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

Woolley Hall, Westacott Way, , ,

Desk-based Heritage Assessment

by Tim Dawson and Genni Elliott

Site Code WHL13/86

(SU 8484 8012)

Woolley Hall, Westacott Way, Littlewick Green, Maidenhead, Berkshire

Desk-based Heritage Assessment

for Millgate Homes

by Tim Dawson & Genni Elliott

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd

Site Code WHL 13/86

April 2013 Summary

Site name: Woolley Hall, Westacott Way, Littlewick Green, Maidenhead, Berkshire

Grid reference: SU 8484 8012

Site activity: Desk-based heritage assessment

Project manager: Steve Ford

Site supervisor: Tim Dawson

Site code: WHL 13/86

Area of site: c.14.1ha

Summary of results: The development proposal comprises several elements which in summary, includes restoration of a listed building and its garden, conversion of buildings to residential use, demolition of other buildings and modern extensions, and construction of new housing. It is anticipated that there will be two components of work required to mitigate the effects of redevelopment on heritage topics. Firstly, a requirement to conduct building recording prior to conversion of Woolley Hall into flats and a record of the extant buildings of Woolley Farm. Secondly, a requirement for field evaluation in areas of new build in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits, if necessary. Such schemes of work could be implemented as appropriately worded conditions to any consent gained.

This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.

Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford 30.04.13

i

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47–49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading RG1 5NR Tel. (0118) 926 0552; Fax (0118) 926 0553; email: [email protected]; website: www.tvas.co.uk

Woolley Hall, Westacott Way, Littlewick Green, Maidenhead, Berkshire Desk-based Heritage Assessment

by Tim Dawson and Genni Elliott

Report 13/86 Introduction

This report is an assessment of the archaeological potential of a large irregular parcel of land located at Woolley

Hall, Westacott Way, Littlewick Green, Maidenhead, Berkshire (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr

Jon Furneaux of Millgate Homes, Millgate House, Ruscombe Lane, Ruscombe, Twyford, RG10 9JT 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.

Site description, location and geology

The site is currently of mixed usage with two distinct building complexes - Woolley Grange and Woolley Hall with associated roads, grassy areas and woodland. The development area is centred on NGR SU 8484 8012. The site is located on Seaford and Newhaven Chalk formations (BGS 1981). It is at a height of approximately 47m above Ordnance Datum.

Planning background and development proposals

Planning permission is to be sought for the restoration and re-development of the site for 47 residential dwellings set in landscaped grounds. A provisional layout is presented as Figure 14. The proposals seek to restore the historic appearance of the property (Pls. 1 and 2) and as such are intended to enhance it in itself, via the removal of a number of unattractive 20th century additions and the restoration of the Mawson landscape, including the observatory (Pl. 3). It is proposed to convert the existing stable block (Pl. 4) into five houses. Proposed housing within view of the Hall is to be kept to a minimum and screened by existing trees (Pls 5 and 6). Propose housing to the south of the property is in an area where glasshouses were previously located (Pl. 7).

The northern part of the site (location of a lodge and Woolley Grange) is screened by an existing line of trees which are to be retained (Pl. 8). It is proposed to restore the Lodge House (Pl. 9), which would have served as the gatehouse to the Hall, which is now in considerable disrepair. It is intended to demolish Woolley Grange, which is not a listed building and is not included in the curtilage of Woolley Hall and replace it with 24 detached houses and landscaped features to the north. The Grange was originally called Woolley Farm (first seen on the

1

1801 Feens Farm estate map (Fig. 5) and later on the 1846 tithe map (Fig. 7)) and aspects of this can still be seen in the property today, despite the various 20th century extensions and the conversion into office space (Pl. 10). A site visit on 29th April 2013 identified a two-storey building, a single storey shed and a threshing barn still extent in the northern range (Pl. 11) and an ‘L-shaped’ two-storey building on the eastern range (Pl. 12) joining to the one on the northern range. A number of alterations had been made to these buildings.

The Department for Communities and Local Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF

2012) sets out the framework within which local planning authorities should consider the importance of conserving, or enhancing, aspects of the historic environment, within the planning process. It requires an applicant for planning consent to provide, as part of any application, sufficient information to enable the local planning authority to assess the significance of any heritage assets that may be affected by the proposal. The

Historic Environment is defined (NPPF 2012, 52) as:

‘All aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through time, including all surviving physical remains of past human activity, whether visible, buried or submerged, and landscaped and planted or managed flora.’ Paragraphs 128 and 129 state that

‘128. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. ‘129. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.’ A ‘heritage asset’ is defined (NPPF 2012, 52) as

‘A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. Heritage asset includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing).’ ‘Designated heritage asset’ includes (NPPF 2012, 51) any

‘World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument, Listed Building, Protected Wreck Site, Registered Park and Garden, Registered Battlefield or Conservation Area designated under the relevant legislation.’

‘Archaeological interest’ is glossed (NPPF 2012, 50) as follows:

2

‘There will be archaeological interest in a heritage asset if it holds, or potentially may hold, evidence of past human activity worthy of expert investigation at some point. Heritage assets with archaeological interest are the primary source of evidence about the substance and evolution of places, and of the people and cultures that made them.’ Specific guidance on assessing significance and the impact of the proposal is contained in paragraphs 131 to 135:

‘131. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:  the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;  the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and  the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. ‘132. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. ‘133. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:  the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and  no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and  conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and  the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. ‘134. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. ‘135. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

Paragraph 139 recognizes that new archaeological discoveries may reveal hitherto unsuspected and hence non- designated heritage assets

‘139. Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets.’ Paragraph 141 requires local planning authorities to ensure that any loss of heritage assets advances understanding, but stresses that advancing understanding is not by itself sufficient reason to permit the loss of significance:

‘141. Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development management publicly accessible. They should also require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. However,

3

the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.’

