T H A M E S V A L L E Y ARCHAEOLOGICAL S E R V I C E S
Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire
An archaeological desk-based assessment
by Genni Elliott
Site Code MBW16/241
(SU 4572 4799) Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire
Archaeological Desk-based Assessment
for Bewley Homes
by Genni Elliott
Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd
MFW2 16/241
December 2016 Summary
Site name: Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire
Grid reference: SU 4572 4799
Site activity: Archaeological desk-based assessment
Project manager: Steve Ford
Site supervisor: Genni Elliott
Site code: MFW2 16/241
Area of site: 9.1ha (c. 1.8ha to be developed)
Summary of results: The site lies within an area with a wide range of sites and finds of prehistoric, Roman and later date including a round barrow in the field immediately to the north. Cartographic evidence suggests that any archaeological deposits present are likely to be undisturbed. Therefore it is suggested that information about any heritage assets on the site should be determined by field observation (evaluation) in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits, if necessary, and that such a scheme is implemented as an appropriately worded condition to any consent gained.
This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.
Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford 23.12.16
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 Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire Archaeological Desk-based Assessment
by Genni Elliott
Report 16/241 Introduction
This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of a parcel of land located at Manor Farm,
Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Ms Laura Ashton of
Bewley Homes, Inhurst House, Brimpton Road, Baughurst, Hampshire, RG26 5JJ 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
The site currently consists of an irregular parcel of open, uncultivated land on the south-western fringes of the small town of Whitchurch. The land is c.9.1ha in area and rises up from the west to its highest point in the south- eastern corner. The site is bordered to the north by a new housing development off Bloswood Lane, to the east by a small housing development and graveyard and to the south and west by the A34 beyond which is open fields. A site visit was made on 18th December 2016 (Pls 1–4). The development area is centred on NGR SU
4572 4799 and is located on river and valley gravel (BGS 1975). It is at a height of approximately 74m above
Ordnance Datum.
Planning background and development proposals
Planning permission is to be sought from Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council for an extension to the residential development currently under progress on land immediately to the east of the proposal site. A provisional layout is shown as Figure 11. This extension would consist of a southern link road and an unspecified number of dwellings within the confines of the road.
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
1 planning authority to assess the significance of any heritage assets that may be affected by the proposal. The
Historic Environment is defined (NPPF 2012, 52) as:
‘All aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through time, including all surviving physical remains of past human activity, whether visible, buried or submerged, and landscaped and planted or managed flora.’ Paragraphs 128 and 129 state that
‘128. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. ‘129. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.’ A ‘heritage asset’ is defined (NPPF 2012, 52) as
‘A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. Heritage asset includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing).’ ‘Designated heritage asset’ includes (NPPF 2012, 51) any
‘World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument, Listed Building, Protected Wreck Site, Registered Park and Garden, Registered Battlefield or Conservation Area designated under the relevant legislation.’ ‘Archaeological interest’ is glossed (NPPF 2012, 50) as follows:
‘There will be archaeological interest in a heritage asset if it holds, or potentially may hold, evidence of past human activity worthy of expert investigation at some point. Heritage assets with archaeological interest are the primary source of evidence about the substance and evolution of places, and of the people and cultures that made them.’ Specific guidance on assessing significance and the impact of the proposal is contained in paragraphs 131 to 135:
‘131. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of: the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. ‘132. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or
2 loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. ‘133. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply: the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. ‘134. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. ‘135. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.
Paragraph 139 recognizes that new archaeological discoveries may reveal hitherto unsuspected and hence non- designated heritage assets
‘139. Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets.’ Paragraph 141 requires local planning authorities to ensure that any loss of heritage assets advances understanding, but stresses that advancing understanding is not by itself sufficient reason to permit the loss of significance:
‘141. Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development management publicly accessible. They should also require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.’
In determining the potential heritage impact of development proposals, ‘significance’ of an asset is defined
(NPPF 2012, 56) as:
‘The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.’ while ‘setting’ is defined as:
‘The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.’
3 In the case of Scheduled Ancient Monuments, 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.
The Planning (Listed Building and Conservation) Act 1990, requires the following to be treated as listed building:
‘(a) any object or structure fixed to the (listed) building ‘(b) any object or structure within the curtilage of the building which although not fixed to the building forms part of the land and has done since before 1st July 1948 is treated as being part of the listed building.’
The Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011 to 2029) (adopted May 2016) (BDLP 2016) contains two policies relevant to the site Policy SS3.6 – South of Bloswood Lane and Policy EM11 – The Historic Environment.
