T H A M E S V A L L E Y ARCHAEOLOGICAL S E R V I C E S
Orchard Lodge, Windmill Lane, Providence Hill, Bursledon, Hampshire
Archaeological Desk-based Assessment
by Steve Ford
Site Code PHB14/98
(SU 4830 1071) Orchard Lodge, Windmill Lane, Providence Hill, Bursledon, Hampshire
Archaeological Desk-based Assessment
for Foreman Homes
by Steve Ford
Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd
Site Code PHB 14/98
June 2014 Summary
Site name: Orchard Lodge, Windmill Lane, Providence Hill, Bursledon, Hampshire
Grid reference: SU 4830 1071
Site activity: Archaeological desk-based assessment
Project manager: Steve Ford
Site supervisor: Steve Ford
Site code: PHB 14/98
Summary of results: Very few archaeological finds and sites have been recorded in the vicinity of the proposal site but this may reflect a lack of modern archaeological investigation rather than a lack of past human activity within the area. It is unclear if there will be a need to provide further information about the potential of the site from field observations, but if requested, such a scheme could be implemented by an appropriately worded condition attached to any consent gained. A nearby restored windmill which is a listed building is visible from a part of the site. Development of the latter will have to be sympathetic to the setting of the windmill.
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 All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.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 Preston 30.06.14
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 Orchard Lodge, Windmill Lane, Providence Hill, Bursledon, Hampshire Archaeological Desk-based Assessment
by Steve Ford
Report 14/98 Introduction
This report is an assessment of the archaeological potential of a parcel of land located to the south of Orchard
Lodge, Windmill Lane, Providence Hill, Bursledon, Hampshire (SU 4830 1071) (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Ms Samantha Collins of Foreman Homes, Unit 1 Station Industrial Park, Duncan Road, Park
Gate, Hampshire, SO31 1BX 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
Bursledon is located to the west of the River Hamble, a tributary of Southampton Water. The development site is centred on NGR SU 4830 1071 on land to the north-west of Bursledon village centre (Fig. 1). The site consists of an irregular parcel of land which is currently used as grazing, containing a few mature trees but with areas of garden close to Orchard Lodge itself (Pls 1–2). A site visit was undertaken on 3rd June 2014. The northern and eastern boundaries are variously bounded with woodland or more farmland. The southern boundary is shared with another area of woodland/scrubland and a number of small holdings. The western boundary is undefined but lies around Orchard Lodge and its grounds with further houses and large gardens to the north-west, beyond which is the windmill complex. The underlying geology is mapped as being the Wittering Formation (part of the
Bracklesham Group) (BGS 1987). The land rises from the south-east to north-west from approximately 36m to approximately 51m above Ordnance Datum; a small stream rises from a spring at the south-east corner of the site.
Planning background and development proposals
Planning permission is to be sought from Eastleigh Borough Council for the development of the site for residential use. Only an indicative layout of the proposal was available at the time of writing. The site lies within a conservation area centred on the Burlesdon Hill windmill.
1 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:
‘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
2 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, 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:
3 ‘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. There are no Scheduled Monuments within the vicinity of the proposal site.
Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (adopted 2006 and reviewed in 2009) (EBC 2006) includes policies concerning the historic environment of which policies 166.LB – 168.LB are relevant in this situation:
‘166.LB ‘Development which would destroy or damage, directly or indirectly, a scheduled ancient monument or other nationally important monument, or adversely affect their settings, will be refused. ‘167.LB ‘Development which would adversely affect other non-scheduled sites of archaeological significance or their settings will only be permitted where the Borough Council is satisfied that preservation of archaeological remains in situ is not feasible and the importance of the development is sufficient to outweigh the value of the remains. The Council will only permit development where satisfactory provision has been made for a programme of archaeological investigation and recording prior to the commencement of the development. ‘168.LB ‘Planning applications for development affecting a site where there is evidence that archaeological remains may exist but whose extent and importance are unknown, will only be permitted if the developer arranges for an appropriate level of evaluation to be carried out. This will enable the Borough Council to be fully informed about the likely effect that the proposed development will have upon such remains.’
