Appendix 6: East

Location

6.1 The East Keynsham site lies directly to the east of the settlement of Keynsham and to the north west of the settlement of . The site is crossed by the main rail and road (A4) routes between and Bath (see Figure A6.1).

Figure A6.1: East Keynsham - Proposed Development Site Location Plan

Planning Context

6.2 The site comprises a number of fields along with existing land uses of housing, a horticultural nursery and light industrial units. The Core Strategy consultation document identifies the site as mixed use development to include 25,000-30,000m2 of employment land in an expansion to Broadmead/Ashmead/Pixash Industrial Estate and around 250 dwellings in the plan period. 6.3 The site is set within an area of open countryside bordering the settlement of Keynsham. To the north is Avon Valley Country Park and to the south is the Manor Road Community Woodland Local Nature Reserve which is part of the Forest of Avon.

6.4 The site lies on the edge of a low plateau of level or very gently sloping land that falls downwards into the Avon Valley, ranging in height between approximately 15 and 45m AOD in height. The fields to the south of the Bristol to Bath railway line are predominantly pasture. The land to the north is mostly arable (Photograph A6.1 & A6.2).

Photograph A6.1: East of Pixash Lane, looking east

Photograph A6.1: South of A4 Bath Road, looking north

Sources of Evidence

Archaeology

Bath & North East Somerset Historic Environment Record; South Gloucestershire Historic Environment Record

6.5 Although the site itself is wholly within the Bath & North East Somerset Council (B&NES) boundary, the wider 1km study area extends into South Gloucestershire. Historic Environment Record (HER) data was therefore obtained from both the B&NES and South Gloucestershire HERs.

6.6 The two HERs employ different numbering systems. That for B&NES uses prefixes to distinguish ‘Monuments’ (MBN), ‘Events’ (EBN) and ‘Designations’ (DBN). All numbers with such prefixes in this Appendix refer to the B&NES HER. The South Gloucestershire HER uses a single number sequence with no prefixes. To eliminate the possibility of confusion, this report prefixes all South Gloucestershire HER numbers with ‘SGHER’.

6.7 The South Gloucestershire records have been grouped as monuments, events and designations to maintain compatibility with the rest of this report. In summary, the combined HERs incorporate the following records within the site, and a 1km zone around it:

• 1 Scheduled Monument: a Bronze Age round barrow at Barrow Hill, Bitton (SGHER1238) • 186 non-designated archaeological ‘monuments’ (buildings, sites, find-spots) • 26 archaeological ‘events’ (fieldwork, assessments, etc) • 3 locally-registered parks or gardens: Chewton Place Garden (DBN3654 / MBN4319), Ellsbridge House Garden (DBN3657 / MBN4320) & Memorial Park (DBN3609) Cartographic evidence

6.8 The following historic maps were examined: • Keynsham parish Tithe Map, 1840 • 1st Edition Ordnance Survey 1:10560 map, 1888 • 2nd Edition Ordnance Survey 1:10560 map, 1901-5 • 3rd Edition Ordnance Survey 1:10560 map, 1920-1933 6.9 The observations made on the maps and plans examined are summarised in Table A6.1 below. Table A6.1: Summary of cartographic observations

Map Date General Observations Fig.

• Site comprises mainly enclosed fields in agricultural Keynsham 1840 use (and possibly horticultural), but partly wooded. A6.2 parish tithe • GWR (opened 1840), including bridge, crosses northern map portion of site in a roughly east/west direction. • The Bath Road (present A4) crosses central portion of site in a roughly east/west direction. • Steadham House (later Stidham Farm) depicted adjacent to eastern flank of site (parcel 1756). • Buildings depicted immediately outside western flank of site (later Ellsbridge House). • Layout of fields roughly similar to tithe map, but with 1st Edition 1888 some alterations: subdivision, removal of boundaries. A6.3 1:10560 • Buildings annotated “Steadham House” on tithe map OS plan now annotated “Stidham Farm”. • House (MBN9336) depicted on southern side of Bath Road within site. • “Gravel pit” in northern portion of site. • Central portion of site forms part a “nursery”. • Buildings to the south-east of site annotated “Wickhouse Farm”, “Cottage Farm” and “Manor House”; • Buildings immediately outside western flank of site annotated “Ellsbridge House” (MBN9732) and includes lodge; buildings further to the west annotated “The Elms” and “The Grange” (MBN9335). • Buildings to the east of site annotated “Longreach House”. • Mile post/mile stone “” indicated on northern side of the GWR; • Area of land immediately to the east of site annotated “Chalk’s Well”; • Lane depicted running along part of western flank of site annotated “Pixash Lane”; • Midland Railway (SGHER4769) depicted to the east of site. • Layout of fields is generally unchanged from 1888 2nd Edition 1901 map. 1:10560 • Nursery in central portion of site is annotated OS plan 1905 “Longreach Nursery”; includes building (?greenhouse). • Outbuildings depicted in various locations. • Gravel pit on 1880s OS sheet now annotated “Old Gravel Pit”; • New lane depicted crossing southern portion of site in roughly east/west direction and annotated “Breaches Lane”. • Pump (P) indicated adjacent to western flank of site. • Further buildings depicted in central portion of site to 3rd Edition 1920 the north of Bath Road including “Tangent Works”. A6.4 1:10560 • Lane (later World’s End Lane) depicted crossing central Map Date General Observations Fig.

