We congratulate , James Fuller , son of David and Simmy Fuller , of Sheriff’s Court , Minster, on being called to the Bar, specialising in Land Law. Thank you Simmy for sending these photos of the lovely hall at Lincoln’s Inn , and the memorial plaque to ‘Lord Tomlin of Ash’ . He was first cousin to my gt grandfather James Taddy Friend ,and his mother, Mary was born at East Northdown (and through their father’s side ! ). Our Tomlin Order settlement with Miles is named after him and he famously ruled on the difference between tax avoidance being legal – on which the whole accountancy profession is based, and tax evasion which is not .
Exchange of emails regarding the Friend Family Farm in Gee, Gloucester Ma.
Matt Friend <mattf9514@outlook.com> wrote: I have attached some photos of the house in Gloucester, MA on Gee Ave our family used to own. The oldest one is probably form the 1880s. In it are my 2nd great grandparents (on the left) Lemuel Friend and Mary Friend (nee Rowe). And on the right my great grandfather William Friend’s brother and sister Albert and Eva. The color photo is my dad Russ Friend in 1984 in front of the same house.
Russ wrote :- I believe my son, Matt, has a scanned photo of the Gloucester farm home my father and uncles were born in. It was built in the 1690s. After my grandfather’s accidental death in 1926, my grandmother had to move and get a job in a shoe factory. My dad and uncles were little kids (William born 1918, my dad Charles born in 1921, and Richard born in 1924). The home changed hands multiple times since then. I saw it as a kid in the early 1960s and later in 1982. It currently has more modern appearance and an addition. The farm property was taken by Gloucester and turned into a reservoir.
Will F wrote –
Thankyou Matt , for sending photos of the Friend Family farm in Gloucester , Massachusetts.
Dear Russ , that’s a sad story about your grandparents etc. . What was the name of the farmhouse ?Its nice to know its still standing . It would be nice to ‘google’ it .
Louise , George and Lizzie were driving back from Maine yesterday and found the site of the Friend Mill.
Russ Friend Wrote
I’m glad they found the mill. The home in Gloucester is at: 41 Gee Avenue, Gloucester, MA
The salt-box style addition was added after the 1950s by one of its many different owners. The original home now has a red front door, red cedar clapboard siding, and modern 6-over-6 pane windows. The image on Google maps was from 2013. Also, the property is completely landscaped. When I last saw it in about 1982, it was not as surrounded with so many bushes and the chimney appears to have been replaced. They used to put the year it was built on the top of the chimney.
W.F wrote
The interesting thing is how similar that farmhouse design , matches my that of my own . The New England houses used more weatherboarding – as timber was in abundant supply , whereas the in Kent and Essex , weatherboarding was mostly on the farm and fishing buildings, near the coasts, using imported Scandinavian softwoods . The other difference was that the American houses had an central brick chimney breast acting as a storage heater for the whole house , whereas Georgian houses had the chimneys on the gable ends . However the older Kentish cottages, did also have this central chimney breast . I have a 10ft square one between my older kitchen , and the later extension/rebuild . I even have a similar roadside wall along my frontage , all be it flints and brick , not granite.
Russ wrote :- Hi Will,
W F This area of East Kent was very ‘low church’ , and Charles 1st ‘s archbishop , Archbishop Laud was very ‘high’ Anglican – and particularly hated – insisting on the use of the prayer book in church services – this was a particular issue in Scotland with the Presbyterians , during this period and again in the time of James II . James I/VI was less dogmatic and reached an understanding with the scots Presbyterians and entered into a ‘covenant’ with them- they would support the crown , if they were left to worship according to their own conscience . Charles I and James II both in turn went back on this covenant with disastrous consequences !. English Congregations were all within ‘the Church of England’ and were not free to break away and clergy had to follow the services in the form dictated from Canterbury (just up the road). Some congregations met illegally in the fields to worship , although they also had to attend services in church, as well. All the various Thanet families were resolutely parliamentarian during the civil war. Larger farmers such as Francis Tomlin , had their own militia of their neighbours, family and staff . There was a divide between the enterprising/free thinking yeoman farmers, merchants, etc. – in the eastern , coastal and midlands industrial areas , and the landowners and their tenants in the West country , Wales, etc. , and in Scotland between the Protestant east Coast and Borders and the Catholic Western Isles and Highlands .
William
Dear Rusty , I have been reading up about the friend tide mill and John’ the carpenter’ friend. I thought you would be interested in an article about Simon Sackett, from the Sackett Family association , who came out at the same time with Winthrop , from the same place . They probably knew each other , and may have been related – as I am – I am as much Sackett as Friend , and the Farm here came to me from the Sackett line . My father always said that members of both families ‘signed the boston charter’ at the start of the colony . Two Richard Sacketts owned and lived at ‘East Northdown’ through the early to Mid 1700’s as well as owning ‘Sackett’s Hill’ in St Peters in Thanet, my 5 and 6 x gt grandfathers . The head of the Friend Family at Brooksend Farm . Birchington Thanet , were called John over several successive generations at the same time . I see the Wenham Friends were also called John over three successive generations – this cannot be a co-insidence !
I love the fact that so many of the family names are the same -John , Mary, William , Richard for a start !
Very interesting material. I bookmarked the Sackett Family Association site to keep it handy. One thing we know is that the colony was sparsely populated. There were perhaps four or five primary families directly related to me there in the 1630s (Friend, Rowe, Merchant, Dodge, Kimball). It would likely be that they came as “Puritans”. By the 1640s, there were at least 10,000 Puritan colonists in America. They ended up spreading out into what would become the US states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Maine. If someone wanted to have a vote and own land, they usually had to be members of the Reformed church. People were expected to be self-sufficient and industrious. That appears to run in Friend family!😉
The history of the English church had long lasting effects on America. The English Civil War brought people to the colonies, but had them split between supporting Parliament or the King (1640-1660). Those sentiments lasted well into the Colonial Civil War (American Revolution, 1775-1783). Even that resonated into the American Civil War (1861-1865) along religious lines (support for slavery and indentured servitude in central and southern states more along Catholic lines with New England abolitionists along Reformed lines). Many of the authors of our Constitution were Deists and Reformed. Because of that pluralism, the removed the concept of a state church. Nevertheless, people have chosen to support certain social issues that bring doctrines into politics.
