Aarrrccchhhaaaeeeoool

T H A M E S V A L L E Y AARRCCHHAAEEOOLLOOGGIICCAALL S E R V I C E S

Taylor Court, 48 Tilehurst Road, Reading, Berkshire

Archaeological desk-based assessment

by Tim Dawson

Site Code TCR11/111

(SU 7040 7315)

Taylor Court, 48 Tilehurst Road, Reading, Berkshire

An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

for Southern Housing Group

by Tim Dawson

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd

Site Code TCR 11/111

November 2011 Summary

Site name: Taylor Court, 48 Tilehurst Road, Reading, Berkshire

Grid reference: SU 7040 7315

Site activity: Desk-based assessment

Project manager: Steve Ford

Site supervisor: Tim Dawson

Site code: TCR 11/111

Area of site: c. 0.6ha

Summary of results: The site lies within an area of moderate potential for the presence of post-glacial archaeological deposits, but this potential is tempered to an unknown extent by the presence of previous structures on the site which have been terraced into the slope. The site also lies on a gravel outcrop which has the potential for Palaeolithic finds and deposits, though it is unlikely that this development will impact to any significant extent on any of these deeply buried horizons. It is concluded that mitigation of any impact of the development on heritage assets should, as already requested by the council, take the form of a watching brief carried out during invasive groundworks.

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 All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.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 Ford9 09.11.11 Steve Preston9 14.11.11

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

Taylor Court, 48 Tilehurst Road, Reading, Berkshire An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

by Tim Dawson

Report 11/111 Introduction

This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of the plot of land known as Taylor Court located at 48 Tilehurst Road, Reading, Berkshire (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Colin Thomas, of Southern Housing Group, Spire Court, Albion Way, Horsham, West Susses, RH12 1JW, 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.

A planning consent (11/00484/FUL) has been granted by Reading Borough Council to redevelop the site to provide 33 new dwellings. The development is subject to a requirement that an archaeological desk-based assessment and watching brief be submitted and approved by the Council prior to the commencement of any works on the site.

Site description, location and geology

The development area is centred on NGR SU 7040 7315. Topographically the site lies on the northern face of a plateau between the rivers Thames, Kennet and Pang at a height of approximately 60m above Ordnance Datum.

The geology underlying the area is the border between plateau gravel forming the Lynch Hill terrace (Wymer

1999, map 6) in the southern half of the site and Reading Beds in the northern half (BGS 1971). The borehole survey of the site confirmed the presence of Reading Beds (Appendix 3).

A site visit was made on 9th November 2011 (Pls 1–4). Approximately one quarter of the site is occupied by the existing buildings of Taylor Court with the remainder being an access road and garages on the eastern edge of the site, a greenhouse in the north-west, outbuildings and an electrical sub-station. These are set in gardens with an area of c. 0.6ha which consists primarily of lawns with shrubs and trees. The garden appears to have not been heavily landscaped and still follows the general contours of the hill, which drops c.2.5m from south to north. The east-west range of Taylor Court sits on top of the ground but the north-south block is deeply terraced into the hillside (Pl. 3). This observation is significant in terms of the potential survival of archaeological deposits. To achieve the correct gradient it is likely that the construction of the access road and

possibly the garages was preceded by the landscaping of the slope. Land uses within the immediate surrounding area were generally residential with Tilehurst Road bordering the site to on its southern edge.

Planning background and development proposals

Planning permission (11/00484/FUL) has been granted by Reading Borough Council for the demolition of

Taylor Court and the subsequent construction of 33 new apartments and houses. The development is subject to a requirement that an archaeological desk-based assessment and watching brief be submitted and approved by the

Council prior to the commencement of any works on the site.

The Department for Communities and Local Government’s Planning Policy Statement, Planning for the

Historic Environment (PPS5 2010) sets out policies relating to archaeology, and other 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. Policy HE6.1 states that

‘Local planning authorities should require an applicant to provide a description of the significance of the heritage assets affected and the contribution of their setting to that significance. The level of detail should be proportionate to the importance of the heritage asset and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on the significance of the heritage asset. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets themselves should have been assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary given the application’s impact. Where an application site includes, or is considered to have the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where desk-based research is insufficient to properly assess the interest, a field evaluation.’ [on which, see below].

