Land Off Northumberland Close, Stanwell, Surrey

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

Land off Northumberland Close, Stanwell, Surrey

Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

by Genni Elliott

Site Code NCS13/208

(TQ 0637 7423) Land off Northumberland Close, Stanwell, Surrey

Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

for Fluid Systems (Heathrow) Limited

by Genni Elliott

Thames Valley Archaeological

Services Ltd

Site Code NCS 13/208

November 2013 Summary

Site name: Land off Northumberland Close, Stanwell, Surrey

Grid reference: TQ 0637 7423

Site activity: Archaeological desk-based assessment

Project manager: Steve Ford

Site supervisor: Genni Elliott

Site code: NCS 13/208

Area of site: 2.2ha

Summary of results: The site lies in an area of archaeological potential within an archaeological priority zone within the Borough. Probable archaeological deposits (heritage assets) are present on the site identified by aerial photography. 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 as necessary. If required, this fieldwork could be implemented by 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 All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.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 28.11.13

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47–49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading RG1 5NR Tel. (0118) 926 0552; Fax (0118) 926 0553; email: [email protected]; website: www.tvas.co.uk Land off Northumberland Close, Stanwell, Surrey Archaeological desk-based Assessment

by Genni Elliott

Report 13/208 Introduction

This report is an assessment of the archaeological potential of a parcel of land at Northumberland Close,

Stanwell, Surrey (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Peter Stone of PSP Consultants, The Cartshed,

Lower Farm Barns, Wasing Lane, Aldermaston, Reading, RG7 4NG on behalf of Fluid Systems(Heathrow) Ltd, c/o Maclan Developments Ltd, The Property Hub, 6th Floor, 9 Argyll Street, London, W1F 7TG 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 a 2.2ha L-shaped parcel of land bordered by Bedfont Road to the north and

Northumberland Close to the east. The land is predominantly overgrown grassland with trees and shrub around the boundaries. The development area is centred on NGR TQ 0637 7423 at a height of c.20m above Ordnance

Datum. The underlying geology is recorded as being Taplow gravel formation, part of the River Terrace

Deposits (BGS 1981).

Planning background and development proposals

Planning permission is to be sought from Spelthorne Borough Council for the redevelopment of the site for an industrial unit with associated site works and car parking.

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.’

1 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 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:

2 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 the case of Scheduled Ancient Monuments (and their settings), the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and

Archaeological Areas Act (1979) also apply. Under this legislation, development of any sort on or affecting a

Scheduled Monument requires the Secretary of State’s Consent.

Similar policies exist within the Spelthorne Borough Council Local Plan (SBC 2001), adopted in 2001. The relevant policies were ‘saved’ when the plan was reviewed in 2007. The site is located in a designated area of high archaeological potential.

Policy BE24:

3 ‘There will be a presumption against any development which would adversely affect a scheduled or other nationally important ancient monument or its setting. Development adversely affecting a site or monument of County archaeological importance will not normally be permitted.’ Policy BE25: ‘In considering proposals for development within areas of high archaeological potential, the Borough Council will:- (a) require an initial assessment of the archaeological value of the site to be submitted as part of any planning application (b) expect the applicant to arrange an archaeological field evaluation to be carried out prior to the determination of the planning application, where, as a result of the initial assessment, important archaeological remains are considered to exist (c) have a preference for preservation in situ, and in such circumstances will impose conditions or seek a legal agreement, where appropriate, to ensure that damage to the remains is minimal or will be avoided (d) require by planning condition or seek a legal agreement to secure a full archaeological investigation and recording of the site and subsequent publication of results in accordance with a scheme of work to be agreed in writing with the Council prior to the commencement of the proposed development, where important archaeological remains are known or considered likely to exist but their preservation in situ is not justified.’ Policy BE26: ‘Outside the defined areas of high archaeological potential, the Borough Council will require an agreed scheme of archaeological assessment or evaluation appropriate for the site concerned to be submitted with any new development proposal for a site larger than 0.4 ha, and for smaller sites if deemed necessary. Where evidence of significant archaeological remains is found then the requirements set out in policy BE25 will apply.’

Methodology

The assessment of the site was carried out by the examination of pre-existing information from a number of sources recommended by the Institute for Archaeologists paper ‘Standards in British Archaeology’ covering desk-based studies. These sources include historic and modern maps, the Surrey Historic Environment Record, geological maps and any relevant publications or reports.

