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

Land at Kennel Farm, Winchester Road, ,

An archaeological desk-based assessment

by Steve Preston

Site Code KFB11/130

(SU 5950 4850)

Land at Kennel Farm, Winchester Road, Basingstoke, Hampshire

An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

for Wates Development

by Steve Preston

Thames Valley Archaeological

Services Ltd

Site Code KFB11/130

January 2012 Summary

Site name: Land at Kennel Farm, Winchester Road, Basingstoke, Hampshire

Grid reference: SU 5950 4850

Site activity: Desk-based assessment

Project manager: Steve Ford

Site supervisor: Steve Preston

Site code: KFB11/130

Area of site: c. 10ha

Summary of results: The site occupies a large area in a location noted for a richness of archaeological sites and finds, and adjacent to the line of a Roman road. Aerial photographs show numerous cropmarks on the site which are almost certainly produced by features of archaeological interest. In general terms the site can be considered to have high archaeological potential. Further information should be provided by fieldwork in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits that may be present.

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 All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.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 18.01.12

i

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47–49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading RG1 5NR Tel. (0118) 926 0552; Fax (0118) 926 0553; email [email protected]; website : www.tvas.co.uk

Land at Kennel Farm, Winchester Road, Basingstoke, Hampshire An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

by Steve Preston

Report 11/130 Introduction

This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of a large plot of land referred to as

Kennel Farm, located south-west of Basingstoke at SU 5950 4960 (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr

Christopher Rees of Savills (L&P) Ltd, 2 Charlotte Place, Southampton, SO14 0TB on behalf of Wates

Developments and comprises the first stage of a process to determine the presence/absence, extent, character, quality and date of any archaeological remains which may be affected by redevelopment of the area.

Planning permission is to be sought from Borough Council for the development of the site for residential purposes. The site has been reserved for allocated housing under the Local Plan and Core

Strategy. Only outline proposals are to hand at time of writing. This assessment will accompany the application in order to inform the planning process with regard to the proposal’s potential impact on the heritage resource of the area.

Site description, location and geology

The proposed development area is centred on NGR SU 5950 4960 and covers approximately 10ha (Fig. 7). The site currently consists of a single arable field (Pls 1 and 2) fringed by trees. The east edge of the site is bounded by the Winchester Road, and there is a deep ditch along this edge. The rest of the site is surrounded by more fields. The site is located on Upper Chalk, although patches of clay-with-flints may also be expected (BGS

1980). It slopes considerably from a height of approximately 168m above Ordnance Datum in the east to 150m in the north-west, with a pronounced valley dipping south–north in the west of the area (Pl. 2). A tree belt along the north of the site lies outside the proposed development area and stands between the site and a parish boundary.

Planning background and development proposals

Planning permission is to be sought for the development of the site for residential purposes. Only outline proposals are to hand at time of writing.

1

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.’

2

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.

Basingstoke and Deane Borough’s Local Plan 1996–2011, adopted 2006 also contained policy relating to archaeology, but this policy (E4) was not saved when the local plan was reviewed in 2009. Until/unless replaced

3

it is presumed that national guidance applies. Additional policies associated with Conservation Areas, Historic

Parks and Gardens are not applicable in this instance.

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 Hampshire Archaeology and Historic

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

Archaeological background

General background

Basingstoke is set in the shallow Loddon valley close to the source of the river. The chalk downlands rise to the south, while to the north the chalk gives way to London Clay, Reading Beds and Bracklesham Beds. The site lies on the edge of a zone of intensive prehistoric activity on the chalk. The chalklands of the north Hampshire

Downs, in general, are prolific, with the number of upstanding barrows the most obvious sign of this. A large number of sites have also been recorded from the air (Fasham and Keevil 1995) and the activities of antiquarian collectors such as Willis (Gardiner 1987, 54). Basingstoke’s archaeology has recently been summarized (HCC and EH 2002), confirming that the town is in an area generally rich in material of most periods, with especially rich Iron Age and Saxon remains ( hillfort is just to the north-east), although there is much less evidence from the core of the historic town itself. The expansion of the town in the late 20th century led to the excavation of known sites and the discovery and excavation of previously unknown sites (Millett and James

1983; Millett and Russell 1984; Oliver and Applin 1987; Millett and Schadla-Hall 1991; Fasham and Keevill

1995; Stoodley 2002; Hall-Torrance and Weaver 2003; Howell and Durden 2005, Coles et al. 2011).

