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

Supermarket and Hotel Site, Aylesbury Waterside, Exchange Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire

An archaeological desk-based assessment

by Heather Hopkins

Site Code AWB10/15

(SP 8225 1365)

Supermarket and Hotel Site, Aylesbury Waterside, Exchange Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire

An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

for Aylesbury Vale District Council

By Heather Hopkins

Thames Valley Archaeological

Services Ltd

Site Code AWB 10/15

June 2010 Summary

Site name: Supermarket and Hotel Site, Aylesbury Waterside, Exchange Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire

Grid reference: SP 8225 1365

Site activity: Desk-based assessment

Project manager: Steve Ford

Site supervisor: Heather Hopkins

Site code: AWB 10/15

Area of site: c. 1.2ha

Summary of results: This document considers the implications of re-development on potential historic and archaeological assets on the proposal site. On this occasion, however, it is the archaeological component which dominates this study. The proposed development area covers a large plot of land and is located in close proximity to areas of high archaeological potential (central Aylesbury and Walton) There is also a possibility of encountering waterlogged deposits suitable for palaeo-environmental reconstruction. The site has been developed in its recent past but it is unclear at this stage how much those developments have impacted upon any below ground archaeology present. It is anticipated that further information from trial trenching (evaluation) will be required to determine the archaeological potential of the site in the first instance and, if necessary, in order to draw up an appropriate mitigation strategy. The boundary of the site is formed by the Aylesbury branch of the Grand Union Canal. It is considered that the development proposal has no negative impact on the heritage asset setting of the canal and canal basin and that continued use (or re-use) the environs of the canalside for commercial purposes is entirely complimentary with the zonation of this area of Aylesbury as that of commercial and industrial usage in later post-medieval times.

This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder

Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford9 30.06.10 Steve Preston9 8.06.10

1

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

Supermarket and Hotel Site, Aylesbury Waterside, Exchange Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

by Heather Hopkins

Report 10/15 Introduction

This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of land at Aylesbury Waterside, Exchange

Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire (SP 8225 1365) (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Chris

Richards of CB Richard Ellis Ltd, Kingsley House, 1a Wimpole Street, London, W1G 0RE on behalf of

Aylesbury Vale District Council 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 permission is to be sought to development the Waterside area for leisure and commercial use, including a food retail premises and a hotel.

Site description, location and geology

The site occupies an irregular parcel of land to the south east of the centre of Aylesbury and covers an area of c.

1.2ha (Fig. 12). It includes areas to either side of a small brook (Bear Brook) linked by two bridges across it. The site is bounded to the north by Exchange Street, to the east by residential housing and an electricity depot, to the south by a canal and canal basin and to the west by a new theatre complex. Former structures on the site have now been demolished and much of the site covered by Tarmac for use as a car-park (Pls 1 and 2). The site is mainly located on recent and Pleistocene alluvium, with Kimmeridge (including Hartwell Clay) to the north- west (BGS 1990). It is at a height of approximately 80m above Ordnance Datum.

Planning background and development proposals

Planning permission is to be sought for the redevelopment of the Waterside area for leisure and commercial use, with a food retail premises and hotel to be constructed, to form part of a wider waterside regeneration project.

The Department for Communities and Local Government’s Planning Policy Statement, Planning for the

Historic Environment (PPS5 2010) sets out policies relating to archaeology, and other aspects of the historic environment, within the planning process. It requires an applicant for planning consent, listed building consent,

Scheduled Monument Consent, or Conservation Area 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.

1

Policy HE6.1 states that

‘Local planning authorities should require an applicant to provide a description of the significance of the heritage assets affected and the contribution of their setting to that significance. The level of detail should be proportionate to the importance of the heritage asset and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on the significance of the heritage asset. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets themselves should have been assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary given the application’s impact. Where an application site includes, or is considered to have the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where desk-based research is insufficient to properly assess the interest, a field evaluation.’ [on which, see below].

