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

Land at Bailey Drive (former Gordon Barracks), Gillingham, Kent

An Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

by Steve Preston

Site Code BDG07/64

(TQ 7898 6598)

Land at Bailey Drive (former Gordon Barracks), Gillingham, Kent

An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

for Henry Schein UK Ltd

by Steve Preston

Thames Valley Archaeological

Services Ltd

Site Code BDG07/64

December 2012 Summary

Site name: Land at Bailey Drive (former Gordon Barracks), Gillingham Business Park, Gillingham, Kent

Grid reference: TQ 7898 6598

Site activity: Desk-based assessment

Project manager: Steve Ford

Site supervisor: Steve Preston

Site code: BDG07/64

Area of site: c. 3.2ha

Summary of results: The site lies in an area with considerable generalized potential for archaeology, with a specific emphasis on the Roman period, but not excluding other periods. However, it has been used as a Royal Engineers’ training ground and the potential for surviving archaeology has probably been compromised. It is anticipated that 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. Such a scheme could be implemented by an appropriately worded condition to any planning consent gained.

This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder

Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford9 17.12.12

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 Bailey Drive (former Gordon Barracks), Gillingham, Kent An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

by Steve Preston

Report 07/64

Introduction

This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of a 3.2ha parcel of land located off

Bailey Drive in the Gillingham Business Park, Gillingham, Kent (TQ 7898 6598) (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Mark Casey, of Newmark Knight Frank Global Corporate Services, Knight Frank LLP, 55

Baker Street, London, W1U 8AN on behalf of Henry Schein UK Ltd 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.

Site description, location and geology

Gillingham Business Park is located south of the A2 to the south-east of Gillingham. The site currently consists of a uneven, overgrown area of vacant land within the business park. To the north are commercial (storage) premises of the business park, to the west and south, residential properties; the eastern side of the site is bounded by a mixture of commercial storage and scrubby wood. Access is from Bailey Drive at the north-eastern corner of the site. The area is covered with irregular humps and hillocks, which appear to be thoroughly overgrown piles of building/demolition rubble rather than natural features. The development area is centred on NGR TQ

7898 6598 and covers approx. 3.2ha. It is located on a junction between clay-with-flints and head deposits (BGS

1977). It is on a ridge at a height of approximately 100m above Ordnance Datum with a gentle slope down towards the estuary to the north and a very steep dry valley to the south, the land dropping from 107m in Ambley

Wood sharply to just 40m on the valley floor at Upper Luton. The site itself slopes the opposite way, from around 105m in the south to 100m at the north end; before modern development got in the way, it would once have commanded a view of the Medway estuary.

Planning background and development proposals

Planning permission is to be sought for the re-development of the site for a warehouse and associated officers forming part of the Business Park.

1

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

2

• 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.’

The Medway Local Plan (MC 2003) outlines a similar position. Policy BNE21 Archaeological Sites states:

‘Development affecting potentially important archaeological sites will not be permitted, unless:

‘(i) the developer, after consultation with the archaeological officer, has arranged for an archaeological field evaluation to be carried out by an approved archaeological body before any decision on the planning application is made; and

3

‘(ii) it would not lead to the damage or destruction of important archaeological remains. There will be a preference for the preservation of important archaeological remains in situ.

‘(iii) where development would be damaging to archaeological remains, sufficient time and resources are made available for an appropriate archaeological investigation undertaken by an approved archaeological body. Such investigations should be in advance of development and in accordance with a specification and programme of work approved by the council. Resources should also be made available for the publication of the results of the investigation.’

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 of Field Archaeologists paper ‘Standards in British Archaeology’ covering desk-based studies. These sources include historic and modern maps, the Kent Historic Environment Record, geological maps and any relevant publications or reports.

Archaeological background

General background

In the broadest terms, Gillingham is on the margins of the Thames Estuary, an area rich in archaeology of all periods (Williams and Brown 1999). Where sites are buried by peat and alluvium they can produce exceptionally well preserved deposits, rich in organic remains, in contrast to dryland locations where such remains inevitably decay. Although close to the Medway estuary, the site is well above the level at which this might be expected.

