Desk-Based Assessment Report

Home , Preston Crowmarsh

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

Land at Littleworth Road, Benson, Oxfordshire

Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

by Steve Preston

Site Code LRB15/210

(SU 615 922)

Land off Littleworth Road, Benson, Oxfordshire

Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

for R J and S Styles Ltd

by Steve Preston

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd

Site Code LRB 15/210

October 2015 Summary

Site name: Land at Littleworth Road, Benson, Oxfordshire

Grid reference: SU 615 922

Site activity: Archaeological desk-based assessment

Project manager: Steve Ford

Site supervisor: Steve Preston

Site code: LRB15/210

Area of site: c. 25 ha

Summary of results: The site lies in an area of generally high archaeological potential for almost all periods. Evaluation trenching across part of the area revealed a large number of features of archaeological interest, primarily ditches likely to represent land division, most of which, however could not be dated. Finds spanning periods from the Neolithic to the Post- medieval were recovered (although, surprisingly nothing from the Medieval period). The features revealed would appear to be typical of rural settings across southern England, with no indication of heritage assets of national significance being present. While it is possible to suggest that similar results should be expected across the rest of the site, this extrapolation cannot be pursued in detail. It is considered therefore that it will be necessary to provide further information about the detailed archaeological potential across the remainder of the area through field observations, in order to draw up a mitigation strategy as appropriate. An appropriate mitigation strategy for the area already evaluated would be excavation and recording to ensure preservation by record of the archaeological resource present there.

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 All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.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 14.10.15

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 Littleworth Road, Benson, Oxfordshire Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

by Steve Preston

Report 15/210 Introduction

This report is an assessment of the archaeological potential of a large parcel of land located north of Littleworth

Road, Benson, Oxfordshire (SU 615 922) (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Ms Amanda Jacobs, of

West Waddy ADP LLP, The Malthouse, 60 East St Helen Street, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 5EB on behalf of R J and S Styles Ltd, ‘Loretto’, Lower Way, Ewelme, OX10 8HB 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.

An application is to be made to South Oxfordshire District Council for residential development on the site.

The application will seek approval for up to 400 dwellings with detailed permission being sought for access and all other matters reserved. Part of the site gained planning permission (P14/S0673/FUL) at Appeal on 2 June

2015 for the erection of 159 dwellings with associated access, open space and landscaping, parking and car share facilities. The fresh application for outline planning would envisage the erection of 348 dwellings with associated access, open space and landscaping, associated parking and car share facilities, providing an appropriate mix of housing tenure, as established within the extant planning permission.

This assessment will accompany the application in order to inform the planning process with regard to potential archaeological implications of the proposal.

Site description, location and geology

Benson is located on the north bank of the river Thames opposite Wallingford in south Oxfordshire (Fig. 1). The site currently consists of a large arable field, some 25ha in extent (Pls 1–4), with a trackway crossing it diagonally, flanked by a couple of small buildings (sheds) (Fig. 2). The development area is centred on NGR SU

615 922 on the northern outskirts of Benson and straddles both 1st (flood plain) and 2nd (Summertown-Radley) river terrace gravels (BGS 1980). It is reasonably flat, at a height of 50m above Ordnance Datum. The south and west boundaries are formed by Littleworth Road, most of the east side is bounded by properties along

Sunnyside, while the north and north-east looks out onto more open fields. The Thames flows east and then south, some 200m south-west of the site’s south-western corner.

Planning background and development proposals

Planning permission is to be sought for residential development on the site. No detailed proposals have been drawn up and it is intended that the illustrative masterplan will be capable of being influenced by any findings related to the archaeological heritage resource of the site as appropriate.

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.’ 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.’

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.’

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. There are no Scheduled Monuments within close proximity of the site.

The South Oxfordshire District Council Core Strategy 2012 contains Policy CSEN3 Historic Environment

‘The district’s designated historic heritage assets, both above and below ground such as: ‘nationally designated assets including listed buildings, historic parks and gardens, historic battlefields and Scheduled Ancient Monuments; ‘conservation areas; and ‘their settings ‘will be conserved and enhanced for their historic significance and their important contribution to local distinctiveness, character and sense of place. ‘This will be carried out through: ‘conservation area appraisals/reviews; ‘management plans; ‘designating new conservation areas where appropriate; ‘the determination of planning, listed building consent and other relevant applications. ‘Proposals for development that affect non-designated historic assets will be considered taking account of the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.’

The South Oxfordshire Local Plan (2011 strikethrough version) included no specific policies relating to the historic environment but referred to the national guidance then in place (PPS5). This would imply that current national guidance contained in NPPF would be used in the same way.

The site lies just outside the Benson Conservation Area but development on the site could certainly be considered to have potential impact on its setting and viewscapes.

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 paper ‘Standards in British Archaeology’ covering desk-based studies (CIfA 2014). These sources include historic and modern maps, the Oxfordshire

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

Archaeological background

General background

Benson has seen a reasonable concentration of recent archaeological activity, albeit mostly of modest scope. The area has long been recognized as a focus for prehistoric activity, with numerous significant monuments visible from aerial photographs, especially at RAF Benson, for instance (Benson and Miles 1974; Briggs et al. 1986) or as upstanding earthworks. There are Scheduled Ancient Monuments just to the north-west of Benson, consisting of two long barrows and a Roman settlement. It was also a significant early Saxon centre, with a royal vill from as early as the 6th century if not before, and was Oxfordshire’s most valuable royal holding at the time of

Domesday Book (AD1086) (Blair 1998, 49–50). Recent work has shown Roman occupation within Benson, for which there was no previous positive evidence, although it would have been anticipated in such a location in any case (Pine 2006). Excavation at St Helen’s Avenue revealed occupation spanning a range of periods from the

Neolithic to Saxon (Pine and Ford 2004). The parish church (St Helen’s) has a 13th-century nave and 14th- century aisles, but was mainly rebuilt in the late 18th century and again rebuilt in 1862 (Sherwood and Pevsner

1974, 450).

Oxfordshire Historic Environment Record

A search was made on the Oxfordshire Historic Environment Record (HER) on 10th September 2015 for a radius of 1.5km around the proposal site. This revealed 105 entries within the search radius, 73 ‘monuments’ and

32 ‘events’. These are summarized as Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 1. Entries in very close proximity to one another have been combined to reduce clutter on the figure. A very small number of entries (of no great significance) lying at the extremes of the search radius have also been excluded. Entries for desk-based assessment have not been included, and Listed Buildings were excluded from the search, but it is known that there are almost 100 of these in Benson. Listed buildings have not been plotted on Figure 1 but they

are listed in Appendix 1. In contrast, a small number of results just beyond the limits of the search radius but not included in the HER output have been added.

The most significant results in terms of the current site are for an evaluation that took place in the eastern portion of the site [Fig. 1: 50], prompted by the previous planning application. These results are discussed in a separate section, below.