PPS5 makes the significance of any ‘heritage asset’ a material consideration in the planning process, regardless of whether that asset is ‘designated’ or not, and places on local planning authorities the responsibility to weigh the benefits of a proposed development against any loss of significance in a heritage asset. Designated assets include World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Protected Wreck Sites, Registered Battlefields,

Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and Registered Parks and Gardens.

Policy HE9.1:

‘There should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets and the more significant the designated heritage asset, the greater the presumption in favour of its conservation should be. Once lost, heritage assets cannot be replaced and their loss has a cultural, environmental, economic and social impact. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Loss affecting any designated heritage asset 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, including scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings and grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.’ Policy HE9.6 ‘There are many heritage assets with archaeological interest that are not currently designated as scheduled monuments, but which are demonstrably of equivalent significance. These include heritage assets: • that have yet to be formally assessed for designation • that have been assessed as being designatable, but which the Secretary of State has decided not to designate; or • that are incapable of being designated by virtue of being outside the scope of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. ‘The absence of designation for such heritage assets does not indicate lower significance and they should be considered subject to the policies in HE9.1 to HE9.4 and HE10.’

Proposals for development which would have an adverse impact on assets not so designated must be weighed against the significance of the asset. Policy HE8 states:

‘The effect of an application on the significance of such a heritage asset or its setting is a material consideration in determining the application. When identifying such heritage assets during the planning process, a local planning authority should be clear that the asset meets the heritage asset criteria set out in Annex 2. Where a development proposal is subject to detailed pre-application discussions (including, where appropriate, archaeological evaluation (see HE6.1)) with the local planning authority, there is a general presumption that identification of any previous unidentified heritage assets will take place during this pre-application stage. Otherwise the local planning authority should assist applicants in identifying such assets at the earliest opportunity’

2

The accompanying Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide (DCLG 2010) clarifies what is meant by field evaluation: paragraph 62 states:

‘Where a desk-based assessment does not provide sufficient evidence for confident prediction of the impact of the proposal, it may be necessary to establish the extent, nature and importance of the asset’s significance through on-site evaluation. This may be achieved through a number of techniques, some of which may potentially be harmful to the asset and will need careful consideration. These include ground-penetrating radar, trial-trenching, test-pitting, field-walking, x-ray and other forms of remote-sensing, geo-archaeological borehole investigation, opening-up and building analysis and recording…Evaluation is normally a rapid operation. It is designed to inform the decision-making process.’ Early consultation between the applicant and the local planning authority is stressed as important in the process in paragraphs 63–6.

Paragraph 130: ‘Where development will lead to loss of a material part of the significance of a heritage asset, policy HE12.3 requires local planning authorities to ensure that developers take advantage of the opportunity to advance our understanding of the past before the asset or the relevant part is irretrievably lost. As this is the only opportunity to do this it is important that: ‘1. Any investigation, including recording and sampling, is carried out to professional standards and to an appropriate level of detail proportionate to the asset’s likely significance, by an organisation or individual with appropriate expertise. ‘2. The resultant records, artefacts and samples are analysed and where necessary conserved. ‘3. The understanding gained is made publicly available. ‘4. An archive is created, and deposited for future research.’

The Aylesbury Vale District Council Local Plan was adopted in 2004. In September 2007 a number of polices expired. The policy relating to archaeology that did not expire states:

‘GP.59 In dealing with development proposals affecting a site of archaeological importance the Council will protect, enhance and preserve the historic interest and its setting. ‘Where research suggests that historic remains may be present on a development site, the planning application should be supported by details of an archaeological field evaluation. In such cases the Council will expect proposals to preserve the historic interest without substantial change. ‘Where permission is granted for development involving sites containing archaeological remains the Council will impose conditions or seek planning obligations to secure the excavation and recording of the remains and publication of the results.’

Further local plan policies covering listed buildings and conservation areas are not directly relevant to the proposal area. The Aylesbury Conservation Area lies north of Exchange Street and there is modern development between it and the site, while the closest listed buildings to the site are also screened by intervening development.

