Mistletoe Cottage, Devil's Highway, Riseley, Berkshire Archaeology

Mistletoe Cottage, Devil’s Highway, Riseley, Berkshire

Archaeology & Heritage Assessment

Mistletoe Cottage, Devil’s Highway, Riseley, Berkshire Archaeology & Heritage Assessment

Client: Hector Developments Ltd.

Report no.: BSA 1758_1a

Author: Ben Stephenson

th Date: 11 December 2017

Version: Final

E:[email protected]: 01235 536754 Web:www.bsaheritage.co.uk 7 Spring Gardens, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 1AZ This report, all illustrations and other associated material remains the property of BSA Heritage until paid for in full. Copyright and intellectual property rights remain with BSA Heritage. Contents

Section 1: Introduction and Methodology ...... 1 Section 2: Policy Context ...... 2 Section 3: Previously Identified Heritage ...... 5 Section 4: Documentary Sources ...... 7 Section 5: Appraisal of Site and Environs ...... 8 Section 6: Impact of Proposals ...... 9 Section 7: References and Sources ...... 10

Appendix

Berkshire Historic Environment Record Gazetteer

Plates

Plate 1: Tithe map excerpt

Plate 2: Mistletoe Cottage, looking north

Plate 3: Rear of Mistletoe Cottage

Plate 4:West end of cottage, looking north

Plate 5: West end of cottage, looking south

Figure 1

Site and Identified Archaeology and Heritage

Mistletoe Cottage, Riseley Heritage Assessment 11th December 2017 Section 1: Introduction and Methodology

1.1 This archaeology and heritage assessment has been prepared by BSA Heritage Limited on behalf of Hector Developments Limited to inform a planning application for a new residence and related re-development of Mistletoe Cottage. The site is located north of the Devil’s Highway, east of Riseley, Berkshire.

1.2 The assessmentconsiders a sitecentred at NGR SU 7350 6323 and as shown in Figure 1. The overall area considered is less than an acre.Much of the site, which consists of a single cottage and its grounds, is grassed.

1.3 The sitelies north of Devil’s Highway, a kilometre east of Riseley village centre and has fields to the west, north and east. The closest properties are Barossa Farm to the east and a detached house to the west. The road, trees, fences and hedges define the cottage’s curtilage and site boundary.

1.4 The underlying geology ofthe site is recorded by the British Geological Survey as London Clay Formation clay, sands and silt with superficial deposits of River Terrace 3 sands and gravels. The site lies immediately north of the Hampshire border which is defined by Devil’s Highway in this area. The site lies circa 500m west of the River Whitewater, a tributary of the River Loddon.

1.5 The site itself and its surroundings are relatively level and lie at approximately 48m Above Ordnance Datum, with more widely a gentle slope from west to east and towards the river.

1.6 A number of existing sources of information have been consulted to inform this assessment including the Berkshire Historic Environment Record (HER) which holds records relating to known or suspected archaeological and heritage sites, findspots1 and historic buildings.

1.7 The HER and Historic England’s online National Heritage List for England, which was also consulted, hold details of designated heritage assets including listed buildings, scheduled monuments and registered landscapes. Wokingham Borough Council was consulted in relation to planning policy, conservation areas and areas and buildings of special character.

1.8 Section 4 summarises the historical development of the area and site and was informed by resources consulted atBerkshire Record Officeand Historic England’s Archive in Swindon.A site walkover was completed in good conditions in September 2017 and this issummarised in Section 5.

1.9 The above sources have allowed thepotential for sub-surface archaeological remains within the site to be assessed.Further work which may be required to support development is outlined. The likely origins of the cottage itself are confirmed.

1.10 The potential impact of the proposals on nearby heritage assets, including listed buildings and locally listed buildings is also considered in line with relevant legislation, policy and guidance. The policy context is summarised in Section 2 and potential impacts and mitigation as appropriate in Section 6.

1Findspots record the location of the recovery of archaeological material only, without associated features.