Policy SS3.6
Section D states that any development on this parcel of land should,
Conserve the architectural and historic significance of the nearby Grade II Listed Manor Farmhouse associated listed Granary, and related features, including their settings.
Policy EM11 All development must conserve or enhance the quality of the borough’s heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance.
Development proposals which would affect designated or non-designated heritage assets will be permitted where they: a) Demonstrate a thorough understanding of the significance of the heritage asset and its setting, how this has informed the proposed development, and how the proposal would impact on the asset’s significance. This will be proportionate to the importance of the heritage asset and the potential impact of the proposal; b) Ensure that extensions and/or alterations respect the historic form, setting, fabric and any other aspects that contribute to the significance of the host building; c) Demonstrate a thorough understanding of the significance, character and setting of conservation areas and how this has informed proposals, to achieve high quality new design which is respectful of historic interest and local character; d) Conserve or enhance the quality, distinctiveness and character of heritage assets by ensuring the use of appropriate materials, design and detailing; and e) Retain the significance and character of historic buildings when considering alternative uses and make sensitive use of redundant historic assets.
Methodology
The assessment of the site was carried out by the examination of pre-existing information from a number of sources recommended by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists’ paper ‘Standards in British Archaeology’ covering desk-based studies (CIfA 2014). These sources include historic and modern maps, the Hampshire
Archaeology and Historic Buildings Record, geological maps and any relevant publications or reports.
4 Archaeological background
The overall archaeological potential of the area has been presented in An extensive urban survey of Hampshire’s and the Isle of Wight’s Historic Towns (Roberts 2002a). A modest amount of prehistoric activity is recorded for the town with a trackway, The Harroway, thought to be of prehistoric date running east-west c.2km north of the town and a bowl barrow to the south of the town. Until recently, one sherd of pottery and one coin were the only evidence of the Roman period in Whitchurch parish.
Little is known about Saxon or medieval Whitchurch (Roberts 2002a) although several inhumation burials were discovered during the construction of the railway station 100m west of the church, in the area of the Manor
Farm site, in the 19th century. Although no evidence for their date exists, it is thought that they may have been
Anglo-Saxon. However evaluation of a parcel of land immediately to the south of the proposal area (Wallis
2007) found nothing of archaeological interest.
The land parcel immediately to the east of the proposal site has been subject to geophysical survey, trial trenching and subsequent excavation (Crabb 2012; Sabin and Donaldson 2011; Esteves 2016). This fieldwork revealed relatively little archaeology but a Late Neolithic pit and a Bronze Age burnt mound were revealed. The latter has been subject to follow-up excavation (Sanchez in prep). A small earlier evaluation (Crabb 2012) examined a near-circular mound and confirmed that it was a round barrow but also revealed Roman deposits.
The round barrow is now preserved in-situ.
Hampshire Archaeology and Historic Buildings Record
A search was made on the Hampshire Archaeology and Historic Buildings Record (AHBR) on 20th December
2016 for a radius of 1km around the proposal site. This revealed 55 entries within the search radius. These are summarized as Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 1.
Prehistoric Eight AHBR entries exist for sites that date to the general prehistoric period, all of which pertain to cropmarks and earthworks with the exception of those that have now been investigated immediately to the north of the site and a findspot. The site to the north records a number of earthworks, one of which is a near-circular mound recorded in the north-eastern corner [Fig. 1: 1]. This mound has been evaluated and is now considered to be a round barrow (Crabb 2012; Sabin and Donaldson 2011) [8]. Work within this site also found a pre- Roman ditch, a possible midden and a pit containing Neolithic pottery. Of the remaining six entries two detail sets of earthworks identified on aerial photographs and three relate to cropmark evidence also seen from the air. The
5 earthworks comprise a circular single bank enclosure [2] and a fragment of a rectilinear enclosure [4], both c.500m north-west of the site. Two sets of cropmarks are visible in the same area; the first of these is two small pits [3] while the second is a series of ditches which form a rectilinear field system [5]. Another rectilinear enclosure, thought to be the remains of a prehistoric or Roman defended settlement enclosure, is visible as cropmarks c.400m north of the site [6]. An early Neolithic hammerstone was found in the garden of a property in
Newbury Street [7].