3

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 Buckinghamshire Historic

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

Archaeological background

General background

Aylesbury, in general, has a rich and varied archaeological sequence spanning periods from the Neolithic to the later post-medieval and this has recently been comprehensively synthesised by English Heritage (EH 2009). The town’s origins are thought to lie in the Saxon period which is corroborated by its mention in the Anglo-Saxon

Chronicles. However earlier activity is well represented. An Iron Age hillfort had been identified in the town which was later reused, enclosing the minister church and town (Blair 1994). Further fieldwork recorded Iron

Age ditches to the north-west of Exchange Street, on Bicester Road (Norton 1999). The proposal site is also located close to Walton, now a suburb of the town. Extensive fieldwork in this area has revealed evidence of prehistoric activity in the form of Mesolithic struck flints through to Bronze Age activity in the form of refuse pits, structures and cremations (Farley 1976; Ford et al. 2004; Farley 2010, fig. 4.16).

Roman activity is less well recorded for the town with the majority of entries in the county Historic

Environment Record relating to find spots, such as for coins, from various locations. The projected route of the

Akeman Street Roman road, which connected St Albans to Alchester, is thought to lie to the north west of the site. Again, fieldwork in the Walton area has identified Roman activity in the form of boundary ditches or field systems (Farley 1994).

Various investigations and chance observations have taken place on Walton Street and within Walton itself revealing, most importantly, a notable range of deposits of Saxon date, but with both earlier and later periods also represented (Fig. 1). Fieldwork carried out some distance to the south of the site on Walton Street revealed a range of occupation deposits including pits , ditches and postholes. Many of these were individually poorly dated but others were clearly of Saxon, medieval and post-medieval date (AS 2005). On Croft Road, Saxon settlement of the 5th-6th and 10th centuries AD is recorded along with an Iron Age or Roman kiln and Iron Age and Roman ditches. Chance observations made during development in the early 20th century on Walton Street recorded up to ten Roman skeletons with pottery and an antler pick (prehistoric?). Extensive excavations at The Orchard in

4

Walton examined at least ten buildings of mid-Saxon date (Ford and Howell 2004) with a further six sunken floored buildings to the south discovered previously (Farley 1994).

There are inevitably a large number of records relating to the medieval and post-medieval history of

Aylesbury, in particular the site of buildings that have since been lost. For example, St John’s Leper Hospital was located to the west of the site. It was founded before AD 1100 and continued in use until its dissolution in

1547. The market square and features relating to public entertainment and trade such as a cockpit and numerous public houses and inns are recorded. The southern boundary of the site is formed by the Aylesbury branch of the

Grand Union Canal with a canal basin for the town present. However, any buildings contemporary with the primary use of, and associated with the canal have now been demolished.

The historic core of Aylesbury (Fig. 1) still boasts a wealth of historic and listed buildings dating to these periods (EH 2009, fig. 16).

It can also be considered that the above discussion is neatly summarised in ‘Aylesbury Historic Town

Assessment Report’ (EH2009). In this document, the site lies within historic urban zone 11, but which in effect, represents an area of 19th and 20th century commercial and industrial infill between the two historic centres of

Aylesbury and Walton. It’s archaeological potential (relating to the Saxon and Medieval periods) is described as low/medium and its heritage values are medium or low/medium.

Buckinghamshire Historic Environment Record An initial search was made on the Buckinghamshire Historic Environment Record (HER) on 16th March 2010 for a radius of 400m around the proposal site. This revealed 172 entries within the search radius. Due to this large number of entries, primarily with regard to the historic core of Aylesbury, entries from a reduced study area of 200m radius have been compiled. These entries are summarized as Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 2. A selection of entries from the wider study area has been summarized above.

Prehistoric There are no prehistoric entries within the reduced study area.

Roman There is a single entry for this period comprising a coin dating to AD330–5 [Fig. 2: 1]. The findspot location is approximate only.

Saxon There is also a single entry for this period within the study area. Archaeological evaluation undertaken in 2006 on the new theatre site, adjacent to the proposal area, located Saxon pottery from a former water course [2].