Mistletoe Cottage, Riseley Heritage Assessment 11th December 2017 1 Section 2: Policy Context

Legislation

2.1 The 1990 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, as amended, confirms that in reaching planning decisions the local planning authority should have special regard to preserving listed buildings and their settings and the character and appearance of conservation areas (HMSO 1990).

2.2 A 2014 Court of Appeal ruling in Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v East Northants District Council, English Heritage and the National Trust made clear that to discharge this responsibility, decision makers must give considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings when carrying out the balancing exercise of judging harm against other planning considerations, as required under the National Planning Policy Framework and, by implication and subsequent legal decision, the character and appearance of conservation areas.

National Policy

2.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) covers all aspects of planning in one document and focuses on Heritage in Section 12 (DCLG 2012). At Paragraph 17, under bullet point 10 of 12 ‘Core Principles’ set out, it states planning should:

‘Conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations.’

2.4 Heritage assets are defined in the NPPF glossary as any designated or undesignated element of the historic environment which is identified as being of such significance that it is a material consideration in the planning process. In determining applications which cause harm to heritage assets directly, or indirectly, through affecting a complementary setting, the NPPF recommends that considerable importance and weight should be given to their conservation when reaching a planning decision.

2.5 The more important the asset, the greater the weight that should be ascribed. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, it is noted that any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. It notes that ‘substantial harm’ to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance should be wholly exceptional (Paragraph 133).Paragraphs 134 and 135 clarify that, 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 safeguarding its future.

2.6 Paragraph 135 of the NPPF also notes that effects on the significance of non-designated heritage assets require a balanced judgement weighing the scale of impact and the significance of the heritage asset against the benefits of the proposed development.Where heritage assets are to be lost, the final paragraph in Section 12, Paragraph 141, confirms that a record of the elements to be lost should be provided and disseminated by the developer.

Mistletoe Cottage, Riseley Heritage Assessment 11th December 2017 2 Local Policy

2.7 Current local policy is that contained within the Wokingham Borough Core Strategyand the Adopted Managing Development Delivery Local Plan (WBC 2010 & 2014, AMDDLP). Parts of Core policies CP1 – Sustainable Development and CP3 – General Principles for Development are relevant. CP1 requires that proposals should ‘maintain or enhance the high quality of the environment’, whilst CP3 includes a requirement that proposals have no detrimental impact on heritage.

2.8 In the more recent AMDDLP, policies TB24 to TB26 relate to archaeology and heritage. Policy TB24 relates to designated heritage assets including listed buildings and confirms that their conservation if not enhancement will be required where new development is proposed and that their fabric and settings will both need to be safeguarded.

2.9 Policy TB25 relates to archaeology and requires that, in areas with high potential, suitable assessment is completed to inform an application. Preservation in situ of important remains or further work to record their interest will be required. The relevant policy map confirms that the site has archaeological potential, but also that it does not lie within an Area of Special Character, nor is it designated as a Building of Traditional Local Character and therefore Policy TB26 does not apply.

Guidance

2.10 The Department for Communities and Local Government has produced Planning Practice Guidance which supports the NPPF (DCLG 2014). This includes a section titled Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment. More recently, Historic England has produced more detailed guidance:Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment(Historic England 2015a). Where relevant, this guidance has informed this assessment.

2.11 Historic England has also released an updated version of its 2011 The Setting of Heritage Assets which is designed to guide their own staff, local planning advisors and specialists in determining what forms a setting and how it adds to or detracts from the significance of a heritage asset or assets. It also advises on assessing the effect of development proposals and how to avoid or minimise loss of or enhance significance (Historic England 2015b).

2.12 This guidance confirms that the consideration of setting is a matter of ‘informed judgement’ and sets out the stages involved in robust assessment of setting. The heritage assets which have a setting, whether designated or undesignated, have to be defined through a suitable level of research. However, the guidance confirms that setting is not a heritage asset or designation in itself.