Bursledon contains two Conservation Areas: Old Bursledon and Bursledon Windmill, subject to further planning policies as well as by the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Local plan policy
169LB applies:
‘169.LB ‘Planning applications for new buildings, and alterations and extensions to existing buildings, within Conservation Areas, will be permitted, provided all the following criteria are met: ‘(i) the proposal preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Conservation Area or its setting; ‘(ii) any new building or extension does not detract from the character of the area and where appropriate retains the existing street building line and the rhythm of the street-scene; ‘(iii) the mass, materials and form of the building and associated landscape features are in scale and harmony with the existing and adjoining buildings and the area as a whole and the proportions of its parts relate well to each other, to the existing building and to adjoining buildings; ‘(iv) architectural details on buildings of value are retained; …
4 (vi) the materials to be used are appropriate to and in sympathy with the existing buildings and the particular character of the area; …’
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 Hampshire Archaeology and Historic
Buildings Record, geological maps and any relevant publications or reports.
Archaeological background
General background
Bursledon is located within the archaeologically rich Hampshire Basin and along the banks of the River Hamble, thought to be one of the archaeologically richest rivers in the region with sites, finds and prehistoric landscapes located within the vicinity. The river itself contains a number of shipwrecks including that of a Saxon logboat found in 1888. Iron Age structures can be found on Hamble Common and include a bank and ditch associated with a promontory fort. At a fork in the upper Hamble, a Roman villa complex has been identified. Later history associates with area with ship-building, including several frigates and even ships of the line built at the area’s private yards for the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars.
Hampshire Archaeology and Historic Buildings Record
A search was made of the Hampshire Archaeology and Historic Buildings Record (AHBR) on 22nd May2014 for a radius of 1km around the proposal site. This revealed 25 entries within the search radius. These are summarized as Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 1. No Scheduled Ancient Monuments were present within the search area.
Prehistoric A number of prehistoric findspots are recorded within the vicinity of the proposal site along with a few archaeological deposits. A watching brief along a pipeline between Hamble and Botley found worked flint from the Mesolithic to Bronze Age periods and Iron Age pottery to the east of the site [Fig. 1: 1]. A possible prehistoric ditch was identified to the south of the site during an archaeological evaluation [2]. Also to the south of the site, a Mesolithic pick was reportedly found in 1898 [3] and Mesolithic flint cores, blades and flakes were found during topsoil stripping for the construction of the M27 to the north-east [4]. In the same area Bronze Age
5 struck flints and burnt flint were found. Further along the motorway route to the north-west, Mesolithic flint cores, scraper and waste flakes were found [5] and two areas of densely packed burnt flint were identified as possible Bronze Age burnt mounds [6]. In the same area a small pit containing polished and struck flints was found along with a sherd of Iron Age pottery.
Further to the north-west three round barrows [20, 21] are presumed to be of Bronze Age date as is typical.
Roman Nothing of Roman date has been identified in the vicinity of the proposal site except for the route of the Roman road from Clausentum (Southampton) to Chichester [23]. The route lies on the northern margins of the study area and its location is accurately known as it was well preserved when first discovered.
Saxon Nothing of Saxon date has been identified in the vicinity of the proposal site.
Medieval In the vicinity of the Iron Age pit [6] green glazed bricks were found and identified as of medieval date. To the east a medieval field boundary was identified from aerial photographs [1]. Earthworks dating from the medieval to Post-medieval period were identified as part of the Historic Rural Settlement Survey; to the south-east of the proposal site is a bank and ditch boundary [7] and various other unspecified earthworks [8].
Post-Medieval At Free Hills (Hoe Moor House), to the north-east, the house which was built in the 1830s includes some formal gardens and a landscaped park [9]; a landscaped park is also located at Ploverfield [10] to the south of the proposal site. Dodswell Lane to the north may have late medieval or early post-medieval origins as it is referred to in a document of 1550 [25]. The house is listed grade II.
All other post-medieval entries refer to buildings. Bursledon Windmill [11] built in 1741 is grade II* listed and consists of a five-storey early tower mill with a full set of timber machinery internally, of national importance. In the same area as the windmill are a barn, relocated from Chineham in Basingstoke, and a granary relocated from Hiltingbury Farmhouse, Chandlers Ford which is grade II listed. To the north of the site is
Dodwell Cottage, a grade II listed brick house built in 1716 [12]. To the south in the area of Lowford is Redcroft
Farmhouse, a grade II listed timber-framed structure built in 1647 [13] and The Thatched Cottage, a grade II
6 listed late 18th-century romantic cottage with a thatched roof [14]. Further to the south is the grade II listed Old
Rectory, built in the Georgian style in 1851 [15] and the Mausoleum built in 1911 for Captain Shaw Storey [16].