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

(NPPF 2012, 56) as:

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

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

In the case of Scheduled Ancient Monuments (and their settings), the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and

Archaeological Areas Act (1979) also apply. Under this legislation, development of any sort on or affecting a

Scheduled Monument requires the Secretary of State’s Consent.

The Royal Borough of Maidenhead and Windsor Local Plan (RBMW 2011) contains several policies relating to development on and around Listed Buildings and archaeological sites. Policy LB2 details the

Borough’s stance on proposals that affect Listed Buildings or their settings:

‘The Borough Council will have special regard to the preservation of Listed Buildings and their settings and will: 1) Not grant approval for the demolition of a Listed Building unless it is satisfied that there are very exceptional circumstances as to why the building cannot be retained and reused; 2) Require applications affecting Listed Buildings to be accompanied by detailed survey drawings, in order to ensure an accurate record of the existing building(s) and site, against which alterations can be assessed and monitored; 3) Only grant Listed Building Consent for the alteration and/or extension of a building (subject to compliance with other relevant policies) provided that the character of the building will not be adversely affected, both internally and externally; 4) Require any works or alterations to a Listed Building or to buildings within their curtilage to make use of appropriate traditional materials and techniques and to be of a high standard of design; 5) Ensure that development proposals do not adversely affect the grounds and/or setting of Listed Buildings.’ Policy LB3 concerns the change of use of a Listed Building:

‘Wherever possible the Borough Council will require that Listed Buildings are used for purposes which will secure their long term future and which will preserve or enhance their physical fabric, setting, special character and interest. Proposals for changes of use of Listed Buildings which do not meet these objectives will not be permitted.’ The Borough Council’s position on development on sites of archaeological importance is outlined in the following policies:

4

ARCH2: ‘Planning permission will not be granted for proposals adversely affecting sites in Berkshire’s Sites and Monuments Record where archaeological features merit in situ preservation unless it can be demonstrated that: 1) The proposals will not harm the archaeological importance of the site and its setting; 2) Appropriate and acceptable provision is made for the protection and management of the archaeological remains in situ prior to and/or during development.’ ARCH3: ‘Planning permission will not be granted for proposals which appear likely to adversely affect archaeological sites and monuments of unknown importance and areas of high potential unless adequate evaluation enabling the full implications of the development on matters of archaeological interest is carried out by the developer prior to the determination of the application.’ ARCH4: ‘Where evaluation of a site demonstrates the presence of archaeological remains which do not merit permanent in situ preservation, planning permission will not be granted for any development unless provision is made for an appropriate level of archaeological investigation, excavation, recording and off site preservation/publication/display of such remains prior to damage or destruction or to the commencement of development.’

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 Berkshire Historic Environment

Record, geological maps and any relevant publications or reports.

Archaeological background

General background

The site lies within the archaeologically rich Thames Valley. The archaeology of the valley is relatively well known from a variety of sources of information (Ford 1987). For example, many sites have been recorded from the air (Gates 1975) and numerous finds from both prehistoric and later periods represented by tools and weapons of flint, bronze and iron dredged from the Thames (e.g., Chappell 1987). Many finds have also come to light during both casual, and, more recently, systematic examination of large areas of mineral extraction (Barnes and Cleal 1991) and of fieldwork carried out as a part of the planning process (Foreman et al., 2002; Preston

2003). Further archaeological sites are recorded for the area in general with a middle Iron Age linear earthwork,

5

a late Iron Age enclosure (Robin Hood’s Arbour) and prehistoric flint scatters on Maidenhead Thicket (Boismier

1995; Bowden et al. 1983; Cotton 1961).

Berkshire Historic Environment Record

A search was made on the Berkshire Historic Environment Record (HER) on 22nd April 2013 for a radius of

1km around the proposal site. This revealed 76 entries within the search radius. These are summarized as

Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 1.

Prehistoric Twelve entries relate to the prehistoric period and two are further listed as scheduled ancient monuments. The majority of the entries [Fig. 1: 1, 2, 4–6] are in the area of Maidenhead Thicket, the only exceptions being flint flakes recovered during fieldwalking [3] found to the north-west of the proposal site and possible Iron Age round houses identified through geophysical surveys [7] to the south of the site. Maidenhead Thicket, to the north-east of the proposal site is the location of two scheduled ancient monuments; a bowl barrow surrounded by a ditch

(SM 19024) [1] and Robin Hood’s Arbour (SM 95) [2] a ditched rectilinear enclosure. Excavation in 1960 identified stakeholes and a possible yard surface. Pottery finds dated the enclosure to the Iron Age and finds of wattle and daub suggest the presence of occupation huts. A curved bank and ditch [4] may well be associated with Robin Hood’s Arbour. A hearth excavated beneath a secondary bank indicated a middle Iron Age date from pottery finds and two flint scatters identified in the vicinity may indicate Bronze Age settlement. A single flint flake and other flakes recovered from field walking [2, 5] have been found in the vicinity of Stubbings House.

None of these scatters or clusters of material need indicate occupation sites, but they do indicate the potential of this broad area to contain such sites: indeed the EBAS records a substantial concentration of Mesolithic flints in particular in this area generally (Ford 1987, fig. 23). The HER records late Iron Age pottery among the finds from ‘Feens Farm’ [8] (Ffiennes Farm on the modern Ordnance Survey): it is not absolutely clear that Iron Age pottery was among these finds.

Roman Substantial Roman remains have been identified at ‘Feens Farm’ [8] (Ffiennes on the Ordnance Survey) to the south of the site. Finds of Roman coins, a fibula, pottery and substantial finds of building material indicate the presence of a possible villa with a long period of occupation. Geophysics has indicated a complex of buildings.