Thanks,
Russell L. Friend, 45 Chelsea Lane. Cary, IL 60013-1910, 847-915-8660
Clearly the American political system was set up using the British system as a model , trying to improve upon it. A book you might find interesting about this period is called ‘ The Lunar Men ‘ by Jenny Uglow . It charts the lives and achievements of a group of thinkers , scientists and business people in the UK, West Midlands , ( my home area) during the later 1700’s . They met monthly on the new moon and corresponded . The group included Josiah Wedgwood, Joseph Priestly , Erasmus Darwin ,Matthew Bolton and James Watt . They were in touch with other enlightenment thinkers in Scotland , America and France , particularly Benjamin Franklin , who visited several times. It’s not an exaggeration to say their ideas formed and kick started the British industrial revolution and modern science in the fields biology, geology, chemistry etc., that took off and spread around the world. They were strongly behind the anti slavery movement. Their free thinking was a function of their protestant , questioning, beliefs, in a way that was not possible in autocratic and catholic mainland Europe. I think is an ‘essential read’ for anyone interested in such things . Regards Will
Following on from the Deaths of Edward and James Taddy ,without children, in around 1800, their business and property passed to the children of their three sisters , The Friends of Birchington and later Northdown , Hatfeilds of Hartsdown Margate , and the Tomlins of Moat Farm , Ash. The three families , ran the business , based at 45 the Minories , in the City of London for several more generations, until the business was closed in the general strike by ‘Uncle Gilliat’ . The two main potential heirs to continue the business- elder brothers , Charles Hatfeild, and George Friend were killed in WW1 . Aubrey Hatfield returned from Canada to fight in the Royal Flying Corps and took over the remaining Hengrove farm , after Hartsdown was given to Margate Borough . Irvine Friend (JIHF) ran Northdown house and estate ,until , the house and park was gifted to Margate Borough in 1937. The following article is from the National Trust website .
A history of the snuff mills at Morden Hall Park
Groves family outside the western snuff mill
During the 18th and 19th centuries the prosperity of the Morden Hall estate depended on its snuff mills. Snuff was a popular tobacco product used before cigars and cigarettes became more fashionable. Today you can get a glimpse into the world of the mill workers in the Learning Centre set up in the now retired western snuff mill.
The success of the snuff industry
The Morden mills are based on the River Wandle. The area around it has been a prosperous area for milling since the time of the Domesday Book (1086). During the 19th century, with an increase in the popularity of snuff, the Wandle valley became a ‘hub’ of tobacco and snuff manufacture.
Snuff was introduced to London’s elite around the year 1700, about fifty years before the original snuff mill at Morden Park was built. The trend for snuff-taking gathered pace throughout the century, becoming almost universal by the last quarter of the 18th century.
Snuff is a fine-ground smokeless tobacco product. The mills ground dried tobacco leaves into snuff between two stones. The resulting powder was left natural or perfumed with flower essences or spices. Gentlemen, and sometimes ladies, sniffed pinches of snuff from the back of their hands which gave them a swift nicotine buzz – and often made them sneeze. At Morden, the majority of snuff produced was the most common brown snuff, though a very dark, strong variety was produced in smaller quantities, as was a perfumed variety.
Running the Morden Mills
The eastern and western mills were built in 1750 and 1830 respectively while the Manor of Morden was held by the Garth family, who had owned the estate and title since the 16th century. They did not have a great interest in either the estate or the business however.
In 1834, an up and coming tobacco firm, Taddy & Co, part owned by Alexander Hatfeild, was granted the lease of the mills. In 1867, the Hatfeild family bought the whole estate. Hatfeild sourced his tobacco from plantations in Virginia. The snuff was blended and processed in the Taddy & Co factory in the Minories in London. The addition of the Morden mills completed the production line and enabled Hatfeild to greatly expand his successful business.
The mills at Morden produced 6000lbs of snuff each month. Memories of mill workers describe the working environment of a snuff mill as extremely dusty, noisy and uncomfortable. The Hatfeilds were comparatively good employers though, on hot days in the summer they would shut the mill down and let their employees work outside on the estate rather than putting up with the unpleasant conditions in the mill.
Decline of snuff taking
By the late 19th century, snuff taking had become less fashionable. This decline has been attributed to a generation of Victorians who considered snuff to be ‘flamboyant, vulgar and offensive’. Cigars had also become reasonably priced, so people were increasingly smoking their tobacco rather than sniffing it. In addition, the water mills were being outdone by their steam powered competitors around the country.
In 1922, the workers in Hatfield’s tobacco company in the Minories went on strike. No doubt motivated by declining profits in the business, Gilliat Hatfeild, Alexander’s grandson, shut down his factory and his mills.
He had been left with a large fortune however, and the running of the Morden Hall estate. As the mill workers had not joined the strike they were rewarded with jobs working on the estate.
The mills in the modern day
Following the closure of the mills they were used mainly as the estate workshop. The waterwheel remained in place in the 1930’ to supply power to various tools used in the workshop such as drills, planers and saws. The only piece of machinery preserved was the large cast iron wheel currently in the stable yard.
The buildings were also used to store all the equipment used on the estate such as the punts and rowing boats brought out for the garden parties organised by Gilliat Hatfeild for local children. You can read about these charitable parties which were the highlight of the locals’ year in another Morden Hall history page.
In 1989 the western mill was opened as a classroom and education centre. You can now enjoy an interactive exhibition on the life of the Morden mill workers in Victorian times.
An autumn view of the snuff mill on the river Wandle
Simon Sackett’s legacy
Undoubtedly the most significant migration in the history of the Sackett family was that of Simon Sackett who, with his wife Isabel and their infant son Simon, emigrated from St Peter in Thanet, Kent, England, to the Massachusetts Bay Colony in America.
Despite a short life—he had probably not reached forty when he died in 1635—Simon Sackett the colonist enjoys a pivotal position in the history of the Sacketts, becoming the progenitor of the major part of the American branch of the family.
Simon Sackett, of St Peter in Thanet, Kent, and Newtown (later Cambridge), Massachusetts Bay Colony, son of Thomas Sackett the younger and Martha Strowde, was baptized at St Peter in ThanetG on 23 November 1595.1 He died in NewtownG between 5 and 10 Oct 1635.2 He married first at St Peter in ThanetG on 2 November 1618, Elizabeth Boyman.3,4 She died after only seven years’ marriage and was buried at St John in ThanetG on 27 February 1625/26.5 He married second at St John in ThanetG on 6 August 1627, Isabel Pearce.6,7 After Simon’s death, Isabel married after June 1636 and before 1639, probably in Hartford, ConnecticutG, William Bloomfield.8 Isabel died after 1 April 1682 (date of will made at Newtown, Long Island, New York.)9
Simon would have been one of the unnamed sons each left £10 in their father’s will made at Birchington, KentG, on 23 June 1615. Simon and Isabel’s emigration
Simon and Isabel emigrated from England to the Massachusetts Bay Colony at about the time of the Winthrop fleet of 1630. Their names have not been found on passenger lists reconstructed by researchers of the early immigrants to New England. However, there is good evidence that they had settled in Newtown probably in 1631 and certainly by 1632.