The Medway valley too, has a rich archaeological record (Hurse 1928) with finds dating from the very earliest human occupation of the country (Cruse 1988; Bridgland 1994; Wymer 1999) , and from most periods subsequently. For the earliest periods, most relevant to the Gillingham area is a prolific Palaeolithic deposit at

Twydall (Wymer 1999, 170 and map 19), which has produced over 90 hand axes. Excavation in advance of construction of the Medway tunnel has also shown the potential of the area for palaeoenvironmental reconstruction (Barham 1993). The Medway’s megalithic monuments, in particular early Neolithic long barrows, are also especially important (Ashbee 1999; 2000).

In the Late Iron Age, north Kent in general was part of the narrow contact zone between south-east England and the continent, and developed a distinctive cultural mix of its own. Three important centres are all roughly equidistant from Gillingham (Oldbury, Bigbury, Quarry Wood).

Although argument continues over the progress of the Roman invasion and the location of what has become known as the ‘Battle of the Medway’ (Bird 2001; Manley 2002), it cannot be doubted that the area was particularly important in Roman times, with Watling Street the major road linking London (Londinium) to

4

Canterbury (Durovernum), and beyond to the ports at Dover (Dubris), Reculver (Regulbium) and Richborough

(Rutupiae), one of the first and most important roads in the province, on the line of the modern A2. It is quite possible that Watling Street itself followed an earlier route (Margary 1955, 29; 36; Tatton Brown 2001).

Kent as a whole, of course, saw some of the earliest Anglo-Saxon (often considered specifically Jutish) settlement in England, but there is little specific evidence for Gillingham in this period (the only mention of the place name in the Anglo Saxon Chronicles can only be to the one in Dorset; Swanton 2000, 149).

From early post-medieval times onwards, the area is most notable for the naval dockyards at Chatham.

Extensive fortifications (the Chatham Lines) were thrown up during the 17th and 18th centuries (Tomlinson

1973), most notably in the 1750s, some of which are still extant, and the docks were again defended at the beginning and end of the 19th century, attesting to the strategic importance of the area. This was perhaps particularly the case during the Napoleonic Wars, although most of the Napoleonic defences date to the period after any real threat of invasion had passed. Brampton Barracks (1804) was established as headquarters to the

Royal School of Military Engineering, and in the 20th century, Gordon Barracks housed Territorial Volunteers.

Kent Historic Environment Record

A search was made on the Kent Historic Environment Record (HER) on 24th May 2007 and updated on 3rd

December 2012 for a radius of 1km around the proposal site. This revealed 17 entries within the search radius; none is on the site itself. These are summarized as Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 1.

Prehistoric

Two HER entries, possibly three, relate to prehistoric finds. Three Palaeolithic hand axes and three pieces of debitage (knapping waste) are recorded as having been found to the south of the site [Fig. 1: 1]. Evaluation on a site to the north uncovered a ditch containing pottery dating from the late Bronze Age or early Iron Age [2].

Three undated features from an evaluation to the north-west of the site [17] are thought possibly to be prehistoric; it is not clear on what grounds.

Roman

Roman period entries are more numerous from the search area, as might be expected, since the major Roman road, Watling Street [6], traverses the area. Cremation burials have been found in two locations, one along

Watling Street to the north-west [5], one to the south-west [3] of the site. Isolated finds include a mid-2nd century coin of the empress Faustina (wife of Antoninus Pius) [7]. The HER entry for a gold and onyx finger ring [4] also includes a notation for ‘urn burials nearby at TQ 785 667’; it is unclear if these are supposed to be

5

in addition to those at [5] but a string of burials alongside the road would not be uncommon. Evaluation trenching to the north revealed a linear feature with Roman pottery [2] and a few sherds of Roman pottery were also disturbed when an anti-tank ditch was dug during the Second World War [8]. These two locations are reasonably close together and although the evidence is limited, when added to the burials, may suggest the presence of a settlement north of the main road, with its cemetery by the roadside.

Saxon

During the construction of the Central Hotel in the 1930s, a near-complete skeleton was discovered close to

Watling Street, north of the site [9], accompanied by an ‘unusual’ Saxon pottery vessel. Unfortunately details of this important discovery are lacking. Saxon-period settlement is commonly located close to a Roman road.

Medieval

There are no entries relating to this period within the search radius.

Post-medieval

There is an HER entry for the presence of a brickworks on early Ordnance Survey maps at Darland, south-west of the site [10].

