Thames Valley Archaeological

Home , Elsfield

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

Elsfield Hall, Elsfield Way, Cutteslowe, Oxford

Desk-based Heritage Assessment

by Steve Preston

Site Code EWO12/111

(SP 5058 1026)

Elsfield Hall, Elsfield Way, Cutteslowe, Oxford

Desk-based Heritage Assessment

for Oxford City Council

by Steve Preston

Thames Valley Archaeological

Services Ltd

Site Code EWO 12/111

August 2012 Summary

Site name: Elsfield Hall, Elsfield Way, Cutteslowe, Oxford

Grid reference: SP 5058 1026

Site activity: Desk-based heritage assessment

Project manager: Steve Ford

Site supervisor: Steve Preston

Site code: EWO12/111

Area of site: 0.8ha

Summary of results: There are no known heritage assets on the site or in a position to be affected by its development. The site lies in an area of generally high archaeological potential, albeit one which has not seen extensive systematic investigation. Recorded finds from the area show a particular emphasis on the Palaeolithic period but with remains of all periods also present. The western part of the site has been minimally developed and has served as a carpark, whose creation would have had negligible effects on sub-surface archaeological remains. It is considered that 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. Such a scheme could be implemented as an appropriately worded condition to any consent gained.

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 All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.

Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford9 14.08.12

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

Elsfield Hall, Elsfield Way, Cutteslowe, Oxford Desk-based Heritage Assessment

by Steve Preston

Report 12/111 Introduction

This report is an assessment of the archaeological potential of a plot of land located at Elsfield Hall, Elsfield

Way, Cutteslowe, Oxford (NGR SP 5060 1026) (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Tom Smailes of

Kemp and Kemp LLP, Elms Court, Botley, on behalf of Oxford City Council 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 from Oxford City Council to develop the site for a mix of residential and commercial uses. As a result of the possibility of archaeological remains being damaged or destroyed by the development, a desk-based assessment had been requested to accompany the application in order to inform the planning process with respect to its archaeological and heritage implications.

Site description, location and geology

The site currently consists of a large modern building with an annex (Pls 1 and 2), large car park and electricity substation. It is accessed off Harefields and backs onto Elsfield Way (Oxford’s northern bypass) to the south.

The development area is centred on NGR SP 5060 1026 and covers approximately 0.8ha in an area of residential development. The southern part of the site is located on 3rd (Wolvercote) terrace gravels and the north is on

Oxford clay (BGS 1982). It is at a height of 68m above Ordnance Datum.

Planning background and development proposals

Planning permission is to be sought for the development of the site to provide residential accommodation in the western half of the site (the existing carpark) and provide a replacement car park for the employment premises to the east. No specific details are to hand at 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 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 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 on the site or nearby.

The Oxford City Local Plan (OCC 2005) provides further guidance. All of the relevant policies were saved when the local plan was reviewed in 2008. The proposal site has been allocated for residential development in a preferred planning consultation document.

The Local Plan states:

Policy HE.1 – (regarding nationally important monuments) ‘Planning permission will not be granted for any development that would have an unacceptable effect on a nationally important monument (whether or not it is scheduled) or its setting.’

Policy HE2 – (regarding archaeology) ‘Where archaeological deposits that are potentially significant to the historic environment of Oxford area known or suspected to exist anywhere in Oxford but in particular the City centre Archaeological Area, planning applications should incorporate sufficient information to define the character and extent of such deposits as far as reasonably practicable, including, where appropriate; a) the results of an evaluation by fieldwork; and b) an assessment of the effect of the proposals on the deposits or their setting. ‘If the existence and significance of deposits is confirmed, planning permission will only be granted where the proposal includes: c) provision to preserve the archaeological remains in situ, so far as reasonably practicable, by sensitive layout and design (particularly foundations, drainage and hard landscaping); and d) provision for the investigation and recording of any archaeological remains that cannot be preserved, including the publication of results, in accordance with a detailed scheme approved before the start of the development.’

Policy HE.6- (regarding buildings of local interest) ‘Planning permission will only be granted for development that involves the demolition of a Building of Local Interest, or that would have an adverse impact on the building or its setting, if; a) the application can justify why the existing building cannot be retained or altered to form part of the redevelopment; and b) the development will make a more positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.’

