Exploring Kent's Past

It should not be assumed that this site is publicly accessible and it may be on private property. Do not trespass.

Monument details

Summary

Slough Fort was constructed in 1867 to link the Medway defences with those of the Thames Estuary. The fort was designed to provide artillery fire against hostile shipping in the estuary and to prevent landings on the beaches. It was modified in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with wing batteries added and a quick-firing battery on the fort roof. The fort continued in use during the First World War but fell from use thereafter and was finally sold in the 1920s.

Monument Types

• FORT (Post Medieval to Modern - 1867 AD to 1920 AD?)
• (Former Type) SIGNAL STATION? (Modern - 1914 AD? to 1918 AD?)

Full description

If you do not understand anything on this page please contact us.

From the National Heritage List for England:

The monument comprises parts of Slough Fort and its wing batteries. The core of the fort is protected by its listed building status and is therefore not included in the scheduling but is briefly described below to allow an understanding of the historical development of the site in its entirety.

HISTORY: Slough was constructed in 1867, as a direct consequence of the 1859 Royal Commission on the Defences of the United Kingdom, to link the Medway defences, including Grain Fort, with other new forts in the Thames Estuary such as those at Cliffe and Shornemead on the north Kent coast. It was an integral part of a defensive system comprising a ring of coastal fortifications on both sides of the Thames that provided artillery fire against hostile shipping in the estuary. Slough Fort also provided protection at a local level against enemy landings on the neighbouring beaches as well as the approach to Yantlet Creek to its east. The fort was subsequently modified in the late-C19 and early-C20, most significantly by the addition of a wing battery to both the east and west of the original fort core and a quick-firing battery on the fort roof. The fort continued to be used during World War I and was finally abandoned by the army and then sold in the 1920s. In 1861, a year after the Royal Commission Report, land to the value of £1,639 was purchased to enable the construction of Slough Fort. It was completed by 1867 and provided a casemated battery housing seven 7 inch Armstrong rifled breech-loading guns, manned by a garrison of three officers,
one NCO and 75 other ranks. In 1885 the Secretary of State described the work here as unfinished, but this probably only referred to the lack of gun shields for the embrasures (the opening through which a gun fires) of the
casemates (or gun chambers) as these were never installed. Major redevelopment took place at Slough between October 1889 and December 1891 when two wing batteries were constructed. Each wing battery had two
breech-loading 'pop-up' or 'disappearing' guns of a 6 inch and 9.2 inch calibre. Positioned in deep concrete emplacements these were on hydro-pneumatic mountings made by the Elswick Ordnance Company.
Hydro-pneumatic power enabled the gun to 'pop up' over the top of the emplacement for firing and the recoil caused it to retract or 'disappear' into the safety of the emplacement for reloading hence the alternative names for this type of gun and gun mounting. An underground magazine was also located between each pair of emplacements. As a consequence of this redevelopment the seven casemates in the main body of the fort became obsolete. At this time the front (north) of the fort was enclosed by a substantial earth bank, rising almost to roof level. This covered the former casemate embrasures and offered protection against incoming enemy fire. The guns were removed and the casemates were converted into permanent barrack accommodation: three became married quarters, one was converted to officers' quarters and accommodation in the remaining three casemates housed 17 men. New detached quarters for a Warrant Officer, a small detachment of Royal Engineers and barrack stores were also constructed to the south-east of the fort. The fort roof space was modified to accommodate a depression range-finding instrument which calculated the distance and bearing of a target and relayed this information to the guns. The defensive ditch across the gorge (rear) to the south of the original fort is also believed to have been back-filled at this time with new and more extensive defences being constructed to protect the rear of the fort and the wing batteries. Provision
was also made for the storage of moveable guns and their ammunition which would have been employed in the vicinity of the fort when needed. These comprised four 16-pounder rifled muzzle-loaders, three 3-pounder quick-firing
guns and six 0.45 inch machine guns. It is clear that at some point light quick-firing guns were mounted on the
roof of the fort as there is physical evidence for at least two emplacements with ready-use ammunition lockers and structures to the rear that may have been gun-floor shelters for the crews. These are clearly later than 1892 as
detailed plans of that date do not show these features. One 3-pounder quick-firing gun was certainly in place by 1898 and two more followed by 1900. They were very short-lived as they had been removed by 1903. It is possible the quick-firing guns recorded as both moveable and fixed armaments are one and the same and were moved dependent upon need. Whereas the 6 inch and 9.2 inch guns in the wing batteries served against larger warships, these
quick-firing guns were designed to counter the threat from fast and light vessels such as torpedo boats.
Armaments tables and other contemporary reports provide useful information regarding the armaments at Slough between 1898 and World War One. It is clear that by the late 1890s, in common with all coast artillery batteries,
recommendations had been made to convert the disappearing guns to fixed mountings. These employed a much simpler principle whereby the barrel recoiled along its axis, enabling a much quicker rate of fire. By 1906 two
new 9.2 inch fixed guns had been installed in the eastern wing battery while one 9.2 inch and one 6 inch pop-up gun remained in place in the western wing. By 1907 the latter two had been removed. Slough Fort continued to play a key strategic role and was manned during World War I. A Battery Command post appears to have been added to the fort
roof at this time, possibly occupying the site of one of the quick-firing gun emplacements. This provided facilities for observation, command and control of the guns as well as telephone communications. A Thames Port War Signal
Station was also located to the east of the fort in the early-C20 (in a surviving building known locally as the Coastguard Cottage). This was operated by the coastguard to communicate with all shipping entering and
leaving the Thames. Through liaison with the Slough Fort battery commander, the Port War Signal Station ensured that no hostile shipping could pass the guns unchallenged. The army abandoned the fort in 1920, finally selling it in 1929 when it was used to house a small zoo. There is currently no evidence to suggest that Slough was re-requisitioned and re-armed during World War II although beach defences were erected to the north. In the post-war period the fort belonged to the Allhallows Estate Company and then Strood Rural District Council. The latter intended demolition but the costs were prohibitive. Planning permission for conversion to riding stables was therefore granted in the early 1960s.

