Roakes Avenue, Chertsey Surrey

An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

for Crest Nicholson (South) Ltd

by Steve Preston

Thames Valley Archaeological

Services Ltd

Site Code RAC07/03

January 2007 Summary

Site name: Roakes Avenue, Chertsey, Surrey

Grid reference: TQ 0460 6580

Site activity: Desk-based assessment

Project manager: Steve Ford

Site supervisor: Steve Preston

Site code: RAC07/03

Area of site: c. 1.6ha

Summary of results: The site is within a topographic zone typically much favoured for prehistoric activity. Little significant archaeology is recorded in the vicinity, but this does include a Bronze Age site almost adjacent to the proposal area. This suggests high potential for prehistoric archaeology to be present. The site is well beyond the likely extent of medieval Chertsey and there are no known Roman or Saxon remains close by: potential for these periods is probably lower. The site has been disturbed by modern development, but perhaps not extensively, and was not developed in the past. Field evaluation (trial trenching) should establish the presence/absence of archaeological deposits on the site so that an appropriate mitigation strategy may be devised.

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 23.01.07 Jo Pine9 23.01.07

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

Planning background and development proposals

Outline planning permission has been gained for redevelopment of the site and a detailed proposal is now being brought forward, to include 132 residential units of mixed designs, with associated access, parking space and infrastructure.

Archaeology and Planning (PPG 16 1990) provides guidance relating to archaeology within the planning process. It points out that where a desk-based assessment has shown that there is a strong possibility of significant archaeological deposits in a development area it is reasonable to provide more detailed information from a field evaluation so that an appropriate strategy to mitigate the effects of development on archaeology can be devised:

Paragraph 21 states:

‘Where early discussions with local planning authorities or the developer’s own research indicate

that important archaeological remains may exist, it is reasonable for the planning authority to

request the prospective developer to arrange for an archaeological field evaluation to be carried

out...’

Should the presence of archaeological deposits be confirmed further guidance is provided. Archaeology and

Planning stresses preservation in situ of archaeological deposits as a first consideration as in paragraphs 8 and

18.

Paragraph 8 states:

‘...Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their

settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their

physical preservation...’

Paragraph 18 states:

‘The desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration in

determining planning applications whether that monument is scheduled or unscheduled...’

However, for archaeological deposits that are not of such significance it is appropriate for them to be ‘preserved by record’ (i.e., fully excavated and recorded by a competent archaeological contractor) prior to their destruction or damage.

Paragraph 25 states:

‘Where planning authorities decide that the physical preservation in situ of archaeological remains

is not justified in the circumstances of the development and that development resulting in the

destruction of the archaeological remains should proceed, it would be entirely reasonable for the

planning authority to satisfy itself ... that the developer has made appropriate and satisfactory

provision for the excavation and recording of remains.’

Surrey County Council’ Structure Plan (SSP 2004) includes policies with similar aims but even more robust provisions. Policy SE5 Protecting the Heritage:

‘Surrey’s valuable cultural heritage of buildings, sites and landscapes will be conserved and

enhanced. Heritage resources are irreplaceable and development affecting them will only be

permitted when it has been clearly demonstrated that there is an overwhelming need for the

proposal which outweighs the need to protect the heritage interest, and that no alternative is

possible.

‘Prior archaeological assessment, and if necessary evaluation, will be required on all development

of sites over 0.4 hectares or within areas of high archaeological potential. Where important

archaeological remains are found, there will be a preference for their preservation in situ.

‘A record will be required of any features discovered, removed or altered.’

Runnymede Borough’s Local Plan (following an earlier county plan) adopts a similar line (RBC 2001):

Policy BE14 Ancient monuments and sites of archaeological interest

‘The Council will ensure the preservation, enhancement, proper management and interpretation of

scheduled, and other nationally important, monuments and their settings and other sites of special

archaeological interest and their settings.

‘Any development which would have an adverse effect on these sites of their settings will not be

permitted.’

Policy BE15 Areas of high archaeological potential

‘The Council, in consultation with Surrey County Council, has identified areas of high

archaeological potential in the Borough as indicated on the Map in Appendix ‘L’ of the Written

Statement.

‘Where development is proposed within these areas the Council will require the prospective

developer to undertake an archaeological assessment, and where appropriate a site evaluation

before the planning application is determined. Where finds are made they should be treated in

accordance with Policy BE16.’

Policy BE16 Preservation and recording of archaeological remains

‘Where all or part of an important archaeological site is affected by proposed development, the

first priority will be in situ preservation. Where it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the

Council that this is not feasible, the Council will require adequate excavation and an accurate

record to be made of any archaeological remains which will be destroyed.

‘This will preferably be achieved through agreements reached between the developer, the

archaeologist and the planning authority or in the absence of such agreement, by planning

condition.’

