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

Highwood Copse Primary School, Sandleford Park, Newbury,

Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

by Kate Taylor

Site Code HCN16/32

(SU 4720 6470)

Highwood Copse Primary School, Sandleford Park, Newbury, Berkshire

Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

for Kier Construction Ltd

by Kate Taylor

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd

Site Code HCN 16/32

March 2016 Summary

Site name: Highwood Copse Primary School, Sandleford Park, Newbury, Berkshire

Grid reference: SU 4720 6470

Site activity: Archaeological desk-based assessment

Project manager: Steve Ford

Site supervisor: Kate Taylor

Site code: HNC16/32

Area of site: 2.42ha

Summary of results: There are no known heritage assets within the proposal site, however several lie in the vicinity, including two Scheduled Monuments, a number of listed buildings and a Registered Park. The Scheduled Monuments and most of the listed buildings are not in a position to be affected by the proposed development, but a number of elements within the Sandleford Park estate could potentially be. West Berkshire Council strategic planning documents for the park have considered the potential impact on the setting of Sandleford Priory and Sandleford Park and the site of the proposed development is in a low impact area. It would appear that the proposal site has remained undeveloped since the earliest available cartographic and historic sources. This lack of previous development should mean, therefore, that any archaeologically relevant deposits that might be present may have been relatively undisturbed. Fieldwalking of the site yielded a few prehistoric struck flints and nearby investigations have revealed elements of a Roman field system. There is, therefore, potential for unrecorded, non-designated remains of archaeological interest below ground. It is anticipated that it will be necessary to provide further information about the potential of the site from field observations in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits if necessary. Such a scheme could be implemented by an appropriately worded condition attached 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 All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.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 17.03.16 Steve Preston 17.03.16

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

Highwood Copse Primary School, Newbury, Berkshire Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

by Kate Taylor

Report 16/32 Introduction

This report is an assessment of the archaeological potential of the site of the proposed Highwood Copse Primary

School, located off Newtown Road, Sandleford Park, Newbury, Berkshire (SU 4720 6470) (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Peter Stephens of Hunters South Architects, Sussex Business Village Lake Lane,

Barnham PO22 0AA, on behalf of Kier Construction Ltd and comprises the first stage of a process to determine the presence/absence, extent, character, quality and date of any archaeological remains which may be affected by development of the area.

West Berkshire Council proposes to build a new primary school on the southern edge of Newbury College.

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

Site description, location and geology

The site is located on the southern outskirts of Newbury, west of the A339, on the northern slopes of the

Enbourne Valley, in Berkshire but close to the county boundary with Hampshire (Fig. 1). The site comprises a sub-rectangular parcel of land bounded on the west by woodland, to the south by a large pond and by farmland to the east and north (Fig. 2). This development area measures approximately 1.82ha. For the purposes of this report, also included are two narrow extensions at the north-east corner for access roads. Newbury College lies to the north and a footpath to the college runs along the eastern edge of the proposed development site. A site visit conducted on 24th February 2016 showed that it currently consists of rough pasture that slopes gently down to the south towards the pond (Pls 1–4). The site area including the access roads measures approximately 2.42ha, is centred on NGR SU 4720 6470 and lies at approximately 120m above Ordnance Datum. According to the British

Geological Survey the underlying geology consists of Silchester Gravel (Sixth Terrace) (BGS 2006).

Planning background and development proposals

Planning permission is to be sought from West Berkshire Council for the construction of a new primary school on the south side of Newbury, including a school building, car park, playgrounds and a playing field (Fig. 13).

1

The Department for Communities and Local Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF

2012) sets out the framework within which local planning authorities should consider the importance of conserving, or enhancing, aspects of the historic environment, within the planning process. It requires an applicant for planning consent to provide, as part of any application, sufficient information to enable the local planning authority to assess the significance of any heritage assets that may be affected by the proposal. The

Historic Environment is defined (NPPF 2012, 52) as:

‘All aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through time, including all surviving physical remains of past human activity, whether visible, buried or submerged, and landscaped and planted or managed flora.’ Paragraphs 128 and 129 state that

‘128. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. ‘129. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.’ A ‘heritage asset’ is defined (NPPF 2012, 52) as

‘A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. Heritage asset includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing).’ ‘Designated heritage asset’ includes (NPPF 2012, 51) any

‘World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument, Listed Building, Protected Wreck Site, Registered Park and Garden, Registered Battlefield or Conservation Area designated under the relevant legislation.’ ‘Archaeological interest’ is glossed (NPPF 2012, 50) as follows:

‘There will be archaeological interest in a heritage asset if it holds, or potentially may hold, evidence of past human activity worthy of expert investigation at some point. Heritage assets with archaeological interest are the primary source of evidence about the substance and evolution of places, and of the people and cultures that made them.’ Specific guidance on assessing significance and the impact of the proposal is contained in paragraphs 131 to 135:

‘131. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of: • the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; • the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and

2

• the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. ‘132. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. ‘133. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply: • the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and • no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and • conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and • the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. ‘134. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. ‘135. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

Paragraph 139 recognizes that new archaeological discoveries may reveal hitherto unsuspected and hence non- designated heritage assets

‘139. Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets.’ Paragraph 141 requires local planning authorities to ensure that any loss of heritage assets advances understanding, but stresses that advancing understanding is not by itself sufficient reason to permit the loss of significance:

‘141. Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development management publicly accessible. They should also require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.’

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:

3

‘The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.’

In the case of Scheduled Ancient Monuments, 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 West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (WBC 2012) policy relating to the historic environment is:

Policy CS 19: Historic Environment and Landscape Character In order to ensure that the diversity and local distinctiveness of the landscape character of the District is conserved and enhanced, the natural, cultural, and functional components of its character will be considered as a whole. In adopting this holistic approach, particular regard will be given to: a) The sensitivity of the area to change. b) Ensuring that new development is appropriate in terms of location, scale and design in the context of the existing settlement form, pattern and character. c) The conservation and, where appropriate, enhancement of heritage assets and their settings... d) Accessibility to and participation in the historic environment by the local community.