Further policies relating to listed buildings and conservation areas, are not relevant to the buried archaeological aspects of the current site. The site is well outside the City centre Area of Archaeological Importance as defined in the Local Plan.

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 Oxfordshire Historic Environment

Record, geological maps and any relevant publications or reports.

Archaeological background

General background

The site lies within the archaeologically rich Thames Valley but at some distance from the historic Saxon and medieval centre of Oxford City. Whilst Oxford generally has a rich archaeological and historical heritage, and has been intensively studied (e.g., Dodd 2003; Hassall 1986), and outlying areas to the south and east of the city are also relatively well-known (for Roman pottery production, for example), much less is known of the archaeological background for Cutteslowe, to the north of the city. Recent archaeological investigations in

Oxford (e.g., Wallis 2010 and forthcoming; Braybrooke 2011), however, are showing how much, often surprising, information there is still to unearth, and adding almost annually to what is known of the area’s prehistoric and later development.

Oxfordshire Historic Environment Record

A search was made on the Oxfordshire Historic Environment Record (HER) on 17 July 2012 for a radius of 1km around the proposal site. This revealed 55 entries within the search radius. These are summarized as Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 1. Two entries that lie beyond the area represented in Figure 1 (to the south-west) have been omitted.

There are no Scheduled Monuments in the vicinity.

Palaeolithic Palaeolithic findspots abound within the search radius, which reflects its location in an area where the Thames has cut new channels over the last two million years and the confluence with the Cherwell seems to have been significant. Unfortunately many of these finds are from antiquarian collections and precise details of provenance are lacking. However, one of Oxfordshire’s most prolific Palaeolithic sites lies to the north-west of the proposal site, at Wolvercote [Fig.1: 1]. Here some 75 handaxes, 10 retouched flakes, 84 unretouched flakes, 16 other fragments from an ancient channel of the Thames have given their name to an industry. The Summertown-

Radley terrace in particular is prolific in such finds (Wymer 1999, 46–7; 52–58). Smaller, but still significant groups of handaxes have come from locations all around the proposal site [ 2–7], with the closest being 6 handaxes to the north [2] and a broken tip of one to the south [5].

Mesolithic Mesolithic sites generally are rare, so it is unfortunate that the only records for this period within the study radius are rather vague. Two mace heads (conceivably one item recorded from two sources) and a micro-burin are given only a generic location in the area (represented on Figure 2 as findspot 8 but really anywhere in the area).

Little significance can be attached to these records.

Neolithic Only two Neolithic findspots are recorded in the search radius, and again, details are lacking. One record refers to a mace head [8], which could be the same object as noted above in the Mesolithic; one is for a flint flake [8]; and one for an adze [9].

Bronze Age Bronze Age remains in the area are noted only from cropmark evidence. There is a circular cropmark interpreted as the ring ditch of a round barrow at the extreme south of the search radius [11], and a complex of cropmarks is known on Port Meadow (just off Figure 1 to the south-west) which will almost certainly include Bronze Age examples. The idea the place name Cutteslowe derives from the presence of a barrow is also recorded [8] (but see Cartographic and Documentary Evidence below) and another is known only from a documentary reference

[10].

Iron Age Among the loosely provenanced finds from the area [8] are an Iron Age bronze scabbard chape and two Greek bronze coins (Iron Age in British chronology; Greek coins of, for example, Philip II of Macedon may well have reached Britain while still circulating, as they were a common payment to mercenaries, although normally in gold; but could equally have arrived in the Roman period, perhaps as votive offerings in a temple; or be an antiquarian collector’s loss). More significant is the excavation of settlement remains to the south of the site [12], consisting of a ditch, gullies, four-post structure and an area of hard standing dated to the late Iron Age or early

Roman period (and followed by Roman settlement). Iron Age pottery has also been found to the south-west [13] and west [14] of the site. Some of the cropmarks on Port Meadow are most probably Iron Age (just off Fig. 1).

Roman Roman finds are also common throughout the search radius. A cluster of coin finds has suggested the possibility of a temple site at Woodeaton (included in the unprovenanced finds at [8]). A watching brief to the south of the proposal site [12] recorded two phases of Roman activity superseding the Late Iron Age/Early Roman phase.