Modern, undated

Fort Darland [11], built in the 1890s, was part of the Chatham Ring defending the dockyard. It consisted of a dry moat with counterscarp galleries, a mechanical drawbridge, and was armed with rifled cannon (and perhaps machine guns). It had already become obsolete by 1910 and was mainly demolished in the 1960s. Earthen banks and a small part of the rear casemate still survive. A Territorial Volunteer Reserve Centre to the north of the site

[12] was originally part of Gordon Barracks (built in the 1930s) and also known as Darland Army Technical

School; it was demolished for the business park.

Four of the HER entries are for various dene holes [13–16]. These are mainly a localized phenomenon, restricted almost entirely to Kent and Essex (with a variant form mainly restricted to Durham; Holmes 1908), and in essence comprise deep pits or shafts, sometimes leading to elaborate chambers or galleries below. Of those noted within the study area, at least one of the five emptied in 1895 seems to have been elaborate [13], as does at least one in the group to the south [15]; the others all seem to have been simple shafts. There are probably as many origins, functions and dates as there are holes, and as many theories as commentators, but most must have been chalk mines, and at least some are clearly prehistoric, whilst others were dug only quite recently (in archaeological terms). The name (also often rendered ‘Dane holes’) probably derives from a supposed association with hiding from the Danes, although it could equally be related to the Anglo-Saxon denu,

6

‘valley’, and it is highly unlikely that any dene holes were originally dug primarily as refuges, although they could subsequently have been so used. None of those from the search radius can be dated, although the entry for five such holes to the west of the proposal area [13] includes mention of ‘tons of flints left after chalk removed’.

Three slight archaeological features revealed in an evaluation to the west of the site [17] have not been dated; as noted above, it is thought they may be prehistoric.

There are also some recent archaeological interventions in the area which have not yet made it onto the

HER. These include two watching briefs at the former Civil Service Sports Ground, and an appraisal of a site at the former TA centre.

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments on the site or in the 1km search area.

Cartographic and documentary sources

Gillingham is an Old English (Anglo-Saxon) place name, derived from the personal name Gylla (known only from place names) and the common elements -inga- (followers of) and -ham (home, settlement). It first appears as Gyllingeham in the 10th century and has become Gelingeham by the time of Domesday Book (1086) (Mills

1998, 150). There is no particular reason to suppose this Gylla was the same man whose followers also had settlements in Dorset and Norfolk, but it is not impossible. This formation (man’s name with -ingham) is one of the commonest of Old English place name types, and one of the oldest. However, it is no longer believed that all such names must be indicators of specifically early Saxon settlements (Cameron 1996, 68–72; Smith 2004).

Domesday Book contains two references to Gillingham (Williams and Martin 2002, 8; 20). The Archbishop of Canterbury held the main manor, in the hundred of Chatham, which was assessed at 6 sulungs (a peculiarly

Kentish measurement, apparently two hides). There was enough arable land to support 15 ploughs (which is a considerable total), and 60 taxpayers in all are noted, along with three slaves and a Frenchman. There was a church, a mill and three fisheries, with small allotments of woodland and meadow. The whole was valued at £23, making it a substantial manor. It is also notable that before the Conquest it had been valued at just £15; no obvious explanation for the jump in value is forthcoming, indeed across much of the country, the trend was for values to drop as a result of the devastation wrought by the Conquest itself. Possibly the increase was simply from greedy tax-farming, or it is possible that the traditional assessment based on 6 sulungs (which ought to support 12 ploughs) has been revised to take into account the actual area under arable. The second manor was

7

held by Odo from the Bishop of Bayeux, and strangely, is in the hundred of Eyhorn (unless the entry has been misplaced, as the listing for the bishop’s lands in Chatham hundred follows immediately). It was altogether less impressive, answering for half a sulung, with land for just one plough. There were six tenants, but again a mill, worth just one penny less than the Archbishop’s mill, and a substantial acreage of meadow and pasture. The whole was valued at 60 shillings.

Gillingham’s subsequent history is largely tied to that of Chatham (see above); it only became a separate borough in 1903. For this site in particular, the main interest lies in the military connection. The Royal Engineers moved to Brompton Barracks in 1812, and the area has been extensively used for their training and experimentation. For instance, late 19th-century Gillingham saw the first British experiments in military aviation

(ballooning) (Baldwin 1998), although this became better established later at Farnborough. On the outbreak of war in 1914, ‘the fields between Durland Banks and Watling Street became one vast camp’ (Baldwin 1998, 269) and the area of the plateau (where not wooded) is known to have been used specifically for practice in trench digging. In 1917, the plateau also saw the first experiments in aerial bombing.