The Roman road connecting and Winchester, Margary’s (1955) route 42a, passes to the west of the site, diverting to take advantage of just a slight gap in the Downs, and there is a relatively high density of

Roman settlements in the general vicinity, some of which are quite affluent (villas) (Teague 2003). Further to the north-east, field survey in the Loddon Valley has revealed a moderate density of prehistoric, Roman and medieval activity on the gravel terraces of the Loddon, but with much less evidence on the adjacent clayland

4

areas (Weaver and Bellamy 1995). There have also recently been excavations of an Iron Age site at

Hospital (Farwell in prep) and of a multi-period site at Popley (Wright et al. 2009).

Hampshire Archaeology and Historic Buildings Record

A search was made on the Hampshire Archaeology and Historic Buildings Record (AHBR) on 20th December

2011 for a radius of 1km around the proposal site. This revealed 31 entries within the search radius (including duplicates). These are summarized as Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 1.

Palaeolithic A single ovate flint is recorded as having been found near Small’s Copse [Fig. 1. 1].

Mesolithic There is no AHBR record of any find of this period within 1km of the proposal site.

Neolithic There is only one entry for this period, but it consists of a huge collection of worked flints from an area around

Kempshott Lane, apparently covering a large area, and consisting of at least 50 arrowheads, 576 scrapers (and possibly as many as 50 more), 18 polished axes, 32 fabricators, 20 borers and 132 other items. This suggests a settlement site of this period, to the north of the study area, in a location that has since been built over.

Bronze Age Many of the AHBR entries are for cropmarks which may represent Bronze Age features but cannot be dated with any real confidence. There are, however, several features which can reasonably be assigned to the Bronze Age.

These include earthworks that were still standing in the 1960s when they were recorded, and whose locations are still marked on Ordnance Survey maps, that are almost certainly Bronze Age round, bowl or saucer barrows [3].

Certainly from the late Neolithic or early Bronze Age is the inhumation burial of an adult male accompanied by a complete Beaker [4].

Iron Age Many of the cropmarks visible on aerial photographs of the area are certainly or plausibly assigned to the Iron

Age. Excavation has confirmed the date of only one of these so far, which is an oval enclosure excavated in advance of development [5] and which produced Middle Iron Age pottery, briquetage and animal bone. Within its interior there were also pits and post holes, indicating a settlement of this date. Cropmarks which are dated on the basis of their form include two ‘banjo enclosures’ which is a classic Iron Age site type [6, 7]. Both of these area close to the proposal site but do not extend into it. A second enclosure associated with the ‘banjo’ to the north of the site might extend across the tree belt into the north edge of the site, but no such cropmark is visible on the aerial photographs viewed (see below).

5

Roman The course of the Roman road from Silchester to Winchester in this area is well established and marks the west edge of the site; it exists as a raised bank (agger) between two hollows (ditches) [11]. Set back from this road to the west is the probable site of a Roman villa [8], identified from the numerous finds made in that location over the years, but not tested by excavation; a cropmark just north of this has been interpreted as a villa building complex [10]. Recent aerial photographs of this area show a very distinct building of a type usually termed an

‘aisled barn’ (see below). A single stray Roman coin find has been given a representative find spot, it could come from almost anywhere in the general area [9]. At Beggarwood, a single urned cremation burial was accidentally disturbed, and a small area excavated around it by the local Archaeological Society produced five more pottery vessels [12]. This has been interpreted as the edge of a larger cemetery, but isolated burials or small groups of burials are not uncommon for the period.

Saxon, Medieval There is no AHBR record of any find or site of either of these periods within 1km of the proposal site. Some of the undated cropmarks (see below) could belong to either period.

Post-medieval Park was designed as an 18th-century landscaped park [13], but nothing of this remains and it is now a golf course. Nineteenth-century mapping shows the location of a toll gate [14] on the turnpike road

(Winchester Road), and next to this is the only listed building in the area, a late 18th-century milestone [15] (also marked on the modern Ordnance Survey mapping).