6

A second possible settlement site has been identified at Boundary Elms [9] to the north-west of the site. Pits and postholes have been identified along with quantities of Roman pottery and tile. To the east of the site [10] a large rectangular enclosure was first mentioned by Kerry in 1861, with traces of a bank and Roman tiles. It was subsequently destroyed during WWI. All other entries consist of findspots of pottery and two coins of Aurelius to the north and west of the site [5, 11–13].

Saxon No entries in the HER relate to this period within 1km of the site.

Medieval A complex of parallel banks and ditches running alongside the A4 within Maidenhead Thicket may be the remains of old trackways, for which a medieval date has been suggested [14]. A gold noble coin [15] dating to

1346 or 1351 was found to the north-west of the site. Some of the listed buildings in the area have medieval origins, although now of course much altered: these include Lane Farmhouse [17] and Foxleigh and Walnut Tree

Cottage [16].

Post-Medieval The post-medieval entries are mostly for listed buildings, the most significant of which is Woolley Hall [28] built in the 1780’s, within the confines of the proposal site. Other 17th- and 18th-century structures included are

Littlewick Lodge and Thimble [11], Stubbings House and associated ha-ha’s [19, 21], Littlewick Cottage [22],

Woolley Firs House and farm buildings [23, 26], two adjoining barns at Feens Farm [24], a thatched cottage at

Cherry Garden Lane [26] and Yew Cottage [27]. There are entries for two sections of the A4 Bath Road, originally a coach road, one between Holloway and and the other at Maidenhead Thicket [18], the

17th-century village well (now disused) at Littlewick Green [22], and a milestone at the north-west corner of the proposal site [25]. Three large circular features with vertical sides are assumed to be marl pits or old chalk workings dating to the post-medieval period [20].

Victorian

Two entries concerning the Great Western Railway date to the Victorian period; a section between the first

Maidenhead Station and Twyford Station [29] and a road bridge over the railway [30].

7

Modern and Undated

The majority of modern and undated entries relate to probable WWI troop training within the confines of

Maidenhead Thicket, which was used for practising mining and trenching [31, 33, 34]. A WWII pill box [31] and a modern bank and ditch [32] are also recorded. Two circular mounds within Maidenhead Thicket, one with an external ditch and one with an internal ditch [35] are recorded as undated and may be associated with tree planting.

A range of archaeological interventions consisting of survey, watching briefs, evaluations and excavations have been recorded as taking place within the study area, only those where nothing was found are present on figure 1

[36–38] as all other events are recorded by their finds and features. A watching brief at the Old Shire Horse

Centre [36], immediately to the north-west of the site found no archaeologically significant deposits, however the building works were fairly small scale.

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments located on or within close proximity to the site. The bowl barrow

(SM 19024) and Robin Hood’s Arbour (SM 95) which lie to the north-east of the study areas within Maidenhead

Thicket are Scheduled Ancient Monuments but lie too distant from the proposal site to be affected by the development.

Cartographic and documentary sources

Maidenhead’s entry in Domesday Book (where it is called Elentone) is brief and suggests a very minor place indeed, assessed at just 3 hides, with land for 4 ploughs, and a small area of meadow (Williams and Martin 2002,

152). Elentone or Ellintone as a placename is somewhat obscure (it also occurs as Aylington). It is of late Saxon origin, meaning either ‘farm at the place where eels are caught’ or ‘farm of Ælle or Ella or (just possibly) Eli’.

Maidenhead is certainly ‘the maidens’ landing place’ but the significance of the maidens is lost to us (Mills

1998, 231; Cameron 1996, 171). As Astill (1978, 44) records, other documentary sources for the early history of the town are few and start relatively late. The development of the town may suggest it was deliberately ‘planted’ on the border of two parishes, perhaps in the 12th or 13th century, but there is little positive evidence for this

(Astill 1978, 43).

8

The name remained Elentone until 1296 when Maidenhead (Maydeheth; Maydenheth) is first recorded

(VCH 1972). The settlement increased in importance following the erection of a new bridge across the Thames c. 1280 which carried traffic from to Bristol, which had formerly passed via . There are some features to suggest that Maidenhead was of urban status in medieval times, and was possibly a planned town, as it lies on the boundary of two parishes (Bray and Cookham), but other typical indicators of this status are absent

(Astill 1978).

There can be no doubt that the bridge and the road from London west to Bristol (today the A4) were the keys to the town’s medieval (and later) economy. The bridge was new in the 13th century (first documented c.

1280) and became the principal crossing for the Bristol route. The number of inns referred to is testimony to the importance of the passing trade. Even into the 18th century, little other industry developed and the introduction of a regular coach service in the 1750s only strengthened the link with traffic.

Littlewick Green is another place name of somewhat obscure origins. It is first recorded as Lidlegewik around AD1060 (Mills 1998, 223) and is formed from the Old English (Anglo-Saxon) elements wic (‘farm’ or

‘hamlet’), leah (‘woodland clearing’) and one of two words, hlid or hlith, either ‘hill-slope’ or ‘gate’. It is not mentioned separately in Domesday Book (AD1086) when it may have been reckoned part of Elentone, or more probably part of . White Waltham consisted of two manors. The first belonged to the king (and formerly to Harold) but was held by the Bishop of Durham at this time. It was larger than Maidenhead, although also assessed at three hides, with land for 6 ploughs, 3 acres of meadow and woodland for 6 pigs (Williams and

Martin 2002, 141). Eleven villagers are counted along with 3 slaves and it was valued at 100 shillings. The second, much larger, was held by Chertsey Abbey as it had been before the Conquest, and a small portion was sublet (Williams and Martin 2002, 145). This was assessed at ten hides, and had enough arable land for 12 ploughs, 9 acres of meadow and woodland for 5 pigs. Twenty villagers are numbered and one slave. There was a chapel and the whole was valued at £6 10s.

