T H A M E S V A L L E Y ARCHAEOLOGICAL S E R V I C E S
Land at Holloway Lane, Harmondsworth, London Borough of Hillingdon
Archaeological Desk-based Assessment
by Steve Preston
Site Code HLH15/92
(TQ 0610 7830) Land at Holloway Lane, Harmondsworth London Borough of Hillingdon
Archaeological Desk-based Assessment
for Ingrebourne Valley Ltd
by Steve Preston
Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd
Site Code HLH 15/90
June 2015 Summary
Site name: Land at Holloway Lane, Harmondsworth, London Borough of Hillingdon
Grid reference: TQ 0610 7830
Site activity: Archaeological desk-based assessment
Project manager: Steve Ford
Site supervisor: Steve Preston
Site code: HLH15/92
Area of site: c.10ha
Summary of results: The site lies within an Archaeological Priority Zone as defined in the local plan. There are no known heritage assets on the site but archaeological deposits of Bronze Age and Saxon date were recorded immediately to the north during M4 motorway road widening. It will be necessary to provide further information about the potential of the site from field observations in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits if necessary.
This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.
Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford 02.06.15
i
Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47–49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading RG1 5NR Tel. (0118) 926 0552; Fax (0118) 926 0553; email: [email protected]; website: www.tvas.co.uk Land at Holloway Lane, Harmondsworth, London Borough of Hillingdon Archaeological Desk-based Assessment
by Steve Preston
Report 15/92 Introduction
This report is an assessment of the archaeological potential of a large parcel of land located south of the M4 motorway and north of Holloway Lane in Harmondsworth, west London (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr James Sutton, of Ingrebourne Valley Ltd, Cecil House, Foster Street, Harlow Common, Essex, CM17
9HY and comprises the first stage of a process to determine the presence/absence, extent, character, quality and date of any archaeological remains which may be affected by redevelopment of the area.
Planning permission is to be sought from the London Borough of Hillingdon for mineral extraction on the site followed by a reversion to agricultural use. This report will accompany the application in order to inform the planning process with regards to the archaeological implications of the proposal.
Site description, location and geology
The site currently consists of two arable fields, one rectangular and one basically triangular, located south of the
M4 and north of Holloway Lane, in Harmondsworth on the eastern edge of London (Fig. 1). Holloway Close marks the eastern limit of the site and there is an artificial lake to the west. Heathrow Airport is just over 1km to the south. The development area is centred on NGR, TQ 0610 7830. The site is located on Taplow brickearth
(BGS 1981). It is at a height of approximately 30m above Ordnance Datum. A site visit was made on 20th May
2015 and showed the area to be under crop (Pls 1–4). The external boundaries of the site are mature hedges, entirely blocking the view at ground level in all directions, with only high buildings being visible from the site.
The two fields are divided only by a track.
To the west is the valley of the river Colne which flows in several channels here, and its artificial counterpart, the Duke of Northumberland’s river. The original hydrography of the area, however, has been considerably altered by human interference in post-medieval and modern times, with gravel extraction, the creation of canals and reservoirs and artificial river channels.
1 Planning background and development proposals
Planning permission is to be sought from the London Borough of Hillingdon for mineral extraction from the site followed by restoration to agricultural use.
The Department for Communities and Local Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF
2012) sets out the framework within which local planning authorities should consider the importance of conserving, or enhancing, aspects of the historic environment, within the planning process. It requires an applicant for planning consent to provide, as part of any application, sufficient information to enable the local planning authority to assess the significance of any heritage assets that may be affected by the proposal. The
Historic Environment is defined (NPPF 2012, 52) as:
‘All aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through time, including all surviving physical remains of past human activity, whether visible, buried or submerged, and landscaped and planted or managed flora.’ Paragraphs 128 and 129 state that
‘128. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. ‘129. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.’ A ‘heritage asset’ is defined (NPPF 2012, 52) as
‘A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. Heritage asset includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing).’ ‘Designated heritage asset’ includes (NPPF 2012, 51) any
‘World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument, Listed Building, Protected Wreck Site, Registered Park and Garden, Registered Battlefield or Conservation Area designated under the relevant legislation.’
‘Archaeological interest’ is glossed (NPPF 2012, 50) as follows:
‘There will be archaeological interest in a heritage asset if it holds, or potentially may hold, evidence of past human activity worthy of expert investigation at some point. Heritage assets with archaeological interest are the primary source of evidence about the substance and evolution of places, and of the people and cultures that made them.’
2 Specific guidance on assessing significance and the impact of the proposal is contained in paragraphs 131 to 135:
‘131. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of: the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. ‘132. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. ‘133. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply: the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. ‘134. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. ‘135. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.
Paragraph 139 recognizes that new archaeological discoveries may reveal hitherto unsuspected and hence non- designated heritage assets
‘139. Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets.’ Paragraph 141 requires local planning authorities to ensure that any loss of heritage assets advances understanding, but stresses that advancing understanding is not by itself sufficient reason to permit the loss of significance:
‘141. Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development management publicly accessible. They should also require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.’
3 In determining the potential heritage impact of development proposals, ‘significance’ of an asset is defined
(NPPF 2012, 56) as:
‘The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.’ while ‘setting’ is defined as:
‘The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.’