OS plan 1933 portion of site in roughly east/west direction. • Gravel pit depicted in northern portion of site (to the south of disused pit). • Spring indicated on eastern flank of site, annotated “rises”. • Short cul-de-sac leading off the Bath Road annotated “Ellsbridge Cl.”

Figure A6.2: Tithe Map of Parish of Keynsham

Figure A6.3: 1st Edition OS Plan (1888)

Figure A6.4: 3rd Edition OS Plan (1920-33)

Air Photographs

6.10 An examination of air photographs held by the English Heritage Archive in was carried out, based on a 1km radius around the approximate centre of the site. A selection of these photos was examined, listed below (see Table A6.2). Features identified are discussed in this appendix with the photo reference noted. Table A6.2: List of photographs examined

Sortie Library No Frame Date

RAF/106G/UK/1661 421 3369 1946

RAF/CPE/UK/1815 496 5049 1946

RAF/CPE/UK/1815 496 5051 1946

RAF/CPE/UK/1869 526 4168 1946

RAF/CPE/UK/2433 762 4036 1948

RAF/CPE/UK/2489 764 5129 1948

RAF/CPE/UK/2489 764 5131 1948

RAF/540/479 1205 3152 1951

RAF/540/479 1205 3153 1951

RAF/540/1649 1673 257 1955

RAF/543/2332 2166 232 1963

RAF/543/2332 2166 231 1963

RAF/543/2332 2166 232 1963

RAF/106G/LA/45 3932 5007 1944

RAF/106G/LA/45 3932 5009 1944

RAF/106G/LA/45 3932 5011 1944

RAF/106G/LA/45 3932 5182 1944

RAF/106G/LA/45 3932 5184 1944

RAF/106G/LA/45 3932 5186 1944

RAF/106G/LA/45 3932 5313 1944

RAF/106G/LA/45 3932 5315 1944

RAF/82/1127 3937 35 1955

RAF/82/1127 3937 77 1955

RAF/82/1127 3937 76 1955

RAF/82/1127 3937 78 1955

RAF/106G/LA/45 3932 5313 1944 Sortie Library No Frame Date

RAF/106G/LA/45 3932 5315 1944

RAF/82/1127 3937 35 1955

RAF/82/1127 3937 77 1955

RAF/82/1127 3937 76 1955

RAF/82/1127 3937 78 1955

OS/85181 10730 72 1985

OS/85181 10730 73 1985

OS/85181 10730 93 1985

OS/85181 10730 94 1985

OS/85181 10730 95 1985

OS/60061 11498 37 1960

Historic Landscape Characterisation for the former County of Avon

6.11 The site is situated across four Historic Landscape Character Areas (HLCA) as classified by the Avon Historic Landscape Characterisation.

6.12 To the north of the railway line the site is classified as Post Medieval and modern fields adjusted from earlier (i.e. A1) enclosures. The railway line itself is classifies as Large Scale Utility Landscapes. To the south of the railway line the landscape outside of the housing areas is classified as Late Medieval enclosed open fields created by local arrangement and exchange. The areas of housing either side of the A4 within the site are classified as Settlement, specifically the Twentieth century (‘New’ or ‘Modern’) HLCA. Figure A6.5 shows the HLCAs within 1km.

Figure A6.5: HLCAs within 1km of East Keynsham

6.13 The main characteristics of these HLCAs are as follows: Post Medieval and modern fields adjusted from earlier (i.e. A1) enclosures: “Although the county contains hardly any common field enclosures brought about by 18th or 19th century acts of parliament, similar field patterns have been produced by the local rationalisation and consolidation of land. These ‘adjusted fields also tend to be large and rectilinear, but are less ‘geometrical’ and better adjusted to the natural terrain….”1 Large Scale Utility Landscapes: “Built…includes large scale communications such as railways, canals, motorways and airports. Public services include power station, sewage works etc.”2 Late Medieval enclosed open fields created by local arrangement and exchange: “Fields of relatively small size and regular in outline, and generally follow the natural lie of the land…” 3

1 Page 6 Mike Chapman, 1997. Avon Historic Landscape Classification (first draft) 1995-8. 2 Page 18 Mike Chapman, 1997. Avon Historic Landscape Classification (first draft) 1995-8. 3 Page 5 Mike Chapman, 1997. Avon Historic Landscape Classification (first draft) 1995-8. Other documents consulted 1.14 The following documents were also referred to:

• Bath & North East Somerset Council (2013) Core Strategy Update • Colvin, H (1954) A Biographical Dictionary of British Architects 1600-1840 • English Heritage (2008) Conservation Principles: policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment

• English Heritage, The National Heritage List • English Heritage (2011) The Setting of Heritage Assets • Forsyth, M (2004) Bath: Pevsner City Guide • Pevsner, N (1958) The Buildings of : North Somerset and Bristol • Arup, 2013. East Keynsham Development Concept Options Report Available from [Accessed 8th August 2013]

Site Inspection

6.14 The site was inspected on 8th, 14th and 21st August 2013 6.15 There is a significant amount of 20th century residential development along the south side of the A4 Bath Road, and a mixture of 20th and 21st century residential and commercial development along the north side of the road. There are also residential properties and nursery buildings along Worlds End Lane. A building with a chimney was noted on the site of a former nursery (Photography A6.3); it is possible this is the ‘engine house’ recorded on the HER under ref. MBN10513.

Photograph A6.2: Corrugated iron building and chimney (possibly HER reference MBN10513)

6.16 Apart from a low linear-earthwork in one of the fields between the A4 and Worlds End Lane, possibly a former field boundary, there were no obvious earthworks within the site.

6.17 The westernmost field south of Pixash Lane and north of the railway is a former landfill site, used from 1972 (www.environment-agency.gov.uk). Ground levels within this field have been raised up to the level of the adjacent railway embankment (Photograph A6.4).

Photograph A6.3: Landfill site between Pixash Lane and the railway, looking east

6.18 Recent developments are likely to have caused a significant amount of disturbance to any pre- existing archaeological remains along much of the A4 road frontage and to parts of the area between the A4 and the Bristol to Bath railway line. There is also likely to be a significant amount of disturbance around the buildings at Avon Valley Farm and the former landfill site on Pixash Lane. The land to the south of the A4, and the undeveloped fields to the north of Worlds End Lane and the Bristol to Bath railway line, are likely to be the least disturbed part of the site.

Overall Heritage Assets

6.19 Figure A6.6 shows the heritage assets situated within 1km of the proposed site boundary. This section considers heritage assets which lie within 1km of the site.

Figure A6.6: Heritage Assets on and within 1km of the proposed site Table 1: East Keynsham, Heritage Assets within 1 km of the proposed site

Heritage Asset On site Local area (within 1km) Listed Buildings 0 60

Grade I 0 1

Grade II* 0 2

Grade II 0 57

Scheduled Monuments 0 1

Registered Parks and Gardens 0 0

Conservation Areas 0 Keynsham High Street

6.20 Heritage Assets within the wider area (5km) have not been considered in detail as part of this study. However, the following table provides an overview of assets within this area. Table 2: East Keynsham, Heritage Assets within 1-5kmof the proposed site

Heritage Asset Wider Context (within 5km) Listed Buildings 484

Grade I 6

Grade II* 27

Grade II 451 Scheduled Monuments 28

Registered Parks and Gardens 4

Conservation Areas Keynsham High Street, Keynsham Dapps Hill

6.21 Figures A6.7 and A6.8 show the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) of the site in relation to a potential two storey and three storey development on the site. The ZTVs provide a representation of where development on the site could be seen from within the surrounding area – indicating what proportion of the site can be seen.

Figure A6.7: Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) for two storey development across proposed site

Figure A6.8: Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) for three storey development across proposed site

Archaeological Evidence

Historical Context

• Historically, the site lies in the Somerset parish of Keynsham which, itself, formed part of the Keynsham Hundred.

• The parish of Keynsham is not yet covered by the Victoria County History series, but an early- published account is given by Collinson (1791). More recent accounts include those by Leech (1975), Prosser (1995), La Trobe-Bateman (1999) and Fitter (2006).

• There is good evidence for prehistoric and Roman activity in the Keynsham area. Substantive evidence for prehistoric activity has been found on the northern periphery of the town in the area of Somerdale (La Trobe-Bateman 1999, Map A).

• Evidence for Romano-British activity has also been found on the northern periphery of the town. An extensive area incorporating Keynsham Hams, Somerdale and Durley Hill appears to have served as an area of settlement, possibly including the unprovenanced town of Traiectus. Villa sites are known at Durley Hill and Somerdale (La Trobe-Bateman 1999, Map B). The Roman town of Bath (Aquae Sulis) is situated approximately 7 km to the south-east of Keynsham.

• Evidence for activity in the Keynsham area between c.AD 430 to 630 is relatively lacking. Following the Battle of Cirencester in AD 628, Keynsham and Bath became part of the West Saxon Kingdom, but the status of the area during the centuries immediately following is somewhat unclear. • The earliest documentary reference to Keynsham is in Æthelweard's addenda to the Anglo- Saxon Chronicle (c.AD 1000) where it is referred to as Cægineshamme (Old English for 'Cæga's Hamm').