Littlewick Green’s fortunes, like those of Maidenhead, will have been tied to the importance of the Bath

Road, (today the A4). Other than as the birthplace of the antiquary and polymath Thomas Hearne, the place has little history of note. Hearne (1686–1735), who was born at Littlewick Green and had been keeper at the

Bodleian before turning to publishing, edited (inter alia) John Leland’s Itinerary for publication in 1710 (Bliss

1869) with a second edition, with many more notes and annotations, published posthumously in 1745 (a 3rd edition from 1769 is also known). His father, who was the Parish Clerk at White Waltham and had first hand knowledge, noted that excavations in Hundred Acre Field at Feenes Farm in or around 1695 had uncovered

9

masonry remains, thought to be Roman. Hearne inserted a reference to this in the preface to the second edition of the Itinerary, and later published the relevant letter from his father in his own diaries. It is worth quoting this text in full:

‘I have made enquiry of Francis Williams, who rented the ground where the remains of the ruins are, and caused some of them to be digg’d up a considerable depth, and he says that there were severall great stones that were broken, but that wch [which] you say the gentleman mention’d he says seemed to be a made stone to support some great arch’d work, ‘tis thought under ground; and that they never took up. I [i.e. George Hearne] saw part of it myself when the ground was open, and it look’d like artificiall, made stone, such as I have read the Romans could make formerly, and I am apt to think it a Roman work. ‘Tis a pretty large piece of ground, where the building stood, and the Tile Shores [?] and broken pieces of pavements are just as they be at Weycock…they say there were some old Copper Coyns found there…’ (Doble 1886, 397; my parentheses)

The ‘made stone’ may refer to concrete, which could only feasibly be Roman. George Hearne also noted that the locals maintained a tradition that the site had been a market town, but dismissed this as fable. Around

1900, the remains at Feenes Farm were apparently still visible above ground, and some limited excavation uncovered ‘several rooms’: details are lacking. Finds of numerous coins, ‘large quantities’ of pottery including samian, New Forest wares, and others, and at least one brooch were also reported at this time (Underhill 1946).

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

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

The earliest map available of the area is Saxton’s map of Berkshire (1575) (Fig. 2). The town of

Maidenhead is well established as a substantial town by this time but due to the scale of this map, no detail can be obtained for the site itself. Littlewick Green, unsurprisingly, is not shown. This is equally true of a later map of Berkshire by John Speed in 1611 which is typical of the maps of this period (Fig. 3).

A more detailed map made by Rocque in 1761 (Fig 4), shows the main settlements, rivers and the road network. The position of the site can be located reasonably well, due to its location to the west of Maidenhead

Thicket and south of the Bath Road. The area appears to show fields with possibly some buildings to the south and west. The Feene’s Farm Estate Map of 1801 (Fig. 5) is the first to show the site in detail. The site is shown as a series of fields with different names and with a road running east–west across the centre of the site. A house belonging to John Westbrook is at the eastern edge of the site and further buildings are located to the north.

10

The White Waltham Parish Enclosure map of 1810 (Fig. 6) shows only the north-eastern part of the site in any detail. It is however the first map to show Woolley Hall with the name Revd. W(?) Palmer beside it. Pasture land called Woolley Green is located along the entirety of the north-eastern boundary of the proposal site, along with the name John Loveday Esquire across the northern part of the site. The 1822 Ordnance Survey Old Series

(not illustrated) does not give the site in any detail.

The White Waltham Parish Tithe map of 1846 (Fig. 7) shows the entire proposal site in detail. Woolley

Hall and Woolley Farm (Grange on more recent maps) can be seen surrounded by fields, with a couple of other buildings indicated at the north and south of the site.

The first edition Ordnance Survey map of 1875 (Fig. 8) is the first to show the land-use in any detail. The north-eastern site boundary is marked as a trackway running across open land with occasional trees. A trackway can also be seen to run from the north-east corner of the site down to Woolley Hall and Woolley Farm towards the south-west. The building in the north-east corner of the site is now marked as a Lodge for northern approach to Woolley Hall. The land surrounding Woolley Farm is being used as orchard with woodland between Woolley

Hall and Farm. To the south-west of Woolley Hall are formal gardens and open parkland. To the south-east of the Hall is an area of orchard. Part of Woolley Lodge, located to the south-east of Woolley Hall is located within the proposal area.

The second edition Ordnance Survey map of 1899 (Fig. 9) is similar to that of 1875, but with some changes in land-use. The orchard around Woolley Farm is now substantially smaller, with land-use changed to open fields. Parkland along the north-east edge of the site shows significantly more trees and a Holloway is indicated.

Woolley Lodge appears to have been demolished to be replaced by five small buildings. The outline of Woolley

Hall is shown in more detail with additional buildings shown (including an observatory) around the area of the formal gardens and an additional glasshouse.

The third edition Ordnance Survey map of 1912 (Fig. 10) is very similar to that of 1899. The fields and orchard surrounding Woolley Farm have now been replaced with fir trees and more trackways have been indicated across the centre of the site. The only significant change on the 1932 Ordnance Survey map (Fig. 11) is the addition of a swimming pool to the south-west of Woolley Hall, two glasshouses to the south-east and the formal gardens are now shown to be terraced with a further possible terrace to the south-west. A pond is shown to the south-east of the Hall. The 1960 Ordnance Survey map shows that Woolley Farm is now called Woolley

Grange.

11

By the 1970 Ordnance Survey Map (Fig. 12) Woolley Hall and Woolley Grange are now owned by the

Southern Electric Board. An electricity sub station and pumping station have now been built to the west of the

Lodge at the north end of the site. Woolley Hall has been extended into the area of the formal gardens and the swimming pool has been converted into a pond. An additional building and a tennis court has been constructed to the east of the former swimming pool. A tank is also marked on the map in the parkland area to the east of

Woolley Hall.