Charles Weygant, in The Sacketts of America stated that they made the journey on the Lyon, leaving Bristol, England, on 1 December 1630 and arriving at Nantasket Roads, off Boston, on 5 February 1631, after an unusually severe voyage. He further stated that among the heads of families on the Lyon were Roger Williams, Simon Sackett, John Sackett (who would be Simon’s brother), John Throkmorton, and Nicholas Bailey.
Weygant does not explain his conclusion that Simon came on this ship. It is a reasonable hypothesis, but supporting evidence has not been found. The Lyon‘s arrival date (February 1631) is a good match with the first record (1631 or 1632) of Simon in New England. And the presence of Williams and Throkmorton on this voyage is confirmed by Winthrop’s Journal, Winthrop also recording the names of Perkins and Ong (but not Bailey or Sackett), “and others, with their wives and children, about twenty passengers”.
Other ships on which Simon may have travelled are possible. A fleet of six ships, carrying a group of some 350 settlers led by the Puritan minster Francis Higginson sailed from Gravesend in April and May 1629 for Salem. Numbers of the passengers on these ships settled in Boston, Charlestown, and other Bay Colony places as well as in Salem.
Gravesend, in the Thames estuary on the north coast of Kent, and only 60 miles from Thanet, commends itself as a starting point for Simon’s voyage, and is perhaps more likely than the Lyon‘s departure port of Bristol in the west of England.
The possibility of Simon’s migrating in Spring 1629 rather than in Winter 1630–31 would also fit better with the fact of his brother John’s making his will in April 1628.
It is possible, too, that Simon went with the main Winthrop fleet of eleven ships. The first five of these sailed from Yarmouth, Isle of Wight, in April and May 1630, arriving at Salem in June and July, but, perhaps of more interest, are ships setting out from Gravesend or London. The Thomas and William sailed from Gravesend in May, and the Handmaid from London in August.
John Winthrop’s wife and children made the voyage the following year, 1631, sailing from London in August on the Lyon and arriving at Nantasket on 2 November. Charles Banks, in The Planters of the Commonwealth, identified a number of residents of Newtown who he thought probably came in this ship. These residents first appear in Newtown records on 7 January 1632/33. Simon could have been a passenger on this ship, although it is clear from the town records that Simon was in Newtown at an earlier date than these other residents, and probably by July 1631. The conclusion by the Cambridge Historical Commission that Simon Sackett and others had settled there by 26 July 1631 is discussed below. Simon in Newtown
Simon and Isabel were among the first settlers of Newtown, arriving in 1631 or 1632, and remaining there until Simon’s death just a few years later in 1635.
Newtown had been identified by Governor Winthrop and the “Assistants” of the company as a suitable site for a fortified town and he and Deputy Governor Dudley and Secretary Bradstreet as well as other senior men had committed to build houses there in the Spring of 1631 and to settle there before the following winter. (Winthrop did indeed have a house erected there but later took it down and re-erected it at Boston.)
At the front of The Towne Book of Newtowne (later The Records of the Town of Cambridge (formerly Newtowne), Massachusetts, 1630–1703), Simon’s name appears in an undated list, but either 1631 or 1632, of the first eight settlers of Newtown: “The Towne, Newtowne, Inhabitants then, Tho = Dudly Esqr, mr Symon Bradstreet, mr Edmond Lockwood, mr Daniell Patrike, John Poole, William Spencer, John Kirman, Symon Sackett.”10
The Cambridge Historical Commission have placed a historical notice in Winthrop Square stating that these men had completed and occupied houses in Newtown by 26 July 1631. This precise date would appear to refer to an order made at a meeting of the Court of Assistants held in Boston on that day that “eu’y first Friday in eu’y moneth there shalbe a gen’all traineing of the remaindr of them who inhabitt att Charlton, Misticke, & the new towne, att a convenient place aboute the Indian wigwams, the traininge to begin att one of the clocke in the afternoone.”
It would seem unlikely that an order for a general training would have been made for a smaller number of men than the eight named in the undated list. It is therefore likely that the list refers to those resident by July 1631. The Towne Book was started in 1632 and there is missing data from the first two pages. The words “Inhabitants then” introducing the list clearly relate to an earlier date, now missing or illegible in the original. (The transcription “Inhabitants then” appears in the transcription made by the Cambridge City Council in 1901. Lucius Paige’s transcription in his 1877 History of Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1630–1877 reads “Inhabitants there”.)
The settlement grew rapidly with the arrival of the Braintree company in the summer of 1632, and it was decided to secure with fencing a substantial area of common land. By a decision of a town meeting on 7 January 1632/33, these “common pales”, of a length of some 580 rods, were divided among the then 42 landholders. Simon was allotted 6 rods (equal to 33 yards). On 5 August 1633, he was granted half an acre for a cowyard in Cambridge.11 On 20 August 1635, he was granted a one-acre share of land at Fresh Pond meadow.12
Subsequent land records relate to Simon’s widow Isabel. An inventory of land taken on 10 October 1635 (within days of Simon’s death) and recorded in The Register Book of the Lands and Houses in the “New Towne” listed several lots in the name of Sackett: a house in the town at Long Street with about half a rood (i.e. one-eighth of an acre), half an acre at Cowyard Row, five and a half acres at Small Lott Hill, one acre and a rood at Long Marsh, and five acres in the Great Marsh.13
Administration of Simon’s estate was granted by the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Company to his widow Isabel on 3 November 1635.14,15
“Widdow Sackett” was listed in the Cambridge Town Records on 8 February 1635/36 as a householder. She owned one of the 76 houses in the town. Isabel’s removal to Hartford and remarriage
After Simon’s death, Isabel removed with her young sons Simon and John to Hartford, Connecticut, travelling in the Spring of 1636 with the hundred-strong Hooker congregation, including William Bloomfield who had immigrated from England and settled at Cambridge in 1634. Isabel’s sons Simon and John, about six and four respectively, accompanied her, and William’s three-year-old daughter Sarah Bloomfield also made the journey. Isabel and William Bloomfield were married sometime after 8 February 1635/36 when Isabel was listed as a widow and householder in Cambridge and before about 1639 when William and Isabel’s first son Daniel was born, presumably in Hartford. William and Isabel had two more sons, both born in Hartford, John in 1645 and Samuel in 1647.