Modern and Unknown To the east of the site were a World War II gun emplacement, military base and Nissen huts which are visible on aerial photographs [17]. A bracelet of unknown date was found in the garden of Upton Lodge to the east of the proposal site, for which there are no known parallels [18]. To the north-west a vaguely circular cropmark visible from the air may be of archaeological interest [19]. To the north a hollow way is undated but probably of medieval or later date [22].
Negative
An archaeological watching brief on Dodswell Lane did not reveal any archaeological deposits [25].
Cartographic and documentary sources
The place name Bursledon has been spelt in a variety of ways over time and probably means ‘hill associated with a man called Beorhtsige’ from the Old English (Anglo-Saxon) personal name plus -ing and -dun (Mills, 1998,
64). Bursledon is not mentioned in Domesday Book of 1086 and there was no separate manor. Bursledon was part of the manor of Bishop’s Waltham and specifically known as the wasteland. Mention of Bursledon occurs regularly as a tithing of Bishop’s Waltham from 1235 onwards in the Court Rolls. The Church of St Leonard appears to date from c. 1230 with significant changes occurring in the 19th century with the construction of two transepts and the subsequent demolition and rebuilding of these (VCH 1908).
Bursledon’s later history is mainly connected with its location on the River Hamble and hence with shipbuilding. A wooden bridge was built over the Hamble in 1783 and subject to a toll. This carried the main road between Fareham and Southampton and divided the parish in two (VCH 1908).
A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at the Hampshire 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 Hampshire (Fig. 2) in which the site can only generally be located to the north of Hamble and the north-east of Netley. Norden’s map of Hampshire in 1607
(Fig. 3) shows slightly more detail with the village of Bursledon now labelled as ‘Berseldon.’ It is possible to
7 locate the site with a little more precision on Taylor’s map of 1759 (Fig. 4) as the church is shown and some of the road network. It is not until the Hound Tithe map of 1838 (Fig. 5) that the site can be better located.
However, only its southern boundary has been defined, with the site mostly lying within one large unenclosed area. The western end may have lain within an area of scrub or woodland.
By 1867–68 and the First Edition Ordnance Survey map (Fig. 6), there is more detail. A trackway or boundary traverses the western end of the site in a NW-SE direction and the road to the windmill (Windmill
Lane) is now in place. The northern boundary is now defined, with the windmill and scrubland beyond. By the
Second Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1897 (Fig. 7), the environs of the site has changed with subdivision of the site into four land parcels and the building of Orchard Lodge and an outbuilding to it's south.. The track or boundary in the west has gone.
By the time of the Third Edition in 1909 (Fig. 8) there is little change. An extra building is now present on the site close to Orchard Lodge and a building is now present in the field to the south of the site. The windmill is now ‘Old’. By the 1964-5 Ordnance Survey map (Fig. 9) the site has changed little; the outbuilding to Orchard
Lodge has gone and a central part of the site has been given over to orchard. Several houses have now been built on the main road to the south of the site; the windmill is now noted as ‘disused’. By 1976 (Fig. 10) the only change to the site itself is the removal of the orchard. More suburban housing is now present to the south. The site has more or less taken on its current form by 1988 (Fig. 11); and the windmill has been ‘restored’.
Listed buildings
There are no listed buildings within the confines of the proposal site but there are a number within the study area.
Most of these are too far distant or not visible from the site to be significantly impacted by the proposal but the most significant is Bursledon Windmill graded II*, which sits on the top of a hill less than 100m to the north- west. The windmill has its own Conservation Area, in which the proposal site lies. However, the windmill is only visible from a central part of the site and development of this area will need to be sympathetic to the setting of the windmill or have little or no impact. This could be achieved if this zone is not developed but retained as public open space as the provisional development layout indicates.
Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields
There are no registered parks and gardens nor registered battlefields lie within close proximity of the site.