5

Medieval Two entries are noted for this period. The archaeological evaluation on the adjacent theatre site revealed water management features for the Bear Brook consisting of alternating episodes of silting followed by recutting of channels [2]. A groat (coin) of Henry VII (1485 – 1509) was discovered on Walton Street to the south-west of the site [3]. The core of Aylesbury to the north-west (Fig. 1) contains a wealth of medieval remains and buildings.

Post medieval There are several entries for Post-medieval and early modern times. The channel of the Bear Brook located both on the new theatre site and to its east continued to be active into post-medieval times until it was backfilled during the 17th century [2,11]. Another water feature, the Aylesbury Arm of the Grand Union Canal forms the southern boundary of the proposal site. It was opened in 1815 after its authorization in 1794 [4]. The proximity of the canal basin might indicate that wharfage and storage buildings may have been present here, although the cartographic evidence does not show any until the late 19th century (see below).

A number of religious houses and meeting places were built or converted at this time: Catholic, Primitive

Methodist and Quaker churches and chapels are all recorded in the area. To the immediate west of the site the

Walton Street (Baptist) chapel was founded in 1828 but the last incarnation of this was destroyed in 1966 through road widening [5]. A mid 19th-century mission hut was situated in Aylesbury Canal River basin [6] but its exact location is now lost: it is possible this was on the site.

Modern, undated A number of modern features are noted on the HER. The electricity depot opened in 1915 is situated on the site.

It was partly demolished by 1999 but the larger buildings remained until recently [7]. An Austin (car) distributor is recorded in Walton Street [8] and an engineer’s workshop is noted on the High Street [9]. No archaeological features were recorded but a layer of charcoal of unknown date was discovered during a watching brief at the

Brewery site to the south [10].

Cartographic and documentary sources

The town is first recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles for the 6th century as Aegelesburg, meaning the

‘stronghold of [a man called] Aegel’ (Mills 1998). It is noted that Aylesbury was one of the Britons’ strongest forts. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles record that in AD 571 ‘Cutha fought against the Britons at Biedcanford and took four settlements’, Aylesbury being one of these (Swanton 2000); after this the settlement became a part of

Mercia (Sheaham 1971). During this period an early royal Minster was established in Aylesbury and the

6

discovery of 8th-century burials within the Iron Age hillfort further indicates that the site had taken on renewed importance (Blair 1994). The Walton area has provided the most extensive archaeological evidence for activity in the town during this period (Hanley and Hunt 1993), with fieldwork producing widespread evidence of Saxon settlement in the form of both post-built and sunken-featured buildings. The evidence of activity in the Walton area may suggest a shift in settlement over time towards the south-east of the settlement or perhaps indicates a poly-focal settlement (Farley 1976; Dalwood et al. 1989; Ford et al. 2004).

Aylesbury is further documented in Domesday Book (AD1086) as Eilesberia, a simple corruption of the

Anglo-Saxon name. According to Domesday Book, Aylesbury belonged to the King and was assessed at 16 hides (Williams and Martin 2002). Following the Conquest Aylesbury remained in royal hands until it passed from King John to Geoffrey Fitz Piers in 1204. Aylesbury continued to flourish into the 13th century, with the main focus of the settlement centred on the Minster. Also, by this time, Aylesbury had become an important market town. It has been argued that the market was situated to the south-east of the Saxon town and extended along either side of Walton Street (Hanley and Hunt 1993). The market is thought to have decreased in size in the 16th century and contracted back towards the centre of the old town. Excavation at Walton Lodge Lane, which lies further to the south-east, has identified pits dating from the 11th to 14th century (Farley 1994).

Although Buckingham was the county town of Buckinghamshire the more suitable location and transport routes around Aylesbury meant that county business was instead held there. The assizes were held at Aylesbury from 1218.

The Market Square is surrounded by inns and houses originating from the 16th to 18th centuries. In 1553-4

Aylesbury became a chartered borough. The commercial and geographical position of the town and the existence of a strong Parliamentary party within it made it of importance during the Civil Wars of the 17th century. It declared for Parliament and the battle of Aylesbury was fought at Holman’s bridge in 1642.