Prehistoric The earliest human activity in the area recorded in the SMR is the represented by the findspots of three

Palaeolithic handaxes [Fig. 1: 1, 2]. Precise details are lacking but the locations for these finds all seem to come from the edge of the 2nd terrace gravels, which are not normally thought to produce such finds (Wymer 1999); possibly they are on the top of the first terrace. It is unusual for such finds to be from in situ deposits and it may be surmised that here, as usual, they have been redeposited by river action. Neolithic stray finds include several axes and other flint tools [3–5]. More significant are the Cursus monument at RAF Benson [6] to the south, two long barrows (both Scheduled) [7, 8] a considerable distance to the west, and an occupation site excavated at St

Helen’s Avenue to the south [13]. Along with numerous undated cropmarks visible on aerial photographs, which are likely to be prehistoric features, these indicate the area to have been a considerable focus for activity from this period onwards. Entries for the Bronze Age include a stray spearhead [5] and occupation features [13, 14], and stray finds of pottery [24].

The Iron Age seems to witness considerable intensification of occupation in the area, with numerous findspots and settlements attested [11, 13, 15–19, 24]. These include one site very close to the south-western corner of the proposal site [11] and others all (except 16) further to the south, which might all be part of a single extensive settlement, though this is speculative, as most of the discoveries have not come under ‘controlled’ conditions. Metal-detected finds include some (Late Iron Age coins and pottery) from within the southern fringe of the proposal site itself [53]. There are also numerous unspecified ‘prehistoric’ finds or remains, which may belong to any of these periods [20–26].

Roman The Roman period is also well represented in the vicinity, by both stray finds and occupation remains. Within

Benson itself, enough finds to suggest a Roman settlement are attested [9], as is a cemetery [10]. Excavated

Roman remains have come from areas to the south and south-east [13, 15, 27, 54], and north [16], while further north-west is an extensive series of cropmarks [31], interpreted as a Roman settlement, the latter being a

Scheduled Monument. There are also stray finds from all around the study area [5, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 28, 29, 32,

47, 51]. Burials are also known in the vicinity [15, 20, 30]. As for the Late Iron Age, metal-detected finds include some Roman coins and pottery from within the southern fringe of the proposal site itself [53].

Saxon The Saxon period is also well represented, surprisingly so for a period whose material remains tend on the whole to be elusive in comparison to other periods. Here, stray finds are reported from several spots [5, 17, 18, 20, 21,

24, 25, 32, 33]: these are perhaps worth more than stray finds of other periods, as metal finds in particular can often indicate the locations of cemeteries. Two Saxon spearheads were also dredged from the Thames at Benson lock [12]; these need not have their origins anywhere in the study area at all. More significantly, Saxon occupation features have been recorded to the south [13]. More dubious is the suggestion that a road visible on early historical maps, at the extreme south of the search radius (not plotted on Figure 1) had Saxon origins.

Medieval By contrast, the medieval period is somewhat sparsely represented. There is the site of a castle [13], presumed to be a simple ringwork, the shrunken village of Fifield [33], and the deserted village site of Clapcot across the river [38], but otherwise only a limited number of stray finds of pottery, mostly from outside the core of the village [17, 18, 20, 21, 32, 35–8], which for this period can be of even less information value than for other periods, due to the known processes of manuring of fields from domestic middens which was not only widespread but often municipally organized, leading to stray pottery sherds being spread widely across the agricultural landscape. Excavated medieval features are reported from only two locations within the search radius, one at Watlington Road [34] consisted of a large deep ditch and one pit. Further south at Crowmarsh

Battle Farm [54] medieval ridge and furrow was recorded. Metal detected finds of this period have been reported from two locations, to the east [52] and within the site itself [53].

Post-medieval The vast majority of the Listed Buildings within the study area are post-medieval; these are not treated here in detail, as they are so numerous. Other post-medieval entries are limited to a milestone [11], Benson Lock [12], the site of a long-demolished mill [15] and some features observed in a watching brief [20]. The lock itself has acted as a trap for river-borne finds; the concentration of finds here attests only to the importance of the Thames both as a repository for losses (or ritual offerings) and as a transport medium, not to any specific preference for the past activity to focus on the location of the lock. Inevitably, reports of metal detected finds include many of this period, from two locations, to the east [52] and within the site itself [53].

Modern, undated Modern features other than listed buildings are mostly related to World War II defences: five pill boxes and an aerial reconnaissance early warning station [not plotted on Figure 1].

The Icknield Way is recorded in the HER as crossing the area, albeit well to the south-west of Benson. This trackway, a traditional long-distance transport route and trade corridor, from East Anglia to Wanborough, has long been held to be prehistoric, possibly with Neolithic origins, and lasting into Saxon times, but in fact, although there may be some truth to the importance of the broad corridor at certain times, or for individual stretches of it, there is no evidence for the Way as a coherent entity earlier than the medieval period (Harrison

2004). Nonetheless, the western stretch of the Way, from Wanborough to Risborough does appear to have a genuine claim to be a prehistoric route and probably a Saxon one too.

Numerous investigations within the search area, mostly around the fringes of Benson, but including two very close to the site itself [42, 46] have produced negative results, or recorded modern or undated features [2,

13, 16, 19, 39–46, 48, 49].

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

There are no Scheduled Monuments in close proximity to the site. The closest are two long barrows both to the west [Fig. 1: 7 and 8]. Neither of these survives above ground but they are visible on aerial photographs, although neither was originally identified as such. Both were regarded as under active threat from ploughing.

Although the proposal would result in bringing the outskirts of Benson closer to these two monuments, resulting in some loss of the open space which defines most of their settings, it would be a very minor intrusion into the wide landscape around the monuments, coming no close than about 450m from the nearer of them, and could not be construed as causing substantial harm to their significance.

Further from the site, to the north-west, is a set of cropmarks interpreted as a Roman settlement. Again, it is not visible on the ground but on aerial photographs, and is also under active threat from ploughing. The proposal would encroach on the setting of this monument even less than on those of the barrows and would not cause it substantial loss of significance.

Evaluation

Part of the proposal site has already been subject to field evaluation (Weale 2010). In summary, 69 trenches, approximately 30m long and 1.8m wide, were excavated across an area of around 10ha. Although a large number of features were identified, the artefact collection was modest and very few features could be confidently dated. However finds spanned several periods, including a single flint of the Mesolithic or early Neolithic, a very small number of later prehistoric flints, and pottery from the later Neolithic or early Bronze Age, the middle to

late Bronze Age, Iron Age, Roman and (probably) early Saxon periods, as well as the post-medieval.

Unstratified finds (as most of the finds were) appeared to be predominantly post-medieval. Strangely, medieval material appeared to be completely absent.

There appeared to be a concentration of archaeological features within the central part of the eastern field which comprised postholes, small pits and small gullies in addition to ditches and it is perhaps here that the most intensive occupation deposits are to be found. In contrast, areas to the north appeared to be dominated by large ditches which may be considered to be landscape features, that is field ditches and boundary features. A lower density of activity was recorded in the western field, and the south of the eastern field where further ditches presumably also represent landscape divisions. Isolated, or little groups of small features were of uncertain significance. Finally, several areas can be defined negatively where two or more adjacent evaluation trenches are devoid of archaeology, and are considered to have low archaeological potential.