8 Historic Hedgerows
There are no hedgerows on the site which would qualify as ‘important’ as defined by Schedule 1 of the
Hedgerows Regulations 1997.
Aerial Photographs
The photographic collections of the National Monuments Record, Swindon were consulted on 13th June 2014.
There were three oblique (specialist) photographs of the site taken in 1971, and 98 vertical prints from 33 sorties taken between 1945 and 2002, as detailed in Appendix 3. These photographs were viewed on 11th June 2014.
No cropmarks or earthworks of potential archaeological interest were visible on the site in any of the photographs. However, the central part of the site area appears to have been used during construction of the nearby M27 motorway in April 1975. There are no obvious temporary facilities on the site (Pl. 3) which would indicate a contractor's compound, but the area may possibly have been used for spoil storage, or have been affected on other dates during the construction of the motorway.
Discussion
There are no known heritage assets on the site but Bursledon windmill is visible from part of the site. It remains 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. Little in the way of archaeological sites have been recorded in the vicinity of the proposal site and this could reflect a lack of modern archaeological investigation having taken place rather than a lack of historic human activity within the area. Stray finds of prehistoric date have been found along the route of the M27 to the north-east of the site, but few archaeological features have been identified. Cartographic evidence shows that the proposal site has had no development on it within the past 200 years and so the potential for any intact archaeology to survive was initially considered to be high. However, the possible use for constructional activities during the building of the nearby M27 may have damaged any archaeology present for the central part of the site.
On the basis that the site is of relatively large area, thus increasing the chance of archaeological sites being present simply by chance, it is possible that it may be necessary to provide further information about the
9 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. Should this be requested, a scheme for this evaluation will need to be drawn up and approved by the archaeological advisers to the Borough and carried out by a competent archaeological contractor. It could be implemented by an appropriately worded condition attached to any consent gained.
The restored Burlesdon windmill which stands less than 100m to the north, is a listed building but is visible only from the central part of the proposal site. Development of the latter area will have to be sympathetic to the setting of the windmill.
References
BGS, 1987, British Geological Survey, 1:50,000 Sheet 315, Solid and Drift Edition, Keyworth Bournemouth University, Historic Rural Settlement Survey: Bursledon, Bournemouth EBC, 2006, Eastleigh District Council Local Plan Review Mills, A D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford NPPF, 2012, National Planning Policy Framework, Dept Communities and Local Government, London VCH, 1908, A History of the County of Hampshire: Volt 3 London
10 APPENDIX 1: Archaeology and Historic Buildings Records within a 1km search radius of the development site
No AHBR Ref Grid Ref (SU) Type Period Comment 1 57408 49180 10439 Findspot Prehistoric A watching brief along a pipeline between Hamble and Botley found Iron Age pottery, Bronze Age flints, Mesolithic flints and Neolithic flints. 64570 49201 10389 Monument Medieval A field boundary identified from aerial photographs. 2 54318 48757 09807 Monument Prehistoric An evaluation found a possible prehistoric ditch. Other finds Post medieval consisted of brick, burnt flint, slate and tile. 3 25952 48500 10000 Findspot Mesolithic Mesolithic pick, reportedly found in 1898. 