Proposals for development should be informed by and respond to: a) The distinctive character areas and key characteristics identified in relevant landscape character assessments including Historic Landscape Characterisation for West Berkshire and Historic Environment Character Zoning for West Berkshire. b) Features identified in various settlement character studies including Quality Design - West Berkshire Supplementary Planning Document, the Newbury Historic Character Study, Conservation Area Appraisals and community planning documents which have been adopted by the Council such as Parish Plans and Town and Village Design Statements. c) The nature of and the potential for heritage assets identified through the Historic Environment Record for West Berkshire and the extent of their significance.

Also within the Local Plan Core Strategy is a policy specifically related to Sandleford Park, a strategic development zone that surrounds the proposed development site on three sides:

Policy CS3: Sandleford Strategic Site Allocation Within the area identified at Sandleford Park, a sustainable and high quality mixed use development will be delivered in accordance with the following parameters: • Phased delivery of up to 2,000 dwellings, of which at least 40% will be affordable and with an emphasis on family housing. At least half the housing is planned to be delivered by 2026; • Development to be limited to the north and west of the site in order to respect the landscape sensitivity of the wider site and to protect the registered historic landscape and setting of the former Sandleford Priory;

4

• Residential densities on the site to be in an average range of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare to reflect the predominant mix of family sized homes; • Generation of on-site renewable energy; • Two vehicular accesses will be provided off Monks Lane with an additional sustainable transport link for pedestrians, cyclists and buses provided from Warren Road onto the Andover Road; • Further infrastructure improvements will be delivered in accordance with the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Any infrastructure needs which are critical to the delivery of the site are set out in Appendix D; • Provision of a new primary school on site and the extension of Park House School; • Provision for retail facilities in the form of a local centre and business employment; • A network of green infrastructure to be provided which will: • conserve the areas of ancient woodland and provide appropriate buffers between the development and the ancient woodland; • mitigate the increasing recreational pressure on nearby sensitive wildlife sites, secure strategic biodiversity enhancements; • provide a country park or equivalent area of public open space in the southern part of the site; and • respect the landscape significance of the site on the A339 approach road into Newbury

The Sandleford Park Supplementary Planning Document (WBC 2013) provides more details for the development of the park and again highlights the need for the protection of the landscape heritage of Sandleford Park and the setting of both the park and the priory. In both these documents the proposed development site is excluded from the strategic development site and zoned for education (WBC 2012, app. C; WBC 2013, fig. 1).

The sites lies within an area characterized in the West Berkshire Historic Environment Characterization as

Newbury Fringe South (WBHF 2011).

The Parish Plan, adopted by West Berkshire Council in 2010, includes a summary of the archaeology and history of the parish but does not contain any heritage-specific policies or proposals (GPC

2010).

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 West Berkshire

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

5

Archaeological background

General background

The proposed development site lies close to the summit of the gravel ridge between the rivers Kennet and

Enbourne. The area of the Kennet Valley around Newbury, close to the confluence of the Rivers Lambourn and

Kennet, is a particularly rich and well-studied archaeological landscape. The Kennet Valley floor contains several

Mesolithic sites of national importance, and field survey elsewhere in the valley (Lobb and Rose 1996) has located a number of flint scatters, several of which are possibly Mesolithic. Significant remains were also encountered in the Lambourn Valley during construction of the Newbury Bypass to the north west (Birbeck

2000). The Enbourne Valley has not been subject to the same level of survey as the Kennet, but what evidence there is of Mesolithic activity appears to be less significant, with limited material of this date both at Sandleford and to the east at Riddings Farm (Ford 1992; 1997). In both the Kennet and Enbourne valleys evidence of

Neolithic and earlier Bronze Age settlement are rare, although burial monuments are reasonably common and a barrow cemetery survives at , south-west of Newbury. Material of this date is occasionally encountered as stray finds or during archaeological investigations such as at Turnpike School, Newbury (Pine

2010a) or on the Newbury Bypass (Birbeck 2000). Middle and later Bronze Age material has also been extensively recorded in the Kennet Valley though Middle Bronze Age occupation sites are few and ephemeral with most evidence for this period is represented by cremation cemeteries. Occupation deposits have been recorded on the valley floor as at Turnpike School (Pine 2010a) and Brimpton (Lobb 1990) with hints of occupation to the west on the Newbury Bypass (Birbeck 2000). Many more late Bronze Age/early Iron Age occupation sites have been identified with extensive excavations at Buckelbury and Thatcham (Fitzpatrick et al.

1995; Fitzpatrick 2011; Collard et al. 2006). Fieldwalking surveys in the Kennet and Enbourne valleys have also revealed pottery and flint scatters likely to reflect further occupation sites of this general period (Lobb and Rose

1996; Ford 1992). Fieldwalking in Sandleford Park (Ford 1997) yielded little prehistoric material and this area appears to have been less densely occupied.

The area around Newbury appears to have supported a thriving agricultural community during the Roman period and the projected line of the Roman road, Ermin Street, from Silchester to Cirencester runs along the

Kennet Valley through Thatcham and Speen (Margary 1955, 121; his route 41a). Roman settlements are known nearby, for example in Thatcham and to the west of Newbury at Enbourne Road (Pine 2010b; Birbeck 2000) and stray finds of Roman pottery are not uncommon.

6

There is less recorded archaeology for the medieval period, largely because medieval settlements in the area are still occupied today; but evidence does come to light occasionally, and stray finds of the period are common.

There is evidence of a ceramics industry to the south-west of Newbury (Birbeck 2000). The major medieval sites in the area, besides Newbury itself, are the ecclesiastical establishment at Sandleford and the deserted medieval village of Newtown, on the south bank of the Enbourne.

