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

Coombe Edge, Sunninghill Road, ,

Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

by Steve Preston

Site Code CEW13/163

(SU9240 6555)

Coombe Edge, Sunninghill Road, Windlesham, Surrey

Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

for Mr Pratap Shirke

by Steve Preston

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd

Site Code CEW13/163

September 2013 Summary

Site name: Coombe Edge, Sunninghill Road, Windlesham, Surrey

Grid reference: SU9240 6555

Site activity: Archaeological desk-based assessment

Project manager: Steve Ford

Site supervisor: Steve Preston

Site code: CEW 13/163

Area of site: c. 2.5ha

Summary of results: The site occupies an area where virtually nothing of archaeological interest has previously been recorded, but this could be a reflection of the very limited amount of investigation that has taken place. The site’s northern boundary is, however, on the projected line of a major Roman road, while an unconfirmed report of a Roman building not far away suggests a possible roadside settlement in the vicinity. The proposal itself is likely to involve only minimal disturbance of previously undisturbed ground, but where it does, mitigation could be secured by means of a watching brief during groundworks. The proposal also involves demolition of a locally listed building, which is the subject of a separate Statement.

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 All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.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 Ford9 04.09.13

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

Coombe Edge, Sunninghill Road, Windlesham, Surrey Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

by Steve Preston

Report 13/163 Introduction

This report is an assessment of the archaeological potential of a parcel of land located at Coombe Edge, on the north side of Sunninghill Road, north of Windlesham in north-west Surrey (NGR SU9240 6555) (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Chris Gaylord on behalf of Bulmark Inc, c/o Nagle James associates Ltd, 4th

Floor, King’s Suite, 15 College Road, Harrow, Middlesex, HA1 1BA, for Mr Pratap Shirke of Coombe Edge,

Sunninghill Road, Windlesham, GU20 6PP, 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.

Planning permission is to be sought for the replacement of the existing house on the site with another of similar proportions on a reduced footprint. This report is not concerned with the existing building itself, which is the subject of a separate Statement (Walker 2013) but confines itself to the potential archaeological impact of the proposal.

Site description, location and geology

The underlying geology is recorded as Bracklesham Beds (BGS 1976), and the site slopes down from around

70m above Ordnance Datum in the south-west to 65m AOD in the north-east. The house itself sits on a platform slightly (around 0.5m at the south, slightly more at the north) above the surrounding gardens. The area of the tennis court is set around 0.5m below the lawn to its west/south (Pl. 1).

Planning background and development proposals

Planning permission is to be sought from Borough Council for the redevelopment of the site to demolish the existing house and replace it with one of similar proportions but on a smaller footprint (Fig. 11).

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

1

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 • 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. 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 2

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 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 in the vicinity of the proposal site.

Surrey Heath Borough Council Core Strategies and Development Management Policies 2011–2028 (adopted

2012) (SHBC 2012) includes policies concerning the historic environment, of which policy DM17 is relevant,

(replacing Local Plan policies HE14, HE15 and HE16):

‘Development which affects any Heritage Asset should first establish and take into account its individual significance, and seek to promote the conservation and enhancement of the Asset and its setting. In determining proposals for development affecting Heritage Assets or their setting, regard

3

will be had as to whether the Asset is a Designated Heritage Asset or a Local Heritage Asset in determining whether the impact of any proposed development is acceptable. ‘Within Areas of High Archaeological Potential, as identified on the Proposals Map, or outside of these areas on any major development site of 0.4ha or greater, applicants are required to undertake prior assessment of the possible archaeological significance of the site and the implications of their proposals, and may be required to submit, as a minimum, a desk-based assessment to accompany any application. Where desk-based assessment suggests the likelihood of archaeological remains, the Planning Authority will require the results of an archaeological evaluation in order to inform the determination of the application. ‘The Borough Council will from time to time review the Heritage Assets included on the Local Lists, with regard to the Historic Environment Record, in consultation with Surrey County Council.’

The site is not within the Windlesham Conservation Area, which is located well to the south.

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.