The town has always been famous for duck-rearing, but in the 17th and 18th centuries it was also a centre for lace making, superseded by silk in the late 18th century.

The town was surrounded by waterlogged lands which were only drained in the 19th century. At around this time communications improved with the opening of the Aylesbury arm of the Grand Junction Canal in 1815 and the Aylesbury branch of the London and North Western Railway in 1839. During the 1960s Aylesbury doubled in size as it became a home to commuters.

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

Record Office in order to ascertain what activity had been taking place throughout the site’s later history and whether this may have affected any possible archaeological deposits within the proposal area (see Appendix 2).

7

The earliest map available of the area is Saxton’s map of Buckinghamshire 1574 (Fig. 3), which depicts

Aylesbury (Alesbury) as a well established town but due to the scale of this map it is not possible to discern any detail for the site at this time. Similarly, Bowen’s map of Buckinghamshire from 1758 provides no further details. Jeffreys’ map of 1770 (Fig. 4) illustrates the town in considerably more detail. By the mid 18th century the town centre is well established. Walton Street, although not named, is clearly depicted on this map, heading into the centre of the town from the south-east. Two river courses are noted on this map. One is presumably the

Bear Brook which is located within the development area and the other the California Brook further to the south- east. The site would appear, at this time, to lie within an area of undeveloped land.

The Enclosure map of the Hamlet of Walton 1800, does not provide any detail for the site. Similarly,

Exchange Street is not depicted on the Enclosure map of Aylesbury of 1771.

According to Bryant’s map of Buckinghamshire 1825 (Fig. 5), Aylesbury looks very similar to how it is depicted by Jeffreys in 1770. The town is focused around a central network of streets with Walton Street (again not named) leading into the town from the south-east. It is difficult to pinpoint the precise location of the site but again the Bear Brook can be used as a general guide. As with Jeffreys’ map, Exchange Street does not appear to have developed yet.

The First Edition Ordnance Survey of 1880 (Fig. 6) does provide detail for the site. Exchange Street is named on this map, connecting the High Street, to the north, with Walton Street in the south. The tree-lined Bear

Brook is shown meandering through the site and there is a single arrangement of buildings within a sharp bend in the brook, at the centre of the site. Two large structures that form the beginning of the wharf buildings are shown on the south of the site on the bank of the canal. The rest of the site is undeveloped. The police station is shown to the west, a recreation ground to the north-west and the cricket ground to the north-east. Some development has occurred along the High Street, Exchange Street and Walton Street, but has not encroached on the site.

The Second Edition Ordnance Survey of 1899 shows little change to the site (Fig. 7). The buildings shown on the First Edition appear unchanged in size and location, but they are shown rather more clearly on the Second

Edition, so it is possible to discern the divisions within them. The land parcel south of Bear Brook is subdivided; this was also the case on the 1880 map although it has not reproduced clearly on Figure 6. The land parcel on the north side of the Brook is shown as marshy, and again it presumably was so at the time of the First Edition, but not depicted.

Substantial change had occurred between the Second Edition and the revision of 1925 (Fig. 8). The site has been further subdivided and partially developed. The Electricity depot of the Aylesbury Corporation was opened in 1915 and this is shown as a substantial building in the centre of the site on the bank of the canal. Three bridges

8

have been constructed across the Bear Brook including one that carries what looks like a narrow gauge railway

(just off the site to the west). Part of the railway lies within the proposal area. Further development to the west on the north bank of Bear Brook has encroached the site. This includes buildings, a road or drive and a garden or orchard. The north-eastern boundary of the site is now aligned to the backs of gardens of terraced housing along

Highbridge Walk. One of the wharf buildings has been demolished as has the building within the meander of the brook. The land in the north of the site is shown as marsh or rough grassland, whereas the land to the south has a non-specific representation suggesting that it is simply open land. The High Street and Walton Street have been subject to ribbon development but the recreation grounds have remained and Exchange Street is still largely undeveloped.