Modern, Undated, Negative This area on the chalk is especially suitable for the formation of cropmarks that can best be seen from the air, and the AHBR records numerous such marks, which are likely to have been caused by archaeological features

(Fig. 8). Dating these, however, is problematic from photographic evidence alone, and few have been excavated so that most remain undated [16–19, 21]. Not all of these will prove to be archaeological if excavated (one indeed has been discounted after excavation [23]), even if the underlying features still exist, but it is presumed that many will. Geophysical survey has also been fairly extensively used in the area; again this cannot provide dating evidence, but it has revealed anomalies believed to represent archaeological features in several places [7,

16, 18]; again, however, excavation has disproved one of these [23]. Disarticulated human bone was disturbed in

Beggarwood, but follow-up investigation there revealed nothing further [20] and the bone has not been dated. It is possible, but no more, that this relates to the Roman cremation burial found not far to the north, but the absence of finds and the differing rite suggest it need not be of the same period. A number of cropmarks are present on the site itself [24].

6

Cartographic and documentary sources

The site lies along the boundary between the historic parishes of Dummer and Oakley.

Dummer is first mentioned in Domesday Book as Dunmere. The place name derives from the Old English

(Anglo-Saxon) words for ‘pond’ and ‘hill’ (Mills 1998). Oakley (Aclei in Domesday Book) is a common place name, also Old English and meaning simply ‘oak wood’ or ‘clearing in an oak wood’. At the time of Domesday

Book (AD 1086) both Dummer and Oakley were divided into several small estates (Williams and Martin 2002,

104–121). The main manor in Oakley was held by Hugh de Port (a major landowner) and it had been royal land before the Conquest. Its tax assessment had dropped from ten hides in 1066 to just over 1½ in 1086, suggesting it had been divided into separate estates since the Conquest. There was arable land for just four ploughs, and only twelve tax-paying villagers and four slaves are mentioned; there was a church, an unspecified amount of woodland, and the manor was valued at £8. A second tiny estate (1½ hides) belonged to Hugh fitzBaldric and had previously belonged to the King. It mustered just two villagers and was worth only £1. Finally, a third manor also previously royal and also of 1½ hides was held from the King by Robert fitzGerald; it had land for just one plough and was worked by four villagers. No value is mentioned. The equal sizes and the fact that all three had once been royal land suggests that these smaller estates could have been carved out of one larger original in the time between 1066 and 1086.

The larger portion of Dummer likewise was Hugh de Port’s land, but sub-let to an unnamed follower of his, and again had been a royal estate previously (Williams and Martin 2002, 108). It was assessed at five hides both in 1066 and 1086. It had arable land for five ploughs and there were 17 villagers (heads of households) and three slaves. Again there was a church and this estate was worth £5. The second manor in Dummer belonged to Oda of

Winchester (king’s thegn) and was held from him by Hunger (Williams and Martin 2002, 121). It too had previously been royal land and was also assessed at five hides and valued at £5. Arable land for five ploughs, an acre of meadow, and three properties in Winchester were its listed assets, along with a church, and the population amounted to just five villagers.

Basingstoke itself is first mentioned (as Embasinga stocae) in a land grant of around AD 990. It appears in

Domesday Book (AD1086) as Basingestoches. The place name, from the Anglo-Saxon, appears to mean a secondary settlement or outlying farm or dependency either of Basing (the place) or of the Basingas (the family or followers of the otherwise unknown Basa) (Mills 1998, 28). Although Basing appears to have been the primary Saxon settlement, by the time of Domesday Book, Basingstoke was the Hundredal centre and by far the

7

richer manor. The King held a royal manor here, exempt from the hideage and from geld, with land for 20 ploughs, 40 tax-paying villagers and six slaves. There were three mills, and a substantial market. The Church of

Mont-St-Michel held further land in the manor, with a church and the right to tithe the whole manor, a priest, six villagers and another mill (Williams and Martin 2002, 93; 101). , by contrast, at this time had just half the amount of arable land, although similar amounts of meadow and woodland, and still claimed the larger population (Williams and Martin 2002, 103).

