMS Nelson Gate in 1902, and the
remains of Portsea’s Lion Gate were built into the Semaphore Tower (1/50) in 1929. Victory
Building (1993, 1/100) displays in its portico the lion and the unicorn, recalling the town gates.
In 1979 the plaque and metal box, which formerly housed a gas jet for workers to light their
pipes and cigarettes in the 1863–65 Great Extension wall near Unicorn Gate, was refurbished
by dockyard apprentices and incorporated into the rebuilt section.
9. Buildings continued to segregate personnel by rank and gender through the design of
accommodation, dining and recreation facilities into the 1970s.
10. Time-work-discipline is evident through the muster bell, the clocking-in machine, clocks on
buildings and the waiting area for artificers to queue for pay at Portsmouth.
11. Devonport is still grey and Portsmouth still red. Their dominant historical colours, reflecting
their respective underlying geology, have continued through the twentieth century.
12. PNBPT has brought back or is bringing back some hitherto fully unusable Portsmouth buildings
into profitable re-use: Boathouse Nos 4, 5, 6 and 7 and the Cellblock (1/6, 1/27-1/28, 1/23,
1/29 and 1/2)
13. Pre-twentieth century and twentieth century structures form a tapestry of old and new
material culture. Devonport’s 1976 Frigate Complex is juxtaposed with North Yard Offices
(1903, 1910, N215) and the Quadrangle (1852-61, N173-177, N186-191, 203), while Portsmouth
Round Tower (1843–48, 3/262) and Frederick’s Battery (1843–48, 3/250) were consciously
tied to the 1979 Arup Offices (3/261). Buildings signify a series of overlapping stories to
be researched by architectural, social, maritime, political, economic, technological and local
historians, geostrategists, historical geographers, economists and civil engineers.
14. A variety of sources have been blended to tell a series of stories. Buildings can be interpreted by,
and interpret, archival collections. Buildings which have disappeared still survive in the archives.
The inclusion of rarely cited collections raises awareness of them to potential researchers.
15. There is continuity in including dates on such architectural elements as rainwater hoppers,
plaques and stones. Vistas, such as the Portsmouth Georgian storehouses and the ropehouse
complexes at Devonport and Portsmouth have continued at Devonport with the North Arm
range of buildings ending in the NAAFI building (N007), and the parallel range which includes
the nuclear refuelling facility, the FMB workshop complex and the Mast and the Periscope
Shop. However, some vistas have lost their sense of order, such as the 1922 view of South
Yard looking towards the Tamar (A Brief History of Devonport Naval Base, pp. 6-7). Within buildings,
twentieth century steel columns take up less space than brick arches, so recurring internal
vistas are less dominant. Early field patterns are embodied within twentieth century building
alignments at Portsmouth. Copying of elements, such as scrolled buttresses, is a notable feature
of early twentieth century Portsmouth decoration. Windows, which at the beginning of the
twentieth century could be larger, due to advances in steel and reinforced concrete, by the end
of the century were in some cases non-existent (Devonport Frigate Sheds, Portsmouth Ship
Halls), or reduced to narrow slits (Portsmouth Steel Production Hall) for security purposes.
The floating Hillside Accommodation block, used during the Portsmouth shipbuilding phase,
was a continuation of the principle of hulks. Dockyard models, following the traditional of
the iconic 1774 models of all six royal dockyards, continue to perform a vital planning or
propaganda function. Portsmouth acquired a model in 1938 whose detail is valuable to note
changes occurring during the Second World War. Portsmouth had a model to plan the changes
to RN Barracks 1963–74 and Devonport used a model to guide the construction of the 1970s
frigate complex. Portsmouth Victory Building holds a current model built by apprentices to
facilitate the changes required to support the Queen Elizabeth class carriers.
207
4.2 Stories
Buildings house most of people’s activities. This report forms a rich framework for new study to excavate
social stories from the buildings, such as the following examples explored during dissemination
seminars. The convicts’ crucial contribution has been touched upon through map evidence and
surviving buildings, but needs further interpretation. In giving the talks, more information has
snowballed.
4.2.1 Portsmouth Dockyard Model

Model of Portsmouth Dockyard depicted just before the start of World War Two in September
1939. Ships in the dockyard include HMS Victory, HMS Rodney, Royal Yacht Victoria and
Albert III and Monitor Roberts. Panels are numbered on underside. Made by Engineer Admiral
Gurnell. (NMRNP, Dockyard Model [1938])
The project team was delighted to gain access to this key mid-twentieth century Portsmouth
Dockyard model, allowing comparison with maps and providing three-dimensional visual details.
Its eight baseboard sections are stored currently in large drawers, so it cannot be seen in its entirety.
Nevertheless, it is a positive example of how this project has interpreted and enhanced a museum
collection.
Before this project little had been collated about Engineer Admiral Thompson Gurnell (1878–1965),
who made the model just before the Second World War. He was born on 27 August 1878 in Ryde, Isle
of Wight and educated at Portsmouth Grammar School. Thompson’s father, William (born c.1841 in
Hibaldstow, Lincolnshire) and mother Mary (born in Ryde in 1849 to Richard Colenutt, Ryde Grocer
& Licenced Victualler), were married in 1873 at St Thomas’s, Ryde. Mary Gurnell performed during
Mayor Benjamin Barrow’s singing competition in February 1876. At the end of the competition, before
the test to see who would take first and second prizes, ‘Mrs GURNELL favoured the audience with the
good old song, “My lodgings are on the cold, cold ground”, which she sang with great sweetness and
taste. In response to the loud encore, she gave “I’d be a butterfly”’ (Ryde Social Heritage Group, July
2009, p. 5). William Gurnell’s father worked for William Gibbs who had run a chemist’s shop since
at least 1851. From c.1878 the business was registered as Gurnell, Chemist, 34 Union Street, Ryde
(IoW Registrars ref: R9/P50; 1871 Census, RG10/1165, fo. 66, p. 11; White, 1878, p. 477; TNA, 1881
Census: RG11/1178, fo. 59. p. 8). By 1891 his father was a partner in Gibbs and Gurnell, Chemists
(TNA, 1891 Census: RG12/890, fo. 58, p. 25) to c.1900, which still exists (Gibbs and Gurnell). The
census shows that the family had moved to the mainland by 1901, where William was a Chemist,
Dentist & Stationer (own account) in London-road, Farlington, Hants (TNA, 1901 Census: RG13/976,
fo. 31, p. 22). Thompson Gurnell was married, probably to Jessie Willcocks, in Portsmouth in 1904
(Gurnell, marriage, 1904; Willcocks, Census, 1911). In 1911 Thompson’s brother, Richard Gurnell, was
Stationer & Bookseller in Ryde, although the family was living in London-road, Waterlooville, Hants,
William having retired (TNA, 1911 Census: RG14). Thompson’s mother died in 1947 as a widow at
Warrington-road Croydon Surrey (National Probate Calendar, 1948).
Listed in the 12 June 1894 London Gazette as an RN Engineering student, Gurnell enrolled in the Royal
Navy on 28 June 1899. He was Assistant Engineer, HMS Canopus, in the Mediterranean 1899–1901,
Engineer Lt in HMS New Zealand in 1904, and appointed Engineer Lt Cdr in HMS Christopher in 1912.
During the First World War he earned the 1914–15 Star to HMS Calcutta, Victory and British War Medals.
On 5 June 1917 the Russian Government conferred upon him the Order of St Anne, 3rd Class (with
Swords): for distinguished service rendered in the Battle of Jutland. (Gurnell, Royal Navy Officers
Medal Roll 1914–1920; TNA, ADM 196/130/232, Gurnell; Royal Navy Honours and Gallantry Awards,
Part 4, 5 June 1917; Gurnell, T. Service Biography Liddell Hart Archive KCL)
In October 1921 Gurnell was the machinery overseer who accompanied Admiral Dixon to John Brown
& Co, Clydebank, awarded the contract for one of the four planned G3 battlecruisers. After the end
208
of the First World War the Royal Navy intended them to counter United States and Japanese naval
expansion programmes. They would have been larger, faster and more heavily armed than any existing
battleship. The design was approved by the Board of Admiralty on 12 August 1921, but orders were
suspended at the beginning of the Washington Naval Conference, and cancelled in February 1922 on
the ratification of the Treaty, which forbade ships of their displacement. (Johnston, 2011, p. 178)
In 1922 Gurnell was attached to the 2nd Sea Lord’s Office and from 1931–33 he was on the C-in-C
Portsmouth’s staff. In this capacity he was involved in the aftermath of the Invergordon Mutiny (15/16
September 1931). The Atlantic fleet was at anchor at Invergordon ready to go on manœuvres when the
Admiralty cut naval pay by 1 shilling a day as part of the National Government public spending cuts.
Able seamen who had joined before 1925 were set to lose 25% of their pay. The men refused to go
to sea, but after Admiral Tomkinson, Commander of the Battlecruiser Squadron, had collected their
complaints and sent them to the Admiralty, the men obeyed the order to return to their home ports
on 16 September. The Portsmouth Evening News of Saturday 19, 1931 did not mention the mutiny in its
headline, ‘HOME-COMING OF ATLANTIC FLEET SHIPS’, stating merely:
On the yardarm at the submarine headquarters hung the bright signal lamps warning everyone
that the entrance to the harbour must be kept clear. For over half an hour that was the only
sign that the Fleet was expected home, weeks before the normal programme time.
The Portsmouth Commander-in-Chief, Admiral Sir A. K. Waistell, was to conduct a court of enquiry
beginning on Monday 21st in Admiralty House into ‘cases of hardship on the Lower Deck.’ Gurnell,
then Engineer Rear-Admiral, was named as a member of the court. Forms were printed at Admiralty
House on the Friday night (18th) and distributed to all the ratings as soon as the ships arrived, inviting
them to state their weekly rates of pay, home budgets, wife’s weekly earnings and their ‘exceptional
hardship under the new rates of pay.’ Devonport ships also returned to Plymouth on the 19th. The
Admiralty agreed that ratings on the old rate of pay should receive only a 10% cut.
In 1933–34 Gurnell was Extra Naval Assistant to the 2nd Sea Lord for Engineering Personnel Duties
(Gurnell, T. Service Biography, Liddell Hart Archive, KCL). On 3 June 1933 he was appointed Companion
to the Most Honourable Order of the Bath (Supplement to the London Gazette, 3 June 1933, p. 3801). He
retired from the Royal Navy in 1934, but was recalled in 1939, and in 1940 appointed to the Ministry of
Supply, London and South Eastern Area Board, as the Admiralty representative (House of Commons
Debates, 20 August 1940). He remained Admiralty Regional Officer, London and South East Regions
until 1945. He was living at 9 Cousins Grove Southsea when he died on 20 May 1965, leaving £11,672 in
his will. Gurnell’s obituary in The Times, written by the Rugby Football Correspondent in 1965, revealed
that Gurnell was President of Hampshire Rugby Football Union in 1960. He travelled to support
Hampshire R.F.U. on all its fixtures and his ‘cheerful little figure…was held in respect and affection
everywhere’ (Gurnell, T. Service Biography, King’s College London, Liddell Hart Archive; Gurnell
obituary, The Times, 24 May 1965, p. 12; National Probate Calendar, Index of Wills & Administrations,
1858–1966). He was cremated on 25 May 1965 at Portchester Crematorium.1
The model is separated into eight sections, each on an interconnecting baseboard, constructed mainly
of wood, details in ink or paint, with some metal fittings. The railway track is marked on the
baseboards. The big question is, why did Gurnell make the model? Was it a labour of love, created out
of a personal commitment to his ‘home’ yard as a retirement project? Or a strategic tool commissioned
by the Navy Week Committee to promote the Royal Navy, competing with the other armed forces for
rearmament funds? It was completed before he was recalled to the Admiralty in 1939. The Illustrated
London News in 1938 featured a picture of the model, presented by Gurnell to the Navy Week Committee.
1
We are grateful for these citations to Allison Wareham, Library Information and Enquiries Manager and Heather
Johnson, Information and Enquiries Assistant Library of the National Museum of the Royal Navy, Portsmouth
(NMRNP), the late Isobel Kilgallon, Senior Specialist Technician, School of Civil Engineering and Surveying,
University of Portsmouth, Ann Barrett, Research Leader, Ryde Social Heritage Group, and Roger Dence, independent
maritime history researcher, born and largely brought up on the Isle of Wight.
209
It was displayed at Waterloo Station to promote Navy Week in July 30–August 6, showing all
the attractions: ‘it is both a guidebook and a map’. The article also highlighted the opening of
the new “Victory Museum” on 25 July. (Illustrated London News, July 30, 1938; Issue 5180) It may be
deduced that Gurnell began the model from the southeast corner in or before 1937, as it shows
the earlier Masthouses, not Boathouse No. 4, which was begun in 1938. Once it was constructed
he did not update it. This is an example of how a museum artefact can deliver vital material
evidence, contextualise the life of a naval officer at the beginning of the twentieth century,
and illustrate the variety of tasks carried out by a highly competent and trusted officer during
his career. What is bizarre is that The Times obituary focused on his rugby, not his naval career.
4.2.2 Dockyard museums

Devonport Dockyard Museum began in 1969 and is located in the former Fire Station (1851) and
Pay Office (c.1780; both in SO32). Part 3 investigates the location of Mark Pescott-Frost’s Portsmouth
Dockyard Museum from 1911–29 and the partial incorporation of its collection into the current National
Museum of the Royal Navy. Both museums were established by dockyard personnel accustomed
to keeping records or stores. Devonport’s museum is managed by the Friends of Plymouth Naval
Museum and Devonport Naval Heritage Centre Volunteers under the oversight of the Fleet Air Arm
Museum, which is in the process of cataloguing its collection. The National Museum of the Royal
Navy, which also encompasses the Royal Marines Museum, the Royal Navy Submarine Museum, the
Fleet Air Arm Museum and Explosion! Museum of Naval Firepower, receives approximately a quarter
of its income as Grant in Aid from the Ministry of Defence, and has around 280 volunteers who work
in conservation, restoration and as guides. (NMRN, 2014, pp. 10-11) Part 2 explains how PNBM might
move away from Devonport Dockyard when the MoD disposes of South Yard.
Both dockyards have historic ships: HM Submarine Courageous at Devonport and Mary Rose, HMS Victory,
HMS Warrior 1860 and HMS M33 at Portsmouth, which convey visitors into particular maritime spaces
and, in the case of Courageous and Warrior, also transport them onto water. They should remind visitors
of the fundamental reason for dockyards, but this connection is not always overtly made. The heritage
facilities of both dockyards have been delivered through the collaboration of national and local
government, independent museums, commercial enterprises and volunteers.
4.2.3 On the Knee Mutiny, 1906

Part 3 discusses how a naval mutiny directly changed the built environment by adding metal sheeting
to the boundary wall near HMS Nelson Gate until 1956.
4.2.4 Floating docks

The complicated sequence of Portsmouth floating docks has been unravelled in Part 3, thanks to the
network of organisations which have assisted the NDS in this quest.
4.2.5 Portsmouth Promontory stones re-used?

This is a significant example of recycling dockyard materials, advanced as an original theory in Part 3.
4.2.6 Pevsner and Lloyd critique:

It has been demonstrated that Pevsner and Lloyd were not always correct about buildings: see the
Round Tower (1843–48, 3/262), Frederick’s Battery (1843–48, 3/250) and the Former Naval Academy
210
(1/14, 1/16-1/19), at Portsmouth, hardly surprising given the scope of Pevsner’s œuvre and research
modus operandi.
4.2.7 Dockyard amenities

There is evidence for the Admiralty providing feeding facilities for dockyard workers first in 1894
(Portsmouth 1/37). This was a significant step, but was it limited to the principal yards or did Sheerness
and Pembroke also provide dining rooms? Portsmouth’s RN Barracks (1899–1903) also included a
Canteen, and a new Dining Hall was built in Nelson Block in the 1970s. A NAAFI shop (2/181) was
built in 1945 at Portsmouth, while 2/182 was a store built slightly later which incorporated Cookhouse
No. 3, standing since the 1920s. Portsmouth’s Port Royal Restaurant (3/68) was built in 1968 on the site
of the 1902 Workman’s Dining Rooms and the Women’s Dining Rooms, built in 1925 over the previous
Captain of the Dockyard’s garden. (Lambert, 1993) The prominently located 1977 NAAFI building at
Devonport represents the zenith of dockyard dining aesthetics. Like the Quadrangle exterior, it echoes
high status civilian design; why?
4.3 Research questions

This report provides starting points for further research into the surviving dockyard built environment.
• In the light of this research it would be productive if Historic Scotland were to look closely at
Rosyth. Similarly, hitherto unappreciated but significant facilities/buildings from this period
in Gibraltar, Malta, Simon’s Town and possibly Bermuda could be surveyed.
• The initiation of design aesthetics bears further investigation. Why was the Devonport NAAFI
building designed like a Cambridge University Centre? A study of Ove Arup’s archive could
be valuable to understand the design principles behind their buildings and the reasons why
Ove Arup was the selected architect for many buildings at Portsmouth (see Arup Papers and
Oral History Archive). Why has Devonport made more use of concrete, while Portsmouth
retained the use of brick in the late twentieth century?
• Further investigation of local, HE and TNA records would add greater knowledge of First and
Second World War damage and changes.
• The enormous infrastructure investment made in the years leading up to the First World
War was not required (and could not have been funded) before the Second World War, but
some significant changes were made in the interwar years to enhance Portsmouth facilities.
While it was stated that ‘few interwar structures’ (see 1/154) were built, notable additions
at Portsmouth were the repair of the Semaphore Tower and Rigging House (1/40-49, 1/50)
in 1929, the opening of East/Flathouse Gate in 1931, the construction of Boathouse No. 4
(1940, 1/6), the extension of South Slip, Middle and North Slip Jetties and the construction
of North Corner Jetty, and the addition of the eastern Pocket in Basin No. 3 (1939). Harbour
dredging was carried out, extra rail track was laid, and the building of nearly a score of
stores, amenity buildings, offices, workshops and extra floors were added to update facilities.
Similar changes could be investigated at Devonport.
• R. S. Horne’s collections of notes on Portsmouth Dockyard in Portsmouth History Centre and
at the NMM merit further study and verification to establish more precise dates for structures
and events.
211
4.4 Finally
For the reasons given above, Devonport Dockyard has received less attention than Portsmouth. This
is problematic, since the MoD will dispose of Devonport South Yard in the near future. It is not
within a Conservation Area, has no conservation management plan, and since 2011 has lost any
integrated care. South Yard was included in the Strategic Environmental Assessment (PCC, 2005, pp. 8-9,
17-8), which proposed ‘broadening the accessibility to historic spaces’ and ‘Focusing on the tourism
potential for the area’ alongside commercial developments. Plymouth Characterisation Study and Management
Proposals (2006, p. 62) covered South Yard and Morice Yard, noting the ‘number of extremely important,
unused historic buildings within [South] yard that, if they are not put to some positive use soon, are
at risk of neglect and decay.’ Conclusively determining its outcome, Devonport Area Action Plan 2006–2021
(2007, p. 5) rejected the ‘development of a South Yard Heritage Quarter.’ Plymouth City Council
recorded the removal of some buildings from Plymouth Buildings at Risk Register (2013) by refurbishment or
demolition and will address further removals within the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
Ongoing development proposals such as Planning Applications 14/02269/OUT and 14/02268/LBC,
while refurbishing some listed buildings, will include an intrusive four-storey car park and a further
security fence and remove a capstan. Within a staged programme, South Yard will lose its integrity.
This report has carried out a detailed survey of the most significant late twentieth century buildings
in North Yard: the Frigate Complex and the Nuclear Submarine Refit Complex, which includes the
distinctive NAAFI building. These sit fittingly alongside earlier buildings through their quality of
design and construction.
Dockyard sites near naval bases are problematic to dispose of for security reasons, and the 2005
Project Prime at Portsmouth failed because of this. However, Devonport South Yard is a separate site
which can be developed for commercial purposes without threatening naval base security. Due to
the attraction of this site for commercial purposes, South Yard does not fall within the government
paradigm of releasing public sector land for housing. However, by 31 March 2015 the Ministry of
Defence had disposed of 153 sites; it is likely that the land around the former Devonport Granby Gate
acquired during the Second World War fell within this list. (NAO, 2015, pp. 6, 7, 12, 14)
Dockyards constantly evolve to meet changing requirements. This will remain so for the foreseeable
future, given an ongoing régime of defence cuts and continuing uncertainty over the future political
status of Scotland. But as long as a Royal Navy remains, it will need a base or bases from which to
operate, and docks and basins to refit and maintain its ships.
212
APPENDIX 1
PROJECT METHODOLOGY
This appendix sets out the circumstances under which the twentieth century dockyards characterisation
study was undertaken: its objectives, methods, scope and constraints which limited the achievement
of its objectives. It includes the project brief. Much of this methodology was guided by Understanding
Historic Buildings: A guide to good recording practice (English Heritage, February 2006). It was advised that this
methodology should be included in an appendix so that the reader could go straight into Part 1
Historical background and characterisation.
1 NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY
This study has multiple objectives. The project was designed to increase our overall understanding of
the dockyard built environment by telling the national story of twentieth century dockyards and the
particular narratives of Devonport and Portsmouth Dockyards, enabling Historic England to focus its
resources effectively in managing these historic environments.
Project objectives were to provide an overview of the twentieth century development of the
dockyards, address the main chronological development phases to accommodate new ship types
and technologies, and distinguish which buildings are typical of twentieth century dockyards and
of unique interest. Recommendations were to be made for structures which merit future protection.
To construct a comprehensive analysis of the twentieth century dockyard built heritage environment,
the methodology drew upon Wessex Archaeology’s 1999 and 2004 studies of Devonport and
Portsmouth. Primary sources include designations, maps and records held in public and private
archives. Beneficiaries comprise primary users such as Historic England, the Ministry of Defence,
future owners and local authorities, and also amenity societies, local communities, historians and
students. Detailed architectural descriptions for listed buildings (Appendices 3 and 4) and from Wessex
Archaeology (2004) have not been repeated in the two substantive parts, as the listing descriptions are
collated in Appendices 3 and 4. A detailed contents section conveys the structure of the report. The
report could not be comprehensive as the subject is so large, but it provides insights into recorded
events, philosophies articulated and sources available.
The event which initiated a massive expansion of the major British naval dockyards in the twentieth
century was the Naval Defence Act (1889). During the twentieth century technological innovations
included Dreadnought battleships, submarines, oil replacing coal and electricity replacing oil as the main
fuel, aircraft, radar and nuclear-powered submarines. The report identifies purpose-built twentieth
century structures, existing buildings adapted for new technologies, and unique structures performing
the main dockyard activities at Devonport and Portsmouth: the construction, repair and maintenance
of ships. The Strategic Defence Review Report (July 1998) led to considerable changes by focusing
resources on increased offensive air power and two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers.
This study characterises the development of the active naval dockyards at Devonport and Portsmouth
and the facilities within their boundaries at their maximum extent during the twentieth century.
Building numbers, grid references (obtained from British Geological Survey) and listing numbers serve
as finding aids to navigate between Parts 1-3 and the Appendices, and satisfy the requirement for a
‘one-stop shop’. An associated database of document and building reports will be available online.
213
2 BACKGROUND
This project was commissioned by The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England
of 1 Waterhouse Square, 138-142 Holborn, London, EC1N 2ST, ‘English Heritage’, known after 1 April
2015 as Historic England, the lead body for the conservation of England’s historic environment. Under
the Corporate Plan 2011–2015 it promotes:
• The priority of safeguarding the future of the most significant remains of our national story.
• A contribution to understanding the character and history of areas undergoing regeneration
and change.
English Heritage followed national priorities defined in the Strategic Framework for Historic
Environment Activities and Programmes (SHAPE, April 2008); the English Heritage Research Strategy
Agenda 2005–2010: Discovering the Past Shaping the Future (November 2005); English Heritage Research Strategy
2005–2010: Making the Past Part of Our Future (June 2005); the English Heritage Corporate Plan 2011–
2015; the National Heritage Protection Plan (V1.1, 2012) and the National Heritage Protection Plan
Project No. 6265 (May 2012).
The project, defined in the National Heritage Protection Plan 6265 (July 2012, p. 3), was to ‘produce a
general overview of the development of naval dockyards in England during the twentieth century’ and
‘highlight the typical types of buildings that were built at this time and structures of unique interest.’
Its purpose was to ‘inform future discussions about the future development of the naval dockyards’
by the responsible authorities, and to ensure that the contribution of twentieth century naval facilities
to their historic value and character is acknowledged and fully understood in their historic context.’
Wessex Archaeology’s (2004) Conservation Statement for buildings in Portsmouth Conservation Area 22
was an excellent model to inform the methodology of this project. It is in two volumes, volume I
setting out the conservation statement and volume 2 comprising the building reports. Thus NDS Part
1: Historical background and characterisation corresponds to Wessex (2004) volume 1 and NDS Parts
2 and 3 correlate to Wessex (2004) volume 2.
In comparison with the NDS report, Wessex (2004) covered only Conservation Area 22, that is the
heritage area, extended north to Victoria Road to include Dock No. 6 and the Block Mills (1/153),
and west to include the Georgian buildings as far as Short Row (1/68-72), the Commissioner’s Stables/
Contract Cleaner Office (1/73) and Marlborough Gate. It therefore covered approximately 30 of the
300 acres of Portsmouth Naval Base. Neither the Wessex nor the NDS studies include the victualling,
ordnance, medical and testing facilities located elsewhere around Portsmouth Harbour.
The Wessex (2004) report is informed by an extensive historiography, but twentieth century dockyard
heritage lacks such an in-depth study or analysis, so this NDS report has broken new ground in
reviewing a range of secondary texts and spotlighting primary sources. Compared with earlier periods
of dockyard studies, which are supported by an extensive bibliography such as Coad (1989), Lake
and Douet also reviewed scheduling and recommended new listings made in 1999, but as they did not
include twentieth century buildings they did not consider any of the buildings discussed here for
listing. They dismissed Portsmouth West Pumping Station No. 3 (1909, 1/161) and North Pumping
Station No. 4 (1913, 2/239-240) as having ‘been more altered, and do not have the same architectural
merit’ as Pumping Station No. 1 (1878, 2/201), so did not recommend these for listing (1998, p. 44).
Both sites and their associated documentation have been subject to high security restrictions
throughout the twentieth century. In 1984 Portsmouth was reclassified as a Fleet Maintenance and
Repair Organisation (FMRO). The dockyards have thus been subject to diverse management styles,
with varied effects on their built environment. Since the closure of Sheerness Dockyard in 1960,
Chatham Dockyard in 1984 and Portland Naval Base in 1995, Devonport and Portsmouth are the
two remaining bases of the operational Royal Navy in England. At Devonport, material on the
frigate complex and the nuclear facilities has been released so recently that little significant material
214
Appendix 1 Project methodology
has appeared in secondary sources, so primary sources, chiefly maps, were typically the first data
collection source, enhanced by the release of crucial government documents in 2005. Documents
released under the 30-year rule show the depth and range of sources available for the late twentieth
century which this survey has indicated, but not investigated comprehensively.
Although the Wessex (2004) study was designed as a Conservation Statement, and this project as a
Characterisation Study, there are common areas of interpretation and the former briefly covers the
twentieth century (2004, I, pp. 61-73). Volume 1 is relevant to the NDS project background, aims
and methods (terminology, extant buildings and gaps in knowledge). Relevant Wessex chapters
addressed:
• Understanding: development of the historic dockyard
• Significance and value: statutory designations; statement of overall significance (RN,
architecture, industry and technology); individual/significant buildings and structures; open
areas; museums
• Issues and policies: planning context; scheduled monuments and archaeology; built heritage:
listed buildings and conservation areas; overall character of the yard; the buildings.
• Conclusion
• Appendices usefully contained tabulated building/structure descriptions, a gazetteer of
extant buildings and a sequence of maps.
Although informed by earlier in-depth studies, the Wessex (2004) study is essentially a desktop study,
whereas the NDS study has gathered material more widely. Further relevant project models are:
• Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (1995). Sheerness: The Dockyard,
Defences and Blue Town. Swindon: National Monuments Record Centre
• Wessex Archaeology (1999) The Royal Dockyard at Devonport: Archaeological Assessment. Unpublished
Wessex Archaeology report 46311.21. Swindon: English Heritage Library.
• Wessex Archaeology (November 1999). The Royal Dockyard at Devonport: Management Proposals.
Unpublished Wessex Archaeology report 46311.22. Swindon: English Heritage Library.
• Wessex Archaeology (November 1999). Royal Dockyard at Portsmouth: Archaeological Assessment.
• Wessex Archaeology (1999). The Royal Dockyard at Portsmouth: Management Proposals. Unpublished
Wessex Archaeology report 46311.12. Swindon: English Heritage Library.
• Wessex Archaeology (November 1999). Royal Dockyard at Portsmouth. Appendix I Source Index.
Unpublished Wessex Archaeology report 46311.I. Swindon: English Heritage Library.
• Wessex Archaeology (1999). Royal Dockyard at Portsmouth. Appendix II Component Index.
Unpublished Wessex Archaeology report 46311.II. Swindon: English Heritage Library.
The Wessex (1999) reports were designed ‘to provide characterisation of both dockyards to ‘facilitate
the management of [their] below ground archaeological remains.’ They encountered difficulties in
accessing post-1950 developments and twentieth century maps and ‘decided (with the agreement of
English Heritage) not to pursue the C20 development of the Dockyard[s].’ Thus were born the seeds
of the NDS study. Wessex’s Portsmouth volume gives a detailed history of building phases including
the twentieth century, Appendix I is valuable for primary and secondary sources and Appendix II is
helpful for linking buildings and plans.
The (1995) Sheerness study is a useful model for placing the dockyards within their geographical
context, as part of a study to understand the Thames Gateway and regenerate Sheerness. After a short
historical background and a sequence of maps and photographs of the dockyard model, it presents
a very detailed investigation of six buildings (Archway House, the Former Working Mast House, the
215
Former North Saw Pits, Building 86, the Former Pay Office and the Former Saw Mill), recorded to
RCHME architectural level 3. Each survey incorporates plans, photographs, documentary sources and
specific construction and architectural details. Structures including the Great Basin, Dry Dock Nos
1-3, the Frigate Dock/Dock No 4, the Graving Dock/Dock No. 5, the Boat Basin, Slip No. 1, Rennie’s
Pumping Engine House, and some cranes and capstans are recorded to RCHME architectural level
1. The defences are recorded to RCHME architectural level 2 and historic buildings in the dockyard
neighbourhood of Blue Town recorded to RCHME architectural level 1. Confusingly, there is no table
of contents and each building report is paginated independently. It includes more internal details
on individual buildings than the NDS study, as NDS researchers were in most cases unable to gain
internal access. Like this study, it includes an appendix of archival sources.
3 RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES

Aim: To characterise the development of the active naval dockyards at Devonport and Portsmouth,
and the facilities within the dockyard boundaries at their maximum extent during the twentieth
century, through library, archival and field surveys, presented and analysed in a published report,
with a database of documentary and building reports also available.
Objectives:
1. To provide an overview of the twentieth century development of English naval dockyards,
related to historical precedent, national foreign policy and naval strategy.
2. To address the main chronological development phases to accommodate new types of
vessels and technologies of the naval dockyards at Devonport and Portsmouth.
3. To identify the major twentieth century naval technological revolutions which affected
British naval dockyards.
4. To relate the main chronological phases to topographic development of the yards and
changing technological and strategic needs, and identify other significant factors.
5. To distinguish which buildings are typical of the twentieth century naval dockyards and/or
of unique interest.
4 CONTENTS
The study includes a Table of contents, Lists of illustrations or figures and tables and Acknowledgements.
Part 1 Historical background and characterisation addressed Objectives 1-4. It includes a discussion of
published or unpublished sources relating to dockyards in general, an account of the two dockyards’
history and a critical evaluation of previous records.
An analysis of historic map evidence is included within Part 2 Devonport and Part 3 Portsmouth. Where
possible each itemised building record gives its precise location as a national grid reference and MoD
building number, accompanied by any statutory designation (listing, scheduling or conservation area)
or non-statutory designations (Historic England at Risk and local lists), noting any changes. The MoD
numerical building sequence in Part 3 was decided after considering a perambulation approach
(Pevsner & Lloyd, 1990) which would have created a less practical relational sequence.
An account is given of the building’s overall type or purpose, historically and at present, its materials
and possible date(s), in so far as these are apparent from a superficial inspection, summarising the
building’s form (structure, materials, layout), function, date and sequence of development, together
with the evidence supporting this analysis. The names of the designers, architects, builders or
occupants are given where known.
216
Any evidence for the former existence of demolished structures or removed plant associated with the
building is noted. Where relevant, an account of any fixtures, fittings, plant or machinery associated
with the building, and their purposes is given, along with ways in which materials or processes were
handled. The building’s relationship to local settlement patterns, field systems, gardens or other
artificial reclaimed landscape; its part in any larger architectural or functional group of buildings and
its visual importance as a landmark is also noted. The potential survival of below-ground evidence for
the history of the building and its site is recorded. The architectural or historical context or significance
of the building locally, regionally or nationally, in terms of its origin, purpose, form, construction,
design, materials, status or historical associations is discussed. Accompanied by necessary permissions,
copies of historic maps, drawings, views or photographs illustrating the development of the building
or its site are located close to the individual record. The contents of specialist architectural and
archaeological reports or a note of their existence and location is included within the text.
The owners at both Devonport and Portsmouth Dockyards have been generous in giving access
to their archives; thus important information has been acquired about twentieth century changes.
Supporting oral history about twentieth century use of buildings has been obtained through personal
communication, dissemination seminars and from members of the Portsmouth Royal Dockyard
Historical Trust Support Group, former dockyard workers who worked there from the 1950s. Although
most have not worked there since the 1980s, they provided valuable information unobtainable
elsewhere. They also made available a copy of Portsmouth Dockyard and its Environs. A Chronological History
(Lambert, 1993), an example of grey literature not published commercially, nor widely accessible,
but possessing some recent and original data. Similarly, a Short History of Plymouth Dockyard was written
in 1969 by George Dicker, a Devonport naval stores employee. Members of Plymouth Naval Base
Museum and researchers at Devonport Naval Heritage Centre have been equally informative.
Full bibliographic and other references from sources consulted, are given, using Harvard APA citations.
It includes websites which Historic England and online publishers increasingly use to disseminate
professional and academic literature. A glossary includes dockyard or technical terms which might
not be included in standard dictionaries.
Appendix 2 lists maps, plans, models, aerial and ground photographs relatingto Devonport and
Portsmouth Dockyards. Appendices 3 and 4 collate Devonport and Portsmouth Dockyard Designations
to satisfy the requirement for a ‘one-stop shop’. While Historic England listings are accessible online,
many members of the public do not know where they are, and to group them together provides a
ready reference for the designated buildings described in Parts 2 and 3.
5 BUSINESS CASE
Following the English Heritage MoRPHE Project Managers’ Guide (April 2009, p. 9), the context and
motivation for this project at this time was to:
Advance knowledge and understanding of the historic twentieth century English naval dockyard
environment and apply such understanding to its management, care and enjoyment;
Seek involvement: engage those involved in the care and management of these heritage assets in
re-assessing their quality and usefulness. The project report will inform future discussions about
the future development of the naval dockyards by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, local
dockyard managers, Historic England local offices, local authorities and others;
Build experience: contribute to an improvement in best practice in the management of future research
projects;
Build for the future: anticipate how project results will be effectively disseminated, and archived for
use by future generations. The project report will ensure that the contribution of twentieth century
217
naval facilities to these dockyards’ historic value and character is acknowledged and fully understood
in their historic context.
English Heritage followed national priorities defined in the Strategic Framework for Historic
Environment Activities and Programmes (SHAPE, April 2008); the English Heritage Research Strategy
Agenda 2005–2010 (November 2005); English Heritage Research Strategy 2005–2010: Making the Past Part of Our
Future (June 2005); the English Heritage Corporate Plan 2011–2015; the National Heritage Protection
Plan (V1.1, 2012) and the National Heritage Protection Plan Project No. 6265 (May 2012).
The principal SHAPE activities (April 2008, p. 6) addressing this project in para. 2.2 are:
D: Studying and assessing risks to historic assets and devising responses.
D1: Heritage at risk: Quantifying and analysing the condition of the historic environment.
Under the English Heritage Research Strategy Agenda 2005-2010 (November 2005, pp. 4, 7), this project
was informed by Research Theme A: Discovering, studying and defining historic assets and their
significance. Sub-divisions of this theme include:
A1 What’s out there? Defining, characterising and analysing the historic environment
A2 Spotting the gaps: Analysing poorly understood landscapes, areas and monuments
The English Heritage Research Strategy Agenda 2005–2010: Discovering the Past Shaping the Future (June 2005, pp. 8, 10)
set the context, asserting that its ‘strategy for making our past part of our future is to create a cycle of
understanding, valuing, caring and enjoying.’ Under Understanding, Aim 1 is to ‘Help people develop
their understanding of the historic environment’. English Heritage Research Strategy 2005–2010. Making the
Past Part of Our Future, (June 2005, p. 4) further defines knowledge as the ‘prerequisite to caring for
England’s historic environment. From knowledge flows understanding and from understanding flows
an appreciation of value, sound and timely decision-making, and informed and intelligent action.’
Historic England’s capacity-building priorities relevant to this project are to:
A. Ensure that our research addresses the most important and urgent needs of the historic environment
C. Make sure our professional expertise and knowledge is more accessible to others who need it
D. Develop new approaches which improve understanding and management of the historic environment.
The English Heritage Corporate Plan 2011–2015 (May 2011, p. 5) was driven by the need to address a
reduction in resources of £51m. This project serves The National Heritage Protection Plan (pp. 4-7, 11-13, 15-
16, 17, 24, 26, 30), which was informed by the NHPP Pre-consultation Survey Analysis of Responses
(2010) and NHPP Winter 2010–2011 Consultation (2011). The NHPP establishes how English Heritage
will prioritise and deliver heritage protection (2011–2015) in the most cost-effective way, shifting
its focus and resources to identify gaps in knowledge and to ‘address the most threatened parts of
the historic environment.’ One of the needs identified by the Consultation was ‘the need to ensure
the necessary skills are in place across the range of historic environment organisations to be able to
address the issues identified in the Plan’. Plan delivery should ‘lead to more efficient and effective
protection through better coordination of activity and joint working’, to address reduced public
spending. NHPP 6265 (p. 5) also states that: ‘The report will also be used to identify buildings, or
complexes, which may repay further investigation and assessment for possible protection.’
NHPP, para. 1.4 aim is that ‘By the end of the first Plan period in 2015, the outcomes will include:
Agreement across the historic environment sector about the key priorities, particularly in
response to immediate and severe threats and which achieves good protection in the medium
and long-term for those elements of the historic environment that need it’.
NHPP, para. 1.5 states that ‘This Plan is principally but not exclusively focussed on how EH will
deploy its own resources and those it provides to others in order to deliver projects in the Plan.’
218
Through the NHPP (May 2012) this report will deliver Historic England’s Strategy Aim 1: to ‘Identify
and protect our most important heritage (Understanding)’ and support para. 2.2: ‘focussing on those
areas and types of heritage that are least understood’. Para 5.6 defines the two elements amplifying
current understanding:
the first is the identification of interest; the second is the assessment of significance. The
first stage identifies the heritage asset, counts and classifies it; the second establishes its
importance and significance.
NHPP exists alongside English Heritage’s wider Corporate Strategy (May 2011, para. 5.8), whose
activities include ‘Ensuring that the right skills exist and that the right tools and advice are available
to those engaged in looking after our heritage’ and ‘Ensuring that information management and
knowledge transfer is as good as it can be so that what we learn can be used to its greatest benefit.’
This will also allow Historic England to ‘safeguard for the future the most significant remains of
our national story’, the National Heritage Collection and the nearly 400,000 designated buildings,
monuments, shipwrecks and landscapes. (p. 8)
Under the NHPP Action Plan, eight interacting measures will be funded by a proposed total budget
for 2011/12 to 2014/15, averaging £48.98m per annum. Project No. 6265 has been devised within
Measure 3, comprising 2%, and Measure 4, comprising 4% of this budget. The measures are:
1. Foresight
2. Strategic Threat: Assessment and Response
3. Understanding: Recognition/Identification of the Resource
4. Understanding: Assessment of Character and Significance
5. Responses: Protecting Significance
6. Responses: Managing Change
7. Responses: Protecting and Managing Major Historic Estates
8. Responses: Grant-aid for Protection
Measure 3 specifies ‘Rapid survey of areas of the country where even basic identification of what
heritage we have is poor and where there is a real risk of losing nationally significant landscapes and
assets before we even know what is at risk.’ (How the English Heritage NHPP Action Plan Works)
The activities outlined in NHPP (May 2012, p. 15) and para. 3.2 National Heritage Protection Plan
6265 (English Heritage, July 2012, p. 4) thus define the parameters of this project:
Stage Understanding
Measure 3 Identification of potential
Activity 3A Identification of heritage assets and their significance
Measure 4 Assessment of Character and Significance
Activity 4A3 Ports, Harbours, Coastal settlements
Project 4A3.203 Twentieth Century Naval Dockyards Devonport and Portsmouth
As part of 4A: Urban and Public Realm, £449,000 total expenditure has been allocated in 2011/15
for 4A3:
4A3 HISTORIC PORTS, DOCKYARDS, HARBOURS AND COASTAL RESORTS
Historic coastal settlements and complexes are of great heritage significance, and subject to
specific and varied pressures relating to environment, ownership and economic pressure.
Action will focus on establishing the character and significance of such places to inform
219
sustainable change. Work will form a continuum with the national coastal survey programme
(3A2 [Unknown coastal assets and links to the Shoreline Management Plan]), but recognises
the unique challenges associated with coastal settlements.
Specifically, this project provides improved information for the understanding of the significance and
value of naval dockyards. Under the priorities identified in the English Heritage Corporate Plan 2011-
2015 (p. 8) it supports:
• Safeguarding the future of the most significant remains of our national story.
• Understanding the character and history of areas undergoing regeneration and change.
6 SCOPE
This project begins the twentieth century in 1889 to mark changes initiated by the Naval Defence
Act. It ends with those actions driven by the Strategic Defence Review Report (July 1998) which led
to considerable subsequent changes, focusing resources on increased offensive air power and two
twenty-first century Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers.
The time available to this project allowed only a survey of purpose-built twentieth century structures
and existing buildings adapted for new technologies and unique structures which performed the main
dockyard activities within the core dockyard boundaries: construction, repair and maintenance of
ships. Other activities conducted in detached sites, such as ordnance, victualling, medical, testing and
training facilities could not be studied. This means, for example, that the submarine facilities at HMS
Dolphin, Gosport, R. E. Froude’s tank experiments on warship design 1886–1919, and the continuing
ship design trials performed at Admiralty Marine Technology Establishment (AMTE) Haslar (Barnaby,
1960, pp. 230, 234-5, 508-9, 623; Andrew & Lloyd, 1981, pp. 1-31), which are both important twentieth
century elements of the Royal Navy, could not be included in this study. Also omitted from this study
are the facilities on Whale Island, notably the shore establishment HMS Excellent, which began as a
gunnery school but which has had a variety of functions over the years (it has recently become the
headquarters of the First Sea Lord), and the oil fuel depots. At Devonport, excluded sites comprise
magazine facilities at Ernesettle and Bull Point, the Mount Wise complex which includes the bunkers’
housing the Devonport Combined HQ section for the Western Approaches, and the Naval Barracks at
Keyham, which have been doubtless altered and added to in the twentieth century.
7 RESEARCH STRATEGY
The research team, all members of the Naval Dockyards Society, comprised two architectural historians,
both with many years of experience at the two dockyards, one industrial archaeologist, two maritime
historians with decades of researching Admiralty archives, and an experienced finance officer. The
frequency with which the names Coad, Evans and Riley occur in the designations (Appendices 3 and
4) underlines their expertise. As volunteers they were sensitive to the range of stakeholders and depth
of interpretations which are vital to characterisation. As with Historic England’s codification of heritage
principles, the team took seriously the task of providing ‘credible expert advice to those responsible
for making or authorizing changes to historic places.’ (Bee, 2009, p. 3) The team comprised:
Jonathan Coad Project adviser
Dr Ann Coats Editor, project manager and Portsmouth researcher
Dr David Davies Editor and reviewer, project executive and Portsmouth researcher
Dr David Evans Devonport researcher
David Jenkins Project finance officer
Professor Ray Riley Portsmouth researcher
220
The initial contract notice stated that this contract was ‘suitable for a voluntary, community and social
enterprise organisations.’ (Government Online, 2012) Some team members expended more time on
the project than the allocated funded days, contributing additional voluntary time. The project was
thus a mixture of consultant and voluntary input.
English Heritage Research Frameworks were constructive in shaping the study’s research framework.
The Thematic Research Strategy for the Historic Industrial Environment (July 2010) was particularly helpful for
underpinning the legacy of industrialisation within the National Heritage Protection Plan. The threat
to dockyard landscapes is especially noted as changing technology threatens older buildings which
are unsuitable for current use. There are also gaps in our knowledge ‘where threat and change…is
anticipated’. (English Heritage, July 2011, p. 11). Some significant twentieth century buildings such as
air raid shelters may already have disappeared.
What the Thematic Research Strategy does not address is the fact that some buildings have now become
a logistical and financial burden to the operational navy, which cannot afford the necessary level of
care, resulting in several buildings being designated at risk. Furthermore, the high levels of security
required make access difficult. This emphasises the urgency of the decisions the navy must take.
Operational uses are being explored for Portsmouth Parade (1/124-1/132), former Naval Academy
(1/14-1/19) and Former Ropehouse (1/65), while discussions are taking place about assigning the
Block Mills (1/153) and the historic docks around Basin No. 1 to the PNBPT. It is feared, however,
that there is no plan to improve the condition of at risk buildings in Devonport South Yard, for
which there is no Conservation Area or Conservation Management Plan. This NDS study highlights
the threat to South Yard, part of which is owned by Princess Yachts. It was announced in January
2014 that Plymouth City Council and the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership will
begin discussions with the Ministry of Defence over releasing land at South Yard for further marine
development of a Marine Industries Production Campus. (MarineLink.com, 2014) As these buildings
will then be removed from the stewardship of the Royal Navy and Defence Estates, there is urgent
need for a review of their care and future status.
As the Thematic Research Strategy highlights (July 2010, p. 19), it is valuable to identify untapped
photographic evidence. This NDS study has discovered previously unpublished photographs and
books at the Historic England Archive, which is easily available to students for future research
to complement other sources. It also suggests that regional research frameworks should be cross-
referenced to chronological and national thematic frameworks.
English Heritage’s 2005 Research Agenda (Embree & Stevens, p. 4) defines the themes governing
this NDS characterisation study:
A Discovering, studying and defining historic assets and their significance
B Studying and establishing the socioeconomic and other values and needs of the historic
environment and those concerned with it
C Engaging and developing diverse audiences
D Studying and assessing the risks to historic assets and devising responses
E Studying historic assets and improving their presentation and interpretation
F Studying and developing information management
G Studying and devising ways of making English Heritage and the sector more effective.
English Heritage’s Discovering the Past Shaping the Future Research Strategy 2005–2010 (2005, pp. 7-8)
highlighted the Frascati definitions of research (OECD, 2002) to determine its historic environment
research interests. Those relevant to the NDS study are
221
ARTS & HUMANITIES

Social history
Urban and rural history
Building history
Architectural history; history of building technology;
Area history
Archaeology Archaeology; geophysics
SOCIAL SCIENCE
Physical geography Urban and rural settlement analysis
Planning Forward planning; conservation planning;
Law Town planning, archaeological sites and Buildings and
areas conservation law
Social studies Diversity and social inclusion
SCIENCE
Physics Cathodic protection for conservation
Biology Horticulture
Earth & environmental Remote sensing in archaeology; geo-archaeology;
Climatology and pollution studies for conservation
Mathematics & Computer science Statistics for dendrochronology
TECHNOLOGY
Architecture Design; building surveying; building economics and
whole life costing; construction project management
Engineering Structural, civil, mechanical, electrical, fire and safety
engineering; photogrammetry
Building science Wood science
Conservation Material science
Information Science Archives and data management
CROSS-CUTTING RESEARCH
Selections from above Climate change and Sustainability
Sustainable communities
Urban and rural regeneration
English Heritage’s Discovering the Past Shaping the Future (November 2005, p. 8) identifies the following
threats applicable to dockyards:
• climate change and natural erosion
• economic change in urban and rural areas
• labour and skills shortages
• social exclusion
and relevant opportunities for the dockyards:
• widespread popularity of, and media interest in, the historic environment
• national and international interest in the sustainability agenda
222
• using the conservation of the historic environment as a catalyst for social and economic
regeneration and a driver for the tourism industry.
The Maritime and Marine Historic Environment Research Framework (2013) set out to ‘address the
maritime and marine historic environment in this country’, but focuses on prehistoric archaeology and
vessels up to the sixteenth century, and does not address dockyards, so is not relevant to the NDS
study. (Flatman, Appendix 6 High to Post-Medieval Chapter).
The Greater Thames Estuary Historic Environment Research Framework was most relevant for this
study, as it addressed the maritime heritage of a coastal site as a ‘conduit’ for ideas and material
culture. It defines maritime heritage as
those topics, which are maritime in character; that is, waterborne craft, shipping (transportation
of goods/sea trade) and related infrastructure. It should be noted that the maritime heritage
is inextricably linked with numerous other topics discussed in this framework, for example
intertidal archaeology, post-medieval and modern/industrial and military. (English Heritage,
2010, p. 22)
As in the Thames Estuary, dockyard remains provide ‘local distinctiveness’ and tourism potential
(Greater Thames, 2010, p. 29). Most importantly, the update reviewed its framework and specific
objectives and identified specific areas of future research (pp. 30-55). It also located the Thames
Estuary within other categories such as seaside towns, public buildings, carpentry techniques and
designed landscapes (2010, pp. 58-65, 74-5, 84-6). The update identified in particular that:
Large industrial and defence sites could also perhaps be considered to be designed landscapes
in that they re-modelled terrains that can be consequently conserved/maintained even when
the original use ends, for example as public gardens or tourist attractions. (2010, p. 62)
The NDS team considers that Devonport and Portsmouth Dockyards should be considered as designed
landscapes.
The methodology for assessing significance includes analysis of the characterisation process itself, and
the military, industrial, material and architectural characteristics of the naval dockyards. Assessment
of heritage significance follows English Heritage (April 2008, pp. 8, 35-40) Conservation Principles, which
establishes a process for assessing heritage significance:
• Understand the fabric and evolution of the place
• Identify who values the place, and why they do so
• Relate identified heritage values to the fabric of the place
• Consider the relative importance of those identified values
• Consider the contribution of associated objects and collections
• Consider the contribution made by setting and context
• Compare the place with other places sharing similar values
• Articulate the significance of the place
English Heritage defines the significance [of a place] as ‘The sum of the cultural and natural heritage
values of a place, often set out in a statement of significance’. In order to identify an understanding
of its fabric, and how and why it has changed over time, the Report considered:
• who values the place, and why they do so
• how those values relate to its fabric
• their relative importance
• whether associated objects contribute to them
223
• the contribution made by the setting and context of the place

• how the place compares with others sharing similar values.
(English Heritage, April 2008, pp. 21, 72)
Following the (English Heritage, February 2006, p. 4) sequence of documentary research, investigation,
survey and drawings, photography and written account, a literature search was conducted of the major
sources covering twentieth century dockyards and navy, architecture, materials and characterisation.
An archival search was carried out in the Historic England National Monuments Record, local Historic
Environment Records, The National Archives, local studies libraries, archives of county and local
societies, within national and local designations, and historic Ordnance Survey maps. The project
followed the Institute for Archaeologists’ 2012 Standard and Guidance for desk based assessment:
Desk-based assessment will determine, as far as is reasonably possible from existing records,
the nature, extent and significance of the historic environment within a specified area. Desk-
based assessment will be undertaken using appropriate methods and practices which satisfy
the stated aims of the project, and which comply with the Code of conduct, Code of approved
practice for the regulation of contractual arrangements in field archaeology, and other relevant
by-laws of the IfA. (2012, p. 4)
Desk-based assessment is a programme of study of the historic environment within a specified
area or site on land, the inter-tidal zone or underwater that addresses agreed research and/
or conservation objectives. It consists of an analysis of existing written, graphic, photographic
and electronic information in order to identify the likely heritage assets, their interests and
significance and the character of the study area, including appropriate consideration of the
settings of heritage assets and, in England, the nature, extent and quality of the known or
potential archaeological, historic, architectural and artistic interest. Significance is to be judged
in a local, regional, national or international context as appropriate. (IfA, 2012, p. 4)
Within the NDS project the purpose of the desk-based assessment was to gain an understanding of
the historic environment resource to formulate (2) ‘an assessment of the significance of the known
or predicted heritage assets considering, in England, their archaeological, historic, architectural and
artistic interests;’ (5) ‘strategies to conserve the significance of heritage assets, and their settings’
and (7) ‘proposals for further archaeological investigation within a programme of research, whether
undertaken in response to a threat or not.’ Such assessment was undertaken ‘in connection with the
preparation of management plans to conserve the historic environment’. (IfA, 2012, pp. 4-5)
Although the NDS project carried out non-destructive building surveys, it addressed the Institute for
Archaeologists’ Standard and Guidance for an archaeological field evaluation: ‘a limited programme
of non-intrusive…fieldwork which determines the presence or absence of archaeological features,
structures, deposits, artefacts or ecofacts within a specified area or site on land, inter-tidal zone or
underwater’. The field evaluation would define ‘their character, extent, quality and preservation,
and enable[s] an assessment of their worth in a local, regional, national or international context as
appropriate.’ (IfA, 2013, p. 1) The team members followed IfA Principles (p. 3):
1. A member shall adhere to high standards of ethical and responsible behaviour in the
conduct of archaeological affairs.
2. A member has a responsibility for the conservation of the historic environment.
3. A member shall conduct his or her work in such a way that reliable information about the
past may be acquired, and shall ensure that the results be properly recorded.
4. A member has responsibility for making available the results of archaeological work with
reasonable dispatch.
5. A member shall recognise the aspirations of employees, colleagues and helpers with
224
regard to all matters relating to employment, including career development, health and
safety, terms and conditions of employment and equality of opportunity.
The project based its recording activity on needs and priorities, but this was modified as understanding
of a subject developed or circumstances changed. The structure and writing aimed to convey the
maximum information as economically as possible.
Guided by English Heritage (February 2006, para. 1.5, p. 3), the study adheres to the principles that
a record should:
• chart the historical development of the building or site, explaining and illustrating what
is significant and providing dates for significant parts or phases of development wherever
possible;
• aim to be accurate, clear and concise;
• state the scope and level of the record and its limitations;
• make a clear distinction between observation and interpretation, thereby allowing data to be
reinterpreted at a later date;
• wherever practicable take account of the site’s context, including its wider archaeology,
known and potential, whether in terms of below-ground deposits or of landscape
archaeology;
• include an indication of any sources consulted;
• identify its compilers and give the date of creation, and any subsequent amendments should
be similarly endorsed;
• seek to embody the benefits of peer review;
• through the report and supporting material be produced in a medium which can be copied
easily and which ensures archival stability;
• be made accessible through deposit in a permanent archive and signposting in a recognised
internet finding aid.
The historical background and characterisation in Part 1 is designed to identify functions and establish
the main phases, their physical limits and their defining characteristics. Localised twentieth century
alterations to a building’s fabric, such as the Portsmouth East Sea Store (1/62), West Hemp House
(1/63), East Hemp House (1/64), and Former Ropery (1/65) indicate profound changes to the way
the buildings have been used. An examination was made of buildings’ or structures’ external fabric,
with particular attention paid to relationships with other buildings, architectural styles, plan elements,
decorative schemes, fixtures and fittings, and other details to help to date them or their evolution.
Observational notes were taken, supported by photography where security considerations allowed.
Wherever possible, all parts of the exterior were examined. In most cases internal access was not
possible, with a few exceptions, such as Devonport Quadrangle Factory. No destructive investigative
techniques were used. No measured drawings were made, as the project did not allow the time.
The level of recording was decided by the team, who were familiar with the type, form, materials
and historical periods of the dockyards concerned. As the recording was publicly funded, the team
adopted the most economical path to satisfy the project aim. The kind of record selected was the first
category in Table 1 (English Heritage, February 2006, p. 16):
225
Circumstance Principal need Level of record Form of record
Generally low-
Strategic heritage Information on distribution, variation, May make extensive use
level record.
planning significance and survival of large of external photography,
Building-specific
at national, building populations, defined supplemented by written
information
regional or local geographically, typologically or accounts of individual
may be highly
level; studies chronologically, and an understanding buildings and/or synthetic
selective or
of landscapes, of their evolution, to inform national text providing background
variable (typically
common building or local policy initiatives, to underpin or context. Drawn element
Level 1 or 2, but
types, areas and heritage-management decisions may be omitted, simplified,
in some cases 3
larger settlements; or as a contribution to academic limited to maps or restricted
or 4).
pilot projects. knowledge. to key examples.
In surveying two such large groups of buildings as Devonport and Portsmouth Dockyards it was
appropriate to record at varied levels, depending on their intrinsic interest. The team omitted small
generic buildings such as substations, on the basis of the design elements which echoed the perceived
power relationship of buildings. The contextual value of the individual records was underpinned in
Part 1 by an account, leading up to the twentieth century, of the history and evolution of the royal
dockyards as a whole and the two dockyards in particular. Special regard was paid to the sponsor’s
requirement to make the report a ‘one-stop-shop’.
Following English Heritage (February 2006, pp. 12-13) guidance, most buildings are described at
Level 1, comprising the exterior only, but containing documentary evidence where it is available
(project objectives 2-4).
• Level 1 is a basic visual record, supplemented by the minimum of information needed to
identify the building’s location, age and type. This contributes to the project aim and objectives
2-4 of gathering basic information about a large number of buildings for historic landscape
characterisation. The surveys are generally of exteriors only and the circumstances did not
allow for any drawings to be produced. It comprises photographs and a written account.
A partial photographic survey has been made of dock furniture, comprising a visual record and a brief
written account, located near the relevant dock or building record. (English Heritage, February 2006, p. 14)
Where possible, copies of earlier drawings interpret the sites’ history. Plans and sections show features
which are not visible simultaneously and which therefore cannot be shown in a single photograph.
They also highlight structural relationships and decorative hierarchies, and clarify industrial processes.
High resolution 35mm digital photographs were taken. Where possible, site photography included a
general or oblique view of a building to show all external elevations and its wider setting. External
structural or decorative details, relevant to the building’s design were also photographed. Machinery
or other plant such as cranes, capstans and roller fairleads, or evidence for their former existence,
were photographed in relation to the docks and basins as evidence of hauling and loading activities.
These sometimes bear crane capacities, dates and makers’ plates which complement dock construction
dates.
8 RISK AND ETHICS ASSESSMENT

On-site evaluation respected the rights and sensitivities of the owners. A risk assessment completed
in March 2013 assessed the risk that team members would be unable to gain access to the naval
bases and their archives as low. They are extremely grateful that they were given full access to both
archives, but access to Devonport naval base was delayed and restricted, which affected the amount
226
of data gained and the time taken to complete the report. The Devonport visit was limited to three
days and no photographs were available.
The risk of any team member becoming incapacitated was also assessed, enabling another team
member to take over his/her rôle. Happily there were no such events.
The risk that the MoD would severely censor text relating to the nuclear facilities assessed in Part 2
was deemed to be high. Mitigation would excise material referring to nuclear facilities other than data
in the public domain.
Access to Portsmouth Dockyard buildings was facilitated more easily than Devonport as the two
researchers lived in the city and could make many short (2-3 hour) visits over about six months
(January to July 2013), which allowed photographs to be retaken where light was poor and at
different times of day.
• On-site evaluation addressed health and safety issues. Following IfA guidelines (2013, p. 8),
a Health and Safety assessment was carried out and documented for the project. All team
members undertaking fieldwork site visits followed a Health and Safety policy, observing
safe working practices and wearing appropriate footwear and weatherproof clothing. The
NDS provided adequate insurance and public liability. The Health and Safety arrangements
were agreed by all relevant parties before work commenced: that all parties would follow
the directions given by the site owners;
• that a nominated leader would be in overall charge;
• that all parties would have the others’ mobile numbers and a pre-arranged meeting place in
case of a problem;
• that exits in case of a problem were to be notified;
• that medical problems of which the organisers need to be aware would be notified.
Two team members underwent a nuclear awareness test at Devonport Naval Base on 19 September
2013 before being allowed into the nuclear submarine refuelling facility site.
An ethical assessment was completed by the Project Manager, using the University of Portsmouth
online form. Ethics mitigation procedures comprised giving full notification to all third parties of the
purposes of the project in making requests for access to archives and sites. Acknowledgement would
be made to all those who made significant contributions: practical, intellectual, to the record or its
analysis, or who gave permission for copyright items to be reproduced. The following officers kindly
made themselves available for meetings:
• Second Sea Lord
• Naval Base Commander Portsmouth
• Captain of Devonport Naval Base
• Strategic Development Manager 1, Portsmouth Naval Base, Defence
Infrastructure Organisation
• MoD Partnering Manager (Estates), Devonport
• Babcock International Group Programme Manager, Devonport
• Strategic Asset Management & Historic Estate Conservation Manager, BAE Systems Maritime
Services Estates, Portsmouth
Historians have also been consulted and their data and comments have been included with their kind
permission.
227
The study text and photographs would be submitted to the owners for approval. The NDS undertook
to respect the requirements of the owners concerning confidentiality, but emphasised that it has a
professional obligation to make the results of the investigation available to the wider community
within a reasonable time (IfA, 2013, p.12), especially where the study cites previously published data
(see NAO, 2002; Smith, August 2002).
9 HOW THE NAVAL DOCKYARDS SOCIETY FULFILLED THE BUSINESS CASE

The Naval Dockyards Society, founded in 1997 and characterised by its Aim and Strapline, was uniquely
fitted to fulfil the business case and satisfy the aims and objectives of this project:
Aim
To stimulate the production and exchange of information and research into naval dockyards
and associated organisations. The Naval Dockyards Society is an international organisation
which is concerned with and publishes material on naval dockyards and associated activities,
including victualling, medicine, ordnance, shipbuilding, shipbreaking, coastguard stations,
provisions and supplies; all aspects of their construction, history, archaeology, conservation,
workforce, surrounding communities and family history; and all aspects of their buildings,
structures and monuments relating to naval history. The Society is therefore involved closely
in the terrestrial and underwater heritage of all these sites.
Strapline
Exploring the civil branches of navies and their material culture
The NDS has an overt and demonstrable commitment to dockyard research, conservation and
interpretation which has informed this project. All its resources are directed towards raising public
awareness of naval dockyards through its biannual newsletter Dockyards, annual journal Transactions
and annual conferences and tours. Through responses to planning applications, the NDS is practised
in analysing and critiquing formal built environment documentation relating to naval dockyards. Its
members possess a range of expertise which has addressed holistically the aim and objectives of this
project. An example of the Society’s endeavours is their Conference British Dockyards in the First World
War, held 29 March 2014 at the National Maritime Museum Greenwich. The following papers, some
of which have been cited in the report, will add further to our knowledge when they are published:
• Professor Eric Grove: British Warship Building during the First World War: An Analytical and Comparative
Survey
• Professor Ian Buxton: Rosyth Dockyard, Battleships and Drydocking
• Martin Rogers: Rosyth Dockyard 1903–1925: Its conception, birth, growth and demise
• Professor Michael Duffy: William James’s ‘Record of the work done at Devonport Yard during the war by the
Engineering Department’’
• Dr Vaughan Michell: Evolution of the Dreadnought Battleship based on Naval Construction during the First
World War
• Dr Paul Brown: Docking the Dreadnoughts: Dockyard Activity in the Dreadnought Era
• Dr Celia Clark: ‘Drilling Hammock Hooks for Sailors’: Women working in Portsmouth Dockyard in the First
World War.
• Peter Goodwin MPhil: British Submarine construction & development during the Great War
228
10 STAKEHOLDERS
Historic England (sponsor)
Historic England Designation and National Planning Teams
Ministry of Defence
First Sea Lord
Second Sea Lord
Naval Base Commanders
The Defence Infrastructure Organisation: Historic Building Advisers
Naval Heritage Committee
Naval Dockyard managers
Local Authority Planning Officers
Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust Support Group
Babcock International Group (Devonport)
BAE Systems (Portsmouth)
Princess Yachts International plc
Private owners of former naval facilities
National Museum of the Royal Navy (sponsor)
National Maritime Museum
Plymouth Naval Base Museum
Historic Environment Records, Museums and Record Offices (Plymouth and Portsmouth)
Institution of Civil Engineers
Royal Institution of Naval Architects
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
Newcomen Society
Twentieth Century Society
Portsmouth Society
Royal Engineers Museum
Museum Curators
Historians/academics
Devonport and Portsmouth communities
11 ARCHIVES
• Admiralty Library Royal Navy, Naval Historical Branch, Portsmouth
• BAE Systems (Portsmouth)
• Hampshire Record Office, Winchester
229
• Historic England Archives, National Monuments Record Centre, Swindon

• Imperial War Museum
• MoD Admiralty Library Royal Navy, Naval Historical Branch, Portsmouth
• National Museum of the Royal Navy (Devonport) Devonport Collection
• National Museum of the Royal Navy (Portsmouth)
• Plymouth and West Devon Record Office, Plymouth
• Plymouth City Library
• Plymouth City Museum & Art Gallery
• Plymouth Naval Base Museum
• Plymouth Naval Studies Library
• Portsmouth History Centre/Portsmouth Museums and Records Service
• Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust
• Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust
• The National Archives, Kew
12 DOCUMENT AND BUILDING/STRUCTURE RECORD FORMS

Document and Building/Structure Record Forms were designed to streamline data collection in a time-
efficient manner to produce material for both the Report and the Archive to a uniform specification.
They were completed by the team members while in the archives and sent to the Project Manager
to identify material to be included in the final report and form the basis of the archive and database.
They were, however, found to be inconvenient in the field, where wet and windy weather made
notebooks more practical.
13 ARCHIVE AND DISSEMINATION