The military continued to use the area prior to and during the Second World War. A massive anti-tank ditch was cut across Darland Banks, and more training exercises conducted, which will again have included trenching.

After the war, the Royal Engineers concentrated their Combat Engineering and mechanical plant at Gordon

Barracks, relinquishing the site only in 1966, since when the land has gradually been released to form the current

Business Park (GBC 1981). Combat engineering, it may be noted, includes activities such as entrenchment, mine-laying and mine-clearance, road-building (or -destroying), creating or clearing terrain obstacles, etc; that is, numerous activities involving earth-moving. The mechanical plant involved would include vehicles similar to civilian bulldozers and diggers.

A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at the Centre for Kentish

Studies in Maidstone and at Gillingham Library, in order to ascertain what activity had been taking place throughout the site’s later history and whether this may have affected any possible archaeological deposits within the proposal area (see Appendix 2).

The earliest map available of the area is Saxton’s map of 1575 covering four counties. This is at too small a scale to show any detail, but does depict Gillingham in a stylized way (Fig. 2). Speed’s map of 1611 shows a little more topographical detail including a stylized hill to symbolize the relief of the area (Fig. 3). Various 17th- and

8

18th-century maps show no more detail. Bowen’s map of 1760 does depict a little more detail for Gillingham, although it still does not allow the site to be located accurately. This map was too fragile for reproduction.

More detail can be gleaned from the Greenwoods’ map of 1821 (Fig. 4) although this is still at a small scale. The site can now be accurately located, on the edge of Park Woods. It is mainly open field at this time but the woods possibly just encroach onto the north end of the site. Watling Street is plainly shown, and there are a number of farms around the peripheries of the site. The Gillingham tithe map of 1840 is damaged and the area of the site is missing completely. The relevant sheet of the Ordnance Survey First Edition (1864) 25 inch series is not held at the Centre for Kentish Studies. The 6 inch map shows much more detail than the Greenwoods (Fig.

5). Hambley Wood (part of Park Woods) has been reduced and no longer extends so far west. The site is entirely open field. The 25 inch Second Edition provides more detail for 1897 (Fig. 6) although no detail for the site itself, as it is still part of one large open field. Hambley Wood is now Ambley Wood. The Third Edition (1909) is identical (not illustrated) except that there is a building in the plot of land between the site and Ambley Wood.

The Revision of 1938 shows the first development on the site (Fig. 7). The army Technical School has been established to the north of the site, but no buildings are shown within the site area except a range of four (mess halls or stores) along the eastern margin; one building at the south (?officer’s quarters) of the complex is just beyond the site boundary. The area between these and the main barrack complex is shown empty; it was sometimes the case that the Ordnance Survey left blank areas over sensitive military sites; it is unclear if this is the case here or if the area was simply open ground (see documentary sources above). There is a stretch of road entering the site from the north and simply stopping (providing no apparent access to the southernmost buildings): this raises suspicion about the coverage of this area. This is probably the road still visible on site.

No Ordnance Survey maps for the post-war period were available at the Centre for Kentish Studies, but it is known the site continued in use as a barracks until 1966 and has been vacant since then. Landmark Historical

Mapping provides a composite map (1962 for the area of the site) which shows the buildings of the 1938 map still in place, and an additional large building and out-buildings at the north end of the site (Fig. 8). There has been additional development off the site to the south. Modern mapping shows the area totally empty, although subdivided (Fig. 1, 1993; Fig. 9, 2007).

Listed buildings

There are no Listed Buildings on the site nor within 1km of it.

9

Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields

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

Historic Hedgerows

There are no hedgerows, historic or otherwise, on the site.

Aerial Photographs

The site areas lies within an urban area which has been an army camp since before the advent of aerial photography and covered in dense scrub thereafter. No photographic collections have therefore been consulted.

Discussion

In considering the archaeological potential of the study area, various factors must be taken into account, including previously recorded archaeological sites, previous land-use and disturbance and future land-use including the proposed development.

The general potential of the area for archaeology can be considered to be relatively high. There is a major

Roman road less than 1km to the north, and a sprinkling of findspots of various periods all around. The area has not seen any extensive modern archaeological investigation, an absence which is probably the main factor contributing to keeping the number of discoveries low. Specific potential for prehistoric remains might exist in the form of deneholes, and for remains of Roman settlement along the line of Watling Street, although the site may be a little too far removed from the road for this to amount to much more than associated fields.