The medieval history of Basingstoke is unremarkable, although reasonably well documented, and the town seems to have prospered, largely due to its location on a main route from London to the south-west. The cloth trade was always a staple part of the economy, with a merchant being granted a licence to export wool as early as

1273. Fullers and dyers are mentioned from 1456 and tanning appears in the earliest court rolls (VCH 1911,

133). Post-medieval trade also benefited the town, especially with the coming of the coaching trade in the 18th century (HCC and EH 2002, 3). By 1720 the chief industry seems to have been malting.

Much of the medieval plan survives in the modern street layout, although few buildings remain. The mainly timber-built town seems to have been more than usually prone to fire in the later medieval and early post- medieval periods.

Neither Dummer nor Oakley has any history of note. The manor of Oakley became known as

(VCH 1911, 225), and in the 14th century was even further subdivided, with Kippings and Atte Bertons split from it. Hugh fitzBaldric’s manor became Oakley itself, and another manor, known as Rastalls by the 13th century, presumably was the other Domesday manor.

A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at Hampshire 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 proposal area (see Appendix 2).

The earliest map available of the area is Christopher Saxton’s county map of 1575. This shows Basingstoke and a park that represents Basing House, but no further detail for the area (Fig. 2). Seventeenth-century mapping

(not illustrated) shows no more detail. Early 19th-century mapping shows the road layout and the main settlements but no detail for the site (Cary’s map of 1825 is illustrated as typical: Fig. 3). The tithe map of 1839 shows the site is a single large field whose outline is already in its present form, but no detail is shown (not illustrated).

8

More reliable detail comes with the Ordnance Survey First Edition of 1872 (Fig. 4). The site is a single large field, with a small chalk quarry pit along the south edge. The road along the western edge is already identified as a Roman road on this map (the 6-inch version is illustrated to show the road) and the parish boundary follows its line (the 25-inch map shows it follows the hedge on the eastern edge of the road). The large hedged municipal boundary to the north is in the location it still occupies, just beyond the site limit and there is a boundary marker stone where it meets the Winchester Road to the east (this is clearer on the 25-inch version).

There is no change on the Second Edition for the site itself, but now several neighbouring ‘tumuli’ (round barrows) are depicted (the 25-inch version is shown as Fig. 5). Successive revisions of 1910, 1932, and 1940 show no change except that the old quarry pit has differing tree symbols in its interior, probably just stylistic changes. By 1967 the Winchester Road as been widened and ‘dualled’, and the tumuli are now marked as ‘sites of’, implying that they have been lost as physical mounds (Fig. 6). This is confirmed by the air photographic evidence (see below) which shows them disappearing between the 1950s and 1960s.

Again, maps of the 1970s through to 1991 show no change within the site, and very little in the immediate vicinity. The most modern digital mapping shows no change again on the site itself but the area to the north is shown as a dense tree belt (F. 7).

Listed buildings

The only listed building within 1km of the site is the 18th-century milestone on Winchester Road, which is grade

II listed and described as a fine example of its type. It records the distances as 18 miles to Stockbridge, 14 to

Winchester, 49 to London and 3 to Basingstoke. The turnpike roads in this area date from 1736 and 1755.

Development to the site would need to be sympathetic to the setting of this stone, although arguably the historic landscape character has already been thoroughly compromised by the modern dual carriageway.

Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields

There are no registered parks and gardens or registered battlefields within close proximity of the site.

Historic Hedgerows

The hedgerows along the western side of the site both marks the parish boundary and is associated with a known archaeological feature (the Roman road). It would therefore qualify as ‘important’ as defined by Schedule 1 of

9

the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. The tree belt along the north edge also follows the line of a parish boundary but it is itself fairly modern. It is also unclear if it can be defined as a hedgerow. The trees are in any case to be retained in the proposed development.

Aerial Photographs

The aerial photographic catalogue of the National Monuments Record was searched on 8 December 2011 for a radius of 1km around the proposal site. This revealed 113 oblique photographs from 22 sorties flown between

1951 and 1994 (plus four undated sorties), and 58 vertical views from 25 sorties flown between 1945 and 1996

(Appendix 3). These photographs were viewed on 17 January 2012 (apart from a few images not available to view.).