Methods of archiving and disseminating the project results were considered by the team in line with
the National Heritage Protection Commissions Programme (NHPCP) (2012) Guidance for Applicants,
paras 15 and 16.
Archival storage of the collected data has been an important aim of the project. Archaeological models
for archival data storage and best practice manuals were followed to establish an Accessible Archive
Storage Strategy. The team will ensure that copies of the report are deposited with appropriate
national and local bodies. For archiving purposes each element (record sheets, digital images etc.) will
be arranged separately on paper and on compact discs or DVDs. The paper and digital archive will
be stored as appropriate, at Historic England, Swindon, Portsmouth and Plymouth HERs, Plymouth
Central Library, the National Museum of the Royal Navy (Devonport) Devonport Collection and the
National Museum of the Royal Navy Portsmouth. Such multiple storage in different locations should
ensure continued availability in the long term.
Copies of the report will be sent to owners and occupants as a right. This also recognises their rôle
in supporting the project; and is a means of fostering understanding, appreciation and stewardship
of the historic environment. Copies will also be sent to the relevant officers of the local planning
authority, as a means of aiding their protection of the historic environment, and to the respective
Historic Environment Records.
230
The location of the report and archive will be publicised in OASIS (Online Access to the Index of
Archaeological Investigations) by completing to an OASIS form within six months of the completion
of the report or earlier. This will allow the wider professional and research communities to identify,
via the Excavation Index of the NMR, the local Historic Environment Records and the online catalogue
of the Archaeology Data Service, what recording work has been carried out. This should contain
sufficient detail to help researchers to find and access the project archive (IfA, 2012, pp. 9-10).
Dissemination of the study results is fundamental to the validity of the project, to provide guidance for
relevant professionals and to the wider public. The fact that the report is to be widely disseminated
will affect the process of obtaining permission from the owners.
Monographs to publicise the project were discussed by the team in line with NHPCP Guidance for
Applicants (2012), para. 14. The team will also make use of internet ‘signposting’ mechanisms, so
that information about the report and its location is widely available, publishing summary accounts
in relevant county, regional or national maritime history and archaeological journals as a way of
disseminating knowledge and fostering debate, particularly where important discoveries have been
made, insights gained or established interpretations challenged. Papers on aspects of the report
will also be delivered to relevant research societies and seminars. In exceptional cases the intrinsic
interest or celebrity of a building, or the adoption of an innovative approach to understanding it,
may justify publication in the form of a monograph. Publication may consist of a brief notice in a
roundup of recent work, for instance in county archaeological journals. Thus signposted, the record
may materially assist others in the production of works of synthesis.
A combination of approaches will be used:
• Signposting to announce the progress of the project
• Final published report
• Archival database
• Peer-reviewed journal articles or full-scale academic monographs
• Articles in appropriate online journals
• Papers delivered to relevant research societies and seminars
• Case study of how the project was undertaken, highlighting new experiences in methodology
and project management
The report is printed on Forest Stewardship Council certified paper. It contains the name and address
of the Naval Dockyards Society which has produced the report and the dates of the survey and the
report’s compilation. Illustrations are titled with subject and, where appropriate, orientation. Where
possible a unique identifier allows cross-reference to the original digital file. A contents list and
chapter headers are included to guard against the accidental dispersal of parts of the report.
The copyright of the report, and of any images or other material included by permission, is as follows.
• The report and all associated documentation, databases and photographs will be the copyright
of English Heritage [Historic England]. Copyright on all reports submitted will reside with English
Heritage [Historic England], although a third-party in-perpetuity licence will automatically be
given for reproduction of the works by the originator (the NDS), subject to agreement in
writing from English Heritage [Historic England].
• The contractor (the Naval Dockyards Society) will ensure that copyright permission is obtained
for any images used in the report, and be aware that English Heritage may wish to make the
report available on its website. The NDS will also make certain that all material copied from
other sources is fully acknowledged and the relevant copyright conditions pertaining to that
data will be observed.
231
• It will be the responsibility of the Naval Dockyards Society to ensure that copyright permission
is obtained for use in the Report and possible distribution on the web. (NHPP 4A3 Ports,
Harbours, Coastal Settlements: 20th Century Naval Dockyards Devonport and Portsmouth
(4A3.203), Project Number 6265, July 2012, p. 7; (IfA, 2013, p. 12)
The NHPCP Guidance for Applicants, Appendix 9 (April 2012, p. 13) defines the Intellectual Property
Rights determining this Agreement:
14.1 All Intellectual Property Rights in the materials and records created by the Contractor,
its employees, agents and sub-contractors for the Project archive (whether in existence at
the date of this Agreement or created in the future), and all other materials created by the
Contractor, its employees and sub-contractors in connection with the Work (collectively “the
Materials”) shall vest in the Contractor.
14.2 If the Contractor sub-contracts any of the Work in relation to this Agreement[…], or if
the Contractor includes in the Work or reproduces in connection with the Work any material
the Intellectual Property Rights of which do not belong to the Contractor, the Contractor shall
at the Contractor’s own expense obtain from the third party concerned an assignment of
such Intellectual Property Rights in its favour and any such materials shall be deemed to be
Materials for the purposes of this Clause 14.
14.3 The Contractor grants to English Heritage a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable,
perpetual, irrevocable and royalty-free licence to use, copy, reproduce, adapt, modify,
enhance, create derivative works and/or commercially exploit the Materials for any purpose
required by English Heritage [Historic England].
14 TIMESCALE
The project began in December 2012 and the report and archive were completed in summer 2014. At
the time of the report going to press, publications were ongoing.
Project tabulated product/task list
Aim/
Product Name No Description Days
Objectives
Project Executive 2.00
Project Design P0 O1 Project Manager * 6.00
Finance Officer 1.00
Survey and analysis secondary
P1 O1 Conduct desk-top literature analysis 2.00
literature completed
Write first draft text. Circulate text to team.
Chapter 1: C20 Overview drafted P2 O1 2.00
Finalise text.
C20 documentary archival Conduct desk-based survey of archival
sources surveyed to inform P3 O2 1.00
sources
chronological development
C20 Technological development
P4 O3 Conduct desk-top secondary source analysis 1.00
surveyed and analysed
C20 Main development phases Write first draft text; circulate text to team;
P5 O3 4.00
surveyed and analysed finalise text
Maps/ building surveys surveyed Conduct archival searches; submit Document
P6 O4 8.00
and analysed Record Forms to Project Manager
Aerial/ground photographs Conduct archival searches; Submit Document
P7 O4 6.00
surveyed and analysed Record Forms to Project Manager
232
Conduct archival searches / personal

Contemporary/eye witness
P8 O4 communications; submit Document Record 2.00
accounts surveyed and analysed Forms to Project Manager
Conduct site surveys
Sites surveyed and analysed P9 O4 Devonport/Portsmouth; submit Building/ 12.00
Structure Record Forms to Project Manager
Chronological/ topographical Analysis and write first draft text. Circulate
P10 O4 2.00
development phases revised text to team. Finalise text and maps/images.
Case Study News Item completed
Analysis and write first draft text. Circulate
from Record Forms and Issues P11 Aim 1.00
text to team. Finalise text and maps/images.
Log
Analysis and write draft conclusions text.
Report and database completed P12 O5 Circulate text to team. Finalise text and 5.00
images.
Report printed P13 O5 Take to Printers *
Risk Log completed P14 Aim Compiled from emails *
Issues Log completed P15 Aim Compiled from emails *
Signposting Record completed P16 Aim Compiled from emails *
Report dissemination strategy via Draft monograph strategy. Circulate to team. 1.00
P17 Aim
monographs agreed Finalise strategy with guidance from EH.
Accessible archive storage Draft Strategy. Circulate to team. Finalise
P18 Aim *
strategy agreed and completed strategy with guidance from EH.
Contingency P6-12 O5 Research/writing 4.00
Total 60.00
Note: These projected day allocations proved to be unrealistic, particularly in relation to the time
required for surveying and analysing secondary literature, archival and site visits and in writing the
report.
15 RESULTS
These are set out as a series of statements in the two substantive Parts 2 and 3 and Part 4 the
Conclusions, organised in relation to the objectives and methods, and describing both structural and
environmental data recovered. Framework and specific objectives are summarised under topics and
specific areas of future research recommended. Technical terminology (including dating or period
references) is explained where necessary as the study is aimed at a wide audience. The results are
amplified by the use of photographs and supporting research data.
16 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

These sum up and interpret the results and put them into local, national and international context.
Further work is the focus.
233
Certificate of Fast Track Ethics Review

Project Title: 20th Century Naval Dockyards Devonport and
Portsmouth Characterisation Study (4A3.203), NHPCP
Project Number 6265
Student Number: 595574
Application Date: 25/05/2014 12:28:05
You must download your referral certificate, print a copy and keep it as a record of this
review.
You should submit your certificate to the chair person of your Faculty Ethics
Committee for further review.
The chair person of the Technology Faculty Ethics Committee is John Williams.
It is your responsibility to follow the University Code of Practice on Ethical Standards and
any Department/School or professional guidelines in the conduct of your study including
relevant guidelines regarding health and safety of researchers including the following:
• University Policy
• Safety on Geological Fieldwork
It is also your responsibility to follow University guidance on Data Protection Policy:
• General guidance for all data protection issues

• University Data Protection Policy
Any changes in the answers to the questions reflecting the design, management or
conduct of the research over the course of the project must be notified to the Faculty
Ethics Committee. Any subsequent changes that affect the answers given in the
questionnaire, not reported to the Faculty Ethics Committee, will invalidate this
certificate.
This ethical review should not be used to infer any comment on the academic merits or
methodology of the project. If you have not already done so, you are advised to develop
a clear protocol/proposal and ensure that it is independently reviewed by peers or others
of appropriate standing. A favourable ethical opinion should not be perceived as
permission to proceed with the research; there might be other matters of governance
which require further consideration.
ProjectTitle:
20th Century Naval Dockyards Devonport and Portsmouth Characterisation Study
(4A3.203), NHPCP Project Number 6265
A2-Faculty:
Technology
Certificate Code: E943-0D19-D9F5-9D81-DA44-B9C9-4B4E-998B Page 1 / 3
234
A3-PrimaryRole:
OtherAcademicStaff
A4-RespondentsName:
Dr Ann Coats
A5-AlreadyExternallyReviewed:
Yes
A6-ExternalReviewReferenceNumber:
Reviewed by English Heritage (4A3.203) NHPCP Project Number 6265
B1-HumanParticipants:
Yes
B4-InvolvesNHSPatients:
No
B5-NoConsentOrDeception:
No
B7-InvolvesUninformedOrDependents:
No
B9-FinancialInducements:
No
C1-DrugsPlacebosOrOtherSubstances:
No
C2-BloodOrTissueSamples:
No
C3-PainOrMildDiscomfort:
No
C4-PsychologicalStressOrAnxiety:
No
C5-ProlongedOrRepetitiveTesting:
No
C6-SafetyRisksBeyondAssessment:
No
D2-PhysicalEcologicalDamage:
No
D4-HistoricalOrCulturalDamage:
No
E1-ContentiousOrIllegal:
No
E2-SociallySensitiveIssues:
No
F1-HarmToAnimal:
No
F2-HarmfulToThirdParties:
No
Certificate Code: E943-0D19-D9F5-9D81-DA44-B9C9-4B4E-998B Page 2 / 3
235
236
APPENDIX 2
LIST OF SOURCES FOR MAPS, PLANS, MODELS, AERIAL AND

GROUND PHOTOGRAPHS RELATING TO DEVONPORT AND
PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARDS
Archives are listed alphabetically; items are listed chronologically or by record number (Babcock),
building number, contractor (BAES) and date.
Babcock International Devonport, Ministry of Defence
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AB2/1B (n.d.). Building N007 Submarine
Refit Complex.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AB2/3A (n.d.). Building N007 Submarine
Refit Complex.
Refit Complex.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AB2/11 (1972). Building N125 ground floor.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AB2/12 (1972). Building N125 first floor.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AB2/14D (n.d.). Second floor plan of the NAAFI
building, N007, Submarine Refit Complex.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AB3/12B (1972). Building N093.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AB4B/11 (n.d.). Submarine Refit Complex Building
N020, part of central building and southern section.
N020, Section through high level plant room.
N020, northern section and part of central building.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AB4B/28B. (n.d.). Submarine Refit Complex
Building N017.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AB5/1A (n.d.). Building N022 Submarine Refit
Complex plan.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AB7/14C (n.d.). Submarine Refit Complex.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. ABG/16E (April 1972). Building N217, part of east
elevation, Frigate Complex.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. ABG/17C (April 1972). Building N217, part of west
Babcock International. Drawing no. ABG/20F (April 1972). Building N217, part of section,
Frigate Complex.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AD1/44B (n.d.). Building N019, Periscope Tower.
237
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AD3/24A (n.d.). Building N005, Submarine
Refit Complex.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AD8/7 (1977). Entrance control complex, Submarine
Refit Complex.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AW3/1J (n.d.). Building N008, Submarine Refit
Complex, north elevation.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AW4/3M (n.d.). Building N016, Submarine Refit
Complex, west elevation.
Complex west elevation.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. M1979/08 (1994). Building N260, Submarine
Refit Complex.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. SWP/A/106/80 (n.d.). Submarine Refit Complex
Building N018A.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing No. SWP/A/281/80 (n.d.). Submarine Refit Complex,
Building N020A.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. 2916/1A (1972). Building N125, main block cladding.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing No. 2300/ZG/01 (n.d). Buildings S056 and S057.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. 2300/ZG/05 (c.1988). East elevation of Building S057.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. 2300/ZG/09 (c.1988). West elevation of
Building S056.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. 85007/AD1/1 (n.d.). Building N259.
Babcock International. Drawing no. 85007/AD1/8 (n.d.). Building N259.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. illegible, reference 7137/N/9030 (n.d.). Building
N016, Submarine Refit Complex plan.
Babcock International Devonport. D154 Phase 3 Location Plan sheet no. 15 (n.d.). No Babcock
drawing number.
Babcock International Devonport (2011). Site Atlas
British Aerospace Systems Portsmouth, Ministry of Defence
BAES Portsmouth, MEWW. 23572A Rationalisation Briefs and Drawings Etc.
BAES Portsmouth (1911–12). Elevations, HM Dockyard Portsmouth AE Vote 10, Subhead B, Part 1,
Extending Gun Mounting Shop (2/165).
BAES Portsmouth, Denny Highton (Jan 1978). Condition Survey, Main/Nelson Gate.
BAES Portsmouth (June 1978). FMBF FB45 Final Sketch Design, Building 1/223.
BAES Portsmouth, PSA (1983). Feasibility Study Semaphore Tower. Gateway to Empire. Buildings
1/40 and 1/50.
BAES Portsmouth, Alan Marshall Consulting Civil and Structural Engineers for PSA (Jan 1984).
Structural Survey, Nile.
BAES Portsmouth, MRM Partnership (Nov 1990). Structural Report, Building 3/82.
BAES Portsmouth, Defence Works Service (Nov 1991). Option Study, Annex A, Building 1/100.
BAES Portsmouth, PSA Building Management SE (Dec 1991). Professional Appraisal Semaphore
Tower, Building 1/50.
238
Appendix 2 Lists maps, plans, models, aerial and ground photographs Devonport and Portsmouth Dockyards
BAES Portsmouth, Evans Grant (March 1992). Structural Appraisal, Nile.

BAES Portsmouth, Evans Grant (March 1992). Structural Appraisal, Building 2/26.
BAES Portsmouth (May 1992). Technical Inspection, Buildings 2/139-2/140.
BAES Portsmouth, PSA (Property Serves Agency) (June 1992). Historical Inspection Report, Rodney.
BAES Portsmouth (1993). Technical Inspection, Buildings 2/109-2/110.
BAES Portsmouth, Evans Grant (Feb 1993) Structural Appraisal, Building 1/141.
BAES Portsmouth, Cecil Denny Highton (July 1993), Plan Extension to 100 Store,
CDH REF 91034; Building 3/82.
BAES Portsmouth, Building Management SE Ltd (Jan 1994). Technical Inspection Report,
Building 2/25-2/26.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (Feb 1994). Technical Inspection Report, Building 2/205.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (March 1994). Technical Inspection Report, enclosing English Listing
Record, Building 2/201.
BAES Portsmouth, Sawyer Architects plc (1995). Quadrennial Survey Lion Gate. Job No. 3513/5.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (Jan 1995). Professional Structural Appraisal, Building 2/56.
BAES Portsmouth, The Conservation Practice (April 1995). Tender Clock Tower, Gymnasium.
BAES Portsmouth, MSG Study 09/95/01 (13 Dec 1995). Plans and elevations, Building 1/100.
BAES Portsmouth, Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick (1996). Plan 100 Store Proposed Link, Building 3/82.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (23.1.1996). Letter, Jervis.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (Feb 1996). Structural Appraisal, Building 2/112.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (March 1996). Structural Appraisal, Building 3/82.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (3.7.1996). Structural Assessment Report, Building 2/25-2/26.
BAES Portsmouth, Cecil Denny Highton for Scott, Wilson Kirkpatrick (July 1996). Plan 100 Store
Phase 2, CDH REF 91077, Building 3/82.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (1997). Technical Inspection, Building 2/139.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (31.1.1997). Structural Appraisal, Eastney/Canteen.
BAES Portsmouth, Evans Grant under instructions from Unicorn (Feb–Apr 1997) Structural
Appraisal, Building 1/136, First Floor Detail.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (June 1997). Structural Appraisal, Nile.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn CS Ltd (July 1997). Technical Report, Building 2/112.
BAES Portsmouth, Cathedral Works (Summer 1997). Heritage. Chichester: Cathedral Works
Organisation Limited.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (Dec 1997). Technical Inspection Report, enclosing drawing no.
333/50B, 8.8.1950, Building 2/205.
BAES Portsmouth, Comley & Sons, Odiham (1998). Proposal to demolish Nile.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (Feb 1998). Technical Support, Building 1/225.
239
BAES Portsmouth (Dec 1998). Project Manager’s Report, 100 Store Development Phase 2,
Building 3/82.
BAES Portsmouth, NBC Portsmouth (27.1.1999). Central Storage & Distribution Facility, Formal
Opening, Covered Monorail Link, p.6, Building 3/82.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (June 2000). Structural Appraisal, enclosing Portsmouth Dockyard
Extension, Engine and Boiler House drawings, Building 2/201.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (Dec 2000). Technical Inspection, Building 1/224.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (March 2001). Professional Structural Survey, Building 3/82.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (Oct 2001). Quadrennial Inspection, Eastney/Canteen.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (Oct 2001). Quadrennial Inspection, Gymnasium.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (Oct 2001). Quadrennial Inspection, Rodney.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (Nov 2001). Technical Inspection Report, Building 1/100.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (Jan 2002). Structural Appraisal, Eastney/Canteen.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (Jan 2002). Quadrennial Inspection, Gymnasium.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (Jan 2002). Quadrennial Inspection, Gymnasium
BAES Portsmouth, Gifford (Feb 2004). Structural Appraisal, Main/Nelson Gate.
BAES Portsmouth, FSLM (Apr 2004). Technical Inspection, Main/Nelson Gate.
BAES Portsmouth, FSLM (May 2005). Technical Inspection, Jervis.
BAES Portsmouth, FSLM (May 2005). Technical Inspection, Rodney.
BAES Portsmouth, Opus (2011). Historical Building Quadrennial Inspection, Barham Building.
BAES Portsmouth, Opus (2011). Historical Building Quadrennial Inspection, Rodney.
BAES Portsmouth, Opus (2011). Historical Building Quadrennial Inspection, Main/Nelson Gate.
BAES Portsmouth, Opus (Oct 2011). Quadrennial Inspection, Gymnasium.
BAES Portsmouth (2013). Dockyard (Portsmouth) Revised Building List.
BAES Portsmouth (2014). Conservation Management Plan, Former Naval Academy, compiled by
Roger Green, p. 17 para. 2. PDP Green Consulting Limited, Buildings 1/14, 1/16-1/19.
British Library St Pancras, London

Sloane MS 3232, (n.d. but c.1618). Instructions given by...the Duke of Buckingham, Lord High
Admiral, fos. 139-139v.
Lansdowne MS 847. (December 1694). A Volume formerly belonging to Robert Harley Esq.
afterwards Earl of Oxford, intitled “An Account of the generall progress and advancement of
His Majesties new docks and yard at Plymouth.” Presented to the Right Honourable the
principall Officers.
King’s MS 43 (1698). Edmund Dummer’s Survey of the Royal Dockyards. MS 16371 (1700).
Add. MS 16371 (1700). Plans of Fortified Towns, a, b, c, d, f, g.
K. Top. XIV. 30 (1750). Plan of Portsmouth and Gosport by J. P Desmaretz.
King’s MS 44 (1774). A Supplement to the Book in His Majestys Possession which containeth a
Survey of all His Majestys Dockyards with the Buildings &c therein taken in 1698, 1774.
240
British Transport Treasures

Front cover, Gale and Polden (July 1912). Official Programme of the Great Naval Review, Spithead. London:
Gale and Polden Ltd.
George Malcolmson Collection

Three postcards of Portsmouth Dockyard Museum (n.d.), probably within one of the three Georgian
storehouses.
Cartoon alluding to the On the Knee Mutiny of 1904.
Google Earth
Google aerial photograph of Devonport Dockyard. Retrieved from Google Earth in 2013.
Historic England Archive, Swindon

A881503. (Nov 1988). Chatham Dockyard prints FL0624. Photograph of Chatham Dockyard Timber
Drying Shed (1770s), showing vertical timber slats to allow air to circulate.
AA026355. (2001). Photograph of the eastern interior of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6 showing the
cinema structure inserted within the area damaged by a bomb in the Second World War.
AA034962. (2005). Photograph of Portsmouth Fire station (former water tower), north end looking
south, with the Ropehouse in the background.
AA045923. (9.7.2003). Photograph of the floor of Portsmouth Chain Test House, the pathway
consisting of Portsmouth Dockyard cast iron ballast pigs.
AA045925. (9.7.2003). Photograph of the interior of Portsmouth Chain Test House looking south.
AA045931. (9.7.2003). Photograph of the exterior of Portsmouth Pumping Station No. 1 (2/201)
from the north.
AA98/04645. (1956). Portsmouth Dockyard prints FL00981. Photograph of the eastern elevation of
Portsmouth Storehouse No. 11 taken from outside South Office Block Annexe (1931) by Eric de Mare
AA98/04648. (1956). Portsmouth Dockyard prints FL00981. Photograph by Eric de Mare of
the western gable of Portsmouth Great Ropehouse (1771), before the roof and windows were
AA98/04650. (1956). Portsmouth Dockyard prints FL00981. Photograph by Eric de Mare of the
eastern elevation of Portsmouth Storehouse No. 10, with the railway track in evidence.
AA98/04652. (1956). Photograph of the west elevation of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6 showing
boats hauled onto its ramp and the Mast Pond.
AA98/04662. (1956). Devonport Covered Slip No. 1 (1774–75) photograph by Eric de Mare showing
the roof timbers added in the nineteenth century The only remaining intact eighteenth century slip
within a royal dockyard.
ADM01. (June 1908). Numbers and Dimensions of Locks, Docks and Basin Entrances in HM
Dockyards. Admiralty Book.
AFL03/A229825. (1973). Portsea: Aerial Views: HMS Nelson/RN Barracks with former accommodation
blocks and Nile Building. Local Studies Collection Illustrations. Aerofilms Collection.
BB003709. (11 Jun 1991). Photograph of the interior of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 7 from the
northwest before its refurbishment in 1993–94.
BB012872. (11 Jun 1991). Photograph of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6 from the southwest before
refurbishment in 2001.
241
BB012873. (11 Jun 1991). Photograph of the west elevation of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6 and the
Mast Pond.
BB012875. (11 Jun 1991). Photograph of the ground floor interior of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6
from the northeast, before refurbishment in 2001
BB012878. (11 Jun 1991). Photograph of the first floor interior of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6 from
the west, before refurbishment in 2001.
BB96/03858. (29 Feb 1996). Devonport South Yard South Smithery (S126) photograph along north
side of central building from northeast.
BB96/03859. (29 Feb 1996). Devonport South Yard South Smithery (S126) photograph detail of
evidence of the line shaft on the north side of central building.
BB96/03865. (29 Feb 1996). Devonport South Yard South Smithery (S126) photograph of Cowans
Sheldon driven capstan (1926).
BB96/03867. (29 Feb 1996). Devonport South Yard South Smithery (S126) photograph of interior
central building, view from southeast.
BB96/03891. (29 Feb 1996). Devonport South Yard South Smithery (S126) photograph of north
elevation of centre building.
BB97/09263. (28 Jul 1997). Photograph of the spiral Staircase in north end of Boathouse No. 4,
Portsmouth.
BB97/09274. (28 Jul 1997). West elevation of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 showing the concrete
supporting trusses at high tide.
BB97/09275. (28 July 1997). Photograph of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 from the north
west corner.
BB97/012856. (28 Jul 1997). Photograph of the northwest corner of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4
with Boathouse No. 4 Annex on the right.
DP13021. (8 Feb 2011). Devonport South Yard: photograph of Building S173 recorded before
demolition. Stone dated 1903 on the west elevation.
demolition. Cast iron lamp bracket on the southwest corner of S173.
demolition. Interior with Cowans Sheldon overhead gantry dated 1941.
demolition. General view looking northeast across the dockyard towards S172 and S173 (King’s Hill
Gazebo) and the newly roofed Covered Slip No. 1.
demolition. View of S173 looking towards the west end doorway on the west elevation. King’s Hill
Gazebo can just be seen behind it to the right. Shallow Dock is in the bottom right hand corner.
E 48/39. (1948). St Ann’s Church, Portsmouth. Reconstruction Drawing 1939, signed
Diana V. Cundall.
J057/01/72. (28 Apr 1971). Portsmouth Storehouse No. 11, north end, conversion to the
McCarthy Museum.
J057/03/72. (28 Apr 1971). Photograph of Portsmouth Storehouse No. 11, ground floor conversion
to the McCarthy Museum.
242
J186/01/71. (28 Apr 1971). Photograph of the west elevations of Portsmouth Storehouses 9, 10 and 11.
J186/05/71. (28 Apr 1971). Photograph of Portsmouth Storehouse Nos 9, 10 or 11.
J186/06/71. (28 Apr 1971). Photograph of Portsmouth Storehouse No. 9, 10 or 11.
J188/01/71. (28 Apr 1971). Photograph of Portsmouth Storehouse Nos 15, 16 and 17 from the west,
showing the former site of Storehouse No. 14 or West Sea Store (1771), which suffered a direct hit
on 24 August 1940.
J188/03/71. (28 Apr 1971). Photograph of Portsmouth Storehouse Nos 15, 16 and 17 from the east,
showing ‘GR 1771’ inserted in darker bricks on the east elevation of Storehouse No. 16.
J195/01/71. (28 Apr 1971). Photograph of Portsmouth Basin No. 1 and Docks 1-5 looking east.
J198/01/71. (28 Apr 1971). Photograph of Portsmouth Storehouse No. 25, southwest corner.
J198/04/71. (28 Apr 1971). Portsmouth Storehouse No. 25, doorway.
J251/01/71. (18 May 1971). Photograph of Muster Bell at Portsmouth Unicorn Gate.
J270/09/64. (23 Oct 1964). Photograph of Outmuster at Portsmouth Unicorn Gate.
J297/06. (23 June 1971). Photograph of Portsmouth Ship Shop Nos 3-4, south of Slip No. 5, before
their demolition in 1980.
J297/11. (23 June 1971). Photograph of the interior of Ship Shop Nos 3-4 before their demolition
in 1980.
J360/06/72. (c.1971). Photograph of Portsmouth Storehouse Nos 9, 10, 11: Mr Hartley’s fire plates
on first floor joists and floorboards.
J473/03/71. (8 Oct 1971). Photograph of the Portsmouth Cell Block Interior: ground floor looking
east/west.
J473/07/71. (8 Oct 1971). Photograph of the Portsmouth Cell Block Interior: first floor cell door.
J473/11/71. (8 Oct 1971). Photograph of the Portsmouth Cell Block Interior: urinal.
MD48/00074. (1948). Plans in 1785 and 1939 and North Elevation in, St Ann’s Church, HM
Dockyard, Portsmouth.
MD95/03032. (1850–1955). Plan of Portsmouth Dockyard in 1900 showing development and
enlargement from 1540 to 1900. PSA Drawing based on 1850 map showing changes in yellow and
later buildings in red dotted lines, annotated to 1955.
MD95/03033. (1898). Second Edition Ordnance Survey, Hampshire Sheet LXXXIII.7.
MD95/03034. (1900). Her Majesty’s Dockyard at Portsmouth showing development and enlargement
from 1540 to 1900.
MD95/03038. (1932 annotated to 1944). Crane and Railway Track Layout Plan HM Dockyard
Portsmouth.
MD95/03039. (1936). Plan Showing Proposed Revision of Boundary of HM Dockyard Portsmouth.
MD95/03042. (1905 corrected to 1913). Portsmouth Harbour Plan of Fountain Lake (coloured), HM
Dockyard Portsmouth.
MD95/03045. (1930). Western Frontage Plan for Proposed Reconstruction, HM Dockyard Portsmouth.
MD95/03054. (1874). Basins and Locks Portsmouth North Yard Extension Plan. ‘Plan shewing by
a Red Tint the Work included in the first Contract, two locks, one deep dock, two ordinary docks,
two dock entrances, basin and harbour walls.’
243
MD95/03056. (n.d.). Extension of Dockyard Plan and Sections, Docks, Locks And Basins, HM
MD95/03057. (1893–94). Ordnance Survey, Hampshire Sheet LXXXIII.7.8. Plan of Jetty at North
Wall, HM Dockyard, Portsmouth, showing North Corner at the beginning of the twentieth century.
MD95/03099. (c.1797). Plan and Sections, Portsmouth Great Basin Entrance and South Dock, Plan
of Improvements proposed by Samuel Bentham. HM Dockyard, Portsmouth.
MD95/04038. (10.5.1900). Plan of Portsmouth Dockyard New Gun Mounting Store. AE 1900-1901,
Part 1 Item I1 Drawing no. 1, SCE. To accompany letter to Director of Works (14/12/00).
P96/01/60. (June 1960). Photograph of the interior of Portsmouth Ropehouse, undergoing conversion.
P241/53 FL00981/01/001. (09 Mar 1953). Photograph showing progress of the reconstruction of the
former Naval Academy cupola at Portsmouth, following its bomb damage in 1941.
PK318/07 FL00982.02.001. (n.d. c.1970s). Photograph of Portsmouth Block Mills from the southeast.
PK318/07 FL00982.02.002. (n.d. c.1970s). Photograph of Portsmouth Block Mills from the southwest
with the head of Dock No. 6 on the left.
PK318/10. (c.1900). Photograph of Portsmouth Fire Station personnel, police and divers on Parade.
PK318/11 FL00982.02.001. (8 Mar 1984). Photograph of the conversion of Boathouse No. 5 (1/27)
and the Sail Loft (1/27) for the first Mary Rose Museum at Portsmouth.
T85 FL00981/01/002. (1965). Aerial photograph of Portsmouth Harbour with Whale Island
at top centre.
15767/34 SU 6200/4. (9 Sept 1997). Aerial photograph of HMS Warrior 1860 and Jetty (1987) at
Portsmouth from the northwest.
15790/04 SU 6200/8. (9 Sept 1997). Aerial photograph from the west of the bombed Storehouse No.
6 (right of centre) at Portsmouth before its refurbishment in 2001, and the buildings to the west of
College Road (centre right) before they were demolished in 2000.
15790/05 SU 6200/7. (9 Sept 1997). Aerial photograph of Portsmouth Semaphore Tower and Rigging
House from the west.
15790/08 SU 6301/10. (9 Sept 1997). Aerial photograph of Portsmouth Basin No. 3 from the
southeast.
15800/20 SU 6301/13. (9 Sept 1997). Aerial photograph looking west from Basin No. 3 towards the
Tidal Basin and Basin No. 2.
15800/33 SU 6200/17. (9 Sept 1997). Aerial photograph of Portsmouth Semaphore Tower and
Rigging House from the east.
15800/32 SU 6200/16. (9 Sept 1997). Aerial photograph of Portsmouth Victory Building from
the southeast.
23834/01 SU 6200/31. (11 Apr 2005). Aerial photograph of the straightened Portsmouth Western
Jetties and North Corner at Portsmouth from the west.
23852/25 SU 6300/79. (11 Apr 2005). Aerial photograph of the Mary Rose Ship Hall in Dock No. 2
at Portsmouth from the northwest.
23852/27 SU 6300/81. (11 Apr 2005). Aerial photograph of Portsmouth Block Mills from the
southwest, before its refurbishment in 2007–8, when the external staircases were removed.
23852/15 SU 6301/21. (11 Apr 2005). Aerial photograph of the north elevation of Ship Halls A and
B (2002, 2/121-122) on Basin No. 3.
23834/16 SU 6300/35. (11 Apr 2005). Aerial photograph showing much of Portsmouth Conservation
Area 22, the Georgian Dockyard, showing the heritage area from the east.
244
23835/03 SU 6200/53. (11 Apr 2005). Aerial photograph of the west of Portsmouth Dockyard from
the east.
23852/14 SU 6201/4. (11 Apr 2005). Aerial photograph of Portsmouth North Corner.
Red Box Hampshire: Portsmouth Churches A-St B. Brief History and Description of St Ann’s Church,
Portsmouth Dockyard, 1738.
Imperial War Museum

Photograph showing a Phoenix Caisson for the Mulberry Harbour under construction in C Lock,
the Royal Naval Dockyard Portsmouth (27.1.1944) Imperial War Museum Image H 35374 (2003/583
PMRS) supplied by PMRS.
Institution of Civil Engineers Virtual Library

Portsmouth Dockyard Extension Works 1881. Plate 4. Colson, C. (1 January 1881). Portsmouth
Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineering, 64(1881) Part II, 118-173.
Portsmouth Dockyard Extension Works 1881. Plate 5, Figs 7, 8, showing Transverse Section of
Dock No. 13, now infilled beneath Ship Hall B (2/122). Colson, C. (1 January 1881). Portsmouth
Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineering, 64(1881) Part II, 118-173.
Portsmouth Dockyard Extension Works 1881. Plate 6, Fig. 17, showing Entrance to South [A] Lock
through Tidal Basin. Colson, C. (1 January 1881). Portsmouth Dockyard Extension Works (including
Appendices and Plate at back of volume). Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineering,
64(1881) Part II, 118-173.
Portsmouth Dockyard Extension Works 1881. Plate 6, Fig. 15, showing the Caisson Camber at the
Entrance to South [A] Lock through Tidal Basin. Colson, C. (1 January 1881). Portsmouth Dockyard
Extension Works (including Appendices and Plate at back of volume). Minutes of the Proceedings of the
Institute of Civil Engineering, 64(1881) Part II, 118-173. Courtesy Institution of Civil Engineers
Virtual Library.
Portsmouth Dockyard Extension Works 1881. Plate 7, Figs 32, 33, 34, showing a ship caisson and
the caisson section at the Entrance to the Tidal and Fitting Basins. Colson, C. (1 January 1881).
Portsmouth Dockyard Extension Works (including Appendices and Plate at back of volume). Minutes
of the Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineering, 64(1881) Part II, 118-173.
Ministry of Defence
HMNB Devonport Map. (2010). Devonport Naval Base Handbook. HMNB Devonport: DE&S, p. 5.
HM Naval Base Portsmouth (2012). Site Plan. Ministry of Defence: DIO.
MoD Portsmouth Area 3 (1974). HM Naval Base Portsmouth Building Location/Numerical Index.
MoD Portsmouth Area 1 (1974). HM Naval Base Building Location/Numerical Index.
MoD Portsmouth Area 2 (1974). HM Naval Base Building Location/Numerical Index.
MoD Portsmouth Area 3 (1974). HM Naval Base Portsmouth Building Location/Numerical Index.
MoD Admiralty Library, Naval Historical Branch, Portsmouth

AdL, Vz 14/43 (1908-23). Devonport North Yard. Devonport Dockyard Defence Estates Plans.
Scale 1:2500.
AdL, Vz 14/44 (1900–1923). H.M. Dockyard Devonport North and South Yards Keyham Steam Yard
245
and Naval Barracks, Compiled by E. J. Powell from Mr. Townshend’s Survey of North and South
Yards and the Ordnance Survey. Director of Works Office 1903. Defence Estates Plans. Scale 1”:16’.
AdL Vz 14/110 (1851–1895). Plan of part of HM Dockyard Portsmouth before its enlargement,
annotated to 1895. Thomas A. Mould, Captain R. E., 4/1/1851. Director of Works Office, 3.1.1851.
Defence Estates Plans.
AdL, Vz 14/111 (1875). Portsmouth Dockyard Extension: Plan Shewing state of the works in Jany.
1875 (progress since 1865). To accompany Colonel Pasley’s Report of Feb. 1875. Director of Works.
Defence Estates Plans.
AdL, Vz 14/113 (1896–1903). Portsmouth Plan No. 2. Ordnance Survey 1896, Order-in-Council
26.11.03. Defence Estates Plans.
AdL, Vz 14/115 (1897–1907). HM Dockyard Portsmouth Harbour (1907–12). Defence Estates Plans,
Scale 1:2500.
AdL, Vz 17/16 (1896, corrected to 1909). His Majesty’s Dockyard at Portsmouth Defence Estates
Plans, Scale 1:2500.
National Museum of the Royal Navy, Portsmouth

Dockyard Model (National Museum of the Royal Navy, Portsmouth) [1938]. Engineer Admiral T.
Gurnell, CB.
Portsmouth Record Plan of Drains, showing bombs which landed on the Naval Barracks, 1940–41
(including the Wardroom).
Plymouth and West Devon Record Office

PWDRO, 663/30. Devonport Dockyard, machinery shop, 1911. Conversion of machine shop to
heavy gun store.
PWDRO, 1418/1220. Devonport Central Hall, Open Air Service, Plymouth, c.1942.
PWDRO, 1418/1360. Photograph Devonport, Fore Street, air raid damage, c. October 1941.
PWDRO, 1418/2303. HMS Achates, Devonport, Launch by Lady Leatham, 20 September 1945.
PWDRO, 1555/2. Plymouth Blitz “Bomb Book” page 2, showing the approximate location of
unexploded bombs marked in blue and dealt with by the Bomb Squad and also the times bombs
were reported as having exploded (c.1944).
PWDRO, 1555/40. Plymouth Blitz “Bomb Book” page 40, noted as Air Raid 38, showing approximate
location of bombs dropped on all areas of the central part of Plymouth on 21 Apr 1941.
PWDRO, 1555/41. Plymouth Blitz “Bomb Book” page 41, noted as Air Raids 38A, showing the
approximate route of three specific raids and location of bombs dealt with by the Bomb Disposal
Squad and the times bombs exploded. Air raid number 38 (21–22 April 1941) from St Budeaux,
Devonport, Victoria Park, York Street, Treville Street, Embankment Road to Laira and Cattedown.
Air raid number 39 (22–23 April 1941) from West Hoe, Millbay, Union Street, Devonport Hill,
Devonport, Ford, across Tavistock Road, Central Park towards Mutley and Thorn Park Avenue. Air
raid number 40 (23–24 April 1941) from Embankment Road area, Sutton Harbour, city centre, north
of Stonehouse, Devonport, Stoke, Camels Head, Weston Mill, east of King’s Tamerton, Burrington,
Pennycross and Torr Crescent.
PWDRO, 1555/42. Plymouth Blitz “Bomb Book” page 42, noted as Air Raids 39 and 40, showing
the approximate location of bombs dropped on the city of Plymouth, including Devonport and
Stonehouse, 22–23 Apr 1941.
246
Portsmouth Museums and Records Service

88A/1/10/1. (1940–44). Bomb Map Portsmouth compiled by Wartime Records, drawn by Joseph
Parkin, MICE, City Engineer.
AFL03/A229825. Portsea: Aerial Views: HMS Nelson/RN Barracks with former accommodation blocks
and Nile (1973). Local Studies Collection Illustrations; Historic England Aerofilms.
PORMG 1945/619. Photograph by W. L. Lawrence: ‘Stand easy Flathouse’, the Floating Dock.
PORMG 1945/652/5. Photograph by Stephen Cribb, ‘The last of the Old Semaphore Tower falling
down after the day of the fire in 1913.’
PORMG 1945/653/16. Photograph by Reginald Silk showing C3 submarine leaving Portsmouth
Harbour passing Semaphore Tower, a paddle steamer and HMS Dreadnought moored at South
Railway Jetty, entitled ‘Submarine passing the Dreadnought’. HMS Dreadnought was the first ship of
its class launched from Portsmouth Slip No. 5 in 1906. Built by Vickers, Barrow-in-Furness, C3 was
commissioned in 1906 and deliberately blown up during the Zeebrugge raid in 1918.
PORMG 1945/654/2. Photograph of the launch of super Dreadnought HMS Orion on 20 August 1910.
The ship was laid down 29 November 1909 on Portsmouth Slip No. 5.
PORMG 1990/559. Photograph of the 250 ton Arrol crane in Portsmouth dockyard (1959–60).
PORMG 2009/124/17. Portsmouth photograph entitled ‘No. 642 New Locks. Removal of Coaling
Point Sept 1912’.
PORMG : PD3/AD/107 (recorded 13.3.1996). Mayhead, Fred. A Grade Blacksmith Portsmouth
Dockyard, 1935–1978. Portsmouth City Record Office Oral History tape. Royal Dockyard Historical
Trust Collection. Catalogue entry retrieved from http://www.portsmouthmuseums.co.uk/collections/
index.html
PORMG: PD3/LF/55. An anonymous man who entered the dockyard as a Pattern Maker Apprentice
in 1938. Portsmouth City Record Office Oral History tape. Royal Dockyard Historical Trust
Collection. Portsmouth Museums and Records Service. Catalogue entry retrieved from http://www.
portsmouthmuseums.co.uk/collections/index.html

Tourist Information Centre Richard Partington Architects: Elevations, No. 2023.005A. 9.10.2001.
Building 1/1.
Tourist Information Centre Richard Partington Architects: Ground Floor Plan, No. 2023.003C.
9.10.2001. Building 1/1.
New Boathouse HM Dockyard Portsmouth Elevations, Sheet 16. MPBW Drawing no. 1111/37,
24.7.37. Building 1/6.
New Boathouse HM Dockyard Portsmouth Ground Floor Plan, Sheet 4. Drawing no. 1098/37, by
E. Scott for Civil Engineer in Chief, 24.7.37. Building 1/6.
New Boathouse HM Dockyard Portsmouth Retaining Walls Sections. Drawing no. 1096/37,
by J. D. W. Ball, 24.7.37. Building 1/6.
Proposed M.E.D. Offices over existing Tool Store Elevations. HM Dockyard Portsmouth No. 4
Boathouse. MPBW Drawing no. AB1/1, 13.6.67. Building 1/6.
Gallery Plan and Section, HM Dockyard Portsmouth Boathouse. Drawing no. 73036, (no date visible
but probably associated with AB1/1). Building 1/6.
Photograph of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 tunnel: west opening, view south, ready for pintles.
22.9.1999 no. 38). Building 1/6.
Photograph of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 lock gates: east opening (3.11.1999 no. 48). Building 1/6.
247
Photograph of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 lock gates: adjustments to gates (1.3.2000 no. 53).
Building 1/6.
Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6. Photograph of the ground floor, looking east showing the cast iron
pillars and trusses. Record Photograph no. G41 (June 1998). Building 1/23.
Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6. Photograph of the south elevation. Record Photograph no. E02 (June
1998). Building 1/23.
Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6. Photograph of the east end, south and east elevations, showing the
missing roof after the air raid. Record Photograph no. E07 (June 1998). Building 1/23.
Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6. Ground Floor Plan (25.10.98). MacCormac Jamieson Prichard drawing
no. 9615/530 PA. Building 1/23.
Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6. Ground Floor Mezzanine Plan (20.10.98). MacCormac Jamieson
Prichard drawing no. 9615/531 PA. Building 1/23.
Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6. First Floor Plan (20.10.98). MacCormac Jamieson Prichard drawing no.
9615/532 PA. Building 1/23.
Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6. Second Floor Plan (20.10.98). MacCormac Jamieson Prichard drawing
no. 9615/533 PB. Building 1/23.
Boathouse No. 6 East Elevation Survey (16.11.98). MacCormac Jamieson Prichard drawing no.
9615/522 A. Building 1/23.
Boathouse No. 6 North Elevation Survey (16.11.98). MacCormac Jamieson Prichard drawing no.
9615/521 A. Building 1/23.
Boathouse No. 6 South Elevation Survey (16.11.98). MacCormac Jamieson Prichard drawing no.
9615/523 A. Building 1/23.
Boathouse No. 6 Section AA Survey (16.11.98). MacCormac Jamieson Prichard drawing no. 9615/525
A. Building 1/23.

Photograph of Portsmouth Artificers (784A/10/1 image supplied by PMRS).
Photograph of female munitions workers, Electrical Engineers Department, Easter 1916. Inset: Louis
J. Steele MIEE Electrical Engineer, Mrs Heaster Chargewoman, W. Brand Esq Assist E.E., H. A. Knott
Esq Assist E.E, Mr E. R. Roach Inspector, Miss Nepean Chargewoman. Image 1340A/1/5 supplied
by PMRS.
Photograph of women in Portsmouth Dockyard, some wearing triangular ‘On War Service’ badges
or brooches to show they were employed on essential war work. Image 1340A/1/6 supplied
by PMRS.
Photograph of the north elevation of the Main (now Victory) Gate in 1895, showing its
original width.
Pre-1985 photograph of the Main Gate, Cellblock (1883, 1/2), Search Rooms (1/2B and 1/2C),
Clocking Station (1949, 1/2D) and Romney Hut Boathouse (1948, 1/5).
Photograph of Portsmouth Muster Bell (1791), mounted inside the Main Gate until 1922.
Photograph of the Muster Bell Plaque.
Photograph of College Road, 1980s.
Photograph of College Road, late 1990s, after the nineteenth and twentieth century buildings have
been demolished, to reveal the Dockyard Wall.
Pre-1985 photograph of Boathouse No. 6.
248
Semaphore Tower and Rigging House fire 1913, saluting party. Image 1499A/3 supplied by PMRS.
‘Two low buildings with steam coming out of pipes, railway line in front, dock in right foreground.’
(c.1920). Image 404A/6/17 supplied by PMRS.
S. Cribb’s late nineteenth century photograph of workers leaving the original Marlborough Gate.
Courtesy of Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust.
The National Archives of England and Wales, Kew
TNA (1 January 1700–31 May 1700). ADM 1/3588. Draught of the King’s and Thomas Seymour’s
Lands. Letters from the Navy Board.
TNA (August 1940). ADM 1/10949. Air raids on Portsmouth: reports of damage. Admiral
Superintendent (for Civil Engineer in Chief through Commander in Chief) to Admiralty, Detailed
Report Air Raid Damage Portsmouth 12, 24 August 1940, 03708/40.
TNA (Nov 1941). ADM 1/11613. Reconstitution of accounts at Portsmouth and Devonport after
expense accounts offices and machinery were destroyed in air raids.
TNA (1 January 1942–31 December 1944). ADM 1/17810. Naval Stations: Post war reconstruction
and development of Devonport and Plymouth: proposals and plans.
TNA (01 January 1953–31 December 1954). ADM 1/25394. Devonport dockyard: meeting between
representatives of Admiralty War Office and Plymouth.
TNA (01 January 1954–31 December 1957). ADM 1/26498. HM Dockyard Devonport: plans for
development and modernisation.
TNA (1952–64). ADM 1/26499. HM Dockyard Portsmouth, plans/reports by Committee on
Modernisation and Improvements.
TNA (1963–74). ADM 1/28540. Redevelopment of RN Barracks, Portsmouth (HMS Victory). Minutes
of Meetings and enclosures.
TNA (1805–1900). ADM 49/181. Lists of dockyard workers.
TNA (29 June 1711). ADM 106/667. Navy Board In-letters, P. Portsmouth Officers to the Navy Board.
TNA (1774). ADM 106/3568. A Supplement to the Book in His Majestys Possession which
containeth a Survey of all His Majestys Dockyards with the Buildings &c therein taken in
1698, 1774.
TNA (1890–3). ADM 116/324. Estimates for Vessels built under the Naval Defence Act of 1889.
TNA (23.2.1702[3]). ADM 174/320. Miscellaneous letters relating to the Chapel, 1699–1783, Prince
George of Denmark, Lord High Admiral, granted permission for the Dockyard Chapel to be built.
TNA (1916–1924). ADM 179/69, fo. 593 Portsmouth Dockyard Records, Correspondence.
TNA (1857–1915). ADM 195/79. 100 photographs depicting: Construction works at Portsmouth
dockyard: views of features of dockyard.
TNA (28 June 1899). ADM 196/130/232. Gurnell, Thompson. Retrieved from http://discovery.
nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D7617491.
TNA (01 April 1964–31 July 1965). ADM 329/7. Refitting of nuclear submarines: use of Portsmouth
or Devonport Dockyards, with maps.
TNA (1974). CM 1/157. PSA: Internal Reports and Handbooks. The Environment:
HM Naval Base Portsmouth.
TNA (1964). CM 1/277. PSA; Ministry of Public Building and Works (MPBW): North Wall
Portsmouth; history of harbour wall since 1870, inspection reports. With plans and photographs.
TNA (16 May 1950–27 May 1965). CM 18/3. PSA and predecessors: South East Region; Ministry
249
of Public Building and Works, Portsmouth Navy Works: papers regarding Buildings of Special
Architectural of Historic Interest and Objects of Archaeological Interest.
TNA (01 January 1978–31 December 1978). CM 20/47. PSA: Devonport (HMNDB): master
development plan, programme and financial statement; volume 3.
TNA (01 January 1974–31 December 1974). CM 20/48. PSA: Devonport: DoE Directorate of Defence
Works naval base development; feasibility study on proposed development of the North Arm of
the dockyard.
TNA (01 January 1974–31 December 1974).CM 20/54. PSA: Devonport: Publication and Research
Studies. Production and support activities for combined weapons equipment workshops: and
associated administrative and ancillary facilities; phase 2.
TNA (01 January 1976–31 December 1976). CM 20/55. PSA: Devonport: Publication and Research
Studies. External Planning Guide by Joint PSA and MOD Planning Team: a study of spaces around
and between buildings.
Studies. Master Development Plan: historical development and existing facilities; volume 1.
Studies. Master Development Plan: future development; vol. 2.
Studies. Submarine refit complex.
TNA (01 January 1973–31 December 1974). CM 20/61. PSA: Devonport: Works Projects.
Photograph albums. Nuclear Submarine Refit Complex book no. 1.
Photograph albums. Nuclear Submarine Refit Complex book no 5.
Photograph albums. Nuclear Submarine Refit Complex book No 6.
Photograph albums. Frigate Complex book no. 2.
250
TNA (01 January 1975–31 December 1975). CM 20/74. PSA: Devonport: Works Projects. Photograph
albums. Frigate Complex book no 7.
albums. Frigate Complex book No 8.
albums. Frigate Complex book no. 9.
TNA (1975). CM 20/78. PSA: Devonport: Works Projects. Photograph albums. Fleet Maintenance
Base Devonport: Foundations book no. 2.
TNA (1976). CM 20/80. PSA: Devonport: Works Projects. Photograph albums. Fleet Maintenance
Base Devonport: book no. 4.
TNA (01 November 1978–31 December 1980). CM 20/81. PSA: Devonport: Works Projects.
Photograph albums. Improvement to No 8 wharf.
albums. Weston Mill Lake: land reclamation evidence of progress; book no 2.
TNA (14 November 1972–31 December 1975). CM 20/84. PSA: Devonport: Works Projects.
Photograph albums. Weston Mill Lake: land reclamation evidence of progress; book No 3.
albums. Frigate complex: evidence of progress.
TNA (1982). DEFE 13/1274. Rundown and closure of Chatham and Portsmouth dockyards: includes
preservation of historic buildings and artefacts.
TNA (01 January 1971–31 December 1977). DEFE 69/615. Devonport Naval Base: development policy.
TNA (1 January 1981–31 October 1982). DEFE 69/668. Way Ahead Executive Sub-Committee:
papers on the future of Portsmouth naval base.
TNA (Dec 1940–Apr 1944). MAF 99/309. Plymouth and Devonport: air raid damage reports.
TNA (1667). MPE 513. Sir Jonas Moore, Map of Portsmouth Dockyard.
TNA (1871). RG 10/1165. Census: Ryde IoW.
TNA (1881) RG 11/1178. Census: Ryde IoW.
TNA (1891). RG 12/890. Census: Ryde IoW.
TNA (1901). RG 13/976. Census: Farlington Hampshire.
TNA (1911). RG 14. Census: Havant Hampshire.
TNA (22.1.1699[1700]). SP 44/204, fos 255-6. Records assembled by the State Paper Office, including
papers of the Secretaries of State up to 1782, 1689–1706.
TNA (25 February 1672/3). SP 29/341, fos 218, 218v. Sir Anthony Deane, Portsmouth Commissioner
1672–75, Sketch of a new watering place and a new pipe.
TNA (1969–1971). WORK 14/3075. Ministry of Public Buildings and Works and successors: Ancient
Monuments and Historic Buildings: Registered Files. Portsmouth Dockyard: maps, Buildings List.
TNA (February 1981). WORK 14/3301. Office of Works and successors; Ancient Monuments Board
for England: Panel on Historic Naval Bases; Preservation of Chatham and Portsmouth Dockyards
and Devonport.
TNA (1939) WORK 41/263. HM Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Floating dock. Plan of berth for
Southampton Dock. Scale: 1:500.
251
TNA (1910). WORK 41/310. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Miscellaneous. Sketch plan of
naval establishments, showing Portsea, Gosport, Haslar and Bedenham. Drawing no. B4. Scale not
shown. Director of Works, Admiralty.
TNA (1936). WORK 41/311. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Miscellaneous. Dredging progress
chart, 1935–1938: section showing depths and hatching of work executed during 1935–1936.
TNA (1942). WORK 41/312. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Miscellaneous. Plan of dockyard in
1850 showing construction dates of buildings, basins etc, with principal later buildings shown by
dotted lines. Scale: 1:2,500. Compiled in 1906 ‘from old plans in the office’.
TNA (c.1760–1942). WORK 41/313. Records of the successive Works departments, and the Ancient
Monuments Boards and Inspectorate. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Miscellaneous. Portsmouth
yard and Royal Navy barracks, showing surviving works of 1850 or earlier and later works of
architectural interest. Scale: 1:1,666. Annotated by R. S. Horne, 1964.
TNA (1942). WORK 41/314. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Miscellaneous. Portsmouth yard and
Royal Navy barracks, showing passive defence measures, including bombs dropped and buildings
damaged, 1940–43. Scale: 1:1,666.
TNA (1951–1954). WORK 41/315. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Miscellaneous. Plan of
dockyard showing programme of work on railways. Annotated with reference notes. Scale: 1:1,666.
Superintendent Civil Engineer’s Department. Drawing no. 486/51, drawn by F. T. Haisman.
TNA (1864). WORK 41/316. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Elevation showing
proposed reconstruction of Unicorn Gate and additions to wall. Drawing No. 101. Scale: 1 inch to
8 feet. Superintendent Civil Engineer’s Department. With additions to wall in red ink.
TNA (1866). WORK 41/317. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Existing and
proposed elevations of Unicorn Gate. Scale: 1 inch to 8 feet. Signed by John Murray.
TNA (1866). WORK 41/318. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Elevation and plans
of boundary wall at central tower near gasworks. Scale: 1 inch to 4 feet. Superintendent Civil
Engineer’s Department.
TNA (1868). WORK 41/319. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Internal and external
elevations of round tower at north-east angle of boundary wall. Drawing no. W72. Scale: 1 inch to
16 feet. Superintendent Civil Engineer’s Department.
TNA (1868). WORK 41/320. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Plans and sections
of round tower at north-east angle of extension works. Scale: 1 inch to 8 feet. Superintendent Civil
Engineer’s Department; drawing no. W80. Signed by John Murray.
TNA (1868). WORK 41/321. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Plans and sections
of tower at north-east angle of boundary wall near gas works. Drawing no. W81. Scale: 1 inch to
8 feet. Director of Works, Admiralty.
TNA (1868). WORK 41/322. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Ground plan and
general elevation of Unicorn gate and extension to boundary wall. Drawing no. W100. Scale: 1 inch
to 2 feet. SCE Department.
TNA (1869). WORK 41/323. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Plan no. 11 showing
numbers and position of piles used in the foundations of the round tower and retaining wall near
gasworks. Drawing no. W76. Scale: 1 inch to 10 feet. Superintendent Civil Engineer’s Department.
TNA (c.1869–79). WORK 41/324. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Unicorn gate:
plan, sections and front and rear elevations of small entrance gates. Scale: 1 inch to 1 foot.
TNA (1878). WORK 41/325. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Unicorn gate:
elevations of proposed grille and doors to main, side, and railway gates. Scale: 1 inch to 2 feet and
1 inch to 1 foot. SCE Department.
252
TNA (1882) WORK 41/326. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Elevation and
sections of new railway gate at Unicorn entrance. Scale: 1 inch to 2 feet. SCE Department.
TNA (1891). WORK 41/327. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Plans, section and
elevations of key closets at Main, Marlborough and Unicorn Gates with section through front and
zinc label detail. Scale: 1 inch to 1 foot and full size.
TNA (1900). WORK 41/328. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Front and rear
elevations of Lion Gate with numbered stones for demolition and outline plan and end elevations.
Scale not shown.
TNA (1921). WORK 41/556. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Royal Naval (formerly Anglesey)
Barracks. Warrant officers’ mess: plans and details of steelwork, reinforced floors and roofs, mess
room fireplace and doors. Scale: 1 inch to 16 feet, 1 inch to 4 feet, 1 inch to 2 feet, 3 inches to 2
feet and 1:2. By Superintendent Civil Engineer’s Department.
TNA (01 January 1951–31 December 1951). WORK 69/19. HM Dockyard Devonport:
aerial photographs.
TNA (1915–1986). The Cabinet Papers Retrieved from http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
cabinetpapers/themes/10-year-rule-disarmament.htm
UK Public Spending
UK Total government debt in the twentieth century (UK Public Spending, 27 Aug 2013).
Retrieved from http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.html
Wilkinson Eyre Architects

Wilkinson Eyre Architects (2012). Mary Rose - Wilkinson Eyre Architects. Museum to permanently house the hull
of the Mary Rose within a historic dry dock. London: Wilkinson Eyre Architects. Retrieved from
http://www.wilkinsoneyre.com/projects/mary-rose-museum.aspx?category=cultural
253
254
APPENDIX 3
DEVONPORT DOCKYARD DESIGNATIONS
Entries were retrieved from the English Heritage National Heritage List for England, with maps and
selected common form wording removed. These buildings are listed under the Planning (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended for their special architectural or historic
interest. Entries for individual buildings may be accessed at:
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/
Entries are listed in numerical order, beginning with Scheduled Monuments, followed by Listed
Structures within South Yard, Morice Yard, North (Keyham) Yard and HMS Drake.
Further entries are included from
English Heritage (2013), South West Heritage at Risk Register. Swindon: English Heritage (p. 182).
(HAR) Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/har-2013-registers/sw-
HAR-register-2013.pdf
Plymouth Buildings at Risk Register (2005) (BAR). Retrieved from http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/
homepage/creativityandculture/heritageandhistory/historicenvironment/buildingsatrisk.htm
Plymouth Buildings at Risk Register (2013) Retrieved from http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/text/
buildingsatriskregister
Plymouth City Council has no Local List of buildings.
There is no Plymouth Conservation Area covering the Naval Base. Devonport Conservation Area is
to the east, Stonehouse Peninsula is to the west and Millfields Conservation Area is to the northwest
of the Naval Base.
Extracts are included from further relevant Plymouth documents:
Plymouth City Council (2005). The Strategic Environmental Assessment /Sustainability Appraisal of Preferred
Options for Devonport Area Action Plan, Volume 2. Bristol: Land Use Consultants and TRL. Retrieved from
http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/devonport_preferred_options_sea_report_read_only.pdf
Plymouth City Council (July 2006). Plymouth Characterisation Study & Management Proposals. Plymouth:
Planning and Regeneration Service, Department of Development, Plymouth City Council. Retrieved
from http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/text/dv12a_devonport_characterisation_study_-_optimised.pdf
Plymouth City Council (adopted 2007). Devonport Area Action Plan 2006–2021. Plymouth: Plymouth
City Council Department of Development. Retrieved from http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/devonport_
chapters_1_to_4.pdf
Entries appearing on multiple lists are cross-referenced: scheduled and listed entries, HAR, PCC BAR.
3.1 LISTED AND SCHEDULED BUILDINGS

The West Ropery (site of), South Yard, Devonport Dockyard
List Entry Number: 1002573
This entry is a copy, the original is held by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Grade: Scheduled Monument
255
This record has been generated from an “old county number” (OCN) scheduling record. As these
are some of our oldest designation records they do not have all the information held electronically
that our modernised records contain. Therefore, the original date of scheduling is not available
electronically. The date of scheduling may be noted in our paper records, please contact us for
further information.
Date first scheduled:
Legacy System: RSM - OCN UID: PY 654
Reasons for Designation
This record has been generated from an “old county number” (OCN) scheduling record. These
are monuments that were not reviewed under the Monuments Protection Programme and are
some of our oldest designation records. As such they do not yet have the full descriptions of their
modernised counterparts available. Please contact us if you would like further information.
National Grid Reference: SX 45176 54196
Slip No 1 (The Covered Slip), South Yard, Devonport Dockyard

List Entry Number: 1002574 (see listing 1388431)
This record has been generated from an “old county number! (OCN) scheduling record. As these
This record has been generated from an “old county number£ (OCN) scheduling record. These
The Scrieve Board, South Yard, Devonport Dockyard

256
Appendix 3 Devonport Dockyard designations
No 1 Basin and No 1 Dock, South Yard, Devonport Dockyard

WHITE YARN HOUSE (S 135), SOUTH YARD

Grade: II*
Date first listed: 13-Aug-1999
Legacy System: LBS UID: 476453
SX 4554 SW PLYMOUTH SOUTH YARD, Devonport Dockyard
740-1/98/224 White Yarn House (S 135)
GV II*
White yarn house. 1763. Limestone rubble and dressings with slate roof. Rectangular open plan.
2 storeys; 3-window range. Rusticated quoins, plat band, flat cornice and parapet, coped end
gables, with flat, eared surrounds to openings. The E side has a central doorway and metal door,
and tall N window, blind ground-floor and three first-floor openings under the plat band; the S
side has two small openings between the first-floor windows. INTERIOR: contains a king post
roof. HISTORY: yarn from the Spinning House (qv) was stored here and then passed to the Tarring
House (qv), where it was coated with tar. With the Tarring and Wheel House and Tarred Yarn
House (qv), this is part of the most complete surviving yarn and tarring complex in a Naval rope
yard, and an early development of process flow techniques. (Sources: Coad J: Historic Architecture
of the Royal Navy: London: 1983: 71; Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989:
199-203).
Selected Sources
1. Book Reference - Author: Coad, J - Title: Historic Architecture of the Royal Navy - Date: 1983
- Page References: 71
2. Book Reference - Author: Coad, JG - Title: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: architecture and
engineering works of the sailing navy - Date: 1989 - Page References: 199-203
257
TARRED YARN STORE (S 138), SOUTH YARD

Grade: II*
740-1/98/229 Tarred Yarn Store (S 138)
GV II*
Tarred yarn store. Dated 1769 on hoppers. Limestone rubble and dressings with slate roof.
Rectangular open plan. EXTERIOR: 2 storeys and basement; 5-window range. Plinth, plat band
and flat cornice and parapet, with eared flat surrounds to the openings, central doorway and
blind first-floor windows. S gable has a raised stepped top with square plinths to ball finials at the
sides and top, an inserted vehicle entrance and 3 blind oculi. W side has 3 small blind openings
between the ground-floor windows; E side has two good dated hoppers inscribed GR. INTERIOR:
contains a king post roof supporting a raised walkway with the rope-winding horizontal capstans
that distributed the yarn through the store. HISTORY: yarn that had been tarred was wound on
to bobbins and stored here before being taken to the West Ropehouse (demolished) for laying.
With the White Yarn House and Tarring and Wheel Houses (qv) part of the most complete of such
tarring and yarn store complexes in a Naval dockyard. (Sources: The Buildings of England: Pevsner
N: Devon: London: 1989: 652; Coad, J: Historic Architecture of the Royal Navy: London: 1983:
71- 79; Coad, J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989: 199-203).
Selected Sources
1. Book Reference - Author: Coad, J - Title: Historic Architecture of the Royal Navy - Date: 1983 -
Page References: 71-79
2. Book Reference - Author: Pevsner, Nikolaus - Title: Devon North - Date: 1952 - Journal Title: The
Buildings of England - Page References: 652
TARRING AND WHEEL HOUSE (S 136) AND TARRED YARN HOUSE (S 137), SOUTH YARD
Grade: II*
740-1/98/230 Tarring and Wheel House (S 136) and Tarred Yarn House (S 137)
GV II*
Tarring and wheel house and tarred yarn house. 1763. Limestone rubble and dressings with a
slate roof. Rectangular open plan. EXTERIOR: 2 storeys and basement; 5:1:2-bay range. Rusticated
quoins, plat band and flat cornice to a parapet, with flat, eared surrounds to openings. N Tarring
House has 2 steep gables, 3 ground-floor casements and a wider doorway between the N pair with
double iron doors, and 2 first-floor windows. The S Tarred Yarn House is wider with matching
details, an altered central doorway with C20 door, and two good dated hoppers inscribed GR.
W side has similar details. Connecting the two with straight joints each side is a slightly later (not
in 1774 model in National Maritime Museum), full-height archway with rusticated voussoirs and
258
brick inner soffit, cornice and parapet. INTERIOR: Tarring House divided into 3 by diaphragm
arches to brick vaults with iron doors, for fire proof construction; it contains a 1793 executioner’s
trap door and stone slab in the basement beneath. HISTORY: yarn was drawn from the White
Yarn store (qv) by capstans in the Wheel House through the Tarring House, before being passed
to the Tarred Yarn Store (qv) where it was hung to dry. From there it went to the West Ropehouse
(destroyed) for laying. This is an unusually early instance of process flow planning. With the White
Yarn Store, and Tarred Yarn Store (qv), part of the most complete tarring and yarn store complex in
a Naval dockyard. (Sources: Coad J: Historic Architecture of the Royal Navy: London: 1983: 71; The
Buildings of England: Pevsner N: Devon: London: 1989: 652; Coad J: The Royal Dockyards
1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989: 199-203).
Selected Sources
Page References: 71
2. Book Reference - Author: Pevsner, Nikolaus - Title: Devon North - Date: 1952 - Journal Title:
The Buildings of England - Page References: 652
FORMER FIRE STATION (SO 32), SOUTH YARD

Grade: II
SX 4454 NE PLYMOUTH SOUTH YARD, Devonport Dockyard
740-1/95/204 Former Fire Station (SO 32)
GV II
Fire station, now canteen and offices. 1851. Squared limestone rubble with granite plinth and cills,
limestone dressings, ridge stacks and slate roof. 3 parallel rectangular blocks, the outer ones set
forward. EXTERIOR: 2-storey; 3-bay central block and single storey; 3-bay outer blocks. Tooled
plinth and sills, plat band to the central block, moulded stone sills with blocking course and coped
pediments to each block; rusticated quoins and door surrounds. Central block has segmental-arched
outer doorways, the central section altered and rendered mid C20, first- floor rusticated tripartite
window, and oculus in the pediment; left-hand block has an altered carriage opening, right-
hand block has a central rusticated segmental-arched window part blocked and outer flat-headed
windows. N side has eared plat surrounds to 6/6-pane sashes. Plainer rear elevation has segmental-
arched ground-floor openings. Hoppers inscribed VR. INTERIOR: altered mid C20, lacks features
of special interest. HISTORY: formerly contained stables in the central block and fire engines in
the left-hand one. Part of the mid C19 expansion of the South Yard, fire engine houses were an
important feature of the naval dockyards.
HEAVY LIFTING STORE (SO 33), SOUTH YARD

Grade: II
259

740-1/95/205 Heavy Lifting Store (SO 33)
GV II
Workshop, now store. c1840. Coursed Dunstone rubble with ground-floor granite and first-floor
granite and limestone dressings; gabled corrugated iron roof. Rectangular plan. EXTERIOR: 2 storey;
2-window front and 6-window sides. Double-gabled front has a slightly battered ground-floor, with
first-floor keyed flat arches to wide panelled and plank hoist doors, above tall keyed segmental
brick arched doorways with C20 double doors. A rounded granite corbel below the right-hand
upper opening. 5-window returns have segmental brick arches over horned 8/8-pane (left) and
horned 313-pane (right) sashes with segmental-arched blocked lunettes over plat bands. Brick
segmental arch over plank double doors to rear of left return. INTERIOR: noted as having heavy
timber posts and beams and timber roof. HISTORY: first shown on a map of the yard in 1849 and
marked house carpenter’s shop. The first floor is possibly later. A complete example of a small
dockyard building containing interesting structural details, possibly related to its function.
(Source: Williams Captain M., RE: Map of Devonport Dockyard: 1849: ADM 140/170).
TERRACE WALLS AND ASSOCIATED STEPS AND RAILINGS, SOUTH YARD

Grade: II
740-1/95/231 Terrace Walls and associated steps and railings
GV II
Terrace retaining walls, and associated railings and steps. 1760s, N section cut back and rebuilt mid
C19. Roughly coursed local limestone with granite ashlar coping. Retaining walls to W side of ramp
leading up to the Officers’ Terrace (qv). Wall extends approx. 180m, and has a central flight of
steps in 3 sections and another at the N end; returns to the E then extends 120m to N; C18 section
has iron railings with column newels and semi-circular arched arcading. HISTORY: These walls
were built beneath the Officer’s Terrace (qv) to retain a ramp which was part of the expansion and
rebuilding of the dockyards from the 1760s. The wall was cut back for the extension of the Old
(North) Smithery ( qv). These walls form an important part of the landscape of the Yard, reflecting
its original topography, as part of the oldest part of Devonport dockyard.
(Source: Williams Captain M: Map of Devonport Dockyard: 1849: ADM 140/170).
Selected Sources
1. Map Reference - Author: Captain M Williams - Title: Map of Devonport Dockyard - Date: 1849
WALLS AND RAILINGS AROUND RESERVOIR, SOUTH YARD

Grade: II
260
SX 4554 NW PLYMOUTH SOUTH YARD, Devonport Dockyard

740-1/96/216 Walls and railings around reservoir
GV II
Walls and railings surrounding reservoir. Dated 1843. Granite ashlar and cast-iron. Triangular
reservoir lined with granite and railings with urn finials. HISTORY: first built to supplement the
C18 old reservoir, to the N, and connected to the fire hydrant system. Contained 1860 tons of fresh
water. Fire prevention was a continuing concern of the Yard offices, and this is included as an
essential part of the working of the dockyard.
PERIMETER WALL ENCLOSING NORTH CORNER OF SOUTH YARD, SOUTH YARD

GV Grade: II
SX 4554 NW PLYMOUTH SOUTH YARD, Devonport Dockyard
740-1/96/886 Perimeter wall enclosing N corner of South Yard
Perimeter wall. Late C18. Limestone rubble. Tall wall with interval buttress pilasters extends approx.
200m NE from the entrance to Morice Yard, returning for approx. 110m to the SE and broken by
the former entrance to the yard which has wickets in ashlar sections with arched heads. Formed the
perimeter wall of the yard when it was extended in the late C18, and an important component in
the security of the dockyard. Included as marking the extent of the late C18 dockyard.
ROSE COTTAGE, SOUTH YARD

Grade: II
SX 4454 SE PLYMOUTH SOUTH YARD, Devonport Dockyard
740-1/97/201 Rose Cottage (5 155)
GV II
Overseers’ office. 1850-60. Snecked limestone ashlar; hipped slate roof with ashlar ridge stack.
2-room plan, each with separate entry. One storey. 2-window N front has segmental arches over
two horned 3/3-pane sashes flanked by round-arched doorways each end with flush panelled doors
with plain fanlights. Similar window to E end and similar sashes to canted bay window with cornice
to W end. Rear 3-window range, the middle one blind. INTERIOR: altered c1985, has back-to-back
central fireplaces, with late C20 Classical style fireplace with iron grate and decorative tile surround
in room on right. The large bay betrays its function for supervision of the Yard - quite a rare
example, and included as part of an outstanding group of naval manufacturing buildings.
COMPOSITE SHIPBUILDING SHED (S 151), SOUTH YARD

Grade: II
261

740-1/97/206 Composite Shipbuilding Shed (S 151)
GV II
Shipbuilding shed, now store. 1879–81, N gable rebuilt c1990. Cast-iron frame with timber and
corrugated iron panelling and sheet roof. Rectangular plan with E aisle. EXTERIOR: 2 storeys
externally; 24 bays by 3 bays wide. Gable ends with low E aisle under a raking roof, divided by
H-section iron columns with ground-floor concrete blocks, corrugated iron panels, upper level
has continuous glazing, each bay with three 9/3-pane casements. Aisle has cast-iron columns with
thin moulded tops, concrete block infill, with a central gabled entrance of iron pilasters, double
C20 doors, glazed pediment, and moulded timber barge boards. INTERIOR: has H-section iron
columns both sides to queen post timber trusses with pierced cast-iron curved spandrel braces.
The aisle roof has trussed purlins and curved cast-iron struts. Brick floor has rail lines through
the centre. HISTORY: originally clad on the ground-floor in vertical boarding with slate roof.
Plymouth was not involved in the initial phase of metal warship building, and only composite
ships were built in the yard until the end of the century. These had a metal frame but timber hulls,
in order to withstand prolonged service in the warm Tropical waters, in which iron hulled vessels
without corrosion or fouling protection required constant maintenance. This specialist shed, in its
lightweight construction more like civilian shipbuilding yards, represents a significant period in the
development of shipbuilding, and of the navy’s Empire commitments. (Source: Le Page A: Report
GHK Partnership: 1992: 39).
MAIN DOCK PUMPHOUSE (S 87 AND S 89), SOUTH YARD

Grade: II
740-1/97/214 Main Dock Pumphouse (S 87 and S 89)
GV II
Hydraulic pumping station. Dated 1851, possibly by William Scamp, R. E. limestone ashlar in
alternate thick and thin courses with granite dressings and leaded roof. Engine house with square
accumulator tower at S end. EXTERIOR: single storey; windowless engine house, 2-storey; 2-bay
tower. Engine house has a cornice, blocking course and pedimented N gable with a louvred oculus
and ball finials with a central square section. The windowless E side has a right-hand doorway with
raised surround and C20 door, gable has a right-hand recessed bay with corbel table and small-
paned cross windows, the rest of the gable has an inserted mid C20 steel lintel with 4 ground- and
first-floor casements. The tower has a corbelled cornice, an attic storey with moulded eaves coping
and sunken panels with 4 oculi in each and a ball finial; tall recessed bays as that in the gable with
cross windows, and ashlar panels between the storeys with VR in the S side and 1851 in the N side.
In the NW corner is a truncated square chimney. INTERIOR: all machinery removed; contains a
metal-framed roof. HISTORY: in the same style as many of the North Yard buildings including the
Quadrangle (qv), it powered hydraulic cranes, capstans and dock lock gates. Hydraulic power was
being introduced into docks from the 1850s, and this is one of the earliest surviving examples of
a pumping station of this type in any dockyard.
262
SWING BRIDGE, SOUTH YARD

Grade: II
740-1/97/228 Swing Bridge
GV II
Swing bridge. Dated 1838. Cast-iron and granite. Two equal halves of 4 cross-braced ribs spanned
by a timber walkway forming a segmental arch; the outer ribs have a dated key, with “HORSLEY
IRONWORKS/NEAR BIRMINGHAM” cast on the sides. Abutments projecting each side with banded
rustication support each bridge on bearings, with a cogged wheel, manually turned by handles.
HISTORY: a very similar design to the c1835 swing bridge in the Royal William Victualling Yard
(qv). Part of a good group of C18 and C19 naval dock buildings.
RETAINING WALL TO EAST SIDE OF RAMP LEADING TO OFFICERS TERRACE, SOUTH

YARD
Grade: II
740-1/97/887 Retaining wall to E side of ramp leading to officers’ Terrace
GV II
Retaining wall with steps and railings. Late C18-early C19. Limestone rubble retaining wall with
granite steps and coping. Raking retaining wall extends approx. 120m from W of the Officers’
Terrace (qv) to the bottom of the ramp, with a double flight of steps with iron railings and urn
finials, formerly aligned with the Commissioner’s House (demolished), and a single flight marking
the lower end of the former Terrace, and returning to the NE for approx. 100m.
FORMER GARDEN WALL PIERS AND STEPS TO OFFICERS TERRACE, SOUTH YARD
Grade: II
740-1/97/888 Former garden wall, piers and steps to officers Terrace
GV II
Garden wall, piers and steps. 1690s. Brick wall with ashlar dressings. Wall extends approx. 90m;
rusticated ashlar piers mark the centre of the former terrace and the position of the Commissioner’s
House (demolished), and a double flight of steps at the SE end marks the end of the terrace.
Included as formerly part of the important Officers’ Terrace, of which only the N houses remain
(qv), but which was a very important early example of the palace front concept of terrace planning,
263
which is reflected in the former front garden walls.