Iron Age Further sets of cropmarks and earthworks, also identified on aerial photographs, have been interpreted more specifically as dating to the Iron Age. Several of these were excavated in 1998 prior to development. A group of pits were recorded as cropmarks and later excavated c.400m north of the proposal site [9] while slightly further north the remains of a settlement and accompanying field system identified from cropmark evidence were excavated to reveal an Iron Age and Roman settlement complex [10, 12]. A set of parallel ditches were identified on aerial photographs running north–south c.600m north of the site [11] along with a double-ditched rectilinear enclosure thought to be Iron Age or Roman in date. A large double-ditched oval enclosure with an inner square enclosure has been located c.500m to the north-west on a hill overlooking the site [13].
Roman Several of the Roman sites recorded in the AHBR are continuations of Iron Age occupation at the sites listed above. Excavations on Iron Age ditches also revealed six Roman graves [9] while excavations in the same area which uncovered Iron Age settlement evidence also identified pits, building material and terracing which dated to the Roman period [10, 12]. The evaluation trench on the mound revealed a ditch with its upper layers in-filled with a large volume of early and late Roman material, perhaps from a midden [1].
Saxon There is only one entry of Saxon date; a group of 7-9 skeletons found with Saxon characteristics during works for the new train station [8].
Medieval The AHBR search returned three sites which dated to the medieval period. Manor Farm House, immediately adjacent to the proposal site [14], is a Grade II listed building with its origins in a 15th-/16th-century medieval hall house. Only three trusses of the original house remain today as much of the house was rebuilt in the 18th
6 century to create a four square plan form. A manor house and dovecot are recorded as occupying the site in the
15th century. The 12th-century church is just beyond the search radius examined here. A few sherds of medieval pottery were recovered by evaluation from the subsoil levels overlying the probable round barrow [1]. Linear earthworks nearby are possibly of medieval date. Further to the east under the existing silk mill is thought to be the remains of an earlier mill mentioned in the Domesday Book [15]. Nearby, on the corner of Church Street and
Bell Street earlier photographs (c.1895) show a large jettied building in the process of demolition [15].
Post-medieval An archaeological evaluation on the plot of land adjacent to the proposal site to the south (Wallis 2007) [16] uncovered no features of archaeological interest except three probably post-medieval postholes. On the land to the north a gully was recorded, thought to relate to post-medieval agricultural activity [8]. The AHBR records a series of cropmarks and earthworks as being visible on aerial photographs, which have been identified as several post-medieval chalk pits [17, 18, 20, 25, 26, 28], a dewpond [19], a rectilinear enclosure [15], the remains of terracing or lynchets; perhaps part of an earlier designed landscape which has been obscured by the late medieval parkland [27] and a curvilinear bank visible as a cropmark probably relating to an extractive pit [29]. The remaining AHBR entries for this period are a Grade II listed timber-built barn at Manor Farm [21], a cob-built outbuilding and boundary wall which separate the proposal site from Manor Farm itself [22] and form part of the site boundary, the site of and 18th century Chapel in Bell Street with five graves located in front of the doorway and with the remains of a brick lined well and wall to the north [23], Bere Hill Park and garden to the northeast
[24], the site of Whitchurch Lodge in Hurstbourne Park [30] and the Grade II listed statue of a Roman ‘Emperor’ and crouching child on its pedestal - the only surviving remains of the landscaped Hurstbourne Park [31].
Victorian There is a single AHBR entry for the Victorian period within the search area. This records the railway station
[32] that once stood on the Didcot, Newbury and Southampton Railway which was later taken over by the Great
Western Railway. The building is described by the AHBR as ‘High Victorian, decorative red brick building with
Cottage Ornée overtones’.
Modern The cropmarks of a pit [33] thought to be modern, have been identified from aerial photographs of the area c.800m north-west of the proposal site and on Newbury Street a hexagonal pillbox still remains [34].
7 Undated Four undated sites have been recorded from aerial photographs and are listed in the AHBR. These include a complex of linear features [35] in the former Hurstbourne Park, a possible ring ditch and linear features [36], six small mounds [37] and a small pit [38], all visible to the north-west of the proposal site. Linear earthworks revealed by a walkover earthwork survey on the proposal site are undated though thought to be of medieval or post-medieval date [1].
There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments in the area.
Cartographic and documentary sources
Whitchurch first appears in the historical record in AD 909 when King Edward of Wessex confirmed the lands of Hwitancyrice to the monks of Winchester (VCH 1911). The placename derives from the Old English hw t + cirice, and literally means ‘white church’ (Cameron 1996, Mills 1998) though it is unclear whether this refers to a church built of white stone, i.e. chalk, a whitewashed building or the general difference in colour between a stone building and the more common wooden ones (Cameron 1996, VCH 1911).