The London Borough of Hillingdon’s Local Plan (HBC 2012), provides further guidance on this. Policy HE1 states:
‘Policy HE1: Heritage ‘The Council will: ‘1. Conserve and enhance Hillingdon's distinct and varied environment, its settings and the wider historic landscape, which includes: ‘Historic village cores, Metro-land suburbs, planned residential estates and 19th and 20th century industrial areas, including the Grand Union Canal and its features; Designated heritage assets such as statutorily Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Scheduled Ancient Monuments; Registered Parks and Gardens and historic landscapes, both natural and designed; Locally recognised historic features, such as Areas of Special Local Character and Locally Listed Buildings; and Archaeologically significant areas, including Archaeological Priority Zones and Areas. ‘2. Actively encourage the regeneration of heritage assets, particularly those which have been included in English Heritage's 'Heritage at Risk' register or are currently vacant. ‘3. Promote increased public awareness, understanding of and access to the borough's heritage assets and wider historic environment, through Section 106 agreements and via community engagement and outreach activities. ‘4. Encourage the reuse and modification of heritage assets, where appropriate, when considering proposals to mitigate or adapt to the effects of climate change. Where negative impact on a heritage asset is identified, seek alternative approaches to achieve similar climate change mitigation outcomes without damage to the asset.’ The site lies within the Hollow Close Archaeological Priority Area (or Zone).
Methodology
The assessment of the site was carried out by the examination of pre-existing information from a number of sources recommended by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (formerly Institute of Field Archaeologists) paper ‘Standards in British Archaeology’ covering desk-based studies. These sources include historic and modern maps, the Greater London Historic Environment Record, geological maps and any relevant publications or reports.
4 Archaeological background
General background
The brickearth and gravel deposits of West London are well known for archaeological finds and deposits of all periods, going back into the Palaeolithic. Much has been gleaned through recent fieldwork, and particularly from large area excavations carried out in advance of gravel and brick clay extraction (MoLAS 2000) or the development of Heathrow airport (FA 2006; 2010). Further sites have been identified through aerial photography
(e.g. Longley 1976), although the modern urban setting of much of West London does restrict this technique.
The gravel terraces, to both the east and west of suburban London, have been extensively settled from the
Neolithic period onwards. Some examples of this are provided by large and important sites such as the Neolithic causewayed enclosures at Staines, Middlesex (Robertson-MacKay 1987) and Orsett, Essex (Hedges and Buckley
1978), rich Bronze Age sites such as at Runnymede Bridge, Egham, Surrey (Longley 1980) and Mucking North
Rings, Essex (Bond 1988), and early/middle Saxon occupation at Harmondsworth (Andrews 1996) and a much larger site at Mucking, Essex (Hamerow 1993).
In the west London area, recent (and not so recent) large scale developments, especially in the vicinity of
London Heathrow Airport, have revealed extensive deposits of both the prehistoric and historic periods (e.g.
Grimes and Close-Brooks 1993; Barrett et al. 2000; FA 2006; FA 2010). However, the survey of London’s archaeology (MoLAS 2000), prior to the publication of the most recent work at Heathrow, recorded only very sparse activity before the Norman Conquest in south-eastern Hillingdon (areas further north being much more notable) or nearby western Hounslow, other than a concentration of Neolithic and Bronze Age findspots and ring ditches, and evidence for Saxon settlement. Given the extent of the archaeology found at Heathrow, it is possible that this may reflect a lack of systematic investigation (or in some cases, lengthy delays in publication), but for some periods (e.g. Iron Age and Roman) there is an as yet unexplained paucity of known occupation sites.
The site lies north of one of the main historic routes out of London to the west. The modern A4 follows the post-medieval coaching route to Bath. The main road from London to the west ran much further south, heading for Silchester via Staines.
Greater London Historic Environment Record
A search was made on the Greater London Historic Environment Record (GLHER) on 27th April 2015 for a radius of750m around the proposal site. This revealed 89 entries within the search radius, including one for the archaeological priority area, 24 for archaeological ‘events’ (investigations), 18 for listed buildings. These are
5 summarized as Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 1, excluding two records for desk-based assessment. Multiple records for the same site and other records within very close proximity of one another are combined on the figure to reduce clutter. It is worth noting, however, that several of the archaeological investigations in this vicinity have extended over wide areas, so that their representation as individual points may conceal a greater extent.
There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments within the search radius.
Mesolithic Excavation at Manor Farm [Fig. 1: 1] well to the south-west of the proposal site, revealed features from several periods, including a few shallow pits or scoops containing Mesolithic worked flints. Mesolithic occupation evidence is generally elusive, but the river valley setting of this find is fairly typical.
Neolithic Neolithic worked flints, pottery and features have been found on several archaeological sites in the search area.
This includes several pits in the excavation at Manor Farm just mentioned [1], at Home Farm a similar distance to the south-east [2], and at Prospect Park closer to the site to the west [3]. couple with other known finds spots of this period in the wider area, this suggests significant potential for Neolithic settlement remains broadly in the whole of this district.