MASTER ROPEMAKERS OFFICE (S 97 AND S 98), SOUTH YARD

Grade: II
740-1/98/207 Master Ropemaker’s Office (S 97 and S 98)
GV II
Master Ropemaker’s office; later engine house, school, now disused. c1816, extended c1868.
Plymouth limestone, 1816 building is of rubble, 1868 is of squared and coursed stone, with ashlar
dressings, cast-iron columns and slate roof. Single-depth plan.
EXTERIOR: 3 storey; 3:3-window range. Parapeted range with cornice, the earlier S section has
round-arched first-floor and flat-arched second floor windows with 3/3-pane sashes, with similar
openings to pedimented right-hand return, over outer segmental-arched doorways, and a rear
early C19 external stair with c1939 cover; a right-hand bay projects on tall iron Tuscan columns
to an entablature, and stone top section with a flat-arched second-floor window and a segmental-
arched former doorway in the return. Left-hand section has similar openings, 2 on the first floor.
1868 NE truncated chimney has a cornice. INTERIOR: not inspected. HISTORY: 1816 double-height
office erected at the same time as Holl’s rebuilding of the ropery; later extended and converted to
machine room for rope-making machinery with an underground drive shaft, with bridge from the
front projecting bay to the rope walk. The upper dining room was used as a school after 1945. Part
of the important rope making complex with the Spinning House, Hemp House and other Ropeyard
buildings (qv). (Sources: Le Page A: Report GHK Partnership: 1992: 33; The Buildings of England:
Pevsner N: Devon: London: 1989: 651).
Selected Sources
Book Reference - Author: Pevsner, Nikolaus - Title: Devon North - Date:
DOCKYARD WALL EXTENDING FROM EAST OF ROPERY COMPLEX TO EAST OF

NUMBER 1 SLIP, SOUTH YARD
List Entry Number: 1378519 (see PCC BAR, Streets P-S (2005))
Grade: II
740-1/98/209 Dockyard wall extending from E of Ropery complex to E of No.1 Slip
GV II
Dockyard wall. 1763-71. Limestone rubble. Tall wall with moulded coping extends approx. 500m
from E of the entrance to the No. 1 Covered Slip to N of the Master Ropemaker’s House (qv).
HISTORY: enclosed the area E and S of the ropeyard, which was completed in 1771, and has
considerable group value with the listed ropeyard buildings.
264
JOINERS SHOP (SO 95), SOUTH YARD

Grade: II
740-1/98/211 Joiner’s Shop (SO 95)
GV II
Alternatively known as: Upholstery shop, SOUTH YARD, Devonport Dockyard.
Hemp house, with mould loft, latterly joiner’s shop. 1766-73, roof damaged c1941. Limestone
rubble and dressings with slate roof. Open plan. EXTERIOR: 2 storeys, attic and basement;
5-window range. Rusticated quoins, plat band, flat cornice and parapet, with small gables each
end. Flat surrounds to openings, a wide segmental-arched carriage entrance in N end, with keyed
round-arched windows with imposts and metal-framed windows, most on the first floor bricked up.
INTERIOR: concrete floor inserted c1952. HISTORY: the last surviving of four late C18 hemp houses
at Devonport, where raw hemp was stored before hatchling and being passed to the Spinning
House (qv). Although altered, this forms an important part of the late C18 ropeyard. (Sources:
Le Page A: Report -GHK Partnership: 1992: 22; Coad J: Historic Architecture of the Royal Navy:
London: 1983: 71).
Selected Sources
Page References: 71
MASTER ROPEMAKERS HOUSE (S 103) AND ATTACHED RAILINGS AND GARDEN WALL,
SOUTH YARD; TURNCOCKS HOUSE, 2, EAST AVENUE
List Entry Number: 1378521 (see PPC BAR, Streets D-F (2005))
Grade: II
740-1/98/223 Master Ropemaker’s House
(S 103) and attached railings and garden wall
GV II
Includes: Turncock’s House, No. 2 EAST AVENUE, Devonport Dockyard. House; later school,
now office. 1772-3. Coursed limestone rubble with limestone dressings, lateral stacks to E and S,
and hipped slate roof. PLAN: single-depth N office, with double-depth rooms to S, and S attached
service wing. EXTERIOR: 3 storeys, attic and cellar; windowless entrance front and 3-window N
range. A tall house with a ground-floor plat band, rusticated quoins, flat cornice and parapet, with
flat surrounds to openings. Main W front windowless apart from 2 small inserted second-floor
windows, and right-hand doorway covered by a mid C20 porch. N side has 616-pane sashes, and
316-pane second-floor sashes, and a large dormer. E side to dock wall has 2 windows towards
the S. S side has 1 316-pane sash to the left, and a 2-storey; 1-window lower service range with
a 418-pane ground-floor sash. Attached to the S is a small former brewhouse or laundry with a
lateral stack. INTERIOR: altered mid C20, original features include a dogleg stair from a small
entrance lobby with ramped moulded rail; dado and 6-panel doors, boxed cornices. SUBSIDIARY
FEATURES: attached iron railings with urn finials and column newels, and 2 corner cannon bollards
265
to the doorway, and matching railings on a dwarf wall extend approx. 30m to the NW; garden wall
encloses garden to the S and is attached to the Dockyard wall (qv). HISTORY: part of the important
ropemaking complex with the Spinning House, Hemp House and other Ropeyard buildings (qv).
(Sources: The Buildings of England: Pevsner N: Devon: London: 1989: 652; Coad J: The Royal
Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989: 53). SX 4554 SW PLYMOUTH EAST AVENUE, Devonport
Dockyard 740-1/98/223 No.2, Turncock’s House See under: Master Ropemaker’s House (S 103) and
attached railings and garden wall, SOUTH YARD, Devonport Dockyard. -
Selected Sources
1. Book Reference - Author: Pevsner, N - Title: The Buildings of England: South Devon -
Date: 1952 - Type: DESC TEXT
engineering works of the sailing navy - Date: 1989 - Page References: 53
WALL PIERS AND STEPS EXTENDING APROXIMATELY 140 METRES ON EAST SIDE OF
TARRING HOUSE, SOUTH YARD
Grade: II
740-1/98/233 Wall, piers and steps extending approx. 140m on E side of Tarring House
GV II
Wall and steps. 1763-71. Limestone rubble and ashlar. Low capped wall has round, capped end
piers and central flight of step down to the Tarring and Wheel House (qv).
HISTORY: retaining wall for a roadway between the ropeyard and the Dockyard wall (qv).
Part of a group with the White Yarn, Tarring and Tarred Yarn Houses and Spinning House (qv).
WALL PIERS AND STEPS APPROXIMATELY 300 METRES LONG PARALLEL WITH
SPINNING HOUSE, SOUTH YARD
Grade: II
740-1/98/234 Wall, piers and steps, approx.300m long parallel with Spinning House
GV II
Wall and end piers. 1763–1771. Rubble with ashlar piers. Capped retaining wall to cobbled roadway
is ramped up to N square pier, with an archway underneath, and a central path through from the
archway in the Tarring and Wheel House (qv). HISTORY: forms a retaining wall to the roadway
to the E side of the Spinning House, and included for group value as part of an outstanding C18
industrial complex.
266
SECTION OF FORMER PERIMETER WALL TO EAST OF MASTER ROPEMAKERS OFFICE,

SOUTH YARD
Grade: II
740-1/98/885 Section of former perimeter wall to E of Master Ropemaker’s office
GV II
Perimeter wall. Late C18. Limestone rubble. Tall coped wall with interval buttress pilasters extends
approx. 60m NNW-SSE to the E of the Master Ropemaker’s office (qv).
Formed part of the perimeter wall of the yard when it was extended in the late C18, and an
important component in the security of the dockyard. Included as marking the extent of the late
C18 dockyard.
OFFICERS TERRACE (SO 59) AND ATTACHED BASEMENT AREA RAILINGS, SOUTH YARD
Grade: II*
Date first listed: 01-May-1975
740-1/95/222 Officers’ Terrace (SO 59) and attached basement area railings 01.05.1975
GV II*
Alternatively known as: Bonaventure House, SOUTH YARD, Devonport Dockyard. Officers’ terrace
of 12 houses and offices, now offices. 1692–1696, by Edmund Dummer, Surveyor to the Navy
Board, altered early C19, partly destroyed c1942. Rendered brick with stone dressings, lateral
and party wall stacks and hipped slate roof. Double-depth plan. EXTERIOR: 2 and 3 storeys;
2:8-window range. The left-hand end pavilion and connected offices survive of the former terrace.
Two former houses have a unified front with rusticated quoins, modillion cornice and pediment
containing the Royal Arms, with two early C19 porches set in the outer bays of the pedimented
section with pilasters, half-glazed doors and side windows, and cambered heads to 6/6-pane and
second-floor 3/3- pane sashes. The right-hand part of the roof was rebuilt at a lower pitch. Lower
left-hand former office has a 4-bay side facing down the terrace with first-floor 6/6-pane sashes
and a segmental pediment, and a mid C20 ground-floor covered passage with large windows with
glazing bars. INTERIOR: extensively altered mid C20. Former houses have panelled partitions with
thin ovolo mouldings and 6-panel doors, former office internally altered mid C20. SUBSIDIARY
FEATURES: attached early-mid C19 basement area railings have diagonal crossed bars. HISTORY:
this was the first of the fine series of officers’ housing built in the Royal Dockyard, the 12 houses
forming a unified terrace with the Commissioner’s house in the centre. The two surviving houses
were for the Clerk of the Cheques and the Surgeon. This is believed to have been the first palace
front terrace in the country, predating Queens Square in Bath by over twenty years. Despite the
considerable loss of much of the terrace, this is of considerable historic architectural significance
as the oldest surviving building in a Royal Dockyard, as well as an early attempt at unified terrace
design. (Sources: The Buildings of England: Pevsner N: Devon: London: 1989: 651; Coad J: Historic
Architecture of the Royal Navy: London: 1983: 95-96; Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850:
Aldershot: 1989: 49-53).
267
Selected Sources
MORICE GATE, TWO GATEHOUSES (MO 39 AND MO 65) AND ATTACHED DOCKYARD
WALLS, MORICE YARD
List Entry Number: 1378549 (see PCC BAR, Streets L-O (2005))
Grade: II*
SX 4454 NE PLYMOUTH MORICE YARD, Devonport Dockyard
740-1/95/183 Morice Gate, two gatehouses (MO 39 and MO 65) and attached dockyard walls
GV II*
Gateway, attached dockyard walls, and pair of houses, now guard houses. 1720–1724, by Andrew
Jelf, Clerk of Works, to layout by Colonel C Lilly, for the Board of Ordnance. Wall of Dunstone
shaly rubble and granite ashlar; stucco gatehouses with lateral and gable stacks and slate roofs.
PLAN: pair of single-depth houses flanking gateway. EXTERIOR: 2-storeys, attic and basement;
windowless gatehouse road fronts. Gateway has large granite piers capped with iron mortars, and
linked by a scrolled overthrow and octagonal lantern, with C20 timber doors. Facades of houses
have plinths, round-arched doorways to inner and outer sides, the left-hand pier is blocked; each
has a central lateral stack with a raised panel below the eaves. The inner gables have single first
floor and paired attic lights, the S gable has an oculus to the attic, and gable stacks. The 2-window
returns have segmental-arched ground-floor and flat-headed first-floor sashes, and granite basement
lit by a well to the inner side. INTERIOR: not inspected but noted as having been altered mid C20.
SUBSIDIARY FEATURES: the dockyard walls, of carefully bedded rubble with square piers and
weathered top, extends approx. 300m to the S and W terminating beside the entrance to the South
Yard, and approx. 65m to the N extending down to E of the Powder House (qv). HISTORY: the
original entrance and perimeter walls to the Yard, a carefully-planned site with the raised Officer’s
Terrace and the Stores (qv) on the tower level. The walls, with their distinctive construction typical
of the Ordnance Board at this time, form an important element enclosing the most complete C18
Ordnance Yard in the country. (Sources: Coad, J: Historic Architecture of the Royal Navy: London:
1983: 138-141; Coad, J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989: 249-250).
Selected Sources
NUMBER 2 STORE AND FORMER FURBISHERS SHOP (MO 68), MORICE YARD
Grade: II*
268

740-1/95/184 No.2 Store and former Furbisher’s Shop (MO 68)
GV II*
Carriage store and furbisher’s shop, disused. c1776, probably by Major Dixon. Dunstone brown
rubble with- SW lateral stack; W block of squared limestone with limestone dressings to W block
with rear stack, and slate hipped roofs. Open 4-cell plan store with W furbisher’s shop a single-
depth 2-cell plan. EXTERIOR: 2 storeys; 7-window range with 3-window Wend, and lower
2-storey 5-window range furbisher’s shop. Plinth and string, with flat arches to 4 ground-floor
openings, 3 doorways at the centre and right-hand end, the main central entrance has C18 double
doors, and horned 6/6-pane sashes, C19 metal casements to first floor W end. Furbisher’s shop
is double fronted with rusticated quoins, plat band, raised surrounds to openings, with a 4-panel
door and 6/6-pane sashes; blind gable and rear. Good dated cast-iron hopper. INTERIOR: store
has a remarkably complete interior lined with boarding, divided into four by timber partitions with
posts supporting transverse floor beams, flagged floor, an original central transverse dogleg stair
to the back with uncut string and heavy stick balusters, and king and queen post roof. Furbisher’s
shop altered inside with a later left-hand stair, and original door surround to right-hand room.
HISTORY: the Yard was laid out in 1720 by Colonel Lilly for the Board of Ordnance. Part of the late
C18 expansion of the yard, the store is reported to have had wooden tramways and wall cranes;
the furbisher’s shop is a pair with the No.12 store (qv). A notably unaltered example of a late C18
small naval store in the context of warehouse buildings of this period, within the best surviving C18
naval ordnance yard in the country. (Source: Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot:
1989: 255-256).
Selected Sources
NUMBER 4 STORE (MO 70), MORICE YARD

Grade: II*
SX 4454 NE PLYMOUTH MORICE YARD, Devonport Dockyard 740-1/95/186 No.4 Store (MO 70)
GV II*
Ordnance store. 1722, dated 1723 on hopper, laid out by Colonel C Lilley, Andrew Jelf, Clerk of
Works, for the Board of Ordnance. Dunstone rubble with granite dressings and rendered W end,
with hipped slate roof with flat leaded top. Rectangular open plan. EXTERIOR: 2 storeys and
attic; 11-window range with 3-window ends. Parapeted range with end and central window bays
set forward with sunken panels and raised sections to the parapet, rubble flat arches to wider
doorways in the projected bays and horned 6/6-pane sashes. Good lead hoppers to the centre
and flanking projected bays, one inscribed GR 1723. Range of 9 pedimented dormers with 6/6-
pane sashes, with one in the ends. Roofs have heavy leaded rolls around the central flat section.
INTERIOR: not inspected but noted as having a C18 central spine wall, with timber board panelling
and partitions; some original wooden rails. HISTORY: one of the original Ordnance stores, for gun
carriages and equipment, and one of the earliest in a Royal Dockyard, a matching pair with the No.
8 Store (qv) opposite. Originally built against the quay which curved round the outer sides,
269
a fine and remarkably complete example of an early C18 warehouse within the best surviving naval
ordnance yard in the country. (Sources: The Buildings of England: Pevsner N: Devon: London:
1989: 652; Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989: 248-254; Hewlings R: English
Architecture Public and Private: London: 1993: 211-212).
Selected Sources
1. Book Reference - Author: Bold and Chaney - Title: English Architecture Public and Private
Essays for Kerry Downes - Date: 1993 - Page References: 211-212
NUMBER 12 THE PAINTED CANVAS STORE (MO 46), MORICE YARD

Grade: II*
740-1/95/188 No.12 The Painted Canvas Store (MO 46)
GV II*
House, now store. Dated 1777 on hopper, altered mid C20. Limestone ashlar with rubble sides and
rear and corrugated sheet roof. Single-depth plan. EXTERIOR: 2 storeys; 5-window range. Double-
fronted with rusticated quoins, plat band and raised surrounds to a heavy cross-boarded door and
horned first-floor 2/2-pane and ground-floor 6/6-pane sashes. Good lead hopper head to left of
the entrance. Windowless sides and rear without dressings. INTERIOR: fittings and roof altered
mid C20. HISTORY: one of a pair of matching houses with the house of the former Furbisher’s
Shop attached to Store No.2 (qv). Part of the expansion of the yard in the 1770s, and following the
formal plan established in the 1720s by Colonel Lilly. Part of the best surviving C18 naval ordnance
yard in the country. (Source: Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989: 248-254).
Selected Sources
NUMBER 16 STORE THE POWDER HOUSE (MO 42), MORICE YARD

Grade: II*
740-1/95/189 No.16 Store, the Powder House (MO 42)
GV II*
Powder magazine, now store. 1744. Coursed rubble with brick dressings, vaulted roof not visible.
Rectangular single-depth plan. EXTERIOR: single storey; 7 -bay range. Parapeted front with brick
corners, 3-bay centre has brick pilasters to a raised parapet and central pediment, small C20
270
doorway and loops to the flanking bays; C19 inserted casements either side with brick dressings.
Returns have blind round arches in projected full-height panels, that to the left has a round-
arched doorway. Above the central entrance is a good gilded cartouche of the Duke of Montague.
INTERIOR: divided by brick baffle walls with 5 segmental-arched openings, smaller at each end,
into 4 bays with round-arched stone vaults, each with a channelled timber beam extending from
front to back along the top, part of a former all-wood traveller. The walls are reported to have a
double skin, to contain blast and maintain an even temperature. HISTORY: originally designed with
a surrounding wall intended, like the internal baffles, to deflect blast. The Yard was laid out by the
Board of Ordnance from 1720, and Lord Montague was Master General of the Ordnance from 1739-
49. This is the earliest surviving naval ordnance magazine, illustrative of the way Ordnance Yard
magazines were sited close to dockyards prior to the establishment of Priddy’s Hard, 1773, (qv)
near Portsmouth. Of considerable historic importance, within the best surviving naval ordnance
yard in the country. (Sources: The Buildings of England: Pevsner N: Devon: London: 1989: 653;
Coad J: Historic Architecture of the Royal Navy: London: 1983: 133-5).
Selected Sources
STEPS DWARF WALLS LAMPS AND RETAINING WALL TO GARDENS FRONTING

OFFICERS TERRACE, MORICE YARD
Grade: II*
740-1/95/192 Steps, dwarf walls, lamps and retaining wall to gardens fronting Officers’ Terrace
GV II*
Retaining wall, steps and dwarf wall with 4 lamps. 1722, laid out by Col. Lilly, for the Board of
Ordnance, built by Andrew Cowley, of London. Rubble and granite with iron railings and lamps.
A symmetrical plan of steps with central path to wall fronting Officer’s Terrace (qv). Partly cut back
into solid rock by the excavation of the lower part of the Yard, forming two opposing flights of
steps with iron railings. At the top, a granite path formerly with iron railings leads to the low wall
fronting the Officers’ Terrace, with cannon balls to the top of a low flight of stairs, and 4 gas lamps,
2 with open cast-iron latticework standards and lamps with gilded crown finials and two with
moulded cast-iron shafts. HISTORY: connected the lower Gun Wharf to the upper level, and formed
the front to the fine Officers’ Terrace. The dwarf walls and lamps are part of the formal layout of
the officers’ level, while the steps, cut out of the dressed cliff to the rear of the Gun Wharf, are
illustrative of the extent of the works carried out in building what is the most complete C18 naval
ordnance yard in the country. (Source: Coad, J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989:
248-253).
Selected Sources
1. Book Reference - Author: Coad, JG - Title: The Royal Dockyards 1690-1850: architecture and
271
NORTH GATE AND ATTACHED DOCKYARD WALLS, MORICE YARD

Grade: II
SX 4455 SW PLYMOUTH MORICE YARD, Devonport Dockyard
740-1/94/191 North Gate and attached dockyard walls
GV II
Gateway and attached dock walls. 1870s. Limestone ashlar gateway, with rubble and ashlar
walls. Gateway has a pair of massive, rusticated square piers with round-arch doorways with VR
in wrought-iron open fanlights, set in rectangular recesses and leading to brick vaulted through
passages, a thin string and moulded cap with stepped base to ball finials. C20 timber double doors,
beneath a wrought-iron overthrow and hexagonal lamp. Quadrant walls with 5 rifle loops extend
forward to plain piers, connected to dock walls with half-round coping, extending approx. 450m
to the S and SW to meet the C18 Yard walls attached to the Morice Gate (qv), and approx. 250m to
NW and SW to enclose the N end of the Morice Yard. HISTORY: the Yard was laid out by the Board
of Ordnance from 1720, and the C18 Dockyard walls (qv) were extended in the mid C19 expansion
of Devonport Dockyard when the North Gate was added. An important element in defining the C19
extent of what is the best surviving C18 naval ordnance yard in the country.

Grade: II
740-1/95/182 No.8 Store (MO 55)
GV II
Stores. 1722, altered mid C20, laid out by Colonel Lilly, with Andrew Jelf, Clerk of Works, for the
Board of Ordnance. Dunstone rubble with granite dressings, rendered top storey and W gable, and
slate roof. Rectangular open plan. EXTERIOR: 3 storeys; 11-window range. Middle and end bays
set forward with former parapet raised above them, flat arches to entrances in projected sections
with C20 doors and windows; 3-window W gable with a central entrance. Raised mid C20 second
storey with 616-pane sashes. INTERIOR: extensively altered with concrete frame and stairs and mid
C20 roof; ground floor retains spine wall, some chamfered timber posts supporting timber joists,
and a large central transverse stair rising from both sides. HISTORY: one of the original Morice
Yard stores for gun carriages and equipment, a pair with No.4 Store (qv). Originally built against
the quay which curved round the N side. Although altered with the loss of the original roof and
the C20 extra storey, No. 8 Store is included as part of a good group of C18 naval stores within the
best surviving naval ordnance yard in the country. (Sources: The Buildings of England: Pevsner N:
Devon: London: 1989: 652; Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989: 252).
Selected Sources
272

Grade: II
740-1/95/185 No.3 Store (MO 66)
GV II
Storehouse. 1840–1855, altered mid C20. Squared coursed limestone, granite dressings and hipped
slate roof. Open plan. EXTERIOR: 2 storeys; 9-window range. Symmetrical sides with a first-floor
cill band, a central segmental-arched entrance with C20 doors beneath matching first-floor tripartite
window, round-arched ground-floor and flat-arched first-floor windows with 919-pane sashes.
W end has 2 wide round-arched doorways with timber doors and a tripartite fanlight, beneath a
single segmental-arched tripartite sash. N side ground-floor windows half bricked up with spiral
C19 iron fire escape at the end. INTERIOR: contains inserted ground floor partitions and stairs,
open first floor and ceiled roof. Some old spar timbers used as floor ties. HISTORY: the Yard was
laid out in 1720 by Colonel Lilly for the Board of Ordnance and expanded in the 1770s. One of
the last buildings built by the Board of Ordnance, a pair with No. 6 Store, Sail Loft (qv), and a late
addition forming part of the best surviving C18 naval ordnance yard in the country. (Source: Coad J:
The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989: 256).
Selected Sources
NUMBER 5 STORE, COLOUR LOFT (MO 56), MORICE YARD

Grade: II
SX 44S4 NE PLYMOUTH MORICE YARD, Devonport Dockyard
740-1/95/187 No.5 Store, Colour Loft (MO 56)
GV II
Store. 1840-50. Limestone ashlar with granite dressings and slate roof, hipped to the Wend.
Rectangular 2-cell plan with central through passage with stair. EXTERIOR: 3 storeys; 7 -window
range with 3-window ends. Store has a cill band, a coped E gable with a clock in a stone surround,
and small bell tower behind the gable on the ridge. Central S doorway with 4-pane overlight and
C20 double doors, entrance in the Wend has steps up to C20 doors and plate glass overlight,
and central second-floor hoist door in N side under a bracketed canopy; 6/6-pane horned
sashes, 3/6-panes on the second floor. C20 fire escapes to altered doorways at ends of each side.
INTERIOR: lined with vertical timber boarding, ground-floor central chamfered posts, with a good
central Imperial stair formed by 2 back-to-back dogleg stairs, one ground-floor flight removed, with
uncut string and heavy stick balusters; in the attic is the mechanism of the clock. HISTORY: one of
the last buildings built by the Board of Ordnance, on the site of the original powder store.
A good and well-preserved example of a small mid C19 naval store, within the best surviving naval
ordnance yard in the country. (Source: Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989:
248-256).
Selected Sources
273
1. Book Reference - Author: Coad, JG - Title: The Royal Dockyards 1690-1850: architecture and

Grade: II
740-1/95/190 No. 17 Store (MO 37)
GV II
Ordnance store. 1740–50. Dunstone brown rubble, English bond brick, with hipped slate roof.
Single-depth plan. EXTERIOR: single storey; 4-window range. Brick corners, the front has a closed
arcade of round brick arches with flat arches to horned 6/6-pane sashes, rubble walls, and a round-
arched doorway and metal-clad door in the end facing the Powder House (qv). INTERIOR: without
special features, has an inserted floor and 3-bay roof with C20 roof timbers. HISTORY: the Yard
was laid out by the Board of Ordnance from 1720. Of similar materials to the adjoining Powder
House (qv), and possibly connected in its purpose. Listed for group value, and as part of the best
surviving C18 ordnance yard in the country. (Source: Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850:
Aldershot: 1989: 253-255).
Selected Sources
NUMBER 6 SAIL LOFT (MO 61), MORICE YARD

Grade: II
740-1/95/193 No. 6, Sail Loft (MO 61)
GV II
Store and sail loft. 1840–50. Squared and coursed limestone with granite dressings and a hipped
slate roof. Rectangular open plan. EXTERIOR: 2 storeys; 9-window range. Plinth, plat band, with
central segmental-arched entrances, (that to the S bricked up), beneath matching tripartite sashes,
with round-arched ground floor and segmental-arched first floor 9/9-pane sashes, and tall, narrow
hoist bays to first-floor third and seventh bays. Ends have 2 round-arched carriage entrances
beneath a single segmental-arched tripartite window with a boarded door to the central part.
INTERIOR: the ground floor has a central aisle of pairs of tied timber posts with diagonal struts to
wide pillars beneath tie beams, and a stair flight with uncut string in the NE corner. HISTORY: a
pair with Store No.3 (qv), and possibly used as stabling for the gun teams with the sail loft above.
Part of a good group of (18/19 naval stores, some of the last built by the Board of Ordnance, within
the best surviving (18 naval ordnance yard in the country. (Source: Coad J: The Royal Dockyards
1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989: 256).
274
Selected Sources
MUSTER BELL, MORICE YARD

Grade: II
740-1/95/900 Muster bell
GV II
Muster bell. Mid C19. Iron. Tall tapering shaft with 4 guy wires, a round capital and a bell, rotated
by a spoked wheel. HISTORY: the muster bell was used to summon the dockyard workforce and
regulate the working day. A more decorative example remains at Chatham dockyard (qv). It is of
historic importance within a largely complete ordnance yard, placed beside the main entrance for
the workforce, the Morice Gate (qv). It was also used as an alarm bell. (Source: Coad J: The Royal
Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989).
Selected Sources
THE OFFICERS TERRACE (MO 63) AND ATTACHED RAILINGS, REAR WALLS AND
OUTBUILDINGS, MORICE YARD
Grade: II*
740-1/95/194 The Officer’s Terrace (MO63) 1.5.1975 and attached railings, rear
walls and outbuildings
GV II*
Terrace of 5 houses and stables, now houses and offices. 1720–24, laid out by Colonel C Lilly, with
Andrew Jelf, Clerk of Works, for the Board of Ordnance. Dunstone rubble with brick party wall
stacks and slate roof. Baroque style. PLAN: double-depth plan with end stables and rear service
blocks. EXTERIOR: 3 storey, attic and basement; 21-bay range. A strongly articulated symmetrical
terrace with coped parapet. Lower 2 storey central former Commissioner’s House is double fronted
with a parapet and a small central pediment containing a lunette, steps across the basement area to
a round-arched doorway with half-glazed door and plate-glass fanlight, and wide outer segmental-
arched tripartite windows with central 8/8-pane sashes, some thick glazing bars. Flanking pairs
of houses set forward with clasping pilasters and a parapet, raised to the centre with a round-
arched attic window, blind to the left-hand end; each with an outer porch with raised clasping
pilasters and doorways as the central house, and round-arched side windows, with round-arched
ground floor, segmental-arched first- and second-floor windows, most with 4/4-pane C19 sashes;
outer bays have projected ground floor with round-arched doorway and half-glazed door and
275
segmental-arched first-floor window, that at the right-hand end 2 storeys with a second-floor
Venetian window. Single-storey screen walls with a recessed flat-headed bay containing a round-
arched doorway and half-glazed door give onto a courtyard, and connect the end former stables,
facing sideways with 5-window return elevations with central doorways with timber surrounds
and a cornice. INTERIOR: central house has a rear lateral passage, rear transverse dogleg stair with
uncut string and heavy stick balusters, and panelling with heavy rails with bolection mouldings
and wainscot fields; upper floor partly open to king post roof has timber cyma cornices. Joinery
includes corner cupboards, fielded shutters and 2-panel doors. SUBSIDIARY FEATURES: attached
mid C20 basement area railings extend the full length of the terrace, turning in to the entrances of
each house. Attached rear rubble garden walls extend back to the Yard wall (qv). To N of garden
is C18 rubble wall and slated outbuildings extending back to the Morice Gate ( qv). HISTORY: the
Terrace for the Yard Officers was part of Lilly’s formal plan for the Yard, on the upper part above
the excavated lower gun wharf, and using stone quarried on site. An idiosyncratic example of
the style associated with Hawksmoor and the Board of Ordnance at this time, at for example the
Woolwich Arsenal and Berwick-on-Tweed barracks. The unusually robust internal joinery suggests
the work of a naval rather than house carpenter. The terrace is also a notably early and strongly
articulated example of a palace front composition, and part of a fine series of Officers’ terraces in
the Royal Dockyards. (Sources: Coad J: Historic Architecture of the Royal Navy: London: 1983: 141;
The Buildings of England: Pevsner N: Devon: London: 1989: 652-3; Coad J: The Royal Dockyards
1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989: 249-252; Barker N: English Architecture Public and Private: London:
1993: 211).
Selected Sources
Page References: 141
2. Book Reference - Author: Bold and Chaney - Title: English Architecture Public and Private
Essays for Kerry Downes - Date: 1993 - Page References: 211
The Buildings of England - Page References: 652-653
THE QUADRANGLE (N 173-177, 186-191, 203), NORTH YARD

Grade: I
SX 4454 NE PLYMOUTH NORTH YARD, Devonport Dockyard
740-1/91/199 The Quadrangle (N 173-177, 186-191,203)
GV I
Foundry, smithery, boiler and machine shop, offices and store. 1852–61, by William Scamp and
Col. G T Greene of the Admiralty Works Department, external elevations by Sir Charles Barry.
Limestone ashlar with yellow brick and granite dressings, and a corrugated sheet roof on cast-
iron stanchions. Italianate style. PLAN: symmetrical square plan originally of 2 courtyards, with
central offices along the W front flanked by stores, side ranges set back with re-entrant corners,
containing metal-working shops in S range and boiler and plater’s shops in the N, and central
rear (E) former foundry, millwright’s and pattern shops with 2 large chimneys to E corners, beam
engine houses to NE and SE corners, and coal stores (converted to offices later C19), along rear.
EXTERIOR: 2-storey; 29-bay front and 18-bay sides. Strongly-articulated elevations with a plinth,
276
cornice and blocking course. W front has 3:3:3-bay central entrance section, the middle set forward
with a large round-arched entrance beneath a Diocletian window, and tall, pedimented attic with
a panel of recessed roundels, flanking 3-storey bays with attic with 2-roundel panels, and flanking
square turrets with flat-topped belfries with round-arched openings and balustrade, connected
by a balustrade to the pediment; flanking 3-bay sections have narrow recessed central bays for
hoisting which rise up into a segmental pediment, outer recessed bays with ovolo-moulded tops,
and round-arched ground-floor and segmental- arched first-floor openings. Outer sections are 5:1:5-
bays each with a pedimented central entrance bay, containing segmental-arched cross windows set
in ovolo-headed recesses. End gables are simpler versions of the entrance, 2 storeys without the
sunken panels or balustrade, with corner turrets with loops, and belfries with pedimented sides
and small domes. N and S ranges have matching end gables with square tops to the turrets, the S
with VR 1853 and the N with VR 1856 in the spandrels of the main entrance arch, and connected
to the main block by a wide round archway. Side elevations similarly articulated. Originally with
ovolo-moulded windows with small-paned metal frames, some altered or blocked in. Former
engine and boiler house in the NE corner a 5-bay range with small ground-floor windows, and
first-floor windows set in recesses with bracketed heads, a bracketed cornice and attic storey with
sunken panels with paired oculi; E end has panel with 4 oculi. To the inner side is a truncated
octagonal brick chimney. Matching SE engine house. Rear E elevation has 7-window outer ranges
with pedimented end gables, plinth, plat band and eaves cornice, connected by a single-storey
central range to the back of the foundry, with round archways leading to the foundry yard at each
end and a blocking course. Behind this is the tall yellow brick foundry with a central pedimented
wing with 2 round-arched openings with double doors, paired end gables and 5 large lunettes
along the sides, and two large square chimney towers at E corners of four stages with panelled
sides and tall false machicolations, containing truncated round chimneys. Iron hoppers inscribed
VR with fouled anchors. INTERIOR: the main entrance archway has 3 vaulted bays, cantilevered
granite open-well stairs each side with iron balusters, and offices. The main former workshop areas
arranged around a grid of cast-iron I-section stanchions to pierced segmental arches and metal-
trussed roofs, E and W aisles have trussed timber beams, with two traveller roads. The foundry
has H-section iron stanchions to pierced segmental arches under the valley, 5 E bays with heavy
fire-proof mezzanines, and corner winder stairs. Roof trusses with cruciform struts, flat-iron ties
in pairs or threes at the ends, and wrought-iron tie rods. HISTORY: the Steam, now North Yard
opened in 1853. The design of the Quadrangle evolved from a group of separate workshops round
an open court to a roofed building with a grid of early rolled stanchions which could be flexible in
its internal arrangements. Fitted with two beam engines either end of the foundry with line shafting
through the building and an internal railway, the forges were drawn by five large flues to the two
chimney towers. The culmination of a generation of metal workshops in the Dockyards for the new
steam navy, the biggest of its type built by the Navy, and a very rare instance of the involvement of
a national architect in a Naval workshop. The Quadrangle was moreover a very successful design,
outstanding in a national context for its remarkably advanced use of flexible planning, which has
ensured its adaptability to the Navy’s changing engineering needs. (Sources: Coad J: A Maritime
History of Devon: 11; The Buildings of England: Pevsner N: Devon: London: 1989: 653; Evans D:
The Buildings of the Steam Navy: 1994: 23-29).
Selected Sources
1. Book Reference - Author: D Evans - Title: The Buildings of the Steam Navy - Date: 1994 -
2. Book Reference - Author: Coad, J - Title: A Maritime History of Devon - Page References: 11
277
WALLS AND BOLLARDS TO NUMBER 3 BASIN, NORTH YARD

Grade: II*
SX 4455 NE PLYMOUTH NORTH YARD, Devonport Dockyard
740-1/91/200 Walls and bollards to No. 3 Basin
GV II*
Basin walls. 1844–8. Channelled rustication to stone-coped granite walls. Steps to north and -south
walls. Walls extend approximately 800m around basin, terminating in the caisson closing the SW
entrance. A former caisson entrance to the N is blocked. Cast-iron bollards set into the quay edge
inscribed VR. Occupies a formal position in front of the Quadrangle (qv), the largest engineering
complex erected for the navy, and is graded to reflect this important position. It is comparable
with but better preserved than the Steam Basin at the contemporary steam engineering complex at
Portsmouth. These facilities were built for servicing the increasingly large warships of the era, and
with the Quadrangle, are indicative of the commitment by the navy to building a steam-powered fleet.
DOCK PUMPING STATION (N 114 AND N 115), NORTH YARD

Grade: II
SX 4456 SE PLYMOUTH NORTH YARD, Devonport Dockyard
740-1/90/195 Dock Pumping Station (N 114 and N 115)
GV II
Hydraulic pumping station. Dated 1905, by Stothert and Pitt, engineers. Red brick with limestone
dressings and slate roof. Square plan with rear boiler house. Edwardian Baroque style. EXTERIOR:
2 storeys; W front of 2:1:2-window range. Articulated by wide rusticated pilasters, with a plinth,
ground-floor cornice, entablature and cornice beneath parapet; moulded stone string course,
with entablature to central pilasters. Keyed stone architrave to semicircular arched window above
date panel and segmental-arched rusticated doorway with cavetto-moulded surround and 3-pane
overlight. Keyed segmental-arched ovolo-moulded architraves to ground-floor windows and
alternating stone voussoirs to round-arched first-floor windows. Metal-framed casements. Similar
articulation to 3-bay sides with keyed first-floor oculi and segmental-arched doorway to N (left-hand)
return. Lower rear range altered mid C20. Right-hand single-storey range not included. INTERIOR:
has riveted iron columns to a strutted iron roof. HISTORY: probably contained a pair of triple
expansion engines. The station pumped out the new No. 8 dock (qv), the most complete remaining
dry dock associated with the Dreadnought class, part of the Keyham Dreadnought Dockyard
extension (opened 1907). The use of hydraulic power was central to the operation of cranes,
capstans and lock gates. A notable large hydraulic pumping station, externally well presented and
comparable to those at Chatham and Portsmouth (qv). (Sources: North East London Polytechnic and
GLC: Dockland An illustrated Historical Survey of Life and Work: London: 1986: 159).
Selected Sources
Book Reference - Author: Carr, R J M - Title: Dockland: An illustrated historical survey of life and
work in east London - Date: 1986 - Page 159
278
NUMBER 8 DOCK, NORTH YARD

NUMBER 8 DOCK
Grade: II
SX 4456 SE PLYMOUTH NORTH YARD, Devonport Dockyard
740-1/90/197 No. 8 Dock
GV II
Dry dock. Begun 1896; extended twice prior to 1914. Built of Cornish granite, supplemented by
supplies from Norway. Over 700 feet long and of traditional form with altars stepped inwards,
flights of steps and arched entries. HISTORY: built as part of the Keyham extension to the
Devonport Dockyards, begun in 1896 and prompted by the need for more docking and berthing
facilities. Devonport was thought to be the first port of call in wartime; by 1914 it had become
the largest naval base in Western Europe. Five Dreadnoughts, in addition to other battleships and
cruisers forming part of Admiral Fisher’s expansion of the fleet, were constructed here prior to
1914. Included, with its related Pumping Station (qv), as an example of the largest shipbuilding
docks in a naval yard, representative of a period in which naval construction was of prime
national strategic significance, and international consequence.
NORTH YARD OFFICES (N 215) AND ATTACHED FRONT WALLS, NORTH YARD
Grade: II
SX 4555 NW PLYMOUTH NORTH YARD, Devonport Dockyard
740-1/92/196 North Yard Offices (N 215) and attached front walls
GV II
Terrace of offices. Dated 1903 and 1910 above entrances. Limestone ashlar with parapeted slate
roofs. Classical style. Double-depth plan. EXTERIOR: facade consists of 3 blocks of 3-storey
terraces, linked by recessed 2-storey bays, the ground rising towards the south. North terrace of
3:13:3 fenestration with plat bands, cornice to parapet, pilasters to pedimented outer 3-window
bays and slightly-projecting central one-window entrance bay: horned 6/6 pane sashes; hollow-
moulded architrave to rusticated entrance, surmounted by pilasters framing tripartite windows
(pedimented to first floor) and rising to date panel set above cornice. Terrace wall with steps and
lamps to front, with south-end steps terminating next to central terrace. Central terrace of 4:3:4:3:4
fenestration with pilasters framing 3-window pedimented bays, plat bands, cornice to parapet
and battered plinth of rougher stone; 6/9-pane sashes to 2-storey elevation, of equal height to
flanking terraces; entrance to 3-window pedimented bay on right, with continuous cornice broken
by pedimented tripartite window with pilasters set above semi-circular arched rusticated entrance.
South terrace of 2:3:2:3:2-window fenestration is treated in a more robust manner than the others,
with chamfered surrounds to horned 6/6-pane sashes, bracketed cornices to parapets, and battered
walls to slightly projecting 2-window outer bays and narrow central entrance bay with paired
smaller sashes; bolection-moulded doorway to porch with cornice. INTERIORS: noted as retaining
original joinery, including doors, and open-well staircases. HISTORY: built to serve the Keyham
extension to the Dockyard (opened 1907). A plain but prominent facade, forming an important
part of the Keyham extension linking the former dockyard entrance, now the Police House with
279
the retaining wall behind the Quadrangle (qv), and marking the end of an important period of
expansion in the Dockyard. Included as part of a group with the Police House, retaining wall and
Quadrangle (qv). (Source: The Buildings of England:
Pevsner N: Devon: London: 1989: 653).
Selected Sources
POLICE OFFICES (FORMER DOCK ENTRANCE GATEHOUSE N 223) AND ATTACHED

WALL, NORTH YARD
Grade: II
740-1/92/198 Police Offices (former Dock Entrance Gatehouse, N 223) and attached wall
GV II
Dockyard gatehouse, now police offices. 1854, by William Scamp, Assistant Director of the
Admiralty Works Department. Limestone ashlar with granite dressings and slate hipped roof. Free
Italianate style. Double-depth plan with square plan S tower.
EXTERIOR: 2 storeys; 8-bay range with 3-storey; 3-bay right-hand range. An irregular W front has
a square 4-stage clock tower 3 bays from the right, the middle 6 bays with the upper storey set
back, second bay from the left set forward with steep swept French Empire-style roof with 3 round
dormers each side and iron finials, and the left-hand bay set back; ground-floor round-arched
arcade with an impost band, moulded architraves and keys, with doorways with half-glazed doors
in the projecting left-hand bay. The right-hand S tower has full-height recesses with corbel table
and bands to each floor, architraves to casement windows, modillion cornice and balustrade; on
top is a granite clock tower over a sunken panel with paired oculi, and an ogee leaded roof with
small louvred dormers, the top section raised by a blind timber band. Middle section has a panelled
parapet, the upper floor with flat-headed windows; projecting entrance bay has first-floor 3-light
mullion windows and panelled aprons, and the end bay 3 narrow first-floor windows and cill band.
Horned plate glass sashes. The road front is plainer with blocked windows on the ground and first
floors. INTERIOR: has plain offices and axial corridor. SUBSIDIARY FEATURES: the dock perimeter
wall extends N for approx. 350m, with interval pilaster buttresses. HISTORY: formerly one of a
matched pair of gatehouses at right angles to one another with a curved screen wall and gates
that formed the entrance to the new North (Steam) Yard; the other was demolished in the 1960s.
Listed for architectural interest and group value with other buildings built by Scamp, such as the
Quadrangle (qv), as part of the expansion of the steam dockyard.
(Source: The Illustrated London News: London: 1853).
Selected Sources
1. Article Reference - Date: 1853 - Journal Title: Illustrated London News
280
REVETMENT WALL TO EAST OF THE QUADRANGLE, NORTH YARD

Grade: II
740-1/92/889 Revetment wall to E of the Quadrangle
GV II
Retaining wall. 1850s. Squared limestone rubble wall with ashlar towers and dressings. Tall battered
wall extends approx. 250m N from the North Yard Offices (qv) in three sections to the E of the
Quadrangle (qv). Square stair tower to the S end with round-arched entrance in the tall plinth,
open arched windows at the top and a granite string beneath a coped parapet. Steps out slightly
with square tower, turns E at the N end to a further tower in the inner corner. A section of wall
runs approx. 35m to the E with an arched walkway on the S side, to connect to a tower on the
perimeter wall (qv). HISTORY: this imposing retaining wall was built for the cleared site of the
Quadrangle. Reservoirs, now infilled, on the upper level pressured the hydraulic system serving
the North Yard docks. It forms an impressive backdrop to the North Yard, continuing the line of
the North Yard Offices (qv).
HMS DRAKE CHAPEL OF ST NICHOLAS, SALTASH ROAD

List entry Number: 1386364
Grade: II
Date first listed: 08-Jul-1998
PLYMOUTH SX45NW SALTASH ROAD, Devonport 740-1/4/163 (West side) 08/07/98 HMS Drake:
Chapel of St Nicholas
Chapel on naval base. 1905–7.
GV II
MATERIALS: Dressed Plymouth limestone brought to course and with limestone dressings; steep
slate nave roof behind parapet and with coped ends; polygonal roof to chancel; lead roofs to
porches and to half dome of baptistry. STYLE: Gothic Revival. PLAN: chapel orientated NE-SW the
SW being the ritual E end, the following points of the compass indicating their ritual positions: tall
nave, apsidal chancel and low aisles plus N and S porches at W end, S vestry at E end of nave and
octagonal baptistery to W end. EXTERIOR: plinth, triangular buttresses flanking bays (except for
diagonal corner buttresses at W end), mid-floor and parapet strings and round-arched openings
with hoodmoulds; leaded glazing and V-jointed planked doors with original iron furniture. Aisle
and baptistery windows are traceried lunettes on a sill string; nave N and S windows are tall 2-light
and traceried like the aisle windows; chancel has tall single-light windows over crypt with small
single-light windows. The crypt doorway is into the basement of the vestry which has quatrefoil
window to gable above and small flanking lights lower down. The W window is 5 lights with heads
as transom and 4 lights above. Surmounting the nave gable adjoining the chancel is a 3-bay stepped
and shaped belfry with 3 bells and a cross finial. INTERIOR: 11-bay arcades with hexagonal piers
with moulded round arches with hood moulds; arched-braced nave roof springing from moulded
corbels plus tie beams; chancel has barrel-vaulted roof with painted ribs springing from turned
marble shafts. The original space has been subdivided to form 3 separate chapels (Anglican, Roman
Catholic and Scottish Free). FITTINGS: original pitch-pine pews with shaped ends and V-jointed
boards; Octagonal freestone Gothic style pulpit and C20 freely shaped bronze font.
281
This chapel has very clean lines appropriate to the naval tradition and the triangular buttresses
and the section of the arcade piers are perhaps inspired by the shape of ships. In fact the way
the whole building is set on the slope of the land makes it look like a ship being pushed before
a following giant wave. HISTORY: the earliest of 4 matching naval barracks churches, the others,
both of brick, are at HMS Pembroke in Chatham and at the Marines barracks at Deal and Eastney.
The architect is unknown, drawings are signed TNW and dated 1908. An impressive example of
late Gothic Revival architecture within the context of one of the finest and most complete barrack
complexes in England, manifesting the importance and status of the Royal Navy at this time.
(The Buildings of England: Pevsner N: Devon: London: 1989: 656).
Selected Sources
1. Book Reference - Author: Pevsner, N and Cherry, B - Title: The Buildings of England: Devon -
Date: 1989 - Page References: 656 - Type: DESC TEXT
HMS DRAKE CLOCK TOWER SOUTH EAST OF MAIN GATES AND ATTACHED
GUARDHOUSE, SALTASH ROAD
Grade: II
PLYMOUTH SX4556NW SALTASH ROAD, Devonport
740-1/32/164 (West side) 1/05/75 HMS Drake: Clock Tower south-east of Main Gates and attached
Guardhouse
GV II
Formerly known as: (HMS Drake) Clock Tower south-east of Main Gates SALTASH ROAD
Devonport. Clocktower and attached guardhouse on naval base. Completed 1896, under
Superintendent Engineer Lt-Colonel P Smith RE. MATERIALS: Plymouth limestone: ashlar to tower
with channelledrustication to lower stages, guardroom block with rock-faced basement, otherwise
dressed limestone brought to course; dry slate roof behind parapet with moulded entablature; stone
stacks with moulded cornices. Free Classical style. PLAN: overall irregular plan incorporating square
clocktower flanked by rectangular guardroom blocks. EXTERIOR: single-storey guardhouse over
basement to lower ground on right; 4 stages plus diminishing stages to clocktower; guardhouse
right of clocktower is regular 5-window range. Tetrastyle prostyle entrance loggia on stylobate
to tower but with paired columns with fluted upper parts and larger unfluted corner columns;
fielded panels under windows to side bays and return bays, and overlight to central doorway;
moulded entablature under balustraded parapet with central crest. Tower stage above entrance
floor has small paired lights to sides. Balcony entablature above with balustraded balconies on
console brackets in front of 2-light windows with round-arched lights and portcullis-like overlights.
At this stage the tower is made to look lighter with cavetto-on-plan corners. Above the windows
are triangular pediments. The next stage has recessed corners with flanking pilasters; balustraded
entablature below clock face to each side and machicolated cornice to iron balustraded shielded
walk with chamfered corners to a diminished stage also with chamfered corners and chamfered and
pilastered window openings above. The further diminished stage above this has a similar balcony
over a moulded cornice and has smaller similar windows surmounted by triangular pediments.
Above this the chamfered corners have slender buttresses and there is a balustraded parapet
entablature plus finally a flagpole. Guardhouse right of clocktower has tall original 12-pane sashes
within pedimented architraves, the pediments linked by moulded cornices and there is a moulded
sill string and panelled aprons. Right-hand return has 4-light oriel on brackets and surmounted by
a coved entablature and a triangular pediment with a dentilled cornice linked to parapet cornice
of front. Segmental-arched basement doorway with console keyblock and pair of planked doors.
282
INTERIOR: not inspected. HISTORY: a notable tall clock tower, an unusual component of a
barracks, enriched by a wide variety of decoration. Built as part of the final phase of construction
for the barracks, although the design may have been settled when the barracks was begun in the
1870s since the later buildings are consistent with the earliest. Forms part of one of the finest and
most complete barracks in England, manifesting the importance and status of the Royal Navy at this
time. (The Buildings of England: Pevsner N: Devon: London: 1989: 655 & 656).
Selected Sources
Date: 1989 - Page References: 655-656 - Type: DESC TEXT
HMS DRAKE, DRAKE HOUSE AND ATTACHED WALLS AND RAILINGS, SALTASH ROAD
Grade: II
740-1/32/166 (West side) 08/07/98 HMS Drake: Drake House and attached walls & railings
GV II
Commodore’s house, including attached porch on road frontage and flanking walls and iron
railings. 1887, Superintendent Engineer Lt-Col P Smith RE. Plymouth limestone brought to course
and with limestone dressings; steep dry slate roofs with projecting eaves and decorated barge
boards, very steep roof over tower; stone axial, gable and lateral stacks with moulded cornices.
Baronial Gothic style and some Classical detail. Irregular plan. EXTERIOR: 2 storeys plus attic;
irregular 3-bay entrance front. On the left is a square 3-storey tower with sill string to 2nd floor
and moulded parapet entablature; paired lights to upper floors and central window to ground
floor. Projecting gabled bay right of tower has double-transomed 3-light windows to upper floors
and side walls ramped flanking balcony with cast-iron balustrade and with moulded cornice over
projecting ground floor. Right-hand bay has canted attic dormer window over 1st-floor window and
L-plan porch to ground floor, a lean-to returned to front and to stuccoed road frontage entrance
with stepped tripartite doorway with triangular pediment over central doorway to porch and
flanking moulded courtyard doorways, all with moulded hoods, and rusticated terminal piers with
plinths, moulded entablature and rounded caps. Other elevations with various details on the theme
of the front. Original windows, mostly horned sashes and original panelled doors. INTERIOR: not
inspected. SUBSIDIARY FEATURES: Plymouth limestone road-frontage walls with dressed plinths
and copings surmounted by wrought-iron railings with trident finials between turned cast-iron
stanchions. HISTORY: a building unique to naval barracks, and a striking and original composition.
Forms part of the navy’s first barracks for sailors, one of the finest and most complete barracks in
the country, manifesting the status and importance of the Royal Navy at this time. (The Buildings
of England: Pevsner N: Devon: London: 1989: 655).
Selected Sources
Date: 1989 - Page References: 655 - Type: DESC TEXT
HMS DRAKE DRILL SHED, SALTASH ROAD

Grade: II
283

740-1/4/168 (West side) 01/05/75 HMS Drake: Drill Shed
GV II
Formerly known as: (HMS Drake) Indoor Parade Ground Building SALTASH ROAD Devonport.
Drill shed. 1879–86, Superintendent Engineer Lt-Col P Smith, RE; doubled in size 1907. Plymouth
limestone ashlar with steel frame behind; flat roof hidden by parapet. Large rectangular plan.
EXTERIOR: single storey; symmetrical 1:9:1:9:1-bay front. Plinth, rusticated pilasters dividing bays,
parapet entablature and segmental arches to openings. Wide central entrance bay and narrow
blind end bays broken forward and surmounted by pediments. The 9-bay side elevations, also
symmetrical, each have 2 large entrances (3rd and 7th bays) with rusticated columns supporting
entablature with large segmental pediment and the terminal bays are identical to those of the front.
INTERIOR: noted as having iron supports to an iron-trussed roof. HISTORY: sailors lived in hulks
until the first barracks were built here at Devonport in the late C19, followed by similar designs at
Chatham and Portsmouth; HMS Drake was the only one built in ashlar. Sheds for indoor drill were
introduced into barracks during the 1880s, and this is comparable with the very large examples
at the other two naval barracks. Part of one of the finest and most complete barracks in England,
manifesting the status and importance of the Royal Navy at this time. (The Buildings of England:
Pevsner N: Devon: London: 1989: 655 & 656).
Selected Sources
HMS DRAKE FROBISHER BLOCK RIGHT OF MAIN ENTRANCE

HMS DRAKE FROBISHER BLOCK RIGHT OF MAIN ENTRANCE, SALTASH ROAD
Grade: II
740-1/32/165 (West side) 08/07/98 HMS Drake: Frobisher Block right of Main Entrance
GV II
Commodore’s office. 1879–86. Supervised by Engineer Lt-Colonel P Smith RE. Dressed Plymouth
limestone brought to course; dry slate roof behind parapet with moulded entablature and plain
end copings; end, axial and lateral stacks, all with moulded entablature. Free Classical style. PLAN:
very long rectangular plan plus small pay office wing at road front plus full-length verandahs to
both fronts, the inner verandah later glazed. EXTERIOR: 2 storeys; 4:1:2:8-bay 14-window range to
inner front, other front similar but with central wing with louvred roof. Original 12-pane horned
sashes. The original cast-iron downpipes feed into the stanchions, with Composite capitals, of
the verandah. Doorways have segmental arches over pairs of doors with bolection-moulded
panels; overlights. The parapet entablature returns at the ends to give the effect of pediments.
INTERIOR: not inspected. HISTORY: sailors lived in hulks until their first barracks were built here at
Devonport, then at Chatham and Portsmouth. These followed a similar design, although HMS Drake
was built from ashlar. Part of the initial phase of construction, and part of one of the finest and
most complete barrack complexes in England, manifesting the status and importance of the Royal
Navy at this time. (The Buildings of England: Pevsner N: Devon: London: 1989-: 655 & 656).
284
Selected Sources
HMS DRAKE HOWARD BUILDING, SALTASH ROAD

Grade: II
740-1/32/167 (West side) 08/07/98 HMS Drake: Howard Building
GV II
Officer’s accommodation, now administration block. 1879–86, Superintendent Engineer Lt-Col P
Smith, RE; extended to SW 1929. MATERIALS: rusticated Plymouth limestone to basement, otherwise
limestone brought to course and with limestone dressings; dry slate mansard roof behind parapet
with 3 pilastered and segmental-pedimented dormer windows and roof hidden behind balustraded
parapets of flanking attic storeys. Free Classical style. PLAN: articulated rectangular plan plus
small plan projection to centre of each end. EXTERIOR: 2 storeys plus attic, or attic storey, over
basement; symmetrical 1:3:1-bay front. Keyed segmental arches and band to basement, sill string
above and pilasters dividing bays; mid-floor entablature plus roundelled balconies on shaped
brackets; architraves to openings, moulded hoods on consoles above French windows and moulded
parapet entablature; 3-bay attic storeys with pilasters dividing bays and side bays blind. Original
12-pane horned sashes and French windows and original panelled doors to central doorway
surmounted by segmental pediment on shaped brackets. Other elevation with similar detail where
inspected. INTERIOR: not inspected. HISTORY: this was the original officer’s accommodation when
the barracks was first occupied. They moved into the Wardroom (qv) when it was completed in
1902. Sailors lived in hulks until their first barracks were built here at Devonport, then Chatham and
Portsmouth. They followed the same designs, but HMS Drake was the only one built in ashlar. Part
of one of the finest and most complete barracks complex in England, manifesting the status and
importance of the Royal Navy at this time. (The Buildings of England: Pevsner N: Devon: London:
1989-: 655 & 656).
Selected Sources
HMS DRAKE MAIN GATEWAY WITH GATE PIER ARCHES, GATES, FLANKING WALLS AND
RAILINGS, SALTASH ROAD
Grade: II
740-1/32/169 (West side) 01/05/75 HMS Drake: Main Gateway with gate-pier arches, gates, flanking
walls & railings
GV II
285
Formerly known as: (HMS Drake) Main Gates to Saltash Road SALTASH ROAD Devonport. Entrance
gates, gate-pier arches, flanking walls at main entrance, with railings extending approx 400m to
S and SW. 1906-7, Superintendent Engineer possibly Major Monro Wilson, RE. Dressed Plymouth
limestone and iron railings. Wide carriageway flanked by 2 pedestrian entrances through 2 Classical
style arches plus low curved-plan wall on the right surmounted by iron railings, high wall linked
to guardroom block with clocktower on the left. Each round keyed arch has flanking vermiculated
pilasters. Dentilled entablature with pulvinated friezes and centre panels surmounted by segmental
pediments with richly carved panels and central wreaths with twined anchors. Wrought-iron gates
with close-set bars, double top rails and triple lock/bottom rails with scrolled decoration between
the 2 bottom rails. Pedestrian gates also have turned decoration between top rails and scrolled
tympanae. HISTORY: the main entrance was built as part of the third phase of construction of the
barracks, though the design may have been settled in the 1870s when the barracks was begun,
since the later buildings are consistent with the earliest. Formed the main entrance to the first navy
barracks, now one of the finest and most complete in England, manifesting the importance and
status of the Royal Navy at this time. (The Buildings of England: Pevsner N: Devon: London: 1989-:
655 & 656).
Selected Sources
HMS DRAKE SEYMOUR BUILDING, SALTASH ROAD

Grade: II
740-1/4/170 (West side) 08/07/98 HMS Drake: Seymour Building
GV II
Officer’s accommodation, now administration block on naval base. 1879-86, Superintendent
Engineer Lt-Col P Smith, RE. MATERIALS: Plymouth rusticated limestone ashlar to basement of right-
hand block, dressed Plymouth limestone brought to course above and with limestone dressings;
dry slate mansard roofs; dormer windows behind parapets to centre and left; right-hand block
with pilastered dormer windows with segmental pediments flanked by attic storeys to end bays
surmounted by balustraded parapets; all parapets with moulded cornices. Free Classical style.
PLAN: articulated rectangular plan. EXTERIOR: 2 storeys plus attic over basement; 1:3:1:3:1:3:1-bay
front. Keyed segmental arches and string to basement; pilasters flanking bays which are broken
forward; architraves to openings; original 12-pane horned sashes and French windows to balconies.
Recessed central bays have central doorway approached by steps on bridge. The moulded doorway
is broken forward and has arms between door head and moulded entablature; window immediately
above entablature has scrolled abutments. Right-hand block has fretted balconies on shaped
brackets and consoles with hoods above French windows; central bay has segmental pediment
to balcony. Attic storeys are 3 bays, with blind side bays, divided by pilasters. Other elevations
with similar detail where inspected. INTERIOR: not inspected. HISTORY: this was the original
officers’ accommodations when the barracks was first occupied. The officers moved into their new
quarters in the Wardroom (qv) when it was completed in 1902. Sailors lived in hulks until the first
naval barracks were built here at Devonport, followed by similar designs in brick at Chatham and
Portsmouth. Part of one of the finest and most complete barrack complexes in England, manifesting
the importance and status of the Royal Navy at this time. (The Buildings of England: Pevsner N:
Devon: London: 1989: 655 & 656).
286
Selected Sources
HMS DRAKE ST NICHOLAS ROAD EXMOUTH BLOCK, SALTASH ROAD