West Berkshire Historic Environment Record

A search was made on the West Berkshire Historic Environment Record (HER) on 4th March 2016 for a radius of 750m around the proposal site. This revealed 57 entries within the search radius. The HER entries were collated to take into account duplicates or sites which have more than one entry and to exclude desk-based research. The resulting 24 entries are summarized as Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 1.

Prehistoric The evidence for prehistoric occupation within the search radius is limited to findspots of prehistoric struck flints, mostly recovered during systematic fieldwalking surveys. A survey of Sandleford Park (Ford 1997), including the proposed development site, retrieved a limited amount of Mesolithic, Late Neolithic / Early Bronze Age and later

Bronze Age material across the park [Fig. 1: 1]. This included six finds of flint flakes from within the proposal site itself, and two more close by, but most of the prehistoric material recovered was from fields further south, towards the river. A Neolithic polished stone axe [2] is thought to have been found off Monks Lane and undiagnostic flint flakes were also recovered in the area [3, 4]. The only Iron Age material in the study area is a gold coin (a stater of the common triple-tailed horse type) dated in the HER entry as 20-40BC (but if it is of the

‘British Q’ series, rather than a copy, probably slightly earlier) from Gorse Covert [5]. The density of prehistoric material is low, despite systematic survey, suggestive of low level occupation in the general area rather than settlement on the site itself.

Roman Roman evidence is similarly limited with a few examples of poorly-dated ditches, revealed during archaeological investigations, that are probably part of an agricultural field system [6, 7, 8]. A small quantity of Roman pottery has also been recovered whilst fieldwalking the area [1].

Saxon There is no evidence for Saxon occupation recorded in the HER within the search radius.

7

Medieval Medieval evidence in the area is dominated by the records for Sandleford Priory [9]. Documentary evidence suggests that an ecclesiastical establishment existed here prior to the establishment of the priory itself at the end of the 12th century. As the priory buildings were subsequently incorporated into Sandleford House, now occupied by a school, little medieval fabric is visible, with the exception of some 14th-century masonry, the 15th- century chapel and the cemetery which doubtless has early origins. A series of fish ponds [10] associated with the priory may have medieval origins, although they are more likely to be later ornamental features. A chance find of a horse harness pendant was made at the priory and small quantities of medieval pottery and tile have been recovered during fieldwalking and watching briefs [3, 4].

Post-medieval Several of the post-medieval entries in the HER also relate to Sandleford Priory [9], which was converted to a house during this period and is a Listed Building, as is the stable block (see below). Associated landscape features include Punch's Oak, commemorative trees planted 1743, and Sandleford Park itself (a Registered Park – see below) [11]. More recent remains at the priory include a 19th-century icehouse, now demolished, known from cartographic sources and observed in a watching brief. Nearby Sandleford Farm [12] is known from cartographic sources to date to at least the 18h century and both the farmhouse and dairy are Listed Buildings. On the opposite side of the road are the Sandleford Priory kitchen gardens, including a walled garden [13]. The road itself, now the A339, was previously the main road to Winchester and a toll road [14]. Several earthworks visible in aerial photographs [15–18] are thought to be of post-medieval date, some corresponding with cartographic sources and others having been examined in archaeological investigations. Of particular note is an east to west boundary bank and ditch immediately to the south of the proposed development site but largely destroyed by the construction of the large pond. Elsewhere occasional finds of post-medieval material have been made during fieldwalking [1] and a watching brief [3].

Modern, negative, undated Modern monuments are the Newtown Road Garage [19], a 1930s petrol filling station, which is a Listed Building and Newbury College [20], constructed in the 21st century and is not Listed. Elsewhere modern material was encountered during watching briefs at Sandleford Priory (St Gabriel's School) [9]. A number of archaeological monuments and features identified within the survey area are not currently dated. These include ditches and earthworks identified during evaluations [8, 21] and from aerial survey [22, 23]. A possible enclosure [18]

8

identified from aerial photographs is undated but may pre-date the Sandleford Priory kitchen gardens. Finally, a watching brief [24] carried out during development of the recycling centre to the west of the proposed development site did not reveal any archaeological material.

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments present within 750m of the proposed development site, however two lie slightly further afield within 1km. These are the deserted medieval village of Newtown, Hampshire (ref.

10001820) to the south and the Cruise Missile Shelter complex at Greenham Common (ref. 1021040) to the east.

The Greenham Common complex is not intervisible with the proposed development site and will not be impacted by the project. The potential impact on the setting of Newtown village, i.e. visibility of any development from this location, is considered below along with Sandleford Park (see registered parks and gardens below).

Cartographic and documentary sources

The proposal site lies in the former estate of Sandleford on the southern fringes of Newbury and south-west of

Greenham village, in the modern of Greenham.. Although Sandleford did not exist at that time, both

Newbury and Greenham appear in Domesday Book of 1086 and occur within the hundred of Thatcham, however, very little evidence for the early medieval period has been recorded for either settlement. The first mention of

Newbury, then Neoburiae, occurs in a land grant of 1079. By 1086 there was a manor called Ulvritune, somewhere in the Newbury area and Newbury is recorded as a large settlement of 22 households with arable land for 12 ploughs, and 8 plough teams available. Other assets include 27 acres of meadow, with woodland with the capacity for 25 pigs. Two mills are also listed. In 1086 Newbury was held by Arnulf of Hesdin. The original name of the manor, Ulvritune, means an estate associated with a man called Wulfhere (Mills 2011). Newbury itself means ‘new market town or borough’. Between 1066 and 1086 the value of the manor significantly increased, and this may be because the location was settled by traders who took advantage of Newbury’s location on the Kennet (VCH 1924, 130-155).