2.13 The guidance highlights the fundamental basis of current policy; that although setting can cover a large area, not all of it is positive or anything other than neutral in relation to the significance of the heritage assets concerned. At Para. 4.1, it confirms that ‘protection of the setting of heritage assets need not prevent change’. It sets out in detail the aspects of setting which may have a bearing on a heritage asset’s significance.

Mistletoe Cottage, Riseley Heritage Assessment 11th December 2017 3 2.14 The guidance examines assessment of the effects of a development proposal on significant elements of setting and stresses that although visual impacts are at the heart of such effects, other factors including noise, vibration and dust can also harm setting. An understanding of the heritage assets and the significance of their setting at an early stage can influence proposals in order to minimise adverse effects. A proposal may be re-located, better screened or designed to complement an asset’s character.

2.15 Historic England’s guidance also details enhancement of setting which can stem from development. This is noted to include the removal of a detrimental structure, or revealing a lost historic feature, enhancement or creation of public views and improving public access to and interpretation of an asset and its setting.

2.16 Perhaps confusingly, the Guidance encourages assessment of setting informed by the Heritage Values approach set out by English Heritage in their 2008 Conservation Principles document (English Heritage 2008). In summary, this identifies four classes of ‘heritage value’ which a site may hold and which may be affected by development:

Evidential value: is the potential of a place to yield evidence of past human activity, in the form of physical remains including archaeological deposits, extant structures and features;

Historical value: derives from the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through a place to the present. Remains can illustrate aspects of history through visibility. Associationwith a notable family, person, event, or movement gives historical value a particular resonance provided that the asset still retains some semblance of its appearance at the time. Historical value of places depends upon both sound identification and direct experience of fabric or landscape that has survived from the past, but is not as easily diminished by change or partial replacement as evidential value;

Aesthetic value:derives from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from a place and can be the result of the conscious designof a place or the fortuitousoutcome of the way in which a place has evolved and been used over time. The latter may include the seemingly organic form of an urban or rural landscape; and

Communal value:‘..derives from the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory. Communal values are closely bound up with historical (particularly associative) and aesthetic values…In some cases, that meaning can only be understood through information and interpretation, whereas, in others, the character of the place itself tells most of the story.’ This value can also apply to spiritual or socially important sites.

Mistletoe Cottage, Riseley Heritage Assessment 11th December 2017 4 Section 3: Previously Identified Heritage

Designated Heritage

3.1 This section details the known designated heritage and past archaeological finds and identified sites closest to the proposed development area. The section has been informed by information provided by the Berkshire Historic Environment Record (HER) and also available via the online Historic EnglandNational Heritage List for England and Wokingham Borough Council website.

3.2 Although the site lies on the Berkshire Hampshire border and thus the Berkshire HER does not record archaeology south of Devil’s Highway, the HER’s information provides a clear indication of the area’s potential and Hampshire HER has not therefore been consulted.

3.3 The closest designated heritage assets to the siteare three Grade II listed likely 16th century properties to the north. HER 2044 circa 700m to the north west records Glasspool House which is timber framed with brick infill and a thatched roof.

3.4 Slightly closer and to the north lie HERs 2210 and 2045 which record Yew Tree Cottage and Riseley Farm farmhouse respectively. These too are in typical vernacular materials, but are both tile-roofed.

3.5 Immediately south of the site lies Devil’s Highway which follows the course of the Roman road between London and Silchester (Calleva, Figure 1, HER 1074). Although the likely raised ‘agger’ of this road survives in places and sections of the route are scheduled, none of these designated sections lie close to the site (see below). Indeed, no scheduled monument lies anywhere close to the site.

3.6 Historic England’s National Heritage List for England confirms thatthe majority of designated heritage assets in the area are dispersed post-medieval listed buildings. A number of registered parks, including Swallowfield Park, Stratfield Saye Park and Farley Hall lie north and south of the site, but none would be affected by the proposals.

HER Records

3.7 The information provided by the Berkshire HER includes a number of ‘events’ or investigations and chance finds which provide a good indication of the area’s archaeological potential. Numerous individual HER records relate to features revealed during this work, but for ease, only the main event records are detailed.