Bronze Age Bronze Age evidence has been found in locations closely linked to the Neolithic findspots, except there was apparently no Bronze Age occupation at Manor Farm [1]. Home Farm [2] and Prospect Park [3] both had substantial Bronze Age settlements and enclosures or field systems, with cremation burial also at both. In addition, excavation not far south of the site, at 15 Holloway Lane [5], adds another pit containing Bronze Age pottery, and a ditch might also be of this period. To the north-west, broadly ‘prehistoric’ features at Wise Lane
[4] may also be Bronze Age. Work in advance of the M4 widening scheme revealed Bronze Age ‘scoops’ or shallow pits, and a gully. The GLHER grid reference for this work in within the proposal site [6], but given that the discovery was made during widening of the M4 (Richardson 1984, 52), it is not clear how it could have been so far south of the line of the motorway. While this is not impossible, it is more likely that the given location might only be approximate. A record for a Neolithic pit and Bronze Age ditch in what is now a gravel pit to the east of the proposal site [8] again lacks specific details (Richardson 1981, 164). It is possible that this is the same find as a pit containing a substantial quantity of Grooved Ware from a gravel extraction site, but the grid reference originally given for this (Richardson 1984, 52) is slightly further to the west, and the Grooved Ware is not specifically mentioned in the GLHER entries.
6 Iron Age Although Iron Age finds are mentioned from Home Farm [2] and Moor Lane [3], they appear to be markedly fewer than for the Bronze Age. As for the Bronze Age, broadly ‘prehistoric’ features at Wise Lane [4] may be
Iron Age. The only other site in the vicinity with Iron age remains is a gravel pit to the east of the proposal site
[8], from which pits and ditches containing pottery and iron slag are noted, but again the details of the investigation are scant (Richardson 1981, 164).
Roman There was Roman occupation evidence (pits and post holes) at Manor Farm [1] and Prospect Park [3], and at the latter site, a cremation cemetery as well. Wise Lane [4] also produced a Roman ditch, and the gravel pit to the east [8] a Roman enclosure. A single unstratified sherd of Roman pottery was recorded in trenching to the west of the proposal site [9].
Saxon Saxon settlement remains are strongly represented in the search radius. Sunken-featured buildings (SFB, sometimes called Grübenhäuser) have been excavated at all the main sites referred to above [1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7]. As with one of the Bronze Age entries, the location of one of these (plotted at [6] within the proposal site itself), might not be particularly accurate. Generally, recognizable (and datable) Saxon sites are more often cemeteries than settlements, but where found, Saxon settlements can ‘sprawl’ over wide areas (as at Mucking, Essex, for example).
Medieval Medieval features from the area seem to be mainly field boundary ditches [2] but occupation features (pits) are also located [1] and Harmondsworth was certainly settled, with the Holloway Lane [5] site, Manor Farm [7] and
Radley Garage on High Street [10] all producing building remains as well as other features. There are also
GLHER records for documentary records of the village itself [7], a priory, noted to have had a cell in this area
[7], a vicarage house site [11], a moated site perhaps associated with the priory [13]. The two most significant medieval entries, however, are for Harmondsworth Great Barn [11], a tithe barn erected in 1426–7 and still well preserved, and the Church of St Mary, of the 12th century [12]. Both buildings have been subjects of detailed surveys. A watching brief at the Barn, also, recorded a variety of medieval features. Finally for this period, ridge and furrow has been recorded from aerial photographs to the east of the site [14]. The Barn is Grade I listed and the Church Grade II*.
Not included in the GLHER, a small excavation following evaluation at The Lodge [15] also recorded medieval features (Saunders 1998; 2000).
7 Post-medieval (including Victorian) Almost inevitably, post-medieval finds or features are recorded in most of the investigation in the area, most often field boundary ditches [2, 4], or quarry pits [5, 11]. In some cases they include building remains or garden features [3, 5, 7, 16]. On the High Street, one site [10] might include industrial elements but is again mainly quarrying. Two entries are for unlisted structures [both 16].
The remaining post-medieval entries are for listed buildings. Other than the later elements of the medieval buildings noted above, these include: the 16th-century Howecroft [16] and Sun House [17]; Acacia House (17th century) [5]; 25 Holloway Lane of c. 1600 [15]; The Five Bells Inn [17] and Harmondsworth Hall [18], two sets of walls and gates to The Grange [18], all 17th century; several 18th- or early 19th-century buildings on High
Street [16]; the Lodge, Harmondsworth Lane (19th) [15]; Manor Farmhouse (mid 19th) [11].
Modern, undated, negative Other than modern elements of older buildings, the modern entries include a K6 telephone kiosk to a Gilbert
Scott design [16], and two landfill sites (effectively ‘negative evidence’ in archaeological terms) [19, 20].
Undated features, of course are found on almost all archaeological sites and rarely worth mentioning. A watching brief at Home Farm produced no archaeological evidence [21].
Cartographic and documentary sources
The majority of the site lies within Harmondsworth parish but the northern portion may have lain within West
Drayton. Harmondsworth, with the rest of Hillingdon, historically, was within Middlesex. Hillingdon is an Old
English (Anglo-Saxon) place name but not recorded before Domesday Book of AD 1086, where it appears as
Hildendune. It derives simply from Hilda (a personal name) and d n, ‘hill’. Harmondsworth is first recorded in a land charter of (probably) AD780 (VCH 1971), and in 1086 as Hermodesworde, and combines the personal name (not elsewhere attested) Heremod and worth meaning ‘enclosure’ (Mills 1998, 180; 166). At the time of
Domesday Book, Harmondsworth was two manors, one held by the Benedictine Abbey of ‘La Trinité of the
Mount’, Rouen and one by Earl Roger. The larger estate was the abbot’s, held form the King, and assessed at an impressive 30 hides. It had arable land for 30 ploughs, meadow covering the equivalent of land for 20 ploughs, woodland for 500 pigs, enough pasture for the villagers’ livestock, and an arpent of vineyard. (The arpent was a unit of measurement of fluctuating size, but as a rough guide an arpent might be between a third and three- quarters of a hectare. The arpent was normally used in Domesday Book to measure vineyards, which in themselves were a relative rarity). Important resources clearly also came from the rivers: three mills were worth
60 shillings, and produced 500 eels, while another 1000 eels came from fishponds. The population seems to have
8 amounted to 39 villagers, 6 slaves and at least two French knights. Before the conquest it had belonged to Earl
(King) Harold and had been valued at £25: in1066 this had fallen to £12 and recovered to £20 by 1086.