Greneham is listed in 1086 as a larger settlement than Newbury, with 34 households (11 villagers, 19 smallholders and 4 slaves) with arable land for 10 ploughs, and having 9 plough teams. Other resources include

121 acres of meadow, 1.5 mills and a church. In 1066 Greenham belonged to King Edward, with the lord being

Siward. Post-conquest, in 1086, the lord was Henry of Ferrers, also tenant in chief. Although having a larger

9

number of households and a greater area of meadow, the value of Greenham did not increase alongside that of

Newbury. The name Greneham is a toponym meaning a ‘green enclosure or river meadow’ (Mills 2011).

Although in the Hundred of Thatcham at the time of Domesday Book, the land included in the manors of

Newbury and Greenham was, by the 15th century, if not slightly before, administered within the Hundred of

Faircross (VCH 1924, 38–9). By this time the proposed development site lay within the small parish (or non- parochial area) of Sandleford, lying immediately south of the Borough of Newbury and including land from both

Newbury and Greenham.

Those parts of Sandleford parish formerly in Newbury were granted to the Prior and canons of Sandleford by Geoffrey, 4th Count of Perch, and Maud his wife when they founded the Priory between 1193 and 1202 (VCH

1924, 84–7; Money 1887, 58–70) with the remainder, originally in the manor of Greenham, granted to the Prior and canons in 1349 by John de Estbury and others. The origins of the Priory appear to predate its official foundation and it appears that an anchoress (secluded nun) had settled on the site, for in 1179–80 Godfrey and

Richard of Newbury, paid 4s. 4d. to the anchoress (inclusa) of 'Sandraford’. The associated religious house, about which very little is known, was dedicated to St John the Baptist (VCH 1907, 87–8). A further endowment was provided by Maud de Clare, Countess of Gloucester and Hertford, when she gave £200 for a convent for forty inclosed nuns under the rule of St Augustine and, in a place apart, for ten priests of the order of Fontevraud, at

Sandleford in the diocese of Salisbury. Her intentions were fulfilled by a papal mandate of 1274.

Sandleford Priory declined in the 15th century and when, in 1478, it was ‘abandoned’ (details obscure), its estate passed to the Bishop of Salisbury and later passed to the Dean and Canons of Windsor. The priory estate appears to have operated as a small farm, changing tenants several times over the following centuries and between the 17th and 19th centuries was leased by the Kingsmill, Craddock, Blake and Montagu families, including being occupied by the famous ‘bluestocking’ who wrote extensively about the estate. It was under her tenure that the Priory was remodelled into Sandleford House by James Wyatt in 1781 and designs for the surrounding park were drawn up by Lancelot 'Capability' Brown. Sandleford House survives today as St Gabriel's School; the buildings includes some medieval fabric, notably the chapel. The area around

Sandleford is also well known from Richard Adams’ 1972 Watership Down, set on the borders of Wash Common and Sandleford (what Adams calls Sandleford Common) (Adams 1972).

Newbury town stands on the River Kennet and several important Roman routes converged there including the road from Gloucester and Bath to Silchester, an early track from the Thames at Streatley, and an earlier route running north from Winchester (VCH 1924, 130-155). This latter route is the road immediately to the east of the

10

proposed development site. Its strategic location meant that, from the medieval period on, Newbury became an industrial and commercial hub. Borough status was granted in 1189 and by 1204 there was a market, corn mill and fulling mill (Astill 1978, 49). During this period the town expanded and acquired some degree of autonomy with regard to self-governance. St Bartholomew’s Hospital was established there sometime in the 13th century and St Bartholomew’s Fair contributed to the town’s growth throughout this century. The ownership of the manor of Newbury changed frequently during the medieval period between aristocratic families such as the houses of

Salisbury, Hastings, Bohun and Ferrers and the crown. The town stayed with the crown from 1461 until 1627 when it was granted to the corporation of Newbury (VCH IV 1924, 136). By the close of the 13th century,

Newbury appears to have suffered a decline and did not recover until the late 14th century after which it enjoyed increased prosperity as a result of a thriving cloth industry and agrarian economy. Cloth manufacturing was an important industry in the town until the industrial revolution and its trade in corn and malt sustained its economy well into the 19th century. The proposal site is located within the agrarian hinterland of the town but, as it lay within the estate of Sandleford, was itself not directly affected by the expansion of the town.

A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at the West Berkshire

Record Office and online in order to ascertain what activity had been taking place throughout the site’s later history and whether this may have affected any possible archaeological deposits within the proposal area (see

Appendix 2). Saxton’s 1574 map of Berkshire (Fig. 3) shows Newbury lying on the River Kennet and Newtowne on the Anbourn to the south but provides no detail on the location of the proposal site itself. Likewise Speed's map of Berkshire of 1610 shows Newbury and a road leading south towards Newton but no further detail (Fig. 4).

Rocque’s 1761 map of Berkshire (Fig. 5) shows a recognizable road layout and the proposal site lies within a large square plot to the west of Newton Lane which connects Newbury with Newtown to the south. To the west of the site lies a wood, unnamed on the map but clearly contiguous with High Wood today. Sandleford House and

Chapel are shown as a complex of buildings on the eastern side of the road, south-east of the proposal site.

A 1781 map of the Sandleford Priory estate shows the estate lands in detail (Fig. 6). The map shows the estate straddling the north to south road from Newbury to Winchester (ie the Newtown road), extending south to the Abourn Stream (ie the River Enbourne), east to Greenham Common, with the northern boundaries formed by small roads and the west meeting the land of Thomas Wild Esq. Sandleford House and farm are on the eastern side of the road and the area of the proposed development is largely within a field named High Wood Close, east of High Wood Coppice and west of a green coloured field named Over Way Cow Lease. Between the cow lease

11

field and the road is a parcel of land named Gravel Close. A later estate map of 1805 (not illustrated) shows the land parcels within the estate in far less detail but the general shape of the plots appears to be the same. The most noteworthy change is that the plot of land that had been labelled Gravel Close on the earlier map is subdivided into six regular areas and appears to be a formally laid out, presumably walled, garden. This is the kitchen garden for the Sandleford Priory estate.