Grade: II
740-1/4/171 (West side) 08/07/98 HMS Drake: St Nicholas Road, Exmouth Block
GV II
Large barrack, one of 3 similar blocks. 1907. MATERIALS: Dressed Plymouth limestone brought to
course and with limestone dressings; slate or asbestos slate roof behind parapets with moulded
cornices to sides, and to projecting blocks, and behind pedimented gables with flanking panelled
stone stacks with moulded entablature. STYLE: Free Classical. PLAN: overall long rectangular plan
plus projecting corner wings and central wings to sides. EXTERIOR: 3 storeys; symmetrical 2:3:2-
bay ends which are principal entrance fronts with central doorways with flanking pairs of windows.
Doorways at slightly irregular intervals also to 2:8:2:8:2-bay sides. Mid-floor moulded entablature;
Entrance fronts have keyed segmental arches to ground floor and pediments to centre of wings;
keyed round arches to recessed pilastered openings to 1st floor and flat heads with pediments to
2nd floor. Returns of the corner blocks have similar detail to the fronts. The central wings of the
sides have rock-faced pilasters dividing the bays and triangular pediments to the parapets. The long
ranges set back between have pedimented hoods on brackets to 1st floor and consoles resembling
machicolations above 2nd-floor windows. INTERIOR: not inspected but noted as having large
dormitories with end corner wash rooms and central stairs. HISTORY: the last of 5 original barracks
to be built; in their plan they followed the pavilion principle, better known for hospitals. They were
originally fitted with hammocks. Sailors lived in hulks until their first barracks were built, first at
Devonport, then Chatham and Portsmouth. They were built to similar plans, although only HMS
Drake was of ashlar. Part of one of the finest and most complete barracks complexes in England,
manifesting the importance and status of the Royal Navy at this time. (The Buildings of England:
Pevsner N: Devon: London: 1989: 655 & 656).
Selected Sources
HMS DRAKE ST NICHOLAS ROAD GRENVILLE BLOCK, SALTASH ROAD

Grade: II
740-1/4/172 (West side) 08/07/98 HMS Drake: St Nicholas Road, Grenville Block
GV II
Large barrack, one of 3 similar blocks. 1901, Superintendent Engineer Lt-Col P Smith, RE.
287
MATERIALS: dressed Plymouth limestone brought to course and with limestone dressings; slate or
asbestos slate roof behind parapets with moulded cornices to sides, and to projecting blocks, and
behind pedimented gables with flanking panelled stone stacks with moulded entablature. STYLE:
Free Classical. PLAN: overall rectangular plan plus projecting corner wings and central wings to
sides. EXTERIOR: 3 storeys, over basement on the lower ground [the ground floor is slightly below
ground level at the higher end]; symmetrical 2:3:2-bay ends which are principal entrance fronts
with central doorways flanked by pairs of windows; doorways at slightly irregular intervals also to
2:8:2:8:2-bay sides. Mid-floor moulded entablature; entrance fronts have keyed segmental arches to
ground floor and pediments to centre of wings; keyed round arches to recessed pilastered openings
to 1st floor and flat heads with pediments to 2nd floor. Returns of the corner blocks have similar
detail to the fronts. The central wings of the sides have rock-faced pilasters dividing the bays and
triangular pediments to the parapets. The long ranges set back between have pedimented hoods
on brackets to 1st floor and consoles resembling machicolations above 2nd-floor windows. Original
horned sashes with glazing bars and panelled doors. INTERIOR: not inspected, but noted as having
large dormitories, with end corner washrooms and central stairs. HISTORY: part of the second
phase of construction; in their plan the barracks followed the pavilion principle, better known for
hospitals. They were originally fitted with hammocks. Sailors lived in hulks until their first barracks
were built, here at Devonport, then Chatham and Portsmouth. HMS Drake was the only one built
of ashlar. Part of the finest and most complete barrack complexes in England, manifesting the
status and importance of the Royal Navy at this time. (The Buildings of England: Pevsner N: Devon:
London: 1989: 655 & 656).
Selected Sources
HMS DRAKE ST NICHOLAS ROAD RALEIGH BLOCK, SALTASH ROAD

Grade: II
740-1/4/173 (West side) 08/07/98 HMS Drake: St Nicholas Road, Raleigh Block
GV II
Large barrack, one of 3 similar blocks. 1901, Superintendent engineer Lt-Col P Smith, RE.
MATERIALS: dressed Plymouth limestone brought to course and with limestone dressings; slate
or asbestos slate roof behind parapets with moulded cornices to sides, and to projecting blocks,
and behind pedimented end gables with flanking panelled stone stacks with moulded entablature.
STYLE: Free Classical. PLAN: overall rectangular plan plus projecting corner wings and central
wings to sides. EXTERIOR: 3 storeys, over basement on the lower ground (the ground floor is partly
below ground level at the higher end); symmetrical 2:3:2-bay ends which are principal entrance
fronts with central doorways and pairs of flanking windows. Doorways at slightly irregular intervals
also to 2:8:2:8:2-bay sides. Mid-floor moulded entablature; entrance fronts have keyed segmental
arches to ground floor and pediments to centre of wings; keyed round arches to recessed pilastered
openings to1st floor and flat heads with pediments to 2nd floor. Returns of the corner blocks have
similar detail to the fronts. The central wings of the sides have rock-faced pilasters dividing the
bays and triangular pediments to the parapets. The long ranges set back between have pedimented
hoods on brackets to 1st floor and consoles resembling machicolations above 2nd-floor windows.
INTERIOR: not inspected, but noted as having large dormitories with end corner washrooms and
central stairs. HISTORY: part of the second phase of construction of HMS Drake; in their plan the
288
barracks followed the pavilion principle better known for hospitals. They were originally fitted
with hammocks. Sailors lived in hulks until their first barracks were built, here at Devonport, then
Chatham and Portsmouth. Built to a common design, HMS Drake was the only one of ashlar. Part
of one of the finest and most complete barrack complexes in England, manifesting the status and
importance of the Royal Navy at this time. (The Buildings of England: Pevsner N: Devon: London:
1989: 655 & 656).
Selected Sources
HMS DRAKE ST ANDREWS CHURCH, HMS DRAKE THEATRE COMPLEX, SALTASH ROAD
Grade: II
740-1/4/174 HMS Drake: Theatre Complex 08/07/98
GV II
Includes: HMS Drake: St Andrew’s Church SALTASH ROAD Devonport.
Barrack master’s house and canteen, converted to theatre and associated recreation and service
rooms, now partly a church.1879-86, extended 1892–1912, Superintendent Engineer Lt-Col P
Smith, RE. MATERIALS: Plymouth limestone: rock-faced ashlar to basement of theatre end,
otherwise limestone brought to course and with limestone dressings; slate roofs behind parapets
with moulded entablature or triangular pediments; stone axial and lateral stacks with moulded
entablature; louvred ventilator above projection room of theatre. STYLE: Free Classical. PLAN:
single-depth plan house at N end with canteen to S side, separated by a courtyard; a wide through
passage and attached single-storey cloakrooms at the higher end of the theatre, then a pedimented
2-storey block, plus another block at the higher end. EXTERIOR: theatre over basement, single-
storey link building, otherwise 2 storeys; 1:6-bay theatre with pedimented moulded doorway
approached by steps on the left and blind windows. Theatre passage and buildings on the right
are set back from the theatre. Passage has wide round-arched doorway with corbelled imposts;
2 tall transomed windows right of this with plain architraves. The parapet entablature continues
as a mid-floor entablature across the 5-bay pedimented front approached by full-width round-
ended flight of steps; keyed oculus to pediment. Building on right is 3-window 1st-floor range with
segmental-arched ground-floor openings: a doorway on the left and a window on the right. Above
the doorway is a banner inscribed FISHER. Wider 3-window right-hand return has similar details.
3-bay left-hand return of Theatre has central triangular pediment over large 3-light round-arched
window with square columns as mullions; blind flanking windows. 2-window-range side wall of
house left of Theatre. Rear has similar general detail to other elevations. On the left is a wing with
a central tripartite window on each floor; right of this are ramped walls to courtyard of building
with pedimented end; right of this another tripartite window and the round arch of the rear of the
through passage, then there is a 4-window range with horned sashes with glazing bars. Set back
right of this is a large 3-light double-transomed window but with squat ground floor flush with the
flanking buildings. At far right is the 4-window-range house front with pedimented and moulded
doorway on the right approached by a flight of steps; original horned sashes with glazing bars
and pair of panelled doors. INTERIOR: of theatre has original roof structure with tie rods. Office
has dogleg stairs and panelled doors. Other buildings not inspected. HISTORY: built and used
as Barrack Master’s quarters and canteen until 1912. Theatres were built in a number of military
289
barracks in the late C19, though HMS Drake was the only one of the navy’s three first barracks to
have one. Now houses St Andrew’s Church. Part of one of the finest and most complete barrack
complexes in England, manifesting the Royal Navy’s status and importance at this time.
(The Buildings of England: Pevsner N: Devon: London: 1989: 655 & 656).
Selected Sources
HMS DRAKE WARDROOM, OFFICERS QUARTERS AND MESS, SALTASH ROAD

Grade: II*
740-1/4/175 HMS Drake: Wardroom, Officer’s 01/05/75 quarters and Mess
GV II*
Formerly known as: (HMS Drake) Wardroom Blocks SALTASH ROAD Devonport.
Officer’s quarters and wardroom blocks. 1898–1902, Superintendent Engineer Major Monro Wilson,
RE. MATERIALS: Plymouth limestone rock-faced ashlar to ground floor, otherwise dressed limestone
brought to course and with limestone dressings; dry slate hipped roofs; stone partly external end
stacks, axial and lateral stacks, all with panels and moulded cornices. STYLE: Free Classical. PLAN:
central double-depth wardroom linked by 1st-floor passages on 2-span bridges to double-depth
quarters blocks at right angles to rear wings. EXTERIOR: 3 storeys; slightly asymmetrical 1:2:1:2:1-
bay centre block flanked by symmetrical 2:1:2-bay fronts which are similar to the fronts of the
rear wings. All blocks have pilasters dividing bays to upper floors, window architraves, moulded
hoods above 1st-floor windows, apron entablature to 1st floor, moulded sill string to 2nd floor
and moulded parapet with lower cornice; original horned sashes with glazing bars to top halves
and original panelled doors. Central block has tall entrance tower which rises 2 stages above main
parapet level. Tetrastyle Ionic porch is approached by a double L-plan staircase; 2 central windows
above, then cornice linked to parapet cornice; 4 pilasters and central round-arched window to
next stage and entablature below octagonal cupola with round arches and Ionic columns plus
further entablature sloped in towards dome with turned finial. Left of the tower is the staircase bay
with tall double-transomed 3-light round-arched window over 3-light flat-headed window; right
of the tower are paired sashes, then next bays on either side have tall sashes. The end bays are
canted with 3-light bay windows. Other fronts have tripartite entrances and 1st-floor balconies with
roudelled balustrades carried on moulded brackets. Below triangular parapet pediment to each
entrance bay is a tall round-arched transomed 3-light stair window above a squat 3-light window.
INTERIOR: wardroom has a richly-decorated interior with a fine central entrance hall divided by
marble columns with a large open well stair with moulded balusters, decorated mess rooms each
side with pilasters, cornices and wainscot, and the rear central dining room with panelled walls,
large fireplaces with painted panels; axial corridor with bedrooms on upper floors. HISTORY: part
of the second phase of the barracks, the officers were housed in Howard and Seymour blocks
(qqv) before it was built. Sailors lived in hulks until the first barracks were built for them here at
Devonport, then Chatham and Portsmouth. This is probably the finest and most ambitious officers
mess on an English barracks, executed in a bold Free Style manner, with careful attention to detail
and compositional quality, and forming the centrepiece of a complete planned group. More richly
decorated though of similar plan form to the equivalent buildings at HMS Pembroke at Chatham
and HMS Nelson at Portsmouth. Part of a complete complex, manifesting the status and importance
of the Royal Navy at this time. (The Buildings of England: Pevsner N: Devon: London: 1989:
290
655 & 656; PSA Drawings Collection, NMR Swindon: PLM 248-284).
Selected Sources
HMS DRAKE TERRACE WALLS IN FRONT OF THE WARDROOM, SALTASH ROAD

Grade: II
740-1/4/176 (West side) 08/07/98 HMS Drake: Terrace walls in front of the Wardroom
GV II
Terrace walls. c1902. Dressed Plymouth limestone walls with buttressed piers and turned
balustrades surmounted by wrought-iron lamps. Walls parallel to front of Wardroom Blocks (qv)
and with 3 flights of broad steps. Part of a fine planned group with the Wardroom and officer’s
quarters, within a complete barracks complex. (The Buildings of England: Pevsner N: Devon:
London: 1989: 655 & 656).
Selected Sources
K6 TELEPHONE KIOSK (PLYMOUTH 563568) OUTSIDE GATES TO HMS DRAKE, SALTASH

ROAD
Grade: II
Date first listed: 27-Mar-1990
740-1/32/177 (West side) 27/03/90 K6 Telephone Kiosk (Plymouth 563568) outside gates to
HMS Drake
GV II
Telephone kiosk. Type K6. Designed 1935 by Sir Giles Gilbert Scott. Made by various contractors.
Cast-iron. Square kiosk with domed roof. Unperforated crowns to top panels and margin glazing
to windows and door.
EAST ROPERY, FORMERLY SPINNING HOUSE (S 132), AND ATTACHED RETAINING

WALLS, SOUTH YARD
Grade: I
291

740-1/98/227 SOUTH YARD
13-AUG-1999 DEVONPORT DOCKYARD
EAST ROPERY, FORMERLY SPINNING HOUSE (S 132), AND ATTACHED RETAINING WALLS
(Formerly listed as:
SOUTH YARD DEVONPORT DOCKYARD SPINNING HOUSE (S 132) AND ATTACHED RETAINING
WALLS)
GV I
Spinning house (S132), renamed East Ropery in 1815, now a store. Constructed 1763-71, but was
gutted by fire in 1812. It was rebuilt in 1813–17 to the designs of Edward Holl, architect to the Navy
Board. The building was reduced in length at its northern end following bomb damage in 1941.
MATERIALS: It is built of random limestone rubble with limestone ashlar dressings under a pitched
roof clad in corrugated metal sheeting. The south gable end is rendered, while the truncated
north end which has been closed off with concrete block is clad with metal sheeting. The window
openings have cast-iron frames with panelled shutters of either iron or timber, of which the latter
are replacements, to the lower section and small panes of clear glazing above. The external steel
escape stairs are not of interest. Internally, the building has a fireproof iron frame and roof trusses.
PLAN: It has a linear, rectangular open plan, though the last five bays at the southern end have a
slightly wider footprint than the rest of the building. EXTERIOR: A 57-bay range of three storeys
with cellars. The building has a plinth, rusticated quoins, moulded eaves cornice and a coped
south gable, with plain surrounds to the openings. Both the west and east elevations have a largely
symmetrical arrangement of window openings with segmental-arched stone surrounds and iron
frames of small panes. There are also a number of additional openings, some of which are blocked,
that are understood to have formerly enabled the transfer of twine between the spinning house
and the adjacent laying house (largely demolished), and the tarred yarn stores. At the southern
end of the east elevation is a corrugated metal lean-to marks the position of the former engine
house. At irregular intervals along the west and east elevations are doorways, including several
former taking-in doors with hoist platforms. The south gable end has a wide segmental-headed
entrance with wooden double doors to the lower left side; three symmetrically-arranged windows
to the first and second floors; and an oculus in the gable. A brick-lined, arched passageway runs
beneath the central part of the building, and a second lies immediately to the north of the north
end. INTERIOR: The building retains its fireproof internal frame comprising a central aisle of cast-
iron columns connected vertically by spigots, supporting T-section transverse beams with curved
upper web and spanner ends meeting over the columns, and joists slotted into the sides. Most of
the floors are York stone slabs which were used to reduce the risk of a fire. Some fittings related to
rope-making survive, including iron pulley wheels, transmission brackets, and iron guide rails. The
roof structure is a mixture of cast iron in compression for the principal rafters and the cruciform
diagonal struts, and wrought iron in tension forming the round-section king and queen struts and
square-section ties. These extend both transversely between the principals and longitudinally along
the centre of the building. SUBSIDIARY FEATURES: Rubble retaining walls extend approximately
90m to the south-east side in three sections formed by a ramp leading down to the tunnels
beneath the East Ropery. HISTORY: The importance of Plymouth as a base for English fleets in
the Western Approaches was recognised in the late C17, and the construction of a dockyard was
instigated by William III. A ropeyard was laid out in the 1690s, on an east-west axis along the
southern side of the dockyard. The various stages involved in rope production required a number
of separate buildings with different functions, and the ropeyard or ropery was thus designed to
facilitate efficient production and formed a distinct part of the dockyard. The processes of spinning
hemp into twine and the laying of rope took place in separate spinning and laying houses (the
most distinctive parts of the ropery) at Devonport. During the remodelling of the dockyard in the
mid-C18, new ropeyard buildings, including twin spinning and laying houses, were erected on the
eastern boundary of the enlarged dockyard. After the spinning house was gutted by fire in 1812
plans were drawn up by Edward Holl, the Navy Board architect, to ‘restore’ the ropery, using cast
292
and wrought iron in place of timber, with stone flagged floors. The new spinning house, which
was re-named the East Ropery in 1815, appears to have been largely completed by late 1817, at
which time it was considered one of the largest fireproof buildings in the country. Rope production
continued until 1941. During World War II, as a result of bomb damage, the laying house was
reduced to only its foundations and the spinning house to the east was shortened by almost a third
at its northern end. Between 1945 and 1969 the Spinning House served as a training centre for
shipwright apprentices; it is now used partly for storage, though much of the building
is unoccupied.
SOURCES
Unicorn Consultancy: Historic Structure Quadrennial Inspection - The East Ropery, Spinning House,
South Yard, HM Naval Base Devonport, Plymouth (1999)
Unicorn Consultancy, HM Naval Base Devonport - Feasibility Study for the Re-Use of Building S132
- East Ropery: Plymouth (1996)
Faulkner K, Fireproof Mills - The Widening Perspective (1993), Industrial Archaeology Review,
pp 16-17
N. Pevsner, The Buildings of England: Devon (1989), pp. 652
Coad J, The Royal Dockyards 1690-1850 (1989), pp. 199-203
Holl E, Plans of the Spinning House, (1811) ADM 140/267
REASON FOR DESIGNATION: The East Ropery, South Yard, Devonport Naval Dockyard is
designated at Grade I, for the following principal reasons:
* Architecture: a highly significant example of early-C19 industrial architecture which, despite the
loss of its northern section, is remarkably well-preserved
* Design: of particular note for its internal fire-proof frame and roof trusses which represent an
early and pioneering example of this type of construction
* Rarity: a rare and outstanding survival of a specialist rope-spinning house in the context of a
naval dockyard, as well as being important in terms of its level of intactness
* Historic Interest: it is an integral part of the naval dockyard at Devonport and forms a cogent
grouping with the associated ropery buildings, as well as other dockyard buildings in South Yard
NORTH SMITHERY (SO 23), SOUTH YARD

List Entry Number: 1388402 (see HAR, PCC BAR, Streets D-F (2005))
Grade: II*
740-1/95/203 North Smithery (SO 23)
GV II*
Alternatively known as: The Old Smithery, SOUTH YARD, Devonport Dockyard. Smithery, disused.
Designed 1808 by Sir Samuel Bentham, Inspector General, extended 1847, cut by railway 1879,
extension demolished mid C20. Roughly coursed Dunstone rubble with limestone ashlar dressings;
truncated brick chimney to SE corner and corrugated sheet hipped valley roof; internal cast-iron
columns. Rectangular plan with central line of columns to valley, and spaces to Wand E for forges.
EXTERIOR: 2 storeys externally; 11-window E and W elevations, 6-window N and S elevations.
Plain walls with plat band and rusticated quoins, square-headed plat surrounds to windows, some
boarded and some with 12-pane ground-floor and 9-pane first floor cast-iron casements. Rail tunnel
passes at an angle through the building, via segmental arches with rusticated architraves on Wand
N elevations. Chimney, truncated at eaves height, incorporated into the building. Rear elevation
has stone corbels at ground-floor height and cast-iron brackets, as well as other evidence of former
processes. INTERIOR: contains a central aisle of tall cast-iron columns to the valley, attached to
293
lower slightly tapered iron columns to a gantry crane in the W section with an early C19 hand-
operated traveller; the louvred vents were removed late C19, the roof has late C19 purlins over
original queen-post trusses. A c1879 corrugated iron tunnel encloses the train track. HISTORY:
the E half originally had 18 small forges, and the W half 5, the position of whose flues can be
found in the roof, which had ridge louvre vents. Fitted with steam-powered machinery from 1845,
and the single larger stack built soon afterwards. The tunnel connecting South Yard with the1853
Steam (now North) Yard was built in 1856 but operated by horse wagons; steam trains had a larger
turning circle, hence the need to cut through the works when they were introduced. Both the 1776
South Smithery at Devonport, and the 1808 smithery at Chatham (qv), (where Bentham proposed
the use of steam blowing engines, not apparently used at Devonport), have a courtyard plan,
but were technologically traditional, and similar to the Devonport new smithery. Of considerable
historical importance as one of Bentham’s innovations to the Dockyards, this also is one of the
earliest and least altered buildings of its type in the country. (Sources: Coad J: The Architectural
Development of Devonport Naval Base 1815-1939: 13; Evans D: The Buildings of the Steam Navy:
1994: 4-5; Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989: 152-155).
Selected Sources
2. Book Reference - Author: Coad, J - Title: The Architectural Development of Devonport Naval
Base 1815–1939 - Page References: 13
engineering works of the sailing navy - Date: 1989
DOCKYARD MUSEUM, FORMER OFFICE (SO 32), SOUTH YARD

Grade: II*
740-1/95/208 Dockyard Museum, former Pay Office (SO 32)
GV II*
Pay office and guard house, now museum. c1780. Roughly coursed limestone rubble with tooled
ashlar dressings, a different limestone for the top floor, and hipped Welsh slate roof; truncated
stacks. T-plan with central rear wing. EXTERIOR: 3 storeys; symmetrical 7-window range. Rusticated
quoins, plat band and deep eaves, segmental-arched plat surrounds to C19 door one bay from left
and original panelled door on right with 2-pane overlights and C19 horned 6/6-pane sashes. Similar
fenestration to 2-window returns and to rear, the wing has a left-hand side doorway with 4-panel
door. INTERIOR: upper floors have raised ovolo panelling with dentil box cornice, the S ends
divided into two rooms with eared architraves to fireplaces, the main rooms with large S fireplaces
with reeded architraves, and segmental-arched architraves to panelled doors and shutters. Ground-
floor has quadripartite vaulting with (later) cast-iron columns and panelled window shutters set in
moulded architraves. Rear wing has two opposing flights of stone dog-leg stairs with iron balusters
and wreathed handrails. First-floor has safe room with iron door. HISTORY: the small first-floor
rooms were for the Chief and Assistant Cashiers. The c1808 Pay Office at Portsmouth, possibly
designed by Samuel Bentham, and the 1828 Sheerness Pay Office (qv) were also fireproof buildings,
with similar plans. A remarkable example of a specialist C18 office, of special interest as an early
fireproof design combining pay office and guard house, which reflects the scale and complexity
of the operation of the Dockyard in the late C18. (Sources: The Buildings of England: Pevsner N:
294
Devon: London: 1989: 651; Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989: 48).
Selected Sources
NUMBER 1 DOCK AND BASIN AND NUMBER 2, 3 AND 4 DOCKS AND ASSOCIATED
BOLLARDS, SOUTH YARD (see scheduling 10002642)
Grade: II*
740-1/95/217 No.1 Dock and Basin and Nos. 2, 3 and 4 Docks and associated bollards
GV II*
Dry docks and basin. C18 and C19, with origins in 1690s. Granite and limestone ashlar. Planned
facing west towards Hamoaze, with No. 4 dock to north and No. 1 dock and basin to south. All
docks of conventional form with altars stepped towards centre and slides for materials; basin walls
rounded into pier heads at entrance and have steps for pedestrian traffic. No. 1 DOCK AND BASIN:
built 1690s to designs of Edward Dummer, Surveyor to the Navy Board, but completely rebuilt -on
an alignment slightly further to south -and basin enlarged in 1840s. No. 2 DOCK: built as double
dock 1721, altered and deepened 1771–3, remodelled as single dock 1840s and extended 1898.
C18 ashlar on north side; late C19 rails for crane. No. 3 DOCK: begun 1758, rebuilt c.1890, with
flanking late C19 crane rails set between two tiers of 20 segmental arches which allowed cranes to
come closer to ships. No. 4 DOCK: 1780s, with late C19 iron lock gates. All docks separated by pier
heads, of mid and late C18 date but considerably rebuilt late C19 and extended further to west in
concrete (not of special interest). Cast-iron bollards are included in the listing, mostly late C19 and
inscribed VR but including some upturned muzzle-loading cannon. Hydraulic capstans each side of
the lock gates to No.4 dock are dated 1897; other capstans by Cowans Sheldon and Co are dated
1939. HISTORY: after Portsmouth, these comprise the best group of C18 and C19 naval docks in
Britain.
SOUTH SAW MILLS (S 128, 148, 149, 150), SOUTH YARD

List Entry Number: 1388413 (see HAR, PCC BAR Streets D-F (2005))
Grade: II*
740-1/97/225 South Saw Mills (S 128,148, 149, 150)
GV II*
Saw mills, disused. c1856–59, probably designed by Col G T Greene, RE, Director of the Admiralty
Works Department; sawing machinery by James Horn, steam engine by Easton and Amos.
Limestone ashlar with corrugated sheet roof, fire proof iron internal frame. PLAN: rectangular open
plan with 7x5-bay saw mill and N former engine and boiler house and chimney (demolished)
295
attached to its W end. 2 storeys, attic and basement; 8:2-window E and W range, 1 :6-window N
range and 2:3:2-window S range. EXTERIOR: E and W elevations have wide clasping pilasters to a
cornice and coped parapet, plat band, the 2-window N ends set forward, the second bay from the
N has a double door with a radial fanlight, the first bay has a blocked ground-floor window; the
main saw mill range to the S has an iron-framed ground-floor of large I-section cast-iron stanchions
and sliding metal doors beneath continuous upper glazing with three 12-pane lights to each bay.
A sloping apron of granite setts extends down from the doors. N engine and boiler house elevation
has a 1-window E section set forward, with fenestration as the E elevation. S elevation has openings
within matching arched recesses, round on the ground floor and segmental on the first, to ground-
floor 6/6-pane sashes and tilting first-floor casements. 3 gables, taller in the middle, separated by
buttresses. INTERIOR: a massive, fire-proof, internal cast-iron frame with hollow round columns to
a jack-arch floor springing from cast-iron beams with parabolic bottom flanges; iron roof trusses
with hollow section iron valley beams. Open-well stone stair in NE corner. HISTORY: closely
related to Greene’s contemporary saw mill and smithery at Sheerness (qv). Timber was fed in from
the E, through 4 reciprocating frame saws and 3 circular saws arranged along the N-S axis of the
mill. In the engine house was a pair of 50hp Easton and Amos rotative beam engines with spur
gearing to the drive shaft, and probably providing a forced draft to the adjoining South Smithery
(qv). The iron frame is a comparatively old-fashioned system, the heavy work of the mill, built to
withstand severe vibration, directing this robust design. Considerable interest as an almost complete
fireproof multi-storey saw mill by one of the most important RE officers involved in iron-framed
buildings in the dockyards, with its sister building the South Smithery (qv). (Source: PSA Drawings
Collection: Unsigned Drawings: 1855: PLM 93-96; Sheerness Dockyard: 1994).
THE SCRIEVE BOARD (S 122), SOUTH YARD

List Entry Number: 1388417 (see scheduling 1002575)
Grade: II*
740-1/97/232 The Scrieve Board (S 122)
GV II*
Covered slip, mould loft, now pattern shop. 1814–1821, by Sir Robert Seppings, RN. Timber frame
with corrugated iron sides and metal sheet hipped roof. Apsidal aisled plan. Gabled end faces the
river, the sides clad with corrugated sheet overhung by the roof, and backing against the Composite
shipbuilding shed (qv). INTERIOR: open with compound timber stanchions to cantilevered
principals braced to the 1 stanchions and to a collar beneath a shallow pitched roof; principals
extend out over the outer aisles with 2 braces. The former slip is covered over but original
masonry survives beneath the floor. HISTORY: scrieve board refers to the name for mould lofts for
drawing out metal ships. Slip covers were introduced to protect wooden ships during construction,
and although they were built in all the Royal Yards, only three timber examples survive today, two
at Plymouth and the largest one at Chatham (qv). The trusses were supported by the cantilever
effect of the overhang outside the posts. They were in their time the widest spans in Britain, and
the widest in the world except for riding schools in Germany and Russia. As such they pre-figure
the iron slip covers of the1840s and the subsequent great roofs of the railway termini. (Sources:
Sutherland, RJ: The Journal of the Newcomen Society: London: 1989; Coad, J: Historic Architecture
of the Royal Navy: London: 1983: 46).
Selected Sources
1. Book Reference - Author: Coad, J. - Title: Historic Architecture of the Royal Navy - Date: 1983 -
Page References: 46
296
2. Article Reference - Date: 1989 - Journal Title: The Journal of the Newcomen Society
RAILINGS, PIERS AND GATEWAY TO KINGS HILL GAZEBO, SOUTH YARD

Grade: II*
740-1/98/212 Railings, piers and gateway to Kings Hill Gazebo
GV II*
Railings, piers and gateway. 1822. Cast and wrought iron. A pair of inverted muzzle-loading cannon
inscribed GR form gate piers, linked by an overthrow with a gilded finial, decorative gate with
curved sides and central oval, and with wrought-iron railings each side, which extend approx. 10m
up the path to the Gazebo (qv), and surrounding a central fountain on top. HISTORY: this is an
integral part of the Kings Gazebo, which was built to mark the visit of George III, who asked that
this remnant of the former topography of the Dockyard be left.
KINGS HILL GAZEBO (S 186), SOUTH YARD

Grade: II*
740-1/98/213 Kings Hill Gazebo (S 186)
GV II*
Gazebo. 1822. Rendered wood frame with a swept conical metal sheet roof. Single-room plan with
4 concave sides. EXTERIOR: single storey; 4-bay range. Gazebo has steeply concave sides and 8
timber fluted Doric columns to a circular entablature with shallow modillions, S clock, inscribed
“TO PERPETUATE THE RECOLLECTION OF THE VISIT OF HIS MAJESTY GEORGE III OF BLESSED
AND GLORIOUS MEMORY, AND OF HIS MAJESTY’S ADMIRATION OF THE ROCK ON WHICH IT
STANDS, AND THE SCENE AROUND. THIS BUILDING WAS ERECTED IN THE YEAR 1822”. French
doors in each side have margin panes. The Kings Hill partly built up of large rubble blocks, has a
statue of a female figure flanked by niches and with an iron cover over on the SE side. INTERIOR:
plain octagonal interior. HISTORY: built to commemorate a visit by George III, on a piece of land
left isolated by excavation for the South Yard, and indicating the former topography of the area.
Part of a group with the gate and railings (qv) surrounding the hill, with a winding pebbled path.
(Source: The Buildings of England: Pevsner N: Devon: London: 1989: 652).
Selected Sources
COVERED SLIP (S 180), 1, SOUTH YARD

List entry Number: 1388431 (see scheduling 1002574)
297
Grade: II*
740-1/98/215 No. 1 Covered Slip (S 180)
GV II*
Slip and slip cover. 1770s slip, cover 1814 designed by Sir Robert Seppings. Timber frame with
metal sheet mansard roof, and limestone and granite slip. Apsidal aisled plan. Open E gable formed
by one of the frames, the S side open below the roof, the N side butts against the Dockyard
retaining wall (qv). The slip has raking sides and curved end with two steps, with the entrance
opening into the river. INTERIOR: timber frame has composite stanchions to cantilevered principal
rafters which extend out each side, with raking braces and braced horizontal collars, and 2 outer
struts. HISTORY: covers for slips were introduced into Naval dockyards to protect wooden ships
during construction, and “between 1814 and 1821 most of the dry docks and all the slips (at
Devonport) had graceful timber framed housings added” (Coad). Two survive here and the largest
one is at Chatham (qv). They were when built the widest span roofs in Britain, and the widest in
the world except for riding schools in Germany and Russia. As such they prefigured the iron slip
covers of the 1840s, and subsequent railway sheds. (Sources: The Newcomen Society: Sutherland,
RFM: Shipbuilding and the Long Span Roof: London: 1989: 7; Coad, J: Historic Architecture of the
Royal Navy: London: 1983: 71).
Selected Sources
Page References: 71
2. Book Reference - Author: Sutherland, RJM - Title: Shipbuilding and the Long Span Roof -
Date: 1989
MILLWRIGHTS SHOP (BUILDING SO 66) AT DEVONPORT DOCK YARD, SOUTH YARD

Grade: II
PLYMOUTH
740-1/0/10003 SOUTH YARD 04-MAR-08 Millwright’s Shop (Building SO66) at Devonport Dock
Yard
GV II
Former millwrights’ shop, now offices. 1834–7 with late C19 or early C20 alterations and a late C20
addition. Built to the designs of George Ledwell Taylor, architect to the Navy Board. MATERIALS:
Cast iron framed building faced with Plymouth limestone ashlar. Metal-framed windows with
small panes. There is a stone parapet to the hipped corrugated iron roof. PLAN: Rectangular plan
of five by nine bays. It has a single storey ashlar structure built against the east end of its north
wall which seems to have been added in the late C19 or early C20 and probably formerly linked
the Millwrights’ Shop with the North Smithery. It is considered of lesser interest than these two
principal buildings. An extension, built on a slightly different alignment, was added on the south
side in circa 1980. It is not of special interest. EXTERIOR: This two storey building has clasped
pilasters to the corners and a plat band to the parapet. The five bay west elevation has a plat
band over the double doorway in the second bay from the right. The other bays each have a
298
tri-partite metal-framed and small-paned window with thick mullions and a central transom to
the ground floor. There are nine windows to the first floor, each with central-hung metal-framed
casements. They have square-headed architraves and are set to the cill band. There are similar first
floor windows to the return elevations. The south elevation is obscured by the 1980s office block
addition. INTERIOR: The southern two thirds of the ground floor originally contained the heavy
plant, while the two bays that make up the northern third of the building were formerly occupied
by, from west to east, the drilling shop; the engine houses in the centre (containing pumping
and rotative engines), and the boiler house to the rear (east). Light turning and pattern-making,
models and plans were located on the first floor. This area has now been converted to offices with
the addition of internal partitions. All machinery has been removed. The first floor is supported
by stone corbels, cast iron columns, girders and braces, and cast iron flanges at each corner of
the building. The first floor has converted to offices but retains the columns that rise through the
building and support the timber king post roof. HISTORY: The importance of Plymouth as a base
for English fleets in the Western Approaches was recognised in the late C17 and the construction
of a dockyard was instigated by William III. During the C19 the dockyards became geared to the
incorporation of new industrial techniques and processes. With the transition between sail and
steam during the first half of the C19, and from wooden to iron ships during the second half, the
naval dockyards expanded and radically altered in character. Within the existing yards many of
the old smitheries and forges became redundant, and new types of engineering workshops, some
pioneering novel construction systems, were replacing them. Steam-powered engineering shops
for the navy were first established at Portsmouth in 1829. At about the same time it was decided
that a properly planned facility for making boilers and other repairs, both marine and stationary,
was considered necessary. The Millwrights’ Shop, or the Boiler House as it was generally known,
was designed by George Ledwell Taylor, architect to the Navy Board, in 1834-7 as part of the
modernisation of the dockyard. It was built in South Yard at Devonport to house the steam-
powered lathes, planing, shearing, and bending machines used for the manufacture of boilers and
for engine repairs, and was sited adjacent to the forges and furnaces of the adjacent North Smithery.
It contained two steam engines: one that replaced the horse engines that were formerly used for
pumping the dry docks and which also blew air into the forges in the North Smithery, and another
that powered the drilling machines, lathes, boring machinery and grindstones in the Millwrights’
Shop. By the mid-C19 there was a falling off in work at Devonport as resources were switched to
Woolwich, leading to the eclipse of this pioneering workshop.
SOURCES: Evans, D., Building the Steam Navy (2004) Lake, J. & Douet, J., ‘Thematic Survey of English
Naval Dockyards Summary Report, Thematic Listing Programme’ (1998), English Heritage.
REASON FOR DESIGNATION DECISION: The Millwrights’ Shop (SO66) is designated at Grade II for
the following principal reasons: * A very significant example of early-C19 industrial architecture that
is technologically advanced compared to civil examples of the period * Despite alterations in the
late C20, it is a particularly rare example of a specialist workshop dating from the formative years
of the engineering industry * Its historical significance in terms of the development of the steam
navy in the early to mid-C19 *It forms a cogent grouping with the adjacent North Smithery, dry
docks and other dockyard buildings
Selected Sources
1. Book Reference - Author: Evans, David - Title: Building the Steam Navy: Dockyards,
Technology and the Creation of the Victorian Battle Fleet 1830 to 1906 - Date: 2004
SOUTH SMITHERY (BUILDING S 126)

Grade: II*
299

740/20/10023 ROYAL NAVAL DOCKYARD 04-MAR-08 South Smithery (Building S126)
GV II*
Smithery, disused. Built 1771, modified throughout C19 and reconstructed c.1890. Further alterations
in the 1850s when the New Smithery was erected. Additional alterations in C20.
MATERIALS: Dressed and roughly coursed Plymouth limestone with ashlar dressings. The lower
walls of the Old Smithery are random rubble brought to course and the upper walls are of squared,
coursed limestone. Some of the lower windows are timber sliding sashes, with larger timber-framed
casement windows above. It has a timber truss roof of late-C19 date. The New Smithery is built of
similar limestone with coursed blocks laid between the cast iron H-section columns that make up
the frame. It has large glazed panels with sheet iron louvres above, clerestory glazing, and open
timber louvres at the upper central roof level. The link section between these two structures is of
random rubble limestone with some areas of brick and block infill. The roof coverings are covered
with mid-C20 corrugated sheeting with translucent corrugated sheets inset; the central raised roof
to the New Smithery appears to be corrugated iron. PLAN: A rectangular plan consisting of the Old
Smithery to the west; a central section linking it with the New Smithery to the east. The original
building had a U-shaped plan with an open courtyard on the west side, defined by walls and gates,
which was roofed over and incorporated into the building in the early-C19. The New Smithery is
roughly square in plan with a chimney at each corner. EXTERIOR: The OLD SMITHERY is of two
storeys. The triple-gabled west front was rebuilt in the late-C19 with segmental-arched casements to
the ten-window first floor range. The ground floor windows have segmental-arched plat surrounds,
some retaining sliding sashes, and there are blocked segmental-arched double entries. The
fenestration to the nine-window north and south elevations is similar, with two segmental-arched
double entries in the south wall. The south elevation of the CENTRAL SECTION which links the
Old Smithery to the New Smithery, comprises a mid- to late-C19 wall (rebuilt 1859 to 1900) with
three first floor two-light windows in square-headed granite surrounds above a tall window in a
segmental-arched plat surround to left, and blocked segmental-arched entries. The office addition of
circa 1890 stands at the east end of the central section, adjacent to the New Smithery, and has been
reduced in height and has a lean-to roof. The north elevation, dating to circa 1849 has mostly C20
windows, except for the voussoirs of a C19 arch to left, a mid-C19 blocked lunette to the first floor,
and a partly blocked segmental-arched double entry to the ground floor right. The NEW SMITHERY
is built of coursed and dressed stone comprising seven bays to the north and south elevations, and
nine to the east side. The external elevations are articulated by the H-section cast iron columns
of the frame, the lower parts of the walls are of squared rubble with continuous glazing above.
Each bay has four iron-framed windows with small panes with a central secondary column and
metal louvered vents above, set directly beneath the eaves. There are windows rather than louvres
above the door openings. The central bay of the east elevation has metal roller doors. The ashlar
corner flues/chimneys have a plinth and string course at roof height and were reduced in height in
the C20. The concrete block structures to the north east end of the New Smithery, used to house
bottled gas, and the two brick structures to the west elevation of the Old Smithery are not of
special interest. INTERIOR: Most of the internal walls are the result of the three separate elements
of the South Smithery being altered, extended and joined, and they date largely from 1849 to 1890.
The arched brick openings to the engine and boiler rooms of circa 1849 have been infilled but
remain evident. Most of the full height walls to the central area are former external walls, including
some late-C18 masonry that have been enclosed and roofed over. Part of the original east wall of
the Old Smithery retains a segmental-arched doorway and window, though the latter was converted
into a doorway in the 1850s; the original west entrance also appears to survive unaltered. The roof
to the Old Smithery consists of timber purlins with steel trusses, and some of the ridges have timber
glazed lantern lights and ventilators. The New Smithery has some sixteen central H-section cast iron
columns forming a central square and along the west side with rigid connections to lattice beams,
supporting the braced open beam above, itself supporting the raised central roof section. The roof
structure itself comprises a cast and wrought iron truss system. The building retains numerous cast
300
iron brackets to the walls which carried the smoke boxes to the chimney flues and rotating shafts.
There are also several large iron capstans set in the floor, presumably for bending and shaping iron.
There are two large C20 gas kilns with chain lift doors and rails, and the late-C20 former office and
ancillary block constructed in the middle third of the Old Smithery which are not of special interest.
SUBSIDIARY FEATURES: An up-ended cannon set within the ground at the south east corner of
the New Smithery serves as a bollard. HISTORY: The importance of Plymouth as a base for English
fleets in the Western Approaches was recognised in the late-C17 and the construction of a dockyard
was instigated by William III. By 1700 it consisted of a dry dock, large store, smithery, ropery and
a large terrace of houses for the yard officers. The Seven Years War in the mid-C18 precipitated
a significant change in the planning of dockyard works and at Plymouth new smitheries and
stores were erected to allow more effective operation of the yard. The original 1776 smithery in
South Yard was built as part of the Dockyard Modernisation Programme which commenced in
1758. It had a courtyard plan with forges in the side ranges and casting taking place in the open
central yard. It was used for heavy forging. During the C19 the dockyards became geared to a
technological race with the French, and to the incorporation of new industrial techniques and
processes. With the transition between sail and steam during the first half of the C19, and from
wooden to iron ships during the second half, the naval dockyards expanded and radically altered in
character. Within the existing yards many of the old smitheries and forges became redundant, and
new types of engineering workshops, some pioneering novel construction systems, were replacing
them. In 1850 Colonel Greene was appointed Director of the Admiralty Works Department and,
with Andrew Murray, Assistant Chief Engineer at Woolwich Dockyard, developed a new smithery
for the South Yard which was to be attached to the existing 1776 one. It formed part of the joint
metal and timber complexes which were conceived for both Devonport and Sheerness. The New
Smithery was erected between 1852 and 1855 and was very different to, and more innovative than
the previous generation of metal-working shops, being an all-metal construction. It was able to
cope with the great increase in the number of large iron components needed for ships. Following
its construction, the Old Smithery was used as iron and coal stores, but in the early-C20 its east wall
was opened up to allow expansion of the smithery function. Since the mid-C19 there have been
various alterations to South Smithery which indicate how the original concept was adapted and
modified to meet changing demands imposed by a modernising navy. The Smithery ceased to be
used as such in 1987.
SOURCES: Evans, D., ‘Building the Steam Navy’ (2004) Unicorn Consultancy, ‘Historic Structure
Quadrennial Inspection - S126 The South Smithery, HM Naval Base Devonport’ (1998), 2 vols. Lake,
J. & Douet, J., ‘Thematic Survey of English Naval Dockyards Summary Report, Thematic Listing
Programme’ (1998), English Heritage.
REASON FOR DESIGNATION DECISION: The South Smithery is listed at Grade II* for the following
principal reasons: * Its plan has evolved over time and charts the historic development of smithing
* Despite later alterations, the mid-C19 New Smithery is a remarkably complete example of its
type and has no parallels outside the navy yards. * A technologically advanced and structurally
innovative building that combines both cast and wrought ironwork. * It incorporates historic fabric
of the Old Smithery (1776) which, although much altered, is principally of interest as being the
oldest surviving smithery in any of the royal dockyards * The significance of both the Old and the
New Smithery is clear enough; however the central, link structure is of lesser importance having
been subject to much rebuilding and alteration over the years.
Selected Sources
1. Book Reference - Author: Evans, David - Title: Building the Steam Navy: Dockyards,
Technology and the Creation of the Victorian Battle Fleet 1830 to 1906 - Date: 2004
301
3.2. ENGLISH HERITAGE (2013), SOUTH WEST HERITAGE AT RISK REGISTER.

Swindon: English Heritage (p. 182). Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/
publications/har-2013-registers/sw-HAR-register-2013.pdf
SITE South Saw Mills, South Yard, HM Naval Base, Plymouth

DESIGNATION: Listed Building Grade II*
CONDITION: Fair
OCCUPANCY: Vacant
PRIORITY: E (E)
OWNER TYPE: Government or agency
LIST ENTRY NUMBER: 1388413
Sawmill of 1856–59.The saw mills ceased to be used as such in 1987 but the ground floor remained
in light industrial use and for storage until 1997. An options report was issued in 2010, but the
building remains vacant with no identifiable use.
SITE South Smithery, South Yard, HM Naval Base, Plymouth

DESIGNATION: Listed Building Grade II*
CONDITION: Very bad
OCCUPANCY: Vacant
PRIORITY: A (A)
Dockyard smithery built 1771, modified in the C19 and reconstructed circa 1897. It remained in
use until 1987 when structural faults were discovered. There is continued deterioration of the roof,
masonry and interiors. An options report was issued in 2010, but a repair strategy has not been put
in place.
Priority categories
A Immediate risk of further rapid deterioration or loss of fabric; no solution agreed.
E Under repair or in fair to good repair, but no user identified; or under threat of vacancy
with no obvious new user (applicable only to buildings capable of beneficial use).
3.3. PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL (2005). BUILDINGS AT RISK REGISTER FOR PLYMOUTH.
PLYMOUTH: PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL (BAR) HAS BEEN CREATED AND IS
MAINTAINED BY THE COUNCIL.
Retrieved from http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/homepage/creativityandculture/heritageandhistory/
historicenvironment/buildingsatrisk.htm
(This is no longer online. It contains some sections of wall which appear to differ from the
EH HAR list)
The 2005 BAR contains details of 412 buildings or structures considered to be at risk. Of these
buildings and structures, 124 are statutory listed (5 Grade I, 15 Grade II* and 104 Grade II listed). 20
scheduled ancient monuments are included and the remaining 266 entries are buildings/structures
considered to be of townscape merit. They are included for their positive contribution locally to
the built environment and/or their historic importance. Buildings and structures are entered on the
Register in different categories of risk, on a scale from 1 to 4. The 2005 BAR includes:
• 14 buildings/structures at risk level 1 (extreme risk)
• 41 at risk level 2 (grave risk)
302
• 146 at risk level 3 (at risk)

• 201 at risk level 4 (vulnerable)
Priority category: English Heritage’s priority categories:
A Immediate risk of further rapid deterioration or loss of fabric; no way forward.
B Immediate risk of further rapid deterioration or loss of fabric; way forward agreed but not
yet implemented.
C Slow decay; no way forward agreed.
D Slow decay; way forward agreed but not yet implemented.
E Under repair or in fair to good repair, but no obvious user identified, or under threat of
vacancy with no obvious new user (applicable only to buildings capable of beneficial use;
often specialised buildings which have become functionally redundant).
F Repair scheme in progress and (where applicable) end use or user identified.
South Saw Mills Devonport Dockyard DEVONPORT (p. 6 of 63)

National Grid Reference SX 44979 54185 (see listing 1388413)
General Details
A square stone-built building of 2-storeys. Probably mid-19th century. It has a stone plinth, small
cornice, parapet and valley roof above. All the ground floor windows are recessed into round-
headed arches; those on the first floor are in segmental headed arches. The east and west faces
of the building have slight projections at each end. [P T Presswell – H M Naval Base Devonport:
Ancient Monuments & Historic Buildings]
Listed Building Number 740-1/97/225
Listed Building Grade II*
Original Building Use and Type Industrial
Current Building Use and Type UNUSED
Occupancy Status Vacant
Assessment of Risk
Reason building is at risk
VACANT AND VULNERABLE.
Category of Risk 2
Priority Grade C
Date of Inspection
Additional Comments
IS ON THE ENGLISH HERITAGE REGISTER AT PRIORITY GRADE E. POTENTIALLY WITHIN
DEVONPORT AREA ACTION PLAN.
South Smithery Devonport Dockyard DEVONPORT (p. 7 of 63)

General Details
Constructed with cast iron columns infilled with brick and limestone facings. Cast iron principals
to the roof with corrugated iron sheeting and translucent panels. Concrete floor. Alterations were
made in 1890 and 1892. [P. T. Presswell – H M Naval Base Devonport: Ancient Monuments &
Historic Buildings]
Listed Building Number 504173
303
Original Building Use and Type Industrial

Assessment of Risk
Reason building is at risk
VACANT. FENESTRATION NOT IN GOOD ORDER. ROOF IS NOT ORIGINAL AND THE CURRENT
ROOF NEEDS TO BE REPLACED.
Category of Risk 4
Priority Grade A
Date of Inspection
Additional Comments
POTENTIALLY WITHIN DEVONPORT AREA ACTION PLAN. UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR GRADE
II* LISTING AS RECOMMENDED BY ENGLISH HERITAGE.
Turncock’s House Devonport Dockyard DEVONPORT (p. 8 of 63)

General Details
Built between 1772/3 to provide accommodation for the Master Ropemaker. [P T Presswell –
H M Naval Base Devonport: Ancient Monuments & Historic Buildings]
Listed Building Grade II
Original Building Use and Type Residential
Assessment of Risk
Reason building is at risk VACANT AND VULNERABLE.
Category of Risk 1
Priority Grade E
Date of Inspection
Additional Comments
POTENTIALLY WITHIN DEVONPORT AREA ACTION PLAN.
Buildings at Risk Register for Plymouth, Streets L-O (2005)

Walls Morice Yard DEVONPORT (p. 42 of 59)
National Grid Reference SX 44972 54877
General Details
The dockyard walls, of carefully bedded rubble with square piers and weathered top, extends
approx. 300m to the S and W terminating beside the entrance to the South Yard, and approx. 65m
to the N extending down to the E of the Powder House
Scheduled Ancient Monument
Original Building Use and Type Military
Current Building Use and Type Military
304
Assessment of Risk
Reason building is at risk SUFFERING FROM EFFECTS OF ESTABLISHED VEGETATION AND
SECTIONS HAVE BEEN BROKEN BY ROOTS. EVIDENCE OF WATER PENETRATION.
Category of Risk 4
Priority Grade C
Date of Inspection APRIL 2005
Additional Comments POTENTIALLY WITHIN DEVONPORT AREA ACTION PLAN.
Buildings at Risk Register for Plymouth, Streets P-S (2005)

Dockyard Wall South Yard DEVONPORT (p. 38 of 61)
National Grid Reference SX 45188 54314
General Details
Dockyard wall. 1763-71.
Limestone rubble. Tall wall with moulded copingextends approx. 500m from E of the entrance to
the No. 1 Covered Slip to N of the Master Ropemaker’s House.
Listed Building Grade II
Original Building Use and Type Military
Current Building Use and Type Military
Assessment of Risk
Reason building is at risk WATER PENETRATION IS EVIDENT ON THE WALL. REPOINTING/REPAIR
REQUIRED IN PLACES. VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHING ITSELF.
Categoryof Risk 4
Priority Grade C
Date of Inspection APRIL 2005
Additional Comments POTENTIALLY WITHIN DEVONPORT AREA ACTIONPLAN.
Plymouth City Council (2013). Plymouth Buildings at Risk Register. Plymouth: Plymouth City Council.
Retrieved from http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/text/buildingsatriskregister
The removal of 5 per cent of buildings per year (approximately 21 properties per year based
on current number of buildings on the list) from the 2005 Buildings at Risk Register by
virtue of their future being secured.
In 2009 to 2010 buildings of ‘townscape merit’ were removed from the register. Only
scheduled ancient monuments or buildings that are listed or are in the curtilage of a listed
building are now included. This has reduced the number of entries on the Buildings at Risk
register from 412 in 2005 to 135 in 2010.
Performance in 2010 to 2011
• Number of buildings on 2010 Buildings at Risk Register - 135
• Buildings removed 2010 to 2011 due to refurbishment - 42
• Buildings removed 2010 to 2011 due to demolition - 1
• Number of buildings remaining April 2011 - 92
Properties removed from the register
• 2005 to 2006 - no assessment
• 2006 to 2007 - 27
305
• 2007 to 2008 - 8
• 2008 to 2009 - 21
• 2009 to 2010 - 221
• 2010 to 2011 - 43
No further work has taken place on a review of the list of protected buildings which are at
risk following the work started in 2011.
The Council is currently reviewing its targets for securing the removal of premises from its
Buildings at Risk register in the context of advice contained in Paragraph 126 ‘Heritage at
Risk’ of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. A decision will be made in respect
of the new target in January 2014, and further information will be provided then.
3.4 PLYMOUTH CONSERVATION AREAS

There is no Conservation Area covering Devonport Naval Base. Plymouth City Council (2006).
Devonport Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan. Plymouth: Planning and Regeneration
Service, Department of Development, Plymouth City Council, excludes the Naval Base. Retrieved
from http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/devonport_conservation_area_appraisal_and_management_
plan_part_6.pdf
3.5 FURTHER RELEVANT PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL DOCUMENTS

Plymouth City Council (2005). The Strategic Environmental Assessment / Sustainability Appraisal of
Preferred Options for Devonport Area Action Plan, Volume 2. Bristol: Land Use Consultants and TRL.
Retrieved from http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/devonport_preferred_options_sea_report_read_only.pdf
Option 3 – The South Yard Heritage Area (pp. 8-9)
2.17. Strengths: This proposal should have a positive effect on retaining key historical
features in a sensitive manner, broadening the accessibility to historic spaces and
buildings and maximising the usability of the infrastructure. In addition it should
provide local job opportunities and enhance skills through the provision of small
workshops and training facilities.
2.18. Weaknesses: A sensitive balance needs to be achieved between creating a
visitor attraction and maintaining the active use of the dockyard for the navy without
compromising the safety of either interest group. The proposal states that benefits will be
accrued to the community through commerce. Further work needs to be undertaken to
explore how this can be achieved; will it be through the establishment of small cafes and
shops or will there be some form of visitor payback mechanism in place to invest in the
surrounding infrastructure? Consideration also needs to be given to the capacity for visitor
parking within the area, alternative modes of access for visitors to the Heritage Quarter and
potential impacts on communities’ quality of life.
2.19. Timescale: Medium to long term (over the next 15-20 years) due to the preparation of
a development brief, the availability of the site and restoration works.
2.20. Likelihood: Medium to high.
2.21. Recommendations for mitigation of adverse effects and/or enhance or positive effects:
The project development team be required to submit a detailed travel plan, covering how
visitors will access the site and their mode of transport. Any concerns over conflicts of use
relating to visitors and the military should be avoided through use of sensitive design and
interpretation.
306
Conclusions and Recommendations (pp. 17-8)

2.88. Like other Area Action Plans, Devonport will be reliant on future investment, land
negotiations and compulsory purchase orders. Care needs to be taken to ensure that
throughout the phasing of development adequate facilities and services are available to
meet the needs of the new community and conflicts with adjacent land uses are minimised.
Examples of where potential conflicts may occur include; South Yard Heritage Centre
(which it is hoped will be a major draw for visitors) and the site’s continuing use by the
MoD (Option 3); issues relating to safety, health and security will be paramount.
2.89. Particular care needs to be taken to ensure that visitor facilities for South Yard Heritage
Area (Option 3) are adequate, link into the public transport network and do not infringe on
adjacent communities.
2.96. Focusing on the tourism potential for the area, opportunities should be explored
to reap the benefits accrued from the South Yard Heritage Area for the local community,
exploring opportunities for visitor payback and community participation.
Plymouth City Council (July 2006). Plymouth Characterisation Study & Management Proposals.
Plymouth: Planning and Regeneration Service, Department of Development, Plymouth City Council,
includes South Yard (pp. 56-62), Morice Yard (pp. 63-7), but not Keyham/North Yard. Retrieved
This states:
There are a number of extremely important, unused historic buildings within [South] yard
that, if they are not put to some positive use soon, are at risk of neglect and decay. (p. 62)
There is a wealth of standing buildings reflecting the historic development of the dockyard,
and it is likely that there is also significant archaeological (buried) potential in many
areas. (p. 62)
The whole area is confined by historic walls, most of which are listed and will therefore be
retained. These have both a positive and negative aspect to the area, protecting the historic
area from vandalism, but creating a very strong boundary that divorces the area from the
rest of Devonport. (p. 62)
[Morice Yard], although still owned by the MoD, is now more diverse in its activities, with a
number of the buildings leased to other companies. (p. 64)
The historic walls, all of which are listed and will therefore to be retained, confine the
whole area. These have both a positive and negative effect, on the one hand protecting
the historic buildings from vandalism and inappropriate redevelopment, but creating a very
strong boundary that divorces the area from the rest of Devonport. (pp. 66-7)
Plymouth City Council (adopted 2007). The Devonport Area Action Plan 2006–2021. Plymouth:
Plymouth City Council Department of Development. Retrieved from http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/
devonport_chapters_1_to_4.pdf.
This describes how the former Ministry of Defence South Yard Enclave (ex-Granby Gate/Storage
area) will be redeveloped to create new housing and commercial functions, including the listed
Old Market Hall and the non-listed former Midland Bank:
This 7.2 ha site offers the greatest opportunity to assist in the regeneration of Devonport.
The Site was taken over by the Ministry of Defence after the Second World War, effectively
removing the heart from Devonport and dividing the remaining community in two. (p. 20)
307
1.9. ‘Amongst the more detailed suggestions that were rejected during preparation of the
AAP were: development of a South Yard Heritage Quarter.’ (p. 5)
Should other parts of Devonport South Yard or Morice Yard be declared surplus to Ministry
of Defence requirements during the Plan period, their potential for comprehensive and
co-ordinated development comprising a range of mixed uses will be considered within the
wider Devonport area strategy. Major land releases may require an early review of
the Plan. (p. 7)
A new Centre for Devonport ‘is key to the regeneration of Devonport. It will consist of a
mixed use development of the former Ministry of Defence Storage enclave at
South Yard.’ (p. 15)
Devonport Objective 6 Protecting Natural and Built Assets and Promoting High Quality
Development
To afford adequate protection to Devonport’s natural assets and heritage and ensure that the
future development of Devonport is safe, sustainable of a high quality and recognises the
inherent importance of the natural, historic and archeological environment to the fabric and
character of the area. (p. 47)
The Characterisation Study also identified significant archaeological sites and areas of known
archaeology, and has identified areas with significant archeological potential. Archaeology
refers not only to buried remains but also to historical sequences embodied in standing
buildings and other structures. Archeological remains are often complex and diverse and
may date from more than one period. They should be recognised as a rich and valuable
asset, sometimes providing the only way in which key aspects of historic development and
character can be understood. (pp. 47-8)
308
APPENDIX 4
PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD DESIGNATIONS
Entries were retrieved from the English Heritage National Heritage List for England (2014), with
maps and selected common form wording removed. These buildings are listed under the Planning
(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended for their special architectural or
historic interest. Entries for individual buildings may be accessed at: http://www.english-heritage.
org.uk/professional/protection/process/national-heritage-list-for-england/
Entries are listed in numerical order, beginning with Scheduled Monuments, followed by Listed
Structures within Portsmouth Naval Base. Further entries are included from
English Heritage (2013), South East Heritage at Risk Register. Swindon: English Heritage.
Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/har-2013-registers/se-HAR-
register-2013.pdf (HAR)
Hampshire County Council (2005). Threatened Historic Buildings in Hampshire Register:
Portsmouth. http://www3.hants.gov.uk/bar_2005.pdf (HCC BAR)
City of Portsmouth Statutory List of Buildings & Ancient Monuments (December 2006,
updated December 2011) see HM Naval Base, pp. 25-34, 71. Retrieved from http://www.
portsmouth.gov.uk/media/Statutory_List_2011.pdf (PCC)
Entries appearing on multiple lists are cross-referenced: scheduled and listed entries, HAR, HCC
BAR, PCC. Most of the buildings listed below are in Portsmouth Conservation Area 22: HM Naval
Base and St George’s Square - including the Historic Dockyard and The Hard. Listed buildings in
the Naval Barracks are in Conservation Area No. 18 Guildhall & Victoria Park.
In the English Heritage List for Portsmouth 5 out of the 12 Grade I entries, 16 of the 31 Grade II*
list entries and 26 of the 402 Grade II entries are in the dockyard. Two out of seventeen Portsmouth
scheduled monuments are within Portsmouth Dockyard (one being more than one structure: The
Docks & No. 1 Basin). This confirms the significance of the dockyard’s contribution to the city’s
historic built environment.
4.1. LISTED AND SCHEDULED BUILDINGS

Portsmouth Dockyard, the Block Mills and Stores 35 and 36
List entry Number: 1001851 (see listing 1078288, HCC BAR,1 PCC 395)
Grade: Not applicable to this List entry.
Legacy System: RSM - OCN UID: PO 395
1
The Block Mills were removed from English Heritage HARR in 2008, following their restoration.
309

Selected Sources
Legacy Record - This information may be included in the List Entry Details
National Grid Reference: SU 62861 00816
Portsmouth Dockyard, the Docks

List entry Number: 1001852 (see listing 1272267, HAR, HCC BAR, PCC 397)
Grade: Not applicable to this List entry.
Legacy System: RSM - OCN UID: PO 397
Not currently available for this entry.
This record has been generated from an “old county number” (OCN) scheduling record. These are
monuments that were not reviewed under the Monuments Protection Programme and are some of
our oldest designation records. As such they do not yet have the full descriptions of
their modernised counterparts available. Please contact us if you would like further information.
Selected Sources
BLOCK MILL AND NUMBERS 35 AND 36 STORES (BUILDING NUMBER 1/53) MAIN ROAD
List entry Number: 1078288 (see scheduling entry 10001851, HCC BAR2)
Grade: I
SU 6200 NE MAIN ROAD (West off) HM Naval Base 774-1/17/206 Block Mill & Nos 35 & 36 Stores
(Building No 1/153)
GV I
Alternatively known as: Brunel’s Block Mill, HM NAVAL BASE Two wood mills, block mill and
pump house, disused. Of different builds, 1799–1806, planned by General Sir Samuel Bentham
and probably designed by Samuel Bunce, architect, with James Sadler arranging the power system.
Built above basin of 1691–8 by Edward Dummer which Bentham covered over and inserted a
storage floor within in 1799. Later alterations. Red brick, some parts with blue headers, in English
bond; ashlar dressings, and gauged brighter-red brick flat arches. Hipped slate roofs, north range
roof altered to gabled roof, probably early C20. PLAN: 3 parallel ranges, the later block mill to
2
See footnote 1 above.
310
Appendix 4 Portsmouth Dockyard designations
the middle. EXTERIOR: north and south ranges (the former woodmills) of 3 storeys with cellar,
3 x 11 bays; central block mill of 1 storey, 3 x 13 bays (projecting at east end), built in between
the north and south ranges and with a walkway running across it to link the 2 latter at 1st-floor
level. Windows are mostly replacement small-paned pivoting windows with flat brick arches and
projecting stone sills. Board doors with small-pane overlights. Ashlar plinth and 1st-floor band.
Stepped dentilled brick eaves band. Coped parapet to south range. West elevation: central door
to ground floor of south range; 4 continuous doors to ground floor of north range and central
loading door to upper floors, that on 2nd floor with wooden platform and crane. Central range has
central sash and flanking doors set in round-arched recesses with continuous impost band; corniced
pediment with small-paned lunette. East elevation: similar. Central range has bricked-up windows
in recesses, 2 windows to left return, window and door to right return. South range has 2 old board
doors on ground floor; north range 3 round- arched doorways to ground floor, the central one
blocked, central loading doors to upper floors, and 16-pane sashes to 2nd floor. South elevation
(south range): 2 entrances on ground floor; central loading doors on upper floors; lamp bracket
on left corner at 1st-floor level. INTERIOR: wooden columns, turned in central range, square and
chamfered in north and south ranges, support large-scantling cross-beams, in south range probably
original stair survives (in north-east corner) having large scantling plain balusters. Remnants of the
former power transmission equipment include overhead shafting, pulley wheels and belts. Some
fixed machinery (lignum vitae saw, treenail machine and cornering machine) remains on the first
floor of the north range, and in the W end of the S range is the frame of the c1800 Boulton and
Watt beam engine. HISTORY: Bentham infilled the 1690s basin with a double tier of brick vaulting,
the basin continuing in use as a reservoir (and still functioning as such today) with a storage floor
above. This can be seen still, beneath the south range, having brick vaults carried by segmental-
arched arcades, and a stone flag floor with drains. The C17 dock walling also survives, being
formed of large blocks of tooled masonry, and with a projection at south-west corner (possibly
the base for a sheerleg crane) and machinery for No. 1 Penstock. The Mill was purpose-built for
the innovatory block-making machinery, designed by Marc Brunel 1801–1806 and constructed by
Henry Maudslay. The innovation was highly successful. By 1806, 45 machines and 10 men were
producing 140,000 blocks a year (for ships’ rigging), and the capital costs were recovered within
three years. Built for both dock pumping and wood working, using the navy’s first steam engine,
the Block Mills is of international significance as the earliest application of steam-powered machine
tools for mass production. (Sources: Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989: 31,
225-233 ; Lloyd DW: Buildings of Portsmouth and its Environs: Portsmouth: 1974: 70; The Buildings
of England: Lloyd D: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight: Harmondsworth: 1985: 415; The Portsmouth
Papers: Riley RC: The Evolution of the Docks and Industrial Buildings in Portsmouth: Portsmouth:
1985: 13-14; Winton J: The Naval Heritage of Portsmouth: Southampton: 1989: 104).
Selected Sources
1. Book Reference - Author: DW Lloyd - Title: Buildings of Portsmouth and its Environs -
Date: 1974 - Page References: 70
2. Book Reference - Author: J Winton - Title: The Naval Heritage of Portsmouth - Date: 1985 -
3. Book Reference - Author: Pevsner, Nikolaus and Lloyd, David - Title: Hampshire and the
Isle of Wight - Date: 1967 - Journal Title: The Buildings of England - Page References: 415
4. Article Reference - Author: RC Riley - Title: The Evolution of the Docks and Industrial
Buildings in Portsmouth - Date: 1985 - Journal Title: The Portsmouth Papers -
5. Book Reference - Author: Coad, J.G. - Title: The Royal Dockyards, 1690–1850 - Date: 1989 -
311
FORMER SCHOOL OF NAVAL ARCHITECTURE (BUILDING NUMBER 1/22), SOUTH