It was suggested therefore that much of the evaluated part of the site has archaeological potential, and that the development would require a strategy for the mitigation of adverse impacts upon the archaeological resource.

Cartographic and documentary sources

Benson is an Old English (Anglo-Saxon ) place name, first recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the year

AD571 (although the text itself is from around AD900) as Bænesingtun, which derives from the elements

Benesa (man’s name), -ing (‘associated with’, or ‘named after’ ) and -tun (‘estate’, ‘farm’, or ‘village’) (Mills

1998, 33). Nothing more is known of Benesa. By the time of Domesday Book (AD 1086) the name is rendered

Besintone or Besentone. The Domesday Book entry for Benson is rather terse, especially considering it was the most valuable royal manor in the county (Williams and Martin 2002, 423; 442; Blair 1994, 49). It was a royal estate, assessed at just under 12 hides and before the Conquest had supported no fewer than 50 ploughs (a huge number); by 1086 it was supporting 32, which is still a large arable area, but the drop suggests considerable devastation during the aftermath of the Conquest. Fifty-one villagers (that is, heads of households) and five slaves are documented, a very small number for the amount of arable land that must have been worked. There were two mills, meadows, pastures, fisheries and woods, unusually not quantified, but noted as rendering the substantial sum of £18/15s/5d a year; the manor as a whole was worth £85, again, a huge sum to be borne by so small a population. There is also a churchscot (a form of tithe), which may imply a church, although none is specified. A second entry mentions land held by a servant of the King, named William, who had one hide, one

plough, four acres of meadow, worth 12s 6d; this is probably in addition to the above, but it is not entirely certain. Benson was also a judicial centre for surrounding lands in 4½ hundreds.

The 10th-century Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that in AD571 Cuthwulf of Wessex fought against the

Britons and took four settlements including Benson (Swanton 2000, 18), which clearly must therefore have earlier roots, and have already been important enough to notice in the 6th century (although, see below). In

AD777, Cynewulf of Wessex and Offa of Mercia fought over Benson, Cynewulf taking the settlement (Swanton

2000, 50–51). It has been suggested (Sims-Williams 1983) that the entry for 571 may be a later invention to pave the way for the 8th-century event: even so it is unlikely that the existence of a settlement at this place was wholly invented. In any case, Benson seems to have been in a frontier zone. It is mentioned again in a land grant of

Aethelbald, King of Mercia from 730 (Edwards 1988). It is not named in the Burghal Hidage and so may have lost some of its earlier importance by the late 9th century (Blair 1994, 103) but it was the hundredal centre after the Conquest, so any putative loss of status must have been temporary, and the Benson’s absence from the list of burhs may only mean that it did not require defences.

Subsequently, Benson became an important halt on the coaching route from Oxford to Henley, as its surviving 18th- and early 19th-century inns attest. Benson’s later history is inevitably tied to the RAF base, which served as the headquarters of the RAF’s aerial reconnaissance missions in the Second World War, and subsequently as a transport base. Benson was also the site of one of the country’s first meteorological stations in the early 19th century.

A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at the Oxfordshire History

Centre 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 large scale county map of 1574 (Fig. 3). This shows

Benson (still called Bensington) in relation to Wallingford and Crowmarsh (Craumershe), but at this scale no detail is shown. Seventeenth- and 18th-century mapping adds little for this area. Detailed mapping begins with a plan of Magdalen College estates from 1833 (Fig. 5). This shows Benson’s main road grid recognizably similar to today’s, and many of the main field boundaries are also similar. The site can be picked out in detail, and while the precise boundaries do not quite match, they are tolerably close. It is mostly within one field, named as Hale

Field, belonging to Hale Farm, and although buildings are not shown on the map, it is reasonable to suppose they are already where they will appear on the next map. The field is parcelled out among over 20 tenant farmers, in

plots almost as small as allotments. The Tithe map of 1842 shows less detail; the field is still subdivided though not quite so much (not illustrated). A map of the common fields of the area from 1863 (pre-enclosure) does not depict this field at all (not illustrated).

By the time of the First Edition Ordnance Survey (1877), the area has taken on close to its present form, with no subdivisions in the field, although there are a couple of drainage ditches (Fig. 5). Benson is still named

Bensington. Hale Farm is shown to the east. Littleworth Road is in place and so named. There is a quarry pit alongside the road, within the bounds of the site, approximately 65m long. Just to the north-west is an antiquities notation for the finding of human remains. The Second Edition (1898) and Third Edition (1912) maps show no change, except to show more clearly that Hale Farm occupies a separate plot of land, and by 1937, there has still been very little change to note for the site itself. The field is now subdivided, forming four plots in the west and one larger on in the east, and Hale Farm has expanded somewhat, but there is otherwise little change (Fig. 6).

The quarry pit has been filled in. Just missing from this map, but visible in other versions, a stone marks the north-east corner of the site; the significance of this is unclear. It is not a parish, ward, county or constituency boundary, it seems unlikely to be a tax boundary, and it cannot be a milestone in this location, unless it is one that has been moved. It may possibly be some relic of the college ownership. The map of 1972 is the first one to show buildings on the site, which appear to be the sheds still extant (Fig. 7). Modern mapping shows the site once more a single field (Fig. 1) and although Benson is much altered, the site is essentially unchanged in maps through the 1980s and 1990s.

Overall, the site has been open farmland since depictions of it began, apart from two tiny structures and a small quarried area along the southern border.

Listed buildings and Conservation Area

The site lies adjacent to the Benson Conservation Area but not within it. There are almost 100 statutorily or locally listed buildings within a 1.5km radius of the proposal site (see Appendix 1), and some 40 of these are in close proximity, with particular concentrations on High Street, Castle Square and Brook Street. There are no listed buildings on the proposal site itself, nor will any listed building be directly affected by development on the site. However, the development would need to be designed to be sympathetic to the overall historic character of the area and to take into account its impact on the settings of the listed buildings, and views to and from the

Conservation Area.

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 on the site that would qualify as ‘important’ as defined by Schedule 1 of the Hedgerows

Regulations 1997.

Aerial Photographs

As part of the previous application, the aerial photographic catalogue of the then National Monuments Record

(now Historic England Archives) was searched on 19th March 2008 for an area of 1.5km surrounding the site.

This revealed 213 photographs from 60 sorties flown between 1930 and 1996 (Appendix 3). As this coverage was so extensive, the Cambridge University collection was not consulted. Their online database showed only one print for the same area. The prints available included 199 vertical and 14 oblique views (taken specifically for archaeological purposes). Those prints that were available were viewed on 1st April 2008 (a relatively large number were not available to view; possibly due to the presence of RAF Benson).

Apart from the well-known cropmarks at RAF Benson, and others already signalled from the HER search, no cropmarks of potential archaeological interest were visible; there were no cropmarks of any kind on the site itself. The collection was not revisited specifically for this assessment, as, although it is possible that recent photographs could show cropmarks not previously visible (say, as a result of continued ploughing), the evaluation demonstrated the alluviated nature of the area, which would be much less suitable for the production of cropmarks than the surrounding gravel terraces.