The Ordnance Survey of 1950 shows that development, presumably all associated with the electricity plant, has continued on the site (Fig. 9). A large building has been constructed to the north of the electricity substation

(about half of this is within the proposal area) and smaller (though still substantial) buildings have been built to the east. A building has again been constructed in the meander of the brook. While there are areas of the site that have not been developed at this point, the cables and associated groundworks for these buildings would have caused considerable disturbance to the area. The area of the site that has not been subject to development at all at this point is a small area to the north which is bordered by development to the north-east and south-west, adjacent to Exchange Street to the north and the Bear Brook to the south. A land division is shown within the site parallel to the electricity depot. The police station and associated housing are no longer shown, nor is the railway line.

The Ordnance Survey of 1982 (Fig. 10) shows the site in a stylized way due to scale. The electricity depot, the building to its north and the buildings to the east are all shown much as in 1950. A land division is shown within the last undeveloped area to the north. The majority of the site appears to be undeveloped. The Ordnance

Survey of 1996 shows the site in far greater detail (Fig. 11). The last area of undeveloped land has been converted to use as a car-park. The wharf building demolished by the time of the Ordnance Survey of 1925 has been replaced and the electricity depot is still shown. The two small bridges over the Bear Brook are clearly depicted.

Since then the majority of the site has been demolished and is currently used as a car-park. Exchange Street was widened in the 1970’s(?) on its south east side with the current site boundary now c. 10m from the original carriageway. The main part of the electricity depot remains but smaller buildings associated with it were demolished before 1999.

9

Listed buildings

The site is located on the edge of the historic centre of Aylesbury. While there are numerous listed buildings in the vicinity of the site, they are at a distance with intervening development. Development within line of site of a listed building impacts its character and setting. The proposed development is likely to be large. However, the intervening development is also on a substantial scale (it includes the Council offices) and therefore the proposed development here will not have an adverse effect on the settings of the listed buildings that form part of

Aylesbury’s historic charm.

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

The site areas lies within an urban area which has been developed since before the advent of aerial photography.

No photographic collections have therefore been consulted.

Discussion

In considering the archaeological potential and heritage asset impact 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 cartographic and historic evidence demonstrates that the majority of the site has been developed and redeveloped during recent history, finally with demolition of extant structures. The location of the electricity depot and the requirements of such an establishment in the way of groundworks and cabling, mean that the ground, and any underlying archaeologically relevant levels, will almost certainly have been disturbed, perhaps significantly so in some areas. However, the location of the site in such close proximity to watercourses and the absence of development on at least parts of the site mean that it is likely that archaeologically relevant levels will have survived and if deposits of archaeological interest are also present, then these may be waterlogged and

10

potentially provide a wealth of palaeo-ecological and economic data. The proximity of Bronze Age, Iron Age,

Roman, Saxon and medieval settlement sites suggest that this area may be rich in activity of those periods.

Consideration of the implications of the proposed re-development on other possible heritage assets namely, the canal and canal basin, road network and terraced housing is also required. At a general level of analysis this process has already taken place with English Heritage’s ‘Aylesbury Assessment’ having zoned the site as being of low-to-medium or medium potential (EH 2009, 97). The impact of the proposal on the road network and terraced housing which lie beyond the site can only be one of setting and any adverse impact is regarded as negligible, and it may even be considered positive.

The Aylesbury branch of the Grand Union Canal and the canal basin are more prominent features in the post-medieval landscape and require further consideration. The canal edge forms the boundary of the proposal site with no surviving above-ground heritage assets on the site itself. Aesthetic, fire access, canal user and hydrology management requirements necessitate that the development proposal is set well back from the canal edge thus lessening any direct visual impact upon its setting. Further, as guided by policy HE10 of PPS5, it can be considered that construction of new commercial buildings overlooking an artificial commercial transport system (albeit not now used for this function) is an entirely complementary and beneficial proposition maintaining and evolving the post-medieval commercial zoning of the site. Arguably, the proposed use is considerably more complementary and enhancing of this setting than current site use as a car park.