The site was undeveloped farmland (and part was wooded) until the early 20th century. For most of the

20th century, the site was part of a military training barracks, occupied successively by Territorial Volunteers and Royal Engineers. It is known that specific uses of the Darland area (not necessarily this site in particular, but quite possibly so) were for practice in trenching and combat engineering. The mapping of the military buildings suggests that less than half the area was built over, but this need not indicate the limits of disturbance during the military use of the site. The appearance of the site today certainly suggests it has been extensively disturbed. It may be suspected that any potential for subsurface archaeology is likely to have been irretrievably compromised by decades of military earth-moving. However, this cannot be confirmed purely from cartographic sources and

10

visual inspection, and the present appearance could as easily be the result of building up the ground surface as much as truncating it.

Even if this were the case for relatively shallow archaeological deposits (up to perhaps 3m deep), the possibility of deneholes, which might be dug 10m or more into the bedrock, remains to be considered. There are numerous examples in the area, and while these features can be of various dates and original purposes, a good many are prehistoric mines, and the opportunity for modern investigation of an intact example rarely arises; this could be of local archaeological significance. However, the chance of a hitherto unknown denehole surviving within a busy army camp, occupied for over half a century and populated by heavy plant, seems remote.

The proposal involves buildings occupying just under half the developable area, with landscaping of the remainder for access and parking (Fig. 10). There is a buffer zone along the south and west edges, but this too will require landscaping. It is unlikely that any of the proposal area would be unaffected by ground-disturbing activities of some sort, so any archaeological remains surviving within the entire area must be considered potentially under threat.

In summary the site appears likely to have at best modest archaeological potential, but this has not been conclusively demonstrated.

It is anticipated that 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 District Council and carried out by a competent archaeological contractor. It could be implemented by an appropriately worded condition to any planning consent gained.

References

Ashbee, P, 1999, ‘The Medway megaliths in a European context’, Archaeol Cantiana 119, 269–84 Ashbee, P, 2000, ‘The Medway’s megalithic long barrows’, Archaeol Cantiana 120, 319–46 Baldwin, R A, 1998, The Gillingham Chronicles, Rochester Barham, A, 1993, ‘Preliminary Stratigraphic Evaluation and Environmental Archaeological Assessment of the Eastern Approach to the Medway Tunnel’, Inst Archaeol London rep 93/03 BGS, 1977, British Geological Survey, 1:50,000 Sheet 272, Drift Edition, Keyworth Bird, D G, 2001, ‘The Claudian Invasion Campaign reconsidered’, Oxford J Archaeol 19(1), 91–104 Bridgland, D, 1994, The Quaternary of the Thames, Geological Conservation Review Series, London Cameron, K, 1996, English Place Names, London Cruse, R J, 1988, ‘Further excavation at the Acheulian site at Cuxton’, Archaeol Cantiana 104, 39–81 GBC, 1981, Gordon Barracks: development brief, Gillingham Borough Council

11

Holmes, T V, 1908, ‘Appendix 1: The Deneholes of Kent’, in Victoria History of the Counties of England: Kent, vol i, London, 446–54 Hurse, A E, 1928, ‘Archaeology of the Medway Valley’, South-Eastern Naturalist and Antiquary, unpaginated Manley, J, 2002, AD43 The Roman Invasion of Britain, a re-assessment, Oxford Margary, I D, 1955, Roman Roads in Britain, London MC, 2003, Medway Local Plan 2003, Medway Council, Chatham Mills, A D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford Newman, J, 1969, The Buildings of England: West Kent and the Weald, London NPPF, 2012, National Planning Policy Framework, Dept Communities and Local Government, London Smith, G, 2004, ‘The adoption of Old English in Surrey’, Bull Surrey Archaeol Soc 376, 2–5 Swanton, M, 2000, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, London Tatton-Brown, T, 2001, ‘The evolution of ‘Watling Street’ in Kent’, Archaeol Cantiana, 121, 121–34 Tomlinson, H, 1973, ‘The Ordnance Office and the King’s forts, 1660–1714’, Architect Hist 16, 5–25 Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London Williams, J and Brown, N (eds), 1999, An Archaeological Research Framework for the Greater Thames Estuary, Chelmsford Wymer, J J, 1999, The Lower Palaeolithic occupation of Britain, Salisbury