The evidence from the cropmarks on these photographs has already been assessed and included in the

AHBR (Fig. 8). There are several distinct cropmarks and many more indistinct examples within the proposal site. These appear to represent field boundaries, a rectangular enclosure, perhaps two, and a large oval enclosure

(Pl. 3), for any or all of which a Bronze Age, Iron Age or Roman date is likely. Some are of dubious origin or simply too indistinct to interpret. One prominent linear feature looks most likely to be an old field boundary (Pl.

4), but no corresponding boundary is shown on any of the maps of the site, so it might also be ancient. None of the photographs shows all of the cropmarks at once, suggesting they must have been produced by different processes and may represent features of different depths. The most prominent mark is clearly a dry valley (as shown in contour on figure 1). The hot weather of 1976, widely noted for producing spectacular cropmark evidence, produced conditions suitable for showing most of the cropmarks on the site in vertical views, but not the oval enclosure at the eastern side, which only showed up in oblique views in the 1950s. It is not clear if the feature producing this mark had been destroyed over time; it seems more likely that the mark is produced only in very specific conditions. There is also an irregularly shaped enclosure at the southern edge of the field to the north, which probably extends into the proposal area, although no sign of any such extension can be seen.

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.

10

The site lies in an area of high archaeological potential for almost all periods but especially the Bronze

Age, Iron Age and Roman. Aerial photographic evidence suggests that sites and features existed in abundance in the area, including on the proposal site itself, and there are numerous ring ditches (remains of round barrows) in the vicinity. The west boundary of the site lies along the course of a known Roman road, and not far away is the suspected site of a Roman villa (which aerial photographs show as an aisled barn). None of the cropmarks on the site indicates a monument likely to be of national importance or of designatable quality, rather they suggest features of types commonplace throughout the south-east of .

Cartographic evidence shows that the site has not previously been developed but has been farmland since mapping began, with only one very small area noted as having been a chalk quarry. Except in that small area, there is therefore no reason to suppose that any buried archaeological features will have suffered any damage other than that from ploughing or agricultural drainage. It is possible there may have been localized landscaping along the edge of the site next to the Winchester Road but this would probably be very limited. At least some of the cropmarks on the site continue to show in recent photographs so the features producing them are probably reasonably well preserved.

Only outline development proposals are to hand (Fig. 9) so it would be prudent to assume any development would carry potentially damaging impacts to any archaeological resource that existed on the site.

It will be necessary to provide further information about the potential of the site from field observations in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits if necessary. A scheme for this evaluation will need to be drawn up and approved by the archaeological advisers to the Borough and implemented by a competent archaeological contractor.

References

BDDC, 2006, Basingstoke and Dean Local plan 1996–2011 (adopted 2006), Basingstoke and Dean District Council, Basingstoke BGS, 1980, British Geological Survey, 1:50,000 Sheet 284, Solid and Drift Edition, Southampton Coles S, Lowe, J and Ford, S, 2011, ‘Excavation of a Roman enclosure at Park Prewett Hospital, Basingstoke, Hampshire’, Hampshire Studies 66, 39–74 DCLG, DCMS and EH, 2010, Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide, Dept Communities and Local Government, Dept Culture Media and Sport, and English Heritage, London HCC and EH, 2002, An Extensive Urban Survey of Hampshire’s and the Isle of Wight’s Historic Towns: Basingstoke, Hampshire County Council and English Heritage Farwell, C, in prep, ‘Rooksdown Hospital, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Summary Archaeological report’, Trust for Wessex Archaeology, Salisbury Fasham, P J and Keevill, G, 1995, South (), Wessex Archaeology Rep 7, Salisbury Gardiner, J P, 1987, ‘The occupation 3500–1000 BC’, in B W Cunliffe, Hengistbury Head, Dorset: volume 1, Prehistoric and Roman Settlement 3500 BC–AD500, Oxford, 22–61Mills, A D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford

11

Hall-Torrance, M and Weaver, S, 2003, ‘The Excavation of a Saxon settlement at Riverdene, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 1995’ Hampshire Stud 58, 63–105 Howell, L and Durden T, 2005, ‘Further excavation of an Iron Age enclosure at Danebury Road, Hatch Warren, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 1995’ Hampshire Stud 60, 39–63 Margary, I D, 1955, Roman Roads in Britain, London Millett, M and James, S, 1983, ‘Excavations at Cowdery’s Down, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 1978–81’, Archaeol J 140, 254–7 Millett, M and Russell, D, 1984, ‘An Iron Age and Romano-British site at Farm Basingstoke’, Proc Hampshire Fld Club Archaeol Soc 40, 49–60 Millett, M and Schadla-Hall, T, 1991, ‘Rescue excavations on a Bronze Age and Romano-British site at Daneshill, Basingstoke, 1980–81’, Proc Hampshire Fld Club Archaeol Soc 47, 83–105 Oliver, M and Applin, B, 1978, ‘Excavation of an Iron Age and Romano-British settlement at Ruckstall’s Hill, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 1972–5’, Proc Hampshire Fld Club Archaeol Soc 35, 41–92 PPS5, 2010, Planning for the Historic Environment, The Stationery Office, Norwich Stoodley, N, 2002, The Millenium Publication A Review of Archaeology in Hampshire 1980-2000, Southampton Teague, S, 2003, Manor Farm, , Hampshire, archaeological investigations in 1996, Proc Hampshire Fld Club Archaeol Soc 60, 64–135 VCH 1912, A history of the county of Hampshire, 4, The Victoria History of the Counties of England, London Weaver, S and Bellamy, R, 1995, ‘Loddon Valley (Hampshire) fieldwalking survey 1994/5’, Thames Valley Archaeological Services report 94/1, Reading Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London Wright J, Powell B and Barclay, A 2009 ‘Excavations of prehistoric and Romano-British sites at Marnel Park, (Popley), Basingstoke, 2004-8’, Wessex Archaeology, Salisbury

12

APPENDIX 1: Archaeology and Historic Buildings Records within a 1km search radius of the development site

No AHBR Ref Grid Ref (SU) Type Period Comment 1 18776 5892 4852 Findspot Palaeolithic Small flint ovate found near Small’s copse 2 18775 599 493 Findspot Neolithic Large number of flint tools from area around Kempshott 37860 5990 4940 Photographic Undated Lane: at least 50 arrowheads, 576 scrapers (and possibly as many as 50 more), 18 polished axes, 32 fabricators, 20 borers and 132 other items spread over a large area. Cropmark of ‘V-shaped’ enclosures 3 18787 5981 4867 Photographic Bronze Age Soilmark on aerial photographs described as very wide 39621 5982 4867 Earthwork ring ditch and mound visible on the ground (in 1957 and 39622 Geophysical survey 1967), interpreted as saucer barrow. Standing mounds of two bowl barrows also recorded at same location. Date assumed from form. Apparently partially excavated in the 19th century. Geophysical survey recorded a ring ditch, presumably the same though it is not clear which one, and a linear feature . 4 50276 6020 4780 Excavation Bronze Age Beaker burial; adult male crouched inhumation with complete pot. 5 33749 5989 4852 Evaluation Iron Age Oval enclosure with Middle Iron Age pottery, bone, Excavation briquetage; internal features included pits and post holes. Photographic Long-lived occupation not more closely dated than Middle Iron Age. Inexplicably labelled ‘Late Iron Age (400–100 BC)’ in AHBR 6 33854 6003 4842 Photographic Iron Age ‘Banjo’ enclosure visible as cropmark on aerial Fieldwalking photographs; fieldwalking found only burnt flint. Area preserved in situ during development. 7 37862 5951 4876 Photographic Iron Age ‘Banjo’ enclosure visible as cropmark on aerial 39624 59445 48797 Geophysical survey Undated photographs, along with confused circular features. Date assumed from form. Geophysical survey suggests an area of possible ‘industrial’ activity 8 18704 58940 48610 Findspot Roman Possible villa site identified from stray finds: tiles, 18705 Survey pottery, bracelet and coins 18706 18707 9 20303 60 49 Findspot Roman Coin of Gallienus (AD253–68), details of finding unknown, grid reference marginal 10 37865 5891 4881 Photographic Roman Cropmarks of rectangular structure with internal divisions, interpreted as villa site. 11 39597 590 481 Earthworks Roman A bank flanked by two hollows thought to be the agger of the Silchester–Winchester Roman road 12 42356 60051 48208 Excavation Roman Cemetery at Beggarwood extrapolated from a single urned cremation burial, plus more pottery. 13 51690 59611 47751 Cartographic Post-medieval 18th-century landscaped park, of which only stable block Documentary remains. Now golf course 14 58579 59751 48369 Cartographic Post-medieval Site of toll gate and toll house on Kempshott turnpike shown on 19th-century mapping 15 54172 5969 4826 Listed building Post-medieval Late 18th-century milestone; Grade II 16 33855 6035 4825 Photographic Undated Curvilinear cropmark visible on aerial photograph 6041 4817 Evaluation revealed to be V-shaped in evaluation trenching but not as Geophysical survey long as suggested from cropmark. AHBR lists as Bronze Age or Iron Age. Magnetic susceptibility survey revealed three ditches. 17 38025 5913 4855 Photographic Undated Various ill-defined cropmarks visible on aerial photographs; not certainly archaeological. 18 39617 5975 4890 Photographic Undated Cropmarks and geophysical anomalies show a number of 39618 Geophysical survey linear features 19 39623 5995 4890 Evaluation Undated Linear features interpreted as parts of a single trackway 20 56110 60039 48107 Excavation Undated Unstratified, disarticulated human remains (young adult female) encountered in machine-dug test pit. Re- examination of the area found no further traces and no finds 21 54166 58854 49050 Photographic Undated Cropmarks suggesting three barrow ring ditches 22 39596 588 479 Watching brief Negative Nothing of archaeological interest observed at Southwood Farm 23 55940 6001 4768 Photographic Negative Circular cropmarks and faint features shown in Geophysical survey geophysical survey shown by excavation to be geological Excavation changes or natural hollows 24 - 595 485 Cropmarks Undated Miscellaneous linear and curvilinear cropmarks including an oval enclosure on the site itself (Plate 4)