Policy BE17 Chance archaeological finds

‘The Council will ensure that arrangements are made for the preservation of chance finds of

archaeological remains during the course of development of sites of 0.4ha or more. As a first

priority such finds shall be preserved in situ. However, where there is good reason why they

cannot be so preserved the excavation and recording shall be carried out in accordance with Policy

BE16’.

This last provision may seem bizarre to most readers, since it effectively forces the council to revoke permission on any site where, despite due diligence on the part of the developer (eg prior evaluation), unexpected archaeology turns up (not unusual) and forbid development on it, with full compensation, unless it is to be understood that the fact that the Council cannot afford to implement this policy might be counted as ‘a good reason’ not to bother with it. It is equally odd that the area of the site should matter under these circumstances.

Further policies cover development affecting Listed Buildings, buildings of local interest, Conservation

Areas and Historic Parks and Gardens, none of which applies to the present site. The site is not within an area defined as of high archaeological potential on the district map, although it is within an area most of us would say had high archaeological potential. The proposal area is close to a Registered Park/Garden, but has no sightlines to it.

Methodology

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

Archaeological background

General background

Chertsey has a long history of archaeological investigation. Excavations at the Abbey were published as long ago as 1858 (Turner 1987, 223; Pocock 1858), and the town is the findspot of a unique Iron Age bronze shield (Stead

1993). However, despite this precocious start to organized investigation, until recently only a moderate amount was known about the town’s earlier past, beyond the two key sites of the Abbey itself and the hill-fort on St

Ann’s Hill to the north-west. Excavation on the Abbey site (in 1853, 1862, 1922, 1934, 1954 and 1984–5) has produced a detailed plan not only of the buildings but also the precinct, including extensive fishponds and moats

(summarized in Poulton 1988). Some limited recent work in the town was treated in a volume of Surrey

Archaeological Collections (1998) dedicated to work in the county’s historic towns, including reports on two excavations, at The Crown Hotel and at 14–16, both on London Street, with summaries of knowledge to that point. The site at 14–16 London Street produced no evidence earlier than the 12th century AD but demonstrated unbroken (albeit modest) occupation of a single burgage plot (later subdivided) from the early 12th century onwards, and the excavator has suggested that the 12th-century layout was planned (Poulton 1998, 45). The

Crown Hotel site emphasized the location of the town on a low rise in what would often have been marsh. This was a flint knapping site in the Neolithic or Early Bronze Age. There was also some evidence of Roman settlement, not perhaps on that site itself, but nearby, but again, no Saxon occupation was evident and occupation began in the 12th century.

In the last few years, the pace of archaeological investigation has increased, with 5 or 6 projects a year in

Chertsey alone (information from the annual round-up of ‘Archaeology in Surrey’ in Surrey Archaeological

Collections, passim). Many of these have produced no new information, but hints of Roman and Saxon activity do now occasionally appear. Most of this evidence is discussed below; one site not within the SMR search area, however, revealed Roman and Saxon material (off Figure 1 to the north-west) (Howe et al. 2002, 263).

The proposal site lies well beyond the probable extent of the medieval town (O’Connell 1977).

Surrey Sites and Monuments Record

A search was made on the Surrey Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) on 16th January 2007 for all records within a radius of 1km around the proposal site. This produced 69 records within the search radius, one third of which are listed buildings. These entries are summarized in Appendix 1 and their locations plotted on Figure 1.

Prehistoric

The earliest entry for the area is for the findspot of two Palaeolithic flint handaxes [Fig.1 :1], for which few are details known. The precise location of their findspots is also not known (as with many stray finds made earlier than the last couple of decades), although for one of them a more precise location (‘on the south bank of the

Bourne’) is given by Wymer (1968, 273). Finds such as these are of limited value for predicting further occurrences, not least because Palaeolithic material in particular, usually found amongst river gravel deposits, is rarely in situ when found. The Mesolithic period is represented by two tranchet axes from the Thames: again the precise findspot cannot be established and the SMR grid reference is deliberately left vague; on Fig. 1 this findspot has been moved to a location in the Thames [2] but this should not be taken as accurate. Recent evaluation work revealed no archaeological features but has established a palaeoenvironmental record for the

Mesolithic period in the Bourne valley, not far to the north of the proposal site [3]. This indicates an initially grassy environment giving way to various different types of forest; this sequence ends with alder carr woodland at around 5000BC. Neolithic finds are also rare in the area: recent evaluation, well to the north-east, close to the

Thames [4], revealed evidence of Neolithic cultivation, woodland clearance and peat formation, and the remains of cattle (possibly domesticated) alongside (extinct in the UK until recently re-introduced) beaver. Residual

Neolithic pottery has also been found in later deposits from a site close to the proposal area [5]. More significantly, evaluation at this latter site [5] also produced evidence for Bronze Age occupation, including pits, a ditch and a water hole, with a large number of finds, but (as is often the case for Bronze Age settlements) no clear evidence of structures. Elsewhere in the study area, Bronze Age stray finds are a little more common than those of earlier periods. They include part of a sword from the Thames [2], an early Bronze Age axe from a garden to the west of the site [6], ‘a number of urns’ (details unclear) from well to the north [7], a Middle Bronze

Age spearhead with no precise provenance [8] and pottery dating from the Late Bronze Age or early Iron Age from features sealed below alluvium from evaluation on a site close to the Thames [9]. Follow-up excavation on this site failed to produce any further prehistoric evidence. A further record is for the find of an axe, with only a

vague provenance and only vaguely dated in the SMR as ‘prehistoric’ although the description (group VII) implies it is Neolithic [8]. It is noted that it seems to have come from a buried river channel.

