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

Land south of Ash Lodge Drive, Ash and ,

Archaeological desk-based assessment

by Steve Preston

Site Code: ALS11/106

(SU 895 495)

Land south of Ash Lodge Drive, Ash and Tongham, Surrey

An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

For Bewley Homes plc

by Steve Preston

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd

Site Code ALS11/106

November 2011 Summary

Site name: Land south of Ash Lodge Drive, Ash and Tongham, Surrey

Grid reference: SU 895 495

Site activity: Desk-based assessment

Project manager: Steve Ford

Site supervisor: Steve Preston

Site code: ALS11/106

Area of site: c. 22.3 ha

Summary of results: It is considered that the change of use from agricultural land to Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace carries no potential impact on the archaeological resource or heritage assets in that area. The area proposed for residential development can be considered to have high archaeological potential, specifically for the presence of evidence for medieval pottery production; it may also have some potential for Roman remains. It also covers a large area, sufficient to raise the possibility of remains of any period being present simply by chance. It will be necessary to provide more information from field observations in order to inform the planning process and to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits if necessary.

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 All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.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: Jo Pine9 15.11.11 Andy Taylor9 15.11.11

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

Land south of Ash Lodge Drive, Ash and Tongham, Surrey An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

by Steve Preston

Report 11/106 Introduction

This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of three parcels of land totalling almost

20ha located south of Ash Lodge Drive in Ash, Surrey (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Andrew

Morris of Bewley Homes, Inhurst House, Brimpton Road, Baughurst, Hampshire RG26 5JJ 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.

An outline application for planning permision is to be submitted for the development of the site to niclude up to 400 dwellings on 22.3ha of a much larger site, with the demolition of nos 52 and 54 South Lane. The outline application includes provisions for access routes, and open space of various kinds. Permission is also to be sought for change of use of an area of 24.8ha from agricultural land to Suitable Alternative Natural

Greenspace. This report is intended to accompany the applications in order to inform the planning process with regard to any potential impact on the known archaeological resource or heritage assets on the site.

It is considered that the change of use from agricultural land to Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace carries no potential impact on the archaeological resource or heritage assets in that area and this report therefore deals only with the area for residential development.

Site description, location and geology

Ash is just south of Farnborough, near the Surrey/Hampshire county boundary and close to Aldershot. The site currently consists of three parcels of land comprising twelve fields on the edge of a mainly residential area, and bisected by a disused railway line and a path (Ash Green Lane). It encompasses land in both Ash (to the north) and Tongham (south) parishes. The only buildings on the site are three houses, with their gardens, in the north- east corner, and an electricity substation in the northernmost field. To the south-east the site is bounded by more fields. Ash Lodge Drive and properties along it form the northern boundary, to the west is a school and its grounds and to the east are properties on South Lane. The areas concerned in the proposed residenial development centre on NGR, SU 895 495. A site visit on 12th October 2011 revealed that all the fields are currently pasture or overgrown (Pls 1 and 2). The site’s internal field boundaries include hedgerows and

1

numerous mature trees. One small area in the south-west corner may be a former nursery, as it is overgrown with young saplings. A footpath across the site is accompanied by overhead power lines. The river Blackwater rises not far to the south-west and flows past northwards less than 1km to the west, forming the county boundary. A tributary of this flows along the north edge of the site. The site is located on London clay (BGS 1976), with just the possibility of a small pocket of second terrace gravel in the extreme north-west corner. It slopes from a height of approximately 70m above Ordnance Datum in the north-west to 90m AOD in the south-east.

Planning background and development proposals

Outline planning permission is to be sought for the development of the site. No details of the proposal are to hand at the time of writing.

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

2

includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing).’ ‘Designated heritage asset’ includes (NPPF 2012, 51) any

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

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

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

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

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

‘139. Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets.’

3

Paragraph 141 requires local planning authorities to ensure that any loss of heritage assets advances understanding, but stresses that advancing understanding is not by itself sufficient reason to permit the loss of significance:

‘141. Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development management publicly accessible. They should also require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.’

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

(NPPF 2012, 56) as:

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

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

The provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (1979) do not apply in respect of the proposed site, as there are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments within the study area.