It will be necessary to provide further information about the below ground archaeological potential of the site from field observations in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below- ground heritage assets (archaeological deposits) if necessary. A scheme for this evaluation will need to be drawn up and approved by the archaeological advisers to the District and implemented by a competent archaeological contractor.

References

AS, 2005, ’82–84 Walton Street, long stay car park and the Servicemen’s Club, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, An Archaeological Trial Trenching Evaluation,’ Archaeological Solutions rep 1918, Hertford AS, 2009, ’Waterside Redevelopment, Exchange Street, Aylesbury, an archaeological evaluation,’ Archaeological Solutions project 3648, Hertford AVDLP, 2004, Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan, Aylesbury BGS, 1990, British Geological Survey, Sheet 238, Drift Edition, Scale 1:50 000 Blair, J, 1994, Anglo Saxon Oxfordshire, Oxford Dalwood, H, Dillon, J, Evans, J and Hawkins, A, 1989, ‘Excavations in Walton, Aylesbury, 1985-86,’ Rec Buckinghamshire 31, 137–90 DCLG, 2010, The Department for Communities and Local Government’s Planning Policy Statement 5, Planning for the Historic Environment, Planning Practice Guide, HMSO EH, 2009, ‘Aylesbury Historic Town Assessment Report Draft June 2009’, English Heritage Farley, M, 1976, ‘Saxon and medieval Walton, Aylesbury: excavations 1973-1974’, Rec Buckinghamshire 20, 137-90

11

Farley, M, 1994, ‘Notes’, Rec Buckinghamshire 36, 179 Farley, M, 2010, ‘Saxon Buckinghamshire AD410–1066’ in M. Farley (ed), An Illustrated History of Early Buckinghamshire, Aylesbury, 109–50 Ford, S, Taylor, K and Howell, I, 2004, The archaeology of the Aylesbury-Chalgrove pipeline and a Saxon site at The Orchard, Walton, TVAS Monogr 5, Reading Hanley, H and Hunt, J, 1993, Aylesbury. A Pictorial History, Chichester Mills, A D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford Norton, A, 1999, ‘Aylesbury Arden Ham Hill House: an archaeological evaluation report,’ Oxford Archaeological Unit, Oxford PPS5, 2010, The Department for Communities and Local Government’s Planning Policy Statement 5, Planning for the Historic Environment, HMSO Swanton, M, 2000, The Anglo Saxon Chronicles, London. VCH, 1925, Victoria County History of Buckinghamshire, iii, London Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London.

12

APPENDIX 1: Historic Environment Records within a 400m search radius of the development site

No HER Ref Grid Ref (SP) Type Period Comment 1 0193100000 82290 13690 Findspot Roman 4th-century coin. Highbridge Walk.h 2 0947100000 82157 13568 Findspot Saxon Bucks Herald site, Exchange Street: Management of Evaluation Medieval Bear Brook found in evaluation and watching brief. Watching brief Post medieval 3 0025400000 82115 13465 Findspot Post medieval 15th/16th-century groat of Henry VII. 32 Walton St 0025400000 - MBC818 4 0295200000 8697 1394 Canal Post medieval Grand Union Canal. Opened 1815. 0295201000

5 0470100000 82140 13430 Documentary Post medieval Walton St Chapel. Baptist. 1828, demolished 1966. 0470101000 Cartographic Burial ground of Walton St Chapel. 1855 to 1966. 6 0672200000 822 135 Documentary Post medieval 19th century Mission hut at Aylesbury canal basin 7 0672100000 82282 13584 Building Modern Former electricity generating depot. 1915. Partly 0672101000 82240 13575 demolished by 1999. Site used as car park. 0672102000 82267 13538 Landing stage and wharf-side building c1915 8 0957800000 82104 13451 Building Modern Cogger & Hawkins, 32/36 Walton St. Austin dealer 9 0963700000 82350 13736 Building Modern Roblins (and son), 112 High Street. C20th - present. 10 0624600000 82269 13485 Watching brief Unknown Charcoal layer at Brewery Site. No features. 11 - 8221 1364 Evaluation - Alluvial deposits (AS 2009)