TERRACE
Grade: II
SU 6300 SW SOUTH TERRACE (West side) HM Naval Base 774-1/30/237 Former school of Naval
Architecture (Building No 1/22)
GV II
Alternatively known as: School for Superior Apprentices, SOUTH TERRACE HM NAVAL BASE
School of Naval Architecture, now offices. 1815–17, with C19 and C20 alterations and additions. By
Edward Holl, architect to the Navy Board. Yellow brick in Flemish bond with limestone dressings.
Hipped slate roof with tall brick stacks. EXTERIOR: 2 storeys with cellar. 15 bays arranged 2:5:3:5:2,
the ends and centre projecting and the centre pedimented. Ashlar plinth, 1st-floor band, cornice
and blocking course. Windows have 12-pane sashes, mostly horned; projecting sills; and flat
brick arches, except ground floors of projecting sections which have round- arched windows in
round-arched recessed linked by impost bands, those at centre with moulded sills and balustraded
apron panels; the 1st floor windows of the centrepiece are also in recesses (flat-arched) and have
moulded sills and balustraded apron panels. Central entrance: steps up to Tuscan portico with
pilasters at rear, entablature and blocking course; paired 6-panel doors with overlights below
overall fanlight with radial glazing bars, all in round- arched surround. Low-level addition on
left of porch. Rear: similar but with 4-bay end sections and parts masked by C20 additions. Right
return: 4 bays, 2 at centre projecting, with a single ground floor window. Round-arched
windows to ground floor with sashes with glazing bars, radial in heads, the outer windows in
round-arched recesses. Left return similar, but the centre projection has 2 windows on ground floor,
one above, and window and door to right return. INTERIOR: some panelled window and door
reveals and shutters, door architraves, ceiling cornices (at west end) and fireplaces survive. The
principle remaining feature is the fine central Imperial stair, with wave-moulded brackets, open-
string, stick balusters and moulded handrail with spiral curtail. At west end, secondary dog-leg stair
with open- string, stick balusters, bulbous columnar newels and moulded handrail. HISTORY: the
building originally provided classrooms and accommodation for up to 25 apprentice shipwrights.
Established in 1811, by 1860, graduates held most senior technical posts in the navy, and many
outside. Its authority was confirmed by the selection of an Academy design for HMS Warrior, in
1860. (Sources: Coad J: Historic Architecture of HM Naval Base Portsmouth 1700–1850: Portsmouth:
1981: 14, plate 10; Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989: 78-79; The Buildings
of England: Lloyd D: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight: Harmondsworth: 1985: 413).
Selected Sources
1. Book Reference - Author: J Coad - Title: Historic Architecture of H M Naval Base Portsmouth
1700–1850 - Date: 1981 - Page References: 14
2. Book Reference - Author: Pevsner, Nikolaus and Lloyd, David - Title: Hampshire and the Isle
of Wight - Date: 1967 - Journal Title: The Buildings of England - Page References: 413
NUMBERS 10 TO 14 AND ATTACHED RAILINGS AND WALLS (BUILDING NUMBERS 1/68-

72), SHORT ROW
312
Grade: II*
SU 6300 NW SHORT ROW (East side) HM Naval Base 774-1/29/232 Nos 10-14 (Consecutive) and
attached railings and walls (Building Nos 1/68-72)
GV II*
Terrace of 5 dockyard officials’ houses, part now offices and part accommodation. 1787 with near-
contemporary addition (No. 10) and C19 and C20 alterations. Building supervisor Thomas Telford;
contractors Thomas Parlby and Son. Red brick in Flemish bond with ashlar dressings. Hipped
plain tile roof with brick stacks. Cast-iron railings. Mid Georgian style. PLAN: double-depth plan.
EXTERIOR: 3 storeys with basement; straight joint between No. 10 (on left) which is of 2 bays
with side porch, and the rest, which are each of 4 bays with space between houses and central
entrances: step up to wooden porch with incised panels, 6-panel door, fanlight with decorative
and radial glazing bars and 12-pane sashes to side-windows; inside, step up to similar door and
fanlight in panelled reveal. Windows have segmental brick arches, projecting stone sills, and 12-
pane sashes, shorter on 2nd floor; 6-pane sashes to basement. Rendered plinth; ashlar 1st-floor
band; stepped eaves with ashlar string; parapet with flat ashlar coping. Party walls rising above
roof line as fire walls. Single-storey added bay on right with blind window. INTERIOR of No. 14:
wall panelling, dado rails, simple cornices, panelled doors and window reveals, cupboards, and
original fireplaces throughout. Some of the fireplaces have decorative surrounds, including that
in the principal ground-floor room which has husk garlands to pilasters, frieze and mantel, and
cherubs in roundels at corners. Entrance hall has round- arched main entrances with pilasters and
fanlights with decorative glazing bars. Closed string open well stair with columnar newels and
slender column-on-block balusters. SUBSIDIARY FEATURES: basement areas fronted by railings
on stone plinth which have urn finials to standards and flame finials to bars. Iron boot- scraper on
right of entrance to No. 13. Rear: 2-storey 4-bay wings linked by high yard walls (approx 3.5 metres
high) which each have a board door below gauged flat brick arch. HISTORY: the terrace was built
to house senior dockyard officials, originally the Surgeon, Master Ropemaker, Clerk to Ropeyard
and Boatswain, for whom there was not room in Long Row (qv). The Navy customarily provided
accommodation for Yard officers, and this is one of a fine series of composed dockyard terraces.
(Sources: Coad J: Historic Architecture of HM Naval Base Portsmouth 1700–1850: Portsmouth: 1981:
12, plate 8; Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989: 54; Lloyd DW: Buildings of
Portsmouth and its Environs: Portsmouth: 1974: 67; The Buildings of England: Lloyd D: Hampshire
and the Isle of Wight: Harmondsworth: 1985: 414).
Selected Sources
Page References: 54
BUILDING NUMBER 1/121 FORMER COMMISSIONERS STABLES, SHORT ROW

Grade: II
313

Asset Groupings
SU 6300 NW SHORT ROW (North side) HM Naval Base 774-1/29/180 Building No 1/121, former
Commissioner’s stables
GV II
Dockyard commissioner’s stables; now photographic laboratory and garage. 1740 (Property
Register); C19 and C20 alterations. Painted brick. Plain tile roof, hipped at left end with a single
mid-late C20 brick chimney in front roof slope. EXTERIOR: 2 storeys. Canted 4 + 3 bays with
straight joint between. Right-hand section has close-spaced 1st-floor windows. On ground floor 2
double board garage doors with small-paned overlights. On 1st floor, short unequally-hung 12-pane
sashes with exposed boxes in reveals, set below moulded wooden eaves band. Left-hand section
has 2 early-C20 doorways in part-glazed pent porches each with a segmental-arched 12-pane sash
to its right and at centre of this section a former segmental-arched entrance, now window. On 1st
floor, three 12- pane sashes and, on right, a short unequally-hung 12-pane sash; moulded wooden
eaves band. INTERIOR: central section retains some C18 panelling on each floor, including some in
entrance hall; door of 6 raised and fielded panels to stair which rises along rear wall; board-lined
rooms. HISTORY: closely associated with the 1787 Commissioner’s House (qv), and a notable early
example comparable with the officers’ stables at Chatham (qv). (Source: HM Naval Base Portsmouth
-Property Register: 1992: 6; Plans of His Majesty’s Dockyard at Portsmouth: 1774).
Selected Sources
FORMER ROYAL NAVAL ACADEMY (BUILDINGS NUMBERS 1/14, 1/116-19) AND ATTACHED
RAILINGS, COLLEGE ROAD
List entry Number: 1244573 (see HAR)
Grade: II*
SU 6300 SW COLLEGE ROAD (East Side) HM Naval Base 774-1/30/198 Former Royal Naval
Academy (Buildings Nos 1114, 1116-19) and attached railings
GV II*
Royal Naval Academy, now offices and Officers’ Mess, and attached railings. 1729–32; extensively
remodelled 1808; bomb-damaged 1941 and parts subsequently rebuilt. Grey brick in header-
bond with red brick and ashlar dressings. Hipped slate roof with brick stacks. PLAN: H-plan,
asymmetrical with the cross-range near front; later additions across rear forming rear courtyard.
EXTERIOR: 3 storeys with basement. West elevation has central (cross) range of 9 bays, the 3 at
centre projecting; pedimented wings of 3 bays, with 3-bay inner returns. Rusticated ashlar quoins;
ashlar floor bands and cornice. Red brick surrounds to windows and parapet. Windows are round-
arched on ground floor, segmental-arched above, smaller on 2nd floor, and have sashes with
glazing bars. Mid C20 C18-style rainwater pipes with bulbous heads. Central entrance; ashlar steps,
railings removed, up to 6-panel door with frieze fanlight with radial glazing bars, ashlar architrave,
and flanking attached columns which support entablature with triglyph frieze and pediment. Central
large octagonal wooden cupola of 1808 has small round-arched windows and domed metal roof
with round-arched dormers surmounted by ball-on-cushion finial. Wings: inner return of each
has central steps with plain iron railings up to panelled wooden porch with attached columns
supporting deep entablature, half-glazed double door with glazing bars, 6-pane side- windows,
and 5-panel inner door. At end of each wing, stone steps down to basement, steps and area having
314
iron railings on low ashlar plinth with curved-sectioned bars; columnar standards, some with
ball finials; and gates at top of steps. Attached to right side of building is 2-storey 3-bay addition,
similar but with tall flat-arched openings to ground floor. Left return: detailing continued in brick
rather than ashlar; projecting stair tower with lean-to addition on its left; at left end a 2-storey late
C19 brick addition with central pediment. INTERIOR: some panelling survives. Entrance hall has
large decorative brackets supporting entablature. Room on left has panelled walls and reveals,
modillioned cornice and fluted Ionic pilasters to door architrave. Stair has panelled dado with
short fluted columns; it is open-string and has moulded tread ends and stick balusters and fluted
columnar newels supporting ramped moulded handrail with spiral curtail. Cupola has gallery,
the stair up to it with turned balusters. HISTORY: the Royal Naval Academy was created by an
Order-in-Council in 1729 and established in 1733, the first naval shore-training establishment, and
the forerunner of Dartmouth. The cupola was used for teaching, mock battles being conducted
from the gallery and the golden ball (finial) used to teach the use of the sextant. Renamed the
Royal Naval College in 1806, it was closed in 1837, and reopened as a higher education institute
in 1839. As a training college for naval cadets it was of little influence in the C18, and was largely
superseded in the mid C19 by HMS Britannia, and then Dartmouth. (Sources: Coad J: Historic
Architecture of HM Naval Base Portsmouth 1700–1850: Portsmouth: 1981:12, plate 9; The Buildings
of England: Lloyd D: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight: Harmondsworth: 1985: 412; Lloyd DW:
Buildings of Portsmouth and its Environs: Portsmouth: 1974: 66).
Selected Sources
NUMBER 25 STORE (BUILDING NUMBER 1/118), JAGO ROAD

List entry Number: 1244578 (see HAR, HCC BAR)
Grade: II*
SU 6300 NW JAGO ROAD (North side) HM Naval Base 774-1/29/204 No 25 Store
(Building No 1/118)
GV II*
Stores and workshops, now one. 1782, altered. Red brick in Flemish bond with ashlar dressings.
Hipped slate roofs. Mid Georgian style. PLAN: two linked free-standing parallel ranges running
west-east, with intermediate courtyard. EXTERIOR: 2 storeys. 17 x 9 bays. Ashlar plinth, 1st-
floor band, string on stepped dentilled brick eaves band, flat coping to parapet, and cornices to
pediments. 12-pane sash windows in reveals with stone sills. Wide panelled double doors with
louvred vents at top in wooden architraves with console-bracketed cornices; 1st-floor loading doors
in quoined, raised, ashlar surrounds with cornices. Rainwater pipes with bulbous heads. South
elevation: bays arranged 2:5:3:5:2, ends and centre projecting under pediments, that at centre with
blind oculus, those at ends with blind oeil-de-boeuf. Doorways to bays 5, 9 and 13 and central
loading door. Rear similar but doorways now windows and the loading door, below segmental
brick arch, now with bridge to sail loft (building no.11109). East elevation: bays arranged 3:3:3.
Centre is recessed and has central window with flanking doors, that on left bricked up, that on right
with double board door and fanlight with radial glazing bars in keyed round- arched surround with
imposts. Each outer section has central door as before. West end partially obscured by addition
linking this building to No. 24 Store (qv). INTERIOR: on ground floor square chamfered wooden
315
posts, carrying large- scantling beams. In north range original wooden stair with large- scantling
plain balusters, newels and handrail. 1st floor: board-lined walls to south range; roof trusses
have collared queen posts, the collars supporting king posts. The courtyard elevations have had
additions and alterations, but retain original windows, end entrance-archways, rainwater-pipes, and
along the back of the south range survives an early lean-to stable addition of 5 bays with wooden
columns on padstones and hipped roof, the formerly open bays now mostly infilled. HISTORY:
originally one of 4 similar stores and workshops built to a courtyard plan as part of the dockyard
modernisation programme. This was the south-eastern block and is the best surviving, being the
only one still to retain its original form of two ranges with central courtyard. It accommodated
wheelwrights, block and capstan makers, with offices and stores. The south-western and north-
western blocks survive as No. 24 and No. 33 Stores, Main Road (qqv): the north-eastern block
(Building No. 1/149, not included), suffered from 1940s bomb damage. Though altered, this forms
the best example of an unusual type of combined workshop and store, and an interesting attempt
to rationalise dockyard workshop activities in a formal arrangement of self-contained buildings.
(Sources: The Buildings of England: Lloyd D: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight: Harmondsworth:
1985: 414; The Portsmouth Papers: Riley RC: The Evolution of the Docks and Industrial Buildings
in Portsmouth: Portsmouth: 1985: 10; Coad J: Historic Architecture of HM Naval Base Portsmouth
1700–1850: Portsmouth: 1981: 36, plate 30; Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot:
1989: 153).
Selected Sources
1700-1850 - Date: 1981 - Page References: 36
Buildings in Portsmouth - Date: 1985 - Journal Title: The Portsmouth Papers - Page References: 10
NUMBER 24 STORE (BUILDING NUMBER 1/117), JAGO ROAD

Grade: II
SU 6200 NE JAGO ROAD (North side) HM Naval Base 774-1/17/203 No.24 Store
(Building No 1/117)
GV II
Stores and workshops, now one. 1783, with later alterations including C20 2nd-floor addition. Red
brick in Flemish bond with ashlar dressings. Hipped slate roofs. PLAN: two free-standing parallel
ranges running west-east, the intermediate linking courtyard later roofed over to form one building.
EXTERIOR: 3 storeys; 17 x 9 bays. Ashlar plinth, 1st-floor band and flat coping to parapet. Tall
18-pane sashes in reveals with gauged flat brick arches and stone sills; shorter fixed 12-pane metal
windows to 2nd floor. Wide panelled double doors with louvred vents at top in wooden architraves
with console-bracketed cornices. On 1st floor, loading doors in quoined, raised, ashlar surrounds
with cornices. Rainwater pipes with bulbous heads. South elevation: bays arranged 2:5:3:5:2, the
ends and centre projecting (formerly under pediments, as No. 25 Store (qv)). Doorways to bays
5, 9 and 13, the latter replaced by a window. Central loading door now a window. Rear: similar,
but right-hand doorway has lost cornice and has an inserted loading door above; central 1st floor
316
loading floor now a window; fire escape added across centre. West elevation: bays arranged
3:3:3, centre is recessed and has round-arched doorway; pedestrian entrance on right has wooden
cornice. Each outer section has central doorway as before. Inserted loading door to centre of 1st
floor. East elevation partially obscured by addition linking this building to No. 25 Store (qv), but 2
entrances as before. INTERIOR: on ground floor square chamfered wooden posts on wooden pads
support large-scantling beams. HISTORY: originally one of 4 similar stores and workshops built
to a courtyard plan, one of a planned group of C18 stores as part of the dockyard modernisation
programme. The central open area was used for storage. This block was the south-western one.
The south-eastern and north-western blocks survive as No. 25 and No. 33 Stores, Main Road (qqv):
the north-eastern block, much-damaged 1940s, as Building No. 1/149 (not included). They are of
interest as an attempt to rationalise dockyard workshop activities in a formal arrangement of self-
contained buildings. (Sources: The Buildings of England: Lloyd D: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight:
Harmondsworth: 1985: 414 ; The Portsmouth Papers: Riley R C: The Evolution of the Docks and
Industrial Buildings in Portsmouth: Portsmouth: 1985: 10 ; Coad J: Historic Architecture of HM Naval
Base Portsmouth 1700–1850: Portsmouth: 1981: 36, plate 30).
Selected Sources
DOCKYARD WALL VICTORY GATE AND DOCKYARD WALL

DOCKYARD WALL, ADMIRALTY ROAD
DOCKYARD WALL, BONFIRE CORNER
DOCKYARD WALL, MARLBOROUGH ROW
DOCKYARD WALL, QUEEN STREET
VICTORY GATE AND DOCKYARD WALL, MAIN GATE
Grade: II*
SU 6300 SW MAIN ROAD HM Naval Base Victory Gate and Dockyard Wall 774-1/30/229
GV II*
Includes: Dockyard Wall, ADMIRALTY ROAD HM NAVAL BASE Includes: Dockyard Wall, BONFIRE
CORNER HM NAVAL BASE Includes: Dockyard Wall, MARLBOROUGH ROW HM NAVAL BASE
Includes: Dockyard Wall, QUEEN STREET HM NAVAL BASE Dockyard entrance and wall. Dated
1704–12; gate widened 1949; C20 repairs to wall. Wall of red brick with some blue headers in
English bond. It is slightly battered and at regular intervals has pilaster buttresses with oversailing
offset heads rising into the oversailing, ridged triangular- sectioned brick coping. The wall steps
and ramps, varying in height from approximately 4 metres to approximately 7 metres and at the
taller sections having narrower pilasters rising from the buttresses into the coping. At various
points it is incorporated in the buildings which have been built up against it: at the former RN
Academy (Building nos 1/14-19, qv) on Queen Street, the wall matches the Academy, being of
grey brick in header bond; and, having returned along Admiralty Road, there is a former entrance
to the Academy, now blocked, having a stone sill, plinth blocks, and impost blocks carrying a
round arch of bright red bricks. At Bonfire Corner, the top of the date “1711” picked out in blue
317
headers is visible above pavement level. There are also 2 stones carved with a fouled anchor.
Turning north, the wall has several C20 interruptions before ending at building no. 1/138 (qv), the
former gatehouse to Marlborough Gate (which originally was at this point). Along this stretch, at
Building no. 2/121 (qv), formerly stables, a lower spur wall later heightened, encloses the former
stable yard, and at yard entrance has square brick piers with ashlar capstans and cannon barrels
reused as bollards. Running from this yard wall, another low section continues along the north
side of the garden of Spithead House (qv Long Row), having gateway and later (probably 1930s)
addition with flat ashlar coping. The main dockyard entrance, Victory Gate, has 2 large ashlar piers
with moulded plinths, arrises and cornices, and golden ball-on-cushion finials. At base of each
pier is a late C19 cast-iron bollard in the form of an imitation inverted cannon barrel with cannon
ball in muzzle. Panelled double gate with iron spikes. In wall on each side is a similar pedestrian
gate in segmental-arched opening. Above right-hand gate the coping of the wall is interrupted
by a semicircular pediment framing royal cipher and crown and surmounting an oval datestone
in architrave inscribed, “This wall was begun the 4th June and finished ye 13th December 1711”.
HISTORY: the wall follows generally the line of Sir Bernard de Gomme’s earth-rampart town
defences which were constructed from 1665 on, and which the wall replaced as a yard perimeter.
The earliest entrance to a naval yard, and the gate is part of a group with the contemporary Porter’s
Lodge (qv). (Sources: Coad J: Historic Architecture of HM Naval Base Portsmouth 1700–1850:
Portsmouth: 1989: 4, plate 1; The Buildings of England: Lloyd D: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight:
Harmondsworth: 1985: 408-9,419).
SU 6300 SW ADMIRALTY ROAD HM Naval Base Dockyard Wall 774-1/30/229
GV II*
See under: Victory Gate and Dockyard Wall, MAIN ROAD HM NAVAL BASE
SU 6300 SW BONFIRE CORNER HM Naval Base Dockyard Wall 774-1/30/229
GV II*
SU 6300 SW MARLBOROUGH ROW HM Naval Base Dockyard Wall 774-1/30/229
GV II*
SU 6300 SW QUEEN STREET HM Naval Base Dockyard Wall 774-1/30/229
GV II*
Selected Sources
PORTERS LODGE (BUILDING NUMBER 1/7), MAIN ROAD

Grade: II*
SU 6300 SW MAIN ROAD (East side) HM Naval Base 774-1/30/221 Porter’s Lodge (Building No 1/7)
GV II*
Dockyard porter’s lodge, now police office, c1708 with later alterations, Stuccoed brick; hipped
slate roof with brick stacks, part stuccoed. EXTERIOR: 2 storeys with cellar and attic. 4 x 2, 6 bays.
Tall narrow windows with replacement 8-pane sashes; flat-roofed dormers with 6-pane sashes. Mid
318
C20 part-glazed doors. Eaves cornice below parapet. North elevation: on ground floor 2 windows at
centre flanked by doors; 4 windows above. West elevation: 2 bays on left recessed and blind, with
small single-storey mid C20 addition. Right-hand section has ground floor screened by single-storey
mid C20 shelter with pitched, glazed roof. On 1st floor the 3rd window is blind. 3 dormers with tall
brick fire wall on left. INTERIOR: cellar has old wooden partitions, cupboards with strap-hinged
doors, shelves with ogee-moulded fronts; wine rack; shot rack and chests; chamfered beams and
joists; stone flag floor. On ground floor some original panelling and plain cornice in one room; in
stair hall, an archway with imposts and keystone, a doorway with moulded architrave, and a plain
cornice. Panelled full-height stair well, the stair itself with most original features replaced apart
from closed string and, between 1st floor and attic, the original turned balusters, square newels and
moulded handrail. On 1st floor, door and window architraves have attached columns and roundels
in corners; some panelling. This is the oldest surviving building in the Dockyard. The porters who
occupied it used to be in charge of the watchmen. Part of a group with the Victory Gate (qv).
1985: 409).
Selected Sources
FORMER DETENTION CENTRE (BUILDING NUMBER 1/2), MAIN ROAD

Grade: II
SU 6200 SE MAIN ROAD (West side) HM Naval Base 774-1/18/209 Former Detention Centre
(Building No.1/2)
GV II
Former detention centre. 1882–3. Red brick in English bond; concealed roof. Long narrow range
of 2 storeys, 9 bays. Segmental-arched openings, on 1st floor with small-pane metal windows and
stone sills. Stepped eaves band below cyma-moulded ashlar cornice. Ends of iron tie-rods. On the
southeast side the building’s ground floor is formed of the 1704-11 dockyard wall (qv) which has
a segmental-arched entrance leading into the right end of the detention centre; and on 1st floor has
pilaster rising on left of 2-light bays. On the north-west side the ground floor is masked by the HMS
Warrior display tent. South west end has 3 windows on each floor. INTERIOR: passage along north-
west side, with entrances to 6 cells which are brick vaulted and have thick doors with spy-holes.
Iron urinals survive on 1st floor at south-west end. Part of the security -within the late C 19 yard,
and forming the formal entrance with the Victory Gate (qv). (Sources: HM Naval Base Portsmouth
-Property Register: 1992; Evans D: The Buildings of the Steam Navy: 1994: 30).
Selected Sources
Page References: 30
THE UNICORN GATE, CIRCULAR ROAD

Grade: II
319

SU 6300 CIRCULAR ROAD HM Naval Base The Unicorn Gate 774-1/8/193
GV II
Includes: The Unicorn Gate, UNICORN ROAD HM NAVAL BASE Portsea town gate, then entrance
to naval dockyard. 1779 (Patterson), demolished and re-erected as dockyard entrance 1865 (Lloyd).
Ashlar. Central carriage archway flanked by pedestrian archways, all round-arched. Vermiculated
plinth. Rusticated centrepiece breaks forward, the archway has dropped keystone and voussoirs
aligned to courses; flanking paired pilasters support entablature with cornice and pediment in
which is unicorn couchant and bearing standard. Pedestrian archways have architraves and are set
in walls which have cornices, sweep up to centre, and terminate in square piers with cornices and
ball on cushion finials. HISTORY: the Unicorn Gate was originally located on Anchor Gate Road,
just east of the present Anchor Gate (not included, Patterson). It is now reset on the alignment of
the dockyard extension wall (qv). (Sources: Lloyd DW: Buildings of Portsmouth and its Environs:
Portsmouth: 1974: 62; A Military Heritage: Patterson BH: A History of Portsmouth and Portsea Town
Fortifications: Portsmouth: 1984: 25, 26).
SU6300 UNICORN ROAD HM Naval Base The Unicorn Gate 774-1/8/193
GV II
See under: The Unicorn Gate, CIRCULAR ROAD HM NAVAL BASE
Selected Sources
1. Book Reference - Author: BH Patterson - Title: A History of Portsmouth and Portsea Town
Fortifications - Date: 1984 - Page References: 25, 26
FREDERICK’S BATTERY, CIRCULAR ROAD

Grade: II
SU 60 SW CIRCULAR ROAD (North side) 774-1/3/191 HM Naval Base Frederick’s Battery
GV II
Part of dockyard sea defence wall. Built 1843-48, under direction of Captain H James, RE;
dismantled and re-erected in present position 1867 (Patterson, p28). Coursed squared stone,
laid randomly, with ashlar dressings. Approx. 50 metre length of wall with end towers. Towers
of 2 stages (to north) and 3 stages (to south), battered, and with round- arched openings (some
blocked), and vertical and looped cruciform slits. Wall has walkway backed by parapet wall carried
on 7 vaulted casemates (6 segmental-arched, 1 round-arched), the rear wall of each casemate
having a blocked rectangular opening, probably coal shute hole (the casements were used as coal
stores at one stage), and the central one a large entrance way. Projecting section of walling at
right end has slits over 4 round-arched entrances, the 2 at centre blocked, the outer 2 with ashlar
tympana carved with date 1886, and cipher. HISTORY: the battery was located originally just to the
west of the present No.15 dock (not listed, Patterson, p.25). At the time of the re- erection of the
battery, it extended to the Round Tower (qv) but the northern end was demolished in 1912 to make
way for a rail link (Riley). (Sources: The Buildings of England: Lloyd D: Hampshire and the Isle of
Wight: Harmondsworth: 1985: 417; The Portsmouth Papers: Riley RC: The Evolution of the Docks &
320
Industrial Buildings in Portsmouth: Portsmouth: 1985: 21, 25, 26; A Military Heritage: Patterson B H:
A History of Portsmouth & Portsea Town Fortifications: Portsmouth: 1984: 25, 28).
Selected Sources
Page References: 21, 25, 26
ROUND TOWER, CIRCULAR ROAD

Grade: II
SU 60 SW CIRCULAR ROAD (North, off) 774-1/3/192 HM Naval Base Round Tower
GV II
Part of dockyard sea defence wall, now naval accommodation. Built 1843–48 under direction of
Captain H James RE; dismantled and re-erected in present position 1867 (Patterson, p28). Ashlar.
Circular 3-stage tower, the lower stage battered, with rectangular and round-arched openings;
machicolated band, rising over round archway on eastern side; machicolated parapet with roll-
moulded coping. The tower was located originally to the north-west of the present No. 15 dock
(not listed, Patterson, p25). (Sources: The Portsmouth Papers: Riley RC: The Evolution of the
Docks & Industrial Buildings in Portsmouth: Portsmouth: 1985: 25; A Military Heritage: Patterson
BH: A History of Portsmouth & -Portsea Town- Fortifications: Portsmouth: 1984: 25, 28; Lloyd DW:
Buildings of Portsmouth and its Environs: Portsmouth: 1974: 59).
Selected Sources
DOCKYARD EXTENSION WALL, CIRCULAR ROAD

DOCKYARD EXTENSION WALL, FLATHOUSE ROAD
Grade: II
SU 6401 CIRCULAR ROAD HM Naval Base Dockyard Extension Wall 774-1/7/190
GV II
321
Includes: Dockyard Extension Wall, FLATHOUSE ROAD HM NAVAL BASE Dockyard wall. c1864–
1870 (Riley) with C20 alterations. Rubblestone and red brick. Chamfered plinth. Quoined brick
pilaster strips and brick bands. Domed brick coping. Wall is approx. 4 metres high and at irregular
intervals ramps up over round archways which give access to gun bastions which on the outer
face of the wall are expressed as corbelled semi- circular oriels with 3 gun slits and coping. At
intervals there are bricked-up quoined doorways with concreted lintels. Opposite building No. 3/88
(not included) is the old Pitt Street Gate which has rectangular piers of banded brick and concrete
blocks with flat concrete coping and lamps; 2-leaf board gate with iron spikes. Near the Unicorn
Gate (qv) on the inner side of the wall is a reset small iron cupboard having strap- hinged door
with circular vents and central hole. Originally the cupboard was set nearer the Unicorn Gate and
in the outer face of the wall; inside was a gas jet from which pipes could be lit. HISTORY: the
cupboard was on the outside of the wall since smoking and carrying of matches was forbidden
inside the dockyard. The wall was built as part of the dockyard extension programme which was
begun in 1864, the scheme for it being drawn up by Colonel Sir Andrew Clarke (Royal Engineers).
1985: 418; The Portsmouth Papers: Riley RC: The Evolution of the Docks and Industrial Buildings in
Portsmouth: Portsmouth: 1985: 22, 25).
SU 6401 FLATHOUSE ROAD HM Naval Base 774-1/7/190 Dockyard Extension Wall
GV II
See under: Dockyard Extension Wall, CIRCULAR ROAD HM NAVAL BASE
Selected Sources
Page References: 22, 25
NUMBER 6 BOATHOUSE (BUILDING NUMBER 1/23) AND SLIPWAY TO FRONT, COLLEGE

ROAD
NUMBER 6 BOATHOUSE (BUILDING NUMBER 1/23) AND SLIPWAY TO FRONT, MAIN
ROAD
Grade: II*
SU 6300 SW COLLEGE ROAD (Northwest side) HM Naval Base 774-1/30/201 No.6 Boathouse
(Building No 1/23) and slipway to front
GV II*
Includes: No. 6 Boathouse (Building No. 1/23) and slipway to front, MAIN ROAD HM NAVAL BASE
Mast house, then boathouse with slipway at front. 1845; bomb-damaged 1941. Designed by Captain
RS Beatson RE, contractor Mr Rigby. Yellow brick in ashlar bond with ashlar dressings, with internal
cast-iron frame. Replacement mid-late C20 corrugated iron roof with roof lights. EXTERIOR: 3
storeys, on west side the ground level being lower to give access to adjacent mast pond. 5-sided,
the rectangular plan having diagonal wall built across south-east corner. The bomb damage was
to the east end, where the building remains a shell with first-floor windows blocked and 2nd
floor missing. Ashlar plinth, to west elevation; band over ground floor; eaves band and cornice.
Windows have flat brick arches, projecting ashlar sills, and C2O replacement metal windows; they
are shorter on ground and 2nd floors. Loading doors have eared ashlar architraves with tripartite
322
keystones. West elevation: 9 bays, 3 central bays breaking forward. At centre of each 3-bay section
a large round- arched entrance with imposts, keystones, studded double board doors, fanlights,
and lamp on left of central door. Iron mooring rings at low level. A brick chimney rises behind
parapet at right-hand corner, tapering and corniced. Slipway along front, sloping down to Mast
Pond (qv), is of stone setts with iron mooring rings and a track of granite slabs with iron rollers
leading up to each entrance of the boathouse (that leading to the right-hand entrance now built
over). North elevation: 15 bays, with 2-bay end breaks and 3-bay central break which has a central
loading door on each floor, now blocked. East elevation: 6 bays, with loading doors on each floor
of bays 2 and 5. South-east elevation: 5 bays with central loading doors. South-west elevation:
11 bays with central 3-bay break which has central loading doors, that on 1st floor with crane.
Double board door to ground floor of bay 3. INTERIOR: cast-iron columns; cast-iron segmental-
arched beams across shorter spans, and cast-iron trussed beams across wider spans. On 3rd floor,
braced rivet ted steel roof trusses. Wooden floors. On ground floor, 3 slipways with a double row
of columns between (14 columns to a row); above the central slipway the ceiling is open, to allow
mast-fitting. At west end is a trap door, strengthened by 2 extra columns. HISTORY: designed by
Beatson to take an exceptionally heavy load, and of interest with his other work at Portsmouth,
the Fire Station and Chain Testing Shop (qqv). This must have been one of the last uses of trussed
beams before the 1847 Dee Bridge disaster enquiry discredited their use. A contrasting design to
the traditional timber 1844 Lower Boat House at Chatham, and the innovative 1859 Boat store at
Sheerness designed by GT Greene. Boats could be lifted internally through to the upper floors.
Lloyd (1974) observes that “This is one of the earliest buildings where load-bearing iron-framed
construction is used on such a massive scale, and with such sophistication”. (Sources: The Buildings
of England: Lloyd D: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight: Harmondsworth: 1985: 410; Portsmouth
Naval Base Property Trust: Naval Heritage at Portsmouth, Visitor’s Guide: Portsmouth: 1988; Lloyd
DW: Buildings of Portsmouth and its Environs: Portsmouth: 1974: 72).
SU 6300 SW MAIN ROAD (East side) HM Naval Base 774-1/30/201 No. 6 Boathouse (Building No
1/23) and slipway to front
GV II*
See under: No. 6 Boathouse (Building No. 1/23) and slipway to front, COLLEGE ROAD HM
NAVAL BASE
Selected Sources
1. Book Reference - Title: Naval Heritage of Portsmouth Visitors Guide - Date: 1988
FORMER PAY OFFICE (BUILDING NUMBER 1/11), COLLEGE ROAD

Grade: II
SU 6300 SW COLLEGE ROAD (South side) HM Naval Base 774-1/30/197 Former Pay Office
(Building No. 1/11)
GV II
Former pay office. Reputed to be 1798 by Sir Samuel Bentham (Lloyd 1974); C19 addition; bomb-
damaged c1940 and subsequently rebuilt. Grey brick in header bond with dressings of red brick
and ashlar. Concealed roof. EXTERIOR: formerly 2 storeys, now one. North elevation: 4 surviving
323
bays, building originally extending further to left. Plinth. 4 round archways, the 3 on right closely
spaced and containing sashes with glazing bars (radial in the heads of the 2 left-hand windows)
and with ashlar sills. Archway on left has C20 part-glazed door and fanlight. All linked by impost
band and having keystones rising into 1st-floor band. Traces of former 1st-floor windows, the wall
now forming parapet. Rear: much C19 and C20 graffiti. Right return: C 19 single-storey lean-to
wooden addition having wooden columns and windows between. INTERIOR: in the 2 right-hand
bays, wall pilasters and a central row of cast-iron columns in the form of shafted columns with
pronounced entasis support quadripartite brick vaults. Strong-room with safe. Door and windows
on north front have wooden architraves and panelled reveals. HISTORY: believed to be one of
the earliest examples of a fire-proof building (with iron columns and brick vaults) in the south
of England. (Sources: The Buildings of England: Pevsner N & Lloyd D: Hampshire and the Isle
of Wight: Harmondsworth: 1985: 411-412; Lloyd DW: Buildings of Portsmouth and its Environs:
Portsmouth: 1974: 70).
Selected Sources
of Wight - Date: 1967 - Journal Title: The Buildings of England - Page References: 411-412
ADMIRALTY HOUSE (BUILDING NUMBER 1/20) AND ATTACHED RAILINGS, COLLEGE

ROAD
Grade: II*
SU 6300 NW COLLEGE ROAD (East side) HM Naval Base 774-1/29/194 Admiralty House (Building
No 1/20) and attached railings
GV II*
Commissioner’s house, now Commander-in-Chief’s residence. 1784–6 by Samuel Wyatt, Clerk of
Works Thomas Telford; for the Navy Board. C19 additions and alterations. Bomb-damaged 1941
with subsequent restoration. Yellowish brick in Flemish bond with ashlar dressings. Hipped slate
roofs with brick stacks, those of centrepiece with ashlar cornices and set flanking cupola. Mid
Georgian style. EXTERIOR: 3 storeys with basement, 5 bays, with slightly recessed 3-bay wings of
1 storey with basement, and single storey 1-bay end pavilions. At left end, 2-storey 2-bay addition,
gable end-on, projecting slightly. Ashlar plinth and ground-floor band; moulded sill string to ground
floor; 1st-floor sill band; dentilled cornice and blocking course to centrepiece; cornice and ashlar
parapet with -balustraded panels to wings; corniced pediments to pavilions. Windows have gauged
brick flat arches; sashes with glazing bars, replaced on 1st floor and to left wing; on 2nd floor,
6-pane sashes with ashlar sills; added louvred shutters to 1 st and 2nd floors. At centre, mid-late C
19 portico with round-arched entrance and windows, iron- bracketed canopy, parapet, and stone
steps inside up to entrance with part-glazed, panelled, double door. The added 2-stage wooden
cupola has octagonal upper stage with round-arched windows, pilasters, “imposts” and “keystones”;
and swept lead roof carrying flagpole. The end pavilions each have a window within a round-
arched recess, that on left replaced by wide C19 tripartite sash. Addition at left end has internal
porch on right with Ionic columns supporting entablature and console- bracketed segmental
pediment; 6-pane sashes, shorter on 2nd floor, and modillioned eaves cornice. At right end, stone
steps down to basement area and iron railings and gate, the bars of bulging “I” section and the gate
having a base rail of ovals. Rear: 3-bay centre-piece has C19 central 2-storey porch addition and
324
flanking, pilastered, baywindows. On left, late C19 projecting single- storey billiard-room with roof
lantern. Right-hand wing, rebuilt after bomb damage, links to end pavilion which has tall window
in round-arched recess. INTERIOR: entrance vestibule with fluted, foliate, cornice and pilastered
architraves leads to full-depth hall with rich cornice (urn, garland and egg-and-dart motifs) off
which are drawing and dining rooms. The former has decorative marble fireplace by John Bacon
(Lloyd, p413) with central portrait and with Neptune’s trident and entwined dolphins to pilaster
jambs. The dining room has similar fireplace, also by Bacon, the decorative shell centrepiece
flanked by dolphins and lions’ heads, and with garlands to pilaster jambs. Also in this room, semi-
domed recess with decorative plasterwork, including central roundel and ribs of husks, flanked
by doors in original corniced architraves which have acanthus- leaf friezes. Decorative fireplace
also in morning room (front right); and former library (front left) recorded as having original
bookcases, one still intact (Lloyd, p413). Main staircase (rebuilt mid C20) has mid- late C19-style
openwork balusters; original dog-leg secondary stair has stick balusters, scrolled brackets, and 2nd
handrail carried on band of ovals. On 1st and 2nd floors, panelled doors, reveals, and shutters;
decorative wooden fireplaces and ceiling cornices (all plainer on 2nd floor). HISTORY: built as
the residence of the Navy Board’s Commissioner, who was in charge of the daily running of the
dockyard. It accommodated also visiting royalty, and hence was built on a more lavish scale than
might otherwise be expected. Notable as a rare and little altered design in the dockyards by a
national architect. (Sources: Coad J: Historic Architecture of HM Naval Base Portsmouth 1700–1850:
Portsmouth: 1981: 6, plate 2; Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989: 54-61;
The Buildings of England: Lloyd D: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight: Harmondsworth: 1985: 412-3).
Selected Sources
1700-1850 - Date: 1981 - Page References: 6
of Wight - Date: 1967 - Journal Title: The Buildings of England - Page References: 412-413
NUMBER 1 PUMPING STATION (BUILDING NUMBER 2/201), ALDRICH ROAD

Grade: II
SU 6300 NW ALDRICH ROAD (West side) HM Naval Base 774-1/29/183 No 1 Pumping Station
(Building No. 2/201)
GV II
Dock pumping station. Completed 1878. Part of scheme drawn up by Colonel Sir Andrew Clarke
(Royal Engineers) and supervised by H Wood, J MacDonell and Charles Colson. Red brick in
Flemish bond with blue brick bands and dressings of gauged red brick and ashlar. Corrugated
sheet roof. EXTERIOR: main engine house has 6-bay north elevation expressed as 2 storeys. Small
addition of 2 x 3 bays at right-hand (north-west) corner; lower full-depth parallel range with
chimney on left (east) side, partially masked by mid-Iate C20 addition; boiler house range across
rear (south side). North elevation: 1:4:1 bays with broad, banded end- pilasters. Recessed courses
of blue brick. Chamfered ashlar plinth band. segmental-arched pedestrian entrance with board
door to left bay. On ground floor, tall round-arched windows with metal glazing bars and ashlar
arches, the intradoses with blue brick dentils. Ground floor cornice and 1st-floor band frame
recessed panels with blue brick edging. On 1st floor, recessed panels with stepped and cogged
325
heads enclosing oculi with ashlar architraves. Cornice below parapet. End pilasters on ground
floor have short round-arched windows with voussoirs; decorative pierced ashlar panels between
ground-floor cornice and 1st- floor band, and segmental-arched windows. On left, lower range has
3 lunettes and ridge louvre to hipped, glazed roof. Set back is tall circular chimney with square,
corniced, base and iron-banded shaft with roll-moulding at bottom and dentilled ashlar cornice at
top. Returns of main section are in same style, the most west side having a tall segmental-arched
entrance with double board door and banded pilaster jambs; lunettes rather than oculi to the 2 bays
on its right side. On east side (left return), the lower range has continuous window with panelled
wooden pilasters, wooden mullions and 4-pane windows; wall below is concrete-rendered.
INTERIOR: main engine house retains 6 original panelled cast-iron columns with dentilled capitals
and entablatures; its south elevation, inside boiler house, in same style as rest of exterior, having
rusticated pilasters supporting dentilled round arches. HISTORY: the engine house originally
contained two inverted vertical triple expansion steam engines driving plunger pumps for draining
the docks. It also housed the air compressors for the caissons and some of the capstans and cranes.
Built into the roof were salt water tanks linked to the salt water firefighting main. An early and
architecturally impressive example of a triple expansion engine pumping house, with unusual
structural iron work. (Sources: The Portsmouth Papers: Riley RC: The Evolution of the Docks &
Industrial Buildings in Portsmouth: Portsmouth: 1985: 22-23).
Selected Sources
1. Article Reference - Author: RC Riley - Title: The Evolution of the Docks and
Industrial Buildings in Portsmouth - Date: 1985 - Journal Title: The Portsmouth Papers -
ROYAL NAVY DETENTION QUARTERS (BUILDING NUMBER 2/44), ANCHOR GATE ROAD
Grade: II
SU 6300 ANCHOR GATE ROAD (Southwest side) HM Naval Base 774-1/8/184 R.N Detention
Quarters (Building No. 2/44)
GV II
Military, then naval, prison. c1834; bomb-damaged c1940 with subsequent rebuilding. Red brick in
Flemish bond; concealed roof. PLAN: axial plan of central full-height aisle with cells opening off.
EXTERIOR: 3 storeys and basement. 18 bays, the NE and 5 SW bays rebuilt after bomb damage.
Small segmental-arched windows with small-paned glazing, projecting sills, and some with bars.
Large air vents with stone lintels and sills and perforated covers. Second-floor band; eaves band
below concrete-coped parapet; gabled ridge sky-light; conical roof vents. North-west side: at left
.end, entrance- with metal grille formerly giving access to a small open court now an entrance
porch. South-east side: at left end, basement door and window (further basement windows below
present ground level). To right, a single-storey ablutions block, reroofed and added to. Gable ends
each have a louvred segmental- arched vent to the roof skylight; at south-west end a door with iron
gate. INTERIOR: two sets of iron stairs with octagonal newels up to cantilevered cast-iron galleries
which run around 1st and 2nd floors, with 3 open wells on each floor and cross-braced balustrades
(some balustrading and stairs renewed). Cells: some heavy nail-studded wooden doors survive;
each has wooden shelf, hammock hooks, and floor and ceiling vent. Cell no. R4 retains old graffiti,
including the date 1864 and the name of someone from HMS Warrior. HISTORY: a relatively intact
example of an early C19 detention block. Maintenance records for the building go back to 1834.
Selected Sources
326
NUMBER 15 STORE (BUILDING NUMBER 1/62) AND BOLLARD AT SOUTH EAST CORNER ,
ANCHOR LANE
Grade: II*
SU 6200 NE ANCHOR LANE (South side) 774-1/17/186 HM Naval Base No 15 Store
(Building No. 1/62) and bollard at SE corner
GV II*
Alternatively known as: East Sea Store, ANCHOR LANE HM NAVAL BASE Ropery store. 1771, much
altered mid-late C20. Red brick with some blue headers in English bond. C20 flat-topped mansard
roof of plain tiles with roof light, replaces former double- pitched roof. EXTERIOR: 3 storeys,
formerly with cellar; 7 bays. Ashlar and concrete plinth on south side. Buttresses to ground floor
each with brick table and stepped offset heads. Windows have segmental brick arches, replacement
soldier-brick arches on 2nd floor, projecting sills and C20 metal windows. Inserted large loading
doors. Boxed eaves. INTERIOR: replacement floors, stairs and roof trusses. SUBSIDIARY FEATURES:
at south-east corner a bollard formed of an upended cannon barrel, probably early-mid C19 reused
as bollard mid-late C19, with muzzle blocked. HISTORY: constructed as part of the rebuilding of
the ropery after the fire of 1770; possibly used for storing tarred hemp before it was transferred to
the ropery for laying. Though more altered than the roperies at either Chatham or Devonport, this
is still one of the largest integrated groups of C18 industrial buildings in the country, and part of
a group of late C18 stores. (Sources: Coad J: Historic Architecture of HM Naval Base Portsmouth
1700–1850: Portsmouth: 1981:19-21; Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989:
132-136, 204).
Selected Sources
1700–1850 - Date: 1981 - Page References: 132-136
3. Book Reference - Author: Coad, J.G. - Title: The Royal Dockyards, 1690–1850 - Date: 1989
NUMBER 16 STORE (BUILDING NUMBER 1/63) AND BOLLARD AT SOUTH WEST CORNER,
ANCHOR LANE
Grade: II*
SU 6300 NW ANCHOR LANE (South side) HM Naval Base 774-1/29/187 No. 16 Store
(Building No. 1/63) and bollard at SW corner
GV II*
Alternatively known as: West Hemp House, ANCHOR LANE HM NAVAL BASE Hemp store, and
bollard, now store. Store dated “GR III 1771”; much altered mid-late C20. Red brick with some
327
blue headers in English bond. C20 flat-topped mansard roof of plain tiles with rooflight replaces
former double-pitched roof. EXTERIOR: 3 storeys and cellar. 18 bays. Ashlar plinth on south side.
Buttresses to ground floor each with brick table and stepped offset head, a cannon-barrel bollard
sunk against the north- western most buttress. Windows have segmental brick arches, replacement
soldier-brick arches on 2nd floor, replacement concrete sills, and C20 metal windows. Large,
inserted, C20 loading doors with folding metal doors. 2 pedestrian doors on north side. East gable
has blue headers picking out royal initials, date, flag and crown. INTERIOR: replacement rivet
ted steel roof trusses; mid-late C20 steel- framed internal structure. SUBSIDIARY FEATURES: at
south-west corner a bollard formed of an upended cannon barrel, probably early-mid C19 reused
as bollard mid-late C19, with muzzle blocked. HISTORY: originally called the West Hemp House,
constructed as part of the rebuilding of the ropery after the fire of 1770. It is similar in design to the
adjacent Nos 15 and 17 Stores (qqv). Though much altered, compared with the roperies at either
Chatham or Devonport, this is still part of one of the largest integrated groups of C18 industrial
buildings in the country, and part of a group with the other late C18 ropery buildings (qqv).
(Sources: Coad J: Historic Architecture of HM Naval Base Portsmouth 1700–1850: Portsmouth:
1981: 19, plate 15; Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989: 204-206).
Selected Sources
NUMBER 17 STORE (BUILDING NUMBER 1/64) AND BOLLARDS AT NORTH WEST AND
SOUTH WEST CORNERS, ANCHOR LANE
Grade: II*
SU 6300 NW ANCHOR LANE (South side) 774-1/29/188 HM Naval Base No. 17 Store
(Building No 1/64) and bollards at NW and SW corners
GV II*
Hemp store, now store. Dated 1781, much altered mid-late C20. Red brick in English bond with
blue headers to 2nd floor and forming band above ground floor. C20 flat-topped mansard roof of
plain tiles with rooflight replaces former double-pitched roof. EXTERIOR: 3 storeys. 14 bays. Ashlar
plinth on south side. Buttresses to ground floor, each with brick table and stepped offset head.
Windows have segmental brick arches, replacement soldier-brick arches on 2nd floor, projecting
sills, C20 metal windows. Large, inserted, C20 loading doors with folding metal doors. Boxed
eaves. On north side, board door at right end; bays 8 and 10 blind. At east end, single-storey
1-bay addition; above it, gable of main range has date picked out in blue headers. INTERIOR:
replacement rivetted steel roof trusses. Replacement internal structure. SUBSIDIARY FEATURES:
at north-west and south-west corners are bollards formed of upended cannon barrels, probably
early-mid C19 reused as bollards mid-late C19; muzzles blocked, that of south-western bollard by a
cannon ball. HISTORY: originally called the East Hemp House, and built as part of the rebuilding
of the ropery after the fire of 1770. It is similar in design to the adjacent Nos 16 and 15 Stores
(qqv). Though much altered compared with the roperies at Chatham and Devonport, this is still
one of the largest integrated groups of C18 industrial buildings in the country. (Sources: Coad J:
Historic Architecture of HM Naval Base Portsmouth 1700–1850: Portsmouth: 1981: 19, plate 15; The
Buildings of England: Lloyd D: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight: Harmondsworth: 1985: 413; Coad
328
J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989: 204-206).

Selected Sources
DOCKS 1 TO 6 (CONSECUTIVE) QUAY WALLS AND BOLLARDS (INCLUDING NORTH AND

SOUTH CAMBER MAST POND AND TUNNEL TO SAME), BASIN NUMBER 1
List entry Number: 1272267 (see scheduling entry 1001852; HAR, HCC BAR)
Grade: I
Legacy System: LBS UID: 476637 Asset Groupings
SU 6200 NE BASIN NO.1 HM Naval Base 774-1/17/178 Docks 1-6 (consec), Quay walls and bollards
(incl. N & S Camber, Mast Pond and tunnel to same)
GV I
Basin and docks with bollards and fairleads; quay retaining wall; mast pond now boat pond and
tunnel to the latter. Mostly mid C18- early C 19, from 1796 under the direction of General Samuel
Bentham (Inspector General of Naval Works); mast-pond 1665; bollards and fairleads mid C19.
C19 and C20 repairs and alterations. Large blocks of tooled coursed, squared, stone with Roman
numerals indicating water levels and round- cornered granite kerb-stones with iron mooring rings
inset. Other mooring rings fixed to walls at lower levels. Tunnel has vault of red bricks. Iron
mooring rings, bollards and fairleads. EXTERIOR: a complete complex of late C18 and early C19
ship building and repairing docks with associated quay walls and mooring fixtures. Docks have
stepped sides with flights of steps and haulage slides; some retain later metal gates. Dock No. 4
has floor with central strip of granite setts flanked by brick paving. Quay and basin walls have
narrow flights of steps and on north side of entry to North Camber is Kings Stairs, a flight of steps
with wide, shallow, treads (resurfaced). On north side of Kings Stair Jetty is slipway of granite setts,
with three cannon barrels reused as bollards. Basin entry on south side is inscribed “BRITANNIA
12th June 1801” (year of completion of basin extension, see below). Bollards are mostly square on
plan with curved tops and embossed lettering, “VR” (they are similar to those associated with the
1840s–60s No. 2 Basin and docks, not included). Mast pond, of rectangular plan, has granite corbels
to carry boathouses above (qqv Boathouse Nos 5 and 7). The tunnel entries are segmental-arched
with giant voussoirs aligned to the stonework courses, and at west end are recesses for former
lock gates (added 1797, Riley p7). The west entry ( off South Camber) appears to have the quay
wall built up against it (indicating possibly earlier date of tunnel). HISTORY: the mast pond was
dug in 1665 (Naval Heritage at Portsmouth Visitors Guide), and is constructed of diagonally-tooled
stone (the stonework of the other walling, and also of the 1690s Basin which survives under the
Block Mills (qv) is vertically tooled). The Basin and docks are on the site of the late C15 dockyard.
This was replaced by a large basin and 2 dry docks constructed 1689-98 under the direction of
Edward Dummer, Surveyor to the Navy Board. One of the dry docks, replaced by the present No.
5 Dock, was important in being, along with Dummer’s contemporary dry dock at Plymouth, the
first in England to have stepped stone sides instead of timbering (Coad, 1981, p11). The existing
basin incorporates parts of the 1690s basin which was reduced in size in the C18 and subsequently
enlarged under the direction of Bentham incorporating 2 important features: 1) Bentham’s inverted
masonry arch tying together the entrance walls was probably the first use of the inverted arch
329
principle in dock building; 2) Bentham also made use of John Smeaton’s waterproof cement
(Riley p12). Dock No. 1 was constructed 1790-1801; Dock No.2, 1799-1802, designed by Bentham,
contractors Parlby and Rankin; Dock No.3, 1799-1803, designed by Bentham; Dock No. 4, 1772
replacing 2 building slips of early-mid C18; Dock No. 5, 1769 incorporating 1690s work; Dock No.6
(on site of Dummer’s smaller dry dock of 1690s), 1737–43, modified 1760s and 1777, and rebuilt
1810; North Camber, 1773–85, contractors Templar and Parlby, designed to give more wharfage
capacity for loading and unloading. Docks were built with wooden floors until Bentham introduced
the principle of using masonry floors. The quayside capstans were originally steam-powered
being converted to compressed air early C20. Noted by Coad (1989, p97) as “the finest surviving
group of such eighteenth century structures in Europe”. (Sources: Coad J: Historic Architecture
of HM Naval Base Portsmouth 1700- 1850: Portsmouth: 1981: 11 ; Coad J: The Royal Dockyards
1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989: 97 ; The Portsmouth Papers: Riley RC: The Evolution of the Docks and
Industrial Buildings in Portsmouth: Portsmouth: 1985: 3-12 ; Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust:
Naval Heritage at Portsmouth -Visitor’s Guide: Portsmouth: 1988; Winton J: The Naval Heritage of
Portsmouth: 1985: 46, 104).
Selected Sources
1. Book Reference - Title: Naval Heritage at Portsmouth - Date: 1988
3. Book Reference - Author: J Winton - Title: The Naval Heritage of Portsmouth - Date: 1985 -
Page References: 97
NUMBER 2 SHIP SHOP (BUILDING NUMBER 1/208), BOILER ROAD

Grade: II*
SU 6200 NE BOILER ROAD (West side) HM Naval Base 774-1/17/189 No.2 Ship Shop
(Building No 1/208)
GV II*
Alternatively known as: West Factory, BOILER ROAD HM NAVAL BASE Steam engineering works,
now workshops. 1846–49 by Cpt Henry James RE, later alterations. Red brick in Flemish bond
with granite and Portland stone dressings and brighter red brick gauged flat arches, corrugated
iron roof with wrought-iron trusses. EXTERIOR: 2 storeys, 25 bays. East elevation bays arranged
symmetrically 2:1:4:1:4:1:4:1:4:1:2. A long range facing the Steam Basin in 5 sections, divided
by projecting single bays with rusticated long and short quoins; giant round arches with fluted
keystones framing windows; impost bands continued within arches; and pediments to bays 3, 13
and 23. Recessed bays are set in pairs between giant pilasters and have giant round brick arches
with keystones framing windows. Ashlar plinth and eaves cornice with blocking course. small-
paned 3-light cast-iron windows, tall and round-arched on ground floor, smaller and near semi-
circular above; all with deep stone sills. At ground-floor impost level, rail for dockyard crane is
supported on massive iron wall plates. On 1st floor, small hand crane and platform survive at bay
8, platform at bay 3, and the crane housings at bay 23. Rainwater downpipes set against projecting
330
bays have heads dated 1847 and with initials “VR” and fouled anchor. Roof skylight. Rear: similar
but without pediments and most windows renewed; the ashlar eaves cornice and blocking course
restricted to the projecting bays and the giant pilasters; the right-hand part of the building is
concealed by the Smithery, and the central lower part by a low brick addition. Right return (north
elevation): some renewed brickwork. Giant corner pilasters frame full-height round archway with
rusticated long and short quoins; cornice below pediment. Left return similar, but with steel roller
door to ground floor and C20 replacement metal windows above. INTERIOR: contains a massive
internal iron frame of cast-iron beams with parabolic bottom flanges with matching bridging beams
fitting into sockets, supporting brick jack arches; upper floor with iron beams with parabolic bottom
flanges and cast sockets with timber joists. Gantry crane carried on brick corbel band at window
impost level and, across windows, on metal girders with decorative arched braces. Cast-iron spiral
stairs up to 1st floor. Roof boarded and with braced iron trusses. HISTORY: originally the West
Factory, housing (S-N) the engine erecting shop, the heavy turning shop, the central punching
and shearing shop, and the 2 N sections for boiler construction and repair, on the upper floor the
millwrights’ shop, light turning and fitting shop, pattern makers’ shop and pattern store. Shaft drive
was taken from an 80hp beam engine at the centre of the rear elevation. The original intention was
for a site to the E of the Steam Basin, abandoned because the land was not ready, and James felt
the final building was compromised by its narrow site. The frame is a mature design using cast-
iron, proportionate to the anticipated load, both live and dead; the bridging beams are remarkably
long examples. The planning of the Portsmouth steam engineering facility is in contrast to the much
more integrated Quadrangle (qv) at Devonport. Of considerable historic interest as one of the first
of the new generation of heavy engineering shops at Portsmouth and Devonport for the transition
to a steam-powered fleet, with the related brass and iron foundries (qqv). (Sources: The Buildings
of England: Lloyd D: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight: Harmondsworth: 1985: 416; The Portsmouth
Papers: Riley RC: The Evolution of the Docks & Industrial Buildings in Portsmouth: Portsmouth:
1985: 16; Evans D: The Buildings of the Steam Navy: 1994: 9-11; Professional Papers of the Royal
Engineers, Series 3: James H: Description of the Steam Basin, Docks and Factory: 1953: 88-92).
Selected Sources
2. Article Reference - Author: H James - Title: Description of the Steam Basin Docks and
Factory - Date: 1953 - Journal Title: Professional Papers of the Royal Engineers; Series 3 -
NUMBER 9 STORE (BUILDING NUMBER 1/35), MAIN ROAD

Grade: I
SU 6200 SE MAIN ROAD (West side) HM Naval Base 774-1/18/212 No. 9 Store (Building No. 1/35)
GV I
Naval store. Opened 1782. By Templar, Parlby and Templar (Riley). Red brick, in English bond;
ashlar dressings. Flat-topped mansard slate roof with leaded top. PLAN: rectangular plan with
331
central ground-floor entry and stair. 3 storeys with cellar and attic, 13 x 3 bays. EXTERIOR: ashlar
plinth and 1st-floor band and sill band; stepped brick eaves band below plain ashlar cornice; coped
parapet. Ground-floor doorways round-arched ashlar surrounds with keystones rising into 1st- floor
band, plinth blocks, and imposts. Windows are 18-pane sashes, 12-pane to 2nd floor, with gauged
bright-red brick flat arches and ashlar sills; flat roofed attic dormers. Rainwater pipes with bulbous
heads. North-east elevation: bays arranged 5:3:5 the centre projecting slightly below pediment
with oculus. Blocked central entrance in architrave with tripartite keystone, flanked by windows.
Doorways to other ground-floor bays have double doors, decorative fanlights with glazing bars and
round- arched ashlar surrounds with plinth blocks, imposts, and keystones rising into deep 1st-floor
band. Rear: as north-east elevation, but ground-floor openings of right half bricked up. Returns
each have central entrance and loading door above, with double doors, fanlights with radial glazing
bars, cantilevered landings to loading doors (that to left return now removed), and housings for
cranes. Building surrounded by raised pavement of granite slabs carried on iron arches at front
and brick plinth at rear, with iron grilles above cellar windows (formerly trap doors on rear side).
INTERIOR: cellar: transverse brick walls between bays carry round-arched brick vaults; passage
along rear side. On floors above, square wooden columns support large-scantling cross-beams and
joists; wide wooden floorboards; some of the original woodwork replaced on 1st floor. Central
wooden stair rising from ground to 2nd floor has open well, closed-string, shallow (replacement)
treads, wide-spaced large-scantling plain balusters, square newels, and broad handrail. Roof board-
lined with braced queen-post trusses of large- scantling timbers. HISTORY: the last of three large
stores (with Nos 10 and 11 qqv) forming a notably fine group. Much of the Georgian yard was
taken up by stores, and these are the most architecturally-distinguished surviving examples in
any of the naval yards. (Sources: Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989: 132-
136; The Buildings of England: Lloyd D: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight: Harmondsworth: 1985:
410; The Portsmouth Papers: Riley RC: The Evolution of the Docks and Industrial Buildings in
Portsmouth: Portsmouth: 1985: 7, 10).
Selected Sources

Grade: I
Asset Groupings
SU 6200 SE MAIN ROAD (West side) HM Naval Base 774-1/18/215 No. 10 Store (Building No 1/58)
GV I
Naval store, now museum. 1776 by Templar, Parlby and Templar (Riley), bomb damaged c1940,
restoration work c1991. Red brick, with some glazed blue headers, in English bond; ashlar
dressings. Flat-topped mansard slate roof with lead top. PLAN: rectangular plan with central
ground-floor entry and stair. 3 storeys with cellar and attic, 13 x 3 bays. EXTERIOR: ashlar plinth
and 1st-floor band and sill band; stepped brick eaves band below plain ashlar cornice; coped
332
parapet. Ground-floor doorways have round-arched ashlar surrounds with keystones rising into
1st-floor band, plinth blocks and imposts. Windows: are 18-pane sashes, 12-pane to 2nd floor, with
gauged bright-red brick flat arches and ashlar sills (some sills replaced in concrete); flat-roofed attic
dormers. Rainwater pipes with square heads. North-east elevation: bays arranged 5:3:5, the centre
projecting slightly below pediment with oculus and surmounted by 1992 replica clock tower cupola
re-using clock faces, ball finial and weather-vane. To centre, large round archway in rusticated
ashlar surround with imposts, the voussoirs aligned to courses, and with modillion cornice;
flanking windows, that on left replaced by entrance; doorways to other bays in round-arched ashlar
surrounds with plinth blocks, imposts and keystones rising into deep 1st-floor band. Rear: as north-
east elevation. Above archway, on 2nd floor, is loading door with crane; and a lunette with radial
glazing bars to pediment. The ground floor doorways have replacement double board doors and
fanlights with decorative glazing bars. Returns each have central entrance and loading door above,
with double doors and fanlights with radial glazing bars. Building surrounded by raised pavement
of granite slabs carried on iron arches at front and brick plinth at rear, with iron grilles above cellar
windows at front and trap doors at rear (mostly now all replaced by grilles). INTERIOR: cellar:
transverse brick walls between bays carry round-arched brick walls; passage along rear side. On
ground floor, central through passage has an entrance on each side with double board doors,
fanlight with decorative glazing bars, and tooled ashlar architrave with imposts and keystone. On
each floor, square wooden columns support large- scantling cross-beams and joists; wide wooden
floorboards, some being reused ships’ timbers; much of the woodwork of south-east half
of 1st floor and of 2nd floor replaced. Original heavy wooden stair rising from ground to 1st
floor has open well, shallow treads, widely-spaced large- scantling plain balusters, square newels
with moulded caps and broad handrail. Roof board-lined and with braced queen-post trusses of
large- scantling timbers, the south-eastern half of the building having attic and roof rebuilt 1991-
92. The bells and clock in the cupola are C19 (clock dated 1878 and made by Gillet and Bland,
Team Clock Factory, Croydon), brought from a Bristol School (possibly Bristol Grammar School).
HISTORY: one of three large stores (with Nos 9 and 11 qqv) forming a notably fine group. Much
of the Georgian yard was taken up with stores, and these are the most architecturally distinguished
surviving examples in any of the naval yards. Sources: Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850:
Aldershot: 1989: 132-136 ; The Buildings of England: Lloyd D: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight:
Harmondsworth: 1985: 410; The Portsmouth Papers: Riley RC: The Evolution of the Docks and
Industrial Buildings in Portsmouth: Portsmouth: 1985: 7, 10).
Selected Sources
of Wight - Date: 1967 - Journal Title: The Buildings of England - Page References: 7, 10
Buildings in Portsmouth - Date: 1985 - Journal Title: The Portsmouth Papers

Grade: I
SU 6200 NE MAIN ROAD (West side) HM Naval Base 774-1/17/217 No. 11 Store (Building No 1/59)
GV I
Alternatively known as: Present Use Storehouse, MAIN ROAD HM NAVAL BASE Naval store, now
333
museum, library and offices. 1763 by Templar, Parlby and Teniplar; restored after fire damage 1874
(Riley). Red brick with some glazed blue headers, in English bond; ashlar dressings. Flat-topped
mansard slate roof with lead top. PLAN: rectangular plan with central ground-floor entry and stair.
EXTERIOR: 3 storeys with cellar and attic, 13 x 3 bays. Ashlar plinth and 1st-floor band and sill
band; stepped brick eaves band below plain ashlar cornice; coped parapet. Ground-floor openings
(originally doorways) have round-arched ashlar surrounds with keystones rising into 1st-floor band,
plinth blocks, and imposts. Windows are 18-pane sashes, 12-pane to 2nd floor, with gauged bright-
red brick flat arches and ashlar cills (some cills replaced in concrete); flat-roofed attic dormers.
Rainwater pipes with bulbous heads. North-east elevation: bays arranged 5:3:5 the centre projecting
slightly below pediment with later clock; central panelled double door in eared architrave with
tripartite keystone, flanked by windows. Doorways to other ground-floor bays, now windows,
have round- arched ashlar surrounds with plinth blocks, imposts, and keystones rising into deep
1st-floor band. Rear: as north-east elevation, central 2nd floor loading door with crane; oculus in
pediment. Returns each have central entrance and loading door above, with double doors, fanlights
with radial glazing bars and cantilevered landings to loading doors (that to left return now replaced
by late C20 bridge providing link to No. 10 Store (qv); right return retains crane-housing. Building
surrounded by raised pavement of granite slabs carried on iron arches at front and brick plinth at
rear, with iron grilles above cellar windows (formerly trap doors on rear side). INTERIOR: cellar:
transverse brick walls between bays carry round-arched brick vaults; passage along rear side. On
floors above, square wooden columns support large-scantling cross-beams and joists; wide wooden
floorboards; ground floor reconstructed as museum gallery but retaining some old floorboards
including some reused ships’ timbers. Some of the 1st and 2nd floor rooms board-lined, the eaves
boards with flower-like vents. Original heavy central wooden stair rising from ground floor to attic
has open well, closed string, shallow treads, turned balusters, square newels with moulded caps
and broad moulded handrail (a more decorative stair than those in the slightly later No. 9 and
No. 10 Stores, qqv). Roof board-lined with braced queen-post trusses of large-scantling timbers.
HISTORY: one of three large stores (with Nos 9 and 10 qqv) forming a notably fine group. Much
of the Georgian yard was taken up with stores, and these are the most-architecturally distinguished
surviving examples in any of the naval yards. (Sources: Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850:
Aldershot: 1989: 132-136; The Buildings of England: Lloyd D: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight:
Harmondsworth: 1985: 410; The Portsmouth Papers: Riley RC: The Evolution of the Docks &
Industrial Buildings in Portsmouth: Portsmouth: 1985: 7, 10).
Selected Sources
Buildings in Portsmouth - Date: 1985 - Journal Title: The Portsmouth Papers - Page References: 7, 10
HYDRAULIC ENGINE HOUSE (BUILDING NUMBER 1/38) SOUTH WEST OF NUMBER 9

STORE WITH BOLLARD AT SOUTH WEST CORNER, MAIN ROAD
Location
Grade: II
334
SU 6200 SE MAIN ROAD (West off) HM Naval Base 774-1/18/208 Hydraulic engine house (Building
No/38) SW of No. 9 Store with bollard at SW corner
GV II
Hydraulic engine house. 1861, by John Murray, Chief Engineer, extended c1904. Red brick in
English bond with dressings of ashlar and gauged red brick, corrugated sheet roof. EXTERIOR:
one storey with 2-storey accumulator tower rising from west end of engine house, N boiler house
and S engine house extension. Chamfered plinth; ashlar impost band; tall round- arched windows
with metal glazing bars, radial in heads, in gauged-brick round-arched recesses; stepped dentilled
eaves band; cornice; flat-coped parapet, much rebuilt. South-west elevation: 3:3:1 bays, 3 left bays
c1904 engine house with 16-pane sashes, loading doors and pediment. Central accumulator tower
has bays framed by pilasters and stepped bands; wider round-arched central bay with former
entrance; 1st--floor band and cornice. Right bay has inserted entrance. South-east elevation of 1:3
bays, left bay recessed. North-east elevation of 1:3:2 bays having early C20 entrance, up steps, on
left; and later sliding doors and windows on right, under rebuilt pediment. North-west elevation
masked by later building. SUBSIDIARY FEATURES: cast-iron inverted canon bollard approx 3m to
south-west of south-west corner. INTERIOR of 1904 extension has king post roof, and strongly-
built corners, as the Brass Foundry (qv). HISTORY: pressurized the hydraulic system for 8 cranes
on the Watering Island, 9 capstans and 9 lifts, and the mechanism in the Chain Test House (qv)
(Riley). A comparatively early example of a hydraulic engine house, with group value with the
Chain Testing House. (Sources: The Portsmouth Papers: Riley RC: The Evolution of the Docks &
Industrial Buildings in Portsmouth: Portsmouth: 1985: 25; Evans D: The Buildings of the Steam
Navy: 1994:15).
Selected Sources
Page References: 15
STATUE OF CAPTAIN SCOTT AT WEST END OF BUILDING NUMBER 1/87C (BUILDING

