Aylesbury Environs Study

Home , Bierton, Stoke Mandeville, Weston Turville

Milton Keynes & Aylesbury Vale Sub Regional Strategy

Historic Environment Assessment

April 2005

The deserted medieval village earthworks of Quarrendon, north of Aylesbury – M. Farley

County Archaeological Service Aylesbury Environs Study: Natural and Historic Environment Assessment April 2005

Executive Summary

The Aylesbury Historic Environment Assessment report complements the Jacobs Babtie Aylesbury Environs Study of the Ecology and Landscape (2004) by providing an historic environment report of the immediate hinterland of Aylesbury that may be affected by growth proposals to 2021 and beyond. A detailed assessment of the north - western expansion option was completed in 2003, to inform the review of the County Structure Plan (Kidd 2003). This report provides a broader and more generalised strategic assessment of Aylesbury’s entire rural urban fringe covering historic landscape, archaeology and the historic built environment using information available in the County Sites and Monuments Record, with special reference to its Historic Landscape Characterisation database. The study not only considers the potential impact of development on the historic environment, and how this can be mitigated, but also identifies many positive contributions that the resource can make to building sustainable communities through the recognition and enhancement of green and cultural infrastructure. Aylesbury town itself has been excluded from the detailed study area but its importance as the cultural, historical and physical hub of the area is recognised. Likewise, the significant relationships to historic sites and areas outside the study area are mentioned. The study area has been sub-divided into 11 character areas which structure this report (Fig 2). It contains a wealth of historic landscapes, archaeological sites and historic buildings and villages of importance at a county, regional and national as well as at a purely local level. It’s distinctive characteristics can be summarised as:

• The exceptional Historic Parks and Gardens of Hartwell and Eythrope

• Ancient enclosed fields in the Northern Vale and Thame Valley character areas.

• Extensive parliamentary enclosure landscapes of large surveyed fields, some well - preserved others more fragmented by modern development.

• An historically “open” landscape with trees largely restricted to hedgerows and the only substantial woodlands being found within the historic parks.

• A concentration of nationally important medieval earthworks including the deserted medieval village and Tudor garden earthworks at Quarrendon and several scheduled medieval moats.

• Historic villages and hamlets that surround Aylesbury with their own subtle distinctiveness and identity. Conservation areas at Bierton and Hartwell, Weedon and Weston Turville.

• A rich concentration of hidden archaeology with a Roman small town at Fleet Marston in the Northern Vale character area and many smaller late prehistoric and Roman settlements . The study area is bisected by the Roman Road of Akeman Street (A41).

2 Aylesbury Environs Study: Natural and Historic Environment Assessment April 2005

Contents

1. Introduction...... 6 1.1. What is the historic environment? ...... 6 1.2. Why is the historic environment important?...... 7 1.3. An Introduction to Historic Landscape Characterisation ...... 7 1.5. The value of the HLC approach ...... 8 2. Aylesbury Environs Character Areas...... 9 3. Assessing Sustainability and Sensitivity...... 10 3.3. Natural and Historic Environment Assessment of Long term Growth Options11 3.4. Northern Vale:...... 13 3.5. Weedon Farmland: ...... 15 3.6. Bierton Fields:...... 16 3.7. Broughton Farmland: ...... 17 3.8. Stoke Mandeville - Weston Turville: ...... 19 3.9. Bishopstone Farmland: ...... 20 3.10. Hartwell Park: ...... 22 3.11. Thame Valley:...... 23 3.12. Winchendon Hills: ...... 24 4. Settlements ‘Village Envelopes’ ...... 25 4.1. Bierton: ...... 25 4.2. Stoke Mandeville: ...... 26 5. Green and Cultural Infrastructure ...... 27 5.1. Introduction...... 27 5.2. Strategic green/cultural infrastructure beyond the study area...... 27 • Aylesbury Historic Core:...... 27 • Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty: ...... 27 • Bernwood Ancient Hunting Forest:...... 27 • Waddesdon Park:...... 27 5.3. Strategic infrastructure within the study area...... 27 • Broughton Moat and Barn: ...... 27 • Quarrendon:...... 28 • Grand Union Canal (Aylesbury Arm): ...... 28 • Hartwell Park:...... 28 5.4. Local green/cultural infrastructure...... 28 • Historic Settlements: ...... 28 • Buildings at Risk:...... 28 5.5. Local heritage within Development Areas: ...... 28 6. Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 30 7. Bibliography...... 31