4 25975 48800 10620 Findspot Mesolithic Mesolithic flint cores, blades and flakes found during topsoil removal for the construction of the M27 in 1972. 25976 48800 10650 Findspot Bronze Age Bronze Age waste flints found with burnt flint during topsoil stripping. 5 25978 48620 10830 Findspot Mesolithic Mesolithic flint cores, scraper and waste flakes found during topsoil stripping. 6 25971 48700 10660 Monument Bronze Age Two areas of densely packed flints; possibly Bronze Age boiling mounds. 25972 48700 10590 Monument Iron Age Small pit containing polished and waste flints 25979 48680 10690 Findspot Iron Age An abraded sherd of Iron Age pottery found during topsoil stripping. 25974 48700 10590 Findspot Medieval Green glazed bricks 7 50106 48690 09840 Monument Medieval Bank and ditch boundary observed during the Historic Rural Post medieval Settlement Survey. 8 50108 48720 09780 Monument Medieval Unspecified earthworks observed during the Historic Rural Post medieval Settlement Survey. 50110 48770 09800 Monument Medieval Unspecified earthworks observed during the Historic Rural Post medieval Settlement Survey. 9 35455 49004 10928 House, Park and Post Medieval Formal garden and landscaped park at Free Hills (Hoe Moor 65940 Garden House). House, built 1830's 10 52326 48485 09883 Park and Garden Post medieval Landscaped park at Ploverfield. 11 139 48271 10826 Listed Building Post medieval Bursledon Windmill built 1741. An early tower mill of 5 storeys. Grade II*. 140 48301 10831 Building Post medieval Barn at Bursledon Windmill, relocated from Chineham (Basingstoke) 14993 48294 10806 Listed Building Post medieval Granary at Bursledon Windmill relocated from Hiltingbury Farmhouse, Chandlers Ford. 12 5666 48688 11280 Listed Building Post medieval Dodwell Cottage; brick house built in 1716. 13 5679 48544 10319 Listed Building Post medieval Redcroft Farmhouse; timber framed structure built in 1647. 14 5680 48309 10238 Listed Building Post medieval The Thatched Cottage; late 18th century romantic cottage with thatched roof. 15 5681 48213 09748 Listed Building Post medieval The Old Rectory; Georgian style built in 1851. 16 13739 48619 09733 Building Post medieval The Mausoleum 17 64674 49096 10350 Monument Modern A WWII gun emplacement, military base and Nissen huts visible on aerial photographs. 18 25956 48900 10500 Findspot Unknown Bracelet of unknown date was found in the garden of Upton Lodge in 1940. Examined at the British Museum but no parallels known. 19 25950 4725 1100 Cropmark Unknown Vague circular mark 20 25954 4782 1176 Monument Bronze Age 2 round barrows 21 25967 4754 1152 Monument Bronze Age Round barrow 22 25968 4825 1175 Monument Post-medieval? Hollow way 23 25993 4790 1815 Monument Roman Section of Roman road from Clausentum (Southampton) to Chichester 24 42711 4860 1620 - - Negative watching brief 25 42712 4865 1630 Monument Late Medieval? Dodswell Lane mentioned in 1550 Listed Buildings Grade II unless stated.
11 APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted
1575 Saxton’s map of Hampshire (Fig. 2)
1607 Norden’s map of Hampshire (Fig. 3)
1759 Taylor’s map of Hampshire (Fig. 4)
1838 Hound Tithe map (Fig. 5)
1867–1868 First Edition Ordnance Survey (Fig. 6)
1897 Second Edition Ordnance Survey (Fig. 7)
1909 Third Edition Ordnance Survey (Fig. 8)
1964-5 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 9)
1976 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 10)
1988-93 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 11)
12 APPENDIX 3: Aerial Photographs consulted
Oblique photographs
Date Sortie number Frames Grid reference (SU) Comment 19 JUL 1971 SU 4811 / 1 NMR 21002/03 486 110 19 JUL 1971 SU 4811 / 2 NMR 21002/04 483 113 19 JUL 1971 SU 4910 / 3 NMR 21002/02 490 106
Vertical photographs