Roman

Roman activity is almost absent. The finding of a bronze figure (youth in toga) from the Thames [2] and a single

Colchester-type brooch (provenance unknown) [8] are not sufficient to posit Roman settlement anywhere in the search radius. Staines (Pontes) to the north with its major river crossing was a focus for Roman activity in the broader area.

Saxon

Despite the well-documented presence of the minster in Saxon times, there is almost no archaeological evidence from within the study area, just the find of an iron spearhead and ferrule from a garden to the north [10].

Excavation to the north-west has revealed ditches dated to the 10th–12th centuries but these are more plausibly

Norman than Saxon [11].

Medieval

More substantial evidence relates to Chertsey’s medieval period. Excavations to the north-west of the proposal area have revealed details of plot layout and rubbish pits from the 10th to 12th centuries, with redefinition in the

14th to 16th centuries [11]. It is suggested that the early ditches on this site might mark the limits of the medieval settlement in this direction, with marshy ground beyond. Chertsey Abbey, of course, is well-documented by excavation over many years (see general background, above and documentary sources, below) and is a

Scheduled Ancient Monument [12]. The Abbey was famous for its decorative tile production, and fragments of tile occasionally turn up in the area; only one has been found in the present study radius [13]. Masonry from the

Abbey was mostly used to build Hampton Court Palace but from within the study area, masonry almost certainly from the Abbey has been found built into a 19th-century wall [14]. Medieval pottery has been found in topsoil/subsoil during excavation [9]. Finally for this period, the Crouch Oak is recorded in the SMR, as

(purportedly) a boundary marker for the medieval extent of Windsor Forest [15].

Post-medieval

Most of the post-medieval entries are for listed buildings. Two exceptions are post-medieval features revealed in excavation, including pits, ditches, garden features, etc [9, 11]. The listed buildings include a 15th/16th century inn (The George, Guildford Street), a 16th-century inn (also The George, Chertsey Road, Addlestone) , several

17th century houses, and 18th and 19th century houses (too numerous to plot individually on Fig. 1). One entry

is for the Registered Garden at Woburn Park and one is for a garden feature. None of the listed buildings is close to the proposal site.

Negative, undated

Undated evidence from the study area includes several entries [16–20] for cropmarks visible on aerial photographs, which by their very nature cannot be dated without investigation. Some of these appear likely to be prehistoric, such as ring ditches (ploughed-out barrows) and perhaps an enclosure. A stray find of a boar’s tusk from a garden to the north is of uncertain significance [10]. A number of recent investigations in the area have shown nothing of archaeological interest, sometimes as a result of modern truncation [1, 7, 22,], sometimes there was simply nothing there [21, 23–7]. This includes the record from closest to the proposal area [26].

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

The only Scheduled Monument within the search radius is Chertsey Abbey (SAM 23002), discussed above. This is located at the very northern extreme of the study area. Development on the site will have no impact on the monument or its setting.

Cartographic and documentary sources

The place name Chertsey is a slightly unusual mixture of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon elements (Mills 1998, 80), first appearing as Cerotaesei in AD731 (VCH 1911, 403 mentions an appearance as Cerotesege in documents purporting to date from the 7th century but these are probably later fakes), and as Certesi in Domesday Book

(1086). It derives from a Celtic personal name Cerot or its Latin equivalent Cerotus (not otherwise known) and the very common Old English (Anglo-Saxon) element -ēg (which almost always becomes -ēy) whose original meaning (island) was transformed, probably before the mid-8th century, to refer to any patch of land slightly raised above a marsh or floodplain or mudflat (Cameron 1996, 173–4). This combination probably indicates one of the very earliest Anglo-Saxon names in the county, early enough for the ‘island’ still to have been associated with a Briton and not a Saxon. The area’s slight prominence relative to the floodplain was certainly to be important in its development. The river name Bourne (Old English burna, ‘burn’), of which there are two in the area, is also thought to be an early Saxon name, later Saxon river names more commonly being bruc, ‘brook’

(Cameron 1996, 166).