Archaeological background

General background

There is little prehistoric and Roman activity recorded in the area or indeed the heathland areas of north- west Surrey and south east Berkshire in general (Crosby 1982; Bird and Bird 1987; Ford 1987). It has been considered that this area may have been unpopulated, at most periods in the past, however it must also be considered that the absence of evidence may be self-perpetuating, with archaeological investigation preferentially targeting areas already known to be archaeologically ‘rich’. Since these studies, much new archaeological fieldwork has taken place, much of this with its distribution directed by development or mineral extraction, rather than by archaeologists, yet the impact of this work has been marginal for the heathland areas

(Cotton et al. 2004) and it may be that the absences are real. Numerous investigations have been carried out to the north in Berkshire in particular in a zone adjacent to the Roman road, but very few have recorded any items of archaeological interest (eg Porter 2012) though sites elsewhere on the heathlands are encountered (eg Lowe

2013. Much more archaeology has come to light for the gravel terrace areas such as for the to the south of the study area or the Thames gravels to the north (Preston 2002; 2012). Exceptions to the absence of

4

evidence from heathland areas are Bronze Age barrows, and indeed understanding the exploitation of heathland is one of the research topics emphasized in Surrey’s Archaeological Research Framework (Bird 2006).

The archaeology of this particular area on the Surrey/Berkshire boundary has been dominated by the

Roman road from London (Londinivm) to Silchester (Calleva Atrebatvm), Margary’s (1955) route 4a. This was one of the major arteries of the Roman province, and its route for much of its length is well-established; in places it is a Scheduled Monument. However, in this area, it has not been traced. It is known to have crossed the

Thames at Staines, probably on more than one bridge (Staines is identified as the Roman Pontibus ‘at the bridges’) and its agger (causeway) is visible at Sunningdale. and intermittently through to Bagshot. Through

Windlesham, the county boundary has been supposed to follow the route of the road, but several modern opportunities to observe it here have conspicuously failed to show any trace of it, and this line must now be in doubt. An alternative could plausibly place it below the modern A30, but assuming the route plotted through

Crowthorne (further west) is correct, which seems assured, a more plausible line may be slightly further north, to follow the slightly gentler contours through Heathermount, Broadlands and . This more northerly line, perhaps, would be given some support by the unconfirmed report of a Roman building ‘across the [modern] road from Earlywood Lodge’ (see below), although if there was a roadside settlement, it could extend some distance laterally on either side of the road.

Surrey and Berkshire Historic Environment Records

A search was made on both the Berkshire and the Surrey Historic Environment Records (HER) on 20th August

2013 for a radius of 1km around the proposal site, subsequently widened to 1.5km by the Surrey HER. This revealed 11 entries within the search radius in Berkshire and 13 in Surrey. These are summarized as Appendix 1

(excluding entries for desk-based assessment) and their locations are plotted on Figure 1. There are no Scheduled

Ancient Monuments within 1.5km of the proposal site. With the exception of a watching brief along a pipeline route which crossed the county boundary, all the fieldwork in the area has been within Berkshire and mainly produced negative results.

Prehistoric Neither HER shows any records of prehistoric activity within the search radius.

Roman The Roman entries for the study area relate to the Devil’s Highway, discussed above. Its precise location in this area is a matter for conjecture[Fig. 1:1]. A report of a Roman building near Earlywood Lodge [2], albeit lent

5

credence by coming from a respected archaeologist, appears to be based on hearsay, contained no details and has never been confirmed.

Saxon There are no records of Saxon activity within the search radius.

Medieval Berkshire shows no records of Medieval activity within the 1km radius. The Surrey HER notes that a place name

‘Halegrof’ (now Hall Grove, well to the south of the proposal site) was first mentioned in 1446 [5].

Post-medieval The Surrey HER contains several entries for features noted on Ordnance Survey maps. Closest to the proposal site is a brick field noted on the 1872 map, later ponds [6]. Further east, a brick kiln is marked on the same map

[7]. Small-scale clay extraction probably extended throughout the area, those mapped being only ‘snapshots’ in time at the date of the respective surveys. There is an extant milestone by the A30 [8], which is undated but must be 18th or 19th century (another record for a milestone is just east of the area shown on Figure 1).

Archaeological fieldwork in the area has produced only negative results or late post-medieval features.

Evaluation trenching revealed a substantial ditch, thought to be the county boundary[9]; its backfill contained

19th-century material but is construction could not be dated. A recording action along a 5km pipeline route [9], which passed over the line of the Roman road, recorded nothing of archaeological interest. There is an entry for the Ascot to Bagshot section of the London and South-Western Railway line (1856) [10]. A watching brief at

May Cottage [13] found only late post-medieval made ground.