Stray finds of small quantities of Roman pottery are also recorded to the south-west [13, 16], west [14], south [5] and north [15] of the site. This is unsurprising as Oxford was near the centre of a flourishing Roman pottery production centre.

Saxon Saxon finds, as is usual when no cemetery is known, are sparse in the area. They include a loosely provenanced coin (possibly associated with a skull), weaving batten and strap end [8] and two finds of single sherds of possibly Saxon pottery [5, 14].

Medieval The most important medieval remains in the study area are the deserted medieval village (DMV) to the north

[15] and St Peter’s church to the south-west [6]. Only very slight earthworks now remain of the DMV but geophysical survey recorded pits and a possible ditch, and 15th-century pottery has been recovered by fieldwalking. St Peter’s has 14th-century elements, though most is Victorian. Ridge and furrow (the remains of medieval agriculture) have been recorded to the south-west [17]. Land at Pryers Furze and Rams Close [18] is known to have belonged to St Frideswide’s priory. Medieval stray finds from the area include pottery to the south-west [13] and west [14], and a seal matrix from well to the south-west [19].

Post-medieval There are numerous post-medieval listed buildings within 1km of the proposal site. None is in a position to be affected by the proposed development. The closest is a milestone on Oxford Road [27] to the north-west, whose setting could not be adversely affected by the proposal. The others include: another milestone [23], a toll house

[20], and several early 19th-century houses [21, 24, 25, 26]. Church Farmhouse [22], now in the midst of a residential area at Wolvercote, has 16th-century origins and includes wattle-and-daub walling. Fieldwork has also revealed post-medieval graves at St Peter’s [6]. Also at St Peter’s the church hall and old church house are both listed buildings [6]. The restoration of the church dates from 1859. Various stray finds of post-medieval material are also recorded, but are of little archaeological significance [5, 8, 13, 14]. One HER entry is for the recording of a late Victorian house prior to demolition [28].

Modern The HER notes the presence of two modern churches in the area: St Michael and All Angels [4] and St Gregory and St Augustine [29], both well south of the proposal area and both listed. There is a record for a brick kiln and clay pit which ceased operation around 1920 (the grid reference given for this off Figure 1 to west, but it is believed to be closer to the site [1]).

Undated, Negative A watching brief to the north of the site [30] showed nothing of archaeological interest. Ridge and furrow revealed in a watching brief may be medieval or post-medieval [31]. Undated disarticulated human and animal bone have been recorded at Cherwell Bridge [32] but the circumstances of discovery are unclear.

Cartographic and documentary sources

Cutteslowe (sometimes spelt Cutslow) is an Old English (Anglo-Saxon) place name, of somewhat uncertain derivation, but most probably derived from a personal name, unrecorded but probably Cuthen or Cuden

(sometimes rendered Cuthwine) and hlaw (hill or burial mound). Attempts to link it to Cutha, a leader of the

West Saxons who was killed in AD584, are probably spurious (VCH 1990, 308; Blair 1994, 38–9). A mound bearing his name was destroyed by order of the justices in 1261, because it had become a haunt of robbers, but is now considered more likely to have been a prehistoric chambered tomb or long barrow than a Saxon one. At the time of Domesday Book (AD1086) there were two manors (Codeslam or Codeslaue). The smaller manor was in the lands of the Canons of Oxford (i.e., St Frideswide’s Minster) and held by Siward (Williams and Martin 2002,

431). It was assessed at two hides and had land for two ploughs. It was valued at 40 shillings but nothing else is recorded about it, which is unusual (though perhaps less so for church lands). A larger estate, assessed at three hides, was held by Alvred (or Alured) the clerk from Roger d’Ivry. It had land for three ploughs and was valued at £4; again none of the expected detail is provided on tenants, meadow, mills, fisheries, etc (Williams and

Martin 2002, 436).

The manor of Cutteslowe that belonged to St Frideswide’s was confirmed to the church in AD1004 and was later enlarged by exchange of some land in Cutteslowe with Oseney Abbey. The d’Ivry estate passed to the church of St George in the Castle and thence to Oseney Abbey. The subsequent history of the two manors is complicated by the fact that Cutteslowe was extra-parochial, and subject to a bewildering number of boundary changes, and the fact that both were associated at various times with Oseney Abbey. Areas within Cutteslowe were for some purposes at times treated as within Kidlington, Gosford and Water Eaton, Woodstock, and/or

Wolvercote (VCH 1990, 180; 304–5; 313). Fortunately little of note passed to attract the attention of historians.