The Abbey of St Peter at Chertsey held extensive lands in several hundreds at the time of Domesday Book

(Williams and Martin 2002, 77–9) and the manor of Chertsey itself was a substantial one, although assessed at

just five hides. Its population was considerable (by the standards of the rest of the Surrey Domesday entries), with 64 taxpayers and they farmed extensive lands, served by 21 ploughs. The 200 acres of meadow and woodland enough for 50 pigs are also large areas. The Domesday entry records a mill and a forge serving the hall. The original bequest to the church included (among extensive lands) eight islands and seven weirs, glossed as ‘instruments for trapping fish’ (VCH 1911, 405); no fisheries at Chertsey are mentioned in Domesday Book.

Medieval Chertsey was never much (if at all) more than a village with a market, which seems to have grown up around the gate of the Abbey (Turner 1987, 248–50). There was no bridge over the Thames in AD

1300, when there was a ferry; but a bridge is attested from at least AD 1410. A fair was granted in the 1130s

(and excavation has shown occupation certainly from the 12th century).

The Minster and Abbey dominate the history of the area (not least in providing most of the earliest documents for the county). The Minster was established in or around AD 666 and granted extensive lands (Blair

1991, 7; fig 9a). Destroyed by Danish attack, it was re-founded at least twice, finally as a Benedictine house (AD

964) and was rebuilt again in the early 12th century. This was the largest, indeed, the only significant, religious house in Saxon Surrey (Blair 1991, 9). The Minster is mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles for AD 964 as is the rebuilding in 1110 (Swanton 2000, 116; 118; 243). The regularity of village layouts within the estates of the Abbey, including Chertsey itself, has long been noted; it is possible that some central planning was involved in this (Blair 1991, 56–8; Turner 2004, 136). Such planning should not be assumed (if it existed at all) to have extended far, however; a 13th-century petition to the abbot complains of the difficulty of transporting corpses to the cemetery because of the poor state of the roads to Chertsey (Blair 1991, 155). Agriculture was always the mainstay of the economy. Chertsey was supplying wool as far afield as Florence in 1316 (VCH 1902, 360) but the Abbey was also noted for its production of fine floor tiles (VCH 1905, 281-2). After Dissolution in 1537 the

Abbey estates remained in the hands of the Crown for a number of years (a royal stables on the site is mentioned in 1550) but the buildings were totally demolished to provide stone for Hampton Court (1538 onwards).

The post-medieval town prospered (not universally the case for Surrey’s towns) as a result of its position on the river Thames and trade with London must have formed a large part of this prosperity, industry not apparently contributing much to the economy. The arrival of the London and South-western railway in 1848 brought a final burst of expansion before London’s growth eventually outweighed all other factors: for Pevsner, Chertsey (with much of the rest of the county) was ‘quite spoilt’ by its proximity to the capital (Cherry and Pevsner 1971, 21).

Addlestone is an Anglo-Saxon place name, but is first attested in 1241 (Attelesdene, meaning Ættel’s valley, as usual Ættel is otherwise unknown to us). This area is notable for recent excavations at Wey Manor

Farm with a Bronze Age cemetery (mirroring one at Laleham to the north), Iron Age and Roman occupation

(Howe et al. 2005, 282). The river name Bourne (Old English burna), of which there are two in the area, has also been thought to be an early Saxon name (later Saxon rivers more commonly being broc, brook), and while this may be true in places, it appears this hypothesis cannot be sustained in detail (Cameron 1996, 164–5).

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

The earliest map available of the area is the large map of the four counties of Kent, Sussex, Surrey and

Middlesex by Christopher Saxton (1575) (Fig. 2). His map of Surrey (1579) merely reproduces the smaller portion for the county alone. At this scale, his depiction is purely schematic. Chertsey is marked but there is no detail. The same is true of the maps by John Norden and Pieter van dens a generation later (not illustrated). John

Speed’s map of 1610 adds a little detail, with St Anne’s Hill and Addlestone now appearing (Fig. 3). It is interesting to note how different the hydrography is from today on this and subsequent maps. Although it seems likely that at least some of this difference is a result of the cartography (and the duplication of the river-name

Bourne in the area is unlikely to have helped) rather than a major shift in the rivers’ courses, the current courses of the various rivers in this area in particular are likely to have been altered by human manipulation over a long period. Seller’s map of 1690 (Fig. 4) illustrates some of the problems of this type of evidence, in that, while he appears to provide more detail, some of the details are inaccurate (Sandgate shown directly to the south of

Chertsey when it is south-west, etc). However, he does show the distinctive road layout within Chertsey itself, still preserved today. Of some interest on this map is the apparent unimportance of the Thames bridge, not even linked to the road network, in contrast to the major crossing point at Staines. The river network is different from

Speed’s, but again perhaps is not meant to be accurate.