Whitchurch appears in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles (Swanton 2002, 132, VCH 1911) when, in AD 1001 a
Danish raiding army swept through Hampshire on their way west. Among those who were killed were Leofric of
Whitchurch, Wulfhere, the bishop’s thegn, and Godwine of Worthy, the son of Bishop Ælfsige of Winchester.
The Chronicles record that 81 men were killed in all and there were many more Danish killed although “they had possession of the place of slaughter”, i.e. had won the battle.
By the time of the Domesday survey in 1086 the estate of Whitchurch, now called Witcerce, was held by the bishop for the sustenance of the monks of Winchester and had been so for a long period of time (Williams and Martin 2002, 98). Domesday Book records that the pre-conquest estate was assessed at 50 hides of land, which had decreased to 38 by 1066 and 33 by 1086. The population is recorded as 42 villans, 50 bordars and 10 slaves with a further 3 bordars on one hide of land at the church which was held by Ælfric the priest. The estate included land for 33 ploughs, 3 mills which rendered a total of 40s, 15 acres of meadow and woodland for 40 pigs. Whitchurch’s pre-conquest value was assessed at £30 but by Domesday it had risen to £35. It is not known why the assessment decreased from 50 hides pre-conquest to 33 by 1086 or why the estate’s value rose from £30 to £35 over the same period.
8 Domesday Book lists a further three manors in Whitchurch: there is a little confusion about whether the lands noted for these estates were also included in the main entry. The first of the satellite estates is Freefolk, held by Ralph fitzSeifrid, which was also for the sustenance of the monks. Pre-conquest it was assessed at 9 hides but, by the time of Domesday this had reduced to 4 hides with land for 5 ploughs. Freefolk is recorded as having a population of 24: 2 villans, 17 bordars and 5 slaves, a mill which rendered 20s and 4 acres of meadow.
The manor had its value assessed at £16 pre-conquest and £10 at the time of Domesday. The second manor is recorded as 7 hides in Whitnal and in 2 other places that were held by William de Fecamp and two thegns of the bishop. It is recorded as having land for 7 ploughs and a population of 8 villans, 11 bordars and 18 slaves. As with Freefolk, there is a mill which rendered 20s as well as 4 acres of meadow and its assessed value dropped from £10 pre-conquest for £7 by Domesday. A third portion of the land at Whitchurch is recorded as being held by Mauger, although in comparison to the previous two manors his allotment seems very small with a size of just
“1 hide of the villans’ land”. This is reflected in the population which numbers 2 villans and 1 bordar with one plough and its value of just 20s.
In 1132 the bishop of Winchester gave the church to the Hospital of St Cross, Winchester and in 1284 one of his successors handed the manor over to the Prior and monks of St Swithun (VCH 1911). The town became increasingly prosperous, due in part to its location at the junction of the roads to Winchester, Salisbury and
Oxford. A weekly market was granted in 1241 and continued as a regular event until 1823. Several of the roads in and around Whitchurch appear to have been in existence for several hundred years with Bloswood Lane, on which the proposal site lies, being first mentioned in 1650 (VCH 1911).
Whitchurch continued to grow as the town became a centre of cloth-making with the decline of Winchester in the 16th century and underwent a major population explosion in the 17th century (Roberts 2002a).
The Saxon church from which the town takes its name was likely to have been located on the site occupied by the current structure, c.500m south of the proposal site. The building was almost completely rebuilt in 1866 although despite this, the nave still contains bays dating to between 1190 and 1200 and the north aisle and the oak stair turret inside the tower are of 15th century origin. The oldest part of the church, however, was found during the renovations incorporated into the nave wall. This consisted of a mid-9th century arched tombstone bearing a figure of Christ and an inscription in Latin recording that the stone marks the burial place of Frithburga
(VCH 1911). The stone is presumably local and suggests that a Saxon cemetery was located close-by.
The 19th century saw the first major expansion beyond the medieval core of the town. This was particularly shaped by the constructions of the two railway lines, the London & South West Railway to the north of the town
9 and the Didcot, Newbury & Southampton Railway to the west between the town and the proposal site. This stimulated some expansion in these areas which saw the construction of terraces of cottages (Roberts 2002a). At this time the town had three mills, thought to stand on the sites of their medieval counterparts, two flour and one silk, and a jam manufactory, noted as being a major employer (VCH 1911).