The former St Frideswide’s estate was for a time the property of the dukes of Marlborough, and formed the core of the Cutteslowe that survived until it was united with the city of Oxford in 1928. The larger estate was probably absorbed into Oseney Abbey’s larger estate of Water Eaton fairly early on, and thus passed into the modern parish of Gosford and Water Eaton in 1932 (VCH 1990, 307; Sutton 1964–5, 110).

Cutteslowe was never a large settlement: six inhabitants were assessed in the subsidy rolls of 1316, eight in

1327; the1662 hearth tax applied to just six houses in Cutteslowe and Godstow combined, and the 1841 census lists just 20 people in Cutteslowe. By 1871 this had even dropped to 15 people living in just two houses. Modern

Cutteslowe owes its existence to both the growth of Oxford and the route of the bypass, which dates from the

1930s.

Elsfield has even less history of note than Cutteslowe, beyond being home to Francis Wise, a 17th-century

Radcliff librarian and noted constructor of eccentric buildings (VCH 1957, 117).

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

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).

Saxton’s 1574 county map does not show Cutteslowe or Summertown. Speed’s map of 1611 shows Elsfield to the north of Marston but no Cutteslowe. (not illustrated). Plot’s map of 1677 (Fig. 2) is the first to show

Cutteslowe (‘Cutſlow’) but this pictorial representation provides no detail. Morden’s map of 1695 is very similar

(not illustrated). The first map to offer any detail for the area is that by Davis, dated 1793/4 (Fig. 3). This depicts the Cherwell, reasonably accurately, and the general area of the site can be discerned but it is not possible to locate the site accurately on this map. The area in general is undeveloped, ‘Cutslow’ itself consists of just three buildings and although this is probably not intended to be accurate, it does correspond well with the known population figures (see above).

As an extra-parochial area, Cutteslowe had no tithe map, nor does it appear to have been subject to

Parliamentary enclosure (it is possible that parts of the area may have been enclosed under other names; an exhaustive search has not been made for this report). Most historic mapping of Oxford does not extend as far as

Cutteslowe. Detailed mapping therefore begins with the Ordnance Survey. The ‘Old Series’ 6-inch map of 1833

(Fig. 4) allows the site to be located approximately in relation to the roads leading north from Oxford and the topography. It can be seen that ‘Cutslow’ consists of nothing more than two hamlets: Great, of four buildings and Little of two; and a toll gate (TG) on the turnpike. Although the site cannot be defined especially accurately at this scale, it is in open land, more than likely belonging to Great Cutslow. The 25-inch First Edition Ordnance

Survey of 1876 provides more detail (Fig. 5). Based on the location of the milepost, the site can be approximately located on his map, but its boundaries are not marked in any way; it is open farmland. There bas been no significant change by 1899 (Fig. 6) when the Second Edition was produced. By 1913 development has begun to spread along the west side of Oxford Road to the south but has not yet begun to approach the site (not illustrated). The relevant map sheet from the 1921 Revision has not survived but surrounding sheets show little change in the area.

By 1937 the whole area has changed dramatically (Fig. 7), although the site itself is little affected. The bypass is in place and extensive development has spread to the general area. The site’s boundaries can now be defined for the first time. It is unfortunate that the two map sheets which overlap within the site do not quite match (despite both being surveyed in 1937), but the site can be seen to comprise a large plot which is either open or orchard depending on which sheet it is on. The next plot to the west is the limit of housing development around the new junction. By 1956 it is the proposal site which has changed while the surrounding area remains virtually unchanged (Fig. 8). There is a large building in the eastern half of the site, facing south identified as a

Territorial Army Centre. To the rear (north) are several smaller buildings, and much of the site is taken up with carpark, with just a little garden space. Access to the site is from the south, Harefields to the north not yet being in place. By 1968 (Fig. 9) the main building is unchanged but is now identified as the Oxford and Cambridge

Schools Examination Board. The former outbuildings have all gone and a new one stands west of the main range. The layout of the grounds has also altered somewhat. The layout of the surrounding area changes in 1974

(Fig. 10), when Harefields is laid out and almost all of the empty space filled in with new development; the only changes on the site however are the new access from the north (the site now taking in a small drain previously along its boundary) and the electricity sub-station (and the elevation on the bench mark changes from feet to metres). The current layout as shown in Figure 11 shows no difference, except that the Examination Board is no longer listed as occupying the building.

