Archaeological S E R V I C E S

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

Land at Pelican Road, Pamber Heath, Hampshire

Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

by Gordana Baljkas

Site Code: PPH16/69 (SU 6116 6274) Land at Pelican Road, Pamber Heath, Hampshire

Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

for Mr and Mrs John Hill

by Gordana Baljkas

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd

Site Code PPH 16/69

June 2016 Summary

Site name: Land at Pelican Road, Pamber Heath, Hampshire

Grid reference: SU 6116 6274

Site activity: Archaeological desk-based assessment

Project manager: Steve Ford

Site supervisor: Gordana Baljkas

Site code: PPH 16/69

Area of site: c. 2.6ha

Summary of results: There are no known heritage assets on the proposal site or in position to be affected by its development. The search of Hampshire AHBR and West Berkshire HER revealed only limited evidence for prehistoric, Roman, medieval and post-medieval occupation within a radius of 750m around the proposal site. However, the site lies close to the Roman town of Silchester and the Scheduled Monument of Grim’s Bank; the route of a Roman road is known to pass close by. As no archaeological fieldwork has been recorded in the area, the absence of archaeological records may reflect this lack of research rather than the genuine absence of past human activity. The proposal site has been only partially developed in the mid-20th century and used as a pig farm and any below-ground archaeological deposits, had they been present, would be likely to have survived. It is considered that further information from field observation could be required to establish the archaeological potential of the site. This could be achieved 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 All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.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 30.06.16 Steve Preston 23.05.16

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 at Pelican Road, Pamber Heath, Hampshire Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

by Gordana Baljkas

Report 16/69 Introduction

This report is an assessment of the archaeological potential of land at Pelican Road, Pamber Heath, Hampshire

RG26 3ER (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr John Cornwell, Chartered Town Planner, Tanners

Meadow, School Lane, Burghfield Common, Reading, Berkshire RG7 3ES on behalf of Mr and Mrs John Hill 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 is to be sought from Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council for residential development of land at Pelican Road, Pamber Heath, Hampshire. This assessment will accompany the application in order to inform the planning process with regard to potential archaeological and heritage implications. This is in accordance with the Department for Communities and Local Government’s National Planning Policy

Framework (NPPF 2012) and the Council’s heritage policies.

Site description, location and geology

The proposal site is located on the border between the counties of Hampshire and Berkshire on the northern edge of the village of Pamber Heath. The proposal site comprises an irregular parcel of land covering an area of approximately 2.6ha and is centred on NGR SU 6116 6274 (Fig. 1). The proposal site comprises the land associated with Soke Pig Farm to the north and an access road combining parts of Silchester Road to the south and Pelican Road aligned south to north. The part of the proposal site comprising the access roads is bounded by properties along Silchester and Pelican Roads while the northern section of the proposal site is bounded by open fields to the north and east with wooded areas beyond, Mitchel Close to the south and the farm’s main building and associated grounds with a track beyond to the west. A site visit conducted on 15th April 2016 showed that it currently comprises a field used for grazing of animals to the west and a wooded field with different agricultural buildings towards the east. The western field is mostly grassed with an irregular line of pine trees towards the western boundary and an overhanging cable and a drain in the northernmost corner of the field. The eastern field is mostly wooded with oak and pine with occasional grassed clearings amongst the trees. A drain runs along a part of the proposal site’s northern boundary. Two smaller sheds are close to the boundary with the western field

1 which is defined by a post and wire mash fence, while another is located towards the northern boundary of the proposal site. In the eastern corner of the proposal site are three large barns, a dilapidated shed, two further outbuildings and four silos. The proposal site is bounded mainly by a post and wire mash fence with brick wall to the north and close boarded fence to the south-east (Fig. 2, Pls 1-6). The underlying bedrock geology is recorded as London Clay Formation – sand. Superficial deposits have been recorded everywhere apart towards the northern and eastern edges of the proposal site as Silchester Gravel Member - sand and gravel (BGS 2016).

The proposal site lies at a height of approximately 102m above Ordnance Datum along Silchester Road in the south sloping slightly down towards the north where it lies at approximately 100m above Ordnance Datum.

Planning background and development proposals

Planning permission is to be sought from Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council for residential development

(up to 60 dwellings) of land at Pelican Road, Pamber Heath. Provisional plans of the proposed development are presented as figure 2.

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.’

2 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: 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.’