Senex’s map of 1729 (Fig. 5) depicts the built-up area of Chertsey in some detail, with the Abbey House and Mill picked out. The area of the site is shown as empty and well beyond any settled area. Here, the course of the Bourne more closely resembles its modern line. The main road network too is largely recognizable. Rocque’s map of 1768 (Fig. 6) is basically similar, with Chertsey appearing quite densely populated and settlement spreading along the main roads. More detail is shown of fields in the area but this is likely to be schematic. The area of the site is marked as Addlestone Moor and is clearly farmland. The map by Lindley and Crosley from

1793 adds nothing to Rocque’s depiction in this area (not illustrated) but the Greenwoods (1823) show that settlement has spread a little further north from Addlestone and outwards in all directions from Chertsey (Fig. 7).

There are now houses along the north side of what will become the A317, just north of the site. The area of the site itself still appears to be open country.

An Act of Enclosure for Chertsey was passed by Parliament in 1800, although the award was not carried through until 1804. The map for this enclosure (Fig. 8) shows the site lies within Little Eastworth Field and occupies several land plots, all those that could be located in the accompanying Award are noted as meadow.

There is no sign of development anywhere on the site, but the main road layout is in its current form.

More detailed mapping arrives with the Ordnance Survey First Edition (surveyed 1870 but not published until 1887) (Fig. 9). This shows the railway already in place and the field boundaries are recognizable form the enclosure map, although the land has been consolidated into many fewer plots. East of the site is a nursery, to the north-west is a small cemetery, but there is no sign of any development on the site itself which is within a large field. The Second Edition is identical for the site itself, although the nursery has been replaced by eight houses and this plot of land has been subdivided (not illustrated). By the Third Edition (1912 revision, published 1915), housing has sprung up all around the north and east of the site, along Eastworth Road and the new Wheat Ash

Road, and the cemetery has expanded, but the site area is still empty (Fig. 10). The first map to show anything at all on the site is the 1934 revision, which marks the site as allotment gardens and marks footpaths crossing it.

Maps published in 1965 and 1966 (Fig. 11) show the site as still featureless apart from a footpath; the northern portion of this map (1965) still annotates the area as allotments. Subsequent mapping shows the site in its current configuration, fully developed by 1970 (Fig. 12).

Aerial Photographs

A search was made on 11th January 2007 of the National Monuments Record’s collection of aerial photographs.

This showed some 147 photographs within a 1km radius of the proposal site (Appendix 3). These photographs were inspected on 23rd January 2007, apart from a handful which were not available to view. A search of the

Cambridge University collection’s online catalogue showed no coverage of this area. The NMR collection included 139 vertical and just eight oblique photographs, of which five were specifically taken with archaeology in mind. None of these photographs revealed any cropmarks that might have been produced by archaeological features on the site or in its near vicinity. Many of the earlier views show the patchwork of tiny allotment plots very clearly. Shots taken in 1970 show conditions that would have been perfect for the production of cropmarks

in the area, but the site had already been built over by this time. A series of photographs from 1947 shows the entire area, including this site, flooded, with central Chertsey rising just above the water-level, as its name suggests (see above). Photographs taken during the development of the site (1969, 1970) show extensive bulldozing, but it is not clear from the air how deep this might have been, or whether the ground level was built up first (see below).

Geotechnical test pits

A borehole survey of the site (LBH Wembley 2006) involving 8 boreholes (window samples) showed reasonably consistent results across the site (Appendix 4) consisting of (usually) 0.20–0.35m topsoil above sandy clay (to between 1.00 and 1.50m) above gravel. In five of the boreholes, made ground replaced some or all of the top

0.30m of the sequence; in two places this made ground reached depths of 0.70m. Boreholes 2 and 3 showed sand in place of the gravel at the bottom of the sequence and in borehole 7 sand overlay the gravel. Groundwater was encountered at a minimum depth of 1.50m (in August).

Listed buildings

There are no listed buildings on or close to the proposal area. Numerous listed buildings within 1km are recorded in the SMR but none of these will be affected by development on the site.

Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields

Woburn Park is a Registered Park/Garden (Grade II). This covers an extensive area east of the proposal site, but shielded from it by considerable modern development, so that development on the site is unlikely to affect the garden’s setting.

Historic Hedgerows

There are no hedgerows on the site that would qualify as ‘important’ as defined by Schedule 1 of the Hedgerows

Regulations 1997.

Discussion

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

The general topographic and geological setting of the site (Thames tributary river gravel) suggests a high archaeological potential, especially for earlier prehistory. Although only a thin scatter of findspots of prehistoric material can be plotted for the area, and many of those are not closely located, it is likely that this comparative lack of material is a result of a lack of systematic investigation. Indeed, a glance at the gross distribution of all the SMR entries for the area shows very distinctly the correlation between recent development, almost all north of the site, and archaeological finds. From close to the proposal area itself comes significant prehistoric archaeology (off Eastworth Road to the north-west).