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.

Firstly, the location of the proposal area is such that development on the site could be considered to have potential impact on the setting of, and/or viewscapes to and from, the Benson Conservation Area. Therefore, the

design and scale of new work would need to be in sympathy with the established character of the area; and consideration should be given to the use of traditional materials, appropriate to the character of the area.

West of the site are three Scheduled Monuments, all of which have been defined from cropmarks. The impact of the proposal on the settings of these must be considered. It is not considered that while the proposed development would alter the wider settings of these heritage assets, this change would not be such as to cause substantial harm to their significance.

The site lies in an area of considerable general archaeological potential, surrounded by finds and remains of all periods. In particular, the area is noted for its prehistoric archaeology, and both Bronze Age and Iron Age features have been identified almost on the boundaries of the proposal area. Roman remains are also common in the near vicinity. The site is probably outside the core of the Saxon and medieval settlement, so potential for these periods may be lower, but it is not far from the church (usually the focus of medieval settlement) and could easily have been the site of a medieval farm. Metal-detected finds from within the southern edge of the site have spanned a range of periods, in keeping with this generalized potential. This observation should be offered with the caveat that it is at least possible that some of these finds came from the area that has been quarried and backfilled, and may not have been close to their original locations.

Cartographic review shows that the site has been farmland since depictions of it began. Any archaeological remains that might have been present will therefore have been subject to the destructive effects of ploughing but will otherwise have remained undisturbed, except in the small area by the roadside, shown as a quarry. The site is only a couple of metres above the level of the river Thames and is therefore likely to have suffered periodic inundation; this may also have provided protection to archaeological deposits by building up alluvium over them. It is also possible that deeper features on the site might contain waterlogged remains, with enhanced organic preservation. Development on the site thus has the potential to create an adverse impact on the archaeological heritage of the area.

More significant for the site itself, part has been subject to previous field evaluation which revealed a large number of features, although very few of these could be dated. Periods represented ranged from the Neolithic to the Saxon. The evaluation trenching did indeed show alluvial deposits in many instances, and demonstrated the susceptibility of the area to flooding. Waterlogged deposits were encountered in the western portion of the site but these did not demonstrate any organic survival. The majority of finds were in the topsoil, which might indicate recent ploughing has disturbed deposits below and dragged finds up from features below, though this is not the only possible explanation, for example they could have come in as flood material. The evaluated part of

the site therefore undoubtedly has moderate to high archaeological potential, albeit the deposits present appeared to be fairly typical of dryland rural sites in lowland England, with no suggestion of any remains that might be of national significance. Whilst it is not safe to extrapolate such findings in detail to the remainder of the area, the similarity of landuse history in both areas does suggest that it is reasonable to expect broadly similar potential and survival. It may be anticipated that the presence of alluvium and perhaps waterlogged deposits might increase in the western part of the area.

It will be necessary to provide further information about the potential of the part of the site not already evaluated, from field observations in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits if necessary. An appropriate mitigation for the part of the site already evaluated can be suggested to be excavation and recording to ensure preservation by record. Schemes for both evaluation and excavation will need to be drawn up and approved by the archaeological advisers to the Council and implemented by a competent archaeological contractor.

References

BGS, 1980, British Geological Survey, 1:50,000 Sheet 254, Solid and Drift Edition, Keyworth Benson, D and Miles, D, 1974, The Upper Thames Valley: an archaeological survey of the river gravels, Oxfordshire Archaeol Unit Survey 2, Oxford Blair, J, 1994, Anglo-Saxon Oxfordshire, Stroud Blair, J, 1998, Anglo-Saxon Oxfordshire, (2nd edn), Stroud Briggs, G, Cook, J and Rowley, T (eds), 1986, The Archaeology of the Oxford Region, Oxford Univ Dept External Stud Edwards, H, 1988, The charters of the early West Saxon Kingdom, BAR (Brit Ser) 198, Oxford Harrison, S, 2004, ‘The Icknield Way: some queries’, Archaeol J 160 (for 2003), 1–22 Mills, A D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford Pine, J, 2006, ‘Early Roman occupation at Jubilee Villa, 21 The Moorlands, Benson, Oxfordshire’, Oxoniensia 70 (for 2005), 115–28 Pine, J and Ford, S, 2004, ‘Excavation of Neolithic, late Bronze Age, early Iron Age and early Saxon features at St Helen’s Avenue, Benson, Oxfordshire, Oxoniensia, 68 (for 2003), 132–78 PPG16, 1990, Dept of the Environment Planning Policy Guidance 16, Archaeology and Planning, HMSO Sherwood, J and Pevsner, N, 1974, Buildings of England: Oxfordshire, London Sims-Williams, P, 1983, ‘The settlement of England in Bede and the Chronicle’, Anglo-Saxon England, 12, 1–41 SODC, 2006, South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011, adopted 2006, South Oxfordshire District Council SODC, 2012, South Oxfordshire Core Strategy (adopted December 2012), South Oxfordshire District Council Swanton, M, 2000, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, London Weale, A, 2010, Land at Littleworth Road, Benson, Oxfordshire; an archaeological evaluation’, TVAs unpul rep 08/31b, Reading 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 1.5km search radius of the development site