The Borough Local Plan (2003) will shortly be replaced by the Guildford Development

Framework. When the Local Plan was amended in 2007 a number of policies were ‘not saved’, including the only one specifically relating to archaeology (HE11), on the basis that sufficient policies remained at a national level to ensure that all eventualities were covered. This local plan policy was primarily concerned with

Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other monuments of national importance, and would therefore not have applied to the current site. However, the various supporting paragraphs for the policy refer to further provisions for sites not of national importance and not covered by national policy, which appear to have been retained and are probably still relevant as advice if not policy. The following paragraphs are felt to be relevant in the case of the proposed site :

11.39 ‘Where development proposals fall within an area of high archaeological potential as identified by the County Council, the Borough Council will require that an initial assessment of the archaeological value of the site be submitted as part of any planning application. 11.40 ‘If the initial assessment indicates that important archaeological remains may exist, the Borough Council will request that a field evaluation is carried out before the planning application is determined.

4

11.41 ‘Where important archaeological remains are found to exist and preservation in situ is not justified, the Borough Council will ensure that a programme of archaeological work is implemented, to include a full archaeological report to be agreed by the County Archaeologist. 11.42 ‘Preliminary discussions with the Borough Council and the County Archaeologist is advised, prior to the submission of an application for works within an Area of High Archaeological Potential and it is recommended that an initial assessment of the site is undertaken before the submission of an application. This usually involves desk based evaluation of existing information, such as records of previous discoveries, historic maps or geophysical survey techniques. 11.43 ‘Where early discussions with the Borough or County Councils, or the developers’ own research indicate that important archaeological remains may exist the Borough Council will request that an archaeological field evaluation is carried out before any decision on the planning application is taken. This sort of evaluation is not a full excavation, but normally a rapid and inexpensive operation which involves ground survey and small scale trial trenching. This evaluation should, however, be carried out by a professionally qualified archaeological organisation or archaeologist. 11.44 ‘The results of such assessments and evaluations should form part of an application for works within an Area of High Archaeological Potential. If an application is submitted without prior discussions with the Borough Council, the County Archaeologist will be consulted to help determine whether the proposal would have archaeological implications and to assess the likely archaeological impact. If it becomes evident that a proposal would affect archaeological remains, applicants will be requested to provide more detailed information about the scheme.’

The proposal site is not within an Area of High Archaeological Potential. As several nearby buildings are Listed

Buildings, the following saved policies from the Local Plan also apply :

‘HE1 PROPOSALS WHICH AFFECT LISTED BUILDINGS ‘Planning permission will be granted for alterations and additions where :- 1) ‘The proposal does not detract from the character or setting of the building; and 2) ‘The proposal respects and enhances the original architecture, scale, materials, colour, detailing and other significant features of the building.’

‘HE4 NEW DEVELOPMENT WHICH AFFECTS THE SETTING OF A LISTED BUILDING ‘Planning permission will not be granted for development that adversely affects the setting of a listed building by virtue of design, proximity or impact on significant views.’

Policies covering other aspects of the Historic Environment (Scheduled Ancient Monuments, World

Heritage Sites, Registered Parks and Gardens, Historic Battlefields, Conservation Areas) are not relevant to the site under consideration here.

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

5

Archaeological background

General background

This part of the Hampshire-Surrey border has long been associated with pottery manufacture, from the Alice

Holt kilns of the Roman period to the ‘border ware’ tradition of late medieval and post-medieval times, and Ash has played its own part in both that tradition itself, and its archaeological study (Holling 1969; 1971). The heavy woodland cover of the area will have been of prime importance as fuel for this industry. Otherwise, despite the early start made by Stukeley (see below), until recently the archaeology of the area has been relatively little explored, and its prehistory in particular was poorly understood. Relatively recent discoveries by the Surrey

County Archaeological Unit in the Blackwater Valley, however, could add considerably to the picture, especially for the Iron Age (Poulton 2004, 58–60). Excavations at Tongham Nurseries (SU 882 500, just outside the HER search radius explored below) revealed extensive Iron Age settlement (4th to 2nd centuries BC), comprising at least eighteen round houses and large waterholes with waterlogged timbers, while a nearby site at Runfold Farm had even more roundhouses, set in an organized landscape of fields and trackways. Publication of these important sites is eagerly awaited.

