Land Adjacent to Baylis Court School, Granville Avenue, Slough, Berkshire
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Land adjacent to Baylis Court School, Granville Avenue, Slough, Berkshire An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment For Catalyst Housing Group Ltd by Heather Hopkins Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd Site Code GAS08/113 October 2008 Summary Site name: Land adjacent to Baylis Court School, Granville Avenue, Slough, Berkshire Grid reference: SU 9660 8170 Site activity: Desk-based assessment Project manager: Steve Ford Site supervisor: Heather Hopkins Site code: GAS08/113 Area of site: c. 0.3ha Summary of results: The site is located in an area of relatively low archaeological potential and it is therefore unlikely that anything of archaeological significance would be present. However, as the site is relatively undisturbed any archaeological deposits, if present, would be preserved. Therefore it is recommended that a watching brief is the best course action, to be undertaken during any ground disturbing works. This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder Report edited/checked by: Jennifer Lowe9 29.10.08 Steve Preston9 29.10.08 i Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47–49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading RG1 5NR Tel. (0118) 926 0552; Fax (0118) 926 0553; email [email protected]; website : www.tvas.co.uk Land adjacent to Baylis Court School, Granville Avenue, Slough An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment by Heather Hopkins Report 08/113 Introduction This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of a plot of land adjacent to Baylis Court School, Granville Avenue, Slough, Berkshire located at SU 9660 8170 (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr John Stevens of Thomas Vale Construction, Foundation House, Paddock Road, Caversham, Reading, Berkshire, RG4 5BY on behalf of Catalyst Housing Group Ltd and comprises the first stage of a process to determine the presence/absence, extent, character, quality and date of any archaeological remains which may be affected by redevelopment of the area. Planning consent (appln no. P/14395/000) has been granted by Slough Borough Council for the construction of twelve terrace houses on the site and one detached house, with parking. The consent is subject to a condition (13) relating to archaeology, requiring a phased programme of archaeological work, beginning with a desk-based assessment, in order to mitigate the effects of the development on any archaeological remains that may be present. If this initial investigation suggests further mitigation is warranted, ‘preservation by record’ may be achieved by an additional phase of works. Site description, location and geology The site is located in the Manor Park area of northern Slough, north of Baylis Court School and to the rear of 1– 18 Granville Avenue. The site currently consists of level land, covered with concrete slabs. The development area is centred on SU 9660 8170. The site is located on Langley Silt (silt and clay, commonly referred to as ‘brickearth’) overlying Lambeth group Upnor and Reading Formations of the Palaeocene (silty clay, with beds of sand; gravel at base) (BGS 2005). It is at a height of approximately 30m above Ordnance Datum. The site area is approximately 0.3ha. Planning background and development proposals Planning permission has been granted for the development of the site for residential use. Eleven two storey terraced houses will be constructed, eight of three bedrooms, two of four bedrooms and one (detached) of five 1 bedrooms. Twenty-two car-parking spaces will be provided. The remaining land will be landscaped. Access will continue to be by the entrance from Granville Road to the north-east of the site. Archaeology and Planning (PPG 16 1990) provides guidance relating to archaeology within the planning process. It points out that where a desk-based assessment has shown that there is a strong possibility of significant archaeological deposits in a development area it is reasonable to provide more detailed information from a field evaluation so that an appropriate strategy to mitigate the effects of development on archaeology can be devised: Paragraph 21 states: ‘Where early discussions with local planning authorities or the developer’s own research indicate that important archaeological remains may exist, it is reasonable for the planning authority to request the prospective developer to arrange for an archaeological field evaluation to be carried out...’ Should the presence of archaeological deposits be confirmed further guidance is provided. Archaeology and Planning stresses preservation in situ of archaeological deposits as a first consideration as in paragraphs 8 and 18. Paragraph 8 states: ‘...Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation...’ Paragraph 18 states: ‘The desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration in determining planning applications whether that monument is scheduled or unscheduled...’ However, for archaeological deposits that are not of such significance it is appropriate for them to be ‘preserved by record’ (i.e., fully excavated and recorded by a competent archaeological contractor) prior to their destruction or damage. Paragraph 25 states: 2 ‘Where planning authorities decide that the physical preservation in situ of archaeological remains is not justified in the circumstances of the development and that development resulting in the destruction of the archaeological remains should proceed, it would be entirely reasonable for the planning authority to satisfy itself ... that the developer has made appropriate and satisfactory provision for the excavation and recording of remains.’ The planning policies regarding archaeology in Slough Borough Local Plan were not saved when the replacement plan was adopted in November 2007. According to Slough Borough Council, replacement policies are in the process of being drafted. In the meantime they continue to use the ‘unsaved’ local plan and national guidance. The unsaved local plan policies state: Policy EN16: Setting of a Listed Building Any development which would adversely affect the setting of a listed building will not be permitted. Policy EN18: Historic Parks and Gardens Planning permission will not be granted for development which would have an adverse effect on the historic character, appearance or setting of any part of a historic park or garden… ‘POLICY EN19 - Protection of Archaeological Sites ‘There is a presumption in favour of the preservation of the integrity of all scheduled ancient monuments and other archaeological remains of importance and their setting. Development will not be permitted if it fails to preserve the archaeological value and interest of the archaeological remains or their setting.’ ‘POLICY EN20 - Archaeological Remains ‘In areas with archaeological potential, a prospective developer will be required to carry out an archaeological field evaluation before any decision is taken on a planning application. ‘Where archaeological remains will be affected by a development, conditions will be imposed to preserve the remains in situ. Where preservation is not required, appropriate arrangements will be required by condition for the excavation and recording of archaeological sites prior to the commencement of development.’ The site is not within a Conservation Area, or a Registered Park or Garden, does not contain or abut any Listed Building, and is not in a position to affect the settings of any of these. Methodology The assessment of the site was carried out by the examination of pre-existing information from a number of sources recommended by the Institute of Field Archaeologists paper ‘Standards in British Archaeology’ covering desk-based studies. These sources include historic and modern maps, both the Berkshire Historic Buildings, Sites 3 and Monuments Record and Buckinghamshire Historic Environment Record, geological maps and any relevant publications or reports. Archaeological background General background The site lies within eastern Berkshire (previously south Buckinghamshire), an area not previously noted for its wealth or density of archaeological deposits (Ford 1987) though it is only a little way west of the Colne Valley which is, by contrast, regarded as archaeologically rich. An important exception to this perceived lack of archaeology, however, must be made for the Palaeolithic period, for which the area is quite prolific (Wymer 1968, 239–42; Wymer 1999, map 7). Despite the extensive ground disturbance which took place during the construction of modern Slough, this did not lead to the discovery of many archaeological sites or finds, unlike other towns in the area. As for many locations though, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and recently large scale excavations on the south-west margins of Slough have revealed a wealth of prehistoric, Roman and Medieval deposits (Ford et al. 2003) while work on the Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton flood relief channel, and the Eton College rowing lake has added substantially to the number of known sites (Foreman et al. 2002). More recent fieldwork on the north-eastern margins of Slough (Wexham) and over the administrative boundary in south Buckinghamshire, has revealed further prehistoric, Roman and Saxon activity (Ford in prep. a and b). Prior to the development of the railway Slough was a small village. The railways fuelled the development of the town