William and Isabel removed to Newtown, Long Island, in 1662. William died there in 1667 or 1668. Isabel survived him. She made her will at Newtown on 1 April 1682, leaving her share of the “housings and lands” left to her by her husband William to their son Daniel Bloomfield.
Isabel’s son Simon Sackett married his stepsister Sarah Bloomfield in Springfield, Massachusetts, in about 1652. Simon’s reasons for emigrating
Early migrants from England to the New World had various motivations for seeking a new life in a virtually unknown country and for undertaking the hazardous journey. Many fled religious persecution, but others removed in hopes of a better, more prosperous future. England had entered on a half-century of chronic trade depression. Propagandists for the Massachusetts Bay Company, which had been founded in 1629, were active in the recruitment of settlers. And there was the promise of boundless fertile lands. Some were escapees from threatening plague or famine. Survival in the new land would depend crucially upon the application of essential practical skills; thus, many were farmers or were engaged in allied trades. Well-placed migrants took with them their servants and these, too, were to become founding fathers of America.
Simon’s reasons for embarking on his American adventure are not known. Nor do we know his occupation. Given the documentation of the time, it would seem likely that, had Simon emigrated for reasons of religious conviction, there would remain recorded evidence of the fact. But it is dangerous to speculate as to his reasons; it is to be hoped that further information will come to light. It is worth, however, considering Simon’s family circumstances at the time.
Simon Sackett was born, probably in November 1595 (he was baptized on 23 November 1595), in the small rural parish of St Peter in the Isle of Thanet on the north-east coast of Kent. He was the sixth of nine children, and third of five sons, born to Thomas and Martha Sackett. Simon’s father, Thomas, who had died when Simon was 20, was a yeoman farmer in Birchington, a parish some five miles west of St Peter. Thomas had evidently established a farm at Birchington some time after the birth of his youngest child, Elizabeth, in 1604.
The description of Thomas, in his will made in 1615, as a “yeoman” implies that he owned at least some of his land. However, the term does not necessarily imply significant wealth and it is clear from his will that his house and land at St Peter’s were mortgaged and that his house and land at Birchington were rented. His will directed that the St Peter’s property be sold to pay his debts and legacies. Thomas had inherited lands and a tenement at St Peter’s from his father, also Thomas. Thomas the elder, although possessed of property, described himself in his will as a “labourer”; again, that will does not suggest significant wealth.
Simon was about 35 years old when he made his fateful decision to emigrate. Two of his brothers had died, older brother Thomas some eleven years earlier, and younger brother William about fifteen years earlier. Although there is no direct confirmatory evidence, it is possible that they were victims of plague or other epidemic which occurred frequently in Birchington in the early part of the 17th century16. His eldest brother John, later identified by his will as John Sackett the fisherman, survived. There is no evidence that John or Simon were possessed of lands.
Simon had been married twice; first in 1618 to Elizabeth Boyman, and following her death in 1625/26, second to Isabel Pearce in 1627. Elizabeth had borne him three daughters, Christianna in 1620, Elizabeth in 1623, and Martha in 1625. Of these, only Christianna is known to have survived to adulthood, marrying Thomas Tanner in 1641. No death or burial records for Elizabeth or Martha have been found but it is reasonable to assume that they died in infancy or childhood, perhaps the victims of plague. In any event, when he emigrated, Simon left at least one young, motherless, daughter behind, presumably in the care of one of his brothers or sisters.
The will of Simon’s brother John, made in 1628, reveals that Simon owed his brother a sum of money. It would be stretching the evidence to conclude that this would have been a loan to help finance Simon’s voyage (emigration may not even have been under consideration at this early date), but it does indicate that Simon was not a man of means. As a second son, probably without land, his prospects in Thanet may have seemed limited. In the absence of evidence of a religious motive, it is probable that Simon was attracted by the promise of a more prosperous future in New England. Or, he may have been motivated by both religious and economic factors. Simon and Isabel’s voyage
Although Weygant gives specific details of the dates and method of Simon’s journey to Boston, Massachusetts, on the Lyon from Bristol on England’s west coast, it has not yet proved possible to verify from primary sources that he was a passenger on that particular voyage.17,18 Weygant’s version is probable but it is known to be inaccurate in the important particular of Simon’s origin, Weygant stating this to be the Isle of Ely, Cambridgeshire, instead of the Isle of Thanet, Kent. Other writers have proposed various dates for Simon’s migration (Riker, “about the year 1628 or ’29”; Savage and Anderson, 1632). The earlier dates would seem less likely as there were relatively few settlers before the sailing of the Winthrop fleet of eleven ships in 1630. If Simon was indeed on this Lyon voyage then he would certainly have met John Winthrop as the latter boarded the ship on 8 February 1631 as it rode at anchor off Long Island.19
Weygant records Simon as being engaged, with others, in building dwellings in Newtown, Mass., in 1631. Confirmation of this date would be of help in determining Simon’s date of migration. Although it is likely that Simon was there in 1631, it has not been possible to confirm this. The first record of Simon found in Newtown (Cambridge) is in the undated list (almost certainly of 1632) in the Cambridge Town Records.
The Cambridge Historical Commission have placed a plaque in Winthrop Park stating that Dudley, Bradstreet, Lockwood, Poole, Patrick, Spencer, Kirman, and Sackett had completed and occupied houses in Newtown by 26 July 1631. However, study of the Commission’s source (Lucius Paige’s History of Cambridge) suggests that this rather stretches the evidence. It would perhaps be more accurate to say that Dudley and Bradstreet had built houses in Newtown by 1631 and it is likely that the others had also done so.20 The family tradition
Weygant relates the family tradition as told to him by his father-in-law, Samuel Bailey Sackett, that Simon with his brother, John, travelled on the Lyon in company with Roger Williams. The existence of this brother has since been challenged (by Anderson) and our further researches have revealed that Weygant’s primary evidence in support of the family tradition, that John Sackett, Simon’s alleged brother, filed an inventory of his own son’s estate (in 1684), was mistaken. With the removal of Simon’s brother, John, the question is opened of the relationship between Simon and John of New Haven (claimed by Weygant to have been the son of Simon’s brother)—and, indeed, the migration of this John Sackett. DNA test results
An early objective of the Sackett DNA project was to see if there was a genetic link between the lines of Simon Sackett the colonist and John Sackett of New Haven. Given the family tradition, it was fully expected that a match would be found. However, test results for a significant number of present-day descendants in each line suggest that Simon and John were not related.