13

APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1575 Saxton, Hampshire (Fig. 2) 1595 Norden 1605 van der Keere 1607 Norden 1610–11 Speed 1695 Morden 1759 Taylor 1791 Milne 1817 Ordnance Survey ‘Old’ Series 1825 Cary (Fig. 3) 1826–7 L and C Greenwood 1839 Tithe map of Kempshott and [Tithe maps of Dummer, Church Oakley, Basingstoke were also consulted but did not cover the area of the site.] 1872 Ordnance Survey First Edition, 25 inch series (Fig. 4) 1896 Ordnance Survey Second Edition (Fig. 5) 1910 Ordnance Survey Third Edition 1932 Ordnance Survey Revision 1940 Ordnance Survey 1967 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 6) 1991 Ordnance Survey 1999 Ordnance Survey Explorer 144 2011 Ordnance Survey Digital mapping (Fig . 7)

14

APPENDIX 3: Aerial Photographs consulted

A> Oblique

Film Date flown frame (s) NGR (SU) Note CAP 7540 Unknown 78–9 590 486 CAP 7720 Unknown 11–3 598 486 CAP 7730 Unknown 45 595 487 CAP 8404 Unknown 59, 60, 62 599 486 CAP 8038 30 JUN 1951 13, 14, 142 597 485 Frame 13 Plate 3 JRB 9706 FEB 1964 35–6 597 488 NMR 22 07 MAR 1967 51 598 486 NMR 31 16 JUN 1967 49–54 598 487 NMR 58 01 FEB 1968 50, 52–3 599 484 NMR 10387 01 FEB 1968 4–5 599 484 NMR 10385 17 APR 1968 1 598 484 NMR 110 14 FEB 1969 47–8, 59–65 599 487 NMR 120 08 MAY 1969 291–8 589 485 NMR 128 16 JUL 1969 147–8 597 486 NMR 473 07 MAR 1973 72–6 599 484 NMR 485 13 MAY 1973 20–8 599 485 NMR 922 29 APR 1976 213–20 594 486 Frame 215 Plate 4 NMR 961 07 JUL 1976 169–78 589 485 NMR 4281 20 FEB 1989 80–8 589 489 NMR 4287 20 FEB 1989 22–7 589 488 NMR 4290 03 MAR 1989 23–32 588 488 NMR 4464 05 JUL 1989 72–9 598 486 NMR 4523 05 JUL 1989 33–4 600 484 Not viewed NMR 4826 15 JUN 1993 55–8 600 484 NMR 15021 10 JUN 1994 29–32 589 488 NMR 15030 10 JUN 1994 57–8 589 488