PPS5 makes the significance of any ‘heritage asset’ a material consideration in the planning process, regardless of whether that asset is ‘designated’ or not, and places on local planning authorities the responsibility to weigh the benefits of a proposed development against any loss of significance in a heritage asset. Designated assets include World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Protected Wreck Sites, Registered

Battlefields, Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and Registered Parks and Gardens.

Policy HE9.1:

There should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets and the more significant the designated heritage asset, the greater the presumption in favour of its conservation should be. Once lost, heritage assets cannot be replaced and their loss has a cultural, environmental, economic and social impact. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Loss affecting any designated heritage asset 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, including scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings and grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.’

Policy HE9.6

‘HE9.6 There are many heritage assets with archaeological interest that are not currently designated as scheduled monuments, but which are demonstrably of equivalent significance. These include heritage assets: ‘• that have yet to be formally assessed for designation ‘• that have been assessed as being designatable, but which the Secretary of State has decided not to designate; or ‘• that are incapable of being designated by virtue of being outside the scope of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. ‘The absence of designation for such heritage assets does not indicate lower significance and they should be considered subject to the policies in HE9.1 to HE9.4 and HE10.’

Proposals for development which would have an adverse impact on assets not so designated must be weighed against the significance of the asset.

Policy HE10 states:

‘When considering applications for development that affect the setting of a heritage asset, local planning authorities should treat favourably applications that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset. When considering applications that do not do this, local planning authorities should weigh any such harm against the wider benefits of the application. The greater the negative impact on the significance of the heritage asset, the greater the benefits that will be needed to justify approval.’ The accompanying Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide (DCLG et al. 2010) clarifies what is meant by field evaluation: paragraph 62 states:

‘Where a desk-based assessment does not provide sufficient evidence for confident prediction of the impact of the proposal, it may be necessary to establish the extent, nature and importance of the asset’s significance through on-site evaluation. This may be achieved through a number of techniques, some of which may potentially be harmful to the asset and will need careful consideration. These include ground-penetrating radar, trial-trenching, test-pitting, field-walking, x-ray and other forms of remote-sensing, geo-archaeological borehole investigation, opening-up and building analysis and recording…Evaluation is normally a rapid operation. It is designed to inform the decision-making process.’ Early consultation between the applicant and the local planning authority is stressed as important in the process in paragraphs 63–6.

Paragraph 130: ‘Where development will lead to loss of a material part of the significance of a heritage asset, policy HE12.3 requires local planning authorities to ensure that developers take advantage of the opportunity to advance our understanding of the past before the asset or the relevant part is irretrievably lost. As this is the only opportunity to do this it is important that: ‘1. Any investigation, including recording and sampling, is carried out to professional standards and to an appropriate level of detail proportionate to the asset’s likely significance, by an organisation or individual with appropriate expertise. ‘2. The resultant records, artefacts and samples are analysed and where necessary conserved. ‘3. The understanding gained is made publicly available. ‘4. An archive is created, and deposited for future research.’

In the case of Scheduled Ancient Monuments (and their settings), the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (1979) also apply. Under this legislation, development of any sort on or affecting a Scheduled Monument requires the Secretary of State’s Consent.

Further guidance is provided by the Reading Borough Local Plan 1991–2006 (RBLP 1998) and Core

Strategy (RBC 2008). The relevant Local Plan policies were ‘saved’ when the local plan was reviewed in 2007.

Policy CUD 11 states:

‘The council will seek to ensure the preservation of the sites and settings of Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other important ancient monuments and remains of archaeological importance. The council will not normally permit development which would adversely affect such sites or settings.’

Policy CUD 12 states:

‘Appropriate mitigation of a development’s effect on archaeological remains will be secured before any planning permission is granted and where appropriate, this will have to be implemented before development takes place. When necessary, mitigation will include provision for archaeological work to be undertaken during development.’

Policy CUD 13 states:

‘Where appropriate the council will seek to secure the satisfactory preservation of remains of outstanding archaeological importance in situ or otherwise in a satisfactory location on or off-site.’

These policies are reflected and expanded in the Core Strategy adopted in 2008.