• There is evidence for a pre-conquest (i.e. before 1066) minster church at Keynsham, probably in the vicinity of the present town centre (La Trobe-Bateman 1999, Map C). Keynsham is mentioned in Domesday (1086). An abbey was also founded at Keynsham, possibly on the site of the minster, during the 12th century (1166), and on which the entire manor and Hundred were eventually conferred.

• Keynsham was granted an annual fair by Edward I (reigned 1272-1307) in 1303 and a market was granted in 1307. Following the Dissolution of the Monasteries in the 1530s, Keynsham lands became divided, passing into the hands of the Bridges and Whitemore families. It appears that Keynsham subsequently went into a period of economic decline.

• Wool production comprised an important industry at Keynsham during the 16th century, but had virtually disappeared by the 18th century. The production of brass in the area, however, brought new fortune to Keynsham in the 18th century but, along with coal extraction, went into decline in the 19th century as the result of Welsh competition. This resulted in relatively slow growth of the town until the 20th century. A major event for Keynsham in the 19th century was the opening of the Bristol to Bath section of the in the 1840s.

• Towards the end 19th century, Keynsham appears to have been focussed on the area of the present Bristol Road, Station Road, High Street and Temple Street. By the late 1960s, considerable urban expansion had taken place on the southern and western peripheries of the town. The area of Somerdale had also been established to the north. The Keynsham By-pass was constructed in 1964-65 forming part of the A4. A new industrial park had also been established immediately to the east of the town by the late 1960s.

Archaeological evidence Designated assets

• The HER records no designated archaeological assets within the site. ('Monument' MBN9336 is an 18th century house described on the HER as a Listed Building, source DoE List 1975, but it is not included in the current on-line National Heritage List for England and may be an error in the HER. It is not considered of archaeological interest.)

• The HER records one Scheduled Monument within the study area: a Bronze Age round barrow at Bitton approximately 1km to the north of the site on the north side of the River Avon (SGHER1238).

• Within the study area there are three locally-registered gardens: immediately outside the site, Ellsbridge House Garden (DBN3657/MBN4320 – the associated Ellsbridge House, MBN9732, is Listed Grade II); a small part of the Memorial Park at the west of the study area (DBN3609); and at the south-west edge of the study area is Chewton Place Garden (DBN3654 / MBN4319; the house, Chewton Place (MBN5750), is also Listed Grade II). There are two locally-listed structures in close proximity to the site: Ferris Bridge (SGHER14228) and Swinford railway bridge (SGHER12867) approximately 300 m and 400 m to the north-east of the site respectively. Chronology of assets Prehistoric

• There are no records of prehistoric activity within the site. • Within the study area, Mesolithic activity is represented by a possible lithic-working site (MBN3593) approximately 400m to the south-west of the site. Prehistoric flints (EBN 2837) of possible Mesolithic-Neolithic date were also found at Saltford Sewage Works approximately 1km to the east of the site, with further prehistoric flints (EBN 2516) found at the Keynsham Sewage Treatment Works approximately 200m to the west.

• Neolithic activity is represented by flints found approximately 600m to the north of the site (SGHER1239). A crop-mark (SGHER8402) approximately 500m to the north-east is dated to the early neolithic on the HER, but the reason for this dating is not given and there are no other details. • Bronze Age activity is represented by an axe find-spot (MBN1240) approximately 400m to the south-east of the site and a round-barrow (SGHER1238, a Scheduled Monument) approximately 1km to the north. Iron Age pottery has been found (MBN1231) approximately 350m to the east. Roman

• North Keynsham and Bitton are known to be areas of settlement in the Roman period (4.1 above; SGHER1246).

• Within the site, the postulated course of the Roman road (MBN10178) linking Sea Mills (Abonae) to Bath (Aquae Sulis) crosses the central portion of the site.

• In the study area, a Roman farm building and other finds were discovered at the Avon Valley Country Park and Stidham Farm immediately to the north of the site (MBN11813/EBN 2874, 3471, MBN5712). Further Roman activity in the locality is present in the form of burial evidence (MBN1219, 1249 & 1250) finds (MBN1215, 4501, 5712 & 30401) and a coin hoard (SGHER19415). Although just outside the study area, it is also worth noting the site of a Roman Villa at Somerdale a little over 1km to the north-west of the site. Anglo-Saxon

• There are no Anglo-Saxon records within the site. • A Saxon cemetery (MBN1248) is known at Avon Farm approximately 750m to the north-east of the site, while a mill site (MBN5826) of possible Saxon origin is known approximately 600m to the west. The settlement area of Burnett (MBN10160) to the south of the site and St Mary’s Church Saltford (MBN1252) are also described in the HER as of possible Saxon origin.