Date Sortie number Frames Grid reference (SU) Comment 02 AUG 1945 RAF/106G/UK/585 6286–8 481 102 02 AUG 1945 RAF/106G/UK/585 6336–40 477 105 03 AUG 1945 RAF/106G/UK/597 6065–9 488 106 12 AUG 1945 RAF/106G/UK/650 5324–30 477 108 12 AUG 1945 RAF/106G/UK/650 5407–11 479 103 27 AUG 1945 RAF/106G/UK/737 6316–19 479 106 29 SEP 1945 RAF/106G/UK/861 6023–6 486 107 17 OCT 1945 RAF/106G/UK/932 6246 482 113 17 OCT 1945 RAF/106G/UK/932 6273–8 477 110 21 SEP 1946 RAF/CPE/UK/1749 3089–90 477 104 21 SEP 1946 RAF/CPE/UK/1749 4076–7 487 100 07 OCT 1946 RAF/CPE/UK/1768 4035–6 488 107 07 OCT 1946 RAF/CPE/UK/1768 4046–7 484 112 20 APR 1953 RAF/82/765 54–6 478 106 15 APR 1953 RAF/58/1087 90 480 111 31 AUG 1954 RAF/82/1006 372–3 490 102 13 MAY 1959 RAF/58/2859 458–60 491 105 14 MAY 1959 RAF/58/2860 47–8 478 110 08 JUL 1959 RAF/543/626 58–9 485 105 18 JAN 1962 RAF/58/4878 53–4 479 108 12 OCT 1950 RAF/541/T/51 4078 483 106 19 JUN 1969 MAL/69061 8 492 101 08 MAY 1970 OS/70091 98–100 477 107 31 AUG 1962 OS/62093 11–12 477 111 31 AUG 1962 OS/62092 169–70 489 105 12 OCT 1974 OS/74250 36–7 488 100 20 APR 1975 OS/75019 82–3 488 110 Contractors compound and access road on site 08 JUL 1981 OS/81042 1–2 481 100 08 JUL 1981 OS/81042 37 489 113 29 JUN 1995 OS/95214 18–19 489 107 09 JUN 1992 OS/92332 16–18 488 110 07 APR 2000 OS/00998 2484–5 478 104 23 JUN 2001 OS/01131 33–4 481 112 23 JUN 2001 OS/01131 109–110 481 103 03 JUN 1968 OS/68152 31 489 098 19 MAY 1974 OS/74070 92 494 106 16 SEP 1997 OS/97792 5–6 485 098 12 MAY 2001 OS/01538 28–9 485 108 12 MAY 2001 OS/01539 6 484 103 29 JUN 2002 OS/02118 17 486 099 NB : Grid reference given is for start of run; multiple frames may offer wide coverage.
13 12000
Basingstoke Farnborough
Andover 23 20 22 24 Winchester 25 SOUTHAMPTON SITE 21 New Forest Ringwood Gosport
PORTSMOUTH
12
11000 19 9
11 5
6 4
18
1 SITE 17 13 14
10000 3
10 7 2 15 8 16
SU 48000 49000 PHB 14/98 Orchard Lodge, Windmill Lane, Providence Hill, Bursledon, Hampshire Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 1. Location of site within Bursledon and Hampshire showing AHBR entries. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Explorer OL22 at 1:25000 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 SITE
PHB 14/98 Orchard Lodge, Windmill Lane, Providence Hill, Bursledon, Hampshire Archaeological Desk-based Assessment
Figure 2. Saxton's Map of Hampshire, 1575. SITE
PHB 14/98 Orchard Lodge, Windmill Lane, Providence Hill, Bursledon, Hampshire Archaeological Desk-based Assessment
Figure 3. Norden's Map of Hampshire, 1607. Site
PHB 14/98 N Orchard Lodge, Windmill Lane, Providence Hill, Bursledon, Hampshire Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 4. Taylors's Map of Hampshire, 1759. SITE
PHB 14/98 N Orchard Lodge, Windmill Lane, Providence Hill, Bursledon, Hampshire Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 5. Hound Tithe Map, 1838. SITE
PHB 14/98 N Orchard Lodge, Windmill Lane, Providence Hill, Bursledon, Hampshire Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 6. First Edition Ordnance Survey, 1867-1868. SITE
PHB 14/98 N Orchard Lodge, Windmill Lane, Providence Hill, Bursledon, Hampshire Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 7. Second Edition Ordnance Survey, 1897. SITE
PHB 14/98 N Orchard Lodge, Windmill Lane, Providence Hill, Bursledon, Hampshire Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 8. Ordnance Survey, 1909. SITE
PHB 14/98 N Orchard Lodge, Windmill Lane, Providence Hill, Bursledon, Hampshire Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 9. Ordnance Survey, 1964-5. SITE
PHB 14/98 N Orchard Lodge, Windmill Lane, Providence Hill, Bursledon, Hampshire Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 10. Ordnance Survey, 1976 SITE
PHB 14/98 N Orchard Lodge, Windmill Lane, Providence Hill, Bursledon, Hampshire Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 11. Ordnance Survey, 1988-93 Plate 1. General view, looking north west.
Plate 2. General view looking south east.
Plate 3. Aerial photograph April 1975 (after NMR) PHB 14/98 Orchard Lodge, Windmill Lane, Providence Hill, Bursledon, Hampshire Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Plates 1 - 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