Archaeological background

General background

The brickearth and gravel deposits of West London are well known for archaeological finds and deposits of all periods, going back into the Palaeolithic (Wymer 1999) though on the lower river terraces where the site lies,

Palaeolithic finds are though to have been derived from reworked earlier terraces. Much has been gleaned through recent fieldwork, and particularly from large area excavations carried out in advance of gravel and brick clay extraction (MoLAS 2000), and, not much further afield, at Heathrow Airport (Lewis et al. 2006). Further

4 sites have been identified through aerial photography (e.g. Longley 1976), although the modern urban setting of much of West London does restrict this technique.

The gravel terraces, to both the east and west of suburban London, have been extensively settled from the

Neolithic period onwards. Some examples of this are provided by large and important sites such as the Neolithic causewayed enclosures at Staines, Middlesex (Robertson-MacKay 1987) and Orsett, Essex (Hedges and Buckley

1978), rich Bronze Age sites such as at Runnymede Bridge, Egham, Surrey (Longley 1980) and Mucking North

Rings, Essex (Bond 1988), and early/middle Saxon occupation at Harmondsworth (Andrews 1996) and a much larger site at Mucking, Essex (Hamerow 1993).

In the west London area, recent (and not so recent) large scale developments, especially in the vicinity of

Heathrow Airport, have revealed extensive deposits of both the prehistoric and historic periods (e.g. Grimes and

Close-Brooks 1993; Lewis et al. 2006).

Surrey Historic Environment Record

A search was made on the Surrey Historic Environment Record on 12th November 2013 for a radius of 1km around the proposal site. This revealed 72 entries within the search radius. These are summarized as Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 1.

Neolithic

The HER records a single site which dates to the Neolithic period. This is a 3.6km-long cursus monument some

850m west of the proposal site which was first identified as a cropmark but which subsequent phases of excavation in advance of gravel extraction or development have located in the ground (Lewis et al 2006) [Fig.

1:1].

Bronze Age

Four archaeological interventions which recorded Bronze Age remains are located within 750m of the proposal site. At 15 High Street trial trenching followed by an excavation uncovered a series of Late Bronze Age pits [2] while, to the east of the proposal site, during evaluation at the Cargo Point development, two phases of Middle

Bronze Age agricultural activity were recorded [3]. Further east at Long Lane another evaluation and subsequent watching brief brought to light a continuation of the Bronze Age agricultural landscape with several ditches, gullies and postholes being excavated [4].

Prehistoric

5 Archaeological evaluations at Bedfont Road, c.750m east of the proposal site [5], and Lord Knyvett’s School, c.350m west of the site [6], recovered fragments of burnt and worked flint which was dated to the general prehistoric period. To the south of the latter site a third evaluation, this time at Christ the King RC First School, revealed the edge of a palaeochannel, which, although it was undated, was thought to be prehistoric [7].

Roman

The Roman period within the study area is represented by three entries in the HER. Trial trenching at Lord

Knyvett’s School [6] and a watching brief on a flood alleviation scheme 500m to the southwest [9] both found ditches containing Roman pottery and a dubious baby’s feeding bottle, dubiously dated to the 4th century AD was reported to have been found in the garden of 20 St Anne’s Avenue [8], although its provenance too is dubious.

Saxon

Of the two Saxon records in the HER, the first is for a gully and two pits which were recorded during the excavations at 15 High Street, c.700m west of the proposal site [2]. The second record details the approximate location of the Saxon settlement of Stanwell although, as the record notes, much of the area where it stood has been destroyed through gravel extraction [10].

Medieval

HER records relating to the medieval period are clustered around the historic centre of Stanwell, to the west of the proposal site, with only one outlying record to the east. Excavations at the western end of the town located several features which included a large pit that was found to date to the late 15th century [1] while just over

100m to the east further excavation at 15 High Street recorded a layer of ploughsoil which contained 12th-14th century pottery and daub, suggesting the presence of a building near-by [2]. The outlying record to the east is for several ditches and gullies belonging to a medieval field system that were recorded during excavations at the

Cargo Point development, c.250m east of the proposal site [3]. Back in the village centre, the trial trenching at

Lord Knyvett’s School identified early medieval (11th-12th century) ditches [6] while to the northwest a series of earthworks has been interpreted as the remains of a medieval moated enclosure [11]. In the centre of the village stands St Mary’s Church, a Grade I listed building with a 15th century tower and a 14th century rendered chancel [12].