DESCRIPTION: Slough Fort is a D-shaped, two-storey casemated work of Kentish ragstone and brick with high quality granite dressings. It is probably one of the smallest of the 70 or so forts built as a result of the Royal Commission.
As originally conceived the ground floor comprised seven granite-faced gun casemates in a curved battery to the north and defensible barracks to the south enclosing a small parade ground. The roof level, accessed by two
enclosed spiral staircases, provided an observation post with banquette (an infantry firing step for close defence from ground assault). The fort was entered from the south, protected by a now in-filled ditch crossed by a drawbridge. Evidence for this survives in the form of drawbridge pulleys either side of the original metal-plated gates. Infantry rifle
loopholes on either side of the entrance protected the landward approach. The eastern wing battery contains two gun emplacements for Nos. 1 and 2 guns and their underground magazine. Gun Emplacement No. 1 was the most easterly
of the four emplacements on the wing batteries (The east-west numbering employed follows that on contemporary military plans). It is roughly semi-circular in shape and originally a concrete emplacement for a 6 inch breech-loading gun on a hydro-pneumatic mounting. First constructed in 1889-91 it was modified in 1906 to accommodate a 9.2 inch breech-loading gun on a fixed 'barbette' mounting. (The barbette is a reinforced parapet over which a gun fires). This gun required a shallower emplacement, a problem solved by the insertion of a raised steel gantry in an arc around the rear of the emplacement to form a walkway and loading platform for the gun crew. This was supported on vertical steel columns and anchored into the barbette by horizontal girders. Although the gantry has been removed, four roughly-cut parallel grooves on each side survive to demonstrate the girder positions. No. 1 emplacement is largely in-filled with horse manure (2009) which presumably preserves the gun floor and magazine relatively intact. The gun
floor would have had a holdfast plate (for securing the gun mountings to the floor), ready-use ammunition lockers and a dials recess for the receipt of information from the range-finders. Several steel ring-bolts are visible, however, which would have secured the ropes and lifting equipment (in the form of temporary A-frames) for manoeuvring guns and heavy equipment.