No HER Ref Grid Ref (SU) Type Period Comment 1 2130 6078 9032 Findspot Palaeolithic Handaxe 2 12882 617 917 Findspot Palaeolithic Two handaxes. White Hart Hotel, Castle Square, EOX237 6166 9173 Watching Brief Negative nothing observed in watching brief. 11951 Listed Building 3 2125 62 91 Findspot Neolithic Axehead 4 5238 616 914 Findspot Neolithic Unspecified artefacts 5 5302 6135 9118 Findspot Neolithic Neolithic axe, Bronze Age spearhead, flint knife, 9024 6131 9125 Bronze Age Roman pottery, Saxon spear and scramasaxes 2153 6129 9127 Roman (knives) 2154 6129 9126 Saxon 2155 613 912 6 D8583 629 919 Photographic Neolithic Cursus (Benson Airfield) 7 16125 6062 9230 Scheduled Monument Neolithic Long barrow Scheduled Ancient Monument 31431 8 16126 6065 9253 Scheduled Monument Neolithic Long barrow Scheduled Ancient Monument 31435 9 9670 616 916 Roman Settlement 10 11980 625 919 Roman Cemetery 11 10015 613 918 Findspot Iron Age Iron Age pottery, coin, bone; Post-medieval 13287 614 918 Watching Brief Post-medieval milestone. 10 Churchfield Lane, Watching Brief, EOX981 6135 9174 Negative nothing observed. 12 1254 613 913 Structure Saxon Benson lock. Two Saxon spearheads and a post- 27649 61290 91176 Findspot Post-medieval medieval tankard found below Benson Lock, 1964 13 EOX1237 6152 9155 Evaluation Neolithic Multi-period occupation sites, Neolithic through EOX232 6145 9160 Excavation Bronze Age to Saxon period; St Helen’s Avenue. EOX233 615 916 Findspot Iron Age Castle (site of); findspot of Saxon heddle stick 16138 6150 9163 Watching brief Roman St Helen’s Church, Grade II*: Watching brief 2099 6159 9155 Listed Building Saxon revealed chalk foundations of ‘earlier’ tower and 9951 61458 91584 Medieval post-medieval inhumations. EOX40 Post-medieval Nothing of archaeological interest at 3 4794 Negative Churchfield Lane, site may have been quarried EOX2495 EOX2933 14 26039 6100 9228 Excavation Bronze Age Late Bronze Age pit and undated ditch; site 13 on EOX2039 Undated Chalgrove to East Ilsely pipeline 15 9896 6155 9119 Findspot Iron Age Iron Age settlement; Roman burials, Medieval 2100 6149 9119 Documentary Roman pottery. 2101 6150 9087 Medieval Site of post-medieval mill, destroyed in 1930. 9895 6148 9121 Post-medieval 4367 6151 9106 16 EOX2141 61250 93535 Excavation Iron Age Chalgrove to Didcot Pipeline route: a variety of 26117 61255 93790 Survey Roman features. Magnetometry also revealed a ditch and 26103 61315 93785 Undated some possible pits 26116 61013 93316 EOX2913 17 4449 6180 9149 Findspot Iron Age Pottery Roman Saxon Medieval 18 4489 6161 9317 Findspot Iron Age Pottery Roman Saxon Medieval 19 4468 6189 9156 Excavation Iron Age Late Iron Age coin, pottery and bone found, EOX2932 61941 91516 Watching brief Negative possibly a ditch, Mill Lane. Nothing of archaeological interest at 43 Mill Lane 20 8040 6237 9198 Findspot Prehistoric Prehistoric scrapers, Roman to medieval pottery EOX240 Evaluation Roman Brook Street: undated gully, several post- Saxon medieval features Medieval Post-medieval Undated 21 4493 6269 9210 Findspot Prehistoric Prehistoric flints, Roman to medieval pottery Roman Saxon Medieval 22 2119 61 91 Findspot Prehistoric Neolithic/ Bronze Age flint tools, polished stone 2124 axe, pottery; Locations imprecise 5215 23 PD15385 6260 9153 Photographic Prehistoric Enclosure, linear feature, ring ditch; two oval

No HER Ref Grid Ref (SU) Type Period Comment 15385.03 6254 9155 enclosures 15385.04 6267 9157 24 15385.01 6217 9099 Photographic Bronze Age Circular enclosure, presumed prehistoric, on 9892 6220 9060 Findspot Iron Age aerial photographs. Pottery of all these periods, Roman found in 1976/7. Saxon Medieval 25 15385.02 6243 9118 Photographic Prehistoric Ring ditch 2105 6241 9117 Findspot Saxon Battleaxe and spear EOX919 Watching Brief Negative Two Watching Briefs, RAF Benson, nothing EOX979 observed. 26 15385.05 6275 9150 Photographic Prehistoric Block marks; linear features 15385.06 627 916 27 EOX1876 6202 9152 Excavation Roman Jubilee Villa, Moorlands: occupation site, field EOX234 Evaluation system, enclosure, trackway 16139 28 2106 6260 9202 Findspot Roman Pottery and coins 29 1093 6097 9296 Findspot Roman Pottery 30 2115 6100 9269 Roman Burial 31 8580 6040 9260 Scheduled Monument Roman Settlement, Scheduled Ancient Monument 31432 32 9952 618 918 Findspot Roman No features, but single sherds of pottery of these EOX1082 6187 9180 Evaluation Saxon dates. 6 Chapel Lane; separate reports of Saxon 16705 6188 9180 Medieval knife and pottery 33 9888 6305 9215 Findspot Saxon Pottery. Shrunken village (Fifield) 1062 631 921 Listed Building Medieval Fyfield Manor; grade II*. 16398 6308 9215 Watching Brief Watching Brief, nothing observed. EOX725 34 EOX239 6172 9187 Evaluation Medieval Watlington Road, large deep ditch and pit, 12th– 15832 14th century 35 2118 617 908 Findspot Medieval Pottery 36 28365 6223 9056 Excavation Roman Battle Farm. Pre-Roman tree clearance, Roman EOX5602 6221 9050 Medieval ditches and rectangular stock enclosure set within rectilinear arrangements of ditches, very few finds. Medieval or later ridge-and-furrow. 37 9894 6250 9205 Findspot Medieval Pottery 38 2133 605 916 Cartographic Medieval Deserted village (Clapcot). Chalgrove to Didcot EOX2125 [64953 96481] Earthworks Post-medieval pipeline route monitoring, no features in this EOX2952 60522 91682 Watching brief vicinity. Survey Rush Manor, 17th or 18th century and later 39 4458 6115 9265 Findspot Multi-period Unspecified finds 40 2131 612 912 Findspot Undated Axe (Iron Age or Saxon) 41 27441 6148 9194 Findspot Iron Age Metal detected finds. Iron Age to Roman coins Roman and pottery. Post-medieval coins, buckles, Medieval pottery, thimbles, horsehoes, spoon, rattle, bells; Post-medieval Medieval pottery, coins, jetton, bronze vessel. 42 EOX1551 6155 9180 Watching Brief Negative Benson School, nothing observed. 43 15387 6115 9175 Photographic Undated Linear feature - 8929 6469 8849 Monument Undated Icknield Way EOX2034 44 EOX2026 6214 9136 Watching Brief Negative 135 St Helen’s Avenue, nothing observed. 45 EOX231 6205 9230 Evaluation Negative Watlington Road, nothing observed 46 EOX235 6115 9195 Evaluation Negative Oxford Road, Little Chef; nothing observed 47 2116 615 906 Earthworks Medieval Moat at Crowmarsh Battle Farm 16766 616 906 Findspot Roman 1st-century brooch found in 1998 48 8579 6007 9250 Photographic Undated Two parallel linear cropmarks. Magnetometry EOX2912 60044 92685 Survey Negative revealed little of potential interest: possibly a pit. 49 26366 6074 9064 Earthworks Undated Low banks, on aerial photographs and as earthworks. 50 26401 61481 92033 Evaluation Mesolithic A modest collection of artefacts was recovered, EOX2870 Neolithic but few of the cut features were well dated. Bronze Age Two Late Neolithic to Bronze Age ditches, one Iron Age Iron Age ditch, and four Late Iron Age to early Roman Roman ditches. Single sherd of Saxon pottery. Saxon Post-medieval 51 26497 620 917 Findspot Roman Coin (unspecified denarius) found in garden 52 27439 6233 9259 Findspot Medieval Metal detected finds. Medieval coins, buckle, Post-medieval bells; Post-medieval coins, buckles, horseshoes, weights, thimble, nails, tokens, furniture attachments. Some may be Roman. 55 EOX2931 61726 91520 Watching brief Undated Nothing of archaeological interest at St Helen’s Way, but a peat deposit above the natural gravel. - EOX529 6218 9183 Survey Undated Building survey of Brook Cottage