For later periods (Iron Age to Saxon), the SMR records suggest low potential in this area, and while again this may be a function of a lack of investigation, these periods are not well represented even where excavation has taken place, so this absence may be real. The site is also well beyond the core of the medieval settlement, but in an area likely to have been farmed throughout medieval and post-medieval times, so that some evidence from these periods may be present.

Although recent evaluation on Marsh Lane just north-east of the site proved negative, it is not possible to extrapolate these results onto the site itself. The site is also large enough to raise the possibility that remains of any period might be present simply by chance. It is also above the threshold used by the County Council to trigger a requirement for field evaluation automatically.

The site remained undeveloped (except for use as allotment gardens) since cartographic depictions of it began until 1969. The buildings of that period on the site cover only a small proportion of the site’s total area

(and much of this only with prefabricated garages), but the entire site seems to have been landscaped to some extent at this time. Use of the site as allotments over several decades will of course have disturbed the topsoil, but might not have penetrated very much deeper. While disturbance to subsoil deposits can be expected from this development (including buried services), this might still leave reasonably large areas which might have survived intact. The geotechnical data consistently suggest that the relevant archaeological levels remain in place across the site, in places below up to 0.70m of modern made ground. It is likely that buried services would also be wholly or mainly within made ground at least over much of the site. All of this suggests that any archaeological deposits present will probably have remained intact.

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. A scheme for this evaluation will need to be drawn up and approved by the archaeological advisers to the Borough and implemented by a competent archaeological contractor, such as an organization registered with the Institute of Field Archaeologists.

References

BGS, 1981, British Geological Survey, 1:50,000 Sheet 269, Solid and Drift Edition, Keyworth Blair, J, 1991, Early Medieval Surrey, Stroud Cameron, K, 1996, English Place Names, London Cherry, B and Pevsner, N, 1971, Buildings of England: Surrey (2nd edn), London Howe, T, Jackson, G and Maloney, C, 2002, ‘Archaeology in Surrey 2001’, Surrey Archaeol Collect 89, 257– 281 Howe, T, Jackson, G and Maloney, C, 2005, ‘Archaeology in Surrey 2004’, Surrey Archaeol Collect 92, 275– 295 Mills, A D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford O’Connell, M, 1977, Historic Towns in Surrey, Res Vol Surrey Archaeol Soc 5, Guildford Poulton, R, 1988, Archaeological Investigations on the site of Chertsey Abbey, Res Vol Surrey Archaeol Soc 11, Guildford Poulton, R, 1998, ‘Excavation at 14–16 London Street, Chertsey’, Surrey Archaeol Collect 85, 6–45 Pocock, WW, 1858, ‘Chertsey Abbey’, Surrey Archaeol Collect 1, 97–121 PPG16, 1990, Dept of the Environment Planning Policy Guidance 16, Archaeology and Planning, HMSO Stead, I R, 1993, ‘Many more Iron Age shields’ Antiq J 71, 1–35 Swanton, M, 2000, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, London Turner, D J, 1987, ‘Archaeology of Surrey, 1066–1540’ in (eds) Bird and Bird, The Archaeology of Surrey to 1540, Dorking Turner, D, 2004, ‘Manors and other settlements’, in J Cotton, G Crocker and A Graham (eds), Aspects of archaeology and history in Surrey; towards a research framework for the county, Surrey Archaeol Soc, Guildford, 133–46 VCH, 1902, Victoria History of the Counties of England: Surrey, i, London VCH, 1905, Victoria History of the Counties of England: Surrey, ii, London VCH, 1911, Victoria History of the Counties of England: Surrey, iii, London Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London Wymer, J, 1968, Lower Palaeolithic Archaeology in Britain, London

APPENDIX 1: Sites and Monuments Records within a xx m search radius of the development site