Green Lane, which, with the disused railway, divides the site into parts, continues east to Wanborough. Not far from the edge of the area shown in Figure 1, it crosses the Roman temple site at Wanborough (O’Connell and

Bird 1994; Williams 2007). There has been no subsequent confirmation of William Stukeley’s report (1776) of

‘innumerable Roman coins, urns and antiquities…many pillars, pilasters, capitals, bases, marble tables, &c dug up …continually’ on an estate near Tongham (Bird 2004, 44), which some evidence suggests might be Poyle, or further south. It is tempting to wonder if this in fact refers to Wanborough to the east. There is also a suggestion that a Roman road connecting London to Winchester diverged from the known route of Stane Street near

Dorking (where Stane Street itself kinks) and passed not far from the area under consideration here, but the very existence of this road, much less its detailed line through this area, remains largely conjecture.

Surrey Historic Environment Record

A search was made on the Surrey Historic Environment Record (HER) on 25th October 2011 for a radius of 1km around the proposal site. This revealed 49 entries (including duplicates) within the search radius. These are summarized as Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 1. There are no Scheduled Monuments in the vicinity.

6

Prehistoric The only HER records relating to the prehistoric periods within the 1km search radius area for the findspots of a

Neolithic polished flint axe and a Bronze Age quartzite tool variously referred to as a hammer-head or mace- head Although the grid reference for these places both finds just within the site’s boundaries [Fig.1: 1], in fact their precise provenance is unknown except that they are from Ash. It is also not clear if the Bronze Age find is intended to include a second object (an adze) also reportedly from Ash.

Roman, Saxon There are no HER entries relating to these periods within 1km of the site. However, Guildford Museum (Boas et al. 1995) lists finds of Roman coins [2] and Roman pottery [3], both within or adjacent to the site, and there are

Roman finds from elsewhere in Tongham and Ash. The projected line of a Roman road from London to

Winchester possibly passes just north of the proposal area (see above).

Medieval St Peter’s Church, to the north of the proposal area [4], has some 12th- and 13th-century fabric, with many later additions. Several entries [5–9] relate to the finding of medieval pottery in Ash, including some ‘wasters’ [6] which must indicate a kiln existed somewhere locally. Although these finds came from archaeological investigation rather than chance finds, no surviving features of this period have been identified in any of those investigations. Most relevant for the current proposal area is the finding of a concentration of late medieval pottery during works for a new pipeline close to South Lane. The grid reference listed for this find puts it closer to Ash Lodge Drive than to South Lane, and within the site [7]. Again, this find is thought to indicate a kiln site nearby. Foremans Farm, to the north-east of the site, is referred to as Forman’s Manor in 1571 and the HER notes that it is ‘surmised’ by an unknown source that one William Fayrman mentioned in a document of 1255 may have been associated with it (VCH 1911 makes no mention of such a connection). The small square moat around Ash Manor may be medieval [11].

Post-Medieval Most of the records within the study area are for post-medieval buildings. These include the later additions to St

Peter’s, and structures within its grounds and close by [4], Foreman’s Farm [10], first mapped in 1765, Ash

Manor house [11], with its moat and several outbuildings. Both Ash and Tongham contain several further listed buildings, mainly dating from the 16th and 17th centuries [15, 18–23] and Poyle Farm has several 18th- and

19th-century park and garden features [13]. (It is possible these should be about 1km further south at Poyle Park; if not they are on the edge of the area propsed for conversion to SANG). There is an HER record noting that the village of Ash [12] is mapped from the 18th century onwards (in fact the mapping goes back further, albeit in no real detail, see below). Several entries relate to place names or features shown on old maps [6, 9, 11–14]; of most

7

immediate interest is ‘kiln field’ [6] from the tithe map, just east of the eastern edge of the proposal area.

Archaeological investigations in the area [8, 9, 16] have found post-medieval pottery (including early post- medieval wares), although, as with the medieval finds, not associated with features. Kiln sites are again indicated by these finds even without the cartographic evidence. An 1850s railway water tower, well to the north of the site [17], completes the post-medieval evidence from the study area.