• Bitton, on the northern periphery of the study area, is listed in the South Gloucestershire HER as early post-Roman, Dark Age or Anglo-Saxon in origin (SGHER10348). Medieval

• The only evidence found for medieval activity on the site and its immediate environs comprises possible vestiges of ridge-and-furrow cultivation observed on air photographs: RAF/106G/LA/45 Frames 5007 (west of Stidham Farm); 5009 (south-west of Stidham Farm); 5011 (north-west of Ellsbridge House); RAF/CPE/UK/2489 Frame 5131 (between the river and the railway).

• In the study area, the historic centre of Keynsham (and ) is to the west of the site (many HER records, not listed here), and Bitton and Saltford are known to be areas of medieval settlement on or just outside the northern and eastern edges of the study area respectively. The site of Keynsham Bridge (SGHER18745), of possible medieval origin, is situated approximately 1km to the west of the site. Eastover Farm approximately 300m south- east of the site may have originated as a grange of the Abbey (MBN9409). Fishponds of the Abbey are recorded towards the south edge of the area, but are now destroyed (MBN3322). Post-Medieval & Modern

• Within the site, the HER records a post-medieval engine house (MBN10513) in the central portion of the site. The area of Longreach Nursery depicted on the Second Edition OS sheet appears to have developed through time for light industry and by the time of the Third Edition OS sheet incorporated the Tangent Works. The HER includes no detail, and it is not clear whether the engine house was associated with the works, and no longer extant, or the entry refers to the surviving building with a chimney that was part of the former nurseries; the latter seems more likely to be some sort of boiler house for heating glasshouses, though this is not certain.

• Downfield Farm dates from c.1900 (MBN9408). Stidham Farm is not recorded on the HER, but must be of at least early 19th century origin as it is shown on the tithe map. An 18th century house (190 Bath Road) is described on the HER as a Listed Building, but it is not included in the current on-line National Heritage List for England and may be an error (MBN9336; see also 4.2.1 above). Original GWR bridges on the railway have been described as of architectural and historic interest, but no archaeological interest (Baxter Associates 2012). • The post-medieval evidence for the study area primarily relates to its use for agriculture and horticulture, although the northern flank merges with the Avon floodplain. In addition to the existing towns / villages of Keynsham, Saltford, and Bitton, there are several farms (not listed individually here). Quarrying (MBN9388) appears to have taken place approximately 200m to the south-west of the site.

• Ellsbridge House (MBN9732) immediately outside the site on the northern side of the Bath Road (A4) is Grade II listed. Ellsbridge House Garden (DBN3657/MBN4320), Chewton Place Garden (DBN3654 / MBN4319) and the Memorial Park are locally designated parks and gardens. None are considered of archaeological interest as gardens, although the latter contains the (scheduled) remains of Keynsham Abbey but these are outside small part that is within the study area. Two locally listed structures, both post-medieval, are situated in close proximity to the site: Ferris Bridge (SGHER14228) and Swinford railway bridge (SGHER12867) approximately 300m and 400m to the north-east of the site respectively. Undated

• Within the site, in addition to the putative medieval ridge and furrow (see above), air photographs also suggested possible fossil field-boundaries either side of Breaches Lane (RAF/CPE/UK/1869 Frame 4168) and an oval-shaped feature south-east of Ellsbridge House on the south side of Bath Road (RAF/CPE/UK/2489 Frames 5129, 5131), though this may be of geological origin. The linear earthwork noted between the A4 and World’s End Lane is undated, but possibly a post-medieval field boundary.

• Within the study area the HER records an undated cropmark (MBN3594), possibly an enclosure, that was observed in the (?)1970s approximately 200m to the east of the site.

Other archaeological work

• The only other recent archaeological work undertaken for the immediate environs of the site comprises an archaeological desk-based assessment (EBN 3374) prepared in 2010 for land at Ashmead Road. Other work has recorded medieval and post-medieval remains to the west of the site, within Keynsham (EBN3165, 2694, 2671, 2693, 2839, 3153, 3436).

Potentially important hedgerows

• Field boundaries within the site comprise a mixture of hedges and fences, some of which are also defined by hedge banks and/or ditches. There are no hedgerows that are considered to be classed as important under the Hedgerows Regulations within the site, under the criteria considered in this study.

Potential for unknown archaeological assets within the site

6.22 No prehistoric settlement is known in the site or the study area, but there is a Scheduled Bronze Age barrow north of the Avon, and a number of find-spots of artefacts in the study area, including Iron Age pottery which is likely to be associated with an occupation site. Current evidence suggest the potential for prehistoric remains within the site is probably low to moderate.

6.23 There is evidence for significant Roman occupation around Keynsham, including a possible small town to the north and two villas. Within the study area, a Roman farmstead has been found immediately north of the site, and finds elsewhere in the area include pottery and human remains. There is probably a moderate potential for Roman remains within the site.