Undated, modern, negative There are two entries for cropmarks seen on aerial photographs. one of these is for four parallel linear marks, 8m apart and 150m long, aligned ESE–WNW, just off Figure 1 to the east. While it may be tempting to speculate that these could be aligned off the Roman road, they could just as well be aligned off the post-medieval turnpike

(now the A30). A small rectangular enclosure is also visible as a cropmark, well to the south-east of the proposal area [11]. The ornate grounds of Windlesham Moor were described in a sale catalogue of 1968 [12]. Other gardens noted in the area include the 18th-century grounds of Hall Grove (now a school) [4] and an early 19th- century garden at Earlwood Manor [3].

Watching briefs and evaluations in the area have routinely produced negative results. This is especially relevant in those instances where the fieldwork was close to or on the projected line of the Roman road, when not only is the road itself conspicuously absent, but so is any trace of roadside settlement which might be expected at frequent intervals along such a major road; several of these watching briefs [13–15] have been conducted in the vicinity of the reported Roman building [2] noted above, without result.

6

Cartographic and documentary sources

Windlesham is an Old English (Anglo-Saxon) place name, although it is not recorded before the late 12th century. It derives simply from ham (home) and the personal name Windel (Mills 1998, 383); attempts to suggest a connection with a windlass seem far fetched (no other occurrence of windel in this sense in Old English is known, and the Anglo-Norman equivalent, windas, is not recorded so early). It appear as Wyndesham in the 13th century. This corner of the county appears, judging from , to have been very sparsely inhabited

(VCH 1911), with some manors, including Windlesham, not mentioned at all. Windlesham, recorded in Woking

Hundred, geographically is surrounded by Godley Hundred (which included Chobham and Frimley). It appears that the manor’s not belonging to Abbey explains the anomaly of its hundredal assignment.

Windlesham, or at least the Bagshot part of it, was part of the Royal Forest of Windsor (not necessarily literally forested, the designation was a series of legal distinctions).

Windlesham appears in a 13th-century list of manors given by to Westminster but by the 13th century had come into the possession of the small convent of Broomhall in Berkshire, and land in

Bagshot was added to it in 1228 by Henry III. There were several other manors, at various times, in or including

Windlesham and Bagshot, some apparently very short-lived, whose precise inter-relations are difficult to disentangle. The church appears to include 13th-century work but mainly dates from a restoration of 1680 and remodelling in 1838.

The village itself is almost entirely late Victorian and modern, and the parish church is some distance from its core, which may (though it need not) indicate some settlement shift since the medieval period. It has never had any industry of note, excepting nursery gardens, but owed its prosperity to the coaching trade, with several inns, at least until the railways arrived. The history of the area ‘is full of the exploits of highwaymen, who found the wild country hereabouts specially favourable for their purposes’ (VCH 1911). Some are commemorated in street names: Snow's Ride is named after Captain Snow, and Duval Close after Claude Duval, both notorious.

William Davis, 'The Golden Farmer' was hanged on Jenkins Hill.

The common fields were enclosed by an act of 1812, but at least parts of the wasteland had already been privately enclosed before 1768.

Sunningdale railway station (in Windlesham parish) opened in 1856 and a second branch line in 1878. Both were closed in the mid 20th century.

7

A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at Surrey History Centre 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 the large map of the four counties of Kent, Sussex, Surrey and

Middlesex by Christopher Saxton (1575) (Fig. 2). At this scale, the depiction is purely schematic and no detail for the site is presented. Senex’s map of 1729 shows a little more detail (Fig. 3). Windlesham is marked as

‘Windelsheim’, and a rough outline of the road network is vaguely similar to later patterns. is the chief feature of the vicinity. The county boundary, however, is much further north than today. The precise location of the site is not easily discernible but there is little detail to remark in any case. John Rocque mapped both Berkshire (1761) and Surrey (1768) allowing a composite to be illustrated (Fig. 4), albeit the two maps do not match precisely. The site again cannot be precisely located, but once again must lie in open countryside. Col.

Mudge’s map of 1816 (Fig. 5) shows more reliable detail, and the site can be located confidently for the first time, in relation to the roads and the county boundary, now on or close to its present line. The site remains open countryside.