Listed buildings

There are no listed buildings on or adjacent to the site. Numerous post-medieval listed buildings do exist within

1km of the proposal site, but none is in a position to be affected by the proposed development. The closest is a milestone on Oxford Road to the north-west, whose setting could not be adversely affected by the proposal. The others are all at some considerable distance.

Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields

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

Historic Hedgerows

There are no hedgerows, historic or otherwise, on the site.

Aerial Photographs

The site areas lies within an urban area which has been developed since before the advent of aerial photography.

No photographic collections have therefore been consulted.

Discussion

There are no known heritage assets on the site or in a position to be affected by its development. 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 area in which the site lies is generally one of high archaeological potential for all periods, although this vicinity has been much less studied than areas within and to the south and east of Oxford. Of particular note is the concentration of Palaeolithic finds in the vicinity. The terrace on which the site lies, the Wolvercote Terrace, has significant potential for this period. The topographic setting of the site, on a locally prominent rise and close to both the rivers Thames and Cherwell, would have been a preferred location for settlement in any period. At c.

0.8ha, the site overall is also large enough to suggest that it may have the potential to contain archaeological deposits of any period simply by chance, although the proposal involves only the western half of the full area, which modifies this chance accordingly.

Cartographic review shows that the site was open farmland and for a period orchard, until developed in the

1940s or 50s. The main building on the site appears unchanged externally since first built, apart from the addition of an electricity substation. The hall to the west has existed since the 1960s and the only other part of the site to have been developed is where some small outbuildings originally stood in the north. Most of the site has therefore never been developed, including almost all of the area proposed to be developed for residential purposes as art of this planning application. The ground level on the site is slightly higher than the natural topography, suggesting it has been raised rather than lowered for levelling purposes. Any sub-surface archaeological remains could therefore be expected to have survived reasonably intact. Grubbing out of an

orchard could potentially have damaged the archaeologically relevant horizon but this may have been restricted to the eastern half of the site.

It is anticipated that 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 City and implemented by a competent archaeological contractor. Such a scheme could be implemented as an appropriately worded condition to any consent gained.

References

BGS, 1982, British Geological Survey, 1:50,000 Sheet 236, Solid and Drift Edition, Keyworth Blair, J, 1994, Anglo-Saxon Oxfordshire, Stroud Braybrooke, T, 2011, ‘Oxford University: Radcliffe Observatory Quarter: Radcliffe Infirmary Site, Oxford, County Of Oxfordshire, Post-Excavation Assessment’, Museum of London Archaeology unpubl rep, London Dodd, A (ed), 2003, Oxford before the University, Oxford Archaeology Thames Valley Landscapes Monogr 17, Oxford Hassall, T, 1986, ‘Archaeology of Oxford City’, in G Briggs, J Cook and T Rowley, (eds), The Archaeology of the Oxford Region, Oxford, 115–34 Mills, A D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford NPPF, 2012, National Planning Policy Framework, Dept Communities and Local Government, London OCC, 2005, Adopted Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016, Oxford City Council Sutton, J E G, 1964-5, ‘Ridge and furrow in Berkshire and Oxfordshire’, Oxoniensia 29/30, 99–115 VCH, 1957, Victoria History of the County of Oxford, v, London VCH, 1990, Victoria History of the County of Oxford, xii, London Wallis, S, 2010, ‘Former Queen Elizabeth House (Kendrew Quadrangle), St John’s College, Blackhall Road, Oxford; archaeological post-excavation assessment’, TVAS unpubl rep 07/131, Reading Wallis, S, forthcoming, A Neolithic Monumental Henge, Late Saxon Massacre Burial, Medieval and Post- Medieval Occupation at St John’s College, Oxford, TVAS Monogr 16, Reading Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London Wymer, J J, 1999, The Lower Palaeolithic occupation of Britain, Salisbury