By the 2006 Ordnance Survey Map (Fig. 13) further extensions have been added to Woolley Hall to the north-west of the formal gardens and the former swimming pool has been filled in. A mast has been raised in the south-west corner of the site and additional small buildings have been constructed to the south-east of the Hall.

Listed buildings

There are several listed buildings in the vicinity of the proposal site, as detailed in Appendix 1. Littlewick Green

Woolley Hall itself was listed in 2001. The Listing describes it as follows:

‘Country House, now corporate headquarters. 1780s, greatly expanded and refitted 1891. Garden terrace and pergola walk 1914, by Thomas Mawson. Gault brick with stone west entrance extension; slate and lead roofs. Irregular plan.

EXTERIOR: original C18 house visible as a 3 by 5 bay structure in 3 storeys of which the north elevation is most complete. North elevation is 5-window range of 1/1 horned sashes. Windows all with stone architraves, those to the lower 2 floors also with consoles under the upper string courses. Sill courses to all windows. Modillion eaves cornice and central 3-bay pediment. West elevation with similar detailing to the C18 part, the 3 windows to each of the upper 2 floors arranged eccentrically. 2 stacks visible. Single-storey stone-built reception hall of 1891 abuts the original ground floor, with a semi-circular portico to the main entrance supported on 6 Roman Doric columns. Cornice with carved festoons and lions' heads in the metopes, set under a string course and blind balustraded parapet. Central pedimented keystone with the date 1891. Canted bay window to the south and a single 6/6 unhorned sash to the north, replacing a blind window in 1940. The parapet continues round this section and returns into the north elevation where there is a single French window. 2-storey extension abuts south side of C18 block, with irregular fenestration of 1/1 horned sashes and hipped roofs; 4 stacks. East elevation of C18 block with 3 windows arranged eccentrically and with similar details to the west and north sides, except for the stone neo-Jacobean mullioned and transomed windows to the ground floor. 2-storey bow window added 1891, with similar details. 4-window range in 2 storeys to the south including a single-storey canted bay window and a square bay in the angle with the south-east block. 4-window range south elevation of 2 storeys, each window with a moulded architrave. 1961 office extension abuts at the west end. Plain parapet and hipped roof. South-east block of 2 storeys; 2-window bays to the shorter north and south elevations and 4 to the south.

INTERIOR: entrance hall with large-framed panelling and dado rail to south and west sides and around the east doorway. This doorway and that to the south and west is double-hung and glazed with 10 panels to each leaf. Doorcases with floral jamb carvings and cornice with pairs of cherubs resting on cusp of twin festoons. Moulded and carved cornices. Plaster ceiling with deep moulded ribs with continuous floral motifs, repeated to the base of the circular ribbed central dome. Staircase hall to the east: open-well staircase with closed moulded string, square

12

newel posts (the lower one with a volute) topped with finials in the form of vases of flowers and moulded handrails. Plaster ceiling composed of rectilinear ribs defining squares. Timber chimneypiece. Domed oval roof light. Boardroom to the south (former drawing room): small- framed neo-Jacobean panelling with engaged pilasters carved with strapwork. Frieze with palmettes. Neo-Jacobean plaster ceiling of shallow ribs forming interlocking squares, circles and semi-circles. Stone chimneypiece with carving of Romulus and Remus in the frieze. Room immediately north of the boardroom: large-framed plaster panelling in Adam style and a palmette frieze. Former chapel (facing the west elevation): deeply coffered plaster ceiling with coving to all 4 sides. Sanctuary area to the south with more delicate but similar ceiling plasterwork. Room north of chapel is an anteroom to the next room north: large-framed plaster panelling in Adam style, plaster ceiling with lightly coffered ground from which ribs define Greek crosses with chamfered ends to the arms. Secondary staircase with turned newels and balusters and an open string. Further ground-floor rooms with wall panelling of 1891. First floor staircase landing with 2-bay arcade on north side below a glazed screen upper wall marking circulation for secondary bedrooms on upper floor. First floor rooms divided into 2 principal chambers with dressing rooms and other bedrooms, all plainly decorated, except for two with plaster wall panelling and cornices. Second-floor bedrooms all plain.

GARDEN TERRACE: by Thomas Mawson, 1914, fronting the north and east elevations and with a stone balustrade of turned balusters between square piers and supporting a moulded balustrade. Piers with finials in form of vases of flowers.

PERGOLA: by Thomas Mawson, 1914, runs east from south front of south-east wing and cuts north at a square open summerhouse. Main run consists of 11 Roman Doric columns supporting a timber entablature and faced by 11 pilasters on the rear wall. North run of 2 similar columns. Pavement of rectangular panels of bricks laid in alternating bands continues from the garden terrace.’

Woolley Hall is only briefly mentioned in the Victoria County History of Berkshire (1923) but it is clear that when it was built in the 1780’s it became the manor house of Littlewick Green, superseding Feens Farm. The gardens in their own right are significant, by way of the designer, Thomas Mawson, who was one of the most celebrated landscape architects of the Edwardian era with an international reputation. Further historic detail on the Hall can be found in a supporting document to the redevelopment application, ‘Historic Development’ produced by Adam Architecture.

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.

13

Aerial Photographs

The photographic record of the area has been previously studied as part of the East Berkshire Archaeological

Survey (Ford 1987) and the Thames Valley project area and any results included in the HER. No photographic collections have therefore been consulted. The environs of the site are used as parkland or garden which are most often inhibit aerial photograph for archaeological survey.

Discussion

Woolley Hall is a Grade II Listed Building. When built in the 1780’s it became the Manor House for Littlewick

Green. A further grand neo-classical extension was added in 1891 and the parkland was re-designed by landscape architect Thomas Mawson in 1914. Its more recent history has been less illustrious; as offices for the

Southern Electric Board which added a number of unsympathetic extensions to the Hall which also impacted on the Mawson gardens to the south-west. The restoration of the Hall and gardens with the removal of the existing

20th century extensions is intended to add to aesthetic value of the area. Where houses are proposed around the

Hall they are predominantly to be screened by trees, or located in areas that have previously been shown to contain buildings. The replacement of late 17th century – 18th century farm and modern office buildings with residential housing to the north would be screened by an existing tree line and is unlikely to have any impact on the views from the Hall.