6.24 There is no evidence of Anglo-Saxon occupation on the site. A small Anglo-Saxon cemetery has been found within the study area but, apart from a probable mill to the west of the site, suggestions of Anglo-Saxon origins for other occupation sites are speculative. The potential is probably only low.

6.25 There is no evidence for occupation within the site in the medieval period. The site was probably within fields surrounding known settlements, and the potential for anything other than remains relating to agriculture is low.

6.26 The only recorded post-medieval assets within the site are the engine house, Downfield Farm and 190 Bath Road. Occupation within both the site and the study area is concentrated around existing farms and other premises, and the potential for anything other than agricultural activity elsewhere is low.

Significance of archaeological assets

6.27 Of the known assets within the site, the alignment of the Roman road is probably of regional importance as part of the contemporary communications network, although the degree of survival of physical remains is not known. The site of the post-medieval engine house is considered of only local significance. The early 19th century or earlier Stidham Farm, and the early 20th century Downfield Farm, are of no more than local archaeological significance; their architectural significance is not considered here. Air photographs suggest the presence of medieval ridge and furrow in the north of the site, which would be of only local significance. The few other possible features identified in air photographs, and the linear earthwork, are undated and of uncertain origin, and cannot be assessed on present evidence.

6.28 There are no designated assets within the site. The Scheduled prehistoric barrow is some distance from site, on the opposite side of the river, and there are not considered to be any archaeological issues relating to the setting of it or any other designated assets within the study area.

6.29 The study has identified potential for the presence of unknown archaeological assets within the site. In the absence of fieldwork to ascertain the presence or absence of such remains, and their nature and preservation, the significance of any such remains is unconfirmed.

Historic Buildings

On site

Pixash Lane Bridge

• Designation: Listed Grade II. • Date of designation: 2012 • Reasons for designation: An early and mostly intact example of a railway structure dating from the pioneering phase in national railway development. It was designed by , one of the most important engineers and architects of the 19th century.

6.30 Development: Brunel’s line from Paddington to Temple Meads began in 1835 opening in successive stages from the London end. The Bath-Bristol stage opened in 1840. The line was engineered according to picturesque principles using local materials and romantic detailing. The Pixash Lane Bridge is one of a series of near identical Tudor Gothic overbridges in the area built of Pennant stone with Bathstone dressings. The parapets have since been partially reconstructed in engineering brick. Heritage values

6.31 Evidential – The bridge demonstrates the dimensions of the broad-gauge system for which it was built.

6.32 Historical – The building is significant as the work of Brunel and as an important survival from the earliest phase of railway building.

6.33 Aesthetic – The picturesque use of Tudor Gothic detailing raises the design well above its utility. 6.34 Communal – Not known. Significance

6.35 Although there is a small group of such bridges by Brunel, their survival is remarkable. This is due to the replacement of broad-gauge here with two standard-gauge lines. Further east, a great deal was lost when the lines were quadrupled. Setting

6.36 The bridge leads from the industrial area between the A4 and the railway line to the relatively open countryside of the River Avon. Any development of this northern area would be constrained by the narrow carriageway of the bridge. Traffic lights or an alternative access would be necessary.

Undesignated assets:

6.37 There are late Victorian brick-built houses fronting the A4 at Nos.233/235 (North side) and No.192, opposite the end of Pixash Lane. Also an earlier 19th century stone house at No.190. These, however, can easily be assimilated into a more urban context.

Within 1km

Ellsbridge House

• Designation: Listed Grade II. • Date of designation: 1975. • Reasons for designation: Well-preserved 18th century house using local limestone. 6.38 Development: The detached house dates from the early 18th century. It was built of coursed limestone rubble with ashlar dressing in Tudor Gothic style with mullion and transom windows. An ashlar extension was added in about 1830. Significance

6.39 Listing places the building in the national context. Setting

6.40 The house is set back from the road and at one time enjoyed an outlook across the Bath Road to the countryside between Keynsham and Saltford. However, possibly because of the traffic on the A4, the house is now hidden behind dense hedging and has little direct relationship with the Keynsham East site. Surrounding land-uses to the north of the A4 are commercial and industrial and the house itself is in educational use.

Keynsham Manor and Keynsham Manor West

• Designation: Listed Grade II • Date of designation: 1975 • Reasons for designation: Late Georgian house with later Tuscan Doric porch. 6.41 Development: The late 18th century house was three sash windows wide with single window wings to either side. In the early 19th century, a pedimented porch with Tuscan Doric columns was added. Then the symmetry was broken by the addition of an extension on the west side in the late 19th century. The house has since been divided into two. Significance and Setting

6.42 The two houses face north from Keynsham Manor Road with an extensive outlook across open farmland. While this does include the Keynsham East site, the open setting is mostly provided by the area that would remain as the Keynsham-Saltford gap.