Policy CS33: Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment

‘Historic features and areas of historic importance and other elements of the historic environment, including their settings, will be protected and where appropriate enhanced. ‘This will include: - ‘• Listed Buildings; ‘• Conservation Areas; ‘• Other features with local or national designation, such as sites and features of archaeological importance, and historic parks and gardens. ‘Planning permission will only be granted where development has no adverse impact on historic assets and their settings. All proposals will be expected to protect and where appropriate enhance the character and appearance of the area in which they are located.’

Methodology

The assessment of the site was carried out by the examination of pre-existing information from a number of sources recommended by the Institute for Archaeologists paper ‘Standards in British Archaeology’ covering desk-based studies. These sources include historic and modern maps, the Berkshire Archaeology Historic

Environment Record, geological maps and any relevant publications or reports.

Archaeological background

General background

The site lies within the archaeologically rich Thames Valley with a wealth of sites and finds of many periods.

Much of this has been documented from aerial photography (Gates 1975) and with many finds of stone, bronze and iron dredged from the Thames and Kennet representing deposition in both prehistoric and later periods

(Chappell 1987; Needham and Burgess 1980). Rather less is known for the valley sides and margins. Outcrops of clay bedrock are present in these locations (which is not conducive to the formation of cropmarks visible from the air) or survey is difficult due to the expansion of suburban settlement in the 19th century. Nevertheless stray finds, and reports of occupation and burial sites of various periods have been recorded especially from the many quarries in the area. Recent detailed investigations as a part of the planning process have also recorded and investigated sites in these valley side locations such as to the east of Reading (e.g., Barnes et al. 1999).

Investigations within the town centre have also shown that archaeological remains can survive, at least in part, even where post-medieval and modern development has been intensive (Preston 2005), while the modern suburbs show evidence of occupation in the Bronze and Iron Ages and Roman period (Preston 2010).

The higher gravel terraces of the Thames Valley, on which the site lies, are particularly noteworthy for the presence of Palaeolithic flint and stone tools representing the earliest human activity in the British Isles (Wymer

1999). Some locations are especially prolific in finds indicating intensively used areas, with one such site located at the former Grovelands Pit 1km to the west (Wymer 1999, 59–60 and map 6). Many of the finds are contained within the gravel deposits and have been transported by water action since deposition, but others are in mint condition and are found where they were originally discarded and are thus potentially important locations for the study of early humankind.

Berkshire Archaeology Historic Environment Record

A search was made on the Berkshire Archaeology Historic Environment Record (HER) on 27th October 2011 for a radius of 500m around the development site. This revealed 41 entries within the search radius. These are summarized as Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 1 (not all the listed buildings have been plotted to reduce clutter).

Neolithic Four finds of the Neolithic period are recorded for the study area [Fig. 1: 1-4]. These consist of stray finds of a stone axe [1], a flint axe [2] and a flint knife or sickle [3] which was discovered in the plot of land adjoining the

site to the west. A flint arrowhead of possible Neolithic or Bronze Age date was found c.75m north of Taylor

Court [4].

Roman Three findspots are listed in the HER for the Roman period [5-7] all of which are coins, either individually or in small groups. One of these groups, [7], was found associated with a sherd of samian ware pottery. Another sherd of Roman pottery was found during an archaeological evaluation at Battle Hospital (Hull 1995) [38] though this was unstratified.

Post-medieval and Modern The majority of HER entries within 500m of the project area are for 18th-to 20th-century buildings, both Grade

II Listed and unlisted [9-36]. These results include The Church of All Saints [13], Reading Synagogue [35], two public houses [9, 26], two primary schools [25, 31] and structures relating to a waterworks site on Bath Road.

The road from London to Bath and Bristol [8] is of uncertain date but was clearly in use by early post-medieval times. Also included in this period are a section of the Reading to Mortimer railway [34] and Reading West railway station [36].

Negative entries

Two archaeological evaluations in the surrounding area have revealed no deposits of archaeological interest [37,

38] with just a single sherd of unstratified Roman pottery from one of these [38].

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments in proximity to the site.