A scheme of building recording may be necessary to mitigate the impact of the conversion of Woolley

Hall into flats and to record the extant buildings of Woolley Farm.

It remains therefore to establish if there may be potential for previously unknown heritage assets, that is, below-ground archaeological remains. In considering the archaeological potential of the study area, various factors must be taken into account, including previously recorded archaeological sites, previous land-use and disturbance and future land-use including the proposed development. No known archaeological remains have been found on or in the immediate vicinity of the proposal site; a watching brief on foundations immediately to the north-east found no archaeologically significant remains. However significant prehistoric remains have been identified within Maidenhead Thicket to the north-east and may extend as far as the proposal site and significant

Roman remains have been identified within the study area. Aside from Woolley Grange and Woolley Hall, large areas of the parkland have not been previously built on so the potential for archaeologically deposits to survive intact is high. The development proposal includes new housing predominantly at the northern end of the site on

14

a footprint much larger than that of the existing Woolley Grange complex. Therefore 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.

References

Astill, G, G 1978, Historic towns in Berkshire: An Archaeological Appraisal, Berkshire Archaeol Comm publ 2. Reading Bannard, H E, 1943, ‘A Short Sketch of the History of Littlewick Green’, unpublished typescript in Berkshire Record Office Barnes, I and Cleal, R M J, 1995, ‘Neolithic and Bronze Age settlement at Weir Bank Stud Farm Bray’, in I Barnes, W A Boismier, R M J Cleal, A P Fitzpatrick and M R Roberts (eds), Early settlement in Berkshire: Mesolithic-Roman occupation sites in the Thames and Kennet valleys, Wessex Archaeol Rep 6, 1–51 Salisbury BGS, 1981, British Geological Survey, Sheet 269, Solid and Drift Edition, Scale 1:50 000 Bliss, P, 1869, Reliqiuae Hearnianae: the remains of Thomas Hearne MA, London Boismier, W A, 1995, ‘An analysis of worked flint artefact concentrations from Maidenhead Thicket, Maidenhead’, in I Barnes, W A Boismier, R M J Cleal, A P Fitzpatrick and M R Roberts (eds), Early settlement in Berkshire: Mesolithic-Roman occupation sites in the Thames and Kennet valleys, Wessex Archaeol Rep 6, Salisbury, 52–64 Bowden, M, Ford, S and Gaffney, V, 1983, ‘The excavation of an earthwork on Maidenhead Thicket, 1982’, Berkshire Archaeol J 71, (for 1981–2), 21–32 Cameron, K, 1996, English Place Names, London Chappell, S, 1987, Stone Axe Morphology and Distribution in Neolithic Britain, BAR Brit Ser 177, Cotton, M, 1957, ‘Weycock Hill, 1953’, Berkshire Archaeol J 55, 48–68 Cotton, M A, 1961, ‘Robin Hood’s Arbour; and rectilinear enclosures in Berkshire’, Berkshire Archaeol J 59, 1–35 Doble, C E (ed), 1886, Remarks and Collections of Thomas Hearne, vol 2, March 20 1707 – May 23 1701, Oxford Historical Society vol. 7, Oxford Ford, S, 1987, East Berkshire Archaeological Survey, Berkshire County Council Dept Highways and Planning Occas Pap 1, Reading Foreman, S, Hiller, J and Petts, D, 2002, Gathering the people and settling the land, the archaeology of a middle Thames landscape, Anglo-Saxon to post-medieval, Oxford Archaeol monogr 14, Oxford Gates, T, 1975,The Thames Valley, An archaeological Survey of the River Gravels, Berkshire Archaeol Comm Pubn 1, Reading Kerry C, 1861, The History and Antiquities of the Hundred of Bray Mills, A D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford Neville, R C, 1849, ‘Roman remains at Weycock, Berkshire’, Archaeol J 6, 114–23 NPPF, 2012, National Planning Policy Framework, Dept Communities and Local Government, London Over, L, 1969, Roman influence in the middle Thames valley and Romano-British sites in the Maidenhead Area, Maidenhead Hist Soc Preston, S (ed), 2003, Prehistoric, Roman and Saxon sites in Eastern Berkshire, Excavations 1989-1997, TVAS Monogr 2, Reading Seaby, W A, 1938, ‘Early British coins found in Berkshire and in the Silchester district’, Berkshire Archaeol J, 42, 75–91 Underhill, F M, 1946, ‘Notes on recent antiquarian discoveries in Berkshire (III)’, Berkshire Archaeol J 49, 58–9 VCH, 1972, Victoria County History of Berkshire, iii, London (reprint of 1923 edition). Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London

15

APPENDIX 1: Historic Environment Records within a1km search radius of the development site