The family tradition related to Charles Weygant by his father-in-law Samuel Bailey Sackett.
About ten years after the Pilgrim Fathers landed at Plymouth, Simon and John Sackett, brothers, came from England to Massachusetts, in company with Roger Williams. John Sackett followed Mr. Williams to Rhode Island and finally settled at New Haven, becoming the founder of the New Haven branch of the family. Simon Sackett remained in Massachusetts, was one of the founders of the City of Cambridge, and is the progenitor of the Massachusetts and Long Island, N.Y., branches.
1. Simon Sackett 160?-1635. On December 1, 1630 the ship Lyon, laden with provisions consigned to colonists who had the preceding year accompanied or followed Lord John Winthrop to New England, sailed from the seaport city of Bristol. The passenger list of the Lyon on this particular voyage contained 26 names, a little band of well-to-do Puritan colonists who had voluntarily left comfortable homes in the land of their birth, where liberty to worship God in accordance with the dictates of conscience was by law denied them, and seeking new places of abode, with such fortune as might await them on the rugged shores and in the primeval forests of the New World. Among the heads of families of this pioneer band were Roger Williams, Simon Sackett, John Sackett, John Throkmorton and Nicholas Bailey. The family of Simon Sackett included his wife Isabel, and their infant son, Simon Sackett Jr.
This mid-winter voyage of the ship Lyon was unusually severe. She did not reach Nantasket Roads, off Boston town, the port of her destination, until February 5, 1631. About a month previous to her arrival, Governor Winthrop, Deputy Governor Dudley, and the “Assistants” to whom and their successors, King Charles had committed the charter government of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, had formally selected, a few miles from Boston, on the Charles River, a site for a new town, which it was their avowed purpose to fortify and make the permanent seat of government. It was understood and agreed that the Governor, Deputy Governor, and six of the eight assistants, should each erect on the site selected a permanent house, suitable for the accommodation of his family, in time to spend the following winter there. But shortly thereafter several of the assistants became deeply interested in private business projects at Boston and other settlements and neglected to carry out their part of the agreement. The undertaking was not, however, abandoned or long delayed, for in the spring of 1631, Winthrop, Dudley and Bradstreet, together with six other “principal gentlemen,” including Simon Sackett, “commenced the execution of the plan” by erecting substantial dwellings. The house built and occupied by Simon Sackett and his family stood on the north side of what is now Winthrop Street, in the centre of the block, between Brighton and Dunster Streets.
From the commencement of the settlement records were made of the “agreements of its inhabitants” touching matters of mutual interest, as well as of the public acts of town officials-all of which have been preserved to the present day. Wood, in his “New England’s Prospects”, written in the latter part of 1633, gives the following description of the place, which at that time was called Newtown, but three years later was re-christened Cambridge:
This is one of the neatest and best compacted towns in New England, having many fair structures, with many handsome contrived streets. The inhabitants, most of them, are very rich and well stored with cattle of all sorts, having many hundred acres of land poled in with general fence, which is about a mile and a half long, which secures all their weaker cattle from the wild beasts.
Newtown did not, however, become the permanent seat of government of Massachusetts Bay Colony, but it did become, is to-day, and will undoubtedly long remain the seat of America’s most famous university.
In the founding and laying out of this embryo “city in the wilderness”, Simon Sackett was a potent factor, but the exposure and privations of his mid-winter voyage on the ship Lyon had undermined his health, which continued to decline until October 1635, when he died. On the third day of November following, widow Isabel Sackett was granted, by the court, authority to administer on his estate. At same session of court, the memorable decree was entered which banished Roger Williams from the colony. Mrs. Williams had come to Newtown with her husband on that occasion, “he being in feeble health”, and it is altogether probable they were entertained at the home of their bereaved friend and fellow passenger on their voyage from England, whose dwelling was convenient to the public building where the court was held.
Widow Sackett’s name appears on the Newtown records for the last time under date of February 8, 1636. In June of that year the Rev. Hooker’s congregation, having either sold or leased their dwellings, removed to Connecticut – widow Sackett and her boys forming part of the migrating company. Dr. Trumble give the following account of their journey:
About the beginning of June 1636, Mr. Hooker and about 100 men, women and children took their departure from Newtown and traveled more than a hundred miles through a hideous wilderness to Hartford. They made their journey over mountains, through swamps, thickets and rivers, which were not passable but with great difficulty. They had no cover but the heavens, nor any lodgings but those that simple nature offered them. They drove with them 160 head of cattle and carried their packs and some utensils. This adventure was the more remarkable, as many of the company were persons of figure, who had lived in England in honor, affluence and delicacy, and were entire strangers to fatigue and danger.
After Mr. Hooker’s migrating company had become established at Hartford, widow Isabel Sackett became the second wife of William Bloomfield.
Simon Sackett and his wife Isabel were the parents of:
3. Simon Sackett, b. 1630; d. July 9, 1659; m. Sarah Bloomfield.
4. John Sackett, b. 1632, d. Oct 8, 1719; m. Abigail Hannum.
Hooker’s Company Reach the Connecticut
Src: Wikipedia, publishers: Estes & Lauriat, 1879
Children of Simon Sackett the colonist and Elizabeth Boyman
Baptisms Register, St Peter the Apostle, Thanet, Kent (Society of Genealogists), “23 November 1595 Symon s. Thomas Sackett.”
“The American Genealogist”, digital image, American Ancestors, 1988, 63:179, (the range of death dates being established from inventories of lands held by neighbours abutting his and his widow’s lands as recorded in The Register Book of the Lands and Houses in the “New Towne”).
Marriages Register, St Peter the Apostle, Thanet, Kent (Tyler transcripts, Society of Genealogists), “2 November 1618 Simon Sackett & Elizabeth Boyman.”
“Torrey’s New England Marriages Prior to 1700”, database, American Ancestors, “Simon1 [Sackett] (–1635) & Isabel ___, (–1635+) m/2 William Bloomfield; by 1630; Cambridge. “
Burials Register, St John the Baptist, Thanet, Kent, digital image, Findmypast, “27 Feb 1625/26 Elizabetha uxor Simonis Sacket.”
Marriages Register, St John the Baptist, Margate, Kent (Parish Registers 1570-1650 (U3/140/1/1) (Debrett’s); Tyler transcripts; IGI), “6 August 1627 Matrimonius est solemnizatum inter Simone Sacket et Isabella Pearce.”