Documentary and Cartographic sources

Whilst there is evidence of prehistoric and Roman occupation of the Reading area particularly to the east at

Thames Valley Park (Barnes et al. 1997) and to the south at Green Park (Moore and Jennings 1992), the main evidence for the establishment of a settlement begins with the Saxons, the place-name deriving from ‘followers of Reada’. It is documented as Readingum from c. AD900 and by the time of Domesday Book (1086) as

Reddinges (Mills 1998). Reading is first mentioned in AD871 when the Anglo-Saxon chronicles record that a

Danish army set up a winter camp here. The exact location is unknown but it is assumed to lie at the other end of the town near the Kennet-Thames junction (Astill 1978). In 1006, a Danish army is again noted to have been in

the area, with documentary evidence that they burnt the town. The centre of the town had probably been established in the vicinity of St Mary’s Butts, at the junction of the roads from Oxford to Winchester and London to Bath, well to the east of the present site.

The status of the town during Anglo-Saxon times is indicated by the establishment of a mint (Freeman

1985) and market, and it was near the end of the Saxon period that Reading became a borough (VCH 1972).

Domesday Book notes that the manor was formerly held by King Edward. It was already quite a prosperous manor, valued at £48 and listed with four mills and three fisheries and housing 55 villagers and 30 small-holders

(Morgan 1979, 1: 41–2). Further property in Reading, belonging to the Abbot of Battle, and which may have included the present site, had a further two mills and two fisheries and 17 more taxpayers (Morgan 1979, 15:1).

During the medieval period, in 1121, an abbey was established in the town. A wharf was soon constructed on the River Kennet in close proximity to the abbey site. With the establishment of the abbey and wharf, trade to the area increased and the town grew. By the time of the dissolution of the abbey in 1539, Reading had become the wealthiest town in Berkshire, partly due to the expanding town market, particularly in the wool trade.

In 1642 part of the town and abbey was encircled by defences (Fig. 3) for the first time, consisting of bastions linked by earth banks. The town was first under Royalist control, and was attacked in April 1643 by

Parliamentarian forces first on the south and west of the town and then by Lord Grey from the north-east. The siege lasted ten days with the Parliamentarians finally overcoming the defenders although they then vacated the town themselves only five months later. Royalist defences were re-fortified but abandoned soon after and ordered to be slighted in May 1644 with £200 allotted to do this (Cram 1988). With the focus of the siege being the south and west of the town and the south-western defensive strongpoint being located on Castle Hill, just to the east of the site, it is possible that outlying defence works were constructed close to the site itself.

By the end of the 17th century the town was no longer reliant on the wool trade, with the expansion of other industries such as pin making and sailcloth manufacture. The economy of Reading prospered, resulting in a population increase and marked rebuilding, continuing into the 18th and 19th centuries (VCH 1972).

A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at Berkshire Record

Office 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 development area (see Appendix 2).

The earliest map available of the area is Saxton’s map of Berkshire 1574 (Fig. 2). Due to the scale of this map, no detail can be obtained for the site itself. A map of Reading’s Civil War defences does not really extend

quite as far as the site, but it must have been located close to the western defences (Fig. 3). Rocque’s Survey of

Berkshire in 1767 (Fig. 4) shows the area in some detail. The approximate location of the site can be determined relative to Tilehurst Road and Battle Farm. The site lies within an area of farmland on a steep slope, with no other distinguishing features. Thomas Pride’s map of 1790 (not illustrated) shows less detail than Rocque but is otherwise unchanged.

By 1836, when Hawkes’ map of the parish of St Mary (Fig. 5) was produced, the site is occupied by a large building set in grounds which are neatly divided by paths with what appears to be a sweeping semicircular driveway between the front of the building and Tilehurst Road. The building itself also appears to be surrounded by a drive, presumably a carrriage turning circle. This building appears on the First Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1879 (Fig. 6) as St Mary’s Hill, a large house with a bay window on the northern face, a lawn with ornamental vases stretching to the west and areas dotted with trees to the north and south. To the east of the house are a wooded area, a series of outbuildings and what may be a walled garden, all probably belonging to St

Mary’s Hill, but located beyond the present site. The path- and driveways are depicted as being much less formal which, in conjunction with the appearance of several internal divisions, either walls or fences, suggests a dramatic remodelling of the grounds, possibly including some large-scale landscaping.

The house and grounds remain much the same in the 1881, 1900, 1912 and 1932 Ordnance Survey maps with only the addition of a conservatory or glasshouse in 1900 (Fig. 7) and two additional or bay windows in

1912 (Fig. 8). It is possible that at this time the conservatory was extended, or a terrace garden added. Changes in the tree cover depicted are probably related to cartographic style rather than actual changes. The first major change appears on the 1960 (Fig. 9) Ordnance Survey map with the removal of the walled garden in the north- east corner of the property, though this is outside the Taylor Court site. It is on the 1960 map that the row of semi-detached houses along the northern border of the site first appears on a plot that, up to that point, had been vacant.