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

No HER Ref Grid Ref (SP) Type Period Comment 1 MOX3092 4977 1043 Findspot Palaeolithic 75 handaxes, 10 retouched flakes, 84 unretouched flakes, 16 other fragments from ancient channel of the Thames. 2 MOX5275 503 106 Findspot Palaeolithic Six handaxes, found in drainage trench 3 MOX9935 5100 0929 Documentary Palaeolithic Possible finds known only from documentary sources 4 MOX10002 509 093 Findspot Palaeolithic Quartzite handaxe MOX15791 50845 09269 Listed Building Modern St Michael and All Angels, 1909 5 MOX10054 5074 0994 Findspot Palaeolithic Various finds from garden include tip of Palaeolithic Roman handaxe, Roman and possibly Saxon pottery and Saxon Victorian brooch and glass. Victorian 6 MOX12120 497 098 Findspot Palaeolithic Two handaxes MOX12102 49680 09833 Listed building Medieval St Peter’s Church, 14th century, rebuilt 1859. Church hall MOX15256 49661 09841 Evaluation Post-medieval also listed. Evaluation found five 17th to 19th century EOX3084 49644 09823 Victorian graves, and 12 unexcavated features likely to be graves. MOX15522 Old Church House, late 18th/early 19th century 7 MOX11995 502 099 Findspot Palaeolithic Two flint flakes found in 1920 8 MOX5205 50 10 Findspot Mesolithic Grid reference marginal, details of all finds are unclear. MOX5206 5010 0998 Neolithic Two Mesolithic and one Neolithic maceheads found MOX5207 Iron Age could all be the same item? Micro-burin; a single MOX5211 Prehistoric Neolithic flint flake; Iron Age bronze scabbard chape; MOX5213 Roman Roman coins perhaps from Woodeaton, a skull and Saxon MOX5222 Saxon coin from sewer trench, weaving batten and 9th-century MOX5246 Undated strap end. Greek coin (Iron Age in British terms) also of MOX10761 uncertain provenance. Long barrow conjectured from MOX23629 placename, considered dubious. MOX23630 The more precise gird reference is for a find of Roman MOX23795 coins, no details. MOX23802 MOX9931 9 MOX5239 505 107 Findspot Neolithic Flint adze, no details. 10 MOX5209 501 112 Documentary Bronze Age Round barrow known only from documentary source 11 MOX10055 5115 0925 Photographic Bronze Age Cropmark of ring ditch (round barrow) 12 EOX2057 50478 09406 Watching brief Iron Age Late Iron Age and Roman settlement evidence partially MOX23117 Roman excavated. 13 MOX5240 5003 0999 Findspot Iron Age Various pottery finds, details unclear. Roman Medieval Post-medieval 14 MOX5241 501 101 Findspot Iron Age Finds from garden including late Iron Age to Roman Roman pottery, one possible Saxon sherd, one 15th-century Saxon sherd, post-medieval pottery, glass and pipes and metal Medieval finds including a rowel spur Post-medieval 15 MOX5201 507 112 Earthworks Roman Deserted village. One farm and some earthworks remain. Fieldwalking Medieval Roman and 15th century pottery found. Geophysics Survey revealed pits and possible ditch. 16 MOX12080 4969 0995 Findspot Roman Roman pottery including mortaria 17 EOX2754 50051 09864 Watching brief Medieval Ridge and furrow the only features recorded MOX23797 18 MOX5242 512 102 Documentary Medieval Pryers Furze and Rams Close known to be possessions of Post-medieval St Frideswide’s Priory and later others. 19 MOX12099 4995 0945 Findspot Medieval 13th-century seal matrix found in garden 20 MOX5257 50352 10769 Listed Building Post-medieval Toll house, early 19th century 21 MOX9997 50428 09847 Listed Building Post-medieval House, early 19th century 22 MOX12101 49633 09792 Listed building Post-medieval Church Farmhouse, 16th-century 23 MOX12116 49858 09934 Listed building Post-medieval Type P3 milestone (Oxford 2 Woodstock 5) 24 MOX15255 50391 09700 Listed Building Post-medieval Field House, early 19th century 25 MOX15505 50446 09438 Listed Building Post-medieval The Lodge, c.1830, gate piers and walls also listed MOX15506 50473 09425 MOX15507 50313 09338 26 MOX15527 50718 09267 Listed Building Post-medieval House 1831 27 MOX15763 50387 10301 Listed Building Post-medieval Milestone (Oxford 2 Banbury 20), 18th century 28 EOX2694 50259 09526 Building Victorian 316 Woodstock Road (1898) recorded prior to demolition 29 MOX15495 50218 09601 Listed Building Modern St Gregory and St Augustine, Private chapel, 1910-11 30 EOX3069 5067 1076 Watching brief Negative No features recorded 31 EOX1706 49755 09823 Watching brief Undated Ridge and furrow recorded (given as negative evidence) 32 MOX8499 516 099 Findspot Undated Disarticulated human and animal bones found Listed Buildings Grade II unless stated.

APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1574 Saxton, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire 1611 Speed, Oxfordshire 1677 Plot, Oxfordshire (Fig. 2) 1695 Morden, Oxfordshire 1793-4 Davis (Fig. 3) 1833 Ordnance Survey ‘Old Series’ sheet 45 (Fig. 4) 1876/7 Ordnance Survey First Edition (Fig. 5) 1899 Ordnance Survey Second Edition (Fig. 6) 1913 Ordnance Survey Third Edition 1937 Ordnance Survey Revision (Fig. 7) 1956 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 8) 1964 Ordnance Survey 1968 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 9) 1972/4 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 10) 1994 Ordnance Survey 1992 Ordnance Survey Landranger Sheet SP41/51 2006 Ordnance Survey Explorer 180 (Fig. 1) 2012 Ordnance Survey digital mapping (Fig. 11)

14 12000

Banbury

SITE Bicester

Witney

Thame

Abingdon OXFORD

Didcot Wallingford Wantage Henley-on -Thames 10 15

11000

20 30 9

2 SITE

18 14

10000 8 13 32 16 25 7 5 23 17 6 31 21 22

24 29

28 19 12

4 3 26 11 SP50000 51000 EWO 12/111 Elsfield Hall, Elsfield Way, Cutteslowe, Oxford, 2012 Desk-based heritage assessment Figure 1. Location of site within Cutteslowe and Oxfordshire.

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Explorer 180 at 1:12500 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 Approximate location of site

EWO 12/111 N Elsfield Hall, Elsfield Way, Cutteslowe, Oxford, 2012 Desk-based heritage assessment Figure 2. Plot's map of Oxfordshire, 1677. Approximate location of site

EWO 12/111 N Elsfield Hall, Elsfield Way, Cutteslowe, Oxford, 2012 Desk-based heritage assessment Figure 3. Davis' map of Oxfordshire, 1793/4. Approximate location of site

EWO 12/111 N Elsfield Hall, Elsfield Way, Cutteslowe, Oxford, 2012 Desk-based heritage assessment Figure 4. Ordnance Survey 'Old Series' 1833. Approximate location of site

EWO 12/111 N Elsfield Hall, Elsfield Way, Cutteslowe, Oxford, 2012 Desk-based heritage assessment Figure 5. Ordnance Survey First Edition 1876. Approximate location of site

EWO 12/111 N Elsfield Hall, Elsfield Way, Cutteslowe, Oxford, 2012 Desk-based heritage assessment Figure 6. Ordnance Survey Second Edition 1899. SITE

EWO 12/111 N Elsfield Hall, Elsfield Way, Cutteslowe, Oxford, 2012 Desk-based heritage assessment Figure 7. Ordnance Survey Revision 1937. SITE

EWO 12/111 N Elsfield Hall, Elsfield Way, Cutteslowe, Oxford, 2012 Desk-based heritage assessment Figure 8. Ordnance Survey 1956. SITE

EWO 12/111 N Elsfield Hall, Elsfield Way, Cutteslowe, Oxford, 2012 Desk-based heritage assessment Figure 9. Ordnance Survey 1968. SITE

EWO 12/111 N Elsfield Hall, Elsfield Way, Cutteslowe, Oxford, 2012 Desk-based heritage assessment Figure 10. Ordnance Survey 1974. EWO 12/111 N Elsfield Hall, Elsfield Way, Cutteslowe, Oxford, 2012 Desk-based heritage assessment Figure 11. Current site layout. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital mapping under licence. (Not to scale.) Plate 1. South elevation from Elsfield Way, looking north

Plate 2. Rear building (northern site entrance), looking south

EWO 12/111

Elsfield House, Elsfield Way, Cutteslowe, Oxford, 2012 Desk-based Heritage assessment

Plates 1 and 2. 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