The large semi-circular concrete 'apron' on the seaward side of the emplacement is intact. This would have served to protect the gun and deflect incoming fire. An earthwork defence to protect the back of the gun would be expected to the east and south of No. 1 and this is shown on a plan of 1892. However, the level of infill is now (2009) such that this element is not currently visible. The emplacement appears to have gone out of use and the gun was removed in 1918. A subterranean magazine with a number of internal chambers lay between No. 1 and No. 2 emplacements, beneath the straight wall joining the two. This was shared by both guns although the two gun crews would have worked independently. Inside were stores for cartridges, shells and side arms. Ammunition would have been raised to the guns by mechanical lifts (comprising a steel tray and chain), the vertical shafts for which are visible in each
barbette. Concrete steps rise onto the 'apron' between the two emplacements. Gun Emplacement No. 2 lies to the immediate east of the main fort and is connected to it by a flanking wall. This is a further concrete emplacement
but this time for a 9.2 inch breech-loading gun on a hydro-pneumatic mounting. Built in 1889-91 it was modified in 1906 for a 9.2 inch gun on a barbette or fixed mounting. No. 2 emplacement is also largely in-filled with horse manure (2009) which conceals much of the emplacement. However, ring-bolts of the same form and function as for No. 1 emplacement and modifications for the fixed gun are visible. This emplacement also appears to have gone out of use at the end of World War I. The western wing battery also contains two gun emplacements for Nos. 3 and 4 guns as well as their underground magazine. Gun Emplacement No. 3 lies to the immediate west of the main fort and is connected to it by a flanking wall (part of which is visible). This is an emplacement for a 9.2 inch breech-loading gun on a hydro-pneumatic mounting, built in 1889-91. Of concrete construction, it survives in very good condition and is of
particular interest as it was not subsequently modified. It is roughly semi-circular in shape with an indented flanking wall extending to the east from the south-east corner of the gun pit. All of the original rectangular recesses in the barbette are visible, although all have lost their original locker doors. The six largest comprise three pairs of ready-ammunition lockers. The western and central pair are each served by a small recess above, presumably for storing fuses for the shells and tubes for igniting the cartridges. A smaller cupboard on the east flank would have housed the dials linked to the range finders. Iron lamp brackets also survive as do the ring-bolts noted in the east wing battery. The concrete gun floor is visible and the position of the gun racer (the curved iron track which enable the gun to move in an arc to its target) can be seen. The height from the gun floor to the top of the parapet is approximately 4.5m.
The apron and glacis (the external slope of a defensive work carefully profiled to absorb and deflect incoming fire and to provide a clear field of fire against attack) for No. 3 lie to the north, beyond a fence which separates the riding school from the holiday park. However, the fall of the land here indicates that these features survive buried and intact. A subterranean magazine of the same form as in the east wing battery would have existed to serve this and the adjacent No. 4 gun. It is likely that this also survives in situ to the west of the emplacement. To the south of No. 3 the ground has been remodelled to form a ménage for the schooling of horses. The emplacement appears to have gone out of use and the gun removed in 1907. Gun Emplacement No. 4, also built in 1889-91, lay to the west of No. 3 in an area now used by Allhallows Holiday Park. It was originally the most westerly emplacement and was designed to house a 6 inch breech-loading gun on a hydro-pneumatic mounting. No. 4 emplacement appears to have gone out of use and the gun removed in 1907. Although no longer visible the topography would suggest that it survives as a back-filled feature. Aerial photographic evidence indicates that this infill occurred sometime between 1966 and 1973.
No. 4 is of particular interest as it is the only surviving unmodified 6 inch hydro-pneumatic emplacement on the site.
To the west of the stables (to the south-west of the main fort) lies an early-C20 building with a date stone of 1902. This is a single-storey brick and concrete rectangular structure with a flat concrete roof and four windows (which are a later insertion). It probably served as a gun detachment shelter for the men in the wing batteries. Annotations on a plan of 1892 indicate that this location had been approved for the construction of a casemated recreation room.
To the east of the stables (to the south-east of the main fort) is a concrete U-shaped protecting wall for the fort well. This is shown on a plan of 1892 as operated by a windmill pump with water piped into the main fort.

EXCLUSIONS: All modern (post-1945) buildings and structures, modern ground surfaces, telegraph poles, fences and signs are excluded from the scheduling, although the ground beneath them is included. All existing services and their
trenches are excluded from the scheduling although the ground around and beneath them is included. The central D-shaped core of the fort comprising a foundation, ground and roof level is not included in the scheduling and instead is listed at Grade II*. However, for the avoidance of confusion, the earth rampart to the north of the fort and flanking walls to either side are included in the scheduling.