There is no enclosure map for the parish. There is a tithe map of 1841 but it shows that only parts of the parish were tithed. The environs of the site can only be approximately identified with reference to the county boundary in an otherwise open landscape (not illustrated).

The Ordnance Survey First Edition (County Series) of 1870 is the first map to provide definitive detail of the area (Fig. 6). The site’s north boundary is on the county line, unfortunately also the edge of this map. The eastern/southern boundary lies along the road, but the western limit of the site is not defined, lying within woodland. Besides the woodland, the site is formed of three fields, bounded by tree lines. There is no development within the area but there is a large brick field just to the south (as noted in the HER, above). The line of the Roman road is marked by two dotted lines, suggesting it may be clearly visible in the landscape, but it is also possible that this is only a projection. The Second Edition of 1896 (Fig. 7) shows that the internal division of the site have been removed but the divisions in the woodland at the western end remain. A small area of additional trees has appeared at the north-eastern corner of the site, and the tree belt along the road seems more formally defined. At first sight it appears that the Roman road has been used to define the union boundary (for the purposes of the Poor Law), just inside and not corresponding with the county boundary but in fact the two boundaries follow the same line. There is nothing else of note in the site. A marginally revised map of 1899 shows no change for the site while the 1911 map shows only the Berkshire side of the area (not illustrated).

8

By 1915, the Ordnance Survey shows significant change to the site (Fig. 8). The boundaries can now all be defined in their current form. The Roman road is now specifically named ‘The Devil’s Highway’ but is now only

‘site of’ rather than, as previously, implying that it was actually visible. The substantial villa, named as Combe

Edge has been built, set in landscaped grounds and with a substantial gate lodge. There are outbuildings behind

(north of) the house, including a large greenhouse; the area north of this is probably a walled kitchen garden. A curving drive provides the approach to the house and there are paths laid out in grounds that have presumably been thoroughly landscaped: west of the house is thickly wooded, south of it probably lawns, and to the north- east the land has been divided, perhaps an orchard and a paddock. Changes by 1934 are mostly to the grounds east of the house (Fig. 9). There appears to be a tennis court, a sun dial (and a second in the kitchen garden), and further areas that are probably lawn; it is not difficult to imagine these might be terraced.

No maps of the area were available to cover the gap between 1934 and 1970, but by 1970 little on the site had changed (Fig. 10). The area north of the tennis court has either been simplified, or just as likely the mapping style is less detailed for garden features. The north and east walls (at least) of the kitchen garden have gone, and there are additional outbuildings along the north edge of the site. there are some minor changes to the footprint of the main house and the elaborate drive has been simplified, with presumably car-parking areas replacing carriage-turning circles. A map of 1985 is identical (not illustrated). The map of 1990 (Fig. 11) shows a substantial extension to the north-east of the main house, an additional building just west of the lodge, now renamed the ‘Coach House’ while the spelling of the main house has arrived at ‘Coombe Edge’. Changes in the grounds could reflect a total overhaul, with removal of the tennis court, much of the tree cover, and any terraces

(if that is what they were), but again may only reflect less concern to map garden features in detail. The current mapping of the site is identical.

Listed buildings

Although Windlesham does contain a few listed buildings, there are no listed buildings in the HER for the study area. Although not statutorily listed, Coombe End, constructed at some point between 1899 and 1915, is on the

‘local list’ of buildings of historic or architectural interest (SHBC 2010), and this would be a material consideration in the planning process. The building was not noticed by Pevsner, unless it is included in his ‘busy nest of Victorian brick boxes’ (Nairn et al. 1971, 527) in the area. The merits of the building itself are detailed in a separate report (Walker 2013) which concludes that it has little architectural interest and contributes little, if anything, to the local sense of place and that therefore the loss of the locally listed asset would be justified.

9

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 historic hedgerows within the area of the proposed works.

Aerial Photographs

The aerial photographic catalogue of the National Monument Record was consulted on for a radius of 1km around the proposal site. This revealed that there were no specialist (oblique) photographs of the area, but 72 vertical views from 22 sorties flown between 1945 and 2001 (Appendix 3). These were viewed on 3rd

September 2013 (two were not available to view). No cropmarks of archaeological interest were visible within the site, but the multiplicity of differing dates of the views does show that the grounds have undergone more

(mainly minor) changes of layout than shown by the mapping (above).