3.8 Although no HER records are located within the site, an extensive area to the west and north of the site has previously been subject to evaluation ahead of proposed gravel extraction and the main article relating to this work has also been consulted (HER 259, Figure 1, Lobb & Morris 1994).

3.9 Aerial photographs dating to the 1970s had revealed extensive cropmarks which suggested sub-surface archaeological remains including likely settlement. Given this, excavation of certain areas was completed by Wessex Archaeology focussed on a ring ditch and two likely enclosures, north of Riseley Farm. This work confirmed a Bronze Age date for the ring ditch and Iron Age dates for the two enclosures, with one indicating possible metal working around the time of the Roman invasion, in the late Iron Age.

Mistletoe Cottage, Riseley Heritage Assessment 11th December 2017 5 3.10 Other cropmarks north and west of the site were not investigated as they had already been identified for preservation in situ on account of their likely significance. More recent construction of an equestrian facility at Riseley Farm was supported by a watching brief, but the construction did not go deep enough to hit archaeological deposits leading to inconclusive results.

3.11 HER 758 on Figure 1 records an outlier possible ring ditch noted east of the main area and such features are usually of prehistoric date. HER 753, located north of the site, records the poorly located find of a quern or milling stone somewhere in the parish and ascribed a prehistoric date by the HER. HER 177, north west of Glasspool Farm, records further undated cropmarks noted on aerial photographs and which included likely ditches and pits.

3.12 As noted above, HER 1074 records the course of Devil’s Highway, a major Roman road heading to Silchester, the capital of the Atrebates and subsequent Roman town west of Riseley. The road is noted to have a surviving agger or raised bank along the section which passes the site.

3.13 To the east, at the crossing point of the River Whitewater, HER 2206 records the recovery of Roman pottery, coins, bones and timbers as well as the leather sole of a shoe. A small number of Mesolithic flints are also recorded from dredging work. HER 756, also east of the site, records the find of a 4th century Roman gold coin of Constantius II.

3.14 Given the course of a major Roman road and past prehistoric finds, it is perhaps not surprising that recent development work in the study area has been attended by archaeological investigation. West of the site, the construction of a new house was supported by trial trenching of the site (HER 137). This work found remains of earlier cottages and ditches, but nothing significant or earlier.

3.15 The excavation of a pond north east of the site was monitored by an archaeologist, but this watching brief only recorded relatively recent land drains (HER 304). A watching brief during two phases of extensions at Yew Tree Cottage to the north of the site also recorded nothing of note (HER 2210). No early or significant remains were observed during a watching brief on a new house’s construction north west of the site (HER 614).

3.16 Berkshire HER also provided information on the Historic Landscape Characterisation of the study area. This records the site area and areas immediately adjacent as having had cottages shown on Roque’s map and hence having been settled by the mid-18th century. The land surrounding is noted to have been part of Riseley Common until enclosure in the 19th century.

Mistletoe Cottage, Riseley Heritage Assessment 11th December 2017 6 Section 4: Documentary Sources

Historic Maps

4.1 Berkshire Record Officeand the Historic England Archive were visited and relevant documents were consulted. These sources allow the history of the site and its environs to be understood to a certain degree, but as is often the case, detailed maps tend only to date from the mid-19th century and definitive information can be sparse.

4.2 Roque’s map of circa 1760 confirms that properties lay along Devil’s Highway at this time and as noted by the HER. The earliest detailed map though is the Swallowfield Tithe map of circa 1840 (Plate 1). This plan shows a cottage within grounds much as it survives today and this is recorded as ‘cottage and garden’, occupied by a David Hatt.

4.3 This and much of the surrounding land was owned by Sir Henry Russell of Swallowfield Park. Fields on all three sides were arable, with David Hatt farming that to the east. The field to the north is marked as ‘Parish Field’ and that to the west as ‘Workhouse Pightle’. Beyond this lay the ‘old workhouse’.