“Torrey’s New England Marriages Prior to 1700”, database, American Ancestors, “Simon1 (-1635) & Isabel ___, (-1635+) m/2 William Bloofield; by 1630; Cambridge. “
“Torrey’s New England Marriages Prior to 1700”, database, American Ancestors, “BLOOMFIELD, William & 2/wf Isabel (___) [SACKETT], w Simon; aft 8 Feb 1636, bef 1645; Hartford/New London .”
Town Minutes of Newtown 1653-1734: Transcriptions of Early Town Records of New York (New York: Historical Records Survey, 1941).
Cambridge City Clerk, publisher, Town Records of the Town of Cambridge (formerly Newtowne) (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge City Council, 1901), 2, Earliest settlers, undated list, but probably 1632, the first dated entry being 24 Dec 1632 on p4, “The Towne, Newtowne, Inhabitants then, Tho = Dudly Esqr, mr Symon Bradstreet, mr Edmond Lockwood, mr Daniell Patrike, John Poole, William Spencer, John Kirman, Symon Sackett.”
Cambridge City Clerk, publisher, Town Records of the Town of Cambridge (formerly Newtowne) (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge City Council, 1901), 4–5, “The 7th of January 1632[/33] … Comon Pales divided as Follo—[Totals of 42 names, 581 Rodd/Rod (1 rod = 5½ yards), including:] Symon Saket 6 Rod.” “The 5th August 1633, Lotts Granted for Cowyardes. [Totals of 28 names, 12½ acres & 23 roods (1 rood = ¼ acre), including:] Symo Sakt ½ akr.”
Cambridge City Clerk, publisher, Town Records of the Town of Cambridge (formerly Newtowne) (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge City Council, 1901), 12–13, “Division of Fresh Pond Meadow. Att A General Meeting of the whole Towne the 20th August 1635. Itt was ordered that William Spencer and Georg Steele should measuer all the meaddow ground undivided belonging to the Newtowne: and when it is measuered and divided to every man his proporcion they are to: measuer every mans severally and Cause stakes to bee sett at each end and to have three pence the Acker for the same and whosoever shall not pay for measueringe wthin one yeare then the ground to returne to them for measueringe. Further it is ordered that the same shalbee divided acordinge to every mans severall proporcion hereunder written untill it bee all dispossed off viz [Totals of 71 names, 118½ acres, including:] Sy. Saket 1 [Ackr].”
The Register Book of the Lands and Houses in the “New Towne” and the Town of Cambridge with the Records of the Proprietors of the Common Lands, being the Records generally called The Proprietors’ Records (Cambridge, Massachusetts: J Wilson & Son, 1896), 33.
Nathaniel B Shurtleff, Editor, Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, 1628–1686 (Boston: , 1853–1854), 155, “Att the Court, Novembr 3, 1635. There is adm’strac’on graunted to Isabell Sackett of the goods & chattells of her husband, lately deceased.”
Lucius Paige, History of Cambridge, Massachusetts 1630-1870 (Boston: Houghlin & Co, 1877), 651.
R K I Quested, The Isle of Thanet Farming Community: An Agrarian History (Ashford, Kent: Wye College Press, 1996), pp47-8.
The names of some passengers on this voyage of the Lyon were recorded by John Winthrop in his Journal: “Febr: 5 [1630/31] The shippe Lyon with mr Wm: Peirce master, arived at Nataskat, she brought mr williams (a godly man) with his wife, mr Throgmorton, [blank] Perkins, [blank] Onge & others with their wiues & Children, about 20: passingers, & about 200: tun. of goodes: she sett sayle from Bristow december 1: she had a verye tempestuous passage, yet through Godes mercye all her people came safe, except waye his sonne, who fell from the spritsayle yarde in a tempest & could not be recovered thoughe he kept in sight neere 1/4 of an howre: her goodes allso came all in good condition.” [Richard S Dunn, James Savage, and Laetitia Yeandle, editors, The Journal of John Winthrop 1630–1649 (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1996), 44–45.]
An article on Roger Williams in The Genealogists’ Post (May 1964) states: “Among the passengers [on the Lyon] was the Reverend Roger Williams and his wife Mary; John Throckmorton with his wife Rebecca and children, John and Patience; John Perkins with his wife Judith and children John, Elizabeth, Mary, Thomas and Jacon; Edmond Onge and his wife Frances and children Simon and Jonah; and William Parke.”
Dunn, Savage, and Yeandle, editors, The Journal of John Winthrop, 45–46, “8: [Feb 1630/31] The Governor went aboard the Lyon rydinge by longe Ilande.” “9: [Feb] The Lyon came to an Anchor before Boston, where she rode verye well notwithstandinge the great drifte of Ice.” “10: [Feb] The frost brake vp, & after that, thoughe we had many snowes & sharpe frostes yet they continued not, neither were the waters frozen vp as before: (it hathe been observed ever since this baye was planted by Englishmen viz. 7: yeares) that at this daye the froste hathe broke vp everye yeare. The poorer sorte of people (who laye in tentes &c:) were muche afflicted with the Sckirvye, & many dyed, especially at Boston & Charles towne, but when this shippe came, & brought store of Iuice of Lemons, manye recovered speedylye. It hathe beene alwayes observed heere, that suche as fell into discontente & lingered after their former Conditions in Englande, fell into the skirvye, & dyed.”
A plaque placed in Winthrop Park in Harvard Square by the Cambridge Historical Commission in 1980 states, “By July 26, 1631, eight houses were completed and occupied by Dudley, Bradstreet, Lockwood, Poole, “Capt.” Patrick, Spencer, Kirman, and Sackett.” Enquiries made by Lester L Sackett in 2004 reveal that the Commission’s source for the 1631 date was Lucius Paige’s History of Cambridge (Riverside Press, 1877). However, study of Paige’s work suggests that the Commission’s conclusion, that these eight men were established in Cambridge by July 1631, rather stretches the evidence. Indeed, Paige was careful to state that he had no “certain proof”. Referring to the Town Records, Paige stated, “But this Book of Records was not commenced until 1632, several months after Dudley and Bradstreet performed their promise ‘to build houses at the New Town.’ Whether more than the before mentioned eight persons, and indeed whether all these resided in the New Town before the end of 1631, I have not found any certain proof. The number of inhabitants in that year was doubtless small, yet there were enough able-bodied men to be specially included in an order of the court passed July 26, 1631, requiring a general training of soldiers in all the plantations.” There would seem, therefore, to be satisfactory evidence that Dudley and Bradstreet had built houses in Newtown in 1631. While it is likely that others had also done so, there is no direct evidence of this.