Post-medieval

The majority of HER records within 750m of the proposal site are for the post-medieval period with a total of five sites and 24 listed buildings being recorded. Archaeological evaluation in western Stanwell uncovered a post

6 hole and a field boundary ditch which, although the latter was recorded on modern maps, contained finds which suggested it might be of an older date [1]. At 15 High Street, excavations revealed a well and a series of rubbish pits from which were recovered fragments of rare and imported 18th-19th century pottery [2]. The neighbouring

13 High Street is a Grade II listed early 19th century house [2]. To the east of the proposal site the evaluation and subsequent excavation at the Cargo Point development [3] located a series of 18th century ditches with brick structures and pits of the same date being found c.100m to the east during trial trenching at Long Lane [4].

Further 18th-19th century pits and boundary and drainage ditches were recorded during a watching brief on a warehouse development on the same site [4].

Towards the village centre is Lord Knyvett’s School [6]: a Grade II* listed structure that was built in 1624 and dedicated to Lord Knyvett, the person who arrested Guy Fawkes, and who has a memorial in St Mary’s

Church. To the south, an archaeological evaluation at Christ the King RC First School identified a post-medieval gully which may be associated with field boundaries known from historic maps [7]. The remaining HER records relating to the post-medieval period are listed buildings. The churchyard of St Mary’s contains five Grade II vaults and tombs of 18th and 19th century date [12] and, in addition to several houses and cottages of a similar date, an inn, a vicarage and a granary all cluster around the historic centre [12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]. Closer, and more relevant, to the proposal site are two 18th century farmhouses: Challis Farmhouse c.200m to the northwest

[13] and Stanwell Farmhouse c.500m to the east [19].

Modern

A field boundary ditch, possibly dating to the 20th century was identified during trial trenching to the west of the town [1] while in the centre, the 20th century forecourt wall and gate piers of Dunmore House are Grade II listed

[12].

Undated

The HER contains several records of undated sites and monuments for the study area. The first of these is for two undated pits that were recorded during excavations to the west of the village [1] while the remaining nine are for a wide range of cropmarks that have been identified on aerial photographs. Ring ditches have been noted at several sites including groups c.700m to the southeast of the proposal site [20], another 400m to the south [21] and 400m to the southeast [22]. In addition to these six sets of cropmarks showing enclosure and linear features have been plotted 750m to the east [23], on the western margins edge of the proposal site itself [24] (see below),

7 500m to the northeast [25], 750m to the northwest [26], 500m to the southwest [27] and 500m to the southeast of the site [28] (Longley 1976, fig 12).

Negative

Two watching briefs have been undertaken in the study area that have found nothing of archaeological interest.

These were at Lord Knyvett’s School [6] and adjacent to St Anne’s School, c850m south of the proposal site

[29].

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

There is one Scheduled Ancient Monument within a 1km radius of the proposal site - Lord Knyvett’s

Schoolhouse. As the area is already built up the construction of a warehouse on the proposal site will have no impact on the schoolhouse.

Cartographic and documentary sources

Stanwell was historically part of the Staines Urban District within the county of Middlesex until 1965 when the majority of the county was absorbed into Greater London. The Staines Urban District was transferred into the county of Surrey. The place name Stanwell is first recorded in the Domesday Survey of 1086 as Stanwelle, meaning ‘stony spring or stream,’ being derived from the Old English stn and wella (Cameron 1996, 170; Mills

1998, 324). The Domesday Book records that Stanwell was held by Azur, a housecarl of King Edward who could do with the land as he wished prior to the conquest, it was worth £14. Post-conquest the village was held by Walter fitzOther for the King and recorded as being worth £14 currently but only £6 when he received it. The land is assessed at 15 hides with enough land for 10 ploughs of which there are 10 amongst the Frenchmen and villagers. Counted amongst the people and estates were two knights. There was also meadow for 12 ploughs, pasture for the livestock, enough woodland to support 100 pigs, four mills rendering 70s, 375 eels and a further

1000 eels from three weirs (Williams and Martin 2002, 364).

William fitzOther was constable of Windsor Castle; his descendants took the name of Windsor and held onto Stanwell for over four centuries along with land in Berkshire and Buckinghamshire. It was eventually surrendered to Henry VIII in 1542 in exchange for monastic lands in Gloucestershire, who subsequently made

Sir Philip Hobby chief steward of the manor (VCH 1962).

8 The majority of the land around Stanwell was arable with large amounts of it known as Stanwell Field or

Town Field. It was finally inclosed in 1792 and subsequently orchards and market gardens spread over the parish. At the same time as inclosure roads were laid out over Stanwell Moor (VCH 1962).