3 Paragraph 141 requires local planning authorities to ensure that any loss of heritage assets advances understanding, but stresses that advancing understanding is not by itself sufficient reason to permit the loss of significance: ‘141. Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development management publicly accessible. They should also require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.’

In determining the potential heritage impact of development proposals, ‘significance’ of an asset is defined

(NPPF 2012, 56) as:

‘The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.’ while ‘setting’ is defined as:

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

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council will seek the adoption of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 to 2029 at the meeting of Full Council on 26th May 2016. At this point, the new plan will form the development plan for the Borough, and this will supersede the Adopted Local Plan 1996 – 2011 (adopted July 2006).

However, the policy E4 pertaining to Ancient Monuments/Archaeology was not ‘saved’ in 2009 and the national policies of the NPPF are therefore deemed to apply.

The site is not located within an Area of High Archaeological Potential, nor within a Conservation Area.

Methodology

The assessment of the site was carried out by the examination of pre-existing information from a number of sources recommended by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists’ paper ‘Standards in British Archaeology’ covering desk-based studies (CIfA 2014). These sources include historic and modern maps, the Hampshire

Archaeology and Historic Buildings Record (AHBR), the West Berkshire Historic Environment Record (HER), geological maps and any relevant publications or reports.

4 Archaeological background

General background

The gravel terraces of the Thames and Kennet are well known for the presence of Palaeolithic finds with prolific locations in Reading and Caversham. The gravel deposits within which the site lies do have some findspots of

Palaeolithic date, both on and within the gravel, but these are few and the area around the site is not generally noteworthy for this period (Wymer 1999, map 2). A small quantity of hand axes known from Mortimer West

End, to the east of the proposal site are, unfortunately, not well provenanced (Lobb and Rose 1996).

In the area of Pamber and Tadley Plantations and Heath only very limited Mesolithic evidence has been recorded. Similarly no sites of Neolithic date have been found although some Neolithic findspots have been recorded which may suggest exploitation of this area in the Neolithic without settlement. The chalk to the south seems to have been settled in the Neolithic and it may be that the emerging arable-based communities on the chalk exploited these higher, poorer, heath lands, perhaps for grazing. This pattern is likely to have continued into the Bronze Age and a number of Bronze Age barrows are recorded along the high gravel ridge overlooking the Kennet Valley. As the Kennet Valley is rich in Bronze Age settlement evidence it is likely that these communities were utilizing the heath land on the gravel ridge above the valley (HCC 2010).

In the late Iron Age there is a considerable change. An oppidum was established at Silchester (Calleva

Atrebatum), by the Iron Age Atrebates in the latter half of the 1st century BC (Fulford 1985), which eventually developed into one of the most advanced oppida in Britain (Millett 1990). This oppidum (just off Figure 1 to the east) evolved into a Roman civitas capital, and Roman roads radiate from it across the area. There is evidence of both clay and gravel extraction during this period and it is likely that the Roman town had a continuing and increasing impact on the landscape around it, with the development of market gardening and dispersed occupation sites and farms/villas (HCC 2010). Cropmarks and evidence from fieldwalking show settlement and cemeteries outside the walls of the town, spreading in all directions where investigation has been possible (Ford and Hopkins 2011). An ambitious project combining extensive geophysical survey with LiDAR and other imaging is providing further detail on the extent of the Roman town’s extra-mural influence (J Creighton pers. comm.). An additional earthwork, almost certainly an Iron Age hillfort, is located within Frith Wood to the south-east of the proposal site, and there is another to the east at Pond Farm, currently the subject of a University of Reading excavation project.

A Roman road leading from Silchester towards Gloucester (Glevum) via Speen and Thatcham (Margary

1955, route 41) passes by the proposal site to the east. This is probably one of the earliest roads in the province.

5 A raised bank (agger) is visible in several places within Frith Wood to the south-east of the site, and although the precise route for the whole of this part of its course is not known, it can be reasonably projected. The late prehistoric or Roman earthworks, Grim’s Bank, a Scheduled Ancient Monument, run north-west of the proposal site (Astill 1979-80).

However, once the Roman town was abandoned and the direct influence of its economy on the local area was removed it seems likely that the exploitation of the area reverted to a lower level, with less enclosure and settlement (HCC 2010).