12

APPENDIX 1: Historic Environment Records within a 1000m search radius of the development site

No HER Ref Grid Ref (TQ) Type Period Comment 1 MWX20829 785 665 Findspot Palaeolithic Three hand axes and three pieces of debitage FWX6272 FWX6273 EWX9186 EWX9175 2 MKE15603 7894 6709 Survey Prehistoric Geophysical results indicate good potential. Evaluation Evaluation Roman revealed two ditches and a possible pond. One ditch Undated contained Late Bronze Age to early Iron Age pottery, one Roman. 3 MKE2264 7815 6558 Burial Roman Cremation found in brickfield, 1901, with pottery; details EKE1431 scant. 4 MKE2266 7842 6673 Findspot Roman Gold finger ring, with onyx setting, late Roman. Enry also FKE1647 notes ‘urn burials nearby at TQ 785 667’ possibly = MKE2267?. 5 MKE2267 7821 6684 Observation Roman Urned cremations found in 1890s. EKE1433 6 MKE3099 8091 6617 Cartographic Roman Watling Street Roman road. 7 MKE15133 785 658 Findspot Roman Coin (sestertius of Faustina I) found 1980. FKE931 8 MKE2268 7871 6709 Observation Roman Anti-tank ditch cut through Roman ?occupation site (just a EKE1434 Modern few sherds of pottery and some charcoal?). EKE1435 9 MKE2256 7915 6668 Burial Saxon 1930s discovery of skeleton with ‘unusual’ Saxon pot. EKE1423 10 MKE9258 7818 6567 Cartographic Post-medieval Brickworks on early Ordnance Survey maps 11 MKE2291 7817 6658 Monument Victorian Fort Darland, built 1899, concrete artillery emplacement, Modern part of the Chatham Ring. Already obsolete by 1910, demolished 1960s, tiny portions survive. 12 MKE16285 7861 6666 Building Modern Territorial volunteer barracks, 1930s, part of Gordon Barracks, demolished for business park. 13 MKE2265 7795 6645 Observation Undated Five deneholes found in 1895, ‘tons of flints left after chalk EKE1432 removed’. 14 MKE2275 797 667 Excavation Undated Denehole cleaned out in 1931; two sheep skeletons. EKE1440 15 MKE2276 7894 6514 Observation Undated Three deneholes, one apparently with trefoil chamber EKE1441 16 MKE16527 790 651 Observation Undated Denehole discovered 1970s. 17 MKE20471 7810 6649 Evaluation Undated Three possible features, undated but thought to be EKE8798 prehistoric.

1

APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1575 Saxton, Kent, Sussex, Middlesex and Surrey (Fig. 2) 1596 Symanson, Kent 1611 Speed, Kent with her cities and earles described and observed (Fig. 3) 1635 Blaeu, Kent (from the Atlas) 1680 Blome, Kent 1701 Norden, Kent 1719 Harris, Kent 1724 Moll, Kent 1753 Rocque, Kent c. 1760 Bowen, an accurate map of the County of Kent c. 1770? Kitchen, Kent 1801 Mudge, Kent 1805 Cary, Kent 1821 Greenwood, Kent (Fig. 4) 1840 Gillingham Tithe map 1864 Ordnance Survey First Edition, 6 inch series sheet xix (Fig. 5) 1897 Ordnance Survey Second Edition 25 inch series sheets xix.12 and xx.9 1909 Ordnance Survey Third Edition 25 inch series sheets xix.12 and xx.9 (Fig. 6) 1938 Ordnance Survey Revision 25 inch series sheets xix.12 and xx.9 (Fig. 7)

2 Folkestone 8 2 67000 SITE

5 14 4 12 9

SITE 11 6 17

13

66000

7 10

3 1

15

16

65000

TQ79000 80000 BDG07/64 Bailey Drive, Gillingham Business Park, Gillingham, Kent Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 1. Location of site within Gillingham and Kent, showing locations of HER entries.

