Derwent River Wall Repairs, Matlock, Derbyshire - Photographic Recording and Archaeological Watching Brief

Wessex Archaeology

Wessex Archaeology was commissioned to undertake a programme of photographic recording and archaeological watching brief, with a ‘toolbox talk’, prior to and during emergency reinstatement works following the collapse of a section of a river wall in February 2022. The monitoring and recording covered approximately 50 m of riverside wall centred on NGR 429771 360239, at Matlock, Derbyshire, DE4 3AT.

The monitored works were located on the east bank of the River Derwent, to the rear of the Mad Hatter restaurant on Bakewell Road and 50–60 m north of Matlock Bridge on Snitterton Road. The recorded section of riverside wall measured approximately 2.5 m in height and approximately 54 m in length. The wall comprised a mixture of regularly coursed rubble at the northern end and uncoursed and coursed random rubble stonework in the central and southern sections. The stone appeared to be a mixture of gritstone and limestone, which is a local stone type for the area. The condition of the wall varied considerably, with the central and southern sections appearing to be in relatively poor condition having lost most of their visible pointing, and with large areas having been colonised by vegetation growth which had resulted in loose and collapsed sections of masonry. There was some evidence of crude repair in the central section, although it was obscured by vegetation, which made interpretation difficult.

This stretch of river wall is of unknown date, although it appeared to be multi-phase: the northern section was of a regular construction and probably built in the 20th century, whilst the central and southern sections were of a more irregular build and potentially date to the development of the site in the late 19th century when the buildings fronting onto Bakewell Road were first constructed with gardens backing onto the river. The northern section of wall had two phases of construction, though the relationship between them was not clear.

No archaeological remains were recorded during the archaeological watching brief. The photographic recording met its aims and objectives, providing a record of the wall prior to its dismantling and restoration. The watching brief was unable to meet its aims and objectives, due to the lack of archaeological features and deposits.