Hampshire Archaeology and Historic Buildings Record and

West Berkshire Historic Environment Record

A search was made on the Hampshire Archaeology and Historic Buildings Record (AHBR) and the West

Berkshire Historic Environment Record (HER) on 13th April 2016 for a radius of 750m around the proposal site.

This revealed 10 entries relating to monuments and historic buildings within the study area. No entries for archaeological ‘events’ i.e. investigations have been returned for the study area. The AHBR/HER entries were then collated to take into account duplicates or sites which have more than one entry. The resulting 9 entries are summarized as Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 1.

Palaeolithic There are no entries in either ABHR or HER relating to the prehistoric activity within the study area.

Mesolithic One entry in the AHBR refers to a findspot for a Mesolithic medium tranchet axe or adze found in Benyon’s

Inclosure [Fig. 1:1] to the north-east of the proposal site, however the location is unspecified.

Neolithic and Bronze Age There are no entries in either ABHR or HER relating to either Neolithic or Bronze Age activity within the study area.

Iron Age The only entry in the AHBR which refers to Iron Age activity within the study area is a findspot for an uninscribed 'Remic' type gold coin (stater) [1], recorded in an unspecified location within Benyon’s Inclosure.

Roman One entry, recorded both in the AHBR and the HER, refers to an inscribed stone of a possible Roman date, the

‘Imp Stone’ [2]. The stone is ovalish in shape and probably oolite. It measures 0.45m by 0.91m, 0.30m of which protrude above the surface of roadside. It has two broader faces, dressed flat, a cup-shaped depression on the

6 north face near the top and a bench-mark on top. It was known as Hyneston in the 13th century and Nymph Stone in the 18th century. It was previously described as being inscribed IMP or IMP CAES. The stone was fully excavated in early the 20th century and partially excavated in the mid-20th century but no inscription was found.

It has been interpreted as a possible Roman milestone, or a medieval boundary mark made re-using Roman material from nearby Silchester.

Saxon There are no entries in either ABHR or HER relating to the Saxon activity within the study area. Medieval The only AHBR entry evidencing the medieval occupation within the study area refers to the 12th century settlement of Perberga which on the 1873 mapping is named Pamber Common [3]. West Berkshire HER returned an entry for Decoy Pond, a medieval to post-medieval pond in Aldermaston Park used for catching wildfowl [4].

Post-medieval

The entries from AHBR and HER pertaining to the post-medieval activity within the study area comprise Decoy

House, an estate building of Aldermaston Park most likely used by the used by estate workers in connection with the management of the decoy pond [5]; the site of a non-conformist chapel on Pamber Heath Road, known as

Plymouth Brethren Chapel on the 19th century mapping [6]; a 19th century brick kiln at Roundwood Copse [7]; and Grade II listed Soke Farm House dating from the late 18th century [8].

Modern, undated

The final AHBR entry refers to an undated earthwork to the north-east of the proposal site [9]. The earthwork is of an irregular polygonal shape and between 2 and 3 acres in area. The ditch is outside the bank and a section taken near the road showed an overall height of 0.76m and a width of 9.1m. The earthwork has no obvious entrance. It is possibly a coppice enclosure or associated with buildings formerly standing on the site.

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments recorded within the study area, however Grim’s Bank: section extending 430m in Little Heath is located approximately 1km to the north of the proposal site in West Berkshire.

This section continues on to Grim's Bank: section extending 795m in Old Warren, also a Scheduled Monument.

Both sections were excavated in 1978 and dated to later prehistoric/early Roman period with a possibility that the earthworks were extended in the Roman or post-Roman period. The function of Grim’s Bank had been

7 postulated as a defining a Romano-British enclave, however no definite evidence supporting this claim has been found (Astill 1979-80, 57-65). Its most southerly extent stops just short of the Roman road, suggesting the road may pre-date at least this part of the Bank.

Cartographic and documentary sources

The proposal site is currently located within the civil parish of Pamber in Hampshire, though historically it was located in the parish of Aldermaston in Berkshire.

The place-name Pamber most likely derives from Old English nouns penn meaning ‘a small enclosure, a fold’ and beorg denoting ‘a hill, a mound, an artificial hill, a tumulus’ giving a composite meaning of ‘hill with a fold or enclosure’. Alternatively the first element could be Celtic penn meaning ‘head, end, top, hill’ (Mills

2011, 361). Pamber was first recorded as Penberga in 1165, and was known as Penebere, Pembre, Panbere in the 13th century and Pamber from the 15th century on (VCH 1911, 433-5).