Large scale urban development around the old village green began after the Second World War with over

300 prefabricated houses erected and several small estates of terraced and semi-detached houses. A large estate was built by British Airways Staff Housing Society, which by 1956 comprised 700 houses and a shopping centre. Land to the north and west of the parish has been used for market gardens and for gravel extraction creating several ponds (VCH 1962).

A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at Hounslow 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).

The earliest map available of the area is Saxton’s map of Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Middlesex and London,

1575, which shows little detail. Stanwell is shown next to the river and to the north of Staines (Fig. 2). The location of the site cannot really be specified with any certainty on this map. Norden’s map of 1593 is similar but shows slightly more detail, with Stanwell being identified as a parish (Fig. 3).

A map by Ogilby (1672) adds nothing to the earlier depictions (not illustrated). Warburton’s map of 1746

(Fig. 4) shows the area of Stanwell in more detail with some of the local roads illustrated. Rocque’s map of

Middlesex of 1762 is at a scale to permit little detail, and much of what appears detailed is in fact only schematic.

The first detailed and accurately surveyed map available is the Stanwell tithe map of 1844 (Fig. 5) for which the site can be reasonably accurately located within the confines of field 540. The only boundary actually shown is that along the street frontage to the north. The First Edition Ordnance Survey of 1866 (Fig. 6) is the same as the tithe map, except that it shows a line of trees along the northern, roadside boundary. The 1895

Ordnance Survey map (not illustrated) and that from 1914 (Fig. 7) show no change and less detail than the earlier map. Significant change has occurred by 1934 (Fig. 8) with the construction of three houses along the northern street frontage but beyond the site boundary, and the sub-division of the field into three distinct areas and a track has been built dividing the field in half. Within the proposal area are a number of small buildings presumably relating to animal farming. By the early 1960’s (Fig. 9) these buildings have been removed,

Northumberland Close widened at the southern end and new buildings constructed along that boundary. These buildings are most likely agricultural in nature and are present along the eastern boundary of the proposal site.

9 No further changes occur throughout the 1970’s, but by the early 1980’s Court Farm has been completely redeveloped. Maps from the early 1980’s (Fig. 10) shows that Northumberland Close has now been laid out in its present format with land to the east of it now used for warehouses and a small cul-de-sac has been built to the west of the road; immediately to the north of the proposal site. Small changes to this cul-de-sac occur during the

1980’s and by the 1990’s (Fig. 11) a row of terraced housing has been built along the corner of Bedfont Road and Northumberland Close.

Listed buildings

While there are several listed buildings within the 750m radius of the proposal site none are visible from the site itself.

Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields

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

Historic Hedgerows

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

Aerial Photographs

Various aerial photographic collections were examined in an important survey carried out in the 1970's and which included cropmarks for the site itself and immediately to the west (Longley 1976, fig. 12). The features on the site itself seem to comprise a linear feature with a loose L-shaped form and a circular feature which could be a ring ditch or ring gully. Further circular marks and a rectilinear enclosure lay just to the west now under the modern houses.

The photographic collections of the National Monuments Record, Swindon were consulted on 28th

November 2013. There were 104 vertical prints from 51 sorties taken between 1945 and 1998, detailed in

Appendix 3. There were no oblique (specialist) photographs of the site. Only five photographs were taken after

1971 in the mid 1990's and thus not available to Longley's study. Of these four were not centred anywhere close to the proposal site and the 5th was centred on an area of housing built in the 1980's but with the site possibly in a peripheral view. These photographs have not been further consulted for this study.

10 Discussion

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

This desktop study has revealed that there are two certain or probable heritage assets on the site which could be affected by its development. These features were visible from the air with additional features present to the west of the site. One of these features is linear in nature and may be a field boundary or part of an enclosure that predates the post-medieval landscape. The other feature is circular and which could possibly be a levelled burial mound of Bronze Age date or a house site of Iron date as the most common occurrences. Further sites visible from the air and from fieldwork are recorded relatively close to the site and are the reason for the site lying within an archaeological priority zone.

It will be necessary to provide further information about the potential of the site from field observations

(evaluation) and confirm that the cropmarks reflect the presence of below-ground archaeological deposits. This information can then be used to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development as necessary. A scheme for this fieldwork will need to be drawn up and approved by the archaeological advisers to the Borough Council and implemented by a competent archaeological contractor. Such a programme of works could be secured by a condition imposed on any consent granted.