Modern Other than modern elements in the older listed buildings, the only HER entries for the modern period, are for a

Second World War pillbox and tank trap [12].

Undated, negative Undated, but not particularly old, features were revealed in trial trenching within the 17th-century barn at Ash

Manor [11]; a watching brief on the same site revealed nothing of archaeological interest.

Cartographic and documentary sources

As is the case for its archaeology, Ash has scant history. Ash is a common Old English (Anglo-Saxon) place name (more usually found in combination with other elements), from aesc simply meaning ‘[place at the] ash tree’ (Mills 1998, 13). This particular instance is first recorded in AD1170 as ‘Essa’, and in the 13th century as

‘Esche’ or ‘Assche’. Despite being a very large parish by the time it is first encountered, Ash is not mentioned by name in Domesday Book of AD 1086. It was probably considered in Henley at that time (VCH 1911) and if so would have been part of the grant of land made by Azur to Chertsey Abbey. Ash was certainly part of the

Abbey’s property by 1279. Apart from a mention of a mill, the manor has no further claim to historical note until it passed to Henry VIII and then Edward VI granted it to Winchester College (VCH 1911). The modern parish is huge, and it was a notable feature of Wealden medieval parishes to be extensive, probably because so much of the land was heavily wooded and therefore economically marginal. There are records of potters working in Ash and Frimley at least from the 16th century and into the 18th.

Land in Ash began to be enclosed (privately) as early as 1707. The Ash and Frimley Inclosure act of 1801 made enclosures from large areas of waste, but the inhabitants retained some rights over fuel. The enclosures were completed by a further act in 1856. The railway was built in 1845, cutting Green Lane in two. opened in 1849 and Ash Green station (on a now-disused branch line) in 1852. Neither seems to have had much impact on the economy of the area, but the arrival of the military at Aldershot and Farnborough

8

fundamentally changed the nature of the district, turning bleak heath into straggling villages, which subsequently expanded so that the whole area is now effectively suburban.

Tongham, part of Seale and The Sands until the late 20th century, has no history of its own (the civil parish of Seale and The Sands itself only dates from 1894).

A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at 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 four counties of 1575 (Fig. 2). This shows ‘Ashe’ and the Blackwater but naturally there is no detail at this scale. Tongham is not marked on this map. Seventeenth- and 18th-century mapping (not illustrated) remains similarly pictorial until Rocque’s map of 1768 (Fig. 3). This shows the distinctive ridge of the Hog’s Back to the south, Tongham, Ash and Ash Green all separate hamlets, and the road layout already in recognizable form (if the modern A-roads are stripped out). South Lane is certainly present, and Ash Green Lane possibly so. The general area of the site can be picked out but precise boundaries cannot (Rocque’s fields are sometimes more artistic than accurate, though it is possible they do accurately reflect the pre-enclosure layout here). The site is clearly in farmland regardless of precise boundaries.

The maps by Lindley and Crossley (1793) (Fig. 4) and the 6-inch Ordnance Survey ‘Old Series’ show no change, and indeed, less detail than Rocque (not illustrated). A map by the Greenwoods of 1823 also adds little detail, but does show the parish boundary crossing the southern portion of the proposal area (Fig. 5).

The Ash tithe map of 1843 (Fig. 6) shows the field layout in more detail than previously. It does not bear any resemblance to the Ordnance Survey map (below), presumably as a result of a combination of the effects of the 1856 Inclosure and land taken by the railway. Only South Lane and Ash Green Lane can be positively identified with features on later maps.

The Ordnance Survey First Edition of 1871 (Fig. 7) shows the site in detail. The basics of the layout are almost identical to the present configuration, although some of the fields are subdivided into smaller plots. The railway line is now in place, but otherwise the area is still fields with no sign of development of any kind. Other than a change in cartographic style, there is virtually no change on the Second Edition of 1897 except a tiny sliver of land which may have been part of the landtake from the railway has been incorporated into one of the southern fields (not illustrated). Just off the site to the west is a group of greenhouses overlooking the railway cutting in the south-west corner of the site. These greenhouses (still outside the site) have been supplemented by

9

more on the 1916 Ordnance Survey map (Fig. 8), which now names this area as a nursery. This map also shows the footpath across the western part of the site. One additional fence or hedge is shown dividing one of the northern fields, but this is still part of a single land parcel. There may have been minor changes to the drainage in the area but otherwise the site is as it was in 1871.