An early Ordnance Survey map of 1817 (not illustrated) shows a complex of buildings on the eastern side of the road that doubtless represent Sandleford Farm and opposite, a square enclosure that appears to be the walled garden, with another walled enclosure to its south. No detail is seen in the location of the proposed development site which lies between the road and an area of woodland to the west. The Enclosure map (not illustrated) does not show the proposed development site, as it would not have been subject to Enclosure.

On the Tithe map from the 1840s (Fig. 7) the proposal site is within a large blank area of the map west of the road to Newtown, i.e. not noteworthy as a separate plot for the purposes of tithe collection. Another estate map of 1871 from the era when the area was owned by William Chatteris (not illustrated) is less detailed than the earlier estate maps but Sandleford House, Sandleford Farm and the walled garden, within a larger oval enclosure, are all visible, if not annotated. The location of the development site is shown as parkland or agricultural land between the road and the High Wood.

The Ordnance Survey map at 6” to the mile dated 1880 (Fig. 8) shows the proposal site within a large field to the west of a north to south road and bounded to the east by a large wooded area labelled High Wood. The western edge of the site, against the wood, is also tree covered and other trees are illustrated sporadically across the field, including some forming an arch shape that corresponds with the outline of the cow lease field from the estate map. Several footpaths criss-cross the fields in this area, one east to west path forms the proposal site’s northern boundary and another diagonal path crosses the site. This path is crossed by the access road part of the site at the north-east. A small pond, apparently in ruins, lies outside the east of the site. To the south-east of the proposed development site, adjacent to the road, is an oval enclosed area containing a number of small buildings, one labelled Pound, and the kitchen gardens are shown as an area of laid out gardens, although not labelled. The

1900 OS edition (Fig. 9) is similar in appearance, however the east to west field boundary and the diagonal footpath are not longer present and the kitchen gardens are shown in less detail, although the buildings are still illustrated. Another small pond is shown to the south of the site. The only notable change on the 1911 OS map

(Fig. 10) is the addition of a larger building or enclosure against the eastern edge of the site, already in ruins and nothing significant has changed in 1934 (not illustrated).

12

By 1969 a long north to south field division is marked, corresponding with the cow lease boundary shown on the 1781 estate map, and this forms the eastern edge of the proposal site. The area that was once the kitchen gardens is now Sandleford Market Gardens (Fig. 11). Maps in the 1990s show the site itself to be unchanged, although a large balancing pond has been created to the east, north of the gardens, and the road, labelled the A34, appears to have been upgraded (Fig. 12). Modern mapping shows that large ponds have been constructed to the immediate south and east of the site and Newbury College has been built to the north (Fig. 2).

Listed buildings

There are five listed buildings within the study area, the most significant of which is Sandleford Priory, now incorporated into St Gabriel's School (Fig. 1: 9). This building, which is Grade I listed, has medieval elements, including some 14th-century masonry and the 15th-century chapel, within a large 18th- to 19th-century house, largely as remodelled by James Wyatt in 1781. The house is considered important not only for its medieval features but as an excellent and complete example of 18th-century Gothic style. Other listed buildings within the estate are the Sandleford Priory stable block [9] and Sandleford Farmhouse with its adjoining dairy [12].

The potential impact on the setting of the listed buildings and the Sandleford estate generally should be an important consideration of any development within Sandleford Park and visual impact assessments have been carried out as part of the strategic planning document for Sandleford Park (WBC 2013) and also specifically for

Sandleford Farm (Wardle 2012). The proposed development site is not intervisible with any of the listed buildings and is screened from the A339 and the eastern part of the estate by trees that line the road and a wider parcel of woodland on the eastern side of the road. There is therefore no predicted impact on the setting of any of the listed buildings.

Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields

One site listed on the Register of Historic Parks and Gardens lies in close proximity to the proposed development site. This is Sandleford Park [11], within the estate of Sandleford Priory (ref. 1000333). It should be noted that not all of the original estate is included on the register and, whilst the proposed development site lies within the priory estate it is outside the registered park. The registered park is designated in two parts, the majority lies on the east of the A339 whilst a small parcel is found on the west of the road, covering the estate kitchen gardens.

This latter portion is a short distance to the south-east of the proposed development site. The park is described as

13

a mid to late 18th-century landscape park, surrounding a country house remodelled by James Wyatt in Gothic style in the 1780s, with work to designs of 1781 by Lancelot 'Capability' Brown, and 19th-century planting. The park was developed at the instruction of Elizabeth Montagu and was designed to have striking views which were captured in paintings of the period. Therefore any development in the vicinity of the park has the potential to have a profound impact on its setting. Long views from the house extend west across parkland and south towards the

Hampshire/Berkshire Downs and corresponding views of the house and park occur northwards and north- westwards when approaching Newbury along the A339 from the south, i.e. from the medieval village of

Newtown. Consideration has been given to this potential negative impact in the strategic plan for the development of Sandleford Park (WBC 2013) and several other planning documents that contributed to the plan

(WYG 2009). Policies within these planning documents state that no development is to occur within the park except at the north and west, in order to preserve the setting of the park and the house itself. The proposed development at Highwood Copse, towards the north of the park, adjacent to an existing development (Newbury

College), is in keeping with these policies and will have a minimal impact on the setting of the registered park.

The closest registered battlefield lies 2km to the west and is the site of the Battle of Newbury in 1643 (ref.

1000026). The proposal site is not intervisible with the battlefield and there is no predicted impact of the development.

Historic Hedgerows

There are no hedgerows, historic or otherwise, on the site. However the western boundary of the site is formed by an ancient woodland, High Wood, part of Sandleford Park (WBC 2012, app. C). Provisions in the strategic development plan (WBC 2013.) for the protection of the woodland, including buffer zones at the woodland edge and root protection, will mitigate against any potential impact on this heritage asset. The proposal incorporates the woodland buffer zone.