11 References

Andrews, P, 1996, ‘Prospect Park, Harmondsworth, London Borough of Hillingdon : settlement and burial from the Neolithic to the Early Saxon periods’, in P Andrews and A Crockett, Three Excavations Along the Thames and its Tributaries, 1994, Wessex Archaeol Rep 10, Salisbury, 1-50 BGS, 1981, British Geological Survey, 1:50,000 Sheet 269, Solid and Drift Edition, Keyworth Bond, D, 1988, Excavations at the North Ring, Mucking, Essex, E Anglian Archaeol 43, Chelmsford Cameron, K, 1996, English Place Names, London Grimes, W F and Close-Brooks, J, 1993, ‘The excavation of Caesar’s Camp, Heathrow, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1944’, Proc Prehist Soc 59, 303–6 Hamerow, H, 1993, Excavations at Mucking; Vol.2: The Anglo-Saxon settlement, Engl Heritage Rep 21, London Hedges, J and Buckley, D, 1978, ‘Excavations at a Neolithic causewayed enclosure, Orsett, Essex, 1975’, Proc Prehist Soc 44, 219–308 Lewis, J, Brown F, Batt, A, Cooke, N, Barrett, J, Every, R, Mepham, L, Brown, K, Cramp, K, Lawson, A, Roe, F, Allen, S, Petts, D, McKinley, J, Carruthers, W, Callinor, D, Wiltshire, P, Robinson, M, Lewis, H and Bates, M, 2006, Landscape Evolution in the Middle Thames Valley, Framework Archaeol Monogr 1, Oxford Longley, D, 1976, ‘The archaeological implications of gravel extraction in north-west Surrey’, Res Vol Surrey Archaeol Soc 3, Guildford, 1–35 Longley, D, 1980, Runnymede Bridge 1976: Excavations on the Site of a Late Bronze Age Settlement, Res Vol Surrey Archaeol Soc 6, Guildford Margary, I D, 1955, Roman Roads in Britain, London Mills, A D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford MoLAS, 2000, The archaeology of Greater London; an assessment of archaeological evidence for human presence in the area now covered by Greater London, Museum of London Archaeology Service Monogr, London NPPF, 2012, National Planning Policy Framework, Dept Communities and Local Government, London Robertson-Mackay, R, Blackmore, L, Hurst, J G, Jones, P, Moorhouse, S and Webster, L, 1981, ‘A group of Saxon and Medieval finds from the site of the Neolithic causewayed enclosure at Staines, Surrey, with a note on the topography of the area’ Trans London Middlesex Archaeol Soc 32, 107–31 VCH, 1962, Victoria County History of Middlesex : Volume iii, London Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book: A Complete Translation, London Wymer, J J, 1999, The Lower Palaeolithic Occupation of Britain, Salisbury