3 Aylesbury Environs Study: Natural and Historic Environment Assessment April 2005

Appendix A: Landscape Summaries...... 33 A.2. 20th Century Landscape: ...... 33 A.3. 18th and 19th Century Landscape:...... 33 A.4. 16thand 17th Century Landscape:...... 34 A.5. Medieval Landscape (5th to 15th centuries): ...... 34 A.6. Pre- Medieval Landscape (c 10,000 BC to AD 410): ...... 35 Appendix B: Historic Environment Constraints ...... 36 i) Scheduled Ancient Monuments ...... 36 ii) Registered Parks and Gardens ...... 36 iii) Listed Buildings...... 36

Figures Fig.1: Location of the Study Area...... 3 Fig.2: Character Areas of the Aylesbury Environs...... 9 Fig.3: HLC map of the Northern Vale...... 13 Figs.4 & 5: Photographs of the Northern Vale Enclosures & Earthworks ...... 14 Figs.6 & 7: HLC map of Weedon Farmland and sample of Enclosures...... 15 Figs.8 & 9: HLC Interpretationof Bierton Farmland & sample of enclosures...... 16 Fig.10: HLC Interpretation of Broughton Farmland...... 17 Figs.11 & 12: Photographs of Broughton Farmland ...... 18 Figs.13 & 14: HLC Interpretation of Stoke Mandville Weston Turville Landscape 19 Fig.15: HLC map of Bishopstone Farmland ...... 20 Fig.16: Sample Enclosures of Bishopstone Farmland...... 21 Figs.17 &18: HLC map and photograph of Hartwell Park...... 22 Figs.19 & 20: HLC map and sample of fields in the Thame Valley Landscape..... 23 Figs.21 & 22: HLC map of the Winchendon Hills & picture of Eythrope House .... 24 Fig.23: Bierton Conservation Area ...... 25 Fig.24: Bierton Village Envelope ...... 25 Fig.25: Enclosed strips closes north of Bierton village ...... 25 Fig.26: Enclosed strips closes north of Bierton village ...... 25 Fig.27: Stoke Mandeville ‘Village Envelope’...... 26 Fig.28: Small enclosures at Stoke Mandeville...... 26 Fig.29: Small enclosures at Stoke Mandeville...... 26 Fig.30: Historic Constraint Areas ...... 47 Fig.31: Current Landscape of the Aylesbury Environs Area ...... 48 Fig.32: 20th Century landscape ...... 49 Fig.33: 18th and 19th century landscape ...... 50 Fig.34: 16th and 17th century landscape ...... 51

4 Aylesbury Environs Study: Natural and Historic Environment Assessment April 2005

Fig.35: 5th and 15th century landscape ...... 52 Fig.36: Prehistoric and Roman landscape ...... 53

Tables Table1: Sensitivity to Change ...... 11 Table2: Environmental Impact Rating ...... 11 Table3: Character Area Sensitivity and Impact Ratings ...... 12

Report written and produced by David Green and Sandy Kidd Buckinghamshire County Archaeological Service. © Buckinghamshire County Council 2005

5 Aylesbury Environs Study: Natural and Historic Environment Assessment April 2005

1. Introduction

The extent of the study area (Fig. 1) incorporates a margin of landscape surrounding the town of Aylesbury, This area was originally defined by a survey undertaken by Halcrow planning consultants who were commissioned by Buckinghamshire County Council to consider the recommendations of the MKSM inquiry which identified Aylesbury as a suitable location for major long term growth and development to 2021and beyond (Halcrow 2004). The survey at a broad level, examined the suitable locations for major development around Aylesbury, assessing the impact that expansion would have upon the environment. The area covers the immediate fringe around Aylesbury before touching upon the from Weedon in the north to Weston Turville and Stoke Mandeville to the south; eastwards towards Broughton and westwards towards Stone and Bishopstone. Including Aylesbury, the area covers 61.89 km².