No HER Ref Grid Ref (SU) Type Period Comment 16221 Listed Building - 2102 6190 9053 Findspot Medieval Rowel found in 1877 initially thought to be 28212 6184 9069 Survey Undated Roman but medieval is more likely. Hollow-ways criss-crossing a field shown on LiDAR survey - 8045 6230 9050 Findspot Iron Age Pottery found in 1977 - 2504 60 91 Findspot Neolithic Several flints, and a bell thought to be Roman. Roman Location marginal. - 26489 6117 9017 Cartographic Saxon Possible line of Saxon road. Visible on 18th century on later maps. - EOX236 629 906 Evaluation Undated Two tree throws were recorded, and a single Prehistoric struck flint flake was retrieved. RAF Benson - EOX2714 61675 90603 Survey Post-medieval Granary at Crowmarsh Battle Farm, 18th or 19th Building century. 16283 6321 9231 Documentary Modern Aerial reconnaissance early warning unit 15769 6044 9191 Documentary Modern Pillbox 15771 613 917 Documentary Modern Pillbox 15772 613 913 Documentary Modern Pillbox 15773 612 912 Documentary Modern Pillbox 15774 615 907 Documentary Modern Pillbox 2157 6100 9101 Documentary Clapcot manor house (site of) 2308 6190 9162 Documentary Water mill (site of) 3941 6266 9338 Documentary Baptist chapel (possible site of) 4367 6150 9106 Documentary Crowmarsh Mill (site of) 10336 618 918 Documentary Site of chapel 2156 6048 9170 Listed Building The Cottages: manor house and moat 9830 6203 9180 Building Peter Aldridge Motors, Crown Square. 10016 6040 9228 Listed Building Milestone 11946 6159 9175 Listed Building Three Horseshoes, Public house 11947 6167 9174 Building Cottage 11948 6188 9176 Listed Building College farmhouse, barns, outbuildings; 2 Chapel Lane 11949 6174 9173 Listed Building Castle Inn, Castle Square 11952 6173 9176 Listed Building Round House, Castle Square 20554 61690 91708 Listed Building 2 Castle Square 20555 61722 91718 Listed Building 4-8 and railings 20556 61726 91718 Listed Building 10 Castle Square 20552 61756 91724 Listed Building 21–23 Castle Square 20553 61757 91722 Listed Building 25 and 27 Castle Square 20829 62837 93467 Listed Building Cherrytrees 20831 62618 93370 Listed Building Plum Tree Cottage 20558 62664 93363 Listed Building House 20532 62172 92865 Listed Building Horse and Harrow public house 20560 61492 91628 Listed Building Chest tomb 20561 61491 91631 Listed Building Chest tomb (same one as 20560) 20565 62012 91789 Listed Building 1 Crown Lane 20571 61820 91690 Listed Building Monarch’s Court (Grade II*) 20585 61584 91721 Listed Building 5 Oxford Road 20598 62695 93409 Listed Building Hicks Farmhouse 20549 61695 91747 Listed Building Castle Farmhouse 11963 6229 9193 Listed Building 65–69 Brook Street 20536 62125 91835 Listed Building 27 Brook Street 20539 62307 91948 Listed Building 71 Brook Street 20545 62405 91993 Listed Building 66–68 Brook Street 20538 62143 91845 Listed Building 31–33 Brook Street 20534 62074 91809 Listed Building 15 Brook Street 20533 62035 91795 Listed Building 1 Brook Street 20537 62136 91855 Listed Building 29 Brook Street 20544 62250 91866 Listed Building 34–36 Brook Street 20542 60275 91785 Listed Building 2–4 Brook Street 20540 62304 91963 Listed Building 73 Brook Street 20535 62078 91811 Listed Building 17 Brook Street 20546 62452 92009 Listed Building 74–76 Brook Street 20547 63067 92068 Listed Building Fifield farmhouse and stables and barns 20548 63113 92122 Listed Building Dovecote 20564 62006 91839 Listed Building Homefield 20586 61494 91090 Listed Building 25 Preston Crowmarsh public house 20830 62821 93476 Listed Building Well Cottage 20816 62229 93727 Listed Building Jakemans 20832 62404 93226 Listed Building Old Farm Cottage 20551 61759 91734 Listed Building Castle Cottage 20570 61864 91730 Listed Building Ivy House

No HER Ref Grid Ref (SU) Type Period Comment 20583 62073 91629 Listed Building Rose Cottage 11957 6200 9178 Building Free Church, High Street 20567 61780 91711 Listed Building 1–3 High Street 20568 61796 91716 Listed Building 7 High Street 20572 61844 91705 Listed Building 8–10 High Street 20569 61827 91725 Listed Building 11–15 High Street (odd) 20573 61853 91705 Listed Building 12 High Street 20574 61895 91718 Listed Building 20–22 High Street 20575 61924 91725 Listed Building 26–32 High Street (even) 20576 61961 91731 Listed Building 34–40 High Street (even) 20579 62002 91755 Listed Building 48 High Street 11950 6202 9177 Listed Building Crown Hotel, High Street 11954 6186 9170 Listed Building Kingsford House, High Street 20582 62072 91644 Listed Building 18 Old London Road 20581 62074 91650 Listed Building 20 Old London Road 20557 61759 91686 Listed Building Laurel Cottage 20578 61994 91747 Listed Building Mulberry Cottage 20833 62350 93203 Listed Building Roke Farmhouse 20543 62145 91758 Listed Building Paddock House 20559 62650 93352 Listed Building The Cottage 20562 61518 91631 Listed Building Headstone 20531 62200 92899 Listed Building Thatched Cottage 20817 62210 93750 Listed Building Linscot 20597 62639 93366 Listed Building Russetts 20599 62723 93424 Listed Building Lime Tree Cottage 20822 62182 93730 Listed Building Shepherd’s Cottage 20827 62036 93673 Listed Building The Cottage 20584 62216 91363 Listed Building Flint Cottage 20589 61626 90897 Listed Building Lower Farmhouse 20596 62430 93258 Listed Building Woodbine Cottage 20828 62007 93673 Listed Building Little Frogs 20590 61692 90843 Listed Building 71 Preston Crowmarsh 20580 61840 91698 Listed Building 1–5 Mill Lane (odd) 20641 63275 92233 Listed Building Cottage 20587 61502 91060 Listed Building Old Mill House 20588 61562 90953 Listed Building 49–51 Preston Crowmarsh 20563 61619 91692 Listed Building Old Vicarage 20577 61892 91740 Listed Building Calnan Brothers 20541 62616 92106 Listed Building Brookside 20550 61737 91737 Listed Building Inn sign 20826 62334 93637 Listed Building West Cottage 20566 62046 92846 Listed Building Quakers Corner Listed Buildings Grade II unless stated.

APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1574 Saxton’s map of Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Berkshire (Fig. 3)

1797 Davies’ map of Oxfordshire

1833 Plan of Magdalen College Estates (Fig. 4)

1841 Bensington tithe map

1863 Map of the Common Fields and Waste lands of the parishes of Bensington, Berrick Salome and Ewelme

1877 Ordnance Survey First Edition, 25 inch series, Oxfordshire sheet xlix.3 (Fig. 5)

1898 Ordnance Survey First Edition, 25 inch series, Oxfordshire sheet xlix.3

1937 Ordnance Survey Revision, 25 inch series, Oxfordshire sheet xlix.3 (Fig. 6)

1972 Ordnance Survey Sheets SU6191–6292 and SU6192–6292

1986 Ordnance Survey Pathfinder 1137 (Fig. 1)

1993 Ordnance Survey digital mapping

1994 Ordnance Survey digital mapping

APPENDIX 3: Aerial Photographs consulted

A> Oblique

No Year taken Sortie number Frame number Grid ref (SU) Comment 1 01-Jan-30 829 23059 619 914 2 13-Apr-37 APR765 9, 11 619 931 3 27-Jul-43 US/7/LOC5 PO-0014, SO-2016 611 918 4 21-Jan-45 106G/LA/105 PSFO-0011 611 925 5 not catalogued 145 145 628 919 6 02-Jul-75 143 2 625 916 7 02-Jul-75 185 21 626 916 8 02-Jul-75 186 27 626 916 9 02-Jul-75 187 20 626 916 10 02-Jul-75 190 27 626 916 11 02-Jul-75 191 30 626 916 12 02-Jul-75 192 15 626 916 13 02-Jul-75 193 14 626 916 14 02-Jul-75 194 21 626 916 15 02-Jul-75 not catalogued 29 626 916

B> Vertical

No Year taken Sortie number Frame number Grid ref (SU)

1 05-Feb-1941 RAF/HLA/110 9 608 915

2 09-Jan-1943 RAF/HLA/650 5053–8 618 933

3 13-Feb-1943 RAF/HLA/654 5068–71 626 921

4 31-Jul-1943 US/7PH/GP/LOC8 5040, 6028 622 942

5 19-Aug-1943 US/7PH/GP/LOC35 5017–19, 5055 598 920

6 11-Sep-1943 US/7PH/GP/LOC41 5034–5 630 945

7 13-Dec-1943 US/7PH/GP/LOC103 7018, 8018 607 919

8 13-Dec-1943 US/7PH/GP/LOC104 8079–80 618 910

9 20-Dec-1943 US/7PH/GP/LOC111 5036–7 607 931

10 30-Dec-1943 US/7PH/GP/LOC131 5033 594 930

11 05-Feb-1944 RAF/HLA/680 3010, 3023, 3047–8, 4023–4 623 916

12 22-Feb-1944 US/7PH/GP/LOC303 7117–18, 8113, 8117–18 628 928

13 15-Mar-1944 US/7PH/GP/LOC230 4038 612 925

14 24-Mar-1944 RAF/NLA/80 3065–8 614 917

15 22-Apr-1944 US/7PH/GP/LOC316 5007 619 927

16 06-May-1944 US/7GR/LOC329 3023–4 612 939

17 09-Feb-1946 RAF/106G/UK/1169 5074 630 929

18 10-Apr-1946 RAF/106G/UK/1396 3047–9, 3099–3100, 4099 609 923

19 12-Apr-1946 RAF/106G/UK/1408 3120, 3318, 4219–21 614 926

20 07-Jun-1946 RAF/106G/UK/1561 3371–2, 4291–2 616 926

21 05-Dec-1946 RAF/CPE/UK/1876 6151–3 615 913

22 25-Mar-1947 RAF/CPE/UK/1953 1022–3, 2053–4, 3051 612 923

23 03-Jun-1947 RAF/CPE/UK/2138 5123–4, 5200–4, 5233–4, 5246–51 621 931

24 16-Dec-1948 RAF/58/168 5185–91, 5198–5205, 5233–41, 5253–9 627 919

25 31-Dec-1948 RAF/541/221 3131–2, 4066–8, 4099–4102 623 931

26 11-May-1950 RAF/58/435 5332–5 625 917

27 04-Aug-1950 RAF/540/397 5012 615 911

28 20-Nov-1951 RAF/540/629 3019–20 626 921

29 29-Apr-1952 RAF/540/773 5003–6 613 914

30 13-May-1952 RAF/58/898 5012–13, 5021–4 617 913

31 31-Aug-1954 RAF/82/1006 321 626 923

32 01-Jun-1961 FSL/6125 1054–5, 1066–8 618 918

33 28-Aug-1961 RAF/58/4646 456 621 916

34 28-Aug-1961 RAF/543/1426 7–9 613 925

35 17-May-1964 OS/64032 97–8 611 913

36 14-Jun-1967 RAF/58/8107 134–6 612 928

37 14-Jun-1967 RAF/58/8107 191–3 623 919

38 26-Aug-1967 OS/67333 19–21 613 919

39 29-Aug-1967 OS/67336 175–6 621 931

40 15-May-1971 MAL/71055 94–7, 124–8, 135–7 610 919

41 18-May-1971 MAL/71057 172–4 604 923

42 18-Jul-1971 MAL/71119 93–4, 100–103 607 920

43 08-May-1987 OS/87060 1–3 627 927

44 17-Jun-1996 OS/96648 87–8, 168–71 615 915

45 17-Jun-1996 OS/96649 46–8 615 935 NB : Grid reference given is for start of run; multiple frames may offer wide coverage.

21 Banbury

SITE Bicester

Witney

Thame Abingdon OXFORD

Didcot Wallingford Wantage 94000 Henley-on -Thames

18 93000 29

30 48 31 39 52 8

7 14 45 21 50 37 33 92000 28 46 53 34 20 6 10 11 42 32 2 51 43 9 38 55 23 26 19 13 17 27 12 4 SITE 44 40 5 15 25 91000 22 3 24 35

49 47 36 1

SU61000 62000 63000

LRB 15/210

N Land off Littleworth Road, Benson, Oxfordshire, 2015 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 1. Location of site within Benson and Oxfordshire, showing locations of HER entries. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Pathfinder 1137 SU69/79 at 1:25000 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 Stone 17 This drawing is the copyright of West Waddy : ADP and may not This drawing is the copyright of Westbe Waddy copied : ADP or reproduced and without written permission. The 56.4m may not be copied or reproduced withoutCopyright written Order 1990 provides for the Planning Authority to copy permission. The Copyright Order 1990and provides distribute for drawings the for public inspection in relation to a Planning Authority to copy and distributePlanning drawings Application for only if those copies are marked in the 32 public inspection in relation to a Planningfollowing Application manner: only if those copies are marked in the following manner:! 23 ! "This copy has been made with the authority of West Waddy: ADP Hale Farm pursuant to Section 47 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 19 "This copy has been made with the authority of West 28 1988 and for the purposes only of public inspection. This copy Waddy: ADP! must not be copied without the priorwritten permission of the 15 pursuant to Section 47 of the CopyrightCopyright Designs owner." and Patents Act 1988 and for the purposes only of public

26 inspection. This copy must not be copiedDo not without scale from the drawings prior unless for planning purposes only. written permission of the Copyright owner."Use ! ! ! Þgured dimensions at all other times. In case of doubt contact 5942 Do not scale from drawings unless forWest planning ! purposes Waddy:ADP !