Clay Lane Bridge

6.43 This bridge is similar to the Pixash Lane Bridge (see above) and it was similarly listed at Grade II during the assessment of the GWR London-Bristol line that took place in 2012.

Other listed buildings

6.44 There is a Grade II milestone of 1823 on the north side of the Bath Road close to Glenavon Farm. This is some distance to the east of the Keynsham East site and, therefore, of little relevance here. Similarly, there are concentrations of listed buildings in the historic cores of Keynsham and Saltford, but they are sufficiently distant that they have little relationship with the site. Conservation Areas

Keynsham High Street Conservation Area

6.45 Situated 650m to the west of the site and designated in 1997, this area covers the historic core of Keynsham, which includes several buildings of architectural quality making use of local limestone.

6.46 Development: Keynsham was a mediaeval market town that followed the establishment of Keynsham Abbey in 1170. In 1935 it expanded greatly when the Cadbury chocolate factory moved out from central Bristol. It is now more of a commuter town serving Bristol and Bath. Significance and setting:

6.47 While Keynsham is a historically important town, the conservation area is surrounded by later suburbs so there is no direct relationship with the Keynsham East site.

Keynsham Dapps Hill Conservation Area

6.48 Designated in 1986, this area preceded the High Street Conservation Area by a decade. It was clearly designated to encompass the concentration of historic buildings on Dapps Hill. Significance and setting

6.49 The Dapps Hill Conservation Area is contiguous with the High Street area and the same considerations apply

Registered Parks and Gardens

6.50 There are no registered parks and gardens within 1km of the site. There are three locally designated gardens within 1km. Chewton Place Garden (DBN3654 / MBN4319), Ellsbridge House Garden (DBN3657 / MBN4320) & Memorial Park (DBN3609)

6.51 Ellsbridge House is a mid-19th-century garden, in which Ellsbridge House (discussed earlier) is situated. The garden is unlikely to be affected by development due to being located within built development and along the A4. Mature trees and vegetation will also screen views. It is therefore not considered further. Existing built development is situated between Memorial Park and the development site. The park would therefore not be affected by development.

6.52 Chewton Place Garden is situated within the Chew Valley and would not be affected by development due to visual screening.

6.53 These three locally designated parks and gardens are not considered further.

World Heritage Site

6.54 The WHS does not fall within the Zone of Theoretical Visibility of the site.

Sensitivity and Risks

6.55 The following section summarises the sensitivity and potential risk to the significance of the heritage asset.

Archaeology

Sensitivity

6.56 The site is currently mostly pasture (south of the railway) or arable (north of the railway) farmland. Modern development around the A4 Bath Road and at other locations will have caused disturbance. Modern ploughing will have caused extensive, though not necessarily very deep, truncation. The landfill between Pixash Lane and the railway probably caused damage (machinery etc,) during its deposition.

6.57 Of the known assets within the site, the alignment of the Roman road is probably of regional importance. Its physical preservation is not known, but its alignment is currently unaffected by development and it is considered to be of medium sensitivity.

6.58 The site of the post-medieval engine house and any remains of the possible ridge and furrow indicated by air photographs are locally significant, and of low sensitivity. Archaeologically, Stidham and Downfield Farms are of low sensitivity; their architectural sensitivity is not considered here. Features associated with the railway are not considered archaeologically sensitive.

6.59 None of the designated assets in the study area would be directly affected by development on the site. There are not considered to be any archaeological setting issues in relation to these assets that would be affected by development on the site. There are not considered to be any archaeological setting issues relating to non-designated assets within the site or the study area.

6.60 The study has identified potential for the presence of presently-unknown assets within the site, particularly from the prehistoric and Roman periods. In the absence of evaluation fieldwork to confirm the presence or absence of such remains, the nature and preservation of any that may be present, and thus their sensitivity, it is not possible to make a definitive assessment of their sensitivity.

Risk to known and unknown archaeological assets Known archaeological assets

6.61 The alignment of the Roman road could be severely impacted by development, and any physical remains severely damaged. It is considered to be of medium sensitivity and the risk is high.

6.62 The probable buried medieval agricultural remains (mainly ridge and furrow) suggested by air photo evidence, and the post-medieval engine house, Stidham Farm and Downfield Farm are all of low sensitivity and low risk. Unknown archaeological assets (buried archaeological remains)

6.63 The site is considered to have low to moderate potential for unknown prehistoric archaeological remains within its overall extent and moderate potential for Roman remains. Occupation is likely to have been in the form of scattered farmsteads, but these can be expected to form localised foci and would typically be surrounded by areas containing remains associated with field systems. There is therefore considered to be a medium risk of development encountering unknown prehistoric and Roman archaeological remains.

6.64 The potential for remains of later periods is low, and there is a low risk of development encountering unknown Anglo-Saxon, medieval and post-medieval remains.