No HER Ref Grid Ref (SU) Type Period Comment 1 MRW718 8502 8054 Scheduled Prehistoric Bowl barrow, surrounded by a ditch. DBF32 Ancient Monument SM 19024 2 MRW12029 84900 80900 Findspot Prehistoric Flint flake. 3 MRW13171 84000 80600 Findspot Prehistoric Flint flakes recovered during field walking. 4 MRW15555 85733 80900 Monument Prehistoric Flint scatter thought to date to Late Neolithic - Early Bronze Age. MRW15556 85766 80809 Monument Prehistoric Flint scatter thought to date to Late Neolithic - Early Bronze Age. MRW947 85793 80917 Monument Iron Age A curved bank and ditch, possibly associated with Robin Hood’s Arbour. MRW948 85746 80919 Monument Iron Age Hearth lying below a secondary bank. 5 MRW6380 84823 81014 Findspot Bronze Age Flint scatter collected during field walking at Stubbings House. MRW6379 84823 81014 Findspot Roman Romano-British pottery found at Stubbings House. 6 MRW944 85190 81079 Scheduled Iron Age Robin Hood’s Arbour: ditched rectilinear enclosure, DBF58 Ancient partially excavated in 1960 which found late Iron Monument Age pottery and a possible yard surface. MRW945 85190 81080 SM 95 Finds of wattle and daub indicate the presence of Iron Age huts within the enclosure. MRW946 85190 81080 Stakeholes were also identified. 7 MRM16604 8458 7931 Monument Iron Age Possible Iron Age round houses, identified through geophysical survey. 8 MRW643 84370 79220 Monument Iron Age Feens Farm: Finds of Roman coins, brooch, pottery Roman and building material; excavations reportedly as early as 1695; suspected villa site still visible in 1949 but apparently levelled in the 1950s. HER lists late Iron Age pottery but this is not included in the descriptive text MRM16603 84343 79292 Monument Roman Possible complex of Roman buildings, identified through geophysical survey. 9 MRW892 84080 80750 Monument Roman Boundary Elms: possible Roman settlement site; MRW893 finds of tile and pottery and pits and postholes. MRW894 10 MRW4291 853 803 Monument Roman Large rectangular enclosure, now destroyed. 11 MRW8135 83930 80000 Findspot Roman A Romano-British pot sherd and a portion of flanged tile. DRM185 84003 79983 Listed Post-Medieval Littlewick Lodge. Building DRM641 83997 79917 Listed Post-Medieval Thimble cottage. Building 12 MRW8344 83900 80100 Findspot Roman The majority of sherds from a one-handled flagon. ERM1219 8391 8014 Watching - Nags Head Cottage, nothing of archaeological brief significance found. 13 MRW8359 85530 81040 Findspot Roman A sestertius of Aurelius. MRM16512 85532 81040 Findspot Roman A sestertius of Aurelius. 14 MRW7202 8545 8065 Monument Medieval A complex of banks and ditches running alongside the A4; possibly the remains of old trackways. 15 MRW12027 84000 81000 Findspot Medieval Gold noble coin, 2nd or 3rd issue (1346 or 1351). 16 DRM183 83903 79876 Listed Medieval Foxleigh, 15th-century cottage, 20th-century Building alterations and extension.

DRM805 83913 79869 Listed Medieval Walnut Tree Cottage, 15th-century hall house with Building later extensions. 17 DRM1042 85104 79657 Listed Medieval Lane Farmhouse, 15th-century hall house with later Building extensions. 18 MRW5998 84000 80300 Monument Post-Medieval A section of the A4 Bath Road between Holloway and Knowl Hill, originally a coach road. MRW6001 85500 80600 Section of the A4 Bath Road at Maidenhead Thicket. 19 MRW6377 84870 80550 Monument Post-Medieval Two Ha-Ha’s identified at Stubbings House. MRW6378 84782 80936 20 MRW6384 84728 80739 Monument Post-Medieval Three large circular features with vertical sides which are assumed to be marl pits or old chalk workings. 21 MRW6523 84783 81035 Listed Post-Medieval Stubbings House set in landscaped surrounds with a DRM587 Building stable and bell tower. 22 MRM16193 83868 79945 Building Post-Medieval Littlewick Cottage: 18th century building with possible earlier work.

16

No HER Ref Grid Ref (SU) Type Period Comment DRM184 83934 79880 Listed Post-Medieval Village Well. Building MRW15680 83931 79977 Monument Undated A series of pits. ERM1097 83939 79958 Watching - Island Cottages, 2 Jubilee Road, nothing of brief archaeological significance found. 23 MRM16642 85133 80020 Building Post-Medieval Woolley Firs Farm stable and cart shed: 18th century brick structure. DRM811 85169 80022 Listed Post-Medieval Woolley Firs, large house now a school. Building 24 DRM1041 84328 80136 Listed Post-Medieval Two adjoining barns at Feens Farm. Building 25 DRM810 84620 80302 Listed Post-Medieval Milestone on the Bath Road, 165 metres west of the Building junction with Burchetts Lane II. 26 DRM179 85080 80013 Listed Post-Medieval Stables and cart shed at Woolley Firs. Building DRM808 85071 79926 Listed Post-Medieval Thatched cottage, Cherry Garden Lane. Building 27 DRM635 85095 80256 Listed Post-Medieval Yew Cottage. Building 28 DRM1075 84869 80066 Listed Post-Medieval Woolley Hall; country house built in the 1780’s with Building gardens by Thomas Mawson, 1914. 29 MRW6037 84840 78885 Monument Victorian A section of the Great Western Railway between the first Maidenhead station and Twyford Station. This section opened on the 1st July 1839 30 MRM16698 8556 7927 Structure Victorian Road bridge over the railway, constructed 1890–3. 31 MRW3871 85724 80505 Monument Modern Most likely to be the result of WWI troop training in the area practising mining and trenching. Comprising banks, mounds, ditches, hollows and some pits (chalk or marl pits?) MRW5749 85500 79300 Monument Modern WWII pill box. 32 MRW3889 85810 80780 Monument Modern Bank and ditch shown to be modern through excavation. 33 MRW7203 8530 8040 Monument Modern An undated complex area of banks, mounds, ditches and hollows, probably the result of World War I troop training. 34 MRW949 857 807 Monument Undated Various pits which may be the remains of trenching exercises or more probably chalk/marl pits or possibly flint mines. 35 MRW3874 84990 80990 Monument Undated Circular mound with internal ditch; possible tree ring associated with tree planting. MRW7206 8500 8098 Monument Undated Circular bank with external ditch, possibly associated with tree clump planting. - ERW43 84430 77850 Watching Multi-period Nuffield to Ascot pipeline (see individual sites brief above). - ERW72 85745 80919 Excavation Multi-period Maidenhead Thicket (see individual sites above). - ERW73 85596 81063 Evaluation Multi-period Maidenhead Thicket (see individual sites above). - ERW74 85669 80986 Excavation Multi-period Maidenhead Thicket (see individual sites above). - ERW158 83926 79972 Watching Undated Island Cottages, 3 Jubilee Road (see individual sites brief above). - ERM278 - Survey Multi-period e ArchaeologicalEast Berkshir Survey (Ford 1987) (see individual sites above). - ERM765 84093 80743 Excavation Roman Boundary Elm (see individual sites above). 36 ERM777 85035 80191 Watching - The Old Shire Horse Centre, nothing of brief archaeological significance found. - ERM795 84702 81017 Evaluation Multi-period Stubbings House (see individual sites above). 37 ERM904 83657 80970 Watching - Pinnocks Wood Equestrian Centre, nothing of brief archaeological significance found. - ERM1271 8513 8002 Watching Post-Medieval? Stable and cartshed (barn 2) Woolley Firs (see brief & individual sites above). building survey 38 ERM1278 8383 7969 Evaluation - Millers Mushroom Farm, nothing of archaeological significance found.