Aerial Photographs

The site areas lies within an area for which the aerial photographic record was comprehensively studied as part of the Berkshire National Mapping Programme and the Lambourn Downs Project, and incorporated into the HER, as noted above. No photographic collections have therefore been consulted specifically for this study.

14

Discussion

There are no known heritage assets on the site, however there are a number of significant assets in the vicinity and the potential impact on these must be considered. Two Scheduled Monuments, the Cruise Missile complex at

Greenham Common and Newtown deserted medieval village, lie within 1km of the proposed development site but neither is intervisible with the site and the settings of these monuments will not be affected. Sandleford Priory is the most significant monument in the locality, the estate including listed buildings and a registered park,

Sandleford Park. Any development within the park, including those parts that are not included in the Register of

Historic Parks and Gardens, has the potential to impact on its setting and this has been considered in depth as part of the strategic development plan for the park (WBC 2013). This plan specifies that development will be confined to the north and west parts of the park to avoid serious impact and the proposed school development described here is in compliance with this policy. The site also lies adjacent to an ancient woodland and policies for the protection of the woodland should be implemented during development.

It remains therefore to establish if there may be potential for previously unknown heritage assets, that is, below-ground archaeological remains. In considering the archaeological potential of the study area, various factors must be taken into account, including previously recorded archaeological sites, previous land-use and disturbance and future land-use including the proposed development.

There is limited evidence of prehistoric activity in the area of Sandleford Park, with a small number of pieces of struck flint from the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age having been recovered during fieldwalking and other archaeological investigations. Of particular note is the recovery of flints from within the field that is proposed for development (Ford 1997), although not in sufficient density to suggest settlement in this location.

There is also limited evidence of Roman agricultural field systems across this hillside and it is possible that the proposal site may contain similar field ditches. The development site lies within the medieval estate of Sandleford

Priory but there is no evidence to suggest that it was used for anything other than agriculture during this period, or indeed since. The layout of the estate appears from cartographic sources to have remained unchanged for a considerable period and there is unlikely to have been significant disturbance of any below-ground archaeological remains, if present. The proposed school development would have significant negative impact on any such remains.

It is anticipated that it will be necessary to provide further information about the potential of the site from field observations in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits if necessary. A scheme for this evaluation if requested will need to be drawn up and

15

approved by the archaeological advisers to the Council and carried out by a competent archaeological contractor.

It could be implemented but an appropriately worded condition to any consent gained.

References

Adams, R, 1972, Watership Down, Puffin, London Astill G, 1978, Historic Towns in Berkshire: an archaeological appraisal, Berkshire Archaeological Committee BGS, 2006, British Geological Survey, 1:50,000, Sheet 267, Solid and Drift Edition, Keyworth Birbeck, V, 2000, Archaeological investigations on the A34 Newbury Bypass, Berkshire/Hampshire, 1991-7, Wessex Archaeology, Salisbury CIfA, 2014, Standard and guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment, Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, Reading Collard, M, Darvill, T and Watts, M, 2006, ‘Ironworking in the Bronze Age? Evidence from a 10th century BC settlement at Hartshill Copse, Upper Bucklebury, West Berkshire’, Proc Prehist Soc 72, 367–421 Fitzpatrick, A P, Barnes, I, and Cleal, R M J, 1995, ‘An early Iron Age settlement at Dunston Park, Thatcham, in I Barnes, W A Boismier, R M J Cleal, A P Fitzpatrick and M R Roberts (eds), Early Settlement in Berkshire: Mesolithic–Roman Occupation Sites in the Thames and Kennet Valleys, Wessex Archaeology Rep 6, Salisbury, 65–92 Fitzpatrick, A, 2011, ‘Early Iron Age ironworking and the 18th century house and park at Dunston Park, Thatcham, Berkshire: archaeological observations 1993–9’, Berkshire Archaeol J 80, 81–112Ford, S, 1992, Proposed golf course at Riddings Farm, Ashford Hill, Hampshire, an archaeological evaluation, unpublished Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd report 92/3 Ford, S, 1997, Sandleford Park, Newbury, Berkshire, an archaeological evaluation, unpublished Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd report SPN97/16 GPC, 2010, Greenham's future, a common purpose, Greenham Parish Council Lobb, S J, 1990, ‘Excavations and observations of Bronze Age and Saxon deposits at Brimpton, 1978–9’, Berkshire Archaeol J 73 (for 1986–90), 43–53 Lobb, S J and Rose, P G, 1996, Archaeological Survey of the Lower Kennet Valley, Berkshire, Wessex Archaeology report 9, Salisbury Margary, I D, 1955, Roman Roads in Britain, London Mills, A D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford Money, W, 1887, The history of the ancient town and borough of Newbury in the county of Berks, Parker and Co., Oxford NPPF, 2012, National Planning Policy Framework, Dept Communities and Local Government, London Pine, J, 2010a, 'A Late Bronze Age burnt mound and other prehistoric features, and Roman occupation, at Turnpike School, Gaywood Drive, Newbury', in Archaeological investigations along the line of Ermin Street in West Berkshire, 1992-2008, Thames Valley Archaeological Services Monograph 12, Reading Pine, J, 2010b, ‘Excavation of the Silchester to Cirencester Roman road, and adjacent Roman occupation deposits, at 69, 71A and 73 Bath Road, Thatcham, 2007’, in J Pine, Archaeological Investigations along the line of Ermin Street in West Berkshire, 1992–2008, Thames Valley Archaeological Services Monograph 12, Reading VCH, 1907, A History of the County of Berkshire, volume 2, London VCH, 1924, A History of the County of Berkshire, volume 4, London Wardle, P, 2012, Heritage Statement for Gilson's Engineering Works, Newtown Road, Newbury, West Berkshire, unpublished Historic Environment Consultancy report 2011/1067 WBC, 2012, West Berkshire Local Plan: West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006–2026): Adopted July 2012, West Berkshire Council WBC, 2013, Sandleford Park Supplementary Planning Document: Adopted September 2013, West Berkshire Council WBHF, 2011, The West Berkshire Heritage Environment Action Plan, West Berkshire Heritage Forum, Newbury Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London WYG, 2009, Sandleford Park Newbury, landscape and visual assessment, unpublished White, Young Green report A0586666