By 1934 (Fig. 9), half of the greenhouses have gone and the other half all seem to have been replaced

(possibly just one is an original); there are additional small buildings within the nursery. The more important changes are on the eastern edge of the site where the field next to South Lane has been divided into eight plots

(though counted as only three land parcels), five of which have buildings: only one of these appears to be within the site area, however.

The changes of scale and mapping style on the 1948 Revision (sheets published separately in 1952 and

1958) (Fig. 10) make comparison difficult; the appearance that the many small fields have been amalgamated into larger units is probably false, but development along South Lane has now increased (off the proposal site).

There is little other change on the site itself. The current layout of the site (Fig. 11) closely resembles that of

1934, except that the railway line is now dismantled, the smaller fields along the north-west edge of the site have been combined, and the housing along South Lane has filled in beyond the site boundary.

Listed buildings

There are no Listed Buildings on the site nor with direct line of sight to it. Several Listed Buildings in Ash and

Tongham all have intervening development between them and the site; their settings would not be affected by development of the area.

Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields

There are no registered parks and gardens or registered battlefields within close proximity of the site.

Historic Hedgerows

Several of the hedgerows on the site appear to have been in place since the earliest Ordnance Survey mapping, but none of these boundaries can be traced on the tithe map, so that none would qualify as ‘important’ as defined by Schedule 1 of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. It is understood that in any case these are to be retained in the proposed development for other reasons.

10

Aerial Photographs

The site areas lies within an area of London clay geology which is not generally suitable for the formation of cropmarks that would be visible through aerial photography. Nevertheless, a search was made on the National

Monuments Record’s database of aerial photographs on 4 November 2011. This revealed one specialist (oblique) and 117 vertical photographs within a 1km radius of the study area (Appendix 3), from 30 sorties flown between

1945 and 1996. These images were viewed on 11th November 2011 (apart from several not available). Other than the lines of former field boundaries, the only cropmark not obviously of modern origin in any of the fields was what appears to be a pronounced hollow crossing the north-western field diagonally (NE–SW) and continuing across the next field west (now the school grounds), and possibly also turning to head due north across the next field north. It is visible on many photographs but shows most clearly on the older ones (Pl. 3).

Although its edges are irregular, this is too straight to be a relict stream channel, and although it does not appear to correspond with any feature on the historic maps, it may be interpreted as a hollow way. The fact that it is less distinct on later views suggests it has filled in since the 1950s.

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.

It is considered that the change of use from agricultural land to Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace carries no potential impact on the archaeological resource or heritage assets in that area and this discussion therefore deals only with the area for residential development.

The site contains no known heritage assets. Records of the finding of two prehistoric artefacts in the area are too vague to be significant, and the details of two Roman findspots are also uncertain. Although a concentration of medieval pottery is recorded from within the proposal area itself, which may include a kiln site or sites, it is not demonstrated that any structural remains of these exist.

Until recently, the London clay in Ash and Tongham would not have been considered to be an area of much, if any, archaeological potential. The Greensand areas to the north and chalk downs to the south would have been deemed more promising. The HER search for a 1km radius around the proposal area would have

11

reinforced the impression that the area contains little, if any, evidence for human settlement earlier than the medieval period. However, investigation in advance of development in the Blackwater valley is changing this view, with two major Iron Age settlement sites in close proximity (or one much larger site). Roman evidence from the immediate environs is equivocal: Roman pottery and coins may have been found within the site itself, but there was certainly Roman activity not far from the study area. For the medieval and post-medieval periods, however, the area has long been recognized as having high archaeological potential specifically relating to the production of pottery locally, and several recent investigations nearby have produced pottery (though no kilns) in support of this.