Summary of overall archaeological risk

6.65 There is considered to be a high risk to the heritage significance of the known Roman road alignment, and a low risk to the heritage significance of other known archaeological assets. The overall risk of development encountering unknown remains over the remainder of the site is considered to be medium, although it is unlikely that the distribution of unknown remains will be uniform across the site.

6.66 In the absence of further investigation the possible presence of unknown buried archaeological remains of high sensitivity cannot be discounted, and any assessment of risk made here can only be provisional. Historic Buildings

Figure A6.9: Reverse ZTV from Keynsham Manor – Manor West

Keynsham Manor and Keynsham Manor West

6.67 The two houses face north from Keynsham Manor Road with an extensive outlook across open farmland. The reverse ZTV (Figure A6.9) from this location indicates that development on the site would be visible, but development would not extend into the remaining fields between Keynsham and Saltford which provides the open setting to the buildings. Hedgerow boundaries along the eastern site boundary and within the site should be retained and strengthened to break up development in the view. On the assumption that the above guidelines are adhered to development of the site would pose a low risk to the heritage significance of Keynsham Manor and Keynsham Manor West

Figure A6.10: Reverse ZTV from Keynsham Manor – Elsbridge House

Elsbridge House

6.68 The reverse ZTV (Figure A6.10) indicates visibility of development on the site from Elsbridge House, however the house is hidden behind dense hedging and has little direct relationship with the Keynsham East site. The house is also situated within existing development along the A4. Development of the site would therefore pose a low risk to the heritage significance of Elsbridge House.

6.69 Development which proposed alterations to the listed Pixash Bridge would pose a high risk to the heritage significance of the bridge.

Conservation Areas

6.70 There are two Conservation Areas within 1km of the site boundary. The setting of setting of the Keynsham High Street and Keynsham Dapps Hill Conservation Area are unlikely to be affected. Analysis of the ZTVs (Figures A6.7 and A6.8) indicate there may be small areas within the eastern side of the Keynsham High Street Conservation Area from which the development is visible but in reality the built development between the Conservation Area and the potential development site will intervene. Development of the site would therefore pose a low risk to the heritage significance of the Conservation Areas.

Registered Parks and Gardens

6.71 There are no Registered Parks and Gardens within 1km of the site.

Bath World Heritage Site

6.72 This site lies outside the zone of theoretical visibility for the WHS and this is therefore not considered further. Combined Sensitivity and Risk Summary

6.73 Development of the East Keynsham site presents an overall low risk to the significance of heritage assets.

6.74 A medium risk remains in relation to undiscovered archaeology and it is recommended that suitable survey work is carried out prior to any development works.

6.75 There is a potential risk to presently-unknown archaeological remains within the site. It would be necessary to carry out an archaeological evaluation to establish whether such remains are present, and identify their date, nature and significance before a decision could be made on whether mitigation measures of the type described above are appropriate. Table A6.5: East Keynsham, Summary Table of Risk to the Significance of the Heritage Asset

Fields Arch. Historic CA RPG and Overall judgement B’dings local gardens

All fields Low forming the site

Route of High due to the risk to the the heritage significance of the Roman Roman Road Road

Location High, Pixash Bridge would of Pixash be at risk if developing the Bridge north of the side meant altering the bridge

6.76 In summary, development at the east Keynsham site will be: • low risk to all the field within the site. • high risk to the route of the Roman road and Pixash Bridge. 6.77 Development on the site is however considered to present a medium risk in relation to unknown archaeological assets and therefore appropriate mitigation would be required (as outlined below).

Figure A6.11: East Keynsham - Summary of Risk to Heritage Assets Mitigation and Enhancement

6.78 Please note that mitigation and enhancement measures are only provided in relation to areas which have been identified as low or medium risk. As outlined in the NPPF and Table 2.2 of this report, development in areas of high risk should be exceptional or wholly exception and therefore avoided as there is a risk that development could cause substantial harm to the designated heritage assets, or non-designated heritage assets of demonstrably equivalent significance, and/or their settings.

6.79 If areas of low to moderate risk are allocated for development, it is important that opportunities are taken to avoid or minimise impacts on heritage assets and their settings. These include the following:

• The Roman road alignment and any surviving remains could be preserved by incorporating it in the layout of any development, , preferably open space or public footpath

• Avoid any alterations or damage to the Pixash bridge. • Retain and strengthen existing tree screening within the site, with new trees planted along internal field boundaries to help soften development.

• Utilise new tree planting as a framework throughout the proposed development, with sufficient set back to allow growth of trees which will eventually break up the rooflines of development.

6.80 In addition to the known heritage assets there is a significant risk of uncovering presently- unknown archaeological remains within the study site. It would be necessary to carry out an archaeological evaluation to establish whether such remains are present, and identify their date, nature and significance before a decision could be made on whether mitigation measures of the type described in Appendix 7 are appropriate.