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Pathfinder 1193 and 1194 TQ66/76 and TQ 86/96 at 1:12500 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 Approximate location of Site

BDG07/64 Bailey Drive, Gillingham Business Park, Gillingham, Kent Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 2. Saxton, 1575. Approximate location of Site

BDG07/64 Bailey Drive, Gillingham Business Park, Gillingham, Kent Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 3. Speed, 1611. Approximate location of Site

BDG07/64 Bailey Drive, Gillingham Business Park, Gillingham, Kent Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 4. Greenwoods, 1821. Approximate location of Site

BDG07/64 Bailey Drive, Gillingham Business Park, Gillingham, Kent Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 5. Ordnance Survey First Edition 1864 (not to scale). SITE

BDG07/64 Bailey Drive, Gillingham Business Park, Gillingham, Kent Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 6. Ordnance Survey Second Edition 1897 (not to scale). SITE

BDG07/64 Bailey Drive, Gillingham Business Park, Gillingham, Kent Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 7. Ordnance Survey Revision 1938 (not to scale). SITE

BDG07/64 Bailey Drive, Gillingham Business Park, Gillingham, Kent Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 8. Ordnance Survey 1962; reproduced from Landmark (R) under licence. Scale 1:4000 SITE

BDG07/64 Bailey Drive, Gillingham Business Park, Gillingham, Kent Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 9. Current site layout. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital mapping under licence Scale 1:1250 CENTURION CLOSE

Warehouse

Existing Henry Schien

Operations Garage

1

5

95.33 9

8 10

Proposed

Pedestrian Link 13

Warehouse

El Sub Sta

16 T16 Proposed Development 22,000 sqft 2043 sqm 2 Storey Offices BAILEY DRIVE S C I M I T A R C L O S E Car Park 105,500 sqft 9801 sqm Warehouse 22 156 Spaces TOTAL 127,500 sqft 11844 sqm

17 20m min

Site area

101 7.48 acres /3.02hectares 88

Proposed Development 22,000 sqft 2043 sqm 2 Storey Offices 105,500 sqft 9801 sqm Warehouse TOTAL 127,500 sqft 11844 sqm BAILEY DRIVE Depot Service Yard

79 SP

89

post

91 Service

Yard Proposed 20m min 20m Climbers to acoustic fence Site Plan

------115 PHASE 2 - 00-00-00 XXX XXX Rev Date Description Rev By Chk'd By

109 Project Title Proposed Distribution Unit Drawing Title PROPOSED SITE PLAN - PHASE 2

117 Bailey Drive Job-Dwg No 12437-104 Rev - 119

Grid Origin Local 125 Removal of Gillinghamthis block also removes all warranties and infringes copyright * Detail assumed, inaccessible or not surveyed

Tiltle to this drawing remains with Solent Surveys c Solent Surveys THE HARRIS PARTNERSHIP WAKEFIELD TITLE/PROJECT- 127 2 St. Johns North, Wakefield, WF1 3QA

Site of t. 01924 291 800 f. 01924 290 072 Gordon Barracks Client HenryGillingham Schein THE HARRIS PARTNERSHIP MANCHESTER Kent 2nd Floor, Carvers Warehouse, 0m 10m 20m 30m 40m 50m 100m 77 Dale Street, Manchester, M1 2HG t. 0161 238 8555 f. 0161 244 5809 Status e-mail [email protected] FORSS PLANNING THE HARRIS PARTNERSHIP MILTON KEYNES SOLENT SURVEYS BUILDING AND LAND SURVEY CONSULTANTS SOLENT HOUSE 7 KENILWORTH GARDENS The Old Rectory, 79 High Street WEST END SOUTHAMPTON SO30 3RE Combined Fax/Phone (02380) 471991 Newport Pagnell, MK16 8AB SCALE 1:200 J.R.Chalk AMInstCES 0 1 2 3 4 5 Scale DATE LEVELS BASED ON Drawing Size t. 01908 211 577 f. 01908 211 722 25th April1:1000 2006 BM Datum A2

DRAWING NUMBER REVISIONS 11 S1 THE HARRIS PARTNERSHIP READING 101 London Road, Reading, RG1 5BY A R C H I T E C T S t. 0118 950 7700 f. 0118 956 8642 www.harrispartnership.com Drawn By NABB Checked By PSM Date 02/2013 CAD file reference J:\12001-13000\12437\17.0 Drawings and Issue Sheets\100 Series - Planning This drawing is copyright and may not be reproduced in whole or part without written authority. Do not scale off this drawing.

BDG07/64 Bailey Drive, Gillingham Business Park, Gillingham, Kent Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 10: Development proposal plan; not to scale BDG07/64 Bailey Drive, Gillingham Business Park, Gillingham, Kent Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Plates 1 and 2: The site today; both views from north-eastern access, looking south. 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