Fig.1: Location of the Study Area

1.1. What is the historic environment?

The historic environment is not just restricted to designated sites or special buildings. The Government’s policy statement on the historic environment (DCMS, 2001) has emphasised that it encompasses historic buildings, gardens, parklands and archaeological sites which nest within and relate to the whole landscape. This includes field systems, settlements, woodlands and other features in the landscape that combine to give a context to these more specific features, for every place has historic character and origins.

6 Aylesbury Environs Study: Natural and Historic Environment Assessment April 2005

1.2. Why is the historic environment important?

The historic environment forms a part of what is becoming known as ‘Green Infrastructure’ or (GI). The definition of GI is the planned network of multifunctional green spaces and inter-connecting links which is designed, developed and managed to meet the environmental, social and economic needs of communities across the sub-region. It is set within and contributes to a high quality natural and built environment and is required to enhance the quality of life for present and future residents and visitors, and to deliver “liveability” for sustainable communities. (2005 English Nature et al forthcoming)

As a component of ‘GI’, the historic environment makes an important contribution to our quality of life through its role in determining the character of the places where we live and work. It is a source and resource for, among other things employment and tourism, education and life-long learning, recreation and enjoyment. The historic landscape forms the setting for our everyday life. Its natural and man-made variations help define regional and local identity and provide key historic sites with context and meaning. In the context of a growth area, the historic environment provides both a constraint on ill-considered development and an opportunity to “add value” to new development by respecting local character.

1.3. An Introduction to Historic Landscape Characterisation

Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) is at the heart of the methodology used in this study. It complements, and seeks to overcome some of the limitations of designation-led approaches to characterising the historic landscape (Countryside Agency et al 2003). HLC was developed by English Heritage as a broad-brush approach to enhancing the knowledge and effective management of the historical landscape. HLC projects are desk-based studies using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) as a method for defining the historic dimension of the present day rural landscape. HLC can identify areas whose appearance is thought to be the result of certain processes, distinguish landscape’s time depth and facilitate sustainable management. The landscape is assessed by looking at all its major component features (for example fields, woodland, parklands, mineral extraction, industrial and urban areas) and by determining their origin and development through morphological analysis supported by documentary evidence, aerial photographs, historical mapping and chronological editions of Ordnance Survey maps. The information gained is then mapped into a (GIS) resulting in a multi-faceted digital map that enables sophisticated analysis and interpretation of the predominant historic character in the present landscape.

It is important to emphasise that the HLC methodology mainly records those historic patterns that are still visible and mapped within the present day environment. By examining the differences between early and modern cartographic sources we can also map and assess changes within the landscape through time – the ‘time-depth’ that survives in the modern landscape, whether as dominant forms or less obvious indications of past land use.

7 Aylesbury Environs Study: Natural and Historic Environment Assessment April 2005

A more detailed examination of the project methodology is provided on the website cited in the bibliography.

HLC assessment is complementary to Landscape Character Assessment, (LCA); HLC uses a similar approach to LCA but focuses on understanding the historic time- depth of the landscape, an aspect only superficially treated in conventional LCA. Also HLC employs a different methodology and skills and is carried out at a different scale. It is recommended that the results of HLC should be considered first and used to inform the Landscape Character Assessment. (Countryside Agency et al 2003).

1.5. The value of the HLC approach

The HLC approach offers a seamless coverage of the landscape emphasising the human processes that have led to and remain evident in its current appearance. The primary aim of HLC is to create a consistent model of the historic landscape that is as transparent as possible, inclusive, repeatable and above all has comprehensive spatial coverage (i.e. no un-mapped ‘white’ or blank spaces).

The challenge posed by the growth agenda is not only to identify what is historic, or to evaluate what is most highly valued historically or archaeologically, but also to decide what to do about such judgements in terms of management for the future. Aspects of landscape that require evaluation include character, sensitivity and vulnerability in conjunction with the capacity of a place to absorb change without losing its historic depth and links to the past. These can be as important measures as value and significance on their own. A holistic approach is required. This represents the first stage in developing a genuinely inclusive approach to the historic environment.

HLC is fast becoming a valued tool for assisting decision making in a strategic planning context and has been usefully applied in a number of cases, including the characterisation of the Thames Gateway (Clark 2004) and within the sub region as part of an assessment of the draft proposals for the growth of Milton Keynes, (Buckinghamshire County Council, English Heritage and Milton Keynes Council, 2004).

