History

The purpose of this series of monographs is, at one level, to collate what knowledge is available about the development of Claygate in order to inform those who are interested in it. More than this, I intend to expose what is unknown or uncertain as a way of provoking readers to share their own knowledge and to point the way to further channels of research: ultimately, a greater knowledge of Claygate’s development

The development history of Claygate in the 20th century was one of substantial increase in the density of housing provision. This was made possible by the availability of land from three sources: the recycling of land thrown up by the redundant brickfields; by the absorption of farmland and orchards and by the use of the large grounds of the mansions that were built in the 19th century within the village. My purpose will be to catalogue these mansions and try to assimilate, or to speculate, why their owners came to Claygate. All bar a few of these mansions have been demolished, but we will try to trace their demise and their place in the provision of housing sites within the village..

The definition of a ‘mansion’ to which I will be working is ‘a large and imposing house’ with its own grounds. We have two such remaining in Claygate today: Loseberry House and Ruxley Lodge, known in modern times as Ruxley Towers.

I will try to give all sources for information presented in these monographs. The richest source of knowledge on Claygate is The Claygate Book: a History of a Surrey Village (1983, Millennium edition, 1999) by Malcolm W H Peebles, a former resident of Claygate. All my references to Peebles will be to the Millennium edition giving page numbers and the mnemonic TCB. Unfortunately, Peebles did not always state his sources, so in the case of some material the foundations of his work, although uncertain, may be traceable through his list of references (TCB 144).

I will also be quoting from my own book: Guildford via Cobham: the Origins and Impact of a Country Railway (2006) (GVC).

Peebles had a theory about the significance of Claremont in the development of Claygate. He writes (TCB21):

Whether or not the proximity of Claremont influenced, albeit perhaps indirectly, the development of Claygate during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is a matter for individual assessment, but I believe it was not an insignificant factor in attracting the Foleys and other leading families during this period.

Adding further that:

An important contributory factor was, of course, the nature of the area itself. Until the latter part of the eighteenth century the Elmbridge district was sparsely populated with only a few villages, but with substantial common and waste lands. Of course there were farms, but in general the land was of poor quality which discouraged intensive cultivation. Scope therefore existed for wealthy people to move into the locality and to acquire and establish substantial estates. Easy travelling distances to Hampton Court, Richmond and other important social centres, and the nearby main road from London to Portsmouth, must have been added inducements before the arrival of the motor car and train.

Collectively, and individually to lesser or greater degrees, these were possibly the main reasons why a substantial part of what is now called Elmbridge developed as it did during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

The county of Surrey has been long-recognised as being blessed with great beauty: the contrasting scenery offered by the North Downs; the views; the farmland; the valleys; the Thames and its charming tributaries, the Wey and the Mole; the woods; the hamlets and the villages; the heaths and the commons: all these contributed to the celebration of a rich inheritance. When all these attributes are combined with close proximity to London it is scarcely surprising that Surrey should have been so popular with those who wanted to combine their affairs in London with a life in the country. From the time of the Tudors, there was a growing tendency for the rich City merchants, lawyers and courtiers to migrate to the less crowded countryside, south west of the capital with its cleaner air and sweeter smells. We can call in evidence of this the great country seats which sprang up in our part of the county, notably Hampton Court Palace and Esher Place from Tudor times; and subsequently West Horsley Place; Clandon Park; Hatchlands; Ockham Park; East Horsley Place; Cobham Park; Pains Hill Park: a rich list to which, of course, must be added that most celebrated local country house on Claygate’s doorstep, Claremont.

Peebles makes the case for Claremont being a magnet for the attraction of rich families to Claygate citing the proximity to the turnpike Portsmouth road, which offered the opportunity of ready access to London, to which their affairs were closely linked. Although Peebles makes a reference to trains, he may have seriously under-estimated the influence of the London & Southampton Railway (later renamed London & South Western Railway) whose station at Ditton Marsh (Esher) opened in 1838. This new railway so shortened journey times to and from London that if the district were attractive before, it would be the more so after train travel was available. The distance from Esher station to Claygate would not have been a material issue for rich families able to keep a stable, groomsmen and drivers.

The great challenge for us, if we wish to advance the theory that Claygate’s development advanced in the mid-19th century because of the arrival of the railway in Esher, is to try to date the building of the early mansions; and establish whether they were built much before 1838, which would support the Claremont influence (or general pull of London) theory, or after the railway came.

There is useful material in an unpublished dissertation by John King, held in Esher library, entitled: The development of a commuter village. A case study of Claygate (1972). He points us to the Thames Ditton parish register of 1838 as a source of information about Claygate in that year – the very year in which the railway came to Esher.

Our next task must be to examine this register and to establish its significance as a benchmark for pre and post railway development, remembering that this was the same period that saw the development of Holy Trinity church (consecrated 22 December 1840) to be followed by the creation of the parish of Claygate from what was previously the parish of St Nicholas, Thames Ditton. In this connection we must also establish what can be gleaned from John Havelock’s History of Holy Trinity (1982) and in Revd R G B Bailey’s earlier The Story of Claygate: he was vicar from 1938 to 1944.