The second estate was one of the smallest of the extensive holdings of Earl Roger, and not let out to anyone else. Before the Conquest it had been held by Alwine (Williams and Martin 2002, 362). It was assessed at just one hide and had land for one plough, though the inhabitants (there were only two) mustered just a half share of a plough team. The estate was worth ten shillings. This is a surprisingly small manor, and indeed the parish remained small into the 20th century. The unproductive expanse of Hounslow Heath presumably was included in the Harmondsworth entries.
By 1337, there were 38 houses in Harmondsworth, on Moor Lane and Sheep Lane. In the mid 17th century there were 142 men (presumably most with families) and by 1801 the population for the first census was 879, rising to 2200 in the 1920s and over 3000 by 1931. Otherwise the parish has little history of note. Civil parish administration succeeded the manorial system in 1642 but a parish council was not formed until the 1890s (VCH
1971) and dissolved in the 1930s when the Urban District was created. This in turn merged in 1949 with
Yiewsley and West Drayton to form an urban district within Hillingdon.
Around half of Harmondsworth is now under Heathrow Airport (work on which started, as London Airport, in 1944). Part of the work for this involved diverting the artificial Duke of Northumberland’s river, combining it with the also artificial Longford River (originally constructed by Charles I).
A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at Hillingdon Record
Office and online in order to ascertain what activity had been taking place throughout the site’s later history and whether this may have affected any possible archaeological deposits within the proposal area (see Appendix 2).
The earliest map available of the area is Saxton’s map of the counties round London, 1575 (Fig. 2). It shows Harmesworth as one of his smallest classes of settlement, and emphasizes the importance of the rivers to the topography, but there is not enough detail to pinpoint the site’s location. The importance of the bridges at
Colnbrook (Colbrot) is clear on this map. Norden’s maps of 1592 (Fig. 3) and 1593 are similar (not illustrated), except that he shows the road from London via Hounslow to the west across the Colnbrook crossings.
Seventeenth century mapping adds little more detail until Ogilby in 1672 (Fig. 4) who depicts more of the road network, and is the first to adopt the modern spelling of Harmondsworth. The general area of the site can be identified from the bend in the road, but there is still no detail. Morden’s county map of 1722 begins to add more
‘flavour’ of the landscape, but only in a very general way: he depicts the area north and east of Harmondsworth as wooded, but some of his details are suspect (not illustrated). Warburton’s map of 1749 is the first to show the
9 settlement, and appears reasonably accurate given its style. The area of the site is probably just beyond the settlement edge (Fig. 5). The area around the settlement has enclosed land but most of the wider area is simply open. Later 18th and early 19th century mapping is generally at to large a scale to show more.
The first maps to show the site area itself is the tithe map, surveyed probably in 1806 and amended in c.
1816 (Fig. 6). This only covers the southern portion of the site and shows it as part of land parcel 400, which is one of several fields allocated to Matthew Stent: the land-use is not noted in the accompanying apportionment.
The Ordnance Survey provides definitive detail for the first time, with the First Edition (covering two sheets) surveyed in 1866–7 (Fig. 7). The southern portion of the site is one field and the northern portion is a small part of a larger field. The western boundary is not defined, or defined only as a footpath. Holloway Close is in place but is named Holloway Lane. The southern edge of the site is a parliamentary division boundary and is hedged: there is nothing specific to indicate it is also the parish boundary, but the symbols used at this date would have clashed if both applied and perhaps the parliamentary division boundary took precedence. There is nothing within the site except the field boundary. Other than a change in cartographic style, there is no change on the Second Edition of 1899 (Fig. 8) or the Third, 1914 (not illustrated), except that the southern boundary line now uses the symbol for a parish boundary. By 1935 (Fig. 9) the only change is that although still divided, the two fields are now shown as part of the same land parcel. Holloway Lane appears to have been mis-labelled
Harmondsworth Road. The boundary still uses the parish symbol but has the parliamentary division given in text, suggesting that the two may have coincided all along.
Middle to later 20th century mapping of the site is in places incomplete and composite maps have to be compiled from sheets of different years. The first major change affecting the area is the appearance of the M4 motorway, first depicted in 1965 (Fig. 10). The buildings and greenhouses of Holloway Farm now stand across
Holloway Close (so named for the first time). There is no change within the site itself, but the southern boundary no longer marks a division even of a land parcel, much less a parish and the site is all part of one huge land parcel extending north, south and west. (The south boundary was marked as an urban district on a partial map of
1963).