Discussion

There are no designated heritage assets on the site or in a position to be affected by its development. The current

Coombe Edge, is, however, on the ‘local list’ of buildings of historic or architectural interest, and this would be a material consideration in the planning process, as it would be deemed a ‘local heritage asset’ for purposes of policy DM17. The potential loss of significance of the asset has been weighed against the desirability of the proposal (Walker 2013).

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.

The absence of previous records of sites or finds of archaeological interest in the area suggests a generally low potential. Often such absences have little predictive force, as absence of evidence is most often because of a lack of investigation, but in this case there have been several archaeological investigations in the vicinity, so it can be argued that the absence begins here to look like a real ‘blank area’. However, these investigations have all

10

been small scale, and very localized, and even taken together amount to a tiny area explored, such that the generalized potential of the area cannot be reliably estimated from the previous work.

The area does, moreover, have specific potential for remains of the Roman period to be present. One report of a Roman building not far to the north-east is unconfirmed and lacking in specifics, but came from a reliable source and cannot entirely be dismissed, while the projected route of a Roman road passes along the northern boundary of the site. Although this road’s line through the area has not been confirmed, it was a major road and certainly must have passed somewhere not far away.

Mapping of the site shows that although little of it has been built over (the current configuration is the maximum extent of building), the grounds of the house have certainly undergone several phases of design, which seem likely to have involved terracing or levelling over much of the area. It has not been possible to judge if this involved cutting down or raising up, but a combination of the two would seem most likely, the house itself being set on a raised area.

The proposal is for the replacement of the existing structure with one of similar scale and on a smaller footprint (Fig. 12). This seems most likely to involve minimal disturbance of previously undisturbed ground.

To mitigate against any potential damage to previously unrecorded heritage assets, it is recommended that a

Watching Brief be undertaken during the groundworks associated with the new structure, to record any remains that might be present, in particular any Roman remains. This would need to be carried out by a competent archaeological contractor and would need to conform to a scheme approved by the archaeological adviser to the

Borough Council. It would involve the monitoring of groundwork activities such as topsoil/overburden removal and trenches dug for foundations, services and soakaways. Such mitigation could be secured by an appropriately worded condition attached to any planning consent granted.

References

Bird, D, 2006, Surrey Archaeological Research Framework 2006, Bird, D and Bird, J, 1987 The Archaeology of Surrey to 1540, BGS, 1976, British Geological Survey, 1:50,000 Sheet 285, Drift Edition, Keyworth Cotton, J Crocker, G and Graham A 2004, (eds), Aspects of archaeology and history in Surrey; towards a research framework for the county, Surrey Archaeol Soc, , 133–46 Crosby, A, 1982, A history of Woking, Woking Lowe, J, 2013, Middle Bronze Age and Middle Iron Age Occupation and Post-medieval Lime Kilns at RAF Staff College, Broad Lane, Bracknell, Berkshire, TVAS Occ pap 3, Reading Margary, I D, 1955, Roman Roads in Britain, London Mills, A D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford Nairn, I, Pevsner N and Cherry, B, 1971, Buildings of England: Surrey, (revised edn), London NPPF, 2012, National Planning Policy Framework, Dept Communities and Local Government, London Porter, S, 2012, 4 Sunning Avenue, Sunningdale, Berkshire, an archaeological evaluation, Thames Valley Archaeological Services report 12/59, Reading

11

Preston, S, 2003, Prehistoric, Roman and Saxon sites in eastern Berkshire: excavations 1989–97, TVAS Monogr 2 Reading Preston, S, 2012, Archaeological Investigations in Surrey, 1997-2009, TVAS Monogr 11, Reading SHBC, 2010, List of Historic Buildings in Surrey Heath, Surrey Heath Borough Council , Camberley SHBC, 2012, Surrey Heath Borough Council Core Strategies and Development Management Policies 2011– 2028, Surrey Heath Borough Council , Camberley VCH, 1911, Victoria History of the Counties of England: Surrey, iii, London Walker, H, 2013, ‘Heritage statement to accompany an application for the redevelopment of Coombe Edge, Sunninghill Road, Coombe Edge, Surrey, GU20 6PP’, London Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London