4.4 The first edition Ordnance Survey map of 1877 shows a situation little changed from the Tithe map (Figure 1). Some additional properties had been built west of the site, adjacent to the north south lane (School Lane) marking the western side of the triangle in which the site lies. The village school had been built in the northern tip of the triangle. The cottage appears to have been divided in two, or rather to have had separate parts, with a smaller section to the east.

4.5 Later Ordnance Survey mapsof 1899 and 1913 show no substantive change to the area, but do show the cottage on site divided into three parts, with two smaller parts in the east.

Other Sources

4.6 The earliest reference to Riseley is in 1300 as ‘Rysle’, thought to mean ‘brushwood clearing’ (Gelling 1973). Devil’s Highway is first documented as the name for the Roman road in 1761, on Roque’s map of Berkshire.

4.7 Pevsner mentions Riseley and comments that it is roadside hamlet, with Glasspool House the closest building he sees fit to mention (Pevsner et al 2010). Other sources do not add to information provided by the HER.

Mistletoe Cottage, Riseley Heritage Assessment 11th December 2017 7 Section 5: Appraisal of Site and Environs

5.1 The site was visited in September 2017 in order to check the site for any heritage features and check current land use. The site visit also allowed a consideration of the surrounding landscape and if any designated heritage assets might be affected by the proposals. Conditions were fair.

5.2 The site itself consists of a single one and half storey main building, Mistletoe Cottage, with grassed lawn between it and Devil’s Highway to the south and a gravelled driveway west of the lawn and cottage (Plate 2).

5.3 To the north of the cottage is a further larger grassed lawn containing two small modern greenhouses and a wooden lean-to store behind a 20th century small brick pantile roofed garage (Plate 4). The garden is bounded by post and wire fencing and trees and bushes.

5.4 The cottage itself appears to be late Victorian if not later in the main, with machine made red brick below a pantile roof aligned east to west. To the front, a later porch extends beyond the entrance. A different eastern arrangement is shown in plan on the 1913 Ordnance Survey map.

5.5 A total of four wooden casement windows include twoin the west which lie below shallow segmental arches and two which appear more modern. There is a partial string course of purple bricks in the west and combined with brickwork in Flemish bond, this part appears earlier than the stretcher bonded east, but likely Victorian.The northern rear elevation of the cottage certainly all appears later, with stretcher bonded machine made bricks, a brick extension and wooden rear porch (Plate 3).

5.6 However, the western elevation of the cottage appears to be a residual part of an earlier cottage (Plates 4 & 5). This is dominated by a chimney stack made of earlier and smaller hand- made bricks with some tile copings and appears to include an oven structure to the north of the likely internal inglenook fireplace.

5.7 Exposed scantling gives an indication of the tiny proportions of the earlier cottage, being lower and narrower than that now. The join between the earlier stack and enlarged cottage is untidy, with brick noggin likely to be a recent replacement. A small ‘oriel’ window in the eaves is also likely to date to the most recent ‘reconstruction’ of the cottage or later.

5.8 Beyond the site itself, the Devil’s Highway to the south is tarmac’ surfaced, but a raised earthen bank to the south of the road may be the Roman agger. The surrounding area is level and well vegetated and there is no visual link with any listed or otherwise significant building.

Mistletoe Cottage, Riseley Heritage Assessment 11th December 2017 8 Section 6: Impact of Proposals

6.1 This assessment has been prepared on behalf of Hector Developments Limited to inform a planning application for a new house and related infrastructure and landscaping on the site of Mistletoe Cottage. The application site lies east of Riseley’s centre, north of Devil’s Highway, in WokinghamDistrict and close to the Hampshire border. This assessment accords with national and local planning policy and guidance.

6.2 The assessment has been informed by consultation with the Berkshire Historic Environment Record and visit to both Berkshire Record Office and Historic England’s Archive. The latter’s National Heritage List for England and other online sources have website have complemented these sources. A site visit in September 2017 completed the work informing this report.