Aldermaston is first mentioned as Ældremaneston in Domesday Book of AD 1086. The Old English (Anglo-

Saxon) place name means simply ‘alderman’s farm’ (Mills 1998, 5) and has been variously spelt

ldremanestone, Eldremanestune and Heldremanestone (VCH 1929, 386-95). Aldermaston is mentioned in

Domesday Book of 1086 as Heldermanestune in the hundred of Redinges (Reading). It belonged to King

William in 1086 while in 1066 it was held by Earl (King) Harold when it was assessed at 15 hides. In 1086 it still comprised 15 hides but did not pay any geld. There was arable land for 30 ploughs, 124 acres of meadow and woodland for 30 pigs. On the demesne there were two ploughs and 36 villagers and 12 smallholders with 18 ploughs. There were also 2 slaves and a mill worth 20s, 2 fisheries worth 5s and a church. It was worth £20 10s both in 1066 and 1086. The manor of Aldermaston also included Hocfelle (Wokefield) which was assessed at 1

½ hides and held by Bricstuard of Earl Harold and combined with Aldermaston the worth amounted to £26

(VCH 1906, 334; Williams and Martin 2002, 136, 140).

By the 14th century it was being referred to as Aldermanneston Achard, the suffix deriving from its grant to

Robert Achard by Henry I, whose charter was used as the crucial evidence in a 13th century dispute over the

Achard lands with the Abbot of Reading (VCH 1923, 386-95). Aldermaston was held by the Achards until 1762 when the manor passed to the Congreve family. On the death of William Congreve in 1843 the manor, with his other estates, was ordered to be sold for the payment of his creditors. In 1893 the manor was owned by C E

Keyser, an important local benefactor and an early archaeologist (VCH 1923, 386-95).

8 By the 13th century ten inhabitants of Aldermaston were being described as burgesses, but although borough status has been suspected for the town, there is no other substantial evidence of it. There was certainly a market by 1292, and probably earlier. This seems to have continued throughout the medieval period and beyond, but probably ceased not long after its last mention in 1799. With the grant of the market, Robert Achard also obtained the right to hold a yearly fair on the vigil, the feast and the morrow of the Translation of St Thomas the

Martyr (7th July). This fair was held until the 19th century, but it was abolished in 1874. The mill mentioned in

Domesday Book probably survived until the 14th century. By the 17th century there were four mills in

Aldermaston. At the time of writing of the VCH (1923) only one of these remained, and it is impossible to tell if that was on the site of the Norman mill (VCH 1923, 386-95).

Pamber is not mentioned in Domesday Book. However, its proximity to Silchester may mean that the land was included within the Silchester holdings. Silcestre (Silchester) in the hundred of Holesete (Holdshott) was held by Ralf de Mortemer and William de Ow. Ralf held the land owned by Earl Harold and held by Cheping in

1066. It was assessed at 3 hides, a reduction from 5 hides in 1066. There was land for 5 ploughs. There were 9 villagers and 13 small holders with 4 ploughs, as well as 3 slaves, 6 acres of meadow and woodland worth 20 pigs. In 1066 it was worth £5 and in 1086 £3 (VCH 1900, 490-1). William’s portion of the Silchester holdings was held by Ralf Bloiet. Alestan held it of King Edward as an alod (in alodium) in 1066. Both in 1066 and 1086 it was assessed at 5 hides. There was land for 5 ploughs. In the demesne there was 1 plough and there were 5 villagers and 5 smallholders with 3 ploughs. There were also 4 slaves, 2 acres of meadow and woodland worth

60 pigs. In 1066 it was worth £5, and £6 in 1086.

The land which is now included in the parish of Pamber was in early times within the metes of Pamber

Forest, and though grants of assart and licences for inclosure were given to various families in the neighbourhood, there was no court held for Pamber until the 17th century, and hence there was no manor. The bailiwick of Pamber Forest was granted to John de St John by Edward I and the Lord St John still held the title of ‘Keeper of all woods and underwoods in Pamber Forest’ in 1669 even though the woods had been sold more than fifty years before when the land was granted by James I to John Waller and Thomas Purcell, with the right of holding courts within the liberty of the forest. The property appears to have been bought before 1618 by

William Marquess of Winchester. In 1745 the Pamber estate come into the possession, through marriage, of

Richard Benyon, and the Benyons owned the greater part of the parish until the end of the 19th century (VCH

1911, 433-5).