12

APPENDIX 1: Historic Environment Records within a 1km search radius of the development site (1.5km within

Surrey)

A> Surrey

No HER Ref Grid Ref (SU) Type Period Comment 3 13696 92078 64892 Garden Post-medieval Earlwood Manor, early 19th century garden 4 10970 92048 64207 Listed Building Post-medieval Hall Grove School, 18th century house and garden 13700 92050 64225 Garden 5 14452 9190 6433 Cartographic Medieval Hall Grove on 1872 and 1811 maps, not on 1765 Documentary Post-medieval map. Halegrof first mentioned in 1446 6 14447 9232 6534 Cartographic Post-medieval Brick field noted on map of 1872, later ponds 7 14448 9337 6574 Cartographic Post-medieval Brick kiln noted on map of 1872, (off 16879 9381 6577 Structure Post-medieval Milestone at Scotts Wood map) 8 16880 924 648 Structure Post-medieval Milestone at Earl Wood Manor (off 14449 9375 6505 Photographic Undated Four parallel cropmarks, 8m apart, 170m long, seen map) on aerial photograph aligned ESE–WNW 11 14489 9356 6490 Photographic Undated Small rectangular enclosure cropmark on aerial photographs 12 15125 92167 65410 Documentary Modern Ornamental lakes and garden features noted in sale catalogue, 1968 9 2351 92 65 Observation Negative Pipeline ‘salvage recording’. No details.

b> Berkshire

No HER Ref Grid Ref (SU) Type Period Comment 1 MWK1733 - Documentary Roman The ‘Devil’s Highway’ Roman road from London to MBF1775 92200 65530 Scheduled Silchester; well established for most of its length, Monument excavated in many places, and parts are Scheduled, Excavation but large parts of the route in this area are unknown. Survey Observation 2 MRW91 927 661 Conjecture Roman Earleywood Lodge; possible Roman building located in 1924, but no details recorded. 9 MRM16809 91857 65336 Evaluation Post-medieval Route of 5km long water pipeline. Specifically no ERM775 91907 65369 Watching brief trace of Roman road in expected location. EBF12 91859 65320 Winklands; pipeline watching brief, nothing of archaeological interest. Evaluation revealed ditch thought to be the county boundary. Fills were late 19th century but date of construction not established 10 MBF6143 91969 66309 Structure Post-medieval Section of London and South Western railway line from Ascot to Bagshot 13 ERM461 92689 66184 Watching brief Post-medieval May Cottage: only post-medieval made ground. 14 ERW105 92815 66143 Watching brief Negative Two watching briefs at Earley Cottage and ERM481 92852 66104 Merrowdene; nothing of archaeological interest. 15 ERW171 93005 66162 Watching brief Negative Abbots Court: nothing of archaeological interest.

Listed Buildings Grade II unless stated.

13

APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1575 Christopher Saxton, Kent, Sussex, Surrey and Middlesex (Fig. 2) 1594 John Norden, Surrey 1605 Pieter van den Keere, Surrey 1610 John Speed, Surrey 1690 John Seller, Surrey 1729 John Senex, Surrey (Fig. 3) 1761 John Rocque, Berkshire (Fig. 4) 1768 John Rocque, Surrey (Fig. 4) 1793 J Lindley and W Crosley, Surrey 1816 Col. Mudge, Surrey (Fig. 5) 1823 C and J Greenwood, Surrey 1841 Windlesham Tithe map 1870 First Edition Ordnance Survey (Fig. 6) 1871 Ordnance Survey 1896 Second Edition Ordnance Survey (Fig. 7) 1911 Ordnance Survey 1915 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 8) 1934 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 9) 1970 Second Edition Ordnance Survey (Fig. 10) 1985 Ordnance Survey 1990 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 11) 1993 Ordnance Survey 2009 Ordnance Survey Explorer Sheet 160 (Fig. 1) 2012 Ordnance Survey digital mapping