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 Saxton’s 1579 map of Hampshire (Fig. 2) which shows a small town or village on the west bank of the river Test, to the north of an area of wood- and parkland, Hurstbourne
Park. Much the same is shown on Norden’s map of Hampshire (Fig. 3), which was surveyed c.1600, except for the emergence of settlements such as Frifalke (Freefolk) to the north-east of Whitchurch and Charlecote on the opposite side of the river.
The first map to show the site itself in any detail is the Whitchurch enclosure map of 1798 (Fig. 4). This map shows the site as open fields. The east and west boundaries of the site are not yet present. Manor Farm,
Bloswood Lane and the boundary which runs along the site’s Northern edge appear unchanged.
The Ordnance Survey preliminary map of 1810 (Fig. 5) gives an overall view of Whitchurch and the surrounding area though not in any great detail. Manor Farm is possibly shown though not named and in the wrong place and the site itself does not appear in any detail on this map but Whitchurch is shown spreading out towards the area with buildings lining what is now Bell Street. The only major buildings depicted on the western edge of the town are the church to the south and Hurstbourne Park to the southwest, which includes the location of a statue, (presumably the one still extant there). Cary’s 1825 map of Hampshire shows a level of detail between that of Saxton and the preliminary Ordnance Survey and as such does not show either Whitchurch or the area of the proposal site with any great accuracy.
Forty-three years after the enclosure map the 1841 Whitchurch tithe map shows enough detail to see that the proposal site has not changed at all (Fig. 6). The field divisions have not changed and Manor Farm and
Bloswood Lane are both unchanged. Even at this date, there appears to be very little development immediately to the east of the site on the western outskirts of the town. However a parcel of land immediately to the southeast of the site is labelled ‘Glebe’.
10 The First Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1870 (Fig. 7) only shows the northern part of the site as containing scattered trees and a footpath, which, along with the field boundary, appear as they do today. The presence of trees in this area when compared with the lack of trees depicted within the surrounding fields suggests that the site may have been an orchard or gardens, probably associated with Manor Farm. This is the first map to show in detail the eastern extents of Manor Farm with the cob-built outbuilding and boundary wall which are recorded in the AHBR making their first appearance. The only other major development is the continued slow spread of Whitchurch although this is still limited to the east side of Wells Lane. The 1895 map
(Fig. 7) depicts the southern part of the site and shows significant change to the eastern boundary as between
1870 and 1895 the railway has come to Whitchurch, located to the west of Well’s Lane. Development has continued beyond the railway with a set of allotments laid out and the Glebe land is now a cemetery, forming the eastern site boundary.
No further changes are seen to the site by 1910 (Fig. 8). The only changes being the further development of
Whitchurch to the east of the railway and the appearance of some small structures to the north of Manor Farm on the opposite side of Bloswood Lane.
The 1973 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 9) in many ways shows the site in almost the same form as it was in 1910 with minor changes. The footpath had been re-routed and the southern field has been sub-divided into three smaller fields. Manor Farm cottages are now present along Bloswood Lane, as are a few additional buildings presumably related to Manor Farm itself. The allotments to the east of the site have been developed with the construction of Park View. The railway to the east has been dismantled but the embankment still exists and
Whitchurch has grown further to the west, crossing Wells Lane and the railway to the north and south of the site.
This new development includes houses, a bowling green, a haulage depot and an engineering works on the northern side of Bloswood Lane.
The most significant change to the site was the formation of the western boundary with the construction of the A34 bypass around Whitchurch (Fig. 1) sometime in the 1970’s or 80’s.
Listed buildings
There are no listed buildings on the site itself but the Grade II listed Manor Farm House [Fig. 1: 14] and an accompanying timber granary [21] are located close by. The farmhouse grounds do overlook the proposal site but with housing on the opposite side of Bloswood Lane to the north-east and the currently in progress
11 development to the south-east. Whist not a major consideration, the development proposal would need to be sympathetic to the setting of the historic building.
Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields
Hurstbourne Park, c.400m to the southwest of the proposal site, is a Grade II Registered Park. This consists of a late 18th century park and pleasure grounds around a late 19th century house. The park incorporates a wooded deer park of 14th century origin and surviving features from early 18th century landscape designs by Thomas
Archer. These earlier features include the statue of the Roman ‘emperor’, detailed above, and a series of paths laid out in the shape of the, then newly formed, Union Flag. The deer park is located closest to the proposal site.
Historic Hedgerows
As study of the historical maps has shown, parts of the site have remained virtually unchanged in layout since the Whitchurch enclosure map of 1798 (Fig. 4). This would suggest that some of the hedgerows present today, may have historic origins. That forming the northern site boundary to the south of Manor Farm and continuing through the site and the hedgerow marking the border between the field and Bloswood Lane. However, it is composed primarily of young-looking managed trees with a post and barbed wire fence running down the centre.