Taylor Court itself first appears on the 1971 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 10) along with the neighbouring

Tetbury Court. Together these have been built on the site of St Mary’s Hill and its grounds and the adjoining property to the east, named Prospect Villa on the 1879 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 6). Apart from the addition of a greenhouse and outbuildings in the grounds to the north of the main building, Taylor Court remains unchanged to the present day (Fig. 11).

Geotechnical test pits

A series of four boreholes were sunk across the site, one in each corner, all to a depth of 4m below ground level

(Legate 2011). All of these revealed a similar stratigraphic sequence consisting of 0.30–0.40m of topsoil overlying a layer of made ground 0.30–0.40m thick, which lay on top of the natural Reading and Woolwich

Beds sand and gravel. The made ground is described as “dark brown gravelly clay with occasional brick fragments” and is consistent across three of the four boreholes. Borehole WS4 in the south-west corner of the site, however, revealed two distinct layers of made ground, the upper being light brown and the lower dark brown. These were 0.25m and 0.45m deep respectively creating a 0.70m thick layer of made ground on top of the natural gravel.

The presence of made ground across the site may represent a large-scale landscaping event, possibly prior to the construction of either the original St Mary’s Hill or Taylor Court itself. If this is the case it can be assumed that, at the very least, the original topsoil and subsoil was heavily disturbed or even removed completely to expose the surface of the natural gravel beneath. If this was not done precisely then it is likely that the surface of the gravel was also truncated with the effect of destroying any archaeological deposits.

An extract from the full Ground Appraisal Report is provided in Appendix 3.

Listed buildings

There are no listed buildings at Taylor Court itself but five are located in reasonably close proximity to the site

[Fig. 1: 13, 16, 17, 26, 31]. These respectively consist of the Church of All Saints, 35 Tilehurst Road, 52

Tilehurst Road, the Rose and Thistle public house and All Saints Infant School, all of which are listed Grade II.

Of these, only the Rose and Thistle [26] may have direct line of sight to Taylor Court as it is located 25m north- west of the north-western corner of the site boundary. However, development on the site is unlikely to have any adverse affect the setting of this listed building or any of the others mentioned above.

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 no hedgerows, historic or otherwise, on the site.

Aerial Photographs

The site area lies within an urban area which has been developed since before the advent of aerial photography.

No photographic collections have therefore been consulted.

Discussion

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 comprises a parcel of land of about 0.6ha and is partially developed with structures, the foundations of which will undoubtedly have impacted on the archaeologically relevant levels at least for post- glacial times, although not necessarily leading to total truncation, at least towards the south of the site (upslope).

Previously, the site was occupied by the house St Mary’s Hill, and its grounds, both of which are likely to have had an adverse affect on the preservation of any archaeological deposits. A geological borehole survey of the site highlighted the presence of a layer of made ground which appears to cover the majority of the site therefore suggesting again that archaeologically relevant levels may have been disturbed.

A narrow range of sites and finds have been recorded for the study area in the Historic Environment Record although several of these are in the vicinity of the site. Neolithic and Neolithic/Bronze Age stray finds were recovered within 100m of Taylor Court but, as their precise provenance is unknown, little importance can be attached to these isolated findspots. The majority of HER entries for the area around the site were for listed buildings, none of which would be greatly affected by the proposed development.

It is considered therefore that the site location has archaeological potential which takes two forms:

For the lower Palaeolithic period, the levels of most archaeological interest, that is those with in situ deposits, are, if present at this location, to be found deeply buried at the base of, or beneath the gravel, perhaps up to 4m below the modern ground surface. Some finds might be encountered within the gravel but these are most usually from disturbed contexts with consequently much less interest. As the development proposals do not require any extensive truncation of the site to these depths, the potential impact on these levels (even if present) is considered to be minimal with few components, other than piles, deep enough to be of significance.

For later periods, the site can be considered to have moderate potential. That is, it is possible that archaeological deposits of almost any period might be expected and may have survived 19th- and 20th-century development. If so, these will be located at the surface of the gravel and/or subsoil on the site. The proposed development (Fig. 12) will inevitably involve damage to or destruction of archaeological features and deposits if present at this level.