6.3 Although the site does not contain any known archaeology, it does lie immediately north of the course of an important Roman road, Devil’s Highway. The area, which is River terrace sands and gravels appears to have been settled in prehistory, with an extensive landscape of sub- surface features surviving to the north and west of the site. Recent development in the area has been attended by archaeological investigation given high potential.

6.4 However, construction of the current cottage is likely to have removed any remains within its footprint and small-scale investigations close to the site have found nothing significant. Long stretches of Roman roads are known with no significant activity adjacent.

6.5 Although it is likely that Berkshire Archaeology who advise Wokingham Borough Council will recommend further archaeological investigation at Mistletoe Cottage, it is suggested that this work could be secured as a condition of planning permission and might be limited to a watching brief.

6.6 No designated heritage assets lie close to the site, with the closest being Grade II listed properties to the north. Neither these nor any other designated assets have a relationship with the site which would lead to their significance being harmed by re-development.

6.7 The Roman road course is a non-designated heritage asset. However, replacement of one detached property in the same boundaries with another is not assessed to harm the significance of the road course. Care should be taken not to cause any accidental damage when construction plant is brought to or from the site.

6.8 Mistletoe Cottage itself is likely to have post-medieval origins as a ‘squatters’ dwelling on the edge of Riseley Common. The surviving small cottage appears to have been rebuilt at least two times, with much of its fabric now modern and of no interest.

6.9 Parts of the cottages west side appear to be earlier and likely nineteenth century, whilst the western end incorporates earlier fabric still including a chimney piece and oven and reveals the vestiges of a much smaller cottage. This end is much altered and such a small proportion of the pre-Victorian cottage now survives that these elements are of historical interest rather than heritage significance (Historic England 2015c). It would be appropriate for the earliest parts of the cottage to be recorded ahead of demolition and reported on alongside the results of archaeological investigation.

Mistletoe Cottage, Riseley Heritage Assessment 11th December 2017 9 Section 7: References and Sources

Anon. 2005 Riseley Village Design Statement Reading

Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) 2012 National Planning Policy Framework London

English Heritage 2008 Conservation Principles London

Gelling M. 1973 The Place-Names of Berkshire, Part 1 Cambridge (EPNS XLIX)

Historic England 2015a Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2 – Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment London

Historic England 2015b Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 – The Setting of Heritage Assets London

Historic England 2015c Designation Listing Selection Guides: Domestic I – Vernacular Houses London

HMSO 1990 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act London

Lobb S. J. & Morris E. L. 1994 Investigation of Bronze Age and Iron Age features at Riseley Farm, Swallowfield in Berkshire Archaeological Journal, vol. 74, Reading

Page W &Ditchfield P. (ed.) 1923 Victoria County History of the County of Berkshire, vol. III, London

Russell Lady 1901 Swallowfield and its Owners London

Timmins G. 2015 Swallowfield – a Village History Reading

Tyack G., Bradley S. & Pevsner N. 2010 Buildings of England – Berkshire New Haven

Wokingham Borough Council 2010 Wokingham Borough Core Strategy Wokingham

Wokingham Borough Council 2014 Wokingham Borough Council Development Plan – Adopted Managing Development Delivery Local Plan Wokingham

Maps

J. Roque’s map of Berkshire, 1761

Tithe Map and Award for Swallowfield of circa 1840 (BRO ref. D/P129/27B and D/P129/27C)

First edition twenty five inch to the mile Ordnance Survey map of 1877 (Sheet 45.12)

Second edition twenty five inch to the mile Ordnance Survey map of 1899 (Sheet 45.12)

Third edition twenty five inch to the mile Ordnance Survey maps of 1913 (Sheet 45.12)

Mistletoe Cottage, Riseley Heritage Assessment 11th December 2017 10

Web Sources

British Geological Survey Geology Viewer accessed at www.bgs.ac.uk

Historic England’s National Heritage List for England accessed at www.historic- england.org.uk/professional/protection/process/national-heritage-list-for-england