The cartographic evidence shows that there has been no development on the site apart from the buildings currently standing, which occupy a minuscule fraction of the area, and perhaps some landscaping associated with the railway line, though the latter was more probably entirely outside the site. Any archaeological remains should therefore be expected to have survived relatively intact, subject only to plough damage or any drainage that may have been used on the fields. It is unlikely that waterlogged remains would be encountered (as in the sites on the valley floor to the west), rather any deposits present can be expected to be typical of dryland locations throughout southern England.

No details of the proposed development are available but it must be assumed that it will carry potential threats to any archaeological deposits that might be present.

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

BGS, 1976, British Geological Survey, 1:50,000 Sheet 285, Solid and drift Edition, Keyworth Bird, D, 2004, Roman Surrey, Stroud Boas, J, Alexander, M and Fryer, K, 1995, ‘Planning application 95/P/0488: Desktop archaeological survey of land at Ash’, Guildford Museum Excavation Unit upubl rep, Guildford Cotton, J, Crocker, C and Graham, A (eds), 2004, Aspects of archaeology and history in Surrey; towards a research framework for the county, Surrey Archaeol Soc, Guildford Holling, F W, 1969, ‘Seventeenth-century pottery from Ash, Surrey’, Post-Medieval Archaeol 3, 18–30 Holling, F W, 1971, ‘A preliminary note on the pottery industry of the Hampshire-Surrey borders’, Surrey Archaeol Collect 68, 57–88 Mills, A D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford O’Connell, M and Bird, J, 1994, ‘The Roman temple at Wanborough; excavation 1985–1986’, Surrey Archaeol Collect 82, 1–168

12

Poulton, R, 2004, ‘Iron Age Surrey’, 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, 51–64 PPS5, 2010, Planning for the Historic Environment, The Stationery Office, Norwich VCH, 1911, Victoria History of the Counties of England: Surrey, vol iii, London Stukeley, W, 1776, Itinerarium Curiosum (2nd, posthumous edition by Baker and Leigh), London Williams, D, 2007, ‘Green Lane, Wanborough; excavations at the Roman religious site 1999’, Surrey Archaeol Collect 93, 149–266

13

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

No HER Ref Grid Ref (SU) Type Period Comment 1 1426 89 50 Findspot Neolithic Polished flint axe and quartzite hammer-head; locations 1427 Bronze Age marginal, 19th century finds 2 - 893 497 Findspot Roman Unspecified coins; details unclear 3 - 895 497 Findspot Roman Unspecifed pottery; details unclear 4 1428 8978 5075 Listed building Medieval St Peter’s Church, 12th century with 15th- and 19th-century 8291 89728 50787 Post-medieval additions and monuments; Grade II*. 1767 chest tomb; also 8368 89767 50566 Old Rectory, a 16th-century house; former 17th-century inn 8298 89717 50759 now a house; Cemetery chapel, 1889, later museum 8370 89667 50801 8919 5 1450 8872 4976 Evaluation Medieval Medieval pottery from ploughsoil but no features. 1451 5379 6 1545 897 502 Evaluation Medieval Late 14th/15th century whiteware pottery and wasters, 1546 8980 5020 Cartographic Post-medieval indicating possible kiln. ‘Kiln field’ on tithe map 5384 14446 7 1549 893 501 Watching brief Medieval Late medieval pottery, indicating possible kiln 5383 8 2702 895 505 Findspot Medieval ‘Over 2000’ 14th- and 17th-century pottery sherds, but no 2704 Excavation Post-medieval features or structures. Excavation 1965-6 9 5385 897 506 Watching brief Medieval Finds of medieval whiteware, early 17th-century Border 5386 8976 5056 Cartographic Post-medieval Ware, including wasters and kiln furniture, and late 17th- to 14437 18th-century Red Border Ware. Vicarage; parts may be as old as 16th century, certainly 18th. 10 14442 8994 5054 Cartographic Medieval Formans Manor, possibly mentioned as early as 1255, Documentary Post-medieval buildings mapped in 18th century 11 1829 90120 50410 Cartographic Medieval Homestead moat around Ash manor house; along with 18th- 8295 90150 50395 Documentary Post-medieval century oast house and stable; 17th-century barn; Ash Manor 8296 90162 50358 Listed building Undated and Old Manor Cottage, 16th-century house 8653 90118 50418 Evaluation Negative Trenching within 17th-century barn revealed an undated brick 1773 9016 5035 Watching brief wall and two postholes. Watching brief revealed nothing of 5175 901 503 archaeological interest. 5176 5551 12 14444 8922 5039 Cartographic Medieval General summary entry for the village. Ash village mapped 14443 891 504 Documentary Post-medieval from 18th century. Field name Moat mead 6024 Structure Modern Second World War anti-tank blocks and pillbox (extant) 6088 13 13558 89739 49461 Documentary Post-medieval 18th-century Park with 19th-century features at Poyle House Cartographic Pictorial 14 14445 8885 5033 Cartographic Post-medieval Kiln on tithe map 15 16776 89001 50382 Documentary Post-medieval Azor/Azar Place, 17th century house with garden; Post Offie, 8292 88998 50396 Listed Building 16th-century house 8659 89065 50368 16 2767 903 501 Excavation Post-medieval ‘Very many’ 16th- and 17th-century pottery sherds including wasters. 17 4178 8979 5087 Structure Post-medieval Railway water tower, 1850s. 18 8261 89153 49096 Listed Building Post-medieval 69–71 Poyle Road, late 16th-century timber-framed house; 8468 89213 49138 85–87 Poyle Road, 16th-century house 19 8293 89093 50420 Listed Building Post-medieval 63 Ash Street, 17th-century timber-framed house 20 8294 89955 50350 Listed Building Post-medieval Early 19th-century house 21 8374 89303 50462 Listed Building Post-medieval 17th-century cottage 22 8375 89839 50361 Listed Building Post-medieval 17th-century house 23 8376 88814 50166 Listed Building Post-medieval 16th-century house