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

No HER Ref Grid Ref (TQ) Type Period Comment 1 622 05460 74280 Monument Neolithic Neolithic cursus at least 3.6km long. 19189 055 743 Monument Medieval, An excavation revealed a late medieval pit, 2 post-medieval, undated pits and 18th–19th century soakaways. undated 19190 055 743 Monument Post-medieval, Evaluation revealed a post-medieval posthole and an modern 18th–20th century field boundary ditch. 2 150, 151, 0561 7428 Monument Bronze Age, Evaluation followed by excavation found Bronze 5769, 5770, Saxon, Age features, a gully and 2 pits from the Saxo- 5771, 5772 medieval, Norman period and slightly later field boundaries. post-medieval 10734 05625 74266 Listed Building Post-medieval 19th century house, 13 High Street. 3 1472, 5076, 06631 74216 Monument Bronze Age, Evaluation revealed a prehistoric and medieval field 5077, 5078 medieval, system with several pits, wells, postholes and a post-medieval rectangular structure. Post-medieval ditches were found along the roadside. 4 1481, 5079, 06793 74206 Monument Bronze Age, Evaluation found gullies and pits probably 5080 post-medieval associated with the prehistoric field system (5076– 5078) and 18th century brick structures and pits. 1236, 5113, 0680 7423 Monument Bronze Age, Watching brief revealed a possible Bronze Age ditch 5114 post-medieval and post-medieval ditches and pits. 5 1018, 5159 0715 7410 Monument Prehistoric Evaluation found a small quantity of burnt flint. 6 1663, 5073, 0601 7436 Monument Prehistoric, Evaluation revealed Roman and medieval ditches 5074, 5075 Roman, and struck flint. medieval 3748, 10779 05994 74364 Listed Building Post-medieval Grade II* Lord Knyvett’s School, built 1624. 1254, 5112 0600 7436 Event Negative Watching brief at Lord Knyvett’s School. 7 2754, 19025 060 741 Monument Prehistoric, An evaluation revealed the edge of a palaeochannel post-medieval and a post-medieval gully. 8 2947 05730 73550 Findspot Roman A 4th century baby’s feeding bottle. 9 159, 5973 0557 7409 Monument Roman Watching brief on flood alleviation scheme found Roman ditch containing pottery. 10 2944 05400 74500 Monument Saxon Saxon settlement of Stanwell. 11 645 05650 74600 Monument Medieval Moated enclosure possibly of medieval date. 12 10737 05711 74136 Listed Building Medieval Grade I listed St Mary’s Church. 10776 05726 74106 Listed Building Post-medieval 18th century John Hodges vault in St Mary's Churchyard. 10799 05716 74149 Listed Building Post-medieval 18th century Henry Bullock tomb in St Mary's Churchyard 10738 05750 74109 Listed Building Post-medieval 19th century Frances Paterson tomb in St Mary's Churchyard 10739 05700 74101 Listed Building Post-medieval 19th century Charles Rowlls tomb in St Mary's Churchyard 10806 05741 74104 Listed Building Post-medieval 19th century anonymous vault in St Mary's Churchyard. 10735 05709 74257 Listed Building Post-medieval 18th century Brook House. 10773 05686 74251 Listed Building Post-medieval Milestone dated 1833. 10774 05683 74230 Listed Building Post-medieval 18th – 19th century Swan Public House. 10804 05738 74245 Listed Building Post-medieval 19th century Windsor Cottage. 10777 05754 74189 Listed Building Post-medieval Grade II* Dunmore House. 10740 05770 74193 Listed Building Modern 20th century forecourt wall and gate piers of Dunmore House 13 10712 06142 74372 Listed Building Post-medieval 18th century Challis Farmhouse. 14 10736 05721 74160 Listed Building Post-medieval 18th century Coachman’s Cottage. 10741 05770 74193 Listed Building Post-medieval 18th–19th century vicarage. 10775 05722 74177 Listed Building Post-medieval 18th century boundary wall. 10805 05742 74184 Listed Building Post-medieval 19th century house, 40B High Street. 15 10742 05821 74242 Listed Building Post-medieval 19th century Old Farm Guesthouse. 10743 05826 74256 Listed Building Post-medieval 19th century Granary. 10778 05773 74219 Listed Building Post-medieval 18th–19th century 46-8 High Street. 16 10751 05798 74310 Listed Building Post-medieval 16th century timber-framed house 17 10811 05719 74298 Listed Building Post-medieval 19th century house, 7 Oaks Road. 18 10812 05556 74250 Listed Building Post-medieval 19th century house and inn, The Wheatsheaf Inn and Wheatsheaf Cottages. 19 10821 06878 74236 Listed Building Post-medieval 18th century farmhouse, Stanwell Farmhouse. 20 616 06930 73790 Monument Undated Ring ditches visible on aerial photographs. 21 618 06280 73730 Monument Undated Six ring ditches and linear ditches visible on aerial photographs. 22 619 06600 73800 Monument Undated Two ring ditches visible on aerial photographs.

13 No HER Ref Grid Ref (TQ) Type Period Comment 23 620 07110 74410 Monument Undated Sub-rectangular enclosure and linear ditches visible on aerial photographs. 24 621 06300 74200 Monument Undated Two intersecting rectangular enclosures, three rectangular enclosures and ring ditches visible on aerial photographs. 25 623 06770 74620 Monument Undated Intersecting linear ditches and a ring ditch visible on aerial photographs. 26 628 05710 74700 Monument Undated Rectangular enclosure visible on aerial photographs. 27 642 06000 73900 Monument Undated Enclosure visible on aerial photographs. 28 643 06600 73700 Monument Undated Earthwork and enclosure visible on aerial photographs. 29 1464, 5071 0664 7331 Event Negative Watching brief adjacent to St Anne’s School. Listed Buildings Grade II unless stated.