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

Hampshire Record Offices 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 maps available of the area are the maps of Berkshire and Hampshire by Christopher Saxton from 1574 and 1575 respectively. The map of Berkshire depicts Aldermaston as one of a number of smaller settlements – including Wasinge (Wasing), Padworth, Ofton (Ufton), Silhms (Sulhamstead) and Burfelde

(Burghfield) dotted along the south side of Kennet flu (the River Kennet). An enclosed park is depicted to the south-east of Aldermaston, presumably representing Aldermaston Park first mentioned in 1299 (VCH 1923, 386-

95). Stertfeld moritmere (Stratfield Mortimer), the modern parish of Mortimer West End in Hampshire was historically a tithing of, is depicted to the east. Tadlow (Tadley) and Silchester in Hampshire are depicted to the south and south-east. The proposal site’s conjectured location would have been to the south-east of the enclosed park in Aldermaston, towards or even at the very border with Hampshire. Saxton’s map of Hampshire (Fig. 3) gives further detail as to the area just south of the country boundary. The area that appears to have bounded the proposal site to the south was occupied by Pamber forest with Sylchester (Silchester) to the east and Tadlowe

(Tadley) to the north. Further north is the settlement of Pamber.

Speed’s maps of Berkshire from 1610 (not illustrated) and Hampshire from 1611 (not illustrated) add little to Saxton’s maps. Speed marks the hundreds and Aldermerston is located within Reading Hunderd while south of the border, is Holdshot Hunderd comprising Silchester and Pamber. Tadlow, on the other hand, is a separated area of Overton Hundred.

The maps of Berkshire and Hampshire produced by John Morden at the end of the 17th century again add very little detail as to the area within which the proposal site is located. Near Silchester Old Roman City is marked on the 1695 Berkshire map (Fig. 4) while the Hampshire map of the same year marks it as Ol Vindonum, an erroneous name for Roman town of Calleva Atrebatum (not illustrated).

Rocque’s map of Berkshire from 1761 (Fig. 5) depicts the proposal site at the very southern edge of

Aldermaston Common, south of an area of woodland, north-east of a small plot containing a house and north of the annotation of Nimph Stone, a presumed Roman milestone marking the boundary between the two counties.

(Aldermaston) Soak is depicted to the north-east of the proposal site.

Milne’s map of Hampshire from 1791 (Fig. 6) although focusing on Hampshire still depicts a number of details north of the border. Aldermaston Park dominates this area, the house in a plot is shown and Imp Stone,

10 the Nimph Stone of Rocque’s map, is labelled as well, although the stone itself is not marked. The proposal site is located to the south of the park and north-west of the house in Berkshire. To the south are Tadley and

Silchester Commons and Pamber Forest beyond. Some of the recognisable areas within the forest forming the modern day parish of Pamber have been marked such as Pamber Green, Pamber End and Little London towards the southern extent of the forest. The village of Pamber is depicted further to the south of the forest. Tadley and

Beggars Br(idge) are shown to the west and east of the forest respectively. Some buildings are depicted in the location of Aldermaston Soak, although it is not labelled, with Silchester and Old City Wall marking the perimeter of the Roman town of Calleva Atrebatum are shown to the south.

An Ordnance Survey drawing of Odiham from 1806 (Fig. 7) depicts the Nymph or Imp Stone as a dot marked a right-angled boundary, as well as Aldermaston Soak to the north-east of the proposal site and the house in its plot to the south-west. The area within which the proposal site is located is labelled Silchester Common.

Also marked on the map to the north-west of the proposal site are Little Heath and Decoy, likely associated with

Decoy Pond, with Aldermaston Park beyond. Ancient Entrenchment runs from Decoy aligned south-west to north-east representing Grim’s Bank. To the south of Silchester Common is Pamber Forest.

The Aldermaston Enclosure map of 1815 (Fig. 8) depicts the proposal site as belonging to William

Congreve Esq who acquired Aldermaston manor in 1798 (VCH 1923, 386-95). The Soak is depicted to the north-east of the proposal site which is located within a field bounded by Pamber and Mortimer parishes to the south and west. The field’s only distinguishing feature is a small structure in a plot to the south-west of the location of the proposal site, presumably the same house that was depicted on all the maps from Rocque onwards.