13

APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1574 Saxton’s map of Buckinghamshire (Fig. 3) 1758 Bowen’s map of Buckinghamshire 1770 Jeffrey’s map of Buckinghamshire (Fig. 4) 1771 Enclosure map of Aylesbury 1800 Enclosure map of Walton 1825 Bryant’s map of Buckinghamshire (Fig. 5) 1880 First Edition Ordnance Survey map (Fig. 6) 1899 Second Edition Ordnance Survey map (Fig. 7) 1925 Third Edition Ordnance Survey map (Fig. 8) 1950 Edition Ordnance Survey map (Fig. 9) 1982 Edition Ordnance Survey map (Fig. 10) 1996 Edition Ordnance Survey map (Fig. 11) 2006 Ordnance Survey, Explorer 171, 1:25000 (Fig. 1) 2010 Edition Ordnance Survey map (Fig. 12)

14 Buckingham 15000 Milton Keynes

Aylesbury

SITE

High Wycombe

14000

Historic core of Aylesbury SITE

Excavations in Saxon Walton

13000

SP82000 83000 AWB 10/15 Aylesbury Waterside, Exchange Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, 2010 Archaeological watching brief Figure 1. Location of site within Aylesbury and Buckinghamshire. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Explorer 171 at 1:12500 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 9

13700 1

11

13600 4

7

2

SITE

13500 6

10

8 3 5 SP82200 82300

AWB 10/15 Aylesbury Waterside, Exchange Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, 2010 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 2. Location of entries from the Historic Environment Record Approximate location of SITE

AWB 10/15 Aylesbury Waterside, Exchange Street, Aylesbury Waterside, Buckinghamshire, 2010 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 3. Location of site on Saxton’s map of Buckinghamshire, 1574 Approximate location of SITE

AWB 10/15 Aylesbury Waterside, Exchange Street, Aylesbury Waterside, Buckinghamshire, 2010 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 4. Location of site on Jeffries’map of Buckinghamshire, 1770 Approximate location of SITE

AWB 10/15 Aylesbury Waterside, Exchange Street, Aylesbury Waterside, Buckinghamshire, 2010 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 5. Location of site on Bryant’s map of Buckinghamshire, 1825 SITE

AWB 10/15 Aylesbury Waterside, Exchange Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, 2010 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 6. Location of site on First Edition Ordnance Survey, 1880 SITE

AWB 10/15 Aylesbury Waterside, Exchange Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, 2010 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 7. Location of site on Second Edition Ordnance Survey, 1899 SITE

AWB 10/15 Aylesbury Waterside, Exchange Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, 2010 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 8. Location of site on Ordnance Survey, 1925 SITE

AWB 10/15 Aylesbury Waterside, Exchange Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, 2010 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 9. Location of site on Ordnance Survey, 1950 SITE

AWB 10/15 Aylesbury Waterside, Exchange Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, 2010 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 10. Location of site on Ordnance Survey, 1982 SITE

AWB 10/15 Aylesbury Waterside, Exchange Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, 2010 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 11. Location of site on Ordnance Survey, 1996 SITE

25m

AWB 10/15 Aylesbury Waterside, Exchange Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, 2010 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 12. Current location of site on Ordnance Survey, 2010 Plate 1. Site, looking south east

Plate 2. Site, looking north east AWB 10/15

Aylesbury Waterside, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, 2010 Archaeological desk-based assessment

Plates 1 and 2 TIME CHART

Calendar Years

Modern AD 1901

Victorian AD 1837

Post Medieval AD 1500

Medieval AD 1066

Saxon AD 410

Roman AD 43 BC/AD Iron Age 750 BC

Bronze Age: Late 1300 BC

Bronze Age: Middle 1700 BC

Bronze Age: Early 2100 BC

Neolithic: Late 3300 BC

Neolithic: Early 4300 BC

Mesolithic: Late 6000 BC

Mesolithic: Early 10000 BC

Palaeolithic: Upper 30000 BC

Palaeolithic: Middle 70000 BC

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

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