PORT HILL ROAD only. Use Þgured dimensions at all other times. In case of 14 ! 1 doubt contact West Waddy:ADP ! Dimensions to be checked on site before work commences and

LB ! any discrepancies reported to the Architect.! 8 Dimensions to be checked on site before! work commences and any discrepancies reported to theThe Architect. accuracy! of this drawing may be reliant upon survey ! information provided by third parties. No liability will be accepted

2 The accuracy of this drawing may beby reliant WestWaddy:ADP upon survey for errors in or arising from such third party information provided by third parties.survey No liability information. will be

HALE ROAD Drain 56.2m 12 accepted by WestWaddy:ADP for errors in or arising from

10 such third party survey information.

Drain

ED & Ward Bdy Drain

55.5m

El Sub Sta

SS 1 2

54.5m

Silos 12 15 25

Silos 54.4m 4

19 THE CLOSE

1 SUNNYSIDE 2 18

8411

Playing Field

Track 13

53.4m

Playground Rev Date Revisions Initials chckd

4100 Pavilion B 4009 7 Littleworth Road, Benson

4100 53.0m 5 SS BM 47.88m Elm Pavilion SUNNYSIDE Hall Rev Date Revisions Initials checked ED and Ward Bdy Bridge B 4009 Track Tennis Courts

Def B 4009 Site Location Plan

46.8m The Malthouse! Littleworth Road, Benson 52.1m 60 East St. Helen Street!

1 Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 5EB

31 28 Tel (01235) 523139 ! 51.4m Fax (01235) 521662 50.9m Site Location Plan

e-mail: [email protected]

25 11

29 49.4m 33

37 The Malthouse!

ROAD 16 43

Garage 35 60 East St. Helen Street!

47 Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 5EB

47a 41

49 Tel (01235) 523139 ! 48.1m 55 Date FebruaryFax (01235) 521662 2014 59 61 LITTLEWORTH ROAD e-mail: [email protected]

67 1: 2500@A3 69 Scale A R C H I T E C T S A N D T O W N P L A N N E R S

WATLINGTON 18

47.9m 39 13 37

77 Drawn DB checked MU 19 9 7 westwaddyADP

15 35 47.1m Job Dwg No. Rev. Littleworth 14 9 Date February 2014 24 7 GP 261 L01A

FORGE CLOSE

15 3 29 Scale

CHAPEL LANE 1:1250@A1

1 Doc. Ref: QF 35 - 11 20 27 OXFORD ROAD BM 48.26m Hall Drawn DB checked MU

Job Dwg No. Rev. 261 L01

Doc. Ref: QF 34 - 9

LRB 15/210 Land off Littleworth Road, Benson, N Oxfordshire, 2015 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 2. Current site layout.

Not to scale. Approximate location of SITE

LRB 15/210 Land off Littleworth Road, Benson, N Oxfordshire, 2015 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 3. Saxton's county map, 1574.

Not to scale. SITE

LRB 15/210 Land off Littleworth Road, Benson, N Oxfordshire, 2015 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 4. Plan of Magdalen College Lands, 1833.

Not to scale. 14870 CMAPS-BW1-460635-526995-14870-040915 461425, 192158

County Series N 1877 W E 1:2,500

S 1:2,500

SITE

04 September 2015

LRB 15/210 Land off Littleworth Road, Benson, N Oxfordshire, 2015 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 5. Ordnance Survey First Edition, 1877.

Not to scale. 14870 CMAPS-BW1-460635-526995-14870-040915 461425, 192158

County Series N 1937 W E 1:2,500

S 1:2,500

SITE

04 September 2015

LRB 15/210 Land off Littleworth Road, Benson, N Oxfordshire, 2015 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 6. Ordnance Survey Revision, 1937

Not to scale. 14870 CMAPS-BW1-460635-526995-14870-040915 461425, 192158

National Grid N 1968-1972 W E 1:2,500

S 1:2,500

04 September 2015

SITE

LRB 15/210 Land off Littleworth Road, Benson, N Oxfordshire, 2015 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 7. Ordnance Survey, 1972.

Not to scale. SITE

92200 92200

104 Silos 141 27

146 40 39 Silos 32 137 111 232 4 41 112 110 26 238,239 19 237 108 109 e

25 TH sid 1 E C y 135/6 LO nn 124 107 SE Su

144 38 125 28 8 129 128 138 233 1 44 140 31 133,134 24 37 139 140 120 121 106 249,300 43 243 139 247 36 33 118/9 234 69 130 33 248 42 131 235,236 30 116/7 231 92100 92100 123 126 T 145 22 35 T r 230 46 45 raac 301 ckk 103 132 122 113 47 127 142 143 59 29 23 208 302,303,304 34 100,101

38 34 48 102 39 19 35 3 56 49 21 1 47 57 60 115 20 228 53 37 229 147/8 18 23,24,25 6161 16 13 52 36 17 211 28 33 312 313 311 203 223 27 214 42,43 26 206 46 22 58 44,45 213 14 207 204 222 212 12 48 205 205 221 14 55 227 15 220,219 308 50 226 30 217,218 62 29,40 15 5,6 307 62 11 54 16 216 9 305 306 310 31 41 10 7 7 309 225 51 32 215 drain 92000 92000 202 9 224 20 19 68 10 S

63 21 5 5 S 49 Elm 8 17,18 11 Bridge 209,210

T 201 ra 6 c B 4009 k 7 65 1 8,12 46.8m drain 2 64 3 4 4 66 2 3 13 200 1 149 50.9m 67

91900 91900 49.4m

Services 3

4 5

5 48.1m 5

5 6 9 Road 1 47.9m rth

tlewo

t 7

Li 7 7 oad 7 rth R 9 A4074 lewo 47.1m Litt Littleworth GP SU61200 61300 61400 SU61400 61500 61600 61700

LRB 08/31b 615 616 617 4 617 N

Land off Littleworth Road, Benson, 23m Oxfordshire, 2010 LRB 08/31b Archaeological Evaluation N Land off Littleworth Road, Benson, Figure 3a. Numbered features in trenches (West). Oxfordshire, 2010 Archaeological Evaluation 0 100m Figure 3b. Numbered features in trenches (East).

0 100m

LRB 15/210 Land off Littleworth Road, Benson, N Oxfordshire, 2015 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 8. Evaluation trenching results (Weale 2010) in relation to overall site outline. Not to scale. Plate 1. General site view, looking north-west. Plate 2. General view, looking east along south boundary of site.

Plate 3. General site view, looking west from southern Plate 4. General site view, looking north-west. boundary.

LRB 15/210 Land off Littleworth Road, Benson, Oxfordshire, 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