This implies that, while the boundary line may be historic, the hedgerow itself has been planted relatively recently.
Aerial Photographs
The site and surrounding area has been the subject of an extensive study which has examined aerial photographs of the location and identified any cropmarks and earthworks that were present. These have since been added to the Hampshire AHBR (Fig. 10) and those within 1km of the site are discussed above and listed in Appendix 1.
Discussion
In considering the archaeological potential of the study area, various factors must be taken into account, including previously recorded archaeological sites, including that immediately to the east, previous land-use and disturbance and future land-use including the proposed development. The survey of the archaeological and
12 historical sources indicates that the site lies within an area of archaeological potential with two components of interest.
Firstly, for the majority of the site, which is currently used as farmland, the cartographic sources indicate that the site has remained largely unchanged from, at the earliest, 1798, with only the addition of internal site boundaries. This zone contains no known heritage assets but evaluation immediately to the east of the site, revealed a small number of archaeological deposits of prehistoric date that lay close to the boundary with the proposal site.
Secondly Manor Farm, is documented from at least the 18th century and some historic elements of the farm are listed buildings and excluded from the development proposal. The remainder of the farm, occupied by modern structures is to be demolished and re-developed. There is a possibility that the farm has earlier origins than so far documented, with medieval ancestry, and that these archaeological deposits could lie beneath the modern farm complex. The Farmhouse itself has its origins in a 15th-/16th-century medieval hall house of which only three trusses of the original house remain.
It is considered that in line with the Whitchurch Archaeological Strategy Document (Roberts 2002b), 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 and any follow-up work will need to be drawn up and approved by the archaeological advisers to the Borough and carried out by a competent archaeological contractor. This scheme would be implemented as an appropriately worded condition to any consent gained.
References
BDLP, 2016, Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029, Basingstoke BGS, 1975, British Geological Survey, Sheet 283, Solid and Drift Edition, 1:50000 Cameron, K, 1996, English Place Names, Batsford, London CIfA, 2014, Standard and guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment, Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, Reading Crabb, S, 2012, ‘Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire: an Archaeological Evaluation’, Thames Valley Archaeological Services report 11/107b, Reading Esteves, L, 2016, ‘Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire: an Archaeological Evaluation, part 2’, Thames Valley Archaeological Services report 11/107c, Reading Mills, A D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford NPPF, 2012, National Planning Policy Framework, Dept Communities and Local Government, London Roberts, E, 2002a, ‘Archaeological Assessment Document: Whitchurch’ in An extensive urban survey of Hampshire’s and the Isle of Wight’s Historic Towns, Hampshire County Council and English Heritage Roberts, E, 2002b, ‘Archaeological Strategy Document: Whitchurch’ in An extensive urban survey of Hampshire’s and the Isle of Wight’s Historic Towns, Hampshire County Council and English Heritage Sabin, D and Donaldson, K, 2012, ‘Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire: Magnetometer Survey Report, Archaeological Surveys report 391, Chippenham
13 Sanchez, D, in prep, ‘A Bronze Age burnt mound and neolithic features at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire, Thames Valley Archaeological Services project 11/107, Reading Swanton, M, 2002, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, Phoenix Press, London VCH, 1911, Victoria History of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight: Volume 4, London Wallis, S, 2007, ‘Park View, Wells Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire: an Archaeological Evaluation’, Thames Valley Archaeological Services report 06/139, Reading Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London
14 APPENDIX 1: Historic Environment Records within a 1km search radius of the development site