Robert Anderson, The Great Migration Begins – Immigrants to New England 1620-1633, vol. III (Boston: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1995).
We are delighted to have made contact with our New England Cousins, Russell Friend , and family . Matthew has traced his branch of the family back to John Friend of Canterbury , who landed with Winthrop in Ipswich Ma. – we think his 2nd voyage of 1632 – a true Pilgrim Father in the lead up to the civil war. The family are still around Salem and Gloucester to this day, where Russell’s father was raised. It is nice to think that John Friend , took his practical knowledge of woodworking and of how to build corn grinding Mills with him from East Kent , where many fine examples of wind mills like Drapers in Margate , and water mills , like Wickembreux still exist. Apologies John Goff for ‘ lifting’ your article below – but hopefully you might get a few followers of your site from Old England ! George, Lizzie and wife Louise were over there visiting her aunt in August /September 2022. I visited Salem and Ipswich in the 1990’s . Since this post, here are photos of George and Lizzie took of the remains of the tide mill
Will Friend
This 1880 photo shows the Friend Tide Mill on the Bass River. The mill processed grain brought to the location by ship. Photo courtesy of Beverly Historical Society
Looking anew at Salem and Beverly’s Bass River
John Goff | Wicked Local
Last September, we worked with the Beverly Historical Society and Tide Mill Institute to establish a new tour program for the old Friend’s Tide Mill site. This feature near the Cummings Center fronts upon the Bass River in what is now Beverly. Yet before 1629 this area was all part of ancient Naumkeag. It was first settled by Nanepashemet’s boat-building, fishing & Indian corn-farming Native Americans. It then remained part of colonial Salem until the 1750s.
By the 1630s, early English citizens like John Winthrop who sailed the famed 1630 Arbella fleet to Salem, and 1630 sailor and carpenter John Friend of Salem were influential near the Naumkeag or Bass River. Friend built a ca. 1647-49 Indian corn-grinding tidal gristmill after obtaining Salem permissions.
Friend’s Mill or the Friend-Dodge Tide Mill was kept active by many different owners over the years. These including the Friends, Leaches, Dodges and Woodburys. (John Friend, 1640s-1660s; then John Leach; then John Dodge, Jr; then Dodge’s son-in-law Ebenezer Woodbury after 1702; then Israel Woodbury’s son-in-law Thomas Davis after 1798; finally Aaron Dodge and his son Israel W. Dodge after 1848.)
Over time, this Salem and Beverly water-powered mill underwent changes. Its dam was moved by circa 1848 downstream to the south side of Elliott Street perhaps to more easily access large ships. A tall grain elevator tower was built in 1851. Some of the 17th century mill framing was recycled into a barn structure. A circa 1880 photograph shows the mill’s tall timber grain elevator tower was situated near the middle of the south side waterfront elevation while on the west gable end, a painted sign proclaimed “elevator and mills” with the reference to mills being plural.
Each pair or run of millstones was sometimes also called a mill. The sign evidently indicated that there were at least two pairs of millstones working within the Friend-Dodge Tide Mill by the 1880s. Multiple centers of grinding provided versatility.
Grain elevators often used conveyor belts with attached metal buckets to lift great volumes of corn, wheat and/or other cereal grains to the uppermost floors of gristmills. From near the top of the mill, gravity and cloth or wood chutes conveyed the grain to be milled down to the millstones—that were all turned at high speed using local waterpower. Meal, bran and flour were produced for local consumption as well as for maritime export.
The Friend-Dodge Tide Mill was a highly significant Salem and Beverly industrial, agricultural and maritime landmark between the 1640s and 1880s. Schooners and vessels brought grain to be milled to the site. Mill Street to the east also brought farmers and commerce to the mill. The Beverly Historical Society noted “The region [near the mill] remained part of Salem until 1753.”
An 1880s fire removed all upper portions of the last tide mill on the Bass River. However surviving wooden dam remnants, pilings, and other features now visible prove the site retains high archaeological, historical and interpretive value. It would appear that an intact 19th century waterwheel or metal shafted turbine likely also survives intact below grade.
To enhance Salem and Beverly tourism and pride of place, I propose several new elements could be introduced. These might include: (1) new wayside markers for the nearby park; (2) regular tours and classes, as well as (3) archaeological inspection and documentation of the Friend’s Mill waterwheel and millstones.
In addition, to maximize community value, perhaps what is also needed is a new small floating educational center and gallery or museum that could be anchored near the Bass River tide mill remains. A new flat-bottomed vessel and/or boat mill could perhaps work to present and preserve tide mill history along with new 21st century renewable energy education exhibits (relating to tidal, solar and wind energy) to benefit multiple audiences.
Could a new mobile or moored micro-museum on the Bass River enhance education and eco-tourism here and/or in other places where historic tide mills once functioned?
Tide mills and historic tide mill sites open wonderful new doors to history and maritime history discovery. Salem and Beverly were and are fortunate to have John Friend’s Tide Mill. Look for related future articles to print to potentially discuss tide mills, boat mills, floating architecture and John Friend of Salem, the 1640s builder who constructed the first working tidal gristmill here on Salem’s and Beverly’s old Naumkeag or Bass River.
Further to our post of last year , We are delighted that our proposals for more business units at the farm have finally been agreed and approved .
The planning , conservation , highways and environmental health departments have all agreed to them , vindicating and confirming our long established position-that the established garden and business centre are the most appropriate uses for our land in the urban area, and conservation area, conforming with all local and national policies. We thank everyone who wrote in in support – about 40 of you , and all our other supporters over the years and look forward to being able to progress things forward once more for the benefit of the character, amenity and prosperity of the area. We are hopeful that this marks the final end to the vindictive, unfounded allegations and claims against us , our tenants and business operations by our disgruntled neighbour of the past 37 years . stmt regarding supporting documents for CLU 19 1040 refurbishment of CU 00 0611 buildings Mar 2020
As many know , Louise and I have faced decades of objection from one of our neighbours, (see post on the dispute over private road) to the development of our Farmyard areas, in the urban area as a Garden and Business Centre.