The M4 was widened in the 1980s, and a composite map of 1987/1992 shows it now marking the north edge of the site (Fig. 11). The interior of the site remains, as it has throughout, empty.
Listed buildings
There are no listed buildings within the site or adjacent to it. The 18 listed buildings within the search radius are all clustered in the heart of Harmondsworth to the south or south-west of the site [Fig. 1: 5, 11, 12, 15–18]. The
10 proposed extraction and restoration works would not effect any long-term change to the settings of the listed buildings. In the short term, the settings of the closest buildings such as those at the south end of Holloway Lane, might in theory suffer minor adverse impacts from, for example, noise or dust, but since Heathrow airport already forms a significant part of the settings of all of these buildings, the proposed extraction will have no meaningful additional effect.
Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields
There are no registered parks and gardens or registered battlefields within close proximity of the site.
Historic Hedgerows
There are hedgerows on the site that might qualify as ‘important’ as defined by Schedule 1 of the Hedgerows
Regulations 1997. The site’s south and east boundaries appears to have been marked by hedges since mapping began. The southern edge of the site may also be historically the parish boundary, although it is not certain this predates 1850. If these hedgerows did qualify as ‘important’, permission would be required to remove or break through them.
Aerial Photographs
The aerial photographic catalogue of the Historic England Archive was consulted on 20th April 2015 for a radius of 1000m around the proposal site. This revealed 71 vertical views from 36 sorties flown between 1944 and
2000; there were no specialist (oblique) photographs (Appendix 3). Most of the photographs date from the 1940s and 1950s. The available images were viewed on 15th May 2015 (many were not available). Many were of low quality and the site was obscured by cloud in others. There were no cropmarks of archaeological interest on the site, and just a few in the wider area. Photographs taken in 1960 show some indistinct and very irregular marks in the north-west corner of the south field but these form no interpretable pattern and are almost certainly geological. Views from 1971 show a group of six huts, or possibly parked caravans, in the north-east corner of the south field, but these are clearly temporary. Just beyond the site itself, to the west, one photograph from 1945 might show a circular cropmark in an area now quarried (‘Saxon pond’: approximately [9] on figure 1), but it is not by any means clear.
11 Discussion
There are no known heritage assets on the site or in a position to be affected by its development. There is a record of Bronze Age and Saxon remains having been found within the site itself, but it is unclear if the location given for this is strictly accurate. It remains therefore to establish if there may be potential for previously unknown heritage assets, that is, below-ground archaeological remains.
In considering the archaeological potential of the study area, various factors must be taken into account, including previously recorded archaeological sites, previous land-use and disturbance and future land-use including the proposed development.
The site lies within an Archaeological Priority Area as defined by English Heritage (now Historic England) and the local plan. This reflects the number and significance of archaeological discoveries in the vicinity, as recorded in the GLHER, covering periods from the Mesolithic to the medieval, and with particular concentrations in the Bronze Age and Saxon periods. Whilst results from adjacent areas cannot safely be extrapolated into the site itself, the potential for similar remains of any of these periods within the site must be considered to be high.
Cartographic review shows that the site has remained undeveloped since mapping began. Any archaeological deposits that might be present can therefore be expected to have survived reasonably intact, subject only to plough damage. The size of the area covered increases the probability of remains of some period being present simply by chance. In this location, slightly higher than the riverside sites to the west, it is unlikely that waterlogged remains would be present, which, with their enhanced organic preservation, might raise the significance of the site. Instead, any deposits are likely to be characterized as more typical of dry sites across southern England.
Mineral extraction is by its nature wholly destructive of the fragile archaeological resource. Mitigation of its effects on archaeological remains can only be achieved by means of ‘preservation by record’.
It will be necessary to provide further information about the potential of the site from field observations in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits if necessary. A scheme for this evaluation will need to be drawn up and approved by the archaeological advisers to the Borough and implemented by a competent archaeological contractor.