Listed Buildings Grade II unless stated.

14

APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1575 Saxton’s Map of Surrey (Fig. 2) 1611 Speed’s Map of Surrey 1729 Senex’s Map of Surrey 1768 Rocque’s Map of Surrey (Fig. 3) 1793 Lindley and Crossley’s Map of Surrey (Fig. 4) 1811 Ordnance Survey ‘Old Series’ 1823 C and J Greenwood’s Map of Surrey (Fig. 5) 1843 Ash and Normandy Parish Tithe Map (Fig. 6) 1871 First Edition Ordnance Survey (Fig. 7) 1897 Second Edition Ordnance Survey 1916 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 8) 1934 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 9) 1950s Ordnance Survey (1948 revision not published until 1952/58) (Fig. 10) 1989 Ordnance Survey 2007 Ordnance Survey – Explorer 145, 1:25000 (Fig. 1) 2011 Ordnance Survey Digital Mapping, 1:2500 (Fig. 11)

15

APPENDIX 3: Aerial Photographs consulted

A> Oblique

No Date flown Sortie number Frame number Grid ref (SU) Comment 1 14 AUG 1990 NMR 4681 4 909 495 Shows large rectangular enclosure, but well east of the site.

B> Vertical

No. Date flown Sortie number Frame number Grid ref (SU) Comment 2 05 DEC 1945 RAF/106G/UK/1062 4026–8 898 501 [Plate 3] 3 03 JAN 1946 RAF/106G/UK/1093 3149–50, 4149–50 889 514 4 12 JAN 1946 RAF/106G/UK/1114 3052–3 893 509 5 11 APR 1947 RAF/CPE/UK/1982 2196–7, 4195–6 893 508 6 12 MAR 1954 RAF/82/866 18–19, 53–4 892 494 Not available to view 7 04 MAR 1966 RAF/58/7248 74–5 885 501 8 18 SEP 1961 RAF/58/4683 113–14 (twice) 899 487 apparently duplicate frame numbers are in fact from different runs in same sortie 9 01 SEP 1961 RAF/58/4662 36–7 (twice) 887 516 10 30 AUG 1961 RAF/58/4655 76–7 891 500 11 13 JUN 1967 RAF/543/3860 483–4 (twice) 892 518 Not available to view 12 10 JAN 1971 MAL/71001 90–1 890 492 13 10 APR 1975 MAL/75015 167 894 509 14 13 JUL 1971 OS/71367 181–3 899 495 15 13 JUL 1971 OS/71367 215–17 890 506 16 17 AUG 1966 OS/66202 420–2, 732–4 900 491 17 13 JUL 1970 OS/70272 54–6, 83–5 890 510 18 08 APR 1964 OS/64011 3–5 894 492 19 08 APR 1964 OS/64010 141–3 900 506 20 29 SEP 1969 OS/69442 208–9 895 508 21 13 APR 1984 OS/84020 14–16 902 506 22 25 AUG 1983 OS/83176 17–19, 55–6 893 497 23 13 JUN 1989 OS/89271 168–9 892 502 24 23 JUL 1989 OS/89397 19–21, 29–32 889 505 25 23 JUL 1995 OS/95629 145 900 505 26 20 APR 1960 MAL/60413 6–7 889 507 27 01 MAY 1997 OS/97530 43 900 495 Not available to view 28 13 OCT 1999 OS/99390 75–7 895 495 Not available to view 29 26 APR 1996 EA/AF/96C/521 6293–308, 6429–35 885 508 30 26 APR 1996 EA/AF/96C/522 6436–43 906 494