NUMBER 1/87C NOT INCLUDED), MAIN ROAD
Grade: II
SU 6200 NE MAIN ROAD (Northeast side) HM Naval Base 774-1/17/223 Statue of Captain Scott at
W end of Building No. 1/87C (Building No 1/87C not included)
GV II
Statue of Captain Scott (of the Antarctic), d.1912. Designed by Lady Katherine Scott (his widow)
(Lloyd). Bronze, granite, and concrete. Stepped concrete podium; swept rock-faced granite plinth;
pedestal, with bronze commemorative plaque on west side, supports bronze statue of Scott, cap
in hand, with husky dog lying at his feet. Commemorates Captain Robert Falcon Scott, RN, CVO,
1868–1912; with quotation from his journal. (Source: Lloyd DW: Buildings of Portsmouth and its
Environs: Portsmouth: 1974: 86).
Selected Sources
1. Book Reference - Author: Lloyd, D W - Title: Buildings of Portsmouth and its Environs - Date:
1974 - Page References: 86
335
STATUE OF WILLIAM III TO SOUTH WEST OF BUILDING NUMBER 1/87C (BUILDING

NUMBER 1/87C NOT INCLUDED), MAIN ROAD
Grade: II
SU 6200 NE MAIN ROAD (Northeast side) HM Naval Base 774-1/17/224 Statue of William III to SW
of Building No. 1/87C (Building No 1/87C not included)
GV II
Statue of William III. Dated 1718, relocated C19 and C20. Sculptor, Van Noss (Lloyd). Gilt
statue, ashlar plinth, concrete podium. Plinth has moulded base and cornice; panelled sides and
inscriptions “Gulielmo III Optimo Regi”, and “Ricardus Norton Humilime O.D.” The statue is of
William III dressed as a cloaked Roman General, crowned with a laurel wreath, holding a baton.
William III order a major expansion of the naval dockyard in 1690. The statue originally stood on
the parade ground, in front of Long Row (qv), and then in front of Admiralty House (qv) before
being brought to its present location (Lloyd O). (Sources: Lloyd DW: Buildings of Portsmouth and
its Environs: Portsmouth: 1974: 86; The Buildings of England: Lloyd DW: Hampshire and the Isle of
Wight: Harmondsworth: 1985: 411).
Selected Sources
1. Book Reference - Author: Lloyd, D W - Title: Buildings of Portsmouth and its Environs -
2. Book Reference - Author: Pevsner, N - Title: The Buildings of England: Hampshire and the
Isle of Wight - Date: 1967 - Page References: 411

Grade: II
SU 6200 NE MAIN ROAD (East side) HM Naval Base 774-1/17/220 No 33 Store (Building No. 1/150)
GV II
Stores and workshops. 1782 (Property Register), with later alterations. Red brick in English bond
with ashlar dressings and gauged bright-red brick flat arches to openings. Hipped slate roofs.
PLAN: 2 parallel ranges with linking intermediate courtyard, this later roofed over and built up to
form one large block. EXTERIOR: 2 now 3 storeys; 17 x 10 bays. Ashlar plinth, 1st-floor plat band,
and string on stepped, dentilled brick band over 1st and 2nd floors; parapet with flat coping. Tall
windows with 18-pane sashes and stone sills. Panelled and board doors. North elevation: 3 central
bays projecting and 3 right hand bays recessed on ground and 1st floors, the 2nd floor in line
across whole elevation indicating that it is of a later build. On ground floor, 7 round archways with
ashlar imposts and keystones and containing a 12- pane sash or an entrance (bays 3, 7 and 13, the
2 former now with windows). One bulbous rainwater head and parts of the lead downpipe. West
elevation: arranged 4:3:3 bays, the end sections projecting. 2 inserted mid (20 wide entrances, to
central and right-hand sections; left-hand section has windows set in pairs and central 4-panel door
below small-pane overlight. South elevation: arranged 2:5:3:5:2 bays, ends and centre projecting.
Inserted segmental-arched entrances to bays 9 and 13; original flat- arched entrance with board
door to bay 5.2 original bulbous rainwater heads, that on left embossed “GR 1787”, and parts of
336
lead downpipes. East elevation: 3:3:3 bays, ends projecting. Original cambered-arched entries to
bays 3 and 7 and round-arched entrance with imposts and keystone to bay 6; inserted segmental-
arched entrance to bay 2. INTERIOR: chamfered square wooden columns support large-scantling
chamfered cross-beams. In north range at north-west corner an open-well stair with widely-spaced
plain cast-iron balusters, decorative columnar cast-iron newels, and ramped wooden handrail.
Similar, but plainer, stair at east end. HISTORY: built as one of 4 similar store/workshops to a
courtyard plan as part of the dockyard modernisation programme. The central open area was
used for timber storage. This block was the north-western one. The south- western and south-
eastern blocks survive as No. 24 and No. 25 Stores’ Jago Road (qqv); the north-eastern block, much
damaged 1940s, as Building No. 1/149 (not included). Though altered, part of a planned group of
interest as an attempt to rationalise dockyard workshop activities in a formal arrangement of self-
contained buildings. (Sources: Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989: 153 ; The
Buildings of England: Lloyd D: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight: Harmondsworth: 1985: 414; The
Portsmouth Papers: Riley RC: The Evolution of the Docks and Industrial Buildings in Portsmouth:
Portsmouth: 1985: 10-11).
Selected Sources
1. Article Reference - Author: Riley, R C - Title: The Evolution of the Docks and
2. Book Reference - Author: Coad, J G - Title: The Royal Dockyards 1690-1850: Architecture and
Engineering Works of the Sailing Navy - Date: 1989 - Page References: 153
NUMBER 5 BOATHOUSE (BUILDING NUMBERS 1/27 AND 1/28), MAIN ROAD

Grade: II
SU 6200 SE MAIN ROAD (East side) HM Naval Base 774-1/18/210 No. 5 Boathouse
(Buildings Nos 1/27 & 1/28)
GV II
Masthouse then boathouse and sail loft, now museum. 1882 (Riley) on site of earlier boathouse.
Timber framed with weatherboard cladding and corrugated iron roofs. EXTERIOR= 2 parallel
ranges of 1 storey, 2:2 x 12 bays, built over Mast Pond (qv); with 3rd, shorter, range (former sail
loft) set back against right return, originally of 2 storeys with loft. Small-pane wooden windows in
flush wood frames. Board doors. Bracketed boxed eaves. The 2 main ranges are built on a wood
and iron substructure which has iron posts with wooden braces to iron girders and wooden joists.
South-west elevation: the 2 main ranges have 4 original wide entrances replaced by (20 doors,
small-pane glazing, and vertical boarding. 2 louvred openings above to left range. Hipped roofs.
Range set back on right has central late (20 door in original surround with bracketed wooden
pentice; flanking continuous 4-pane windows with door to left; 3 small-pane windows above; and
2 strap-hinged loading doors in gable. Rear: main range has diagonally-tooled stone plinth with
granite kerbstones; 5 bays of continuous board doors or replacement vertical boarding; louvred
gable. Shorter range as before. Left return: bracketed iron balcony; 12 windows. Right return: main
range has late (20 door and 5 windows on right of shorter range and 3 windows on left. INTERIOR:
square wooden columns straight-braced to longitudinal and cross beams. Roof trusses have braced
wooden king posts and vertical secondary braces; raking plank wind braces. HISTORY: one of a
337
pair of boathouse with No. 7 (qv). With the Lower Boat House, Chatham (qv), the last surviving
examples of a once-common type, used for building and storing of small boats. (Sources: Coad
J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989: 145; The Buildings of England: Lloyd D:
Hampshire and the Isle of Wight: Harmondsworth: 1985: 409-410; The Portsmouth Papers: Riley RC:
The Evolution of the Docks & Industrial Buildings in Portsmouth: Portsmouth: 1985: 11).
Selected Sources
1. Article Reference - Author: Riley, R C - Title: The Evolution of the Docks and Industrial
2. Book Reference - Author: Coad, J G - Title: The Royal Dockyards 1690-1850: Architecture and
Isle of Wight - Date: 1967 - Page References: 409-410
NUMBER 7 BOATHOUSE (BUILDING NUMBER 1/29), MAIN ROAD

Grade: II
SU 6200 SE MAIN ROAD (East side} HM Naval Base 774-1/18/211 No 7 Boathouse
(Building No. 1/29)
GV II
Mast house then boathouse. 1875 (Riley) on site of earlier boathouse. Timber-framed with weather-
board cladding, north-east section of red brick with some blue headers in English bond. Hipped
corrugated iron roofs. EXTERIOR: four parallel ranges of one storey; 2:2:2:2 x 18 bays, built out over
Mast Pond (qv). Small-pane wooden windows in projecting wood frames. Board doors. Built on
wood and iron substructure which has iron posts with wooden braces to iron girders and wooden
joists. South-west elevation: 8 continuous wide entrances with folding doors. Rear: double board
door to weatherboarded left-hand section. Right-hand section is of brick and has 3 recessed bays
with flanking pilasters (paired each side of central bay) and stepped, cogged, heads each having
central round- arched entrance (now bricked up) with brick “imposts” and ‘keystones”. Left return:
left-hand section is of brick and has tall recesses with cogged eaves and replacement windows
below gauged bright- red brick flat arches. Right return: bracketed iron balcony; 18 windows.
INTERIOR: square timber posts with braces to longitudinal and cross- beams. Wooden roof trusses
with iron king pins and plank ridge- piece. Skylights in northern pitches of roofs. HISTORY: one
of a pair of boathouses with No. 5 (qv), and with the Lower Boat House, Chatham (qv), the last
surviving examples of a once-common type used for building and storing small boats. (Sources:
Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989: 145; The Buildings of England: Lloyd D:
Hampshire and the Isle of Wight: Harmondsworth: 1985: 409-410 ; The Portsmouth Papers: Riley RC:
The- Evolution of the Docks and Industrial Buildings in Portsmouth: Portsmouth: 1985: 11).
Selected Sources
2. Book Reference - Author: Coad, J G - Title: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Architecture and
338
THE ROYAL NAVY SHELTER (BUILDING NUMBER 1/45, SOUTH RAILWAY JETTY
Grade: II
SU 6200 SE SOUTH RAILWAY JETTY HM Naval Base The Royal Railway Shelter (Building No 1/45)
774-1/18/236
GV II
Railway shelter. 1888. Cast-iron frame; roof of asphalt on wooden lining. Single-storey open-sided
structure of 1 x 7 bays. Pillars of cross section, support trussed iron arches spanning double track,
and having flat-topped longitudinal braces with twisted iron struts springing from these. Three
round-arched louvred dormers with wooden archivolts on each side of roof. Gable finials in form
of crowned fouled anchor.
On west side, facing quayside, eaves are gableted with curved bargeboards and glass roofs.
INTERIOR not inspected. HISTORY: built for the use of the Royal Family visiting the yard, and part
of a group with the Royal Station (qv). (Sources: The Portsmouth Papers: Riley RC: The Evolution of
the Docks and Industrial Buildings in Portsmouth: Portsmouth: 1985: 25; Evans D: The Buildings of
the Steam Navy: 1994: 30).
Selected Sources
1. Book Reference - Author: Evans, D - Title: The Buildings of the Steam Navy - Date: 1994 -
Page References: 30
FORMER RAILWAY STATION AND WAITING ROOM (BUILDING NUMBER 1/47), SOUTH
RAILWAY JETTY
Grade: II
SU 6200 SE SOUTH RAILWAY JETTY HM Naval Base 774-1/18/234 Former Railway Station and
Waiting Room (Building No. 1/47)
GV II
Railway station and waiting room, now offices. 1888, altered C20. Red brick in stretcher bond; cast-
iron columns supporting wooden canopy; later infill of vertical wooden boards. Replacement roof
of corrugated iron. Brick end stacks. EXTERIOR: long single-storey range having canopy at front
supported by arcade with decorative arched braces and scalloped, vertically boarded eaves; canopy
partially underbuilt C20. Central entrance. Sash windows of 12 and 16 panes. Chimneys panelled
and with decorative terracotta to arched openings and corbelled cornices. Returns: gables treated as
pediments and with stepped dentilled bands. INTERIOR not inspected. HISTORY: built as shelter for
the Royal Family and its party when visiting the yard. Part of a group with the Royal Shelter (qv).
(Sources: The Portsmouth Papers: Riley RC: The Evolution of the Docks and Industrial Buildings in
Portsmouth: Portsmouth: 1985: 25; Evans D: The Buildings of the Steam Navy: 1994: 30).
Selected Sources
Page References: 30
339
CHAIN AND CABLE TEST HOUSE AND STORE, CAPSTAN, CHAIN HAULAGE-WAYS ON
NORTH (BUILDING NUMBER 1/41), SOUTH RAILWAY JETTY
Grade: II
SU 6200 SE SOUTH RAILWAY JETTY HM Naval Base Chain & Cable Test House & Store, Capstan,
chain Haulage-ways on N (Building No 1/41) 774-1/18/233
GV II
Naval chain and cable test house and store, with capstan and chain haulage-way on north side.
1844–47, by Captain RS Beatson (Royal Engineers), roof by H Grissell; new annealing house 1866,
extended 1879–80 for more powerful testing machinery; bomb damaged 1940 with much rebuilding
subsequently of external structure; floor relaid 1991-92. Red and brown brick in Flemish bond;
mid C20 work of pink brick in English and stretcher bonds. Roofs of corrugated metal with long
roof lights. PLAN/ EXTERIOR: large single-storey rectangular structure comprising a number of
parallel-roofed ranges with others at right angles. Original circular iron windows, small-pane metal
windows with segmental brick arches, stone lintels or mid C20 concrete lintels and sills. Sliding
board doors with similar arches/ lintels. On west side, principal range (probably 1879/80 with mid
C20 repairs) of 9 bays arranged 2:2:1:2:2 has central door flanked by paired windows with further
pairs of windows at each end flanked by broad brick pilasters rising into stepped brick eaves. On
north side, 13-bay range on right has 3 doors; from the left- hand door and door of range on left
haulage-ways of granite setts run out of the building towards a waisted, turning bollard. INTERIOR:
a cast-iron frame of 2 aisles of Tuscan columns on plinths to I-section beams and tied at three-
quarter height by segmental-arched ties with moulded spandrels, support roof trusses with paired
wrought-iron ties and decorative cast-iron struts. Floor is of wooden blocks and granite setts, and
has haulage-ways of iron ballast castings bearing arrowhead design and letters “PO”. There are
turning bollards, formerly operated by the 2 capstans, and an inspection pit. HISTORY: the first
testing and storage facility for iron cables, introduced into the navy from 1830s. Principally chain
storage space, with E testing house, N junk (worn cable) store, S painting shop and chain cleaning
shop, with annealing furnace; a new annealing house was added 1866 and new test house with
more powerful testing machinery in 1880. The iron ballast castings bore the Portsmouth Dockyard
identification motif so that commercial dockyards undertaking refitting would know where to
return the ballast. A remarkable survival of interest as an example of fire proof design which clearly
manifests its unique purpose. Beatson was also responsible for the Fire Stations and No. 6 Boat
Store at Portsmouth (qqv). (Sources: The Portsmouth Papers: Riley RC: The Evolution of the Docks
and Industrial Buildings in Portsmouth: Portsmouth: 1985: 15-16; Evans D: The Buildings of the
Steam Navy: 1994: 6-8).
Selected Sources
Buildings in Portsmouth - Date: 1985 - Journal Title: The Portsmouth Papers - Page References: 15-16
340
THE LION GATE, SOUTH RAILWAY JETTY

Grade: II
SU 6200 SE SOUTH RAILWAY JETTY HM Naval Base The Lion Gate 774-1/18/235
GV II
Town gate, now naval entrance way. 1778, dismantled C19 and re-erected in present position
1929 (date stone). Ashlar. Central round archway with tripartite keystone and voussoirs aligned to
the courses of the rusticated ashlar surround. Flanking paired pilasters with vermiculated bands
support cornice and pediment in which is lion couchant bearing flag. To either side a similar
pedestrian archway with round window over. On right side of central arch is block inscribed “The
Lion Gateway Portsea. Built 1778. Incorporated in this building in the year 1929”. The present
appearance of the entrances owes much to the 1929 rebuilding. The archway was originally
erected as one of the town gateways of Portsea (Lloyd). (Source: The Buildings of England: Lloyd
D: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight: Harmondsworth: 1985: 410).
Selected Sources
NUMBERS 18 AND 19 STORES WITH LINKING AND ATTACHED BOLLARDS (BUILDINGS

NUMBERS 1/65 AND 1/75), STONY LANE
Grade: II*
SU 6300 NW STONY LANE HM Naval Base 774-1/29/238 Nos 18 & 19 Stores with linking And
attached bollards (Buildings Nos 1/65 & 75)
GV II*
Alternatively known as: The Double Ropehouse and Hatchelling House, STONY LANE HM NAVAL
BASE Hatchelling house and hemp store 1771, linking bridge late C18 to early C19 (Riley p11), all
with later alterations; double ropehouse 1771–75, remodelled as storehouse 1868, major alterations
and reconstruction 1954–61. Red brick with some blue headers in English bond. Plain tile roofs.
EXTERIOR: No. 19 Store; 2 storeys. The 10 x 2-bay hatchelling house, to north, and longer 13 x
2-bay hemp store to south were originally free-standing; in the early C20 the narrow yard between
them was roofed over to form a single storehouse. 2-light small-pane casement windows with
segmental brick arches and projecting sills. South elevation: replacement metal windows, on 1st
floor with concrete sills and lintels. 2 wide segmental-arched entrances (bays 2 and 7) with mid C20
folding steel doors. Eaves band. 3 late C20 roof-lights at left end. At right end, and partly blocking
ground-floor window, is 2-storey, 3-bay bridge linking store and rope-house. Bridge has plinth
with offsets; round central archway flanked by slightly lower segmental archways, each with ashlar
imposts and lunette above having radial glazing bars and stone sills (lunettes at centre on west
side and at south end on east side are bricked up); stepped eaves. The former ropehouse is a very
long range (1,095 feet) of 3 storeys and attic; 109 bays, almost symmetrical (west section longer by
1 bay), the 6 bays at each end breaking forward on each side as end blocks. Stepped plinth. Mid
C20 metal windows with concrete sills and original segmental brick arches, replaced by soldier-
341
brick arches on 2nd floor. Large inserted, mid C20 loading entrances with folding steel doors, at
each gable end as well as on long sides. Boxed eaves. Mid C20 brick fire walls rising through flat-
topped mansard roof with hipped, glazed roof lights. At east end, the corners are canted on ground
floor, the upper floors carried on large stone corbels. At centre of range a throughway was cut in
the mid C19 (when building became a store). It has carriage arch flanked by pedestrian arches, all
round-arched and with linking stone imposts; the central arch has keystone, on north side carved
with fouled anchor; on each side at base are two bollards, (imitating upended cannon barrels
with cannon balls in muzzles). Flanking throughway are wide round archways with imposts and
keystones, bricked-up and now with doors. Another bollard comprising upended cannon barrel
of C17 or C16 date with blocked muzzle at southwest corner of building. INTERIORS: the ropery
was gutted mid C20 and has replacement steel- framed internal structure and roof trusses. The
hatchetting house and hemp store is the only store in this part of the dockyard to retain its C18
internal features. Each has chamfered, square timber posts on padstones supporting large-scantling
wooden cross-beams (a single row of posts in south range and 3 rows in north range). Roof trusses,
of large-scantling timbers, have tie-beams and collared queen posts supporting down-braced king
posts; trusses in south range cut through and altered. North range on ground floor has series of
small, numbered brass plates (for measuring purposes); at east end is a trap door to 1st floor; and
in north-east corner, the original wooden winder stair, having broad shallow treads, plain handrail
on wooden posts, board-lined walls, and hinged shutter to ground floor stair window. HISTORY:
in the Hatchelling House, hemp was straightened out, or hatchelled, by being pulled across boards
studded with iron spikes. It was then carried across the bridge to the ropehouse for laying, .made
into hemp strings, and after these had been tarred, spinning into rope. This was the first naval
double ropehouse, with the spinning house on the ground floor, the laying house on the 1st and
2nd floors and the lofts used by apprentice ropemakers. The building is the 6th great ropehouse
to stand on the site since 1665. The 1760 plan for the dockyard was to move the ropeyard to the
N end, but it was burnt down in both 1760 and 1770 before the land there had been reclaimed,
and the new ropery had to be re-built on the old site. It was gutted by an arsonist fire in 1776,
and rebuilt internally. Though much altered since ropemaking ceased in the mid C19, the ropery
is of historic interest as the first naval double ropery, and the model for the much more complete
example at Chatham (qv). With the hatchetting house, part of one of the largest integrated groups
of C18 industrial buildings in the country. (Sources: Coad J: Historic Architecture of HM Naval Base
Portsmouth 1700–1850: Portsmouth: 1981: plates 13, 14, 16 ; Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–
1850: Aldershot: 1989: 206 ; The Buildings of England: Lloyd D: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight:
Harmondsworth: 1985: 410,414; The Portsmouth Papers: Riley R C: The Evolution of the Docks &
Industrial Buildings in Portsmouth: Portsmouth: 1985: 11; Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust:
Naval Heritage at Portsmouth, Visitor’s Guide: Portsmouth: 1988).
Selected Sources
1. Book Reference - Title: Naval Heritage of Portsmouth Visitors Guide - Date: 1988
2. Book Reference - Author: Coad, J - Title: Historic Architecture of H M Naval Base Portsmouth
1700–1850 - Date: 1981 - Page References: 13, 14, 16
342
FIRE STATION (BUILDING NUMBER 1/77), THE PARADE

Grade: II*
SU 6300 NW THE PARADE HM Naval Base Fire Station (Building No. 1177) 774-1/29/245
GV II*
Water tower with timber store below, then fire station, part now police offices. 1843-44, by Cpt. RS
Beatson RE, strengthened by Fox, Henderson 1843, enclosed 1847; water tank removed 1950. Cast-
iron frame supporting roof of iron plates; corrugated iron cladding. EXTERIOR: 2 stages, formerly
with water tank on top. 3 x 13 bays. 2 tiers of columns with moulded caps and bases, lower ones
bolted on to granite padstones, upper ones shorter, linked by segmental-arched beams with flat
top flanges and pierced spandrels giving effect of double arcade. Oversailing bracketed gallery
at top. Sides originally open, now infilled with corrugated iron and on west side having double
board doors to fire- engine garages and tall over-lights with glazing bars. At south end, corrugated-
iron lean-to. At north end, corrugated iron porch; 2 small-pane windows; cornice at level of lower
columns capitals. Brick single-storey additions on east side. INTERIOR: two rows of columns
with segmental-arched long and cross beams, the latter braced by inverted T-section beams with
parabolic flanges; diagonal wrought-iron ties. Stone flag floor. HISTORY: the tower replaced a
wooden structure built by Samuel Bentham for his salt water fire main laid round the Yard in 1800.
The water tank held 840 tons of salt water, and the space beneath the tank was used for seasoning
timber. A notable early example of a free-standing iron frame, related to Beatson’s other iron-
framed buildings at Portsmouth, the Chain Testing shop and No. 6 Boat Store (qqv). (Sources: Coad
J: Historic Architecture of HM Naval Base Portsmouth 1700–1850: Portsmouth: 1981: 32, plate 26;
The Buildings of England: Lloyd D: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight: Harmondsworth: 1985: 414;
Evans D: The Buildings of the Steam Navy: 1994: 6).
Selected Sources
Page References: 6
LONG ROW (BUILDING NUMBERS 1/124-132) AND ATTACHED WALLS, 1 TO 9, THE

PARADE
SPITHEAD HOUSE, 9, THE PARADE [now called Mountbatten House]
List entry Number: 1272307 (see HAR)
Grade: II*
SU 6300 NW THE PARADE HM Naval Base 774-1/29/241 Nos 1-9 (Consecutive) Long Row
(Building Nos 1/124-132) and attached walls
GV II*
Includes: Spithead House (No. 9), THE PARADE HM NAVAL BASE Terrace of 9 dockyard officials’
houses, now part offices and part accommodation, with attached garden walls. 1715–19, probably
343
by the master shipwright (Coad); stuccoed and porches added c1833; south end remodelled 1832
to form residence of the Admiral Superintendent of the Dockyard; later alterations. Red brick, front
and sides stucco; concealed slate roof with stuccoed brick chimneys. Early Georgian style. PLAN:
double-depth plan with front offices and lateral stairs, and rear service range round a courtyard.
The outer houses form mirror-image semi- detached pairs. EXTERIOR: 3 storeys with basement.
Central and end houses (Nos 1, 5 and 9) project slightly. Each house of 5 symmetrical bays with
central entrance, but No.9, at right end, enlarged to 8 bays with return, entrance, elevation of 4
+ 3 bays. Plinth with segmental-arched basement windows (some louvred, some with small-pane
casements. 12-pane sashes in reveals with projecting sills; shorter unequally-hung 9-pane sashes to
2nd floor; most ground-floor windows, and some others, replaced by 6-pane sashes. Parapet has
recess over each window and flat coping. Entrances: stone steps with replacement iron railings;
wooden porches with paired pilasters supporting deep entablatures with cornices and blocking
courses, half-glazed double doors with glazing bars and 3-pane overlights, 6-pane side-windows;
inner original doors of 6 raised and fielded panels and including 3-pane light at top. No.9 has
bracketed architraves to windows; eaves band with cornice instead of parapet; and cornices
to chimneys. To its right return, entrance portico with paired fluted columns, entablature with
blocking course, and late C20 glazed roof. Set-back 3-bay section on right has 5 windows to ground
floor, 3 above, the outer 1st-floor windows in corbelled canted bays. A lower 2- storey wing with
eight 1st-floor windows, one blind, set back on right. Left return (No. 1): side porch. Rear largely as
completed, brick with segmental-arched windows with 18-pane sashes and smaller 12-pane sashes
to 2nd floor. Central round-arched stair windows with keystones. Various additions. INTERIOR:
some original panelled doors, wall panelling, and panelled window reveals with shutters. Marble
fireplaces (probably early-mid C19) with pilasters and roundels to corners. Cornices. Moulded
architraves with acorn and oak-leaf decorative motifs. Dog-leg stairs in panelled stair wells with
closed strings, square newels, column-on-vase balusters, moulded tread ends and moulded hand-
rails; acorn pendant to that of No. 6. Nos 1 and 2 have replacement stick balusters and handrails
with spiral curtails. No. 9 (Spithead House) has similar fireplaces and architraves; panelled doors
and window reveals with shutters; decorative cornices, friezes and chandelier roundels to ceilings.
Entrance vestibule has curved corner niches and inner double door with overlight. Stair hall has
curving open-well stair with open-string, balustrade with decorative balusters between panels
of latticed ironwork with floral bosses; moulded handrail with spiral curtail on stick balusters;
on 2nd floor, balustrade heightened by added band. SUBSIDIARY FEATURES: attached garden
walls: at front, stuccoed wall ramps down from 1st-floor height on left to form wall enclosing
front area, coped, and sweeping up to 5 entrances, set in front of each pair of houses, which
have square gate piers, projecting intermediate piers. At right end matching wall curves around
garden of No. 9, dying in No. 19 Store (qv), and having carriage and pedestrian entrances which
have rusticated piers with plinths, pyramidal capstones and lanterns. At rear, the garden walls
are approx. 2 metres high, mostly rendered and parts rebuilt; parts with pilasters, ramping and
oversailing triangular coping (in same style as the dockyard wall of 1704-11, qv); east (rear) wall
mostly rebuilt, but at No. 7 retaining original pilastered walling with a segmental-arched board door
of ovals (similar to that in Admiralty House (qv)). HISTORY: the terrace originally accommodated
the principal Dockyard officials, ( eg. Master Shipwright and Master Attendant). When the Admiral
Superintendent, formerly the Navy Board’s Commissioner, was displaced by the Post Admiral from
Admiralty House, No. 9 was enlarged for him. Part of the terrace is on the site of the old moat and
fishponds dating to reconstructions in 1665/6. The garden of No. 9 includes part of the original
Commissioner’s garden of 1666 and some of the dockyard moat of the same period. One of the
fine series of dockyard terraces which show a very early development of composed palace fronts
to a terrace, and pre-dating for example Queen Square in Bath. This is a significant design in a
national context of the development of the terraced house. (Sources: Coad J: Historic Architecture
of HM Naval Base Portsmouth 1700–1850: Portsmouth: 1981: plates 5 & 7; Coad J: The Royal
Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989: 52-54; Lloyd DW: Buildings of Portsmouth and its Environs:
344
SU 6300 NW THE PARADE HM Naval Base Spithead House (No 9) 774-1/29/241

GV II*
See under: Long Row (Building Nos 1/124-132) and attached walls, Nos 1-9 THE PARADE HM
NAVAL BASE
Selected Sources
1700–1850 - Date: 1981 - Page References: pl 5, 7
Engineering Works of the Sailing Navy - Date: 1989 - Page References: 52-54
BRASS FOUNDRY (BUILDING NUMBER 1/142 EAST END (PSTO (N) 34 STORE), VICTORIA
ROAD
Grade: II
SU 6300 NW VICTORIA ROAD (South side) HM Naval Base 774-1/29/246 Brass Foundry (Building
No. 1/142, east end (PSTO (N) 34 Store)
GV II
Iron and brass foundry, now workshop. 1848, by Cpt. H James, RE; traveller road roofed 1888. Red
brick in English bond with granite plinth and Portland ashlar dressings; corrugated iron hipped
valley roof with ridge vents. Square plan, W traveller. EXTERIOR: single storey; 7 parallel hipped-
roofed ranges giving elevations of 7 x 7 bays, with bay added in same style at west end. Plinth.
Round-arched arcades framing large small-pane cast-iron windows, most replaced mid C20, N
and 2 ends with doorways 1 bay from the ends with fanlights and metal doors, keystones and
projecting blocking courses; impost band, eaves cornice and blocking course, raised over the
doorways. INTERIOR has a wrought-iron roof with angle struts and vertical round- section ties.
W former traveller road contains cast-iron traveller supports inscribed “JA BALDY IRON FOUNDER/
LNDPORT/1864”. HISTORY: used temporarily for iron-founding before the construction of the
adjacent iron foundry (qv) from 1857. Originally with brass furnaces along the centre partition wall,
drawn by 4 central chimneys on iron frames, and 2 iron cupola furnaces and casting pits in the
foundry section. The building was, with James’ No. 2 Ship Shop and Greene’s Iron Foundry (qqv),
an integral element in the dockyard expansion of the 1840s which enabled the yard to deal with
the new steam-powered ships which the navy was beginning to employ. (Sources: The Portsmouth
Papers: Riley RC: The Evolution of the Docks and Industrial Buildings in Portsmouth: Portsmouth:
1985: 16; Evans D: The Buildings of the Steam Navy: 1994: 9-11, 17; Professional Papers of the Royal
Engineers, Series 3: James H: Description of the Steam Basin, Factory and other Works: 1853: 92).
Selected Sources
Page References: 9-11, 17
2. Article Reference - Author: James, H - Title: Description of the Steam Basin Docks and
Factory - Date: 1953 - Journal Title: Professional Papers of the Royal Engineers; Series 3 -
Page References: 92
345
WHITLEY ROOMS (BUILDING NUMBER 1/138) AND BOLLARD AT NORTH EAST CORNER,
VICTORIA ROAD
Grade: II
SU 6300 NW VICTORIA ROAD (South side) HM Naval Base 774-1/29/249 Whitley Rooms
(Building No. 1/138) and bollard at NE corner
GV II
Alternatively known as: Ivy Lane Cottage, HM NAVAL BASE Dockyard gatehouse, now office. 1857
(Property Register). Red brick in English bond with ashlar and replacement concrete dressings, and
gauged red-brick arches to openings. Concealed hipped slate roof with rendered stack. EXTERIOR:
2 storeys. 2 bays x 3 on west elevation, 4 on east elevation. Plinth; round-arched openings and
impost band to ground floor; flat- arched windows with replacement 12-pane sashes, and sill
band on 1st floor; stepped dentilled eaves below cornice with blocking course. North elevation
has blind windows, and door on left; south elevation a blocked, original, flat-arched doorway on
left with blind window over; west elevation a door on left and inserted door between right-hand
windows. At north-east corner is a cannon barrel of probably early-mid C19 date, reused as bollard
probably mid-late C19 by setting barrel on end. INTERIOR: 2 blocked tall round archways in spine
wall; closed-string stair with stick balusters and bulbous columnar newels. HISTORY: originally
there were cells along the west side. The building adjoins the dockyard wall (qv), and served as a
gatehouse to Marlborough Gate until the gateway was moved to the south. (Source: HM Naval Base
Portsmouth: Property Register).
Selected Sources
IRON FOUNDRY (BUILDING NUMBER 1/140) IRON FOUNDRY (BUILDING NUMBER 1/140)
INCLUDING RAILINGS AND BOLLARDS, VICTORIA ROAD IRON FOUNDRY (BUILDING
NUMBER 1/140), THE PARADE
List entry Number: 1272310 (see HAR, HCC BAR)
Grade: II*
SU 6300 NW VICTORIA ROAD (South side) 774-1/29/247 HM Naval Base Iron Foundry
(Building No. 1/140) including railings and bollards
GV II*
Includes: Iron Foundry (Building No. 1/140), THE PARADE HM NAVAL BASE Iron foundry
and smithery, disused. c1857-1861, by Col GT Greene RE and Andrew Murray, Chief Engineer;
extended 1878, later alterations. Banded red brick in English bond with ashlar and brighter red
brick dressings. Roofs of Welsh slate and corrugated iron. PLAN: half courtyard plan with N
former foundry range containing crucible furnaces at rear, between E former shipwright’s shop
extending back with pediments front and rear, and longer 3-storey W former millwright’s shop
with roof water tank, with former pattern makers’ workshop dated 1878 projecting from SE end.
The courtyard had a large central rotating crane, and the steam engine was to the SE. EXTERIOR:
the three principal sections differentiated architecturally: central foundry 2 storeys with basement,
granite plinth, ashlar impost band and eaves entablature of frieze, cornice and blocking course.
346
Full- height round-arched recesses with keystones and brick voussoirs aligned to courses. Within
each recess a tall segmental-arched window on ground floor and a shorter round-arched window
above, windows all having small- paned metal frames and ashlar sills. North elevation: 1:11:1 bays,
the end bays wider and project, that on left (east wing) pedimented, that on right (west wing)
with 2nd storey, each has a giant round-arched entrance in ashlar surround, now bricked up and
with windows; in pediment of left bay, a louvred oculus; on upper floor of right bay 3 round-
arched recesses, central one with window. Eaves entablature breaks forward at centre and above
entrances. Roof over central range hipped and with louvred skylight. East elevation: 6 bays as north
elevation with middle bays open with cast-iron columns to heavy iron beam, subsequently built
across. West elevation: 3 storeys, as north elevation, the 2nd floor having round-arched recesses
with windows, and cornice below parapet. Segmental-arched basement windows, mostly bricked
up, the area railings (at centre and left) having circular bars and columnar standards with plinths
and plain capitals. Two giant entrances, as before, that on left with mid- late C20 outshut built
across, that on right forming throughway to rear courtyard and having 2 cannon barrels reused as
bollards (probably early-mid C19, reused mid-late C19) at south-west and north-east corners. South
elevation: 4 bays, the 2 on left as before, the 2 on right a plainer addition. Courtyard elevations:
north range has 2 tiers of round-arched windows; 2 entries, one covered by addition; and at right
end a 2-storey projecting block with hipped Welsh slate roof. W wing has crane above throughway,
and on left of throughway a projecting 3-storey 3-bay block. INTERIOR: contains brickjack arch
floors with joists with parabolic bottom flanges, carried on riveted iron girders. In former foundry,
brick walls carry rails for former travelling cranes, with wrought-iron roof trusses of diagonal struts
and vertical ties. Stone flags to floors; rear cupola area of foundry had 2 areas with wrought-iron
balconies, one with riveted traveller. Wrought-iron plates with holes defining position of cupolas.
Similar balconies in foundry area, including one with a truncated stack. In NW corner is hydraulic
accumulator, the pattern shops has fireproof stair well with an iron dog-leg stair with plain iron
balusters, enclosed at the head in panelled metal case, and iron doors. Old bell on 2nd floor of
west range. The water tank supplied water for cooling in the manufacturing processes and for
fire-fighting. Former pattern shop in SE wing has first-floor with a Jacobethan-style iron column
supporting a decorated cast-iron beam. HISTORY: part of the redevelopment of Portsmouth for
the steam-powered navy and in a similar manner to the No. 2 Ship Shop (qv), and unusual in the
use of rivetted wrought-iron beams instead of cast-iron, as elsewhere in the Yard. There was a
rotating crane in the courtyard. This is the only example of a dedicated foundry in a Naval yard,
and substantially intact, containing considerable evidence of its former functions. (Sources: The
Buildings of England: Lloyd D: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight: Harmondsworth: 1985: 416-7; The
Portsmouth: 1985: 16, 21; Evans D: The Buildings of the Steam Navy: 1994: 17).
SU 6300 NW THE PARADE (East side) HM Naval Base Iron Foundry
(Building No 1/140) 774-1/29/247
GV II*
See under: Iron Foundry (Building No. 1/140) including railings and bollards, THE PARADE HM
NAVAL BASE
Selected Sources
Page References: 17
347
NORTH OFFICE BLOCK (BUILDING NUMBER 1/144), MAIN ROAD

NORTH OFFICE BLOCK (BUILDING NUMBER 1/144), VICTORIA ROAD
Grade: II
SU6200 NE VICTORIA ROAD (South side) HM Naval Base 774-1/17/248 North office Block
(Building No. 1/144) GV II Includes: North Office Block (Building No. 1/144), MAIN ROAD HM
NAVAL BASE Smithery, then clothing store, now office block. 1791–94; change of use 1852; C19
and C20 alterations. Red brick in Flemish bond with ashlar dressings, brighter-red brick arches
and stone sills to windows. Welsh slate roof with later brick stacks. Rectangular plan. EXTERIOR:
2 storeys, part with attic. Ashlar plinth, 1st-floor plat band, string over eaves band, and coping to
parapet. North elevation: 9 bays arranged 3:3:3. End sections project, that on right with stuccoed
raised quoins, ground floor, and eaves band, and having flat-arched entrance and four 12-pane
sashes; otherwise this elevation has segmental-arched windows with replacement glazing, shorter
on 1st floor, the bay 3 ground- floor window replaced by a door. West elevation: 7 1st-floor
windows, 3 on right narrower and more closely-spaced. Stuccoing as before. 2 entrances and
flat-arched 12-pane, 16-pane and 4-pane sashes to ground floor. 4 segmental-arched and 3 round-
arched windows above. Cornice with brick dentils and pediment to right bay. South elevation: 3:5:3
bays, the 3 on left apparently of different build. Ends project. Similar to north elevation but with
stepped dentilled brick eaves band and no parapet. Windows of bays 4 and 8 have doors inserted.
C20 attic over right section. East elevation: 12 bays. Entrance at bay 7 with original bulbous head
to rainwater pipe on its left dated 1848. INTERIOR: in north range at west end some panelled
door and window reveals. In south range on ground floor a single remaining chamfered square
wooden column. Ground and 1st floors refitted as offices mid-late C20. Braced collared queen-post
roof trusses. HISTORY: After the much-altered smithery at Devonport the oldest naval smithery
building, although much altered in mid C19 conversion which removed the original hand forges
and chimneys, when it was superseded by the No. 2 Ship Shop and Brass Foundry (qqv) for the
steam-powered navy; without significant internal details. (Sources: Coad J: The Royal Dockyards
1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989:154; The Portsmouth Papers: Riley RC: The Evolution of the Docks
and Industrial Buildings in Portsmouth: Portsmouth: 1985: 14)
Selected Sources
NORTH OFFICE BLOCK (BUILDING NUMBER 1/144), VICTORIA ROAD

Grade: II
SU 6200 NE VICTORIA ROAD (South side) HM Naval Base 774-1/17/248 North office Block
(Building No. 1/144)
GV II
Includes: North Office Block (Building No. 1/144), MAIN ROAD HM NAVAL BASE Smithery,
348
then clothing store, now office block. 1791-94; change of use 1852; C19 and C20 alterations. Red
brick in Flemish bond with ashlar dressings, brighter-red brick arches and stone sills to windows.
Welsh slate roof with later brick stacks. Rectangular plan. EXTERIOR: 2 storeys, part with attic.
Ashlar plinth, 1st-floor plat band, string over eaves band, and coping to parapet. North elevation: 9
bays arranged 3:3:3. End sections project, that on right with stuccoed raised quoins, ground floor,
and eaves band, and having flat-arched entrance and four 12-pane sashes; otherwise this elevation
has segmental-arched windows with replacement glazing, shorter on 1st floor, the bay 3 ground-
floor window replaced by a door. West elevation: 7 1st-floor windows, 3 on right narrower and
more closely-spaced. Stuccoing as before. 2 entrances and flat-arched 12-pane, 16-pane and 4-pane
sashes to ground floor. 4 segmental-arched and 3 round-arched windows above. Cornice with brick
dentils and pediment to right bay. South elevation: 3:5:3 bays, the 3 on left apparently of different
build. Ends project. Similar to north elevation but with stepped dentilled brick eaves band and no
parapet. Windows of bays 4 and 8 have doors inserted. C20 attic over right section. East elevation:
12 bays. Entrance at bay 7 with original bulbous head to rainwater pipe on its left dated 1848.
INTERIOR: in north range at west end some panelled door and window reveals. In south range
on ground floor a single remaining chamfered square wooden column. Ground and 1st floors
refitted as offices mid-late C20. Braced collared queen-post roof trusses. HISTORY: After the much-
altered smithery at Devonport the oldest naval smithery building, although much altered in mid
C 19 conversion which removed the original hand forges and chimneys, when it was superseded
by the No. 2 Ship Shop and Brass Foundry (qqv) for the steam-powered navy; without significant
internal details. (Sources: Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989: 154; The
SU 6200 NE MAIN ROAD (East side) HM Naval Base 774-1/17/248
GV II
See under: North Office Block (Building No. 1/144). VICTORIA ROAD HM NAVAL BASE
Selected Sources
1. Book Reference - Author: Winton, J - Title: The Naval Heritage of Portsmouth - Date: 1985 -
BOILER SHOP WEST (BUILDING NUMBER 1/84) AND BOLLARDS TO NORTH WEST AND
NORTH EAST CORNERS, SCOTT ROAD
Grade: II
SU 6200 NE SCOTT ROAD (South side) HM Naval Base 774-1/17/230 Boiler Shop West
(Building No. 1/84) and Bollards to NW and NE corners
GV II
Alternatively known as: Tarring house, Ropery, SCOTT ROAD HM NAVAL BASE Hemp tarring
house, now offices and store. 1747, considerably altered subsequently, particularly C20. Red brick
with some blue headers in English bond. Slate roof. EXTERIOR: 2 storeys, part with attic. 15 bays,
the western section the earliest part. c1900 addition of 2 storeys, 3 x 4 bays at east end. Brick
plinth; 1st floor concrete impost band; stepped eaves; western section has brick plat band and
349
ashlar cornice. C20 small-pane metal windows with bright red gauged brick flat arches and stone
sills. Wide segmental- arched entrances with later board doors. South side: bays arranged 5:10. One
inserted 1st-floor loading door, and one former loading door now a window. On right of right-hand
door, at low level, is recessed stone plaque with incised seriffed lettering, “under this stone theres
a Water R(?)eerr”.3 Addition at east end has central segmental-arched door, 3 stepped round-arched
windows above, and shaped pedimented gable with 3 small louvred openings. North side similar.
West end: 3 bays, central bay projecting and with pedimented attic, oculus in pediment. At north-
west and north-east corners are cannon bollards comprising disused cannon barrels (C17 or C18)
set on end for use as bollards (probably mid-late C19), the muzzles blocked, that at north-east
corner by a cannon ball. INTERIOR: the western section on ground floor has chamfered timber
posts with rivetted metal brackets, and in former eastern end wall a round archway. HISTORY: the
earliest part of the ropery, converted from manual to horse power c1774; hemp was passed from
the laying house for tarring before being returned to the spinning house. Although much altered,
this is the oldest naval ropeyard building, and part of one of the largest integrated groups of C18
industrial buildings in the country. This is the only part of the mid C18 ropery at Portsmouth to
survive both the 1760 and 1770 fires. (Sources: Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot:
1989: 203-206; The Portsmouth Papers: Riley RC: The Evolution of the Docks and Industrial
Buildings in Portsmouth: Portsmouth: 1985: 10-11).
Selected Sources
2. Book Reference - Author: Coad, J G - Title: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Architecture
and Engineering Works of the Sailing Navy - Date: 1989 - Page References: 203-206
SOUTH OFFICE BLOCK (BUILDING NUMBER 1/88), MAIN ROAD

Grade: II*

SU 6200 NE MAIN ROAD (South side) HM Naval Base 774-1/17/222 South Office Block (Building
No. 1/88)
GV II*
Offices and stores, now offices. Offices (west wing) 1786-89, store (east wing) 1789, probably by
George White, Master Shipwright; linking block with archway 1840s. Red brick in English bond
with ashlar dressings; rusticated granite and ashlar ground floor to centrepiece. Hipped slate roofs
with brick stacks. PLAN: double-depth plan offices with spine corridors to W end, E store, with
1840 central archway. 3-storey 4-bay centrepiece; 2-storey wings, west wing with basement, each of
17 bays with slightly projecting pedimented 5-bay centre. EXTERIOR: ashlar plinth, 1st-floor band,
string above stepped dentilled brick eaves, flat coping to parapets, and cornices to pediments and
centrepiece. Windows have sashes with glazing bars in reveals with flat brick arches and stone sills;
oculi with radial glazing bars to pediments. Lead rainwater pipes with bulbous heads, dates 1787
and 1789, initials GR and crown. North elevation: left (east) wing has 2 wooden porches, that at
centre having frieze with triglyphs and guttae, and flat roof. Centrepiece: wide central carriage arch
and flanking pedestrian arches, all with keystones and voussoirs aligned to courses, right-hand
3
See Part 3 of the Report, Building 1/81.
350
archway now with door. 2nd-floor sill band and cornice below parapet. Flanking lateral stacks. Rear
(south) elevation: as north elevation, but with C20 stair tower added at centre of left wing. 6-panel
doors with overlights to right wing. Within throughway are Tuscan columns, distyle in antis; on east
side at south end is a large entrance, now blocked, which has architrave with console- bracketed
cornice. INTERIOR: west wing (the original offices) and central block have wall panelling, panelled
doors and reveals, simply- moulded cornices, some original offices with fireplaces, dog-leg stair at
east end of west wing with large-scantling stick balusters, columnar newels and ramped handrail.
East wing (originally a store) has chamfered wooden columns and large-scantling beams, boxed in
on ground floor which also has board-lined walls. Near centre of wing is closed-string straight-flight
stair with bulbous columnar reveals, stick balusters, moulded handrail and board-lined stairwell
with dado. HISTORY: the stores were added in the same manner as the offices, at the insistence
of yard officers. The Admiral Superintendent’s office has always been located in this building.
Specialised offices were only built in the dockyards from 1750 (at Chatham), and this is the earliest
surviving example, forming part of a distinguished composed group which manifests the concern
in the dockyard for formal planning. (Sources: Coad J: Historic Architecture of HM Naval Base
Portsmouth 1700–1850: Portsmouth: 1981: 15, plate 11; Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850:
Aldershot: 1989: 47, 132; The Buildings of England: Lloyd D: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight:
Harmondsworth: 1985: 411).
Selected Sources
2. Book Reference - Author: Coad, J G - Title: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Architecture
and Engineering Works of the Sailing Navy - Date: 1989 - Page References: 47, 132
CHURCH OF SAINT ANN (BUILDING NUMBER 1/65), ANCHOR LANE

Grade: II
Date first listed: 25-Sep-1972
Date of most recent amendment: 13-Aug-1999
SU 6300 NW ANCHOR LANE 774-1/29/185 (South side) HM Naval Base 25.9.72 Church of St Ann
(Building No. 1/65)
GV II
Church. 1785-86; bomb-damaged 1941; restored 1955–6. Possibly by Marquand, a Navy Board
surveyor, working under Samuel Wyatt at Admiralty House, contractors Thomas Parlby & Sons. Red
brick in Flemish bond; roof concealed. PLAN/EXTERIOR: 5-bay galleried nave (originally longer)
with narrower 1- bay “crossing” and narrower-still 1-bay chancel with north and south vestries. At
west end, cupola with bell. Plinth. Windows have brick arches, segmental on ground floor, round
to gallery; ashlar sills; and C20 metal windows. Stepped eaves with ashlar cornice below coped
parapet. West end: (rebuilt 1955–8); 3-bays. Corner pilasters support corniced pediment in which
is blind oculus. Steps up to central pedimented ashlar porch with wide double door in architrave.
Outer bays each have a flat- arched window linked by recessed brick panel to round- arched upper
window; central upper window with keystone. Cupola (reconstructed) has columns supporting
entablature and metalled dome surmounted by elaborate weather-vane on ball. INTERIOR: gallery
on 3 sides (reconstructed 1955–56) carried on columns with fluted capitals has panelled corniced
front, and at centre early C18 carved wooden coat of arms of the Gifford family, incorporating
351
royal coat of arms, figures of Justice (blindfolded and carrying scales) and Fame (with trumpet),
and dolphins (Sir William Gifford was Commissioner of the dockyard from 1702–1705). Nave and
chancel have panelled walls and ceiling cornice. Chancel arch flanked by pilasters surmounted
by urns and with swagged drapes over arch. East window has pilasters with acanthus leaf capitals
and “scalloped” archivolt with central laurel wreath; swagged drapes over. To nave ceiling, large
elaborate chandelier roundel with acanthus leaf motifs and decorated scalloping; elegant pewter
chandelier of 1704 (gilded 1956). Marble font of 1856. Eagle lectern 1882, Gothick-style wooden
pulpit of 1906. Various C19 marble memorials. HISTORY: the oldest surviving chapel in a navy
yard and part of a good group with the ropery buildings and Commissioner’s House (qqv). Graded
to reflect the extensive mid C20 rebuilding of the front and refurnishing of the interior. (Sources:
Coad J: The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Aldershot: 1989: 71-72; The Buildings of England: Lloyd
D: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight: Harmondsworth: 1985: 436-7; The Church of St Ann in Her
Majesty’s Naval Base at Portsmouth: 1991).
Selected Sources
1. Book Reference - Title: The Church of St Ann in Her Majestys Naval Base at Portsmouth -
Date: 1991
3. Book Reference - Author: Pevsner, N and Lloyd, D - Title: The Buildings of England:
Hampshire and the Isle of Wight - Date: 1985 - Page References: 436-437
Engineering Works of the Sailing Navy - Date: 1989 - Page References: 71-72
HMS NELSON: BARHAM (BUILDING NUMBER 82), QUEEN STREET

Grade: II
PORTSMOUTH
SU6300 QUEEN STREET 774-1/8/95 (North side) 08/07/98 HMS Nelson: Barham (Building No. 82)
GV II
Formerly known as: HMS Victory QUEEN STREET. Naval depot offices. 1899–1903; later alterations
and additions. By and for the Admiralty, Superintendent Engineer Colonel Sir Henry Pilkington
RE. Red brick in English bond with ashlar dressings. Welsh slate roof with tall, corniced chimneys.
Georgian Revival style. PLAN: H-shaped plan, with right-hand (east) wing projecting further at rear.
EXTERIOR: 2 storeys; 5-window range. Chamfered ashlar plinth; ashlar sill and impost bands and
deep moulded eaves cornice. Windows have 17-pane sashes in reveals with brick apron panels,
thin moulded stone sills, and segmental brick arches with tripartite ashlar keystones. Dated heads
to rainwater pipes. West elevation (left-hand wing of bock): 5 bays arranged 2:1:2 the centre
projecting under pedimented gable and with entrance: panelled double door with 3-pane overlight
fronted by Doric columned portico, the columns on tall plinth and supporting hooded arch, above
which ashlar panel rises to form pilastered architrave to paired sashes; narrow side-lights on
ground floor. Over door, cast metal plaque with Marlborough Coat of Arms. Set back on left, west
elevation of east wing has 3 lower bays on left (north), cross-windows to right (south section)
and columned cupola on ridge; mid C20 block of one storey added in front (on west side). South
elevation: 2:4:2 bays, the end sections being the gable ends of the cross-wings and each having a
console bracketed external gable chimney. Wood-columned cupola at centre of roof. INTERIOR
352
not inspected. HISTORY: part of the first barracks for sailors in England, built to similar plans and
designs at Devonport, Chatham and Portsmouth. The latter incorporated parts of Anglesey barracks.
(Lloyd DW: Buildings of Portsmouth and its environs: Portsmouth: 1974: 82).
Selected Sources
HMS NELSON: EASTNEY (BUILDING NUMBER 79), QUEEN STREET

Grade: II
PORTSMOUTH
SU6300 QUEEN STREET 774-1/8/96 (North side) 08/07/98 HMS Nelson: Eastney (Building No. 79)
GV II
Formerly known as: HMS Victory QUEEN STREET. Naval canteen and theatre. 1899–1903; later
alterations and additions; refurbished 1991. For and by the Admiralty, Superintendent Engineer
Colonel Sir Henry Pilkington RE. Red brick in English bond with ashlar dressings. Refurbished
slate roof with tall corniced chimneys. PLAN/EXTERIOR: rectangular block with gabled end
ranges (north and south) of 2 storeys and attic, 9 x 2 bays. Between them, centre of block filled
by 3-storey section on east side and single-storey theatre section on west side which projects and
presents an 8-bay elevation. The north and south elevations are each arranged 1:2:3:2:1 bays, the
2-bay sections breaking forward, with canted sides, below pedimented gables; outer bays blind. 12-
pane and 8-pane sash windows with stone sills, segmental brick arches, and tripartite keystones to
canted projections. Across central 3 bays, wide round arch with giant voussoirs alternately of brick
and stone; set back inside it is entrance which has multi-leaf door, small-pane fanlight and cable-
moulded surround; iron-railed balcony across 1st floor. Moulded eaves. West elevation: returns
of north and south ranges have gable lunettes. Theatre section has tripartite sashes below keyed
segmental arches, 2 now made into doors; pilasters rise from impost level into stepped, corniced,
parapet; entrance in re-entrant wall at south end has half-glazed double-door with small-pane
glazing. East elevation: canted bays of 2 and 3 storeys. INTERIOR: roof supported on decorative
cast-iron columns. HISTORY: part of the first barracks for sailors, built at Devonport, Chatham and
Portsmouth to similar plans. Theatres were a progressive element included at both Devonport and
Portsmouth naval barracks, reflecting the desire to improve living standards of the seamen. (Lloyd
DW: The Buildings of Portsmouth and its environs: Portsmouth: 1974: 85).
Selected Sources
2. National Grid Reference: SU 63923 00612
HMS NELSON: GYMNASIUM (BUILDING NUMBER 81), QUEEN STREET

Grade: II
353
PORTSMOUTH
SU6300 QUEEN STREET 774-1/8/97 (North side) 08/07/98 HMS Nelson: Gymnasium
(Building No. 81)
GV II
Formerly known as: HMS Victory QUEEN STREET. Military drill hall, now naval gymnasium. Late
C19, believed to be 1893, Superintendent Engineer Colonel Sir Henry Pilkington RE. North-west
elevation probably c1900; wartime damage of c1940 made good; further alterations late C20,
including rebuilding of part of south-east elevation 1992. Red brick in English bond with ashlar
dressings. Welsh slate roofs with continuous roof lights over hall and tall, corniced, chimneys.
PLAN/EXTERIOR: large rectangular block of 2 storeys, parts with attic, with 6-stage clock tower
at north-west corner. Plinth with ashlar offset; ashlar sill and lintel bands to windows which have
tripartite keystones, brick apron panels, 12-pane sashes, and are segmental-arched on ground floor
of north-west and south-east elevations. Ashlar architraves to doorways and to tower and attic
windows, the attic windows having segmental ashlar pediments. Ashlar eaves cornice and coping
to pediments and towers. North-west elevation: balanced 13-bay elevation, having central door in
corniced architrave; wide, projecting, pedimented bays 4 and 10 each having a full-height round-
arched entrance, set back door, and blank cartouche to tympanum. Projecting pyramidal-roofed
tower of 2 storeys and attic at left end. At right end, projecting clock tower with angle pilasters;
round-arched entrance; tripled slit windows below clock on each side; dentilled cornice below
upper stage which has 3-bay round-arched ashlar arcade to each side; and cornice below swept
pyramidal metal roof with finial. South-west elevation: at centre, projecting pedimented 3-bay
section of 2 storeys and attic has tripled round-arched entrances with corniced architraves. Similar
projecting section at right end, apparently subsequently altered, has entrance on left with console-
bracketed hood and narrow windows. North-east elevation similar, with 2 entrances in central
projection and 1st floor of 8 left-hand bays rebuilt after 1940s bomb-damage. South-east elevation:
the 5 right-hand bays have been recessed a short distance (1992). Projecting machicolated
embattled towers at ends and centre, the latter taller, all with pyramidal roofs. Tripled windows to
towers, otherwise paired, all with brick pilaster jambs with ashlar plinths and capitals supporting
keyed archivolts. The towers have segmental-arched windows, those of end towers with decorative
tympana, on ground floor dated 1885 (believed to be reused). INTERIOR: the original 2 halls (drill
hall and gymnasium) are now all one space, with fluted palm-leaf cast-iron columns supporting
steel lattice beams to iron roof trusses. The existing north-west elevation has been built across
the original end elevation. HISTORY: the building was originally the drill hall for the Duke of
Connaught’s Wessex Regiment, and one of the window tympana of the south-east elevation bears a
lamb, the device of the Wessex Regiment. Covered drill halls were introduced in the 1880s, for drill
practice and manoeuvres in wet weather. Part of the first naval barracks at Portsmouth, comparable
with the large drill halls at Chatham and Devonport.
Selected Sources
HMS NELSON: OLD MANAGEMENT SCHOOL (BUILDING NUMBER 34), QUEEN STREET
Grade: II
PORTSMOUTH
SU6300 QUEEN STREET 774-1/8/98 (North side) 08/07/98 HMS Nelson: Old Management School
(Building No. 34)
354
GV II
Formerly known as: Anglesey Barracks QUEEN STREET. Formerly known as: HMS Victory QUEEN
STREET. Army barracks canteen, then part of naval barracks. 1847–8. Red brick in Flemish bond.
Hipped slate roof with red tile ridges and brick chimneys. 2 storeys. 11 bays, arranged 3:5:3 with
centrepiece projecting slightly; 2 left-hand bays rebuilt mid C20. Central part-glazed door with
overlight and gauged flat brick arch. Windows have similar arches in bright-red brick, stone sills,
and 12-pane sashes in reveals. Rear: in same style; 2, 6, 2 bays the centrepiece projecting and with
paired windows. INTERIOR not inspected. HISTORY: originally part of the army Anglesea Barracks,
and one of the oldest canteens in an English barracks. These were a form of franchised bar serving
beer, reformed by the army after the Crimean War. The navy took over the barrack buildings in
1899 to form part of the first barracks for sailors at Portsmouth. Included as part of a group with the
main barracks, Building No. 14, and with HMS Victory (qqv). (Lloyd DW: Buildings of Portsmouth
and its environs: Portsmouth: 1974: 82).
Selected Sources
HMS NELSON: VICTORY MAIN GATE, QUEEN STREET

Grade: II
PORTSMOUTH
SU6300 QUEEN STREET 774-1/8/102 (North side) 08/07/98 HMS Nelson: Victory Main Gate
GV II
Formerly known as: HMS Victory QUEEN STREET. Entrance to naval barracks re-using parts from
former Portsea Quay Gate. Dated 1902, reused parts 1734. Superintendent Engineer Sir Henry
Pilkington RE. Red brick and ashlar. Banded piers with roll-moulded plinths, deep cornices and
blocking courses, outer piers with pyramid-on-ball finials. Taller and wider central gateway with
flanking pedestrian gateways, all having rusticated round arches. Impost band carried across
pedestrian gateways, and moulded cornice with blocking course above them. Central archway
flanked by reused attached Ionic columns and with Admiralty crest on keystone which rises into
corniced segmental pediment in which is carved and painted royal coat of arms. Central gates
have decorative panels with royal cipher and date. HISTORY: formed the formal entrance to the
first naval barracks in Portsmouth, and part of a group with the fine officer’s quarters opposite (qv).
Selected Sources
HMS NELSON: FORMER BARRACKS (BUILDING NUMBER 14), QUEEN STREET

Grade: II
Date first listed: 25-Sep-1972
Date of most recent amendment: 18-Mar-1999
355

PORTSMOUTH
SU6300 QUEEN STREET 774-1/8/99 (North side) 25/09/72 HMS Nelson: former barracks (Building
No.14) (Formerly Listed as: QUEEN STREET HMS Victory Barracks, Building No. 93, Rodney)
GV II
Formerly known as: Anglesey Barracks QUEEN STREET. Army barracks, now naval barracks.
1847–48, altered mid C20. Red brick in Flemish bond with ashlar dressings. Concealed roof, with
brick stacks. EXTERIOR: 3 storeys. 3; 16 window range. Originally forming the centrepiece and
right-hand wing of a longer range. Ashlar plinth, 1st-floor band, and eaves cornice below concrete-
rendered parapet. 12-pane sashes in reveals with flat gauged brick arches and stone sills. Double
board doors with 4-pane overlights, each in ashlar architrave with piers, frieze, cornice and
blocking course, which runs into the 1st-floor band. Above each door a tripartite window with
wooden mullions and windows of 4, 12 and 4-panes. Former centrepiece projects below pediment
with oculus and above, a console-bracketed plinth which formerly supported the statue of a lion
(now in Wardroom garden, qv). Wing: 2 left and 3 right bays project slightly; 2 entrances. Rear
ground-floor iron Doric colonnade broken by two C20 3-storey, 2-bay projections. At left corner
inverted cannon barrel bollard. INTERIOR: entrances lead into stairhalls from which rise stone stairs
with stick balusters. HISTORY: the barracks were originally part of the army’s Anglesea Barracks
and were incorporated into the first naval barracks HMS Victory in 1899. An interesting example
of a large mid C19 barracks, and one of the few that remain from immediately before the Crimean
War. (Lloyd DW:
Buildings of Portsmouth and its environs: Portsmouth: 1974: 82).
Selected Sources
4.2 ENGLISH HERITAGE (2013), SOUTH EAST HERITAGE AT RISK REGISTER.