12 References
Andrews, P, 1996, ‘Prospect Park, Harmondsworth, London Borough of Hillingdon : settlement and burial from the Neolithic to the Early Saxon periods’, in P Andrews and A Crockett, Three Excavations Along the Thames and its Tributaries, 1994, Wessex Archaeol Rep 10, Salisbury, 1-50 Barrett, J C, Lewis, J S C and Welsh, K, 2000, ‘Perry Oaks – a history of inhabitation Part 2’, London Archaeologist, 9, 221–7 BGS, 1981, British Geological Survey, Sheet 269, Solid and Drift Edition, 1:50,000, Southampton Bond, D, 1988, Excavations at the North Ring, Mucking, Essex, East Anglian Archaeol 43, Chelmsford FA, 2006, Landscape Evolution in the Middle Thames valley: Heathrow Terminal 5 Excavations volume 1, Perry Oaks, Framework Archaeology, Monogr 1, Oxford/ Salisbury FA, 2010, Landscape Evolution in the Middle Thames valley: Heathrow Terminal 5 Excavations volume 2, Perry Oaks, Framework Archaeology, Monogr 3, Oxford/ Salisbury Grimes, W F and Close-Brooks, J, 1993, ‘The excavation of Caesar’s Camp, Heathrow, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1944’, Proc Prehist Soc 59, 303–6 Hamerow, H, 1993, Excavations at Mucking; Vol.2: The Anglo-Saxon settlement, Engl Heritage Rep 21, London HBC, 2012, A Vision for 2026, Local Plan: Part 1, Strategic Policies (Adopted November 2012), London Borough of Hillingdon Hedges, J and Buckley, D, 1978, ‘Excavations at a Neolithic causewayed enclosure, Orsett, Essex, 1975’, Proc Prehist Soc 44, 219–308 Longley, D, 1976, ‘The archaeological implications of gravel extraction in north-west Surrey’, Res Vol Surrey Archaeol Soc 3, Guildford, 1–35 Longley, D, 1980, Runnymede Bridge 1976: Excavations on the Site of a Late Bronze Age Settlement, Res Vol Surrey Archaeol Soc 6, Guildford Mills, A D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford MoLAS, 2000, The archaeology of Greater London; an assessment of archaeological evidence for human presence in the area now covered by Greater London, Museum of London Archaeology Service Monograph NPPF, 2012, National Planning Policy Framework, Dept Communities and Local Government, London Richardson, B, 1981, ‘Excavation Round-up, 1981’, London Archaeologist 4.6, 159–66 Richardson, B, 1984, ‘Excavation Round-up, 198, pt. 1’, London Archaeologist 5.2, 47–52 Robertson-Mackay, R, 1987, ‘The Neolithic causewayed enclosure at Staines, Surrey: excavations 1961–63’, Proc Prehist Soc 53, 23–128 Saunders, M J, 1998, ‘The Lodge, Holloway Lane, Harmondsworth, London Borough of Hillingdon, 1997: post- excavation assessment’, TVAS unpubl rep 97/41 Saunders, M J, 2000, ‘A Note on the Excavation of Medieval features at The Lodge, Holloway Lane, Harmondsworth, London Borough of Hillingdon, 1997’, TVAS draft publication report 97/41 VCH, 1911, Victoria County History of Middlesex : Vol ii, London VCH, 1971, Victoria County History of Middlesex : Vol iv, London Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London
13 APPENDIX 1: Historic Environment Records within a 750m search radius of the development site No HER Ref Grid Ref (TQ) Type Period Comment 1 ELO3996 0550 7770 Excavation Mesolithic Manor Farm, one shallow pit with Mesolithic flint, several MLO23940 Neolithic with Neolithic pottery, also pits and post hole with Roman MLO23941 Roman pottery. Saxon occupation features, medieval pits. MLO23942 Saxon MLO23943 Medieval MLO23944 2 ELO11450 0670 7748 Excavation Neolithic Home Farm: Neolithic activity and Bronze Age settlement ELO3641 0670 7747 Evaluation Bronze Age and enclosure system, Bronze Age cremation, abandoned in MLO73505 0690 7751 Iron Age the later Iron Age. Sunken feature appeared to be Saxon: MLO73506 0669 7747 Saxon elements of Post-medieval and possibly Medieval field Medieval boundaries and trackway ditches Post-medieval 3 ELO4316 0516 7792 Watching brief Neolithic Prospect Park, Moor Lane. Several stages of investigation. ELO9538 05709 77718 Evaluation Bronze Age Alluvial deposits, much of site negative but Late Neolithic ELO9542 05709 78198 Excavation Iron Age and Bronze Age evidence, including structures and ELO9543 05742 78199 Fieldwalking Roman cremations, with less closely dated ‘prehistoric’ finds. MLO60272 0572 7812 Saxon Extensive Saxon settlement. Ditches initially thought to be MLO60268 0574 7819 Post-medieval prehistoric now considered natural. Roman cremation MLO60275 0568 7809 Undated cemetery. 19th-century building remains. Fieldwalking MLO60273 0576 7819 recovered additional worked and burnt flint, Bronze Age, MLO60267 0557 7820 Iron Age and Roman (and undated) pottery, but no MLO60274 0578 7817 significant concentrations. MLO60270 0576 7819 ELO5261 0574 7819 4 ELO5521 05674 78837 Watching brief Prehistoric Wise Lane: trenching revealed prehistoric pits, Roman ELO9550 05690 78849 Evaluation Roman ditch, undated features, post-medieval pottery. The only ELO9951 05669 78794 Excavation Post-medieval feature in watching brief was an undated ditch. Excavation Undated added a ?prehistoric hearth and trackway. 