14 APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1575 Saxton’s map of Middlesex (Fig. 2) 1593 Norden’s map of Middlesex (Fig. 3) 1672 Ogilby’s map of Middlesex 1749 Warburton’s map of Middlesex (Fig. 4) 1762 Rocque’s map of Middlesex 1844 Stanwell Tithe map (Fig. 5) 1866 Ordnance Survey First Edition (Fig. 6) 1895 Ordnance Survey Second Edition 1914 Ordnance Survey Third Edition (Fig. 7) 1934 Ordnance Survey revision (Fig. 8) 1961–1963 Ordnance Survey revision (Fig. 9) 1970–1972 Ordnance Survey revision 1982–1985 Ordnance Survey revision (Fig. 10) 1988–1992 Ordnance Survey revision 1992–1994 Ordnance Survey revision 1988–1992 Ordnance Survey revision 1992–1994 Ordnance Survey revision 1995 Ordnance Survey revision (Fig. 11)

15 APPENDIX 3: Aerial Photographs consulted

A> Vertical

Number Year taken Sortie Number Frame Number Grid reference 1 23 AUG 1945 RAF/106G/UK/687 4073 TQ 063 751 2 23 SEP 1945 RAF/106G/UK/832 4037 TQ 062 744 3 23 SEP 1945 RAF/106G/UK/832 4038 TQ 069 741 4 12 JAN 1946 RAF/106G/UK/1114 3134 TQ 069 742 5 12 JAN 1946 RAF/106G/UK/1114 3135 TQ 063 741 6 01 MAY 1946 RAF/106G/UK/1445 3021 TQ 069 748 7 01 MAY 1946 RAF/106G/UK/1445 3022 TQ 061 748 8 07 JUN 1946 RAF/106G/UK/1563 4003 TQ 061 742 9 07 JUN 1946 RAF/106G/UK/1563 4004 TQ 068 740 10 20 OCT 1949 RAF/540/258 5155 TQ 069 743 11 20 OCT 1949 RAF/540/258 5156 TQ 064 744 12 22 MAR 1950 RAF/541/465 3014 TQ 068 737 13 22 MAR 1950 RAF/541/465 3015 TQ 063 738 14 22 MAR 1950 RAF/541/465 3016 TQ 057 739 15 12 MAY 1951 RAF/540/494 3322 TQ 066 742 16 23 APR 1953 RAF/58/1099 245 TQ 061 742 17 23 APR 1953 RAF/58/1099 246 TQ 065 743 18 14 AUG 1953 RAF/58/1213 5 TQ 061 743 19 14 AUG 1953 RAF/58/1213 6 TQ 064 742 20 14 AUG 1953 RAF/58/1213 7 TQ 068 742 21 31 AUG 1954 RAF/82/1006 136 TQ 069 741 22 31 AUG 1954 RAF/82/1006 137 TQ 058 741 23 11 MAY 1955 RAF/82/1190 258 TQ 055 744 24 11 MAY 1955 RAF/82/1190 257 TQ 073 739 25 11 MAY 1955 RAF/82/1190 258 TQ 074 745 26 13 SEP 1960 RAF/543/1059 279 TQ 062 746 27 13 SEP 1960 RAF/543/1059 280 TQ 066 746 28 28 AUG 1961 RAF/58/4646 402 TQ 065 738 29 28 AUG 1961 RAF/58/4646 403 TQ 056 738 30 17 MAR 1955 RAF/58/1687 30 TQ 063 736 31 17 MAR 1955 RAF/58/1687 31 TQ 064 742 32 17 MAR 1955 RAF/58/1687 32 TQ 064 747 33 03 MAR 1955 RAF/58/1671 173 TQ 064 748 34 03 MAR 1955 RAF/58/1671 174 TQ 063 742 35 03 MAR 1955 RAF/58/1671 175 TQ 062 736 36 02 APR 1946 RAF/106G/UK/1352 4024 TQ 059 741 37 02 APR 1946 RAF/106G/UK/1352 4025 TQ 066 741 38 10 MAR 1946 RAF/106G/UK/1233 4108 TQ 065 746 39 09 FEB 1946 RAF/106G/UK/1169 5052 TQ 070 750 40 03 DEC 1945 RAF/106G/UK/1052 4074 TQ 063 744 41 03 DEC 1945 RAF/106G/UK/1052 4075 TQ 063 740 42 17 JUN 1945 RAF/106G/UK/400 1048 TQ 065 736 43 17 JUN 1945 RAF/106G/UK/400 1049 TQ 067 742 44 15 MAY 1945 RAF/106G/LA/305 2035 TQ 063 743 45 15 MAY 1945 RAF/106G/LA/305 2036 TQ 068 743 46 10 APR 1945 RAF/106G/LA/208 1028 TQ 058 745