NB : Grid reference given is for start of run; multiple frames may offer wide coverage.

16 Staines

Egham

Woking Weybridge 52000

Reigate Redhill Aldershot Guildford

Godalming SITE

51000 17 4 9 10 19 8 11 21 14 12 22 20 15 6 23 16 7 50000 1

5 2 3

13

SITE 18 49000

48000

ALS11/106 SU88000 89000 90000 91000 Land south of Ash Lodge Drive, Ash and Tongham, Surrey, 2011 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 1. Location of site within Ash and Surrey, showing locations of HER entries. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Explorer 145 at 1:25000 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 Approximate location of SITE

ALS11/106 Land south of Ash Lodge Drive, Ash and Tongham, Surrey, 2011 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 2. Saxton, 1575 Approximate location of SITE

ALS11/106 Land south of Ash Lodge Drive, Ash and Tongham, Surrey, 2011 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 3. Rocque, 1768 Approximate location of SITE

ALS11/106 Land south of Ash Lodge Drive, Ash and Tongham, Surrey, 2011 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 4. Lindley and Crossley, 1793 Approximate loca- tion of SITE

ALS11/106 Land south of Ash Lodge Drive, Ash and Tongham, Surrey, 2011 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 5. C and J Greenwood, 1823 SITE

ALS11/106 Land south of Ash Lodge Drive, Ash and Tongham, Surrey, 2011 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 6. Ash and Normandy tithes, 1843, showing only part of the site. SITE

SANG Area

ALS11/106 Land south of Ash Lodge Drive, Ash and Tongham, Surrey, 2011 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 7. Ordnance Survey First Edition, 1871. (SANG Area not completely shown) SITE

SANG Area

ALS11/106 Land south of Ash Lodge Drive, Ash and Tongham, Surrey, 2011 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 8. Ordnance Survey Third Edition, 1916. SANG Area not completely shown. SITE

SANG Area

ALS11/106 Land south of Ash Lodge Drive, Ash and Tongham, Surrey, 2011 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 9. Ordnance Survey Revision, 1934. SANG Area not completely shown. SITE

SANG Area

ALS11/106 Land south of Ash Lodge Drive, Ash and Tongham, Surrey, 2011 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 10. Ordnance Survey Revision, 1948. SNAG Area not completely shown. SITE

ALS11/106 Land south of Ash Lodge Drive, Ash and Tongham, Surrey, 2011 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 11. Current site layout. Ordnance Survey licence 100025880. Crown copyright reserved. Plate 1. North-west corner of site looking north towards Ash

Plate 2. Southern field, looking south from disused railway line.

ALS11/106 Land south of Ash Lodge Drive, Ash and Tongham, Surrey, 2011 Archaeological desk-based assessment Plates 1 and 2 Cropmark

SITE

Plate 3. Aerial photograph from1945 (RAF/106G/UK/1062.4028)

ALS11/106 Land south of Ash Lodge Drive, Ash and Tongham, Surrey, 2011 Archaeological desk-based assessment Plate 3 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