B> Vertical

Sortie Date flown Fame NGR (SU) Note RAF/106G/LA/139 20 FEB 1945 1001, 2001 600 479 RAF/106G/LA/179 14 MAR 1945 2006 598 490 RAF/106G/UK/1710 30 AUG 1946 3041–2, 5040–1 595 480 RAF/CPE/UK/1750 21 SEP 1946 3413–14, 4413–4 593 493 RAF/CPE/UK/1931 17 JAN 1947 3212–13, 4211–12 596 477 RAF/CPE/UK/1973 11 APR 1947 4156–7 592 489 RAF/CPE/UK/2150 11 JUN 1947 3066–7, 4067 599 478 RAF/82/1006 31 AUG 1954 161–2 592 496 RAF/58/4655 30 AUG 1961 56, 82 595 497 RAF/58/4662 01 SEP 1961 4 597 481 RAF/58/4683 18 SEP 1961 145 600 486 OS/63047 26 MAR 1963 87–8 600 486 OS/63087 03 JUN 1963 25, 29 593 487 OS/63192 29 JUL 1963 22–4, 54–5 591 484 Not viewed OS/64101 13 JUL 1964 20–1 592 489 OS/67008 20 MAR 1967 7–8 592 486 RAF/543/3860 13 JUN 1967 246, 437–8 594 478 OS/73232 06 JUN 1973 604 596 482 OS/75368 27 AUG 1975 69 593 480 Not viewed MAL/82002 07 MAR 1982 185–6 607 491 MAL/82003 24 MAR 1982 196–7 606 479 OS/86151 01 JUL 1986 18–19 592 492 OS/91312 13 SEP 1991 15–16, 74–5 596 483 OS/93385A 14 AUG 1993 97–8 597 482 OS/96096 13 MAY 1996 19, 50 596 493

NB : Grid reference given is for start of run; multiple frames may offer wide coverage.

15 50000 SITE Basingstoke Farnborough Andover

Winchester SOUTHAMPTON

Ringwood New Forest Gosport PORTSMOUTH

2

21 49000 9 19 18

10 7

3 8 17 1 24 5 6

14

SITE 15 16 12

11 20 48000

22 4 13

23

SU59000 60000 KFB 11/130 Land at Kennel Farm, Winchester Road, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 2012 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 1. Location of site within Basingstoke and Hampshire, showing locations of AHBR entries. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Explorer 144 at 1:12500 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 Approximate location of SITE

KFB 11/130

Land at Kennel Farm, Winchester Road, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 2012 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 2. Saxton's map of Hampshire, 1575. Approximate location of SITE

KFB 11/130 Land at Kennel Farm, Kennel Farm, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 2012 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 3. Cary's map of Hampshire, 1825. 

SITE

KFB 11/130 Land at Kennel Farm, Kennel Farm, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 2012 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 5. Second Edition Ordnance Survey, 1896. SITE

KFB 11/130 Land at Kennel Farm, Winchester Road, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 2012 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 4. First Edition Ordnance Survey, 1872. 

SITE

KFB 11/130 Land at Kennel Farm, Winchester Road, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 2012 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 6. Ordnance Survey, 1967. SITE

KFB 11/130 Land at Kennel Farm, Winchester Road, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 2012 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 7. Ordnance Survey, 2011. SITE

KFB 11/130 Land at Kennel Farm, Winchester Road, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 2012 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 9. Outline development proposals. SITE

KFB 11/130 Land at Kennel Farm, Winchester Road, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 2012 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 8. AHBR composite plot of cropmarks seen on aerial photographs on the site and nearby. Copyright Hampshire County Council and Crown. Not to scale. Plate 1. General site view looking north-east

Plate 2. Edge of site along Winchester Road looking south-west.

KFB 11/130 Land at Kennel Farm, Winchester Road, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 2012 Archaeological desk-based assessment Plates 1 and 2 Site

Oval cropmark

Plate 3. Aerial photograph GE0013, 3rd July 1951

Site

Natural feature Linear cropmarks Enclosures?

Plate 4. Aerial photograph NMR5948/23/215, April 1976. KFB 11/130 Land at Kennel Farm, Winchester Road, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 2012 Archaeological desk-based assessment Plates 3 and 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