OS maps of site accessed at National Library of Scotland at www.nls.uk

Street Map Ordnance Survey map of Riseley accessed at www.streetmap.co.uk

Wokingham Borough Council website accessed at www.wokingham.gov.uk

Mistletoe Cottage, Riseley Heritage Assessment 11th December 2017 11 Appendix: Berkshire Historic Environment Record Gazetteer

HER ref. NGR (SU Period Notes prefix) 137 7341 6323 Post- Small-scale trench evaluation found evidence for earlier medieval cottages at Weller’s Cottage in 2002. 177 7370 6347 Undated Aerial photographic assessment in 1999 revealed likely ditches and pits. HER 6584 records features within area. 259 7338 6375 Prehistoric Investigations across area ahead of gravel extraction revealed numerous cropmarks. A ring ditch proved to be Bronze Age, an enclosure to be Iron Age and a further enclosure to be 1st century and possibly related to iron working. Other areas of likely settlement were not affected/investigated. HER 758 prefix records detail features within the wider area. 304 7351 6331 Post- A watching brief during the excavation of a pond found medieval nothing of significance and only post-medieval land drains. 614 7297 6342 19th A watching brief during groundworks for a new house century observe nothing of note. Made ground, natural gravels and modern features were noted. 753 73 64 Unknown A quern stone is recovered as having been found in Swallowfield parish. The HER postulates a prehistoric or Roman date. 756 7409 6337 Roman 4th century gold coin of Constantius II found in 1944 whilst anti-tank defences being removed at Ford Bridge. 758 7379 6350 Prehistoric HER 758.06 records a cropmark ring ditch east of the main area of investigation. 1074 7300 6312 Roman Devil’s Highway is the course of the road between London and Silchester (Calleva) and one of the preeminent roads of the period. It forms the Hampshire/Berkshire border over what was Riseley Common and the agger is visible in places on south side along a green lane, circa 15 feet wide. 2044 7281 6343 16th Glasspool House is Grade II listed and of timber, brick and century thatch roofed. 2045 7323 6382 16th Riseley Farmhouse is a former hall house and byre which is century Grade II listed. Of timber, brick and tile and later alterations. 2206 7417 6352 Mesolithic Finds dredged from River Blackwater by Thames Water &Roman included pottery (including large pieces), coins, timber and leather sole. Human and other bone found too at junction of Blackwater and Whitewater. Small number of flints too. 2210 7309 6369 16th Yew Tree Cottage is former farmhouse and Grade II listed. century The original timber frame and wattle and daub infill was refaced in brick in 18th century and has tile roof. A 2006 watching brief on an extension observed nothing of interest (HER 648). A further WB in 2015 also noted nothing of interest (HER 1818).

Mistletoe Cottage, Berkshire Heritage Assessment 11th December 2017 Plates

Mistletoe Cottage, Berkshire Heritage Assessment 11th December 2017

Plate 1: Tithe map excerpt

Plate 2: Mistletoe Cottage, looking north

Mistletoe Cottage, Berkshire Heritage Assessment 11th December 2017

Plate 3: Rear of Mistletoe Cottage

Plate 4:West end of cottage, looking north

Mistletoe Cottage, Berkshire Heritage Assessment 11th December 2017

Plate 5: West end of cottage, looking south

Mistletoe Cottage, Berkshire Heritage Assessment 11th December 2017 Figure 1: Site and Identified Archaeology and Heritage

Mistletoe Cottage, Berkshire Heritage Assessment 11th December 2017 753

2045202 Historic OS Map (Not to scale)

22100 KEY

259 Site area

Listed building

177 758 2206 Course of Roman road (HER 1074) 20442 614 Other HER record 304 756

137

0 250m

Project Mistletoe Cottage, Devil's Highway, Riseley

Drawing Title Figure 1: Site and Identified Archaeology and Heritage

Scale As shown (approximate at A3) Drawing No. BSA 1758_1 Date September 2017

Checked BS/KJ