Swindon: English Heritage. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/har-
2013-registers/se-HAR-register-2013.pdf
CONDITION (p. xv)

For buildings (including places of worship) at risk, condition is graded as: ‘very bad’, ‘poor’, ‘fair’
and ‘good’. For sites that cover areas (scheduled monuments (archaeology assessments), parks and
gardens, battlefields and wreck sites) one overall condition category is recorded. The category may
relate only to the part of the site or monument that is at risk and not the whole site:
• extensive significant problems
• generally unsatisfactory with major localized problems
• generally satisfactory but with significant localized problems
• generally satisfactory but with minor localized problems
• optimal
• unknown (is noted for a number of scheduled monuments that are below-ground and
where their condition cannot be established).
For conservation areas, condition is categorized as: ‘very bad’, ‘poor’, ‘fair’ and ‘optimal’.
If a site has suffered from heritage crime it is noted in the summary. Heritage crime is defined as
any offence which harms the heritage asset or its setting and includes arson, graffiti, lead theft and
vandalism.
356
PRIORITY CATEGORY (p. xvi)

Priority for action is assessed on a scale of A to F, where ‘A’ is the highest priority for a site which
is deteriorating rapidly with no solution to secure its future, and ‘F’ is the lowest priority.
For buildings and structures and places of worship the following priority categories are used as
an indication of trend and as a means of prioritizing action:
A Immediate risk of further rapid deterioration or loss of fabric; no solution agreed.
C Slow decay; no solution agreed.
Functionally redundant buildings with new use agreed but not yet implemented.
2012 priority categories are given in brackets, otherwise ‘New entry’ is noted.
TREND
Trend for archaeology entries, parks and gardens, battlefields and wreck sites may relate only to the
part of the site that is at risk and is categorized as:
• declining
• stable
• improving
• unknown
For conservation areas trend is categorized as:
• deteriorating
• deteriorating significantly
• no significant change
• improving
• improving significantly
• unknown
SITE NAME: 2-8, The Parade, HM Naval Base, Portsmouth

DESIGNATION: Listed Building grade II*, CA
CONDITION: Poor
OCCUPANCY: Vacant/not in use
PRIORITY CATEGORY: A (A)
Terrace of dockyard officers’ lodgings, 1715-19. Partially converted to office use c1995, but now
empty. Prone to wet rot and some structural movement. A repairs schedule promised by May 2009
has not been circulated. Background heating has been introduced, reducing damp levels. However,
problems persist with detailing between the main building and the rear extensions.
SITE NAME: Former Royal Naval Academy (Buildings 1/14 and 1/116-9),
HM Naval Base, Portsmouth
CONDITION: Poor
357
PRIORITY CATEGORY: A (A)

One of the oldest structures in the Dockyard, this building is a Georgian forerunner of the Britannia
Royal Naval College at Dartmouth. Natural ventilation has been introduced, reducing damp levels.
Background heating was installed during winter months, however there are still signs of water
ingress.
SITE NAME: Iron and Brass Foundry, 1/140, Victoria Road, HM Naval Base,
Portsmouth
CONDITION: Fair
OCCUPANCY: Part occupied/part in use
PRIORITY CATEGORY: C (C)
The main part of the building was converted to office use in 2003. The east wing (Building 1/136)
remains unused and at risk. There are concerns over water ingress.
Contact: Principal Adviser, Heritage at Risk 01483 252000
SITE NAME: No. 6 Dock, Basin No. 1, Portsmouth Dockyard

DESIGNATION: Scheduled Monument and Listed Building grade I, CA
CONDITION: Poor
OCCUPANCY: N/A
LIST ENTRY NUMBER: 1001852 and 1272267
Naval dock c1690 rebuilt 1737, immediately adjacent to the Block Mills. The dock is suffering from
rotation, and mortar joints on the stonework altars on the north side have opened up.
SITE NAME: No. 25 Store, Yard Services Manager’s Office, 1/118, Jago Road, HM
Naval Base, Portsmouth
CONDITION: Fair
Two storey storehouse of 1782, with internal courtyard. In fair condition but vacant.
Future use uncertain.
(English Heritage, 2013, South East Heritage at Risk Register , pp. 71-2)
358
4.3. HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (2005). THREATENED HISTORIC BUILDINGS IN

HAMPSHIRE REGISTER: PORTSMOUTH.
Winchester: Hampshire County Council (pp. 8, 32-3) Retrieved from
http://www3.hants.gov.uk/bar_2005.pdf
Categories of Risk for Action

A Immediate risk of further deterioration or loss of fabric; no solution agreed.
B Immediate risk of further rapid deterioration or loss of fabric; solution agreed but not yet
implemented.
C Slow decay; no solution agreed.
D Slow decay; solution agreed but not yet implemented.
E Under repair or in fair to good repair but no user identified, or under threat of vacancy with
no obvious new user (applicable only to buildings capable of beneficial use).
F Repair scheme in progress and (where applicable) end use or user identified; functionally
redundant buildings with new use agreed, not yet implemented (from Buildings at
Risk A New Strategy 1998 English Heritage)
Portsmouth
Address Status Nature of Threat & Comments Risk
Block Mills, H.M.
Naval Base,
Portsmouth
Dockyards Grade I
SAM Late C18 factory - one of earliest buildings used for
mass production. Some general maintenance required –
future still uncertain. (1999) C
No 6 Dock, Basin 1,
H.M. Naval Base,
Portsmouth Grade I
SAM/CA (2002) C
No 25 Store, Yard
Service Managers
Office, 1/118 Jago
Road, HM Naval
Base, Portsmouth Grade II*
CA In use, repairs required. (2003) D
Iron & Brass
Foundry
1/140 Victoria Road
HM Naval Base Grade II EH Register C
4.4. City of Portsmouth (2005). Portsmouth Conservation Area 22 HM Naval Base and St George’s
Square - including the Historic Dockyard and The Hard (to be prepared). Retrieved from https://
www.portsmouth.gov.uk/living/3097.html
4.5. City of Portsmouth (November 2006). Conservation Area No. 18 Guildhall & Victoria Park
refers briefly to Anglesey Barracks on p. 3. Retrieved from https://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/ext/
documents-external/dev-cons-area-18-guidlines-guildhall-victoriapark.pdf
359
4.6 City of Portsmouth (December 2006, updated December 2011). Statutory List of Buildings &
Ancient Monuments see HM Naval Base, pp. 25-34, 71. Retrieved from http://www.portsmouth.
gov.uk/media/Statutory_List_2011.pdf (PCC)
This abbreviates the English Heritage listings, listed alphabetically by road name under ‘HM Naval
Base’, citing the Naval Base numbers.
4.7 City of Portsmouth (2011). Local List of Buildings of Architectural or Historic Interest.
Retrieved from http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/media/Local_List_2011.pdf
This includes no Naval Base buildings.
360
REFERENCES
A Brief History of Devonport Naval Base (n.d. after 2005). Plymouth Naval Base Visitor Centre.
Aberg, A. (May 2005). Saving the Victory. Mariner’s Mirror 91(2), 358-368.
Adam, R. (Autumn 2009). Truth, Falsity and Tradition in the Management of the Historic
Environment. English Heritage Conservation Bulletin, 62, 5-8. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.
org.uk/content/publications/publicationsNew/conservation-bulletin/conservation-bulletin-62/Con_
Bull_62_pp1-12.pdf
Adams, M. (September 2006). The Conservation of Royal Naval buildings. A presentation by
Jonathan Coad of English Heritage. Institute of Historic Building Conservation, Context. Retrieved
from http://www.ihbc.org.uk/context_archive/96/adams/mike.htm
Admiralty (April 1911). Catalogue of Pictures, Presentation Plate, Figureheads, Models, Relics and Trophies at the
Admiralty; on board HM Ships; and in Naval Establishments at Home and Abroad. London: Admiralty.
AFD 26 (2009). Admiralty Floating Docks, World Naval Ships Forum (Ian Buxton). Retrieved from
http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showpost.php?p=115208&postcount=244
Aldred, O. & Fairclough, G. (2003). Historic Landscape Characterisation - Taking Stock of the Method. The
National HLC Method Review 2002. London: English Heritage and Somerset County Council. Retrieved
from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/hlc-taking-stock-of-the-method/; Chapter 2:
Waves of Development. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/hlc-taking-
stock-of-the-method/hlc4chapter2.pdf
Andrew, R. N., & Lloyd, A. R. J. M. (1981). Full-scale Comparative Measurements of the Behaviour
of Two Frigates in Severe Head Seas. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, 123, 1-31.
Anon (1929, reprinted 1984). The Royal Dockyard at Portsmouth in 1929. Portsmouth: Portsmouth Royal
Dockyard Historical Society.
Archaeologia Cantiana Journal of the Kent Archaeological Society. Retrieved from http://www.
kentarchaeology.org.uk/publications/archaeologia-cantiana/
ArchDaily (2013) Mary Rose Museum / Wilkinson Eyre Architects. Retrieved from http://www.
archdaily.com/381605/mary-rose-museum-wilkinson-eyre-architects
Architects Design Group (22 April 2010 Rev.A). Design and Access Statement. Proposed new
development for Princess Yachts,South Yard, Devonport. Retrieved from http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/
planningdocwebservice-2?doc=97029205-582e-11df-baa0-00505684640f&ext=pdf&docname=Histor
ic_Buildings_Impact_AssessmentRevA.pdf.
Architectural Review (August 1964). St Anne’s College, Oxford, Architectural Review, pp. 96-101.
Arthur, M. (2005). Lost Voices of the Royal Navy. London: Hodder.
Arup, Sir Ove, The Papers of (1904–1989). GBR/0014/ARUP. Cambridge: Repository
Churchill Archives Centre. Retrieved from http://janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.
xsp?id=EAD%2FGBR%2F0014%2FARUP
Arup, Ove, Oral history project, (1996–1999). GBR/0014/AROH, Cambridge: Repository
Churchill Archives Centre. Retrieved from http://janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.
xsp?id=EAD%2FGBR%2F0014%2FAROH
Ashmore, L. H. (Memorialist), Head, B. (Editor) (2001). Forgotten Flotilla: British submariners in Russia
1914–1919. Portsmouth: Manuscript Press.
361
Aston, G. (August 1932). Special Aspects of British Seapower 1886–1914. Naval Review XX(3), 434-4.
Retrieved from http://www.naval-review.co.uk/issues/1932-3.pdf
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AB1/1 (n.d.). Submarine Refit Complex Building N021.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing No. AB1/80 (1972). Sections through Building N125.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AB1/83 (1972). Building N125, main block
elevations.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AB1/84A (1972). Building N125, main
block elevations.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AB1/109 (1972). Building N125, plan of part of
main block.
Refit Complex.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AB2/3A (n.d.). Building N007 Submarine
Refit Complex.
Refit Complex.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AB2/11 (1972). Building N125 ground floor.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AB2/12 (1972). Building N125 first floor.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AB2/14D (n.d.). Second floor plan of the NAAFI
building, N007, Submarine Refit Complex.
N020, part of central building and southern section.
N020, Section through high level plant room.
N020, northern section and part of central building.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AB4B/28B. (n.d.). Submarine Refit Complex
Building N017.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AB5/1A (n.d.). Building N022 Submarine Refit
Complex plan.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AB7/14C (n.d.). Submarine Refit Complex.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. ABG/16E (April 1972). Building N217, part of east
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. ABG/17C (April 1972). Building N217, part of west
Babcock International. Drawing no. ABG/20F (April 1972). Building N217, part of section,
Frigate Complex.
362
References
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AD1/44B (n.d.). Building N019, Periscope Tower.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AD3/24A (n.d.). Building N005, Submarine
Refit Complex.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AD8/7 (1977). Entrance control complex, Submarine
Refit Complex.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. AW3/1J (n.d.). Building N008, Submarine Refit
Complex, north elevation.
Complex, west elevation.
Complex west elevation.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. M1979/08 (1994). Building N260, Submarine
Refit Complex.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. SWP/A/106/80 (n.d.). Submarine Refit Complex
Building N018A.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing No. SWP/A/281/80 (n.d.). Submarine Refit Complex,
Building N020A.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. 2916/1A (1972). Building N125, main block
cladding.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing No. 2300/ZG/01 (n.d). Buildings S056 and S057.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. 2300/ZG/05 (c.1988). East elevation of Building S057.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. 2300/ZG/09 (c.1988). West elevation of Building S056.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. 85007/AD1/1 (n.d.). Building N259.
Babcock International. Drawing no. 85007/AD1/8 (n.d.). Building N259.
Babcock International Devonport. Drawing no. illegible, reference 7137/N/9030 (n.d.). Building
N016, Submarine Refit Complex plan.
Babcock International Devonport. D154 Phase 3 Location Plan sheet no. 15 (n.d.). No Babcock
drawing number.
Babcock International Ltd (2011). Site Atlas (Devonport)
BAES Portsmouth, MEWW. 23572A Rationalisation Briefs and Drawings Etc.
BAES Portsmouth (1911–12). Elevations, HM Dockyard Portsmouth AE Vote 10, Subhead B, Part 1,
Extending Gun Mounting Shop (2/165).
BAES Portsmouth, Denny Highton (Jan 1978). Condition Survey, Main/Nelson Gate.
BAES Portsmouth (June 1978). FMBF FB45 Final Sketch Design, Building 1/223.
BAES Portsmouth, PSA (1983). Feasibility Study Semaphore Tower. Gateway to Empire. Buildings
1/40 and 1/50.
BAES Portsmouth, Alan Marshall Consulting Civil and Structural Engineers for PSA (Jan 1984).
Structural Survey, Nile.
363
BAES Portsmouth, MRM Partnership (Nov 1990). Structural Report, Building 3/82.
BAES Portsmouth, Defence Works Service (Nov 1991). Option Study, Annex A, Building 1/100.
BAES Portsmouth, PSA Building Management SE (Dec 1991). Professional Appraisal Semaphore
Tower, Building 1/50.
BAES Portsmouth, Evans Grant (March 1992). Structural Appraisal, Nile.
BAES Portsmouth, Evans Grant (March 1992). Structural Appraisal, Building 2/26.
BAES Portsmouth (May 1992). Technical Inspection, Buildings 2/139-2/140.
BAES Portsmouth, PSA (Property Serves Agency) (June 1992). Historical Inspection Report, Rodney.
BAES Portsmouth (1993). Technical Inspection, Buildings 2/109-2/110.
BAES Portsmouth, Evans Grant (Feb 1993) Structural Appraisal, Building 1/141.
BAES Portsmouth, Cecil Denny Highton (July 1993), Plan Extension to 100 Store, CDH REF 91034;
Building 3/82.
BAES Portsmouth, Building Management SE Ltd (Jan 1994). Technical Inspection Report,
Building 2/25-2/26.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (Feb 1994). Technical Inspection Report, Building 2/205.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (March 1994). Technical Inspection Report, enclosing English Listing
Record, Building 2/201.
BAES Portsmouth, Sawyer Architects plc (1995). Quadrennial Survey Lion Gate. Job No. 3513/5.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (Jan 1995). Professional Structural Appraisal, Building 2/56.
BAES Portsmouth, The Conservation Practice (April 1995). Tender Clock Tower, Gymnasium NE81,
HMS Nelson.
BAES Portsmouth, MSG Study 09/95/01 (13 Dec 1995). Plans and elevations, Building 1/100.
BAES Portsmouth, Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick (1996). Plan 100 Store Proposed Link, Building 3/82.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (23.1.1996). Letter, Jervis.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (March 1996). Structural Appraisal, Building 3/82.
BAES Portsmouth, Cecil Denny Highton for Scott, Wilson Kirkpatrick (July 1996). Plan 100 Store
Phase 2, CDH REF 91077, Building 3/82.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (1997). Technical Inspection, Building 2/139.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (31.1.1997). Structural Appraisal, Eastney/Canteen.
BAES Portsmouth, Evans Grant under instructions from Unicorn (Feb–Apr 1997) Structural
364
References
Appraisal, Building 1/136, First Floor Detail.

BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (June 1997). Structural Appraisal, Nile.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn CS Ltd (July 1997). Technical Report, Building 2/112.
BAES Portsmouth, Cathedral Works (Summer 1997). Heritage. Chichester: Cathedral Works
Organisation Limited.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (Dec 1997). Technical Inspection Report, enclosing drawing no.
333/50B, 8.8.1950, Building 2/205.
BAES Portsmouth, Comley & Sons, Odiham (1998). Proposal to demolish Nile.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (Feb 1998). Technical Support, Building 1/225.
BAES Portsmouth (Dec 1998). Project Manager’s Report, 100 Store Development Phase 2, Building 3/82.
BAES Portsmouth, NBC Portsmouth (27.1.1999). Central Storage & Distribution Facility, Formal
Opening, Covered Monorail Link, p.6, Building 3/82.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (June 2000). Structural Appraisal, enclosing Portsmouth Dockyard
Extension, Engine and Boiler House drawings, Building 2/201.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (Dec 2000). Technical Inspection, Building 1/224.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (March 2001). Professional Structural Survey, Building 3/82.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (Oct 2001). Quadrennial Inspection, Eastney/Canteen.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (Oct 2001). Quadrennial Inspection, Rodney Block.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (Nov 2001). Technical Inspection Report, Building 1/100.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (Jan 2002). Structural Appraisal, Eastney/Canteen.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (Jan 2002). Quadrennial Inspection, Gymnasium.
BAES Portsmouth, Unicorn (Jan 2002). Quadrennial Inspection, Gymnasium
BAES Portsmouth, Gifford (Feb 2004). Structural Appraisal, Main/Nelson Gate.
BAES Portsmouth, FSLM (Apr 2004). Technical Inspection, Main/Nelson Gate.
BAES Portsmouth, FSLM (May 2005). Technical Inspection, Jervis.
BAES Portsmouth, FSLM (May 2005). Technical Inspection, Rodney.
BAES Portsmouth, Opus (2011). Historical Building Quadrennial Inspection, Barham Building.
BAES Portsmouth, Opus (2011). Historical Building Quadrennial Inspection, Rodney.
BAES Portsmouth, Opus (2011). Historical Building Quadrennial Inspection, Main/Nelson Gate.
BAES Portsmouth, Opus (Oct 2011). Quadrennial Inspection, Gymnasium.
BAES Portsmouth (2013). Dockyard (Portsmouth) Revised Building List.
BAES Portsmouth (2014). Conservation Management Plan, Former Naval Academy, compiled by
Roger Green, p. 17 para. 2. PDP Green Consulting Limited.
365
Baird, R. (January 8, 2008). Design and construction of an environmental enclosure for a refitting
dock; Designers: Babcock Marine. The Structural Engineer, 86(1), pp. 25-27.
Banham, R. (2013). Reprint, Architectural Review, December 1955. In K. May et al. (Editors), Brutalism
(pp. 10-15).New York: CLOG.
Bannister, S. (10 June 2013a). A new blueprint for the home of the navy. The News. Retrieved from
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defence/a-new-blueprint-for-the-home-of-the-navy-1-5176331
Bannister, S. (10 June 2013b). Portsmouth Naval Base set for transformation as more ships arrive.
The News. Retrieved from http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defence/portsmouth-naval-base-set-
for-transformation-as-more-ships-arrive-1-5176415
Bannister, S. (21 January 2014). TV producers want to trace apprentices. The News. Retrieved from
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defence/tv-producers-want-to-trace-apprentices-1-5821277
Barnaby, K. C. (1960). The Institution of Naval Architects 1860–1960. An Historical Survey of the
Institution’s Transactions and Activities over 100 Years. London: Royal Institution of Naval Architects,
pp. 230, 234-5, 623.
Beacham, P. (Spring 2009). Heritage Protection Reform. English Heritage Conservation Bulletin 60, 10-
11. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/publications/publicationsNew/
conservation-bulletin/conservation-bulletin-60/codifyingconservationpp1-14.pdf
Bentham, S. (1812) Patent for ‘an Invention for a secure and economical Mode of laying
Foundations applicable to the Projection of Wharfs and Piers into deep Water.’ Patents Lately
Enrolled, The Monthly Magazine, 33, 257. Retrieved from http://books.google.co.uk/books
Berman G., & Rutherford, T. (2012). Defence personnel statistics. London: House of Commons Library,
p. 8. Retrieved from http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN02183
Bernays, E. A., Clarke, Sir A., Colson, C., et al. (1 January 1881). Discussion. Portsmouth Dockyard
Extension. Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineering, 64(1881), 207-242. Retrieved
from http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/article/10.1680/imotp.1881.22217
Bertlin, D. P. et al. (01 January 1947). Discussion. H.M. Dockyard, Devonport; Widening of No. 10
Dock. ICE Engineering Division Papers, 5(16), 24-42. Retrieved from http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/
content/article/10.1680/idivp.1947.13072#
BL Sloane MS 3232, (n.d. but c.1618). Instructions given by...the Duke of Buckingham, Lord High
Admiral, fos. 139-139v. London: British Library.
BL Lansdowne MS 847. (December 1694). A Volume formerly belonging to Robert Harley Esq.
afterwards Earl of Oxford, intitled “An Account of the generall progress and advancement of His
Majesties new docks and yard at Plymouth.” Presented to the Right Honourable the principall
Officers. London: British Library.
BL King’s MS 43 (1698). Edmund Dummer’s Survey of the Royal Dockyards. London: British Library.
BL Add. MS 16371 (1700). Plans of Fortified Towns, a, b, c, d, f, g. London: British Library.
BL K. Top. XIV. 30 (1750). Plan of Portsmouth and Gosport by J. P Desmaretz. London: British Library.
BL King’s MS 44 (1774). A Supplement to the Book in His Majestys Possession which containeth
a Survey of all His Majestys Dockyards with the Buildings &c therein taken in 1698, 1774. London:
British Library.
Blyth, R., Rüger, J. and Lambert, A. (Eds). (2011). The Dreadnought and the Edwardian Age. Farnham:
Ashgate/National Maritime Museum.
366
References
Bolger, R. (2013) BAE Systems Maritime Services Estates: Strategic Asset Management & Historic
Estate Conservation Manager, pers. comm.
Bridge, C. A. G. (Aug. 1921). The Naval Situation. Naval Review IX(3), 439-54. Retrieved from http://
www.naval-review.co.uk/issues/1921-3.pdf
British Geological Survey, UK, Geological Map Data © NERC 2013. Using: EDINA Geology Digimap
Service. Retrieved 11th and 13th May 2013 from http://edina.ac.uk/digimap
British Listed Buildings. (2006). Rosyth Dockyard, Power Station (building No 333). Retrieved
from http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/sc-50783-rosyth-dockyard-power-station-building-no/
photos#.VeLEmX1Il4I
Broadbent, G. (1973). Design in Architecture: Architecture and the Human Sciences. London: Wiley.
Broadbent, G. (1990). Emerging Concepts in Urban Space Design. London: Van Nostrand Reinhold
(International).
Brock, D. (2014). English Heritage Principal Inspector of Historic Buildings and Areas, South East,
pers. comm.
Broomfield, J. (1996). The Repair of Reinforced Concrete. The Building Conservation Directory (pp. 2-4).
Tisbury: Cathedral Communications. Retrieved from http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/
concrete/concrete.htm
Brown, D. K. (2010). Warrior to Dreadnought. Warship Design and Development 1860–1905 (1st edn 1997).
Barnsley: Seaforth.
Brown, P. (2016, forthcoming). Docking the Dreadnoughts: Dockyard Activity in the Dreadnought
Era. Transactions of the Naval Dockyards Society, 12, British Dockyards in the First World War, 2014 NDS
conference.
Buckingham, S., McMillan, R., & Gareth Wilson, G. (Autumn 2009). Conservation Areas and the
Future: Heritage Protection Reform. English Heritage Conservation Bulletin, 62, 10-12. Retrieved from
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/conservation-bulletin-62/Con_Bull_62_pp1-12.pdf
Building (February 4, 1977). Five projects that overspent: four projects at Devonport and the Thames
barrier - all increased heavily in cost. Building, pp. 49-50.
Building Design (May 16, 1975). £31/2m refit depot for Devonport. Building Design, p. 6.
Building Design (May 16, 1975). Devonport dockyard modernisation; Architects; DOE. Property
Services Agency. Building Design, p. 61.
Buxton, I. (10 March 2014). Professor University of Newcastle upon Tyne, pers. comm.
Buxton, I. (May 2015). Admiralty Dock Books. Dockyards, 20(1), 10-34.
Buxton, I. (2016, forthcoming). Rosyth Dockyard, Battleships and Drydocking. Transactions of the Naval
Dockyards Society, 12, British Dockyards in the First World War, 2014 NDS conference.
CABE (8.1.2009). Mary Rose Museum HM Naval Base, Portsmouth. Commission for Architecture
and the Built Environment Planning reference: 08/02218/FUL. Retrieved from http://webarchive.
nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/design-review/mary-rose-museum
Cain, P. J. & Hopkins, A. G. (2001). British Imperialism 1688–2000 (2nd edn.). Harlow: Pearson.
Calder, B. (2013). Heroic Precast. In K. May et al. (Editors), Brutalism (pp. 46-7). New York: CLOG.
Campbell, J., Thompson, E. and Hartwig, P. (2011). Apprenticeship Training in England:
367
Closing the Gap? Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 95(3), pp. 365-78.
Cantacuzino, S. (1981). Howell, Killick, Partridge and Amis: Architecture. London: Lund Humphries.
Carding, I. (2014). The Old Naval Academy Portsmouth 1729–2014. Alton: Wyeth.
Carr, W. G. (1930). By Guess and By God. The Story of the British Submarines in the War. Tiptree: Anchor Press.
Chapman, J. (1978). The Common Lands of Portsea Island. Portsmouth Paper 29. Portsmouth:
City of Portsmouth.
Chapman, M., Parrish, S. & Solley, K. (2006). Proceedings of the ICE - Geotechnical Engineering, 159(2), 63-
75. DOI: 10.1680/geng.2006.159.2.63. Retrieved from http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/
article/10.1680/geng.2006.159.2.63.
Chatham Dockyard Historical Society (2001). Workers of the Sail and Colour Lofts. Research Paper 18.
Chatham: Chatham Dockyard Historical Society.
Chatham Dockyard Historical Society (2014). Chatham’s Historical Ships Cavalier, Gannet and Ocelot.
Research Paper 44. Chatham: Chatham Dockyard Historical Society.
Chatham Royal Naval Barracks. Retrieved from http://www.axfordsabode.org.uk/pdf-docs/
pembrok1.pdf
Chermayeff, S. & Alexander, C. (1963). Community and Privacy. New York: Doubleday; Harmondsworth:
Penguin (1966).
Cherry, M. (July 1997). Post-war and Thematic Listing: Airing the Issues. English Heritage Conservation
Bulletin 32, pp. 18-20. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/conservation-
bulletin-32/conservationbulletin32.pdf
Cherry, M. (Autumn 2007). Political Landscapes – Governing and Defending the Land. English
Heritage Conservation Bulletin 56, 32. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/
conservation-bulletin-56/cb56pp23-32.pdf
Childers, R. E. (1979; 1903 1st edn). The Riddle of the Sands. London: Penguin.
City of Portsmouth (2005) Conservation Area 22 - H.M. Naval Base and St George’s Square including the Historic
Dockyard and The Hard (to be prepared). Last updated: 11 November 2005. Portsmouth: City of
Portsmouth. Retrieved from https://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/living/3097.html
City of Portsmouth (November 2006). Conservation Area No. 18 Guildhall & Victoria Park. Portsmouth:
City of Portmouth. Retrieved from https://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/ext/documents-external/dev-
cons-area-18-guidlines-guildhall-victoriapark.pdf
City of Portsmouth (December 2006 updated December 2011). Statutory List of Buildings & Ancient
Monuments. Portsmouth: City of Portsmouth. Retrieved from http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/media/
Statutory_List_2011.pdf
City of Portsmouth (2011). Local List of Buildings of Architectural or Historic Interest. Portsmouth: City of
Portsmouth. Retrieved from http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/media/Local_List_2011.pdf
City of Portsmouth (2011). Urban Characterisation Study. Portsmouth: City of Portsmouth.
City of Portsmouth (2011). Alan King, compiler, Portsmouth Encyclopedia. A History of Places and People
in Portsmouth, with an Index to Streets. Retrieved from http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/media/PENC_
UPLOAD_2011.pdf
City of Portsmouth, 404A (n.d.). Portsmouth History Centre, Central Library, Guildhall Square,
Portsmouth PO1 2DX, 023 9268 8046; Southsea Library Archive Store; CALM record: 404A, Notes
368
References
and papers of the late Mr R .S. Horne LRIBA, Hon. Historian for Portsmouth Dockyard.
City of Portsmouth. Portsmouth History Centre, Central Library, Guildhall Square, Portsmouth PO1
2DX, 023 9268 8046. Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust Collection oral history interviews
are available in the Portsmouth Museums and Records Service. Catalogue retrieved from http://
www.portsmouthmuseums.co.uk/collections/index.html
Clark, C. (2016, forthcoming). ‘Drilling Hammock Hooks for Sailors’: Women working in Portsmouth
Dockyard in the First World War. British Dockyards in the First World War, Transactions of the Naval Dockyards
Society, 12. 2014 NDS conference. Portsmouth: Naval Dockyards Society.
Clarke, J. L. (2009). Historical Approaches to the Design of Concrete Buildings and Structures. Technical Report No. 70.
Camberley: Concrete Society.
Coad, J. (1973). The Chatham [Kent] Mast Houses and Mould Loft. Mariner’s Mirror 59, 127-134.
Coad, J. G. (1981). Historic Architecture of H.M. Naval Base, Portsmouth, 1700–1850. Mariner’s Mirror,
67(1), 3-64.
Coad, J. G. (1982). Historic Architecture of Chatham Dockyard, 1700–1850. Mariner’s Mirror,
68(2) 133–87.
Coad, J. (1983). Historic Architecture of HM Naval Base Devonport 1689–1850. Mariner’s Mirror,
68(2) 341–94.
Coad, J. (1989). The Royal Dockyards 1690–1850: Architecture and engineering works of the sailing navy. Aldershot,
Scholar.
Coad, J. (1993). Great Britain’s Naval Heritage. In M. Smythe-Watson (Ed.), Deserted Bastions. Historic
Naval & Military Architecture (pp. 5-13). London: Save Britain’s Heritage.
Coad, J. (2001). A Major Industry before the Industrial Revolution: Great Britain’s Royal Dockyards.
In M. Palmer & P. Neaverson (Eds.), From Industrial Revolution to Consumer Revolution (pp. 24-9).
The Association for Industrial Archaeology TICCIH2000 (The International Committee for the
Conservation of the Industrial Heritage Millennium Congress) Papers.
Coad, J. (2005). The Portsmouth Block Mills: Bentham, Brunel and the start of the Royal Navy’s Industrial Revolution.
Swindon: English Heritage.
Coad, J. (2005). Warfare and defence: what next? Post-Medieval Archaeology, 39(2), 224-32.
Coad, J. (2009). Evaluate, Conserve, Adapt: a Future for the Historic Bases of the Royal Navy.
Historic Environment Port Cities, 22(2), 12-16.
Coad, J. (2012; 2014). Former English Heritage Inspector of Ancient Monuments and historian,
pers. comm.
Coad, J. (2013). Support for the Fleet. Architecture and engineering of the Royal Navy’s Bases 1700–1914. Swindon:
English Heritage.
Coats, A. (2000). The Economy of the Navy and Portsmouth: a Discourse between the Civilian
Naval Administration of Portsmouth Dockyard and the Surrounding Communities, 1650 to 1800
(Unpublished DPhil thesis). University of Sussex, Falmer. (Available online from the British Library
Ref. uk.bl.ethos.311116)
Coats, A. (2006). The Block Mills: New Labour Practices for New Machines? In Ray Riley, (ed.),
Transactions of the Naval Dockyards Society 1, Portsmouth Dockyard in the Age of Nelson, 2005 Conference (pp. 59-84).
Coats, A. (2009). The Restoration of Portsmouth Dockyard Block Mills (built 1803) 2006–8. Dockyards:
the Newsletter of the Naval Dockyards Society, 14(1), 14-18.
369
Coats, A. (December 2010). Planning Issues. Dockyards: the Newsletter of the Naval Dockyards Society,
15(2), 5-8.
Coats, A. (September 2011). Dockyard City Heritage: a Threatened Global Cultural Legacy. Institution
of Civil Engineers, 164, Municipal Engineer, 3, 175-184, doi: 10.1680/muen.2011.164.3.175
Coats, A. (2012). Coordinator, Friends of the Porter’s Garden, Portsmouth Dockyard, pers. comm.
Collins, Peter (1959). Concrete: The Vision of a New Architecture (1st edn.). London: Faber.
Collins, Peter (1971). Architectural Judgement. London: Faber.
Colomb, P. H. (1888). The Naval Defences of the United Kingdom. Journal of the Royal United Services
Institute, 32(144), 565-601.
Colson, C. (1 January 1881). Portsmouth Dockyard Extension Works (including Appendices and
Plate at back of volume). Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineering, 64(1881) Part II, 118-
173. Retrieved from http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/article/10.1680/imotp.1881.22215
Colson CB, C., 1839–1915 Obituary (1916). Minutes of Proceedings/Institution of Civil Engineers 201(1916),
392-2.
Concina, E. (1998). A History of Venetian Architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Conservation and reuse of dockyard structures. (July 1990). Building Research and Practice. 18(4), 200-207.
Paris: Centre Scientifique et technique du bâtiment, 1975–1990.
Construction History Society Journal. Retrieved from http://www.constructionhistory.co.uk/journal.php
Construction News (2 February 1990). UK: British Ferries presents Portsmouth Dockyard plans.
Construction News. Retrieved from http://www.cnplus.co.uk/news/02feb90-uk-british-ferries-presents-
portsmouth-dock-revival-plans/1688630.article#.U19haKLijTw
Construction News (5 July 1990). UK: Sea Containers at Portsmouth Naval Dockyard applies for
planning consent for £26m redevelopment. Construction News. Retrieved from http://www.cnplus.
co.uk/news/06jul90-uk-sea-containers-at-portsmouth-naval-dockyard-applies-for-planning-consent-
for-26m-redevelopment/1695248.article#.U19l26LijTw
Coster, G. (October 2000). PRDHTSG Chairman, pers. comm.
Council of Europe (2005). Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society. Treaty Series
No. 199. Faro: Council of Europe. Retrieved from http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/
QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=199&CM=8&CL=ENG
Council of Europe (20 May 2014). Conclusions on cultural heritage as a strategic resource for a sustainable Europe.
Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council meeting. Brussels: Council of Europe. Retrieved
from http://gr2014.eu/sites/default/files/Conclusions%20on%20cultural%20heritage%20as%20a%20
strategic%20resource%20for%20a%20sustainable%20Europe.pdf
Countryside Commission (1993). Views From the Past – historic landscape character in the English countryside.
Cheltenham: Countryside Commission.
CSPD, Everett Green, M. A. (Ed.).(1894). Calendar of State Papers Domestic, Charles II. 1668–1669.
London: HMSO.
Cullen, G. (1966). Alcan, the Scanner. A town called Alcan. London: Alcan Industries Ltd.
Current Archaeology (20.6.2013). Review: The Mary Rose museum. Current Archaeology. Retrieved from
http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/reviews/review-the-mary-rose-museum.htm
370
References
Daily Express (20 July 1921), reprinted in the Brisbane Courier (21 July 1921). Retrieved from http://
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/page/1609468?zoomLevel=1
Daunton, M. (2011). ‘The Greatest and Richest Sacrifice Ever Made on the Altar of Militarism’: the
Finance of Naval Expansion, c.1890–1914. In R. Blyth, J. Rüger and A. Lambert (Eds). The Dreadnought
and the Edwardian Age (pp. 31-50). Farnham: Ashgate/National Maritime Museum.
Davies, J. D. (1995). A Permanent National Maritime Fighting Force 1642–1689. In J. Hill, ed.,
The Oxford illustrated history of the royal navy (pp. 56-79). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davies, P. (Spring 2009). Managing Change in Conservation Areas. English Heritage Conservation Bulletin
60, 12-4. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/publications/publicationsNew/
conservation-bulletin/conservation-bulletin-60/codifyingconservationpp1-14.pdf
Davies, P. (ed.). (2011). Valuing Places: Good Practice in Conservation Areas. London: English Heritage.
Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/valuing-places/valuing-places-
good-practice-conservation-areas.pdf
Day, A. (1998). The forgotten ‘mateys’: women workers in Portsmouth Dockyard, England, 1939-45,
Women’s History Review, 7(3), 361-82.
DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government) (June 2006). Circular 02/06. Crown
Application of the Planning Acts. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/7672/150982.pdf
DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government) (March 2012). National Planning Policy
Framework. London: DCLG. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/
uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf
Dean, P. (Autumn 2009). Celebrating Special Areas. English Heritage Conservation Bulletin 62, 8-10.
Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/publications/publicationsNew/
conservation-bulletin/conservation-bulletin-62/Con_Bull_62_pp1-12.pdf
Defence Estates. (2009). MoD Heritage Report 2007–2009. Sutton Coldfield: Defence Estates.
Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/33360/heritage_rpt_200709.pdf
Denwood, Jesse (2013). Strategic Development Manager 1, Portsmouth Naval Base, Defence
Infrastructure Organisation, pers. comm.
Devonport Dockyard Museums (n.d.). 2-sided leaflet.
Devonport Heritage Centre. Retrieved from http://devonportnhc.wordpress.com/
Dicker, G. (1970). Devonport Dockyard: The great fire of 1840. Plymouth: Dicker.
DIO (2011). MOD Heritage Report 2009–11. London: MOD Defence Infrastructure Organisation.
Retrieved from http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/57BD81D4-ED70-4F94-89DA-04CEBDC8DDF8/0/
heritage_rpt_200911.pdf; https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
data/file/33359/heritage_rpt_200911.pdf
DIO (October 2011). Defence Infrastructure Interim Land and Property Disposal Strategy. London: MoD Defence
Infrastructure Organisation. Retrieved from http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F7BAF8FC-7560-
4ED3-82B9-EE341C44CCAE/0/20111005MODLandDisposalStrategy.pdf
Dix, J. K. and Scaife, R. (2000). Location, geology, and topography. In Allen, Michael J; Gardiner,
Julie (Eds.). Our Changing Coast a survey of the intertidal archaeology of Langstone Harbour Hampshire (pp. 8-10).
York: Council for British Archaeology.
371
DML (1992). Modernisation and enhancement of Nuclear Submarine Support Facilities. Devonport: DML.
DML (2002). Submarine refit complex. Devonport: DML.
Donnithorne, C. (2013). Naval Biographical Database, http://www.navylist.org/, pers. comm.
Dorman, A. (2001). John Nott and the Royal Navy: The 1981 Defence Review Revisited.
Contemporary British History 15(2), 98-120.
Dredging Today (2012). Portsmouth Harbour Prepares for Capital Dredging (UK). Retrieved fromwww.
dredgingtoday.com/2012/01/20/portsmouth-harbour-prepares-for-capital-dredging-uk/
Drury, P. (Spring 2009). A Sense of Value. English Heritage Conservation Bulletin, 60, 7-10. Retrieved from
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/publications/publicationsNew/conservation-bulletin/
conservation-bulletin-60/codifyingconservationpp1-14.pdf
Duffy, M. (2016, forthcoming). William James’s ‘Record of the work done at Devonport Yard during
the War by the Engineering Department’. Transactions of the Naval Dockyards Society, 12,
British Dockyards in the First World War, 2014 NDS conference.
Duncan, N. (2013). Defence Infrastructure Organisation, pers. comm.
Easthope, W. (Ed.). (n.d., c.1944). Smitten City - the story of Portsmouth under blitz: the story of Portsmouth in the
air raids 1940–1944. Portsmouth: The Evening News.
EFG (1981). Defence Programme: The Way Forward. RUSI Journal, 126(3), 1-2.
Ehrman, J. (1953). The navy in the War of William III 1689–1697: its state and direction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Eliot, Sir W. (01 January 1908). Keyham Dockyard Extension. (including Appendixes and
Plate at back of volume). Minutes of the Proceedings, 172 (1908), 1-24. Retrieved from http://www.
icevirtuallibrary.com/content/article/10.1680/imotp.1908.17365
Embree, S. & Stevens, J. (Editors) (2005). English Heritage Research Agenda. Swindon: English Heritage.
Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/eh-research-agenda/
English Heritage (n.d. post-1999). Environmental Policy Statement. Retrieved from http://www.english-
heritage.org.uk/content/imported-docs/a-e/envpolicy.pdf
English Heritage (2000). Power of Place. The Future of the Historic Environment. London: English Heritage.
Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/publications/publicationsNew/
guidelines-standards/power-of-place/powerofplace11.pdf
English Heritage (28 June 2005). English Heritage Research Strategy Agenda 2005–2010: Making the Past Part
of Our Future. Swindon: English Heritage. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/
publications/eh-strategy-2005-2010/
English Heritage (17 November 2005). English Heritage Research Strategy Agenda 2005–2010. Discovering the
Past Shaping the Future. Swindon: English Heritage. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/
publications/discovering-past-shaping-future/
English Heritage (2006). Understanding Historic Buildings: A guide to good recording practice. http://www.english-
heritage.org.uk/publications/understanding-historic-buildings/understandinghistoricbuildings1.pdf
English Heritage (2006). GHEU, Biennial Conservation Report: The Government’s Historic Estate 2003–2005.
Swindon: English Heritage. Retrieved from http://www.rudi.net/files/GHEU_BIENNIAL_CON_
REPORT_20032005.pdf
English Heritage (Autumn 2007). Political Landscapes. Conservation Bulletin 56, 23-32. London: English
372
References
Heritage. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/conservation-bulletin-56/

cb56pp23-32.pdf
English Heritage (April 2008). Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of
the Historic Environment. London: English Heritage. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.
org.uk/publications/conservation-principles-sustainable-management-historic-environment/
conservationprinciplespoliciesguidanceapr08web.pdf
English Heritage SHAPE (20 May 2008). Strategic Framework for Historic Environment Activities and Programmes.
Swindon: English Heritage. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/
shape2008/
English Heritage (2009). Protocol for the Care of the Government Historic Estate. London/Norwich: English
Heritage/DCMS/Office of Government Commerce. Retrieved from http://www.nihgc.org/resources/
images/Protocol%20for%20the%20care%20of%20the%20government%20historic%20estate%202009.pdf
English Heritage (2009). European Landscape Action Plan. The English Heritage Action Plan for Implementation.
London: English Heritage; Defra; HELM. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/
content/publications/publicationsNew/guidelines-standards/european-landscape-convention-
english-heritage-action-plan-for-implementation/elconv.pdf
English Heritage. (April 2009). MoRPHE Project Managers’ Guide (Version 1.1). Swindon: English
Heritage. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/publications/publicationsNew/
guidelines-standards/morphe-project-managers-guide/morphe-project-managers-guide-1.1-2009.pdf
English Heritage (Spring 2009). English Heritage Conservation Bulletin, 60. Retrieved from http://www.
english-heritage.org.uk/publications/conservation-bulletin-60/
English Heritage (23 June 2009). Heritage at Risk Conservation Areas. London: English Heritage. Retrieved
from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/local-authority-guidance-conservation-area-
management/caar-acc.pdf
English Heritage (2010). NHPP Pre-consultation Survey Analysis of Responses. Swindon: English
Heritage. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/imported-docs/k-o/nhpp-
analysis-responses-pre-consultation-survey-v2.pdf
English Heritage (March 2010). Biennial Conservation Report. The Government Historic Estate 2007–2009.
London: English Heritage. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/biennial-
conservation-report-0709/biennial-conservation-report-0709.pdf
English Heritage (May 2010). Disposal of Heritage Assets. London: English Heritage/Office of
Government/ Commerce/Department of Culture Media and Sport. Retrieved from http://www.
english-heritage.org.uk/publications/disposal-heritage-assets/guidance-disposals-final-jun-10.pdf
English Heritage (June 2010). The Greater Thames Estuary Historic Environment Research Framework. Update
and Revision of the Archaeological Research Framework for the Greater Thames Estuary (1999). English Heritage:
Swindon. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/greater-thames-estuary-
res-framework-2010/; http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/greater-thames-estuary-res-
framework-2010/gt-research-framework2010-summary.pdf ; http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/
publications/greater-thames-estuary-res-framework-2010/gt-research-framework-2010-pt1.pdf
English Heritage (24 Aug 2010). (Listing) Advice Report Building S173, South Yard, Devonport
Dockyard, Plymouth.
English Heritage (2011). Heritage at Risk Summary 2011. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.
uk/publications/har-2011-local-summaries/acc-HAR-2011-se-summary.pdf
English Heritage (2011). NHPP 2010–2011 Winter Consultation Survey Analysis of Responses.
373
English Heritage: Swindon. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/imported-

docs/k-o/nhpp-winter-2010-11-consultation-analysis-responses.pdf
English Heritage (23 May 2011). Corporate Plan 2011–2015. English Heritage: Swindon. Retrieved from
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/corporate-plan-2011-2015/
English Heritage (October 2011). At Risk Register South East. Swindon: English Heritage. http://www.
english-heritage.org.uk/publications/har-2011-registers/acc-se-HAR-register-2011.pdf
English Heritage (Autumn 2011) Industrial Heritage at Risk. English Heritage Conservation Bulletin 67.
Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/conservation-bulletin-67/cb-67.pdf
English Heritage (2012). The National Heritage Protection Action Plan 2011–15: Revision 2: April 2013–March
2015. Swindon: English Heritage. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/
imported-docs/k-o/nhpp-plan.pdf
English Heritage (2012). Heritage at Risk Priority Sites. London: English Heritage. Retrieved from http://
www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/publications/publicationsNew/heritage-at-risk/priority-har-
sites-2012/national-priority-sites-har-2012.pdf
English Heritage (April 2012). National Heritage Protection Commissions Programme (NHPCP) Guidance for
Applicants (Release 6). Swindon: English Heritage.
English Heritage (April 2012). Biennial Conservation Report. The Government Historic Estate 2009–2011. London:
English Heritage. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/biennial-
conservation-report-0911/biennial-conservation-report-0911.pdf
English Heritage (25 May 2012). National Heritage Protection Plan (version 1.1.). Swindon: English Heritage.
English Heritage (July 2012). National Heritage Protection Plan: NHPP 4A3 Ports, Harbours, Coastal
Settlements: 20th Century Naval Dockyards Devonport and Portsmouth (4A3.203) Project Number
6265, V1.1. Swindon: English Heritage. Retrieved from https://museuminsider.co.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2012/07/6265_C20th-Naval-Dockyards_July-2012.pdf
English Heritage (October 2012). Heritage at Risk National Strategy 2011-2015. English Heritage: Swindon.
Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/eh-har-strategy-2011-15/har-
strategy-11-15.pdf
English Heritage (2013). Contemporary heritage and character. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.
org.uk/professional/research/landscapes-and-areas/characterisation/contemporary-heritage/
English Heritage (October 2013). South East Heritage at Risk Register. Swindon: English Heritage.
Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/har-2013-registers/se-HAR-
register-2013.pdf
English Heritage (October 2013). South West Heritage at Risk Register. Swindon: English Heritage.
Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/har-2013-registers/sw-HAR-
register-2013.pdf
English Heritage (2014). National Heritage List for England. Swindon: English Heritage. Retrieved from
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/protection/process/national-heritage-list-for-
england/
English Heritage (n.d.). Glossary. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/discover/
people-and-places/womens-history/glossary/a-z/
Epkenhans, M. (2011). Dreadnought: A ‘Golden Opportunity’ for Germany’s Aspirations? In R. Blyth,
J. Rüger and A. Lambert (Eds). The Dreadnought and the Edwardian Age (pp. 79-92). Farnham: Ashgate/
National Maritime Museum.
374
References
Eurich, R. (1903‑1992). Night Raid on Portsmouth Docks 1941. London: Tate Britain, Reference N05690.
Retrieved from http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/eurich-night-raid-on-portsmouth-docks-n05690
Evans, D. (1996). Supporting the Steam Navy: The Development of Coaling Facilities at Portland.
Mariner’s Mirror, 82(2), 175-189.
Evans, D. (2004). Building the Steam Navy: Dockyards, Technology and the Creation of the Victorian Battle-Fleet, 1830–
1906. London: English Heritage/Conway Maritime Press.
Evans, D. (2006). Arming the Fleet. The development of the Royal Ordnance Yards 1770–1945. Gosport: Explosion!
Museum/English Heritage.
Evening Herald (11 April 1987). Devonport Dockyard picture special.
Fairclough, G. J. (1991). The Historic Landscape – an English Heritage Policy Statement. English
Heritage Conservation Bulletin, 14, 4-5. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/
conservation-bulletin-14/conservationbulletin14.pdf
Fairclough, G. J. (1997). Sustaining the Historic Environment: New Perspectives on the Future. London: English
Heritage.
Fairclough, G. J. (September 1997). Sustaining the Historic Environment. (English Heritage) Context,
55, 39-40. Retrieved from http://www.ihbc.org.uk/context_archive/55/historicenvironment.htm
Fairclough, G. J. (Ed.) (1999). Historic Landscape Characterisation: papers presented at an English
Heritage seminar held at the Society of Antiquaries, 11 December 1998. London: English Heritage.
Fairclough, G., Lambrick, G. & Hopkins, D. (2002). Historic Landscape Characterisation in England
and a Hampshire case study, in Fairclough and Rippon (eds), Europe’s Cultural Landscape: Archaeologists
and the Management of Change. Brussels & London: European Archaeologiae Consilium & English
Heritage, pp. 69-83. Retrieved from http://m.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/hlc-in-england-
and-a-hampshire-case-study/hampshirehlc.pdf
Fairclough, G., Lambrick, G. & McNab, G. (eds.) (1999). Yesterday’s World, Tomorrow’s Landscape:
The English Heritage Landscape Project 1992–94. London: English Heritage.
Firth, A. (June 2003). The Royal Naval Bases at Portsmouth and Devonport. Conservation Bulletin 44.
Swindon: English Heritage, p. 36. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/
conservation-bulletin-44/36dockyardarchaeology-royalnavalbasesatportsmouth.pdf
Flatman, J. (2013). Appendix 6 High to Post-Medieval Chapter: Archaeological Remains of
Vessels from Great Britain, Northern Ireland and Ireland 6th–16th centuries AD. Marine Historic
Environment Research Framework. Retrieved from http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/
archiveDownload?t=arch-1043-1/dissemination/pdf/publication_appendices/Appendix_6_High_to_
Post-Medieval.pdf
Flyovers to Make Dockyard One Unit (May 12, 1962). Western Evening Herald, Plymouth. Retrieved
from http://www.plymouthdata.info/Royal%20Dockyard.htm
Ford, D. (Feb 2015). A statement of hopes? The effectiveness of US and British naval war plans
against Japan, 1920–1941. Mariner’s Mirror, 101(1) 63–80.
Forty, A. (2000). Words and Buildings: a Vocabulary of Modern Architecture. London: Thames & Hudson.
Forty, A. (2012). Concrete and Culture: a Material History. London: Reaktion.
Frigate docks flooded (1976). Picture and story from Devonport News. Navy Days brochure, p. 31.
Retrieved from http://www.axfordsabode.org.uk/pdf-docs/navday04.pdf
Fuller, J. F. C. (Feb. 1922). What Changes are suggested in Naval Construction and Tactics? Naval
375
Review X(1), 73-104. Retrieved from http://www.naval-review.co.uk/issues/1922-1.pdf.

Gale, A. (July 1995). Portsmouth; Architects: John Winter & Associates. Architecture Today, 60, 12-13.
Gale and Polden Ltd (July 1912). Front cover: The Official Programme of the Great Naval Review, Spithead,
July 1912. London: Gale and Polden Ltd. Retrieved from http://www.britishtransporttreasures.com/
Gale & Polden (July 30th –August 6th 1938). Portsmouth Navy Week Programme. Aldershot & Portsmouth:
Gale & Polden Ltd.
Galliver, P. (1999). Trade Unionism in Portsmouth Dockyard, 1880–1914: Change and Continuity.
In K. Lunn and A. Day (Eds), History of Work and Labour Relations in the Royal Dockyards (pp. 99-126).
London: Mansell.
Gibb, Sir A. & Partners (n.d.). Industrial Engineering and Thermal Power Stations. Sir A. Gibb, & Partners.
Gibbs and Gurnell, Chemists, 34 Union Street, Ryde, Isle of Wight, PO33 2LE, www.
gibbsandgurnell.co.uk.
Gibson, L. & Pendlebury, J. (2009). Valuing Historic Environments. Farnham: Ashgate.
Goodship, P. (Chief Executive Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust). (17.1.2013). Lecture to
University of Portsmouth students.
Goodwin, P. (forthcoming 2016). British Submarine Construction and Development during the Great
War. In P. MacDougall (Ed.), Transactions of the Naval Dockyards Society 12, British Dockyards in the First World
War. 2014 NDS Conference.
Google aerial photograph of Devonport Dockyard. Retrieved from Google Earth in 2013.
Gormley, A. (Autumn 2007). The Post-Industrial Sublime. Modern times. Conservation Bulletin 56,
5. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/conservation-bulletin-56/
cb56pp1-6.pdf
Gray, S. (2014). Black Diamonds: Coal, the Royal Navy, and British Imperial coaling stations, circa 1870–1914 (PhD
thesis). University of Warwick, Coventry. Retrieved from http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/63697/1/WRAP_
THESIS_Gray_2014.pdf
Gray, S. (May 2015). Coaling warships with naval labour, 1870–1914: ‘I wish I could get hold of
that man who first found coal’. Mariner’s Mirror 101(2), 168-83.
Greenlees, Captain I. (Captain of the Base, Portsmouth). (6 June 2013). HM Naval Base Portsmouth:
Defending the Nation’s Interests through the 21st Century. Portsmouth: Portsmouth Society lecture.
Grimes, S. T. (2003). War Planning and Strategic Development in the Royal Navy, 1887–1918. (DPhil
Dissertation) King’s College University of London. Retrieved from https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/
files/2926803/408275.pdf
Grove, E. J. (1987). Vanguard to Trident: British Naval Policy since World War II. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval
Institute Press.
Grove, E. (2016, forthcoming). British Warship Building during the First World War: An Analytical
and Comparative Survey. Transactions of the Naval Dockyards Society, 12, British Dockyards in the First World War.
2014 NDS conference.
Guillery, P. (2000). The Further Adventures of Mary Lacy. The Georgian Group Journal, X, 61-9. Retrieved
from https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/imported-docs/p-t/marylacyweb.pdf
Gurnell, Thompson (1878–1965). Service Biography. Survey of the Papers of Senior Defence
376
References
Personnel (1900–1975). King’s College London, Liddell Hart Centre for Military Archives.
Gurnell, Thompson, Engineer Admiral (1939[1938]). Model of Portsmouth Dockyard depicted just
before the start of World War Two in September 1939. National Museum of the Royal Navy.
Gurnell, marriage (1904). Birth, Marriage, Death & Parish Records, England & Wales marriages
183–2008, Portsmouth, Volume 2B, Page 1067. Retrieved from http://search.findmypast.co.uk/
record?id=bmd%2fm%2f1904%2f4%2faz%2f000154%2f167
Gurnell, Jessie, Census 1911. RG14/5556 RG78/252 RD90 SD2 ED35 SN188, Retrieved from http://
search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=gbc%2f1911%2frg14%2f05556%2f0377%2f3
Gurnell, Royal Navy Officers Medal Roll 1914–1920. Retrieved from http://search.findmypast.co.uk/
record?id=gbm%2frno%2f12030
Gurnell obituary (24 May 1965). The Times.
Hamilton, C. I. (2005). Portsmouth Dockyard Papers, 1852–1869: From Wood to Steel, a Calendar. Winchester:
Portsmouth Records Series.
Hampshire County Council (2005). Threatened Historic Buildings in Hampshire Register: Portsmouth. Winchester:
Hampshire County Council. Retrieved from http://www3.hants.gov.uk/bar_2005.pdf
Hampshire Treasures Survey, II Portsmouth. (1986). Winchester: Hampshire County Council.
Hansard Debates They work for you (1 July 1963). Royal Dockyards (Estimates Committee’s
Reports). Retrieved from http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1963-07-01a.68.1; http://
www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1963-07-01a.37.0; http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
debates/?id=1963-07-01a.68.1; http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1963-07-01a.80.1;
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1963-07-01a.84.0; http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
debates/?id=1963-07-01a.96.1; http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1963-07-01a.99.1
Hansard Debates They work for you (20 March 1969). Vote 7. H.M. Ships, Aircraft and Weapons,
New Construction and Repairs Orders of the Day — Defence (Navy) Estimates, 1969–70.
Retrieved from http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1969-03-20a.799.1; http://
www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1969-03-20a.836.1; http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1969-03-20a.841.1;
Hattendorf John B. et al. (eds). (1993). British Naval Documents 1204–1960. Aldershot: Ashgate/Navy
Records Society.
Hawkins, D., Butler, C. & Skelton, A. (2014). The Iron Slip Cover roofs of the Royal Dockyards
1844–1857. In P. MacDougall, ed., Transactions of the Naval Dockyards Society, 9, Treason’s Harbours:
Dockyards in Art, Literature and Film, 2011 conference, 9 (pp. 53-68).
Haxhaj, E. (2005). More Bang for a Bob: The Decision to ‘Go Nuclear’ and its Impact on Chatham
Dockyard. Mariner’s Mirror, 91(4), 554-71.
Henry, C. (2005). Depth Charge: Royal Naval Mines, Depth Charges & Underwater Weapons, 1914-1945. Barnsley:
Pen and Sword.
377
HE A881503. (Nov 1988). Chatham Dockyard prints FL0624. Photograph of Chatham Dockyard
Timber Drying Shed (1770s), showing vertical timber slats to allow air to circulate.
HE AA026355. (2001). Photograph of the eastern interior of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6 showing
the cinema structure inserted within the area damaged by a bomb in the Second World War.
HE AA034962. (2005). Photograph of Portsmouth Fire station (former water tower), north end
looking south, with the Ropehouse in the background.
HE AA045923. (9.7.2003). Photograph of the floor of Portsmouth Chain Test House, the pathway
consisting of Portsmouth Dockyard cast iron ballast pigs.
HE AA045925. (9.7.2003). Photograph of the interior of Portsmouth Chain Test House looking south.
HE AA045931. (9.7.2003). Photograph of the exterior of Portsmouth Pumping Station No. 1 (2/201)
from the north.
HE AA98/04645. (1956). Portsmouth Dockyard prints FL00981. Photograph of the eastern
elevation of Portsmouth Storehouse No. 11 taken from outside South Office Block Annexe (1931)
by Eric de Mare.
HE AA98/04648. (1956). Portsmouth Dockyard prints FL00981. Photograph by Eric de Mare of
the western gable of Portsmouth Great Ropehouse (1771), before the roof and windows were
HE AA98/04650. (1956). Portsmouth Dockyard prints FL00981.Photograph by Eric de Mare of the
eastern elevation of Portsmouth Storehouse No. 10, with the railway track in evidence.
HE AA98/04652. (1956). Photograph of the west elevation of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6 showing
boats hauled onto its ramp and the Mast Pond.
HE AA98/04662. (1956). Devonport Covered Slip No. 1 (1774–5) photograph by Eric de Mare
showing the roof timbers added in the nineteenth century The only remaining intact eighteenth
century slip within a royal dockyard.
HE ADM01. (June 1908). Numbers and Dimensions of Locks, Docks and Basin Entrances in HM
Dockyards. Admiralty Book.
HE BB003709. (11 Jun 1991). Photograph of the interior of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 7 from the
northwest before its refurbishment in 1993–94.
HE BB012872. (11 Jun 1991). Photograph of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6 from the southwest
before refurbishment in 2001.
HE BB012873. (11 Jun 1991). Photograph of the west elevation of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 6
and the Mast Pond.
HE BB012875. (11 Jun 1991). Photograph of the ground floor interior of Portsmouth Boathouse No.
6 from the northeast, before refurbishment in 2001.
HE BB012878. (11 Jun 1991). Photograph of the first floor interior of Portsmouth Boathouse
No. 6 from the west, before refurbishment in 2001.
HE BB96/03858. (29 Feb 1996). Devonport South Yard South Smithery (S126) photograph along
north side of central building from northeast.
HE BB96/03859. (29 Feb 1996). Devonport South Yard South Smithery (S126) photograph detail
of evidence of the line shaft on the north side of central building.
378
References
HE BB96/03865. (29 Feb 1996). Devonport South Yard South Smithery (S126) photograph of
Cowans Sheldon driven capstan (1926).
HE BB96/03867. (29 Feb 1996). Devonport South Yard South Smithery (S126) photograph of interior
central building, view from southeast.
HE BB96/03891. (29 Feb 1996). Devonport South Yard South Smithery (S126) photograph of north
elevation of centre building.
HE BB97/09263. (28 Jul 1997). Photograph of the spiral Staircase in north end of Boathouse No. 4,
Portsmouth.
HE BB97/09274. (28 Jul 1997). West elevation of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 showing the concrete
supporting trusses at high tide.
HE BB97/09275. (28 July 1997). Photograph of Portsmouth Boathouse No. 4 from the north
west corner.
HE BB97/012856. (28 Jul 1997). Photograph of the northwest corner of Portsmouth Boathouse No.
4 with Boathouse No. 4 Annex on the right.
HE DP13021. (8 Feb 2011). Devonport South Yard: photograph of Building S173 recorded before
demolition. Stone dated 1903 on the west elevation.
demolition. Cast iron lamp bracket on the southwest corner of S173.
demolition. Interior with Cowans Sheldon overhead gantry dated 1941.
demolition. General view looking northeast across the dockyard towards S172 and S173 (King’s Hill
Gazebo) and the newly roofed Covered Slip No. 1.
demolition. View of S173 looking towards the west end doorway on the west elevation King’s Hill
Gazebo can just be seen behind it to the right. Shallow Dock is in the bottom right hand corner.
HE E 48/39. (1948). St Ann’s Church, Portsmouth. Reconstruction Drawing 1939, signed
Diana V. Cundall.
HE J057/01/72. (28 Apr 1971). Portsmouth Storehouse No. 11, north end, conversion to the
McCarthy Museum.
HE J057/03/72. (28 Apr 1971). Photograph of Portsmouth Storehouse No. 11, ground floor
conversion to the McCarthy Museum.
HE J186/01/71. (28 Apr 1971). Photograph of the west elevations of Portsmouth
Storehouses 9, 10 and 11.
HE J186/05/71. (28 Apr 1971). Photograph of Portsmouth Storehouse Nos 9, 10 or 11.
HE J186/06/71. (28 Apr 1971). Photograph of Portsmouth Storehouse No. 9, 10 or 11.
HE J188/01/71. (28 Apr 1971). Photograph of Portsmouth Storehouse Nos 15, 16 and 17 from the
west, showing the former site of Storehouse No. 14 or West Sea Store (1771), which suffered a
direct hit on 24 August 1940.
379
HE J188/03/71. (28 Apr 1971). Photograph of Portsmouth Storehouse Nos 15, 16 and 17 from the
east, showing ‘GR 1771’ inserted in darker bricks on the east elevation of Storehouse No. 16.
HE J195/01/71. (28 Apr 1971). Photograph of Portsmouth Basin No. 1 and Docks 1-5 looking east.
HE J198/01/71. (28 Apr 1971). Photograph of Portsmouth Storehouse No. 25, southwest corner.
HE J198/04/71. (28 Apr 1971). Portsmouth Storehouse No. 25, doorway.
HE J251/01/71. (18 May 1971). Photograph of Muster Bell at Portsmouth Unicorn Gate.
HE J270/09/64. (23 Oct 1964). Photograph of Outmuster at Portsmouth Unicorn Gate.
HE J297/06. (23 June 1971). Photograph of Portsmouth Ship Shop Nos 3-4, south of Slip No. 5,
before their demolition in 1980.
HE J297/11. (23 June 1971). Photograph of the interior of Ship Shop Nos 3-4 before their demolition
in 1980.
HE J360/06/72. (c.1971). Photograph of Portsmouth Storehouse Nos 9, 10, 11: Mr Hartley’s fire
plates on first floor joists and floorboards.
HE J473/03/71. (8 Oct 1971). Photograph of the Portsmouth Cell Block Interior: ground floor
looking east/west.
HE J473/07/71. (8 Oct 1971). Photograph of the Portsmouth Cell Block Interior: first floor cell door.
HE J473/11/71. (8 Oct 1971). Photograph of the Portsmouth Cell Block Interior: urinal.
HE MD48/00074. (1948). Plans in 1785 and 1939 and North Elevation in, St Ann’s Church, HM
HE MD95/03032. (1850–1955). Plan of Portsmouth Dockyard in 1900 showing development and
enlargement from 1540 to 1900. PSA Drawing based on 1850 map showing changes in yellow and
later buildings in red dotted lines, annotated to 1955.
HE MD95/03033. (1898). Second Edition Ordnance Survey, Hampshire Sheet LXXXIII.7.
HE MD95/03034. (1900). Her Majesty’s Dockyard at Portsmouth showing development and
enlargement from 1540 to 1900.
HE MD95/03038. (1932 annotated to 1944). Crane and Railway Track Layout Plan
HM Dockyard Portsmouth.
HE MD95/03039. (1936). Plan Showing Proposed Revision of Boundary of HM Dockyard Portsmouth.
HE MD95/03042. (1905 corrected to 1913). Portsmouth Harbour Plan of Fountain Lake (coloured),
HE MD95/03045. (1930). Western Frontage Plan for Proposed Reconstruction,
HE MD95/03054. (1874). Basins and Locks Portsmouth North Yard Extension Plan. ‘Plan shewing by
a Red Tint the Work included in the first Contract, two locks, one deep dock, two ordinary docks,
two dock entrances, basin and harbour walls.’
HE MD95/03056. (n.d.). Extension of Dockyard Plan and Sections, Docks, Locks And Basins, HM
380
References
HE MD95/03057. (1893–94). Ordnance Survey, Hampshire Sheet LXXXIII.7.8. Plan of Jetty at North
Wall, HM Dockyard, Portsmouth, showing North Corner at the beginning of the twentieth century.
HE MD95/03099. (c.1797). Plan and Sections, Portsmouth Great Basin Entrance and South Dock,
Plan of Improvements proposed by Samuel Bentham. HM Dockyard, Portsmouth.
HE MD95/04038. (1900). Plan of Portsmouth Dockyard New Gun Mounting Store. AE 1900-1901,
Part 1 Item I1 Drawing no. 1 (10.5.00), SCE. To accompany letter to Director of Works (14/12/00).
HE P96/01/60. (June 1960). Photograph of the interior of Portsmouth Ropehouse,
undergoing conversion.
HE P241/53 FL00981/01/001. (09 Mar 1953). Photograph showing progress of the reconstruction of
the former Naval Academy cupola at Portsmouth, following its bomb damage in 1941.
HE PK318/07 FL00982.02.001. (n.d. c.1970s). Photograph of Portsmouth Block Mills from the
southeast.
HE PK318/07 FL00982.02.002. (n.d. c.1970s). Photograph of Portsmouth Block Mills from the
southwest with the head of Dock No. 6 on the left.
HE PK318/10. (c.1900). Photograph of Portsmouth Fire Station personnel, police and divers on
Parade.
HE PK318/11 FL00982.02.001. (8 Mar 1984). Photograph of the conversion of Boathouse No. 5
(1/28) and the Sail Loft (1/27) for the first Mary Rose Museum at Portsmouth.
HE T85 FL00981/01/002. (1965). Aerial photograph of Portsmouth Harbour with Whale Island
at top centre.
HE 15767/34 SU 6200/4. (9 Sept 1997). Aerial photograph of HMS Warrior 1860 and Jetty (1987) at
Portsmouth from the northwest.
HE 15790/04 SU 6200/8. (9 Sept 1997). Aerial photograph from the west of the bombed Storehouse
No. 6 (right of centre) at Portsmouth before its refurbishment in 2001, and the buildings to the west
of College Road (centre right) before they were demolished in 2000.
HE 15790/05 SU 6200/7. (9 Sept 1997). Aerial photograph of Portsmouth Semaphore Tower and
Rigging House from the west.
HE 15790/08 SU 6301/10. (9 Sept 1997). Aerial photograph of Portsmouth Basin No. 3 from the
southeast.
HE 15800/20 SU 6301/13. (9 Sept 1997). Aerial photograph looking west from Basin No. 3 towards
the Tidal Basin and Basin No. 2.
HE 15800/32 SU 6200/16. (9 Sept 1997). Aerial photograph of Portsmouth Victory Building from the
southeast.
HE 15800/33 SU 6200/17. (9 Sept 1997). Aerial photograph of Portsmouth Semaphore Tower and
Rigging House from the east.
HE 23834/01 SU 6200/31. (11 Apr 2005). Aerial photograph of the straightened Western Jetties and
North Corner at Portsmouth from the west.
HE 23834/16 SU 6300/35. (11 Apr 2005). Aerial photograph showing much of Portsmouth
Conservation Area 22, the Georgian Dockyard, showing the heritage area from the east.
HE 23835/03 SU 6200/53. (11 Apr 2005). Aerial photograph of the west of Portsmouth Dockyard
from the east.
381
HE 23852/14 SU 6201/4. (11 Apr 2005). Aerial photograph of Portsmouth North Corner.
HE 23852/15 SU 6301/21. (11 Apr 2005). Aerial photograph of the north elevation of Ship Halls A
and B (2002, 2/121-122) on Basin No. 3.
HE 23852/25 SU 6300/79. (11 Apr 2005). Aerial photograph of the Mary Rose Ship Hall in Dock No.
2 at Portsmouth from the northwest.
HE 23852/27 SU 6300/81. (11 Apr 2005). Aerial photograph of Portsmouth Block Mills from the
southwest, before its refurbishment in 2007–8, when the external staircases were removed.
HE Red Box Hampshire: Portsmouth Churches A-St B. (1738). Brief History and Description of St
Ann’s Church, Portsmouth Dockyard.
Herring, P. (1998). Cornwall’s Historic Landscape: Presenting a method of historic landscape character assessment. Truro:
Cornwall Archaeology Unit, Cornwall County Council.
Herring, P. (1999). Cornwall: how the Historic Landscape Characterisation Methodology was
Developed, in G. Fairclough (ed.), Historic Landscape Characterisation: ‘the State of the Art’. London: English
Heritage, pp. 15-32.
HLF (27.5.2014). £12.8m to bring Plymouth’s legends to life at major new attraction. Retrieved
from https://www.hlf.org.uk/about-us/media-centre/press-releases/%C2%A3128m-bring-plymouths-
legends-life-major-new-attraction
History of the Atlantic Cable & Undersea Communications Company (2012). Retrieved from http://
atlantic-cable.com/CableCos/JohnsonPhillips/index.htm
HM Dockyard, Portsmouth: administrative block features long runs of vertical patent glazing with
semi-circular barrel rooflighting; Architects: Arup Associates. (Mar/Apr 1979). Glass age, 22(2), 28-29.
HMNB Devonport Map. (2010). Devonport Naval Base Handbook. HMNB Devonport: DE&S, p. 5.
Retrieved from http://www.nff.org.uk/pdfdocs/devonport_naval_base_unit_information_booklet_
nov09_smaller.pdf
HMNBPR (1992). HM Naval Base Property Register.
HM Stationery Office. (1981). The United Kingdom Defence Programme: The Way Forward (Cmnd 8288).
London: HMSO. Retrieved from http://fc95d419f4478b3b6e5f-3f71d0fe2b653c4f00f32175760e96e7.
r87.cf1.rackcdn.com/991284B4011C44C9AEB423DA04A7D54B.pdf
Hodson, D. (1978). Maps of Portsmouth before 1801. Portsmouth Record Series 4. Portsmouth:
City of Portsmouth.
House of Commons Sessional Papers (1859). Report of the Committee on dockyard economy. 1859 session 2,
no. 139, vol. xviii, pp. 1-790.
House of Commons Sessional Papers (1860). Report of the Royal Commission appointed to consider the defences of
the United Kingdom. 1860, no. 2682, vol. xxiii, pp. 431-604.
House of Commons Sessional Papers (1861). Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the control
and management of Her Majesty’s yards. 1861, no. 2790, vol. xxvi, pp. 1-660.
House of Commons Sessional Papers (1865). Papers relating to the proposed extension of basin and dock
accommodation in the royal dockyards, 1865, no. 227, vol. xxxv, part I, 1865, pp. 591-634.
House of Commons Debates (07 August 1900). Committee on Naval Boilers. Hansard, vol. 87 cc.922-5.
Retrieved from http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1900/aug/07/committee-on-naval-
boilers
382
References
House of Commons Debates (12 November 1906). Disturbances at Portsmouth, Commons Sitting,
Questions in the House. Hansard 1803–2005, vol. 164, cc1032-3. Retrieved from http://hansard.
millbanksystems.com/commons/1906/nov/12/disturbances-at-portsmouth
House of Commons Debates (17 December 1906). Disturbances at Portsmouth, Commons Sitting,
Questions in the House. Hansard 1803–2005, vol. 167, cc1008-10. Retrieved from http://hansard.
millbanksystems.com/commons/1906/dec/17/the-disturbances-at-portsmouth-admiralty
House of Commons Debates (20 August 1940). Ministry of Supply, London and South Eastern Area
Board, 1940. Admiralty: Eng. Rear-Admiral T. Gurnell, C.B. Hansard 1803–2005, vol. 364, cc1138-43W.
Retrieved from http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1940/aug/20/area-boards
House of Commons Debates (16 December 1963). Royal Naval Dockyard, Devonport. Hansard 1803–
2005, vol. 686 cc163-4W. Retrieved from http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1963/
dec/16/royal-naval-dockyard-devonport
House of Commons Debates (22 January 1969). Written Answers, Hansard 1803–2005, vol. 776 cc123-
4W. Retrieved from http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1969/jan/22/hm-dockyard-
devonport-girl-apprentices#S5CV0776P0_19690122_CWA_130
House of Commons Debates (5 March 1969). Defence. Hansard, vol. 779, cc433-563. Retrieved from
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1969/mar/05/defence#S5CV0779P0_19690305_
HOC_346
House of Commons Debates (10 February 1970). Hansard, vol. 795, cc1054-5. Retrieved from
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1970/feb/10/central-office-block-portsmouth-
dockyard#S5CV0795P0_19700210_HOC_64
House of Commons Debates (19 June 1978). Hansard, vol. 952, cc31-169. Retrieved from http://
hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1978/jun/19/the-royal-navy#S5CV0952P0_19780619_
HOC_278
House of Commons (18 Nov 2013). Hansard Written Answers, cc694-5W. Retrieved from http://www.
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131118/text/131118w0003.htm
House of Lords Debates (10 March 1980). Dockyard Girl Apprentices. Hansard 1803–2005, vol 406,
c539. Retrieved from http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1980/mar/10/dockyards-girl-
apprentices
Ijey, I. (30.5.2013). The Mary Rose museum. Building Co. Retrieved from http://www.building.co.uk/
the-mary-rose-museum/5054899.article
Illustrated London News (Saturday, July 30, 1938). News at Home and Abroad: A Survey by Camera
of Recent Events. London: Illustrated London News Ltd. Issue 5180. Gale Document Number:
HN3100318554. Retrieved from http://find.galegroup.com/iln/infomark. Institution of Civil
Engineering journals. Retrieved from http://www.ice.org.uk/Publications/Journals
Imperial War Museum. Photograph showing a Phoenix Caisson for the Mulberry Harbour under
construction in C Lock, the Royal Naval Dockyard Portsmouth (27.1.1944). IWM Image H 35374
(2003/583 PMRS) supplied by PMRS.
Institution of Civil Engineering journals. Retrieved from http://www.ice.org.uk/Publications/Journals
Institution of Civil Engineering virtual Library (1 January 1881). Portsmouth Dockyard Extension
Works 1881. Plate 4. Colson, C. Portsmouth Dockyard Extension Works (including Appendices and
Plate at back of volume). Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineering, 64 (1881) Part II, 118-
173. Retrieved from http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/article/10.1680/imotp.1881.22215
383
International Journal of Nautical Archaeology. Retrieved from http://www.nauticalarchaeologysociety.org/