ASSESSMENT OF IMPORTANCE
The Royal Commission fortifications are a group of related sites established in response to the 1859 Royal Commission report on the defence of the United Kingdom. This had been set up following an invasion scare caused by the
strengthening of the French Navy. These fortifications represented the largest maritime defence programme since
the initiative of Henry VIII in 1539-40. The programme built upon the defensive works already begun at Plymouth and elsewhere and recommended the improvement of existing fortifications as well as the construction of new
ones. There were eventually some 70 forts and batteries in England which were due wholly or in part to the Royal Commission. These constitute a well defined group with common design characteristics, armament and defensive provisions. Whether reused or not during the 20th century, they are the most visible core of Britain's coastal defence systems and are known colloquially as `Palmerston's follies'. All examples are considered of national importance.
Slough Fort is an essential component of the Royal Commission fortifications for north Kent, linking the Thames Estuary and Medway forts and protecting part of the Hoo peninsula. The monument survives in good condition and its significance is enhanced by the 1889-91 addition of two wing batteries for 'disappearing' guns. These gun emplacements are an unusual and nationally rare survival because of the very short time span in which their technology was deployed (less than twenty years). The monument is a physical manifestation of the very rapid changes in artillery and naval technologies in the late-C19 and early C20.

SOURCES: Gulvin KR, Medway Forts, pp16-17 (2000)

Saunders, A & Smith, V, Kent's Defence Heritage, Kent CC & English Heritage
(2001)
Palmerston Forts Society website: http://palmerstonforts.org.uk (accessed
2009)

The fort was reused during the Second World War. It firstly became an observation post in 1938, was incorporated as part of anti-invasion defences in 1939/40 and in 1944 became part of the air defence against V1s. (1)

The site of the a former signal signal station (mentioned above) stands within the Bourne Leisure Allhallows Caravan site and is currently used as a livery stables and sleeping accomodation. During the First World War wireless stations were established at a number of existing military defence sites such as Slough Fort. The site of the signal station is roughly that of the Coastguard station which remains extant although it is not possible to access the structure. There may also have been a connection between the blockhouse built on the roof of the central fort and the wireless station. (2)

This feature is recorded in the English Heritage Historic Area Assessment for Allhallows Parish. The report states: "In 1861, land at Slough was acquired for the construction of a fort as part of the major programme of new work initiated by the 1859 Royal Commission on the Defences of the United Kingdom. The fortification at Slough linked the Medway defences, including Grain Fort, with new Thames side forts, such as those at Cliffe, Shornemead and East Tilbury. Built on the higher ground above the Thames foreshore, with sweeping views across the estuary, Slough Fort was completed in 1867. It contained seven gun casements, reflecting a new emphasis on ‘massive firepower and less on elaborate defence’. Innovations in warfare necessitated the construction of two new wing or flanking batteries between 1889 and 1891. These housed faster-firing, less conspicuous guns behind low emplacements, able to ‘pop-up’ when fired and were provided with underground magazines. A Battery Command Post was added to the fort in World War I, which remained in use until it was closed in 1920… Slough Fort and its associated features are in a relatively good state of preservation and have features of interest in their design and subsequent development, as was recognised by their designation in 2009.The leisure park also contains a number of former military sites. Slough Fort, located to the north of the trackway known as the Brimp which historically linked Avery with Slough, is a two-storey D-shaped structure, built of Kentish ragstone and brick with granite dressings (listed grade II). Its external earthwork defences, wing batteries, well protecting wall, and probable gun detachment shelter are a scheduled monument. The relatively intact fort has had a chequered history since its closure in 1920, converted to a zoo in 1929 and a riding stables in the 1960s (which remains its present use)" (3)

Oxford Archaeological South, 2016, First World War Wireless Stations in England. (Bibliographic reference). SKE31551.

<1> Victor Smith, 2012, From assertive visibility to concealment - Slough Fort, Allhallows-on-Sea, Kent: A conservation study (Unpublished document). SKE17792.

<3> historic england, 2014, Hoo Peninsula Outline Historic Area Assessment: Allhallows Parish. Research Report 11-2014 (Bibliographic reference). SKE31596.

Sources and further reading

Related records