The Old Series Ordnance Survey map of Hampshire from 1817 (Fig. 9) is very similar to the Ordnance

Survey drawing of 1806. It depicts the location of the proposal site as being within Silchester Common with

Nymph or Imp Stone to the south-east and the house in its plot to the south-west. Aldermaston Park,

Entrenchment (Grim’s Bank) and Decoy are depicted to the north with Aldermaston Soak to the north-east.

Tadley Common is shown to the west while Pamber Forest is located to the south of the proposal site.

Greenwood’s map for Hampshire from 1826 (not illustrated) adds nothing to the identification of the proposal site.

The first map to allow for the precise identification of the proposal site is the First Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1872 (Fig. 10). Located to the north of the county boundary in West Berkshire, the proposal site is located within Impstone Plantation (plot 445) with a small section of the proposed access road covering the

11 modern Silchester Road. Excluding this portion, the remainder of the proposal site is completely wooded with conifers. Three tracks traverse the proposal site, one towards the north aligned east to west and another two in the easternmost extent of the proposal site aligned south-east to north-west and south-west to north-east. To the north of the proposal site is a Sand Pit. To the south of the proposal site is development along the unnamed

Silchester Road with Pelican Inn marked. The house in its plot is still identifiable on the road, south-west of the proposal site.

The Second Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1896-1900 (Fig. 11) shows that some deforestation took place by this time as the northern section of the proposal site has been reduced to rough pasture while the woodland remained across the access road to the south. The remainder of the access road remains part of the unnamed Silchester Road. The track in the northern section of the proposal site has been removed, while the two in the eastern section are now foot paths. Old Sand Pit is located to the north-west of the proposal site and Old

Gravel Pit to the north-east.

The 1911 Ordnance Survey map (Fig. 12) again shows the entire proposal site covered with fir and the northernmost section is criss-crossed by footpaths. In addition to Old Sand Pit and Old Gravel Pit, another

Gravel Pit is depicted to the north-west of the proposal site.

Following a 50 year gap in mapping, the 1966 Ordnance Survey map (Fig. 13) shows a dramatic change in the proposal site and its environs. Residential development has taken place to the south-west and south of the proposal site including the construction of Pelican Road. The access road to the site corresponds to the roads depicted on the 1966 map and comprises part of Silchester Road to the south and part of Pelican Road aligned south to north from Silchester Road. This section of the proposal site is bounded by residential and commercial properties along the two roads while the northern part of the proposal site is bounded by open fields to the north and east, a field with two structures to the east and a track running along the back of properties on Pelican Road to the south. This section appears to comprise part of a field to the west, a field wooded with deciduous and coniferous tress, another field with deciduous trees and scrub and a track running to a building and part of a further scrub-covered field.

The 1976 (Fig. 14) and 1978 (not illustrated) Ordnance Survey maps show further changes in the northern section of the proposal site. While the proposed access road continues to follow the established layout of

Silchester and Pelican Roads, to the north, the building in the middle section has gone. The whole area appears associated with Soke Pig Farm to the west. The northern section now comprises part of an open field to the west in which the farm house is located (outside of the proposal site) with a small structure located in the north-

12 western corner at the very boundary, two fields with deciduous and coniferous trees and scrub in the middle within the easternmost one a structure is located and a further field to the east with two large structures. A track runs along the boundary allowing access to the structures and fields.

The Ordnance Survey from 1984-8 (Fig. 15) shows no changes to the proposal site, while the next available map dating from 1988-93 (Fig. 16) depicts some further development in the northern section of the proposal site.

While the small structure in the north-western corner of the proposal site has vanished, two further structures are visible towards the northern boundary while the cluster of buildings towards the proposal site’s eastern boundary has grown from four to six structures. It also appears that an access has been constructed from the north-west from the track running the whole length of the proposal site from north to south. The remainder of the proposal site remains a combination of open fields and wooded areas. The house in a plot south-east of the proposal site is, for the first time, named as Three Ways. The Ordnance Survey maps from 1993-4 (not illustrated) and 1995

(Fig. 17) show no further changes to the proposal site.

Listed buildings

There is one listed building in the vicinity of the proposal site. Soke Farm House [Fig. 1: 8] is located on Soke

Road to the north-east of the proposal site. It is Grade II listed and dates from the late 18th century with 20th century alternations. The setting of the listed building should not be adversely affected by any development on the proposal site due to distance and wooded intervening landscape.