It seems appropriate that fieldwork in the form of a watching brief should be carried out during invasive groundworks as the requirement of the planning condition. Such a watching brief would need to be implemented by a competent archaeological contractor in accordance with a written scheme of investigation approved by the archaeological adviser to the Borough Council.

References

Astill, G, 1978, Historic Towns of Berkshire, Berkshire Archaeological Committee Publication 2, Reading Barnes, I, Butterworth, C, A, Hawkes, J,W and Smith, L, 1997, Excavations at Thames Valley Park, Reading, Berkshire, 1986–88, Wessex Archaeol Rep 14, Salisbury BGS, 1971, British Geological Survey, Sheet 268, Drift Edition, One Inch Series. Chappell, S, 1987, Stone Axe Morphology and Distribution in Neolithic Britain, BAR Brit Ser 177, Oxford Cram, L, 1988, Reading Abbey, Reading Museum and Art Gallery, Reading Freeman, A, 1985, Reading: its status and standing as a minor late Anglo-Saxon mint, Berkshire Archaeol J, 72 (for 1983-85), 53-8 Gates, T, 1975, The Thames Valley, An archaeological Survey of the River Gravels, Berkshire Archaeol Comm Pubn 1, Reading Hull, G, 1995, ‘Battle Hospital, Reading; An archaeological evaluation’, Thames Valley Archaeological Services unpubl client rep 95/71b, Reading Legate, L, 2011, ‘Ground Appraisal Report, for the site at Taylor Court, Tilehurst Road, Reading RG1 7TL’, Geo-Environmental Services Ltd, Brighton Mills, A D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford Moore, J, and Jennings, D, 1992, Reading Business Park: a Bronze Age landscape, Thames Valley Landscapes: the Kennet Valley, vol 1, Oxford Archaeol Unit Morgan, P, 1979, Domesday Book 5: Berkshire, Chichester Needham, S and Burgess, C, 1980, ‘The later Bronze Age in the lower Thames Valley: the metalwork evidence’, in J Barrett and R Bradley (eds), Settlement and society in the British later Bronze Age, BAR Brit Ser 83, 437–69, Oxford PPS5, 2010, Planning for the Historic Environment, The Stationery Office, Norwich Preston, S (ed), 2005, Reading and Windsor: Old and New. Excavations 1995–2002, TVAS Monogr 7, Reading Preston, S (ed), 2010, Archaeological Investigations to the south of Reading, 2002–2008, TVAS Monogr 13, Reading RBC, 2008, Reading Borough Development Framework: Core Strategy, Reading Borough Council, Reading RBLP 1998, Reading Borough Local Plan 1991-2006, adopted 1998, Reading Slade, C F, 2001, The Town of Reading and its Abbey, MRM Associates Ltd, Reading VCH, 1972, Victoria County History of Berkshire 3, London Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London Wymer, J J, 1999, The Lower Palaeolithic occupation of Britain, Salisbury

APPENDIX 1: Historic Environment Records within a 500 m search radius of the development site