shop/international-journal-nautical-archaeology
Isle of Wight Registrars ref: R9/P50.
Jackson, S. (14.7.2013). Bouygues opens new Mary Rose museum. Construction Digital. Retrieved from
http://www.constructiondigital.com/under_construction/bouygues-opens-new-mary-rose-museum
Jacob, G. S. (01 January 1930). H.M. Dockyard, Devonport: Widening of No. 5 Basin Entrance.
(Includes Plate at back of Volume). Minutes of the Proceedings, 229 (1930), 82–95. Retrieved from http://
www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/article/10.1680/imotp.1930.15582
Jaffry, S., Clark, D. & Asteris, M. (2012). Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of Portsmouth Naval Base.
University of Portsmouth/The Partnership for Urban South Hampshire and Solent Local Enterprise
Partnership. Retrieved from http://www.solentlep.org.uk/uploads/documents/Socio-Economic_
Impact_Assessment_ of_Portsmouth_Naval_Base_2012.pdf
Jebb, Sir Joshua (1793–1863). Emsley, C. (2004). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Johnman, L. & Murphy, H. (2002). British Shipbuilding and the State since 1918. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
Johnson, A. (Autumn 2011). Public Industrial Heritage. English Heritage Conservation Bulletin 67, 34-5.
Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/conservation-bulletin-67/cb-67.pdf
Johnson & Phillips Ltd, London (2012). History of the Atlantic Cable & Undersea Communications from the first
submarine cable of 1850 to the worldwide fiber optic network. Johnson and Phillips Cable gear suppliers. Retrieved from
http://atlantic-cable.com/CableCos/JohnsonPhillips/
Johnston, I. & Buxton, I. (2013). The Battleship Builders. Constructing and Arming British Capital Ships. Barnsley:
Seaforth Publishing.
Johnston, I. (2011). Clydebank Battlecruisers: Forgotten Photographs from John Brown’s Shipyard. Annapolis,
Maryland: Naval Institute Press.
Jones, E. (1985). Industrial Architecture in Britain, 1750–1939. London: Batsford.
Jones, F. (May 2002). Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust Support Group Newsletter 3(1), 3-7. Portsmouth
City Record Office Oral History tapes PD3/LK/3A, 3B.
Jones, P. (2006). Ove Arup: Masterbuilder of the Twentieth Century. New Haven, Conn./London: Yale
University Press.
Kerry-Bedell, A. (2012). The Heritage Significance of the 1844 Old Fire Station and 1945 Number 6
Boathouse buildings at Portsmouth Royal Naval Dockyard and their Influence in the Evolution of
Victorian Iron-framed Construction and use of Galvanized Corrugated Iron Cladding. Unpublished
MSc Building Conservation Dissertation, Weald and Downland Museum.
Knight, R. (2011). Changing the Agenda: The ‘New’ Naval History of the British Sailing Navy.
Mariner’s Mirror, 97(1), 225-42.
Kovacs, A. & Bierig, A. (2013). Brutal Taste. In K. May et al (Editors), Brutalism (pp. 30-1).
New York: CLOG.
Kubo, M. Grimley, C. & Pasnik, M. (2013). Heroic. In K. May et al (Editors), Brutalism (p. 167). New
York: CLOG.
Lake, J. (2003). Twentieth-Century Military Sites. Current Approaches to their Recording and Conservation. London:
English Heritage. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/twentieth-
384
References
century-military-sites/twentieth-century-military-sites.pdf
Lake, J., & Douet, J. (1998). Thematic Survey of English Naval Dockyards Summary Report.
Thematic Listing Programme. Draft. Retrieved from www.english-heritage.org.uk/.../
navythematicreport1998_12_06_07.pdf
Lambert, A. (1998). The Foundations of Naval History. London: Chatham Publishing.
Lambert, A. (August 2006). Economic Power, Technological Advantage, and Imperial Strength:
Britain as a Unique Global Power, 1860–1890. International Journal of Naval History, 5(2) (n.p.). Retrieved
from http://www.ijnhonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/article_lambert_aug06.pdf
Lambert, N. (2001). The Submarine Service, 1900–1918. Aldershot: Ashgate/Navy Records Society.
Lambert MBE RN, Lt Commander R. W. (Naval Base Historian). (January 1993). Portsmouth
Dockyard and its Environs. A Chronological History [based on the HM Naval Base Property Register
(1992), with pencil amendments made by Archie Malley, 2011]
Lane, F. (1973). Venice: A Maritime Republic. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lansdowne MS 847. (Dec 1694). A Volume formerly belonging to Robert Harley Esq. afterwards
Earl of Oxford, intitled “An Account of the generall progress and advancement of His Majesties new
docks and yard at Plymouth. Presented to the Right Honourable the principall Officer. London:
British Library.
Lavery, B. (2007). Churchill Goes to War. London: Conway.
Law, A. (1999). Neither Colonial nor Historic: Workers’ Organization at Rosyth Dockyard, 1945–95.
In K. Lunn and A. Day (eds), History of Work and Labour Relations in the Royal Dockyards (pp. 151-78).
London: Mansell.
Leviathan: A 7,500 tonne earthquake-proof concrete wall replaces the steel gate on No. 10 Dock
(1997). Plymouth Reference Library cutting.
Lloyd, D. (1974). The Buildings of Portsmouth and its Environs. Portsmouth: Portsmouth City Council.
Lowe, J. & Preston, J. (2013). Boathouse No. 4 Conservation Management Plan. Didcot: Conservation Plus.
Lunn, K. (1999). The Way Forward? The Royal Dockyards since 1945. In K. Lunn and A. Day (Eds),
History of Work and Labour Relations in the Royal Dockyards (pp. 179-92). London: Mansell.
Lunn, K. and Day, A. (Eds). 1998). Inside the Wall. Recollections of Portsmouth Dockyard 1900–1950.
Portsmouth: University of Portsmouth.
Lunn, K. & Day, A. (1999). Continuity and Change: Labour Relations in the Royal Dockyards,
1914–50. In K. Lunn and A. Day (eds), History of Work and Labour Relations in the Royal Dockyards (pp.
127-150). London: Mansell.
Macdonald, S. (18–20 September 1996). Technical Responses to Typical Conservation Problems
or Architecture in England After the War – Current Research and Case Studies from English
Heritage. Proceedings of the Fourth International Docomomo Conference (pp. 178-82) Retrieved from http://www.
docomomo.com/shop/node/58
MacIntyre, H. (01 December 1992). Weston Mill Lake, H.M. Naval Base, Devonport. Construction
of a Jetty using Concrete Caissons. Proceedings of the ICE - Water Maritime and Energy, 96(4), 227-234.
Retrieved from http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/article/10.1680/iwtme.1992.21672
Malcolmson, G. (2013). Archivist, Royal Navy Submarine Museum, pers. comm.
385
Mara, F. (5.6.2013). The Ship’s Sarcophagus: Mary Rose Museum by Wilkinson Eyre. Architects’ Journal.
Retrieved from http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/the-ships-sarcophagus-mary-rose-
museum-by-wilkinson-eyre/8648915.article
Marden, D. (2011). The Hidden Railways of Portsmouth and Gosport. Southampton: Kestrel.
Marden, D. (2012). The building of Southampton Docks. Derby: Derby Books.
Marine News (20 January 2014). Plymouth, UK, Maritime Development Land Deal Signed. Marine
News. New York: Marine News. Retrieved from http://www.marinelink.com/news/development-
maritime363168.aspx
Marine News (4 April 2014). Britain Seeks Tenant for BAE’s Portsmouth Shipyard. Marine News. New York:
Marine News. Retrieved from http://www.marinelink.com/news/portsmouth-shipyard366395.aspx
Mary Rose Museum (2013). Design of New Museum. Mary Rose Museum, Portsmouth Historic Dockyard.
Mazeika, C. (2013). Deptford Master Shipwright’s House, pers. comm.
Mazeika, C. & Richards, W. (forthcoming, 2015). The Role of Post-Closure Documentation in
Understanding the History of the Dockyard Officers’ Terrace at Deptford. Transactions of the Naval
Dockyards Society, 11. Five Hundred Years of Deptford and Woolwich Royal Dockyards, 2013 conference.
May, Commander W. E. (Compiler). (c.1951–69). Dockyard Officers’ Lists. Greenwich: National
Maritime Museum.
Mayhead, F. (Nov 2000). Fred Mayhead, A Grade Blacksmith Portsmouth Dockyard, 1935–1978.
Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust Support Group Newsletter 2(2), 4-10. Portsmouth City Record Office
Oral History tape PD3/AD/107, recorded on 13.3.1996.
McCloud, K. (Presenter). (5 March 2008; 12 February 2003). The Wooden Box Revisited [Television
series episode]. Grand Designs Revisited. London: Channel4.
McMurray, C. (Spring 2012). The National Museum of the Royal Navy: A century of British naval
heritage. Scuttlebutt, 44, 21-26.
Medieval Archaeology Journal http://www.medievalarchaeology.co.uk/index.php/publications-2/journal/
Merriman, R. D. (1961). Queen Anne’s Navy. London: Navy Records Society.
Meÿer, C. H. (1 January 1881). Temporary Works and Plant at the Portsmouth Dockyard Extension
(including Appendices and Plate at back of volume). Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institute of
Civil Engineering, 64(1881), 174-206. Retrieved from http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/
article/10.1680/imotp.1881.22216
Michell, V. (2016, forthcoming). Evolution of the Dreadnought Battleship based on Naval
Construction during the First World War. Transactions of the Naval Dockyards Society, 12, British Dockyards in the
First World War, 2014 NDS conference.
MMO (Marine Management Organisation) (2013). South marine plan areas futures analysis. A report produced for
the Marine Management Organisation by ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd. Newcastle upon Tyne: Marine
Management Organisation. Retrieved from http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/evidence/
documents/1039.pdf
MoD ALNHBP, AdL, Vz 14/43 (1908-23). Devonport North Yard. Devonport Dockyard Defence
Estates Plans. Scale 1:2500.
MoD ALNHBP, AdL, Vz 14/44 (1900–1923). H.M. Dockyard Devonport North and South Yards
Keyham Steam Yard and Naval Barracks, Compiled by E. J. Powell from Mr. Townshend’s Survey of
386
References
North and South Yards and the Ordnance Survey. Director of Works Office 1903. Defence Estates
Plans. Scale 1”:16’.
MoD ALNHBP. AdL Vz 14/110 (1851–1895). Plan of part of HM Dockyard Portsmouth before its
enlargement, annotated to 1895. Thomas A. Mould, Captain R. E., 4/1/1851. Director of Works
Office, 3.1.1851. Defence Estates Plans.
MoD ALNHBP, AdL, Vz 14/111 (1875). Portsmouth Dockyard Extension: Plan Shewing state of the
works in Jany. 1875 (progress since 1865). To accompany Colonel Pasley’s Report of Feb. 1875.
Director of Works. Defence Estates Plans.
MoD ALNHBP. AdL, Vz 14/113 (1896–1903). Portsmouth Plan No. 2. Ordnance Survey 1896, Order-
in-Council 26.11.03. Defence Estates Plans.
MoD ALNHBP, AdL, Vz 14/115 (1897–1907). HM Dockyard Portsmouth Harbour (1907–12). Defence
Estates Plans, Scale 1:2500.
MoD ALNHBP. AdL, Vz 17/16 (1896, corrected to 1909). His Majesty’s Dockyard at Portsmouth
Defence Estates Plans, Scale 1:2500.
MoD (1974). HM Naval Base Building Location Numerical Index.
MoD (2009). Heritage Report 2007–2009. Sutton Coldfield: Defence Estates. Retrieved from https://www.
gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/33360/heritage_rpt_200709.pdf
MoD HMNB Devonport Map. (2010). Devonport Naval Base Handbook. HMNB Devonport: DE&S, p. 5.
Retrieved from http://www.nff.org.uk/pdfdocs/devonport_naval_base_unit_information_booklet_
nov09_smaller.pdf
MoD (2012). HM Naval Base Portsmouth, Site Plan.
MoD (2014). Public Access to Military Areas. https://www.gov.uk/public-access-to-military-areas;
http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/evidence/documents/1039.pdf
Moore, R. (2.6.2013). Mary Rose Museum Review. The Observer. Retrieved from http://www.
theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/jun/02/mary-rose-museum-portsmouth-review
Museum of London Archaeology (MoLA) (2015). Portsmouth Harbour Hinterland Project (Project
no. 7082 carried out for Heritage England Heritage Protection & Planning Group). London: MoLA.
NAO (6 December 2002). Ministry of Defence: The Construction of Nuclear Submarine Facilities at Devonport.
London: National Audit Office. Retrieved from http://www.nao.org.uk/press-releases/ministry-of-
defence-the-construction-of-nuclear-submarine-facilities-at-devonport-2/
NAO (2010). Ministry of Defence. A Defence Estate of the Right Size to meet Operational Needs. London: The
Stationery Office. Retrieved from http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/101170.pdf
NAO (24 June 2015). Disposal of public land for new homes. Report by the Comptroller and
Auditor General. DCLG. Retrieved from http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/
Disposal-of-public-land-for-new-homes.pdf
National Historic Ships Register. Retrieved from http://www.nationalhistoricships.org.uk/
register/482/m33-minerva
National Museum of the Royal Navy. Retrieved from http://www.nmrn-portsmouth.org.uk/
National Portrait Gallery, Mark Edwin Pescott-Frost. Retrieved from http://www.npg.org.uk/
collections/search/person/mp101144/mark-edwin-prescott-frost
National Probate Calendar (1948). Index of Wills and Administrations.
387
NATO history (2013). Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/history/nato-history.html

Naval Defence Act (31 May 1889). (52 & 53 Vict.) c. 8.
Naval Dockyards Society (2015). Retrieved from navaldockyards.org
Naval Review (Feb 1921). Great Ships Or? Naval Review, IX(I). pp. 31-3. Retrieved from http://www.
naval-review.co.uk/issues/1921-1.pdf
Naval Review (Aug 1932). Some Aspects of Disarmament and War Debts. Naval Review, XX(3) pp. 501-7.
Retrieved from http://www.naval-review.co.uk/issues/1932-3.pdf
Naval Works Act (July 1895) (58 & 59 Vict.), c. 35.
NavSource Naval History (2014). USS Welles/HMS Cameron. Retrieved from http://www.navsource.org/
archives/05/257.htm
Navy and Army Illustrated (October 1901).
NDS (2015). Retrieved from navaldockyards.org
NDS (Naval Dockyards Society) to PCC Planning Committee (28 June 2010). Planning Application
Reference: 10/00640/FUL HM Naval Base South Yard Devonport Plymouth PL1 4SG: Proposal:
Development of a new Production Facility, Office Building, Test Facility & Associated External Works.
Neville, A. M. (2011). Properties of Concrete. Harlow: Pearson.
Neville, A. M. (2006). Concrete: Neville’s Insights and Issues. London: Thomas Telford.
Neville, A. M. & Brooks, J. J. (2010). Concrete Technology. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
New Museum Tells Dockyard Story (April 29, 1969). Western Morning News, Plymouth. Retrieved from
http://www.plymouthdata.info/Royal%20Dockyard.htm
New Zealand Herald (19 December 1906). The Portsmouth Riot. New Zealand Herald, XLIII(13364), p. 7.
Retrieved from http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=NZH19061219.2.53.
Newcomen Society Index. Retrieved from http://newcomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/
vols1to32index.pdf
NMM (17 October 1698). POR/A/101, fos 165-9, Portsmouth Commissioner Henry Greenhill to the
Respective Officers at Portsmouth Yard.
NMM (1700). SER/104. Miscellaneous letters/orders to the Navy Board, 1697–1700, the Sergison
Papers.
NMM (10.7.1711). POR/A/5. In-letters from the Navy Board.
NMM (14 December 1814). ADM/BP/34b Lists of Workmen sent to the Navy Board.
NMM (7 March 1924–9 July 1924). SNR/7/2. Victory papers and correspondence between Sir
Doveton Sturdee, Geoffrey Callender and Portsmouth Dockyard.
NMRN (2014). Impact Report. Retrieved from http://www.nmrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/IMPACT%20
2014_WEB.pdf
NMRN (10 December 2014). Trustees’ report and Consolidated Financial Statements 2013-14. HM Naval Base
Portsmouth: NMRN. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/398560/45150_HC_839_accessible.pdf
NMRNP, Dockyard Model (National Museum of the Royal Navy, Portsmouth) [1938]. Engineer
388
References
Admiral T. Gurnell, CB.

O’Byrne W. R. (1997, Reprint of 1849, London: Murray). Naval Biographical Dictionary. Dallington: Rowe.
Odgers, D. (Editor). (2013). English Heritage Practical Building Conservation. Concrete. Farnham: English
Heritage/Ashgate. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/concrete-
conservation/concrete-marketing-spreads.pdf
OED (1986). Compact edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (2 volumes). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oppenheim, M. (Ed.). (1896). Naval Accounts and Inventories of the Reign of Henry VII. London: Navy
Records Society.
Oppenheim, M. (Author), K. R. Andrews, K. R. (Editor) (1988). A History of the Administration of the Royal
Navy, 1509-1660 (2nd edition). Aldershot: Temple Smith.
Osgood, S. (August 1978). Precast concrete walling for a naval base, which encompasses a
submarine dry dock, with refit facilities, and a maintenance base for ships afloat: Architects: Howell,
Killick, Partridge and Amis. Concrete, pp. 12-15.
Otte, T. G. (2011). Grey Ambassador: The Dreadnought and Foreign Policy. In R. Blyth, J. Rüger
and A. Lambert (Eds). The Dreadnought and the Edwardian Age (pp. 51-78). Farnham: Ashgate/National
Maritime Museum.
Otter, R. A. (2004). The Construction of Dry Docks to World War I: The Evidence of The Enwgineer.
Transactions of the Newcomen Society, 74(2), 197-214.
Owen, D. (1913). Figureheads. Mariner’s Mirror, 3, 289-94; 321-7.
Oxford City Council (n.d.). Oxford Character Assessment Toolkit. Oxford: Oxford City Council.
Retrieved from http://www.oxford.gov.uk/Direct/CharacterAssessmentToolkitIntroduction.pdf
Oxford City Council (2008–10). How we developed The Oxford Character Assessment
Toolkit. Oxford: Oxford City Council. Retrieved from http://www.oxford.gov.uk/Direct/
CharacterAssessmentToolkitHowItwasDeveloped.pdf
Palmer, M. (Autumn 2011). Skills and new blood in industrial Archaeology. English Heritage Conservation
Bulletin 67, 9-11. Retrieved from https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/conservation-
bulletin-67/cb-67.pdf
Palmerston Forts Society. Retrieved from http://www.palmerstonfortssociety.org.uk/
Pattern maker (Sept 1999). A Pattern Maker. Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust Support Group
Newsletter 1(1), 3-4. Portsmouth City Record Office Oral History tapes.
Patterson, B. (1989). Giv’er a Cheer Boys. The Great Docks of Portsmouth Dockyard 1830-1914. Portsmouth:
Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Society.
Patterson, B. (November 2000). Scott of the Antarctic. PRDHTSG Newsletter, 2(2), 1-2.
Patterson, B. (2005). The Royal Navy at Portsmouth since 1900. Liskeard: Maritime Books.
Patterson, B. H. and Riley, R. C. (1984). Portsmouth Royal Dockyard. A short photographic history. Portsmouth:
Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Society.
Pearce, C. & Lohn, M. B. (01 December 1992). Weston Mill Lake, H.M. Naval Base, Devonport.
Design of Frigate Maintenance Berths. Proceedings of the ICE - Water Maritime and Energy, 96(4),
235-246. Retrieved from http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/article/10.1680/iwtme.1992.21673
389
Pearman, H. (December 2012). Obituary John Winter 1930-2012. RIBA Journal. Retrieved from http://
www.ribajournal.com/pages/dec12__obituary_197000.cfm
Penrose, S. (Ed.). (2010). Images of Change: An Archaeology of England’s Contemporary Landscape. Swindon:
English Heritage.
Pescott-Frost, M. E. (1911). H.M. Dockyard Museum, Catalogue of Figure-Heads, Models, Pictures, Relics, Trophies
&c in the Museum, &c. H.M. Dockyard, Portsmouth. Portsmouth: Gale & Polden.
Pevsner, N. (1936). Pioneers of the Modern Movement from William Morris to Walter Gropius. London: Faber & Faber.
Pevsner, N. (1943). An Outline of European Architecture. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Pevsner, N. & Lloyd, D. (1990; 1967 1st edn.). The Buildings of England. Hampshire & The Isle of Wight.
London: Penguin.
Pevsner, N. & Cherry, B. (1989). The Buildings of England. Devon. London: Penguin.
Piper, J. (January 1938). The Nautical Style. Architectural Review, pp.1-14.
Plymouth City Council (2005). Buildings at Risk Register for Plymouth. Plymouth: Plymouth City Council.
Retrieved from http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/homepage/creativityandculture/heritageandhistory/
historicenvironment/buildingsatrisk.htm
Plymouth City Council (2005). The Strategic Environmental Assessment /Sustainability Appraisal of Preferred Options
for Devonport Area Action Plan, Volume 2. Bristol: Land Use Consultants and TRL. Retrieved from http://
www.plymouth.gov.uk/devonport_preferred_options_sea_report_read_only.pdf
Plymouth City Council (2006). Devonport Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan. Plymouth:
from http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/devonport_conservation_area_appraisal_and_management_
plan_part_6.pdf
Plymouth City Council (July 2006). Plymouth Characterisation Study & Management Proposals. Plymouth:
Plymouth City Council (adopted 2007). The Devonport Area Action Plan 2006–2021. Plymouth: Plymouth
City Council Department of Development. Retrieved from http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/devonport_
chapters_1_to_4.pdf
Plymouth City Council (2013). Plymouth Buildings at Risk Register. Plymouth: Plymouth City
Council. Retrieved from http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/text/buildingsatriskregister
Plymouth City Council Planning Application 14/02269/OUT (26 March 2015).
Devonport Dockyard, South Yard, (Areas 1 and 5) Devonport Plymouth. Retrieved
from http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/planningapplicationsv4/detail.asp?AltRef=14/02269/
OUT&ApplicationNumber=14%2F02269%2FOUT&AddressPrefix=&submit2=Go
Plymouth City Council Planning Application 14/02268/LBC (26 March 2015).
Devonport Dockyard, South Yard, (Areas 1 and 5) Devonport Plymouth. Retrieved
from http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/planningapplicationsv4/detail.asp?AltRef=14/02268/
LBC&ApplicationNumber=14%2F02268%2FLBC&AddressPrefix=&submit2=Go
Plymouth and the South West Peninsula City Deal (2014). Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/271936/Plymouth_City_Deal_Document_and_
Implementation_Plans.pdf
Plymouth and the South West Peninsula City Deal (2014). Booklet retrieved from http://www.plymouth-
chamber.co.uk/uploads/CityDeal%20BookletLR-281013-2.pdf
390
References
Plymouth Herald (September 27, 2008). Colossus of Devonport is coming down. Retrieved from http://
www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Colossus-Devonport-coming/story-12689909-detail/story.html
Plymouth Naval Base Museum. Retrieved from http://www.devonmuseums.net/Plymouth-Naval-
Base-Museum/Devon-Museums/
Plymouth Reference Library: files of local press cuttings, notably of the Evening Herald (11 April 1987),
a Devonport Dockyard picture special, (September 19, 1998) and a special issue (February 2000),
showing the reconstructed submarine facilities and the HKPA administration block demolished and
replaced by a lower building with a larger footprint.
PMRS, 88A/1/10/1. (1940–44). Bomb Map Portsmouth compiled by Wartime Records, drawn by
Joseph Parkin, MICE, City Engineer.
PMRS, 404A (n.d.). Notes and papers of the late Mr R. S. Horne, LRIBA.
PMRS, AFL03/A229825. Portsea: Aerial Views: HMS Nelson/RN Barracks with former accommodation
blocks and Nile (1973). Local Studies Collection Illustrations; Historic England Aerofilms.
PMRS, PORMG 1945/619. Photograph by W. L. Lawrence: ‘Stand easy Flathouse’, the Floating Dock.
PMRS, PORMG 1945/652/5. Photograph by Stephen Cribb, ‘The last of the Old Semaphore Tower
falling down after the day of the fire in 1913.’
PMRS, PORMG 1945/653/16. Photograph by Reginald Silk showing C3 submarine leaving
Portsmouth Harbour passing Semaphore Tower, a paddle steamer and HMS Dreadnought moored at
South Railway Jetty, entitled ‘Submarine passing the Dreadnought’.
PMRS, PORMG 1945/654/2. Photograph of the launch of super Dreadnought HMS Orion on 20
August 1910. The ship was laid down 29 November 1909 on Portsmouth Slip No. 5.
PMRS, PORMG 2009/124/17. Portsmouth photograph entitled ‘No. 642 New Locks. Removal of
Coaling Point Sept 1912’.
PMRS, PORMG, PD3/AD/107 (recorded 13.3.1996). Mayhead, Fred. A Grade Blacksmith Portsmouth
Dockyard, 1935–1978. Portsmouth City Record Office Oral History tape. Royal Dockyard Historical
Trust Collection. Catalogue entry retrieved from http://www.portsmouthmuseums.co.uk/collections/
index.html
PMRS, PORMG, PD3/LF/55. An anonymous man who entered the dockyard as a Pattern Maker
Apprentice in 1938. Portsmouth City Record Office Oral History tape. Royal Dockyard Historical Trust
Collection. Portsmouth Museums and Records Service. Catalogue entry retrieved from http://www.
portsmouthmuseums.co.uk/collections/index.html
PNBPT (Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust) (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.pnbpropertytrust.
org/; http://www.portsmouthdockyard.org.uk/page%208.htm; http://www.portsmouthdockyard.org.
uk/Page%209.htm
PNBPT Archive (29 June 1989). Storehouses 9, 10, 11. Feasibility Study: Use of Storehouses 9, 10, 11
in the Royal Naval Dockyard. Cecil Denny Highton, Architects.
PNBPT Archive (1987). Storehouse 11 roof repairs. PCC Department of Architecture and Civic
Design, PNBPT Archive, White Box File: Stores 10 and 11 Bridge Link Plans, Pink Folder:
Storehouse 10 Clocktower and Cupola: Drawings.
PNBPT Archive (1987–1989). Stores 10 and 11 Bridge Link Plans. RNM Temporary Use Storehouse
11. Watts and Partners & miscellaneous correspondence. White Box File: Faded blue file: Vol. I. Jun
87–Dec 89.
391
PNBPT Archive (16.11.89). Entablature and Capital to Clock Tower, Project No. 61, Drawing
PX61/5K/2, Storehouse No. 10.
PNBPT Archive (12 September 1989) Ancient Monuments Board for England Panel discussion,
Stores 10 and 11 Bridge Link Plans, RNM Temporary Use Storehouse 11, Vol. I, Jun 87–Dec89.
PNBPT Archive (1998–2006). Boathouse No. 6 Structural Plans, Box 210. MacCormac Jamieson
Prichard (1998).
PNBPT Archive Record Photographs (June 1998) 1-46, Boathouse No. 6 before refurbishment.
PNBPT Archive (Jan–Oct 2001). Naval Recruitment Office/Tourist Information Office, Richard
Partington Architects plans and elevations.
Portsmouth Dockyard Act (1864). 27 & 28 Victoria, c. 103)
Portsmouth permission; Architects: John Winter & Associates (29 January 1993). Building Design,
1109, 5.
Portsmouth Telegraph, Mottley’s Naval and Military Journal (28 April 1800). portsmouth. to be sold by auction,
by mr. collins (on the premises,) On Monday the 5th of May, 1800.
PRDHT (Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust). History of the Trust http://www.
portsmouthdockyard.org.uk/Page%202.htm
Presswell, P. T. (1975). H M Naval Base Devonport: Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings. London: HMSO
DoE/PSA/MoD Joint Planning Team Publication.
Princess Yachts International (31 October 2011). Full Steam Ahead for New Superyacht Facility. Plymouth:
Princess Yachts International. Retrieved from http://www.princessyachts.com/news/regional-
growth-fund
Pulvertaft, D. (Feb 2009). Warship Figureheads from the Royal Dockyards: towards a National
Collection? The Mariner’s Mirror, 95(1), 76-86, doi: 10.1080/00253359.2009.10657085.
PWDRO, 663/30. Devonport Dockyard, machinery shop, 1911. Conversion of machine shop to
heavy gun store.
PWDRO, 1418/1220. Devonport Central Hall, Open Air Service, Plymouth, c.1942.
PWDRO, 1418/1360. Photograph Devonport, Fore Street, air raid damage, c. October 1941.
PWDRO, 1418/2303. HMS Achates, Devonport, Launch by Lady Leatham, 20 September 1945.
PWDRO, 1555/2. Plymouth Blitz “Bomb Book” page 2, showing the approximate location of
unexploded bombs marked in blue and dealt with by the Bomb Squad and also the times bombs
were reported as having exploded (c.1944).
PWDRO, 1555/40. Plymouth Blitz “Bomb Book” page 40, noted as Air Raid 38, showing approximate
location of bombs dropped on all areas of the central part of Plymouth on 21 Apr 1941.
PWDRO, 1555/41. Plymouth Blitz “Bomb Book” page 41, noted as Air Raids 38A, showing the
approximate route of three specific raids and location of bombs dealt with by the Bomb Disposal
Squad and the times bombs exploded. Air raid number 38 (21–22 April 1941) from St Budeaux,
Devonport, Victoria Park, York Street, Treville Street, Embankment Road to Laira and Cattedown.
Air raid number 39 (22–23 April 1941) from West Hoe, Millbay, Union Street, Devonport Hill,
Devonport, Ford, across Tavistock Road, Central Park towards Mutley and Thorn Park Avenue. Air
raid number 40 (23–24 April 1941) from Embankment Road area, Sutton Harbour, city centre, north
of Stonehouse, Devonport, Stoke, Camels Head, Weston Mill, east of King’s Tamerton, Burrington,
Pennycross and Torr Crescent.
392
References
PWDRO, 1555/42. Plymouth Blitz “Bomb Book” page 42, noted as Air Raids 39 and 40, showing
the approximate location of bombs dropped on the city of Plymouth, including Devonport and
Stonehouse, 22–23 Apr 1941.
Ravenstein Ship Caissons (2009; 2012). J/08; Q/10. Retrieved from http://www.ravestein.nl/
portfolio/j08-caisson-devonport-naval-base/ http://www.ravestein.nl/portfolio/q10-caisson-
devonport/
RCHME (Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England) (1995). Sheerness: The Dockyard,
Defences and Blue Town. Swindon: National Monuments Record Centre.
Redford, D. (2010). The Submarine. A Cultural History from the Great War to Nuclear Combat. London: Tauris.
Reidel, J. (2013). Ugly. In K. May et al. (Editors), Brutalism (pp. 126-7). New York: CLOG.
RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) Library. Retrieved from http://www.architecture.com/
LibraryDrawingsAndPhotographs/RIBALibrary/
RIBA Journal (April 1979). Fleet Maintenance Base, Plymouth: Architects: Howell, Killick, Partridge
and Amis. RIBA Journal, pp. 160-63.
RIBA Journal (August 1980). Fleet Maintenance base, and submarine refit complex: Architects:
Howell, Killick, Partridge and Amis, RIBA Journal, p. 73.
Richards, J. M. (1958). The Functional Tradition in Early Industrial Buildings. London: The Architectural Press.
Rigby, J. C. Commodore RN (4 June 2013). Naval Base Commander Portsmouth, pers. comm.
Riley, R. C. (1984). A Bentham Caisson, H M Naval Base Portsmouth. Association for Industrial Archaeology
Bulletin, 11(3), 1-2.
Riley, R. C. (1985). The Evolution of the Docks and Industrial Buildings in Portsmouth Royal Dockyard 1698-1914,
Portsmouth Papers, 44. Portsmouth: Portsmouth City Council.
Riley, R. C. (1986). H M Dockyard Portsmouth. An Industrial Archaeological Overview. Industrial
Archaeology Review, 8, 177-93.
Riley, R. C. (1987). Urban Conservation or Private Museum? Historic Architecture in Portsmouth
Dockyard. Urban Conservation, International Contrasts, Occasional Paper No. 7, Department of Geography,
Portsmouth Polytechnic, pp. 8-13.
Riley, R. C. (1989). Wooden Walls and Ironclads. In J. Webb et al (Eds.), The Spirit of Portsmouth. A
History (pp. 36-52). Chichester: Phillimore.
Riley, R. C. (1995). Equipment Used in the Extension of Portsmouth Dockyard 1868–74 and 1910–
13. VII Congress of the International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage, Madrid, pp. 395-402.
Riley, R. C. (1999). A Model-based Approach to Unravelling Naval Defence Heritage: Supply-and
Demand-side Issues in Portsmouth’s Coastal Zone. Ocean & Coastal Management 42, 891-908.
Riley, R. C. (2014). All will be revealed? Equipment in some buildings in Portsmouth Dockyard.
Hampshire Industrial Archaeology Society Journal, 22, 3-11.
Riley, R. and Clark, C. (2014). Women at work in Portsmouth Dockyard 1914–19. Hampshire Industrial
Archaeology Society Journal, 22, 12-18.
RMG (Royal Museums Greenwich Collections) Robert Sutherland Horne (1909–1973). Retrieved
from http://collections.rmg.co.uk/archive/objects/466691.html.
Rodger, N. A. M. (1979). The Admiralty. Lavenham, Suffolk: Dalton.
393
Rogers, M. (2016, forthcoming). Rosyth Dockyard 1903–1925: Its conception, birth, growth and
demise. Transactions of the Naval Dockyards Society, 12, British Dockyards in the First World War, 2014 NDS
conference.
Rogers, R. (July–October 2013). Richard Rogers RA Inside Out. Burlington Gardens London: Royal
Academy of Arts exhibition.
Rohan, T. (2013). The Rise and Fall of Brutalism, Rudolph and the Liberal Consensus. In K.
May et al (Editors), Brutalism (pp. 60-1). New York: CLOG.
Rossiter, K. (May 11, 2014). Naval heritage centre set for city centre move as part of £21m history
development. Plymouth Herald. Retrieved from http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Naval-heritage-
centre-set-city-centre-21m-history/story-21084145-detail/story.html
Rosyth Dockyard, Power Station (Building No. 333) listed 2006. Retrieved from http://www.
britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/sc-50783-rosyth-dockyard-power-station-building-no
Royal Archives Windsor Castle (1942). GVI/Priv/Diary 30.9.1942.
Royal Navy (1 August 1974). Renaming Ceremony [of the Royal Naval Barracks from HMS Victory to HMS
Nelson ]. Royal Navy brochure.
Royal Navy and Naval History Net (1998–2014). HMS Cameron. Retrieved from http://www.naval-
history.net/xGM-Chrono-11US-HMS_Cameron.htm
Royal Navy (2010). Devonport Naval Base Handbook. Plymouth: Plymouth HIVE/DE&S. Retrieved from
http://www.nff.org.uk/pdfdocs/devonport_naval_base_unit_information_booklet_nov09_smaller.pdf
Royal Navy ships of World War I. Retrieved from http://www.naval-history.net/
WW1NavyBritishShips-Dittmar1.htm
Royal Navy Honours and Gallantry Awards, Part 4 (5 June 1917). With thanks to the London Gazette,
30116. Retrieved from http://www.naval-history.net/WW1Battle1605Jutland4.htm; http://www.
patriotfiles.com/archive/navalhistory/WW1NavyBritishLondonGazette1704.htm
Rudd, M., Henderson, R., Usher, D., and Hawtin, M. (May 2008). Rapid Review of Research on
Apprenticeships. Policy Research Institute, Faculty of Business and Law. Coventry: Leeds Metropolitan University/
Learning and Skills Council. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/9605/1/Apprenticeships_
Literature_Review_final.pdf
Rudkin, D. (1986). Archaeology. Hampshire Treasures Survey, II Portsmouth (pp. 1-8). Winchester:
Hampshire County Council.
Ryan, J. (2011). Women Naval Dockyard Workers in Two Nineteenth century Dockyard Towns – Chatham and Plymouth
(published MPhil thesis, University of Greenwich, Greenwich. Retrieved from http://gala.gre.
ac.uk/7781/
Ryde Social Heritage Group (July 2009). 19th Century Entertainments in Ryde. Ryde Social
Heritage Group Newsletter, 4(3), pp. 1-6. Retrieved from http://www.rshg.org.uk/documents/
RSHGNewsletterJuly20092.pdf
Sadden, J. (2012). Portsmouth & Gosport at War. Stroud: Amberley Publishing.
Sargent, E. (2008). The Development of Dock Construction at the Royal Dockyards in the
Nineteenth Century. In Ray Riley (Ed.), Transactions of the Naval Dockyards Society, 4, Management &
Construction, Conferences, 1998, 1999 & 2000 (pp. 91-114). Portsmouth: Naval Dockyards Society.
Savile, Sir L., Reed, H.A., Sandeman, C. H., Binns, A., Gedye, N. G., Jacob, G.S., and Mitchell, J. (1
January 1930). Discussion on Reconstruction of Docks. Minutes of the Proceedings, 229(1930), 114-126.
394
References
Retrieved from http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/article/10.1680/imotp.1930.15584

Schofield, J. (Spring 2005). Historic Royal dockyards Continue to Serve a Military Function or Offer
Potential for Redevelopment. English Heritage Conservation Bulletin 48: p. 18. Retrieved from http://www.
english-heritage.org.uk/publications/conservation-bulletin-48/cb4816naval.pdf
Schofield, J. (Autumn 2007). Change and Creation: the New English Landscape, 1950–2000. Modern
Times. Conservation Bulletin 56, 2-5. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/
conservation-bulletin-56/cb56pp1-6.pdf
Schofield, J. & Lake, J. (1995). Defining our Defence Heritage. English Heritage Conservation Bulletin, 27,
16-18. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/conservation-bulletin-27/
conservationbulletin27.pdf
Schulman, S., & Rader, A. C. (1981). Defence Programme: The Way Forward. The RUSI Journal, 126(3).
Scott, G. H. (01 January 1908). Keyham Dockyard Extension: Temporary Works, and Plant and
Appliance used in construction. Minutes of the Proceedings, 172(1908), pp. 25-45. Retrieved from http://
www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/article/10.1680/imotp.1908.17325
SDSR, HM Government (2010). Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: the Strategic Defence and Security Review.
London: The Stationery Office. Retrieved from http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/
dg_ digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf
Secretary of State for Defence (1981). The United Kingdom Defence Programme: The Way Forward. Cmnd. 8288.
London: HMSO.
Seligmann, M. S., Frank Nägler, F. and Epkenhans, M. (Eds). (2015). The Naval Route to the Abyss. The
Anglo-German Naval Race 1895–1914. Navy Records Society Publication No 61. London: Ashgate/Navy
Records Society.
Slight, H. and J. (1828). Chronicles of Portsmouth. London: Relfe.
Smith, M. (August 2002). The D154 project: Redevelopment of the Submarine Support Facilities at
Devonport Royal Dockyard. Ingenia, 13, 27-34. Retrieved from http://www.ingenia.org.uk/ingenia/
issues/issue13/Smith.pdf
Smith, M. (Feb 2003). The D154 project: Redevelopment of the Submarine Support Facilities at
Devonport Royal Dockyard. Engineering Technology.
Smith, M. (May/June 2004). The D154 project: Redevelopment of the Submarine Support Facilities
at Devonport Royal Dockyard. Nuclear Engineer.
Smith, M. (March 2009). Colossus demolished. Ingenia, 38, 26-32. Retrieved from http://www.ingenia.
org.uk/ingenia/issues/issue38/Smith.pdf
Smith, M. (2014). The Royal Naval Air Service during the Great War. Barnsley: Pen and Sword.
Smith, W. (2001). St Ann’s Church. A Brief History. Portsmouth: HM Naval Base.
Smithson, P., Unglaub, K. & Spellman, C. (2005). Conversations with Students: a space for our generation.
New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Society for Nautical Research journal The Mariner’s Mirror. Retrieved from http://www.snr.org.uk/
pages/top-mast/mariners-mirror ; http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmir20#.UgH4G6xGYUc
Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology Journal. Retrieved from http://www.spma.org.uk/journal.php
Southampton Floating Dock. Tynebuilt Ships. Retrieved from http://www.tynebuiltships.co.uk/S-
Ships/southamptondock1924.html
395
Spring, M. (26 August 1994) Turn styles: visitor centres. Building, 259, No. 7857(34), 24-27.
Stanley, C. (January 2015). Engine Fitter Apprentice Chatham, September 1967 to September 1971,
pers. comm.
Steedman, H., Gospel, H. and Ryan, P. (Oct 1998). Apprenticeship: A Strategy for Growth. Centre
for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Political Science. Retrieved from
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/20248/1/Apprenticeship_A_Strategy_For_Growth.pdf
Stephens, R. (21 October 2005). Sculptor, Salisbury, pers. comm.
Stocker, D. (1995). Choosing Industrial Monuments. English Heritage Conservation Bulletin, 27, 9-13.
Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/conservation-bulletin-27/
conservationbulletin27.pdf
Strak, B. (2013). Brutalism in the Mountains. In K. May et al (Editors), Brutalism (pp. 96-7). New York: CLOG.
Submarines Royal Navy (2014). Retrieved from Royal Navy http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-
Fleet/Submarines
Sumida, J. T. (2014). In Defence of Naval Supremacy: Finance, Technology, and British Naval Policy 1889–1914.
Annapolis: Naval Institute Press.
Summerson, J. (1993). The MARS group and the Thirties. In J. Bold and E. Chaney (Editors). English
architecture, public and private: essays for Kerry Downes (pp. 303-9). London: Hambledon Press.
Super Yacht Times (26 March 2010). Princess Yachts redevelopment plans for Devonport site.
Retrieved from http://www.superyachttimes.com/editorial/35/article/id/4229
Supplement to the London Gazette (3 June 1933). Engineer Rear-Admiral Thompson Gurnell. p. 3801.
Retrieved from https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/33946/supplement/3801/data.pdf
Sutherland heads for the sheds (January 2014). Desider, 68, p. 17. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/274164/desider_68_Jan2014.pdf
Sutherland, R. J. M. (1989). Shipbuilding and the Long Span Roof. Transactions of the Newcomen Society 60,
107-26.
Sutherland, R. J. M. (July/Aug 1990). Conservation and Reuse of Dockyard Structures. Building Research
and Practice, 18(4), pp. 200-23.
Taaffe, E. (2013). ‘We suffered in silence’: Health and Safety at Chatham Dockyard, 1945 to 1984. Evaluating the causes
and management of occupational hazards, relating especially to asbestos, ionising radiation and masculinity (Unpublished
PhD thesis). University of Hull, Hull.
‘Taking shape: the new low level refuelling building under construction. It stands on a concrete pad
anchored by steel cables to the bedrock.’ (1997). Plymouth Reference Library press cutting.
Taylor, C. (2010). A Brief Guide to Previous British Defence Reviews. London: House of Commons Library.
Retrieved from www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05714.pdf‎
The Naval Engineering Review (Winter 2009). Colossus Demolished. pp. 3-12. Retrieved from http://www.
rnebs.co.uk/Files/Winter2009.pdf
The News (1944). Smitten City - the Story of Portsmouth under Blitz. Portsmouth: The News.
The Prince’s Regeneration Trust (1 May 2006). Princes Trust Best Practice for Regeneration.
Retrieved from http://www.princes-regeneration.org/bestpractice/portsdock.htm
The Stationery Office (1990). This Common Inheritance, Britain’s Environmental Strategy (White Paper).
396
References
Norwich: The Stationery Office.

The Times [London, England] (24 May 1965). Obituary ‘Engineer Rear-Admiral T. Gurnell’ (p. 12).
The Times Digital Archive, 1785–2008), Issue 56329. Gale Document Number: CS204040376 Retrieved
from http://find.galegroup.com/ttda/infomark.do?&source+gale&prodId-TTDA&userGroupName-
uniportsmouth&tabID-T003&docPage-article&searchType-BasciSearchForm&docId-
Cs204040376&type-multipage&contentSet-LTO&version-1.0
Thomas, R. (April 1990). Port in a Storm. Museums Journal, 90(4), 24-27.
Thomas, R. D. (1998). Dreadnoughts in Camera. Building the Dreadnoughts 1905–1920. Stroud: Sutton.
Thomas, R. D. (2007). The Building of HMS Dreadnought and Dreadnought Battlecruiser Gunnery
1905–1916. In R. Riley (Ed.), Transactions of the Naval Dockyards Society, 3, Structures, Communities & Re-use,
Conferences 2001, 2003 & 2003 (pp. 37-56).
Thomas, R. M. (Winter 2004–5). Urban Characterisation. Improving Methodologies. English Heritage
Conservation Bulletin 47, 11-18. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/
conservation-bulletin-47/cb4703urbancharacterisation.pdf
Thomas, R. M. (Autumn 2011). Understanding industrial landscapes. English Heritage Conservation Bulletin
67, 12-13. Retrieved from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/conservation-bulletin-67/
cb-67.pdf
Till, G. (1982). Maritime Strategy and the Nuclear Age. London: MacMillan.
Till, G. (2001). Seapower at the Millennium. Stroud: Sutton/Royal Naval Museum.
TNA ADM 1/3588. (1 January 1700–31 May 1700). Draught of the King’s and Thomas Seymour’s
Lands. Letters from the Navy Board.
TNA ADM 1/10949. (August 1940). Air raids on Portsmouth: reports of damage. Admiral
Superintendent (for Civil Engineer in Chief through Commander in Chief) to Admiralty, Detailed
Report Air Raid Damage Portsmouth 12, 24 August 1940, 03708/40.
TNA ADM 1/11613. (Nov 1941). Reconstitution of accounts at Portsmouth and Devonport after
expense accounts offices and machinery were destroyed in air raids.
TNA ADM 1/17810. (1 January 1942–31 December 1944). Naval Stations: Post war reconstruction
and development of Devonport and Plymouth: proposals and plans.
TNA ADM 1/25394. (01 January 1953–31 December 1954). Devonport dockyard: meeting between
representatives of Admiralty War Office and Plymouth.
TNA ADM 1/26498. (01 January 1954–31 December 1957). HM Dockyard Devonport: plans for
development and modernisation.
TNA ADM 1/26499. (1952–64). HM Dockyard Portsmouth, plans/reports by Committee on

Modernisation and Improvements.
TNA ADM 1/28540. (1963–74). Redevelopment of RN Barracks, Portsmouth (HMS Victory). Minutes
of Meetings and enclosures.
TNA ADM 49/181. (1805–1900). Lists of dockyard workers.
TNA ADM 106/667. (29 June 1711). Navy Board In-letters, P. Portsmouth Officers to the Navy
Board.
397
TNA ADM 106/3568. (1774). A Supplement to the Book in His Majestys Possession which containeth a
Survey of all His Majestys Dockyards with the Buildings &c therein taken in 1698, 1774.
TNA ADM 116/324. (1890–93). Estimates for Vessels built under the Naval Defence Act of 1889.
TNA ADM 174/320. (23.2.1702[3]). Miscellaneous letters relating to the Chapel, 1699–1783, Prince
George of Denmark, Lord High Admiral, granted permission for the Dockyard Chapel to be built.
TNA ADM 179/69, fo. 593 (1916–1924). Portsmouth Dockyard Records, Correspondence.
TNA ADM 195/79. (1857–1915). 100 photographs depicting: Construction works at Portsmouth
dockyard: views of features of dockyard.
TNA ADM 196/130/232. (28 June 1899). Gurnell, Thompson. Retrieved from http://discovery.
nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D7617491.
TNA ADM 329/7. (01 April 1964–31 July 1965). Refitting of nuclear submarines: use of Portsmouth
or Devonport Dockyards, with maps.
TNA CM 1/157. (1974). PSA: Internal Reports and Handbooks. The Environment:
HM Naval Base Portsmouth.
TNA CM 1/277. (1964). PSA; Ministry of Public Building and Works (MPBW): North Wall
Portsmouth; history of harbour wall since 1870, inspection reports. With plans and photographs.
TNA CM 18/3. (16 May 1950–27 May 1965). PSA and predecessors: South East Region; Ministry
of Public Building and Works, Portsmouth Navy Works: papers regarding Buildings of Special
Architectural of Historic Interest and Objects of Archaeological Interest.
TNA CM 20/47. (01 January 1978–31 December 1978). PSA: Devonport (HMNDB): master
development plan, programme and financial statement; volume 3.
TNA CM 20/48. (01 January 1974–31 December 1974). PSA: Devonport: DoE Directorate of Defence
Works naval base development; feasibility study on proposed development of the North Arm of the
dockyard.
TNA CM 20/54. (01 January 1974–31 December 1974). PSA: Devonport: Publication and Research
Studies. Production and support activities for combined weapons equipment workshops: and
associated administrative and ancillary facilities; phase 2.
Studies. External Planning Guide by Joint PSA and MOD Planning Team: a study of spaces around
and between buildings.
Studies. Master Development Plan: historical development and existing facilities; volume 1.
Studies. Master Development Plan: future development; vol. 2.
Studies. Submarine refit complex.
TNA CM 20/61. (01 January 1973–31 December 1974). PSA: Devonport: Works Projects. Photograph
albums. Nuclear Submarine Refit Complex book no. 1.
398
References

albums. Nuclear Submarine Refit Complex book no 5.
albums. Nuclear Submarine Refit Complex book No 6.
albums. Frigate Complex book no 7.
albums. Frigate Complex book No 8.
TNA CM 20/78. (1975). PSA: Devonport: Works Projects. Photograph albums. Fleet Maintenance
Base Devonport: Foundations book no. 2.
TNA CM 20/80. (1976). PSA: Devonport: Works Projects. Photograph albums. Fleet Maintenance
Base Devonport: book no. 4.
TNA CM 20/81. (01 November 1978–31 December 1980). PSA: Devonport: Works Projects.
Photograph albums. Improvement to No 8 wharf.
albums. Weston Mill Lake: land reclamation evidence of progress; book no 2.
TNA CM 20/84. (14 November 1972–31 December 1975). PSA: Devonport: Works Projects.
Photograph albums. Weston Mill Lake: land reclamation evidence of progress; book No 3.
albums. Frigate complex: evidence of progress.
399
TNA DEFE 13/1274. (1982). Rundown and closure of Chatham and Portsmouth dockyards: includes
preservation of historic buildings and artefacts.
TNA DEFE 69/615. (01 January 1971–31 December 1977). Devonport Naval Base: development policy.
TNA DEFE 69/668. (1 January 1981–31 October 1982). Way Ahead Executive Sub-Committee: papers
on the future of Portsmouth naval base.
TNA MAF 99/309. (Dec 1940–Apr 1944). Plymouth and Devonport: air raid damage reports.
TNA MPE 513. (1667). Sir Jonas Moore, Map of Portsmouth Dockyard.
TNA RG 10/1165. (1871). Census: Ryde IoW.
TNA RG 13/976. (1901). Census: Farlington Hampshire.
TNA (1911). RG 14. Census: Havant Hampshire.
TNA SP 44/204, fos 255-6. (22.1.1699[1700]). Records assembled by the State Paper Office, including
papers of the Secretaries of State up to 1782, 1689–1706.
TNA SP 29/341, fos 218, 218v. (25 February 1672/3). Sir Anthony Deane, Portsmouth Commissioner
1672–75, Sketch of a new watering place and a new pipe.
TNA The Cabinet Papers (1915–1986). Retrieved from http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
cabinetpapers/themes/10-year-rule-disarmament.htm
TNA WORK 14/3075. (1969–1971). Ministry of Public Buildings and Works and successors: Ancient
Monuments and Historic Buildings: Registered Files. Portsmouth Dockyard: maps, Buildings List.
TNA WORK 14/3301. (February 1981). Office of Works and successors; Ancient Monuments Board
for England: Panel on Historic Naval Bases; Preservation of Chatham and Portsmouth Dockyards
and Devonport.
TNA WORK 41/263. (1939). HM Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Floating dock. Plan of berth for
Southampton Dock. Scale: 1:500.
TNA WORK 41/310. (1910). H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Miscellaneous. Sketch plan of
navalestablishments, showing Portsea, Gosport, Haslar and Bedenham. Drawing no. B4. Scale not
shown. Director of Works, Admiralty.
TNA WORK 41/311. (1936). H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Miscellaneous. Dredging progress
chart, 1935–1938: section showing depths and hatching of work executed during 1935–1936.
TNA WORK 41/312. (1942). H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Miscellaneous. Plan of dockyard in
1850 showing construction dates of buildings, basins etc, with principal later buildings shown by
dotted lines. Scale: 1:2,500. Compiled in 1906 ‘from old plans in the office’.
TNA WORK 41/313. (c.1760–1942). Records of the successive Works departments, and the Ancient
Monuments Boards and Inspectorate. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Miscellaneous. Portsmouth
yard and Royal Navy barracks, showing surviving works of 1850 or earlier and later works of
architectural interest. Scale: 1:1,666. Annotated by R. S. Horne, 1964.
TNA WORK 41/314. (1942). H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Miscellaneous. Portsmouth yard and
Royal Navy barracks, showing passive defence measures, including bombs dropped and buildings
damaged, 1940–43. Scale: 1:1,666.
400
References
TNA WORK 41/315. (1951–1954). H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Miscellaneous. Plan of

dockyard showing programme of work on railways. Annotated with reference notes. Scale: 1:1,666.
Superintendent Civil Engineer’s Department. Drawing no. 486/51, drawn by F. T. Haisman.
TNA WORK 41/316. (1864). H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Elevation showing
proposed reconstruction of Unicorn Gate and additions to wall. Drawing No. 101. Scale: 1 inch to 8
feet. Superintendent Civil Engineer’s Department. With additions to wall in red ink.
TNA WORK 41/317. (1866). H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Existing and
proposed elevations of Unicorn Gate. Scale: 1 inch to 8 feet. Signed by John Murray.
TNA WORK 41/318. (1866). H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Elevation and plans
of boundary wall at central tower near gasworks. Scale: 1 inch to 4 feet. Superintendent Civil
Engineer’s Department.
TNA WORK 41/319. (1868). H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Internal and external
elevations of round tower at north-east angle of boundary wall. Drawing no. W72. Scale: 1 inch to
16 feet. Superintendent Civil Engineer’s Department.
TNA WORK 41/320. (1868). H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Plans and sections
of round tower at north-east angle of extension works. Scale: 1 inch to 8 feet. Superintendent Civil
Engineer’s Department; drawing no. W80. Signed by John Murray.
TNA WORK 41/321. (1868). H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Plans and sections
of tower at north-east angle of boundary wall near gas works. Drawing no. W81. Scale: 1 inch to 8
feet. Director of Works, Admiralty.
TNA WORK 41/322. (1868). H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Ground plan and
general elevation of Unicorn gate and extension to boundary wall. Drawing no. W100. Scale: 1 inch
to 2 feet. SCE Department.
TNA WORK 41/323. (1869). H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Plan no. 11 showing
numbers and position of piles used in the foundations of the round tower and retaining wall near
gasworks. Drawing no. W76. Scale: 1 inch to 10 feet. Superintendent Civil Engineer’s Department.
TNA WORK 41/324. (c.1869–79). H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Unicorn gate:
plan, sections and front and rear elevations of small entrance gates. Scale: 1 inch to 1 foot.
TNA WORK 41/325. (1878). H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Unicorn gate:
elevations of proposed grille and doors to main, side, and railway gates. Scale: 1 inch to 2 feet and
1 inch to 1 foot. SCE Department.
TNA WORK 41/326. (1882). H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Elevation and
sections of new railway gate at Unicorn entrance. Scale: 1 inch to 2 feet. SCE Department.
TNA WORK 41/327. (1891). H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Plans, section and
elevations of key closets at Main, Marlborough and Unicorn Gates with section through front and
zinc label detail. Scale: 1 inch to 1 foot and full size.
TNA WORK 41/328. (1900). H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Boundary wall. Front and rear
elevations of Lion Gate with numbered stones for demolition and outline plan and end elevations.
Scale not shown.
TNA WORK 41/556. (1921). H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Royal Naval (formerly Anglesey)
Barracks. Warrant officers’ mess: plans and details of steelwork, reinforced floors and roofs, mess
room fireplace and doors. Scale: 1 inch to 16 feet, 1 inch to 4 feet, 1 inch to 2 feet, 3 inches to 2
feet and 1:2. By Superintendent Civil Engineer’s Department.
401
TNA WORK 69/19. (01 January 1951–31 December 1951). HM Dockyard Devonport: aerial
photographs.
Townsend, A. (2013). Concreteness. In K. May et al (Editors), Brutalism (pp. 88-9). New York: CLOG.
Troubled Waters for Dock Project (May 1990). Architects’ Journal, 191(22), 11.
Tucker, S. (1998). The Great War, 1914–1918. London: University College London Press.
Turner, S. C. (2005). Devon Historic Landscape Characterisation Phase 1 Report. Devon County Council &
English Heritage. Retrieved from http://www.devon.gov.uk/hlcdraftfinalreportpart01.pdf (and see
following parts)
Twyford, H. P. (Author), Robinson, C. (2005). It Came to Our Door: Plymouth in World War II - a Journalist’s
Eye Witness Account (3rd edn.). Plymouth: Pen & Ink.
UK Public Spending (27 Aug 2013). UK Total Government Debt in the 20th Century.
Retrieved from http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.html
University of Cambridge (2014). History and Architecture. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
http://www.unicen.cam.ac.uk/history-and-architecture
Wainwright, O. (30.5.2013). Mary Rose Museum is a Pearl - Pity about the Limpets. Architecture
and design blog, Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-
design-blog/2013/may/30/mary-rose-museum-architecture
War, Women and Versailles, First World War. Retrieved from http://www.seayourhistory.org.uk/
content/view/117/205/
Warships (2010). Retrieved from www.warshipsifr.com/LegacySite/devonport.html‎
Watson, S. (2011). Mary Rose New Museum Portsmouth Historic Dockyard. Archaeological Watching Brief. K2145.
London: Construct Archaeology Limited. Retrieved from http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/
archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-1124-1/dissemination/pdf/preconst1-77051_1.pdf
WEA (2010). Women at War. Portsmouth: WEA Local History Group.
Welch, Chris (September 2013). Babcock International Group Programme Manager, Devonport,
pers. comm.
Wells, J. G. (1985). HMS Warrior (1860) - Progress Report No 2. Mariner’s Mirror 71(2), 165-6. DOI:
10.1080/00253359.1985.10656026 Retrieved from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/002
53359.1985.10656026
Wessex Archaeology (1999). The Royal Dockyard at Devonport: Archaeological Assessment.
Wessex Archaeology (November 1999). The Royal Dockyard at Devonport: Management Proposals.
Wessex Archaeology (November 1999). Royal Dockyard at Portsmouth: Archaeological Assessment.
Wessex Archaeology (1999). The Royal Dockyard at Portsmouth: Management Proposals.
Wessex Archaeology (November 1999). Royal Dockyard at Portsmouth. Appendix I Source Index.
Unpublished Wessex Archaeology report 46311.I. Swindon: English Heritage Library.
Wessex Archaeology (1999). Royal Dockyard at Portsmouth. Appendix II Component Index.
Unpublished Wessex Archaeology report 46311.II. Swindon: English Heritage Library.
402
References
Wessex Archaeology (2004). Historic Dockyard, Portsmouth, Hampshire. Conservation Statement

(2 volumes). Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology.
Whelan, T. (April 1993). Discussion Document and Outline Feasibility Report for a Proposal to convert No. 4 Boathouse
for use as the Ticketing and Orientation Centre for the Heritage Area at H.M. Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth. Royal Naval
Museum. Bognor Regis: Alex Sayer.
White, W. (1878). History Gazetteer of the county of Hampshire, including the Isle of Wight. Sheffield: White.
White, W. H. (biography) (1845–1913). Sir William Henry White Naval Architect. Retrieved from
http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/William_Henry_White
Wilkinson Eyre (2013). Mary Rose Museum. Retrieved from http://www.wilkinsoneyre.com/
projects/mary-rose-museum.aspx?category=cultural
Winter, J. (1970). Industrial Architecture: a Survey of Factory Building. London: Studio Vista.
Winton, J. (1989). The Naval Heritage of Portsmouth. Southampton: Ensign.
Wolff, J. J. (2012). Ion Exchange Resins for use in Nuclear Power Plants (revised). Retrieved from
http://www.purolite.com/Customized/Uploads/Purolite%20Ion%20Exchange%20Resins%20for%20
Use%20in%20Nuclear%20Power.pdf
403
404
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brewer, G. (May 25, 2005). Challenges to an Adjudicator’s Decision. Contract Journal, p. 30.
Broughton, T. (November 1, 2002). Carillion sues over 679 million pounds MoD dockyards project.
Building, p. 16.
Burckhardt, J. (1965). The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy. London: Allen & Unwin.
Coad, J. (1981). Historic architecture of H M Naval Base Portsmouth 1700–1850. Mariner’s Mirror, 67,
3-59.
European Landscape Convention (Florence Convention) (4 March 2004) Council of Europe Treaty
Series no. 176. Retrieved from http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/176.htm
Jellicoe, J. R. Admiral Viscount (1919). The Grand Fleet 1914–1916: Its Creation, Development And Work. New
York: George H Doran. Retrieved fromhttp://www.on-island.net/History/Jellico/Jellico.pdf
Pemble, S. & Phillips, R. (April 22, 2006). Proper jurisdiction, Estates Gazette, p. 141.
Philippo, P. (February 22, 2006). The adjudicator’s power to award interest. Contract Journal, p. 30.
Reynolds, C. E. (1932). Reinforced Concrete Designer’s Handbook (1st ed.). London: Concrete
Publications.
Riley, R. C. (1989). Wooden Walls and Ironclads, in J. Webb et al (Eds), The Spirit of Portsmouth.
A History (pp. 36-52). Chichester: Phillimore.
Wotton, Sir H. (1624, reprinted 1969). The Elements of Architecture collected from the Best Sources and Examples.
London: John Bill, reprinted Farnborough: Gregg Press.
405
406

Naval Dockyards

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Naval Dockyards

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

20TH CENTURY NAVAL DOCKYARDS:

DEVONPORT AND PORTSMOUTH CHARACTERISATION

Naval Dockyards Society

Devonport Dockyard Portsmouth Dockyard

Part of the NATIONAL HERITAGE PROTECTION COMMISSIONS PROGRAMME

Jonathan Coad Project adviser

Sponsored by the National Museum of the Royal Navy

Published by The Naval Dockyards Society

First published 2015

Copyright © The Naval Dockyards Society 2015

British Cataloguing in Publication Data

Part 1: Historical background and characterisation 1

Part 2: Devonport Dockyard in the twentieth century 77

Part 4: Conclusions and recommendations 205

Appendix 1 Project methodology 213

Appendix 4 Portsmouth Dockyard designations 309

Chair, The Naval Dockyards Society

DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government

VT Group Vosper Thornycroft Group

PART 1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CHARACTERISATION

PART 2 DEVONPORT DOCKYARD

PART 3 PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CHARACTERISATION 1

1.1 Historical background to British twentieth century dockyards

1.2 Political and strategic background to British twentieth century dockyards

1.3 First to second world wars

1.4 War damage

Table 1.4.1 Bomb Falls Districts around Devonport Dockyard 1940–44

Table 1.4.2 Bomb Falls Portsmouth Dockyard 1940–44, excluding incendiaries

Table 1.4.3 Bomb Falls Royal Naval Barracks Portsmouth 1940–41

1.5 After the second world war

is an essential component. Otherwise we forfeit our right to be considered as a major naval

1.6 Into the twenty-first century

1.7 Dockyard and naval personnel

Table 1.7.1 Overall dockyard personnel numbers, 1711–1901 (Coad, 2013, p. 5)

Table 1.7.5 Naval personnel 1900–2012 (Berman & Rutherford, 2012, p. 8)

1.8 Women in dockyards

1.9 Fuel, ordnance, submarines and missiles

1.10 Devonport Dockyard overview

1.11 Portsmouth Dockyard overview

2.1. Characterisation process

8.5 Harbours and marinas

2.2 Military characteristics

2.3 Industrial characteristics

2.4 Material characteristics

2.5 Architectural characteristics

2.5.2 Spaces and vistas

“Excellence = Basic Commodity x Excess Commodities x Delight

3 CHANGES TO THE NAVAL ESTATE

Rationalism is essential, with precise measurements and understanding of materials, calculations,

Fig. 2. Photograph by Reginald Silk showing C3 submarine leaving Portsmouth

Fig. 3. Front cover, Gale and Polden

Right: Fig. 5. Photograph showing

Fig. 14. H M Naval

Fig. 15. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Miscellaneous.

Right: Fig. 16. H M Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth: Miscellaneous.

Left: Fig. 17. H M

Fig. 19. UK Total government debt in the twentieth

Above: Fig. 20. Photograph of Portsmouth Artificers

Left: Fig. 21. Photograph of female munitions workers,

Fig. 23. Large decorative scrolled abutments at Rochefort

Fig. 24. Louis XIV’s personal ‘L’ emblem at

Fig. 25. Former Naval Academy at Portsmouth (1729–32, 1/14), east

Fig. 27. South elevation of Portsmouth HMS Nelson/Main Gate (1734,