- ERM1308 8409 8063 Survey Iron Age - Roman Ffiennes Farm (see individual sites above). ERM1444 8409 8063 Desk based Multi-period Nethercliff Nursery, potential for Bronze Age and assessment Roman remains to be present. - ERM1462 8516 8108 Excavation Iron Age Robin Hood’s Arbour (see individual sites above). All Listed Buildings Grade II.

17

APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1575 Saxton’s Map of Berkshire (Fig. 2) 1610 Speed's Map of Berkshire (Fig. 3) 1761 Rocque’s Map of Berkshire (Fig. 4) 1801 Feene’s Farm Estate Map (Fig. 5) 1810 White Waltham Parish Enclosure Map (Fig. 6) 1822 Ordnance Survey Old Series, 6 inch series Berkshire Sheet 1846 White Waltham Parish Tithe Map (Fig. 7) 1875 First Edition Ordnance Survey (Fig. 8) 1899 Second Edition Ordnance Survey (Fig. 9) 1912 Third Edition Ordnance Survey (Fig. 10) 1932 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 11) 1960 Ordnance Survey 1970 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 12) 2006 Ordnance Survey (fig. 13)

18 SITE Slough

READING Maidenhead

Windsor

Hungerford Thatcham Newbury Wokingham

5 6 13 81000 15 21 37 35 19 2 4

20 34 9 38 32

3 14 19 1 18 31 33

18 25

27 36

12 24 28

80000 11 23 10 26 22

16 SITE

17

7 30 8

29 79000

SU84000 85000 WHL 13/86 Woolley Hall, Westacott Way, Littlewick Green, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 1. Location of site within Littlewick Green and Berkshire. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Explorer 160/172 at 1:12500 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 Approximate location of site

WHL 13/86 N Woolley Hall, Westacott Way, Littlewick Green, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 2. Saxton's map of Berkshire, 1575. Approximate location of site

WHL 13/86 N Woolley Hall, Westacott Way, Littlewick Green, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 3. Speed's map of Berkshire, 1610. Approximate location of site

WHL 13/86 N Woolley Hall, Westacott Way, Littlewick Green, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 4. Rocque's map of Berkshire, 1761. Site

WHL 13/86 N Woolley Hall, Westacott Way, Littlewick Green, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 5. Map of the Feenes Farm estate, 1801. Site

WHL 13/86 N Woolley Hall, Westacott Way, Littlewick Green, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 6. White Waltham parish enclosure map, 1810. Site

WHL 13/86 N Woolley Hall, Westacott Way, Littlewick Green, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 5. White Waltham parish tithe map, 1846. Site

WHL 13/86 N Woolley Hall, Westacott Way, Littlewick Green, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 8. First Edition Ordnance Survey, 1875. Site

WHL 13/86 N Woolley Hall, Westacott Way, Littlewick Green, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 9. Second Edition Ordnance Survey, 1899. Site

WHL 13/86 N Woolley Hall, Westacott Way, Littlewick Green, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 10. Third Edition Ordnance Survey, 1912. Site

WHL 13/86 N Woolley Hall, Westacott Way, Littlewick Green, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 11. Ordnance Survey revision, 1932. Site

WHL 13/86 N Woolley Hall, Westacott Way, Littlewick Green, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 12. Ordnance Survey revision, 1970-1978. Site

WHL 13/86 N Woolley Hall, Westacott Way, Littlewick Green, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 13. Ordnance Survey revision, 2006. Site

WHL 13/86 N Woolley Hall, Westacott Way, Littlewick Green, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 14. Preliminary layout proposals. Plate 1. Woolley Hall and the pond looking north-west. Plate 2. Woolley Hall looking south-east.

Plate 3. The Observatory and modern buildings looking Plate 4. The former stable block looking north-west. north-east.

WHL 13/86

Woolley Hall, Westacott Way, Littlewick Green, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Plates 1 to 4. Plate 5. Parkland around Woolley Hall looking north-west. Plate 6. View from the rear of Woolley Hall looking north- west.

Plate 7. Glasshouses to the south-east of Woolley Hall. Plate 8. The access road between Woolley Hall and Grange looking south-east towards Woolley Hall.

WHL 13/86

Woolley Hall, Westacott Way, Littlewick Green, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Plates 5 to 8. Plate 9. The Lodge House looking south-west. Plate 10. The southern range of Woolley Grange looking north-west.

Plate 11. The northern range of Woolley Grange looking Plate 12. The eastern range of Woolley Grange looking south-east. south-west.

WHL 13/86

Woolley Hall, Westacott Way, Littlewick Green, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Plates 9 to 12. 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