No HER Ref Grid Ref (SU) Type Period Comment 1 MRD10515 69870 73040 Findspot Neolithic Stone axe 2 MRD11169 7029 7270 Findspot Neolithic Flint axe 3 MRD11177 70330 73150 Findspot Neolithic Flint knife or sickle 4 MRD8568 70360 73250 Findspot Neolithic/Bronze Age Flint arrowhead 5 MRD11291 70 72 Findspot Late Iron Age/Roman Coins of Augustus, Antoninus and Gallienus 6 MRD10461 6983 7296 Findspot Roman Coin 7 MRD3888 705 727 Findspot Roman Samian ware and coins, C1-4 8 MRD5974 70500 72800 Monument Post-medieval A4 Bath Road, London to Bristol road 9 DRM1721 70291 72943 Listed building 18th century The Brunswick Arms public house 10 DRM1837 70283 72787 Listed building 18th/19th century 42 Bath Road, former Blue Coat School 11 DRM1502 70608 73394 Listed building 19th century 187-193 Oxford Road (odds) 12 DRM1769 70578 73402 Listed building 19th century 195 and 197 Oxford Road, brick terrace 13 DRM1608 70405 72976 Listed building 19th century Church of All Saints 14 DRM1843 70225 72728 Listed building 19th century Cast iron mile post 15 DRM1771 70683 73420 Listed building 19th century 124 Oxford Road, 1850s chalet type 16 DRM1683 70231 73049 Listed building 19th century 35 Tilehurst Road, brick terraced house 17 DRM1753 70277 73087 Listed building 19th century 52 Tilehurst Road, mid-C19 suburban villa 18 DRM1551 70665 73017 Listed building 19th century 2 Tilehurst Road, pre-1839 suburban villa 19 DRM1691 70704 73413 Listed building 19th century 120 and 122 Oxford Road 20 DRM1641 70684 73377 Listed building 19th century 171-177 Oxford Road (odds), brick terrace 21 DRM1697 70572 73403 Listed building 19th century 199-205 Oxford Road (odds), stucco terrace 22 DRM1581 70740 72938 Listed building 19th century 4 and 6 Bath Road, house and railings 23 DRM1345 70671 73173 Listed building 19th century 61-79 Baker Street (odds), pre-1840 brick terrace 24 DRM1525 70739 73092 Listed building 19th century 48 and 50 Russell Street, bath stone houses 25 DRM2652 7051 7345 Listed building 19th century Oxford Road Primary School, 1880 Board school 26 DRM1725 70346 73210 Listed building 19th century The Rose and Thistle public house 27 DRM1348 70270 72760 Listed building 19th century Water tower, waterworks site, Bath Road MRM15888 28 MRM16230 70211 72744 Monument 19th century Brick pump house, waterworks site, Bath Road 29 MRM16231 70192 72735 Monument 19th century Station supervisor’s house, waterworks site, Bath Road 30 MRM16232 70242 72733 Monument 19th century Boundary wall and railings, waterworks site, Bath Road 31 DRM1674 70389 73004 Listed building 19th/20th century All Saints Infants School, playground and railings 32 DRM1503 70442 73414 Listed building 19th/20th century 237-247 Oxford Road (odds), “Prospect Terrace” 33 DRM1580 70584 73177 Listed building 19th/20th century 81 Baker Street (York Lodge) 34 MRD6122 69932 72232 Monument 19th/20th century Section of Reading to Mortimer railway 35 DRM1679 70686 73309 Listed building 20th century Reading Synagogue 36 MRD6049 70250 73380 Monument 20th century Reading West railway station 37 ERD35 69860 72671 Evaluation Negative Negative results 38 ERM347 69752 73815 Evaluation Negative Negative results, 1 Roman pottery sherd only

Listed Buildings Grade II unless stated.

APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1574 Christopher Saxton, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire (Fig. 2) 1767 John Rocque’s ‘Survey of Berkshire’ (Fig. 4) 1790 Thomas Pride ‘Ten miles around Reading’ 1836 Hawes & Son ‘Plan of the parish of St Mary, Reading, in the county of Berks’ (Fig. 5) 1879 Ordnance Survey County Series Town Plan (Fig. 6) 1881 Ordnance Survey County Series 1900 Ordnance Survey County Series (Fig. 7) 1912 Ordnance Survey County Series (Fig. 8) 1932 Ordnance Survey County Series 1959 Ordnance Survey National Grid 1:2500 1960 Ordnance Survey National Grid 1:1250 (Fig. 9) 1971 Ordnance Survey National Grid 1:1250 (Fig. 10) 1978 Ordnance Survey National Grid 1:1250 1986 Ordnance Survey National Grid 1:1250 1993 Ordnance Survey National Grid 1:1250 2011 Ordnance Survey MasterMap 1:2500 (Fig. 11)

APPENDIX 3: Geotechnical data

(see next page)

14 Slough

READING Maidenhead

Windsor

Hungerford Thatcham Bracknell Newbury Wokingham SITE

74000

SITE 38

25 21 15 36 32 11-2 19-20 35 4 26 3 33 23 17 18 24 1 16 31 73000 6 13 9 22 8 27-30 10 14 2 7 37

72000

SU70000 71000 TCR 11/111 Taylor Court, 48 Tilehurst Road, Reading, Berkshire, 2011 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 1. Location of site within Reading and Berkshire showing Historic Environment Record entries. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Explorer 171 at 1:12500 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 SITE