Registered Parks and Gardens

Aldermaston Park is a Grade II registered park and garden lying in Aldermaston parish in West Berkshire and located some 2km from the proposal site. The park and gardens date from the mid and late 19th century and surround a mid-19th country house, Aldermaston Court, with the remains of 17th/18th pleasure grounds relating to the former 17th century manor house. The park has been significantly reduced in size, especially when an airfield was constructed in its southern section in the 1940s. However, the park originally stretched to

Aldermaston Common within which the proposal site had been located. Decoy Pond and Decoy House mentioned in the West Berkshire Historic Environment Record and located within the study area of 750m around the proposal site were originally located within Aldermaston Park. The settings of the registered park and garden will not be affected by the proposed development on the site.

13 Registered Battlefields

There are no registered battlefields within close proximity of the site.

Historic Hedgerows

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

Aerial Photographs

The proposal site lies in an area that has been wooded and partly developed since before the advent of aerial photography. No photographic collections have therefore been consulted.

Discussion

There are no known heritage assets on the proposal site or in a position to be affected by its development. The only listed building within the study area is some distance away from the proposal site and screened by mature woodland and would not be adversely affected by the proposed development on the site.

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.

The Hampshire Archaeology and Historic Buildings Record and the West Berkshire Historic Environment

Record searches suggest the area has a fairly low archaeological potential. While the prehistoric and Roman periods are characterized by two unspecified findspots and the possible Roman milestone, the vicinity of Iron

Age and Roman settlement in Silchester and a Roman road passing the proposal site to the east should not be ignored. There have been no archaeological investigations on the proposal site or its immediate vicinity, and it is entirely possible that this alone accounts for the absence of evidence of past human behaviour. The proposal site’s size, at 2.3ha, increases the chance of archaeological remains of any period being present simply by chance.

Cartographic and documentary evidence show that the site was undeveloped until the mid-20th century and then the development was limited to the eastern section of the proposal site in the form of auxiliary agricultural buildings. Use of the site as a pig farm, rather than arable land, will be unlikely to have led to much disturbance

14 below topsoil level, so that any archaeological features that might be present will have the potential to have survived relatively intact.

The development proposal would undoubtedly carry the potential to damage or destroy archaeological deposits if present, in areas of building footprints, landscaping and service trenches.

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. This may take the form of an evaluation and if so, this will need to be drawn up and approved by the archaeological advisers to the Borough and carried out by a competent archaeological contractor. It could be implemented by an appropriately worded condition to any consent gained.

References

Astill, G G, 1979-80, “Excavation at Grim’s Bank, Aldermaston, 1978”, Berkshire Archaeological Journal, 70, 57-65 BDBC, 2006, Basingstoke and Deane Borough Adopted Local Plan 1996 – 2011 BGS, 2016, British Geological Survey, 1:50,000 http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html (accessed: 16th April 2016) CIfA, 2014, Standard and guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment, Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, Reading Ford, S and Hopkins, H, 2011, ‘Silchester Field Survey; University of Reading Student Projects, Hampshire, 1981-89’ in S Preston (ed), Archaeological Investigations in the Silchester hinterland: Exploring landscape use around the Roman town, TVAS Monograph 9, Reading, 21–30 Fulford, M G, 1985, “Excavations on the sites of Amphitheatre and the Forum-Basilica at Silchester, Hampshire: An Interim Report”, Antiq J, 65, 39-81 HCC, 2010, Hampshire County Integrated Character Assessment, Hampshire County Council Lobb, S J and Rose, P G, 1996, Archaeological Survey of the Lower Kennet Valley, Berkshire, Wessex Archaeol Rep 9, Salisbury Margary, I D, 1955, Roman Roads in Britain, i, London Millett, M, 1990, The Romanization of Britain: an essay in archaeological interpretation, Cambridge Mills, A D, 2011, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford NPPF, 2012, National Planning Policy Framework, Dept Communities and Local Government, London VCH, 1906, A History of the County of Berkshire, i, London VCH, 1923, A History of the County of Berkshire, iii, London VCH, 1900, A History of the County of Hampshire, i, London VCH, 1911, A History of the County of Hampshire, vi, 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