5 ELO3613 0592 7780 Excavation Bronze Age 15 Holloway Lane. Bronze Age pottery in a pit, possibly MLO64495 0596 7783 Saxon prehistoric ditch. Saxon SFB and pottery. 12th- to 13th- MLO23946 0597 7783 Medieval century occupation site. 17th-century and later ?garden MLO23947 0596 7782 Post-medieval features and quarry. MLO64497 0595 7782 6 ELO5194 0600 7830 Watching brief Bronze Age M4 widening, Bronze Age ‘scoops’ and gully; Saxon SFB, MLO14464 0607 7836 Saxon grass-tempered pottery MLO8067 7 ELO3995 0561 7778 Watching brief Prehistoric? Manor Farm, no details on watching brief. excavation ELO5195 0560 7780 Excavation Saxon revealed possible prehistoric pits, Saxon SFB, early MLO22688 0554 7778 Documentary Medieval Medieval post- and beam-slot buildings, 12th-century ditch. MLO22690 0550 7780 Post-medieval Priory cell mentioned in documents of 1090 and 1392. A MLO22691 manor house is first mentioned in 1583, said to have been MLO4547 demolished in 1774. General entry for documentary MLO53345 references to medieval Harmondsworth. MLO6614 MLO68625 8 MLO22050 0670 7810 Excavation Iron Age Iron Age Pits and ditches, pottery and slag, Roman ELO3605 Watching brief Roman enclosure. Nothing recorded for the event. Observations of MLO2668 a Neolithic pit and (Bronze Age?) ring gully not confirmed. 9 MLO60266 0554 7817 Evaluation Roman Single sherd of unstratified pottery 10 ELO3588 0588 7782 Evaluation Medieval Radley’s Garage, High Street, evaluation followed by ELO887 0589 7782 Excavation Post-medieval excavation revealed quarry pits, ditches, pits, post holes MLO74998 and a well, suggested to represent an industrial site. MLO74999 11 ELO12964 0563 7784 Survey Medieval The Great barn, 1426–7, much of that date survives. MLO8068 0561 7778 Watching brief Post-medieval Building survey. Watching brief revealed medieval gullies, DLO20128 05632 77848 Listed Building Victorian ditches and pit, and a deep post-medieval feature (quarry?). MLO68644 0563 7776 Documentary Grade I. Site of medieval vicarage house. Manor DLO20245 05634 77769 Farmhouse, mid 19th-century 12 DLO20007 05695 77807 Listed Building Medieval Church of St Mary, Grade II*, 12th-century origins, many ELO12534 05691 77818 Survey Post-medieval later additions; many elements in grave yard also noted. 13 MLO4548 0554 7778 Documentary Medieval Possible moated site, perhaps associated with priory. 14 MLO22884 0664 7816 Photographic Medieval Ridge and furrow on aerial photograph 15 DLO20288 05988 77842 Listed Building Medieval 25 Holloway Lane Cottage, c. 1600. The Lodge, DLO20023 05946 77779 Excavation Post-medieval Harmondsworth Lane, early 19th century; wall listed DLO20024 05960 77787 separately. Not in HER: Excavation of medieval features at 0600 7773 the Lodge. 16 DLO20006 05786 77780 Listed Building Post-medieval Howecroft (rear of), High St., 16th-century. Crown Public DLO20127 05758 77786 Building Victorian house, 18th century or earlier. Vicarage and Tower House, DLO20008 05772 77740 Evaluation Modern High St, early 19th century. Timber framed building, no MLO68561 0570 7770 Watching brief Undated details. Wall, no details. Fieldwork at Moor Lane; undated MLO32465 0569 7767 ditch and post-medieval pits, pond. The Gable Stores, High ELO4029 0570 7767 St, mid to late 19th century. K6 telephone kiosk, 1935 or
14 No HER Ref Grid Ref (TQ) Type Period Comment MLO76531 05709 77717 later. MLO71276 0570 7772 DLO20246 05721 77725 DLO19923 05717 77749 17 DLO20244 05716 77767 Listed Building Post-medieval Sun House, High St., 16th century. Five Bells Inn, 17th or DLO20129 05687 77756 18th century 18 DLO20292 05750 77633 Listed Building Post-medieval Two sets of walls and gates to The Grange, 17th century. DLO19930 05712 77704 Harmondsworth Hall, early 18th century; wall and gates DLO19928 05725 77696 listed separately DLO19929 05729 77685 (5) DLO20005 05857 77790 Listed Building Post-medieval Acacia House (High St), 1725 19 MLO72579 0670 7840 Cartographic Modern Site of landfill 20 MLO72578 0670 7800 Cartographic Modern Site of landfill 21 ELO9536 06608 77795 Watching brief Negative No finds or features at Home Farm. Listed Buildings Grade II unless stated.
15 APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted
1575 Saxton, Kent, Sussex, Surrey and Middlesex, with London (Fig. 2)
1592 Norden, Middlesex (Fig. 3)
1593 Norden, Middlesex
1610 Norden
1610 Norden, augmented by Speed
1672 Blome
1672 Ogilby (Fig. 4)
1722 Morden
1749 Warburton (Fig. 5)
1785 Bowles
1787 Harrison
1798 Stockdale
1801 Cary c. 1816 Harmondsworth Tithe map (Fig. 6)
1866–7 Ordnance Survey First Edition (Fig. 7)
1899 Ordnance Survey Second Edition (Fig. 8)
1914 Ordnance Survey Third Edition
1935 Ordnance Survey Revision (Fig. 9)
1963 Ordnance Survey
1965 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 10)
1966 Ordnance Survey
1971 Ordnance Survey
1987–92 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 11)
1994 Ordnance Survey
2009 Ordnance Survey Explorer Sheet 160 (Fig. 1)
16 APPENDIX 3: Aerial Photographs consulted
All vertical.