16

APPENDIX 1: Historic Environment Records within a 750m search radius of the development site

No HER Ref Grid Ref (SU) Type Period Comment 1 EWB172 46857 64296 Findspots Mesolithic A limited number of pieces of struck flint and pottery (centre) Neolithic were recovered during fieldwalking of a large area of Bronze Age Sandleford Park. The prehistoric activity was Roman concentrated close to the river, to the south. Post-medieval 2 MWB10125 47000 65300 Findspot Neolithic Antiquarian record of unstratified find of polished flint axe from Monk's Lane 3 MWB15713 47381 64431 Findspot Prehistoric Flint flake, medieval and post-medieval tiles and bottle EWB130 47410 64634 Medieval fragments from a watching brief Post-medieval 4 MWB11566 46800 65070 Findspot Prehistoric Flint flake and medieval pottery found during MWB11567 Medieval fieldwalking 5 MWB14403 466 643 Findspot Iron Age Gold coin from Gorse Covert, mid 1st century BC 6 MWB15780 46494 64347 Evaluation Roman A possible Roman field system was found during an EWB174 46816 64407 evaluation 7 MWB16132 47221 65102 Watching brief Roman Two ditches found in an watching brief were not dated EWB376 47181 65062 but were thought to be part of a Roman field system 8 MWB15756 46537 65242 Evaluation Roman Several ditches were observed during an evaluation, at EWB146 46553 65213 Watching brief Undated least one was possibly of Roman date. No further EWB147 evidence was found in a subsequent watching brief 9 MWB16286 47719 64470 Documentary Medieval Religious house at Sandleford (pre priory), known from MWB15730 47686 64488 Listed building Post-medieval documentary sources, along with a monastic cemetery MWB2176 47699 64469 Findspot Modern Chapel of Sandleford Priory. Grade I. 15Th century. MWB2177 47681 64461 Hedgerow Undated Now incorporated into school LB1220371 476 644 Watching brief House, now school. Grade I listed. Medieval (14th and MWB2178 47759 64437 15th century) and 1780-1, James Wyatt. LB1220371 47677 64521 13th-14th century heraldic pendant from horse harness, MWB16284 47661 64542 found at front of Sandleford Priory. MWB16285 47729 64310 Punch's Oak, Sandleford Priory. Hedgerow trees MWB16193 47729 64553 planted by Elizabeth Montagu to celebrate the birth of LB1291029 47724 64556 her son in 1743. MWB15682 47740 64548 Sandleford Priory Stable Block, grade II EWB111 47690 64544 Sandleford Priory icehouse – demolished remains MWB17793 found during a watching brief at St Gabriel's School EWB627 Parts of 20th century rubbish pits and the bones of a EWB768 horse or donkey, Modern and undated postholes and EWB1140 rubble. 10 MWB15769 47900 64471 Documentary Medieval Sandleford Priory fishponds Earthwork 11 MWB6297 47842 64513 Landscape Post-medieval Sandleford Priory 18th-19th-century Park. 12 MWB17492 47552 64551 Listed building Post-medieval Sandleford Farm, known from cartographic sources. MWB19384 47546 64569 Cartographic Listed Farmhouse and adjoining dairy, 18th-late 19th LB1220370 47562 64569 century MWB18827 LB1291028 13 MWB19812 47443 64571 Cartographic Post-medieval Sandleford Priory kitchen garden. Late 18th century 14 MWB6200 47303 65549 Documentary Post-medieval Newbury to South toll road 18th century 15 MWB2289 46641 64821 Photographic Post-medieval Possible field boundary seen as cropmark and in an MWB15782 46663 64835 Evaluation evaluation, shown to be post-medieval EWB174 16 MWB19807 47031 64323 Monument Post-medieval Possible field boundary seen as cropmark 17 MWB15781 46883 64517 Monument Post-medieval Ditches found in evaluation, probably drainage features 18 MWB19809 47311 64613 Earthworks Post-medieval Rectilinear enclosure, boundary bank and ditch, seen in Photographic Undated aerial photographs. The ditch, 170m long and aligned east to west, may appear on an 1802 map but has been destroyed by a modern pond. The 30m wide enclosure appears to have been cut by the Priory kitchen gardens. 19 MWB16032 47282 65337 Listed building Modern Newtown Road Garage. 1930s electric petrol filling LB1350330 station 20 MWB19862 47213 65047 Building Modern Newbury College, built 2002 21 MWB15779 47137 64138 Evaluation Undated Ditch found in evaluation EWB174 22 MWB19810 46789 64625 Photographic Undated Two earthen banks with flanking ditches visible in aerial photographs, interpreted as dams 23 MWB19808 47666 64252 Photographic Undated Earthwork from aerial photos, possible boundary ditch 24 EWB1013 47391 64776 Watching brief Negative Watching brief at recycling centre – no archaeology

Listed Buildings Grade II unless stated.