16 47 10 APR 1945 RAF/106G/LA/208 2028 TQ 069 740 48 03 DEC 1966 MAL/66077 8 TQ 067 740 49 03 DEC 1966 MAL/66077 9 TQ 064 740 50 03 DEC 1966 MAL/66077 10 TQ 062 740 51 03 DEC 1966 MAL/66078 140 TQ 067 744 52 03 DEC 1966 MAL/66078 141 TQ 064 744 53 03 DEC 1966 MAL/66078 142 TQ 062 744 54 09 JUL 1967 MAL/67067 14 TQ 066 751 55 27 MAR 1968 MAL/68014 10 TQ 063 749 56 27 MAR 1968 MAL/68014 11 TQ 070 750 57 15 JAN 1969 MAL/69002 63 TQ 061 739 58 15 JAN 1969 MAL/69002 64 TQ 065 739 59 15 JAN 1969 MAL/69002 95 TQ 065 746 60 15 JAN 1969 MAL/69002 96 TQ 061 746 61 10 FEB 1969 MAL/69008 155 TQ 062 739 62 10 FEB 1969 MAL/69008 156 TQ 071 739 63 17 AUG 1971 MAL/71130 117 TQ 060 743 64 17 AUG 1971 MAL/71130 118 TQ 065 743 65 28 MAY 1971 MAL/71084 100 TQ 067 741 66 28 MAY 1971 MAL/71084 101 TQ 063 741 67 02 DEC 1944 RAF/106G/LA/64 1035 TQ 067 740 68 04 JAN 1945 RAF/106G/LA/89 2039 TQ 060 741 69 04 JAN 1945 RAF/106G/LA/89 2040 TQ 063 744 70 04 JAN 1945 RAF/106G/LA/89 2041 TQ 066 746 71 02 MAR 1944 RAF/HLA/686 4004 TQ 058 736 72 02 MAR 1944 RAF/HLA/686 4005 TQ 069 737 73 04 MAR 1944 RAF/HLA/691 4075 TQ 063 744 74 04 MAR 1944 RAF/HLA/691 4118 TQ 066 734 75 14 JUL 1955 OS/55T22 6 TQ 060 735 76 14 JUL 1955 OS/55T22 7 TQ 072 736 77 04 OCT 1965 OS/65238 103 TQ 058 736 78 04 OCT 1965 OS/65238 104 TQ 068 735 79 03 APR 1995 OS/95058 183 TQ 069 744 80 03 APR 1995 OS/95058 184 TQ 064 744 81 08 AUG 1998 OS/98138 124 TQ 059 741 82 08 AUG 1998 OS/98138 230 TQ 068 741 83 17 SEP 1955 OS/55M5 13 TQ 058 750 84 17 SEP 1955 OS/55M5 14 TQ 068 751 85 23 JUL 1955 OS/55T24 22 TQ 064 737 86 11 JUL 1956 OS/56M2 15 TQ 068 749 87 11 JUL 1956 OS/56M2 16 TQ 058 748 88 11 JUL 1956 OS/56M2 24 TQ 070 732 89 11 JUL 1956 OS/56M2 25 TQ 060 733 90 21 MAY 1954 OS/54M4 5 TQ 062 746 91 13 JUN 1957 OS/57M5 28 TQ 056 738 92 13 JUN 1957 OS/57M5 29 TQ 065 739 93 13 APR 1959 OS/59004 22 TQ 064 738 94 06 MAY 1960 OS/60012 62 TQ 070 754 95 06 MAY 1960 OS/60012 63 TQ 058 754 96 06 MAY 1960 OS/60013 50 TQ 069 732

17 97 06 MAY 1960 OS/60013 51 TQ 056 731 98 29 AUG 1961 OS/61033 22 TQ 062 738 99 29 AUG 1961 OS/61033 23 TQ 073 738 100 21 OCT 1962 OS/62115 54 TQ 071 739 101 21 OCT 1962 OS/62115 55 TQ 063 738 102 13 SEP 1963 OS/63215 27 TQ 068 739 103 13 SEP 1963 OS/63215 28 TQ 058 739 104 17 OCT 1996 ADA/696 215 TQ 062 742 NB : Grid reference given is for start of run; multiple frames may offer wide coverage.

18 Staines SITE

Egham

Woking Weybridge

Reigate Redhill Aldershot Guildford

Godalming Farnham

75000

SITE 26 25 11 10

23 6 13 1 2 17 16 18 12 15 4 19 24 3 14 7 9 5

74000

22 20 21 28

73000 TQ06000 07000 NCS 13/208 Land off Northumberland Close, Stanwell, Surrey, 2013 Archaeological desk-based assessment

Figure 1. Location of site within Stanwell and Surrey showing HER data. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Explorer 160 at 1:12500 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 Approximate location of site