14

APPENDIX 3: Aerial Photographs consulted

All vertical

No Date taken Sortie number Frame number Grid ref (SU) Comment 1 23 AUG 1945 RAF/106G/UK/687 3192–3, 4127–8 918 662 2 06 DEC 1945 RAF/106G/UK/1069 3005 913 654 3 20 DEC 1945 RAF/106G/UK/1084 3001–3 927 661 4 28 FEB 1946 RAF/106G/UK/1195 4050–3 915 652 5 11 APR 1947 RAF/CPE/UK/1982 1066–7 919 655 6 11 MAY 1950 RAF/58/435 5229 916 660 7 24 JUN 1954 RAF/58/1472 10–12, 106–7 928 657 Frames 106, 107 not available to view 8 16 AUG 1961 RAF/58/4626 123–5 931 658 9 28 AUG 1961 RAF/543/1426 320–31 918 653 10 11 MAR 1964 OS/64006 23–5 929 651 11 11 MAR 1964 OS/64005 135–6 919 662 12 27 JUN 1964 OS/64081 28–9 928 651 13 27 JUN 1964 OS/64080 151–3 917 662 14 23 AUG 1964 RAF/58/6484 197–9, 217–19 917 664 15 21 MAR 1967 OS/67004 1–3 916 651 16 13 JUN 1967 RAF/543/3859 885–7, 932–4 914 662 17 16 AUG 1988 OS/88236 52–3 920 659 18 17 AUG 1988 OS/88321 10–11 927 652 19 25 JUL 1992 OS/92372 34 927 650 20 02 MAY 1994 OS/94102 44–6 928 654 21 02 APR 1996 EA/AF/96C/484 963–8, 971 918 650 22 22 MAY 2001 OS/01097 63–5, 90–2 917 662

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

15 Staines 67000

Egham

Woking Weybridge SITE

Reigate Redhill Aldershot Guildford

Godalming

10 13 2 14 15

66000 1

SITE 7

12 9 6

65000 3 8 11

5 4 SU92000 93000 CEW13/163 Coombe Edge, Sunninghill Road, Windlesham, Surrey, Archaeological Desk-based Assessment. Figure 1. Location of site within Windlesham and Surrey, showing locations of HER entries. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Explorer 160 at 1:12500 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 Approximate location of SITE

CEW13/163 Coombe Edge, Sunninghill Road, Windlesham, Surrey, Archaeological Desk-based Assessment. Figure 2. Saxton's map of Kent, Surrey, Sussex and Middlesex, 1575. Approximate location of SITE

CEW13/163 Coombe Edge, Sunninghill Road, Windlesham, Surrey, Archaeological Desk-based Assessment. Figure 3. Senex, 1729. Approximate location of SITE

CEW13/163 Coombe Edge, Sunninghill Road, Windlesham, Surrey, Archaeological Desk-based Assessment. Figure 4. Rocque, Berkshire 1761 and Surrey 1765. Approximate location of SITE

CEW13/163 Coombe Edge, Sunninghill Road, Windlesham, Surrey, Archaeological Desk-based Assessment. Figure 5. Col. Mudge's map of 1816. SITE

CEW13/163 Coombe Edge, Sunninghill Road, Windlesham, Surrey, Archaeological Desk-based Assessment. Figure 6. Ordnance Survey First Edition, 1870. SITE

CEW13/163 Coombe Edge, Sunninghill Road, Windlesham, Surrey, Archaeological Desk-based Assessment. Figure 7. Ordnance Survey Second Edition, 1896. SITE

CEW13/163 Coombe Edge, Sunninghill Road, Windlesham, Surrey, Archaeological Desk-based Assessment. Figure 8. Ordnance Survey Third Edition, 1915. SITE

CEW13/163 Coombe Edge, Sunninghill Road, Windlesham, Surrey, Archaeological Desk-based Assessment. Figure 9. Ordnance Survey Revision, 1934. SITE

CEW13/163 Coombe Edge, Sunninghill Road, Windlesham, Surrey, Archaeological Desk-based Assessment. Figure 10. Ordnance Survey Revision, 1970. SITE

CEW13/163 Coombe Edge, Sunninghill Road, Windlesham, Surrey, Archaeological Desk-based Assessment. Figure 11. Ordnance Survey Revision, 1990. CEW13/163 Coombe Edge, Sunninghill Road, Windlesham, Surrey, Archaeological Desk-based Assessment. Figure 12. Development proposals in relation to existing building. (Not to scale). Plate 1. Aerial photograph of site.

CEW13/163 Coombe Edge, Sunninghill Road, Windlesham, Surrey, Archaeological Desk-based Assessment. Plate 1. Supplied by client 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