No Date taken Sortie number Frame number Grid ref (TQ) Comment 1 04 MAR 1944 RAF/HLA/691 3127–8 057 778 2 10 APR 1945 RAF/106G/LA/208 1057–8 055 780 3 17 JUN 1945 RAF/106G/UK/400 2011–12 063 782 4 23 AUG 1945 RAF/106G/UK/687 3008–9 061 791 5 12 OCT 1945 RAF/106G/UK/919 4033–5 055 780 6 03 DEC 1945 RAF/106G/UK/1052 4063–4 062 781 7 12 JAN 1946 RAF/106G/UK/1114 4109–10 064 781 8 09 FEB 1946 RAF/106G/UK/1169 5036–7 065 773 9 02 APR 1946 RAF/106G/UK/1352 4018–19 062 788 Frame 4018 not available to view 10 12 MAY 1951 RAF/540/494 4192–3 060 778 11 05 MAY 1953 RAF/82/777 290–2 055 783 12 31 AUG 1954 RAF/82/1006 136–7 067 772 13 03 MAR 1955 RAF/58/1671 167–8 067 787 14 17 MAR 1955 RAF/58/1687 38, 149 068 781 15 11 MAY 1955 RAF/82/1190 265, 265b 053 783 16 14 JUL 1955 OS/55T22 26 058 779 not available to view 17 23 JUL 1955 OS/55T24 3–4 052 777 not available to view 18 13 JUN 1957 OS/57M5 8–9 055 772 not available to view 19 13 APR 1959 OS/59004 38 060 777 not available to view 20 06 MAY 1960 OS/60012 46 061 779 not available to view 21 13 SEP 1960 RAF/543/1059 244–5 061 779 22 28 AUG 1961 RAF/58/4646 407–8 064 786 23 29 AUG 1961 OS/61033 4–5 051 774 not available to view 24 21 OCT 1962 OS/62115 31–2 064 775 not available to view 25 13 SEP 1963 OS/63215 10–11 064 776 not available to view 26 04 OCT 1965 OS/65238 14 061 778 27 27 MAR 1968 MAL/68014 29 061 769 28 15 JAN 1969 MAL/69002 201–2 061 778 29 10 FEB 1969 MAL/69008 74 060 781 30 21 MAY 1971 MAL/71074 114–15 058 783 31 15 JUN 1986 OS/86094 30–1 063 781 32 25 APR 1994 OS/94069 102–3 058 783 not available to view 33 03 APR 1995 OS/95058 73, 107–8 061 787 Frame 73 not available to view 34 09 MAY 1998 OS/98541 49–50 055 780 not available to view 35 08 AUG 1998 OS/98138 114–16 059 787 36 04 SEP 2000 OS/00310 6, 11–12 058 778 not available to view
NB : Grid reference given is for start of run; multiple frames may offer wide coverage.
17 SITE
79000
4
SITE
19
6 9 14 8
78000 3 20 21 7 11 15 12 5 13 16 17 10 1 18
2
77000
TQ05000 06000 HLH 15/92 Land at Holloway Lane, Harmondsworth, London Borough of Hillingdon, 2015 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 1. Location of site within Harmondsworth and London showing locations of GLHER records. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Explorer 160 at 1:12500 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 Approximate location of site
HLH 15/92
N Land at Holloway Lane, Harmondsworth, London Borough of Hillingdon, 2015 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 2. Saxton's map of Surrey, 1575. Approximate location of site
HLH 15/92
N Land at Holloway Lane, Harmondsworth, London Borough of Hillingdon, 2015 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 3. Norden's county map of 1592 Approximate location of site
HLH 15/92
N Land at Holloway Lane, Harmondsworth, London Borough of Hillingdon, 2015 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 4. Ogilby's county map of 1672. Approximate location of site
HLH 15/92
N Land at Holloway Lane, Harmondsworth, London Borough of Hillingdon, 2015 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 5. Warburton's county map of 1749. Approximate location of site
HLH 15/92
N Land at Holloway Lane, Harmondsworth, London Borough of Hillingdon, 2015 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 6. Harmondsworth tithe map SITE
HLH 15/92
N Land at Holloway Lane, Harmondsworth, London Borough of Hillingdon, 2015 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 7. Ordnance Survey First Edition, 1866-7. SITE
HLH 15/92
N Land at Holloway Lane, Harmondsworth, London Borough of Hillingdon, 2015 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 8. Ordnance Survey Second Edition, 1899 SITE
HLH 15/92
N Land at Holloway Lane, Harmondsworth, London Borough of Hillingdon, 2015 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 9. Ordnance Survey Revision, 1935 SITE
HLH 15/92
N Land at Holloway Lane, Harmondsworth, London Borough of Hillingdon, 2015 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 10. Ordnance Survey 1965. SITE
HLH 15/92
N Land at Holloway Lane, Harmondsworth, London Borough of Hillingdon, 2015 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 11. Ordnance Survey 1987-92 Plate 1. Site, general view, looking south. Plate 2. North edge of site, looking east.
Plate 3. South edge of site, looking east. Plate 4. South-west of site, looking north.
HLH 15/92 Land at Holloway Lane, Harmondsworth, London Borough of Hillingdon, 2015 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Plates 1 - 4. TIME CHART
Calendar Years
Modern AD 1901
Victorian AD 1837
Post Medieval AD 1500
Medieval AD 1066
Saxon AD 410
Roman AD 43 BC/AD Iron Age 750 BC
Bronze Age: Late 1300 BC
Bronze Age: Middle 1700 BC
Bronze Age: Early 2100 BC
Neolithic: Late 3300 BC
Neolithic: Early 4300 BC
Mesolithic: Late 6000 BC
Mesolithic: Early 10000 BC
Palaeolithic: Upper 30000 BC
Palaeolithic: Middle 70000 BC
Palaeolithic: Lower 2,000,000 BC Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47-49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading, Berkshire, RG1 5NR
Tel: 0118 9260552 Fax: 0118 9260553 Email: [email protected] Web: www.tvas.co.uk