17

APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1574 Christopher Saxton, Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Berkshire (Fig. 3) 1610 Speed, Berkshire (Fig. 4) 1761 John Rocque, Berkshire (Fig. 5) 1768 John Willis, Berkshire (not illustrated) 1781 A survey of the Estate of Sandleford in the County of Berks, belonging to Mrs Montagu (Fig. 6) 1805 Sandleford estate map (not illustrated) 1817 Ordnance Survey 1 inch to 1 mile (not illustrated) 19th century Newbury Enclosure map (not illustrated) 1840s Tithe map (Fig. 7) 1871 Sandleford estate map (not illustrated) 1880 First Edition Ordnance Survey (Fig. 8) 1900 Second Edition Ordnance Survey (Fig. 9) 1911 Third Edition Ordnance Survey (Fig. 10) 1934 Ordnance Survey (not illustrated) 1969 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 11) 1990 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 12) 1994 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 12) 2009 Ordnance Survey Explorer, 158, 1:25,000 (Fig. 1) 2016 Modern survey (Fig. 2)

18 Slough

READING Maidenhead

Windsor

Hungerford Thatcham Bracknell Newbury Wokingham SITE

19 2 8

7 4 65000 SITE 20 10

15

24 10 18 11 22 22 13 12 18 17 9 10 14 3 5 6 16 1 23

10 21

64000

SU47000 48000 HCN 16/32 Highwood Copse Primary School, Sandleford Park, Newbury, West Berkshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 1. Location of site within Newbury and Berkshire, showing locations of HER entries. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Explorer 158 at 1:12500 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 Close The Shieling Claremont Sandleford Grove

Allways

Oaklands

Primrose House

Quest Cottage

High Noon

Lincoln House

N E W

T O W

NR

O A D

122.4m

El Sub Sta

Newbury College

A

3 3 9 H The Castle School

A 3 3 9

D A E D

4

Balancing Pond

Tra

ck

3 4

Pond

8 2

WB

118.5m Recycling Centre Balancing Pond

Site 0

Pond

HCN 16/32 N Highwood Copse Primary School, Sandleford Park, Newbury, West Berkshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 2. Site location and current layout Approximate location of site

HCN 16/32 N Highwood Copse Primary School, Sandleford Park, Newbury, West Berkshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 3. Saxton's map of Berkshire 1574 Approximate location of site

HCN 16/32 N Highwood Copse Primary School, Sandleford Park, Newbury, West Berkshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 4. Speed's map of Berkshire 1610 Approximate location of site

HCN 16/32 N Highwood Copse Primary School, Sandleford Park, Newbury, West Berkshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 5. Rocque's map of Berkshire 1761 SITE

HCN 16/32 N Highwood Copse Primary School, Sandleford Park, Newbury, West Berkshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 6. A survey of the estate of Sandleford in the county of Berks, belonging to Mrs Montagu, 1781 SITE

HCN 16/32 N Highwood Copse Primary School, Sandleford Park, Newbury, West Berkshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 7. Tithe map 1840s SITE

HCN 16/32 N Highwood Copse Primary School, Sandleford Park, Newbury, West Berkshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 8. Ordnance Survey 1880 SITE

HCN 16/32 N Highwood Copse Primary School, Sandleford Park, Newbury, West Berkshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 9. Ordnance Survey 1900 SITE

HCN 16/32 N Highwood Copse Primary School, Sandleford Park, Newbury, West Berkshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 10. Ordnance Survey 1911 SITE

HCN 16/32 N Highwood Copse Primary School, Sandleford Park, Newbury, West Berkshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 11. Ordnance Survey 1969 SITE

HCN 16/32 N Highwood Copse Primary School, Sandleford Park, Newbury, West Berkshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 12. Ordnance Survey 1990-94 N 164837690 E 447312560 P

Pedestrian Entrance inc. Gates Vehicular Entrance inc. gates Gas Meter housing

Metal cycle hoops and cycle/ Scooter shelter - Vehicular Exit inc. gates polycarbonate and doors

Lay-by and drop off zone + deliveries Alternative road layout to allow 2 meters bank Pedestrian Entrance inc. Gates

Proposed Sub-station

GRP housing for the pump station

Refuse & Recycling Gate for staff/ KS1 Car park 23 standard + 2 disabled bays Entrance

Main Entrance Sprinkler tank Concrete Paving Slabs

3700.565m2

Gate for Nursery Entrance

Existing Manhole Gate for KS2 Entrance 119.00

p External ta Fountain &Drinking

Nursery and Early Years Play Nursery and Early Area Years Play Area - grass Extent of playing field 4.720 sq.m. Tarmac and wet pour - 136m2

ound - KS2 Playgr 61m2 tarmac - 1 Courtyard - Concrete Paving ntain Slabs Drinking Fou

KS1 Playground - Tarmac - 140m2

untain Drinking Fo Informal and Social Play area - Grass 1072m2

Hard Play area Tarmac - 781m2 118.850

4810.57m2

Grass Pitch - 3283m2 SITE Habitat - 118m2

Amphitheatre N 164689750 E 447338650 O

Existing Manhole

Gravel footpath

Pedestrian Entrance inc. Gates

HCN 16/32 N Highwood Copse Primary School, Sandleford Park, Newbury, West Berkshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 13. Proposed development Plate1. Site looking south-west

Plate 2. Site looking north. High Wood Copse at left

HCN 16/32 Highwood Copse Primary School, Sandleford Park, Newbury, West Berkshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Plates 1 and 2. Plate 3. Site looking north towards Newbury College

Plate 4. Pond to south of site. Looking north-east

HCN 16/32 Highwood Copse Primary School, Sandleford Park, Newbury, West Berkshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Plates 3 and 4. TIME CHART

Calendar Years

Modern AD 1901

Victorian AD 1837

Post Medieval AD 1500

Medieval AD 1066

Saxon AD 410

Roman AD 43 BC/AD Iron Age 750 BC

Bronze Age: Late 1300 BC

Bronze Age: Middle 1700 BC

Bronze Age: Early 2100 BC

Neolithic: Late 3300 BC

Neolithic: Early 4300 BC

Mesolithic: Late 6000 BC

Mesolithic: Early 10000 BC

Palaeolithic: Upper 30000 BC

Palaeolithic: Middle 70000 BC

Palaeolithic: Lower 2,000,000 BC Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47-49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading, Berkshire, RG1 5NR

Tel: 0118 9260552 Fax: 0118 9260553 Email: [email protected] Web: www.tvas.co.uk