No AHBR Ref Grid Ref (SU) Type Period Comment 1 57686 45892 48167 Monument Prehistoric Possible prehistoric earthworks identified. 2 59828 45316 48715 Monument Prehistoric A small circular single bank enclosure with a fragment of outer bank along its north edge is visible on aerial photographs. 3 59829 45208 48446 Monument Prehistoric Two small pits visible as cropmarks on aerial photographs. 4 59831 45475 48574 Monument Prehistoric A fragment of a single ditch rectilinear enclosure visible on aerial photographs. 5 59832 45445 48533 Monument Prehistoric Fragmentary remains of a rectilinear field system visible as cropmark ditches on aerial photographs. 6 58924 45783 48736 Monument Prehistoric, A rectilinear enclosure visible as a cropmark on aerial Roman photographs. Its size and shape suggest that it is likely to be a defended settlement enclosure. 7 35783 46230 48200 Findspot Prehistoric Early Neolithic hammerstone. 8 63561 45909 48165 Monument Prehistoric-Post Various features including a barrow, ditch, midden Medieval and pit were found during geophysical survey and an evaluation. 17636 45880 47800 Saxon 7-9 skeletons found in graves near the train station. 9 39648 45800 48510 Monument Iron Age Several Iron Age ditches were recorded as cropmarks 59833 45767 48494 and uncovered during an excavation. 39651 45820 48510 Roman Six Romano-British graves uncovered during an excavation. 10 59834 45736 48611 Monument Iron Age Two single ditch rectilinear enclosures and the 59835 45790 48580 fragmentary remains of a field system visible as 59836 45740 48741 cropmarks. 39630 45770 48600 Iron Age, Roman During excavation several features were found including building material, ditches, pits, stakeholes and terracing, all evidence of settlement. 11 60026 45813 48809 Monument Iron Age Parallel ditches visible on aerial photographs. 58925 45969 48846 Iron Age/Roman Fragments of a double-ditched rectilinear enclosure visible on aerial photographs 12 37905 45713 48671 Monument Iron Age, Roman An Iron Age and Roman settlement and associated 42811 45724 48732 pits are visible as a complex of cropmarks on aerial 58923 45749 48642 photographs. Excavated to reveal settlement evidence within an enclosure, including two infant burials. A concentration of brick and tile fragments. 17621 45740 48700 Findspot Roman to Modern 13 37952 45348 48545 Monument Iron Age, Roman A large, double-ditched oval enclosure with an inner square enclosure is visible on aerial photographs. 14 3474 45793 48289 Listed building Medieval, post- 15th-/16th-century Grade II listed Manor Farmhouse medieval and dovecot with 18th century additions 15 17635 46229 47902 Monument Medieval Possible site of Medieval mill mentioned in the Domesday Book. 54695 46227 48064 Site of a late medieval building. 58912 46214 47824 Post-medieval Rectilinear ditch enclosure visible on aerial photographs. 16 57903 45850 47950 Monument Post-medieval Archaeological evaluation comprising 26 trenches 57718 found nothing of archaeological value except 3 probable post-medieval postholes. 17 58918 45842 47922 Monument Post-medieval A disused quarry or chalk pit visible as an earthwork. 18 58921 45021 48936 Monument Post-medieval A disused quarry or chalk pit visible as an earthwork. 19 58922 45309 48452 Monument Post-medieval A sub-circular pit or hollow cropmark, likely to be a dewpond. 20 60023 45599 48437 Monument Post-medieval Seven pits visible as cropmarks on aerial photographs, probably extractive features. 21 3475 45752 48279 Listed building Post-medieval Grade II listed timber-built granary at Manor Farm. 22 15022 45850 48210 Historic building Post-medieval, Cob-built garden store/outbuilding and boundary wall modern at Manor Farm. 23 35843 46140 48030 Monument Post Medieval Site of an 18th century Chapel in Bell Street with five 35844 graves located in front of the doorway. To the north 35845 was a brick lined well and the remains of a north- 35846 south aligned wall. 24 51661 46500 48389 Parks and Post Medieval Bere Hill park. Gardens 25 58915 44968 47376 Monument Post Medieval Disused chalk pit or quarry visible on aerial photographs. 26 58916 45365 47496 Monument Post Medieval Remains of small quarries or chalk pits visible on aerial photographs. 27 58917 45213 47390 Monument Post Medieval Remains of terracing or lynchets; perhaps part of an earlier designed landscape which has been obscured
15 No AHBR Ref Grid Ref (SU) Type Period Comment by the late medieval parkland, visible on aerial photographs. 28 58919 46648 47957 Monument Post Medieval Disused chalk pit or quarry visible on aerial photographs. 29 59826 45627 47449 Monument Post Medieval Curvilinear bank visible as a cropmark on aerial photographs probably relates to a post medieval extractive pit. 30 56746 45670 47723 Monument 18th century Site of Whitchurch Lodge in Hurstbourne Park. 56751 45669 47728 31 3291 45003 47857 Listed building 18th century Pedestal with statue of Roman ‘Emperor’ and crouching child, the sole surviving feature of a landscaped park. Grade II listed. 32 57839 45934 47970 Historic building 19th century High Victorian decorative red brick railway station building. 33 59830 45281 48803 Monument Modern Cropmarks of pit. 34 35862 46420 48500 Monument Modern Hexagonal pillbox on Newbury Street. 35 37958 45260 47930 Monument Undated A complex of linear features seen on the air photographs. 36 52675 45300 48500 Monument Undated Possible ring ditch and linear features identified as cropmarks on aerial photographs. 37 60024 45205 48863 Monument Undated Six small sub-circular mounds visible on aerial photographs. 38 60025 45422 48694 Monument Undated A small circular pit visible on aerial photographs. 39 - 4584 4809 Burnt mound Bronze Age Evaluation (Esteves 2016) 40 - 4573 4814 Pit Neolithic Evaluation (Esteves 2016)
Listed Buildings Grade II unless stated.