Four applications F/TH/20/0261, F/TH/20/0419, F/TH/20/0320 and F/TH/20/1418 were submitted in 2020 to confirm that my proposals offer public benefit, are in accordance with planning policy and cause no harm to the conservation area , heritage assets, green infrastructure or the amenity of the area.
the first of these applications 20/1418 was passed at committee on the 19th May 21 in accordance with officers recommendations. officers report 20 1418
This application to improve the accesses onto George Hill Road can now be implemented to reduce traffic down the private road, improving, road safety and traffic segregation , improving the settings of the listed buildings along it for everyone’s mutual benefit.
The second application, F/TH/20/0261 for alteration of the roof of block D, is now also approved , F_TH_20_0261-DELEGATED_REPORT-890983. The objections raised were repeats of old objections already raised in 2014 and 2016 against approved applications – Kevin Palmer F_TH_20_0261-OBJECTS-861457 – This application reduces the maximum height of the approved building from 4.5m to 3.6m , – below the height of the boundary screening . 21 05 27 -JS 2nd drft support ,
We now await the out come of the next two applications. The continued use of the site for existing uses will preserve the garden, farmyard and horticultural nature of the site .
We sincerely thank all those who have written in , in support of these applications. These 30+ letters are available to view on the TDC planning website under the above reference numbers . The three quoted below, especially from Margate Civic Society and Ramsgate Operatic Society, encapsulate all the overall points. We really hope and believe that the determination of these applications will now draw a final line under the unfounded objections of the past , allowing us to invest in improving the facilities we offer to local small businesses, individuals and charitable groups.
Ramsgate Operatic Society, Broadstairs, Kent
30/03/2021
Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing in support of the planning applications by Mr William Friend in respect of Northdown Business Centre. Margate, Kent, CT9 3TS.
The application references are F/TH/20/0261, F/TH/20/0419, F/TH/20/0320 and F/TH/20/1418.
I am fully aware of the proposals contained in the applications which I believe will enhance and improve the entire site. In addition I believe that if granted, the changes will allow the buildings and facilities to blend in further and add to the character of the whole conservation area around the location.
Secondly, The public benefit for the community would be further assured by consolidating the current arrangements for the existing small businesses and charities that use the site.
I am writing this letter of support as the Secretary for Ramsgate Operatic Society on behalf of the entire committee of trustees as I have been able to witness at first hand the benefit to the community and charitable organisations such as ours. The site owners have provided storage facilities for our costumes and scenery with an initial six month rent freeze followed by a monthly rental charge well below the average commercial rate.
I am also aware of the generosity and support given to other registered charities that regularly use the site including the Thanet Male Voice Choir of which I am a member.
I believe that Ramsgate Operatic Society will benefit further from the changes allowed by successful applications as it would eventually allow the provision of larger and improved storage facilities for the Society.
My fellow trustees have been consulted and are also fully in agreement with the applications for the same reasons listed above. They are:
Paul Trindall: Chairman, Mary Pickett: Treasurer, Barry Todd: Trustee, Linda Sanford : Trustee, Nathan Karro : Trustee, Thomas Mitchel: Trustee, Rhea Woodward: Trustee,
Yours Sincerely
Ken Pickett, (Secretary to the Trustees)
From: “mike.thompson>
To: emma.fibbens@thanet.gov.uk
Sent: Tuesday, 27 Apr, 2021 At 20:14
Subject: East Northdown Farm – planning applications ref; – F/TH/20/0261, F/TH/20/0419, F/TH/20/0320, F/TH/20/1418.
Dear Ms Fibbens,
Margate Civic Society submits the following comments in full support of the above planning applications.
The site provides for mixed usage which re-enforces and supports the sustainability of the farm itself whilst at the same time offering diversity that supports a garden centre, cafe, small business units and educational use. This mixed usage is most commendable as it provides affordable opportunities to small local businesses who would be unable to thrive outside this environment owing to the high rental charges in force elsewhere.
We hear much talk about affordable housing provision but virtually none about affordable commercial provision but it is clear that occupiers of units on the site are grateful for the opportunities provided.
The planning applications do, therefore, support local employment and seek to further the existing local interest and viability of the site. The intention to maintain, invest in and improve this connection is to be applauded. It would be all too easy to sell out to an out of town developer for some grandiose residential scheme and turn away from the local connection that is currently provided.
It is, therefore, the opinion of Margate Civic Society that the planning applications submitted will further improve the site and the development of the local green economy and for these reasons, the Society fully supports their approval together with any safeguarding conditions that may be considered appropriate.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
Mr.M.Thompson (for Margate Civic Society)
Margate CT9
Dear Mrs Fibbens,
I am agent for the Applicant Mr Friend and have been involved with East Northdown Farm for many years.
The two change of use applications above conform to Mr. Friend proposals to continue with the established commercial uses set out in 2013 ,rather than alternative residential schemes under consideration at that time within the urban area.
The other elements of the Scheme approved or implemented so far, with respect to their uses and design, have hitherto not met with any objections from any statutory consultees.
Application F TH 20 0419 received 30 letters of support, and none against, from local residents , tenants and local groups , such as the Margate Civic Society . The principles and sentiments already set out in these letters apply equally to both 0419 and 0320 and I endorse and commend them to you. The proposals will allow the future use of the site and buildings such that it will enhance the facilities on the site for public economic and amenity benefit, and in a way that is sympathetic to its sensitive location in the Conservation Area.
The Application F TH 20 0320 is a full application for two similar change of use notices submitted under the GPDO to the Council in 2016. In my opinion the GPDO encourages development of this kind. Accordingly, I support the approval of the current full application. The new Local Plan specifically endorses the principle of re-using areas of historic, amenity and heritage interest , such as the Ramsgate Royal Harbour, Margate Old Town and Quex Park as mixed use creative hubs to foster local creative talent , particularly needed now in the recovery of small business from the Covid Pandemic .
The proposed development will improve the economic and amenity contribution of East Northdown Farm, Garden and Business Centre to the area .
In my opinion the proposed development will have no impact on the frequency of commercial traffic currently using East Northdown Farm Lane, a private road in Mr Friend’s ownership.
The development will not have a negative impact on the curtilage of Listed Buildings fronting this lane, or the buildings themselves. The Listed farmhouse is undergoing the final phase of re-roofing and the roof of the listed ‘Kent Barn’ is due to undergo similar ‘once every one hundred years’ repairs and refurbishment shortly, funded from the income from the Business Centre.
For these reasons I support the Application as submitted
The smugglers caves at Whiteness bay , lead in to a tunnel that used to come up at ‘smugglers cottage’ in Northdown Park , which stood in the ‘Dell’ . !!
Simon Sackett the colonist
Society