No SMR Ref Grid Ref (TQ) Type Period Comment 1 2308 045 665 Findspot Palaeolithic Two flint hand axes 5278 0452 6652 Evaluation Negative Site disturbed probably in early 20th century 2 3667 05 66 Findspot Mesolithic Two tranchet axes from the Thames 575 Bronze Age Part of a bronze sword 3135 Roman Bronze figurine (‘youth in toga’) from the Thames 3 6983 046 662 Evaluation Mesolithic No archaeological finds or features, but peat 6984 deposits were sampled and indicate a grassy environment in the Mesolithic, becoming progressively wooded until around 5000 BC 4 5754 052 663 Evaluation Neolithic Evidence of Neolithic ploughing, and environmental 5916 evidence indicating woodland clearance and peat formation, bones of beaver and cattle. 5 6980 045 660 Evaluation Neolithic MBA pits, ditch and water hole, Iron Age pit, 6981 Excavation Bronze Age residual Neolithic pottery and struck flints. 6982 6 1997 04160 66200 Findspot Bronze Age EBA flat axe found in garden. 7 596 046 667 Findspot Bronze Age ‘A number of urns’ found, 1911 (or earlier), details 5340 046 666 Evaluation Negative unknown. Trenching revealed no archaeology; bore 5355 0458 6672 Evaluation Negative holes suggested buried soils might exist which might be of interest. Second evaluation suggests area heavily disturbed. 8 598 04 66 Findspot Bronze Age MBA looped spearhead, precise provenance 2835 Prehistoric unknown; Axe (probably Neolithic) 3150 Roman Bronze brooch (Colchester type) 9 5755 053 664 Evaluation Bronze Age LBA or EI pottery from features sealed below 5756 Excavation Medieval alluvium. Some medieval pottery from 5757 Post-medieval subsoil/topsoil level, possible medieval structure (unspecified). 17th century pits, later garden soils, Victorian structures. 10 2831 04960 66760 Findspot Saxon Iron spearhead and ferrule found in garden; Boar’s 2837 04970 66670 Unknown tusk found in garden 11 5293 0390 6650 Evaluation Saxon 10th to 12th century ditches, forming enclosure, 5318 Excavation Medieval 14th-16th century pits and large ditches (plot 5319 Watching brief Post-medieval boundaries, but also used for drainage) may mark the edge of settlement. Waterlogged deposits contained wood and fragments of leather shoe. 16th/17th century more plot boundaries. 12 595 04350 67120 Monument Saxon Chertsey Abbey, Scheduled Ancient Monument Medieval 23002 13 2832 046 665 Findspot Medieval Tile fragment found in garden 14 5165 04435 66780 Watching brief Medieval A wall, constructed in 19th century, using masonry 5747 044 667 from Chertsey Abbey 15 718 05020 64910 Tree Medieval The Crouch Oak purportedly was a boundary marker for Windsor Forest 16 817 05280 65300 Crop marks Undated Ring ditch(es) seen on aerial photograph. 17 823 04100 65590 Crop marks Undated Sub-circular enclosure and ring ditch(es) seen on aerial photograph. 18 824 04010 65300 Crop marks Undated Ditch(es) and ?pits visible on aerial photograph. 19 886 05400 66150 Crop marks Undated Sub-rectangular enclosure (or drainage ditches) and ditch system visible on aerial photograph. 20 887 05550 66060 Crop marks Undated Sub-circular enclosure and ring ditch(es) seen on aerial photograph. 21 5320 041 666 Watching brief Negative 22 5339 040 666 Watching brief Negative Partly disturbed. 23 5748 045 667 Watching brief Negative 24 5914 044 662 Observation Negative Nothing of interest observed from dredging activities in the Bourne 25 5915 049 660 Observation Negative Nothing of interest observed from dredging activities in the Bourne 26 6979 047 649 Evaluation Negative 27 5322 041 669 Evaluation Negative 10433 03940 66564 Listed Building Medieval/ 15th/16th century inn (The George) Post-medieval 10456 04612 66814 Listed Building Post-medieval 19th century houses 10–12 Bridge Road 10457 04915 66752 Listed Building Post-medieval 18th century houses 34–6 Bridge Road 10476 04958 66722 Listed Building Post-medieval 19th century house 40 Bridge Road 10423 05040 66694 Listed Building Post-medieval 18th century houses 66–8 Bridge Road 10475 05248 66667 Listed Building Post-medieval 18th century house 77 Bridge Road 10424 05187 66641 Listed Building Post-medieval Mid-19th century houses 96–8 Bridge Road

No SMR Ref Grid Ref (TQ) Type Period Comment 10426 04977 65274 Listed Building Post-medieval 16th century inn (The George) 10427 05005 65354 Listed Building Post-medieval 19th century houses 114–6 Chertsey Road 10428 05026 65507 Listed Building Post-medieval 17th century barn Hatch Farm 10601 05066 65529 Listed Building Post-medieval 17th century house Hatch Farmhouse 10528 03906 66477 Listed Building Post-medieval 18th century houses 23–9 Guildford Street 10477 03942 66551 Listed Building Post-medieval 19th century house 43 Guildford Street 10437 03980 66570 Listed Building Post-medieval 18th century houses 56–60 Guildford Street 10465 03810 66411 Listed Building Post-medieval Chertsey Railway Station 10468 03827 66491 Listed Building Post-medieval 19th century house 16 Fox Lane 10529 03829 66496 Listed Building Post-medieval 19th century houses 14 Fox Lane 10574 03969 66558 Listed Building Post-medieval 17th century house/shop 10575 04231 66279 Listed Building Post-medieval 19th century house 56 Eastworth Road 10579 05380 65519 Listed Building Post-medieval 19th century house Woburn Hill 10591 04491 66799 Listed Building Post-medieval 18th century houses 68–76 London Street 10409 04509 66784 Listed Building Post-medieval 18th century houses 78–80 London Street 10592 04516 66762 Listed Building Post-medieval 19th century houses 82–4 London Street 3740 055 660 Listed Building Post-medieval Chertsey Bridge (1780-5) 13662 05395 65519 Garden Post-medieval 19th century setting (?) 3716 05 65 Garden Post-medieval Woburn Park, 18th/19th/20th century registered garden, Grade II

Listed buildings all Grade II.

APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1575 Christopher Saxton, Kent Sussex, Surrey and Middlesex 1579 Christopher Saxton, Surrey 1594 John Norden, Surrey 1605 Pieter van den Keere, Surrey 1610 John Speed, Surrey 1690 John Seller, Surrey 1724 Herman Moll, Surrey 1729 John Senex, Surrey 1768 John Rocque, Surrey 1793 J Lindley and W Crosley, Surrey 1804 Chertsey Enclosure map and award 1823 C and J Greenwood, Surrey 1887 First Edition Ordnance Survey sheet XI.6 1896 Second Edition Ordnance Survey sheet XI.6 1915 Third Edition Ordnance Survey sheet XI.6 1934 Ordnance Survey Revision, sheet XI.6 1965/6 Ordnance Survey 1:2500 plans TQ 0465, TQ0565, TQ0466, TQ0566,

APPENDIX 3: Aerial Photographs consulted

A>Oblique (specialist)

No Year taken Accession number Frame number Grid ref (TQ) Comment 1 1973 NMR489 5–6 039 651 2 1973 NMR497 1–5 041 650 3 1973 NMR490 383–4 041 650 4 1974 NMR715 2–11 043 656 5 1974 NMR727 241–3 041 654

B>Oblique (military)

No Year taken Sortie number Frame number Grid ref (TQ) Comment 6 1948 CPE/UK/1948 SSFO-0021 046 667 7 1948 CPE/UK/1948 SSFO-0027–8 055 661

C>Vertical

No Year taken Sortie number Frame number Grid ref (TQ) Comment 8 1945 RAF/106G/UK/687 3208–10 416 661 Not available to view 9 1945 RAF/106G/UK/687 3224–6 038 668 10 1945 RAF/106G/UK/687 4142–4 036 651 11 1949 HAS/UK/49/215 105–6 054 655 12 1947 RAF/CPE/UK/1982 1009–10 036 664 13 1947 RAF/CPE/UK/1982 1082–3 041 668 14 1947 RAF/CPE/UK/1982 3082–3 043 646 15 1968 FSL/6805 1730–1 030 663 16 1951 RAF/540/494 4167–71 042 647 17 1953 RAF/82/777 5–9 036 664 18 1955 RAF/542/233 68–70 041 649 19 1955 RAF/542/233 85–7 049 650 20 1955 RAF/542/233 96–8 049 664 21 1957 RAF/58/2330 105–7 039 668 22 1961 RAF/58/4648 162–4 036 654 Not available to view 23 1961 RAF/58/4626 108–110 051 665 24 1955 RAF/58/1687 128–31 039 650 25 1955 RAF/58/1687 281–3 039 649 26 1955 RAF/58/1671 187–9 041 661 27 1955 RAF/58/1671 204–6 036 649 28 1957 RAF/58/2152 46–7 049 653 29 1969 MAL/69042 8–12 042 648 30 1969 MAL/69042 62–71 037 653 31 1969 MAL/69042 83–90 040 650 32 1969 MAL/69043 7–10 040 649 33 1969 MAL/69044 39–43 054 658 Not available to view 34 1969 MAL/69045 91 053 665 35 1970 MAL/70005 61–8 039 650 36 1971 MAL/71001 43 028 652 37 1942 RAF/HLA/633 5032–4 044 650 38 1942 RAF/HLA/633 5093–4 048 655 39 1942 RAF/HLA/636 5018 055 651 40 1988 OS/88236 64 038 659 41 1964 OS/64081 9–11 053 664 42 1964 OS/64006 5–7 054 664 43 1989 OS/89399 36–9 052 650 44 1989 OS/89399 36–9 052 660 45 1990 OS/90066 59–61 034 655 46 1995 OS/95663 14–16 038 649 47 1964 MAL/64655 123553–4 035 655 Not available to view 48 1964 MAL/64655 123585 036 659 Not available to view 49 1964 MAL/64651 123324 035 659 Not available to view 50 1963 MAL/63615 117813–5 042 661 Not available to view

NB: NGR given is for start of run, multiple frames may offer extensive coverage.

APPENDIX 4: Geotechnical data

Key: SITE Listed Building: Negative/undated: 21 Other SMR Entry: 1

67000

23 10 7 22 14 21

1 11 2 9 13 24 4 3 6

25 19 20 8 5 66000

SITE 17

18 16

65000 15 TQ04000 05000 RAC07/03 Roakes Avenue, Chertsey, Surrey, 2007 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 1. Location of site within Chertsey and Surrey, showing locations of SMR entries.

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Pathfinder 1190 TQ06/16 at 1:12500 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 Approximate location of SITE