16 APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted
1579 Saxton’s Map of Hampshire (Fig. 2) c.1600 Norden’s Map of Hampshire (Fig. 3) 1798 Whitchurch enclosure map (Fig. 4) 1810 Ordnance Survey preliminary 1” drawing (Fig. 5) 1825 Cary’s A New Map of Hampshire 1841 Whitchurch tithe map (Fig. 6) 1870 Ordnance Survey First Edition (Fig. 7) 1895 Ordnance Survey Second Edition (Fig. 7) 1910 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 8) 1973 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 9)
17 SITE Basingstoke Farnborough Andover
Winchester SOUTHAMPTON
New Forest 49000 Ringwood Gosport 18 PORTSMOUTH 37 33 11 34 2 6 12 4 10 13 5 36 9 3 19 20 24
21 14 22 1 40 7 39 23 8
48000 16 32 35 28 17 31 SITE 15
30
29
25 26
27
47000
SP45000 46000 MFW2 16/241 Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire, 2016 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 1. Location of site within Whitchurch and Hampshire, showing HER records. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Explorer 144 at 1:12500 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 Approximate location of site
MFW2 16/241 N Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire, 2016 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 2. Saxton's Map of Hampshire, 1579. Approximate location of site
MFW2 16/241 N Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire, 2016 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 3. Norden's Map of Hampshire, c.1600. SITE
MFW2 16/241 N Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire, 2016 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 4. Whitchurch enclosure map, 1798. Approximate location of site
MFW2 16/241 N Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire, 2016 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 5. Ordnance Survey 1" preliminary, 1810. SITE
MFW2 16/241 N Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire, 2016 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 6. Whitchurch tithe map, 1841. SITE
MFW2 16/241 N Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire, 2016 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 7. First Edition Ordnance Survey, 1870 (North) Second Edition Ordnance Survey, 1895 (South). SITE
MFW2 16/241 N Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire, 2016 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 8. Ordnance Survey, 1910. SITE
MFW2 16/241 N Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire, 2016 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 9. Ordnance Survey, 1973. 58921
60024
59830 60026
428115983658924 59828 60025 17621 37905 58923 59834 39630 59831 59835 37952 59832 3964839651 52675 59833
58922 59829 60023
3474 3475
15022
57686
57839 5790357718 37958 58918
3291 SITE
5675156746
MFW2 16/241 N Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire, 2016 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 10. Hampshire AHBR map showing features plotted from aerial photographs (pink). Revisions
Rev DateDrawn Checked
9
7
Allotment Gardens
El Sub Sta
LEGEND
APPLICATION BOUNDARY Bylands
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Glebe Farm L.E.A.P
KICKABAOUT SPACE
Manor Farm INFORMAL & FORMAL OPEN SPACE Cottages
TRACK
INDICATIVE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY STREETS
INDICATIVE SQUARES
POTENTIAL EMERGENCY ACCESS LB Manor Court SITE ACCESS
PUBLIC FOOTPATH
PROPOSED PUBLIC FOOTPATH
Manor Farm Ho PEDESTRIAN LINK 74.8m El Sub Sta
The Old Station House
Play Area
Porters The Lodge Mount Flat
Karibu
Highlands PRELIMINARY ISSUE
Project: LAND SOUTH OF MANOR FARM Beth- BLOSWOOD LANE Cemetery Horon WHITCHURCH
Drawing Title: LAND USE PARAMETER PLAN All Hallows' Church
73.3m
Victory House
MFW2 16/241 N Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire, 2016 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 11. Land Use Parameter Plan, showing area to be developed in orange. Plate 1. General view of the of the site, looking east Plate 2. View of the site, looking south east with current towards Manor Farm. development area in centre ground.
Plate 3. View within farm complex looking north east. Plate 4. View within farm complex, looking south.
MBW 16/241
Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire, 2016 Archaeological desk-based assessment Plates 1 to 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