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

No HER Ref Grid Ref (SU) Type Period Comment 1 20201 62000 63000 Findspot Mesolithic A medium tranchet axe or adze found in Benyon’s Inclosure. 20195 Iron Age An uninscribed 'Remic' type gold stater. The obverse shows a design from a head, the reverse a 3-tailed horse, wheel below. Possibly from a unique die. 2 20040 61624 62520 Inscribed stone Roman? The Imp Stone. 45cm x 91cm. Possible Roman milestone, or MWB17864 a medieval boundary mark made reusing material from the Roman Silchester. 3 41148 61320 62230 Documentary Medieval Pamber Heath was first documented as Perberga in 1166. On the 1873 OS map named Pamber Common. 4 MWB4886 606 633 Pond Medieval Decoy Pond, Aldermaston. An artificial pond once within Post-medieval Aldermaston Park, with a curving ditch off it used for catching wildfowl. Part of bed concreted in early 20th century. 5 MEW19972 607 632 Cartographic Post-medieval Decoy House is shown on the First Edition Ordnance Survey mapping close to a decoy pond built within the land of Aldermaston Park. The building was used by estate workers in connection with the management of the decoy pond as accommodation and for the storage of equipment. 6 55085 61020 62245 Documentary Post-medieval Site of non-conformist chapel, Pamber Heath Rd. Marked on the 1st Ed OS map as Plymouth Brethren Chapel. 7 59550 61100 63150 Kiln Post-medieval Roundwood Copse Kiln. 19th c. Probably ceased operations MWB6915 between 1841 and 1877. The 1842 tithe map shows three other structures on the site, probably a fuel store, house and drying shed all of which are now gone. 8 1 61712 63193 Listed building Post-medieval Soke Farm House, Soke Road, Silchester. L. 18th c. with 20th c. alternations. 9 20185 61980 62910 Enclosure Undated An earthwork of irregular polygonal shape and 2-3 acres in area. The ditch is outside the bank and a section taken near the road showed an overall height of 0.76m and a width of 9.1m. The earthwork has no obvious entrance. It is possibly a coppice enclosure or associated with buildings formerly standing on the site. Listed Buildings Grade II unless stated.

16 APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1574 Saxton’s map of Berkshire (not illustrated) 1575 Saxton’s map of Hampshire (Fig. 3) 1610 Speed’s map of Berkshire (not illustrated) 1611 Speed’s map of Hampshire (not illustrated) 1645 Blaeu’s map of Hampshire (not illustrated) 1673 Bloome’s map of Hampshire (not illustrated) 1695 Morden’s map of Berkshire (Fig. 4) 1695 Morden’s map of Hampshire (not illustrated) 1701 & 1789 Seller’s map of Berkshire (not illustrated) 1720 Bowen’s map of Berkshire (not illustrated) 1720 Bowen’s map of Hampshire (not illustrated) 1741 & 1750 Kitchin’s map of Berkshire (not illustrated) 1751 Kitchin’s map of Hampshire (not illustrated) 1759 Taylor’s map of Hampshire (not illustrated) 1761 Rocque’s map of Berkshire (Fig. 5) 1791 Milne’s map of Hampshire (Fig. 6) 1793 Cary’s map of Berkshire (not illustrated) 1806 Ordnance Survey drawing of Odiham (Fig. 7) 1815 Aldermaston Enclosure map (Fig. 8) 1817 Old Series Ordnance Survey map of Hampshire from 1817 (Fig. 9) 1826 Greenwood’s map of Hampshire (not illustrated) 1872 First Edition Ordnance Survey (Fig. 10) 1896-1900 Second Edition Ordnance Survey (Fig. 11) 1911 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 12) 1966 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 13) 1976 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 14) 1978 Ordnance Survey (not illustrated) 1984-8 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 15) 1988-93 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 16) 1993-4 Ordnance Survey (not illustrated) 1995 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 17) 2011 Ordnance Survey – Explorer 159 at 1:25,000 (Fig. 1)

17 Basingstoke Farnborough Andover SITE

Winchester SOUTHAMPTON

New Forest Ringwood PORTSMOUTH Gosport

5 8 7 SITE 63000 1

6 3

62000

SU61000 62000 PPH 16/69 N Land at Pelican Road, Pamber Heath, Hampshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 1. Location of site within Pamber Heath and Hampshire showing Hampshire AHBR and West Berkshire HER records. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Explorer 159 at 1:12,500 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 PPH 16/69 N Land at Pelican Road, Pamber Heath, Hampshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 2. Current site layout and proposed layout Approximate location of site