8 Aylesbury Environs Study: Natural and Historic Environment Assessment April 2005

2. Aylesbury Environs Character Areas

The historic landscape characterisation and landscape assessment of the Aylesbury Environs has revealed localised patterns of landscape leading to the identification of 11 distinct character areas, excluding the urban area of modern Aylesbury (Figure 2). Within each of these areas the landscape has a broadly common history and visible heritage, although there are of course subtle variations within every zone. Although the character areas are principally rural in nature, two of these zones, Stoke Mandeville and Bierton/Broughton, are settlements. Given the built-up nature of these character areas they merit being treated differently to the other areas as there are different considerations to the spatial relationship with a settlement’s immediate surroundings. The details of the method are outlined in section 4.

Fig. 2: The Character Areas of the Aylesbury Environs

9 Aylesbury Environs Study: Natural and Historic Environment Assessment April 2005

3. Assessing Sustainability and Sensitivity

3.1. In order to assess the impact of development on the historic and natural environment, an assessment model has been devised, (See Appendix A). The methodology involves employing HLC, Sites and Monuments Records (SMR) and heritage /environmental designation data, to make a rounded consideration of the impact on the historic environment.

3.2. The components of the historic environment are examined under the three categories previously combined, to produce the overall historic character zones: historic landscape; historic buildings and archaeological sites. A fourth category is added: the visual setting of any of the fore-going. The historic landscape refers to assessment of landscape from the Buckinghamshire HLC information, while the definition of Historic Buildings is taken from Listed Building and Conservation Area data and considers the effects upon the built structures and their curtilages. The information on archaeological data is derived from a combination of scheduled monuments data and other recognised important sites selected from Buckinghamshire County Council’s SMR. The limitations of this strategic level assessment must be emphasised. Definitive assessments of individual development sites would require more detailed study, including field evaluation to detect as yet unrecognised sites, historic features & buildings.

The number and quality of these four components are assessed in each area and then given a rating relating to their sensitivity and their capacity to accommodate development without a significant change or loss of historic character, (Swanwick 2004).

Negative: This rating, indicated in red, denotes the sensitivity of this aspect of the historic environment, compared to the likely extent of loss, damage or demolition development might entail. In some cases mitigation measures might reduce the severity of the impact but options for mitigation would require more detailed consideration beyond the scope of this study. Such mitigation measures should be obligatory and incorporated into planning briefs from the outset.

Neutral: This rating indicates that development would have a low effect on the historic character of the area, either avoiding impact or involve change that can be absorbed by the historic asset.

Positive: Identifies aspects of the historic environment that could be enhanced by development. This is not simply an attempt to mitigate potential damage but rather an attempt to identify options for improving the quality and sustainability of the new communities by positive planning for improving strategic green and cultural infrastructure. Possible examples include restoration of “at risk” buildings, historic landscape restoration, conservation area enhancement schemes and securing positive management of archaeological monuments.

Sensitivity to change is derived by cross-indexing the scale of impact with the importance of the asset affected (Table 1):

10 Aylesbury Environs Study: Natural and Historic Environment Assessment April 2005

Scale of impact Major Moderate Minor

National Serious Moderate Minor County/Sub-Regional Moderate Moderate Minor Local Minor Minor Insignificant Importance of asset Table 1: Sensitivity to change

3.3. Natural and Historic Environment Assessment of Long term Growth Options

Impacts SERIOUS: Physical destruction or extensive harm leading to ••• significant loss of historic value.

MODERATE: Significant damage or harm leading to noticeable loss •• of historic value. MINOR: Slight damage or harm likely to be ameliorated by mitigation • measures N NEUTRAL P POTENTIAL FOR POSITIVE BENEFIT NOTES Table 2: Environmental Impact Rating

Character Historic Historic Archaeological Setting Area Landscape Buildings Sites Northern Vale •• • ••• ••• -Tudor -Fleet Marston - SAM Quarrendon -Quarrendon Enclosures Church - Akeman Street Meadows Roman Road P Enhancement - Fleet Marston Bring back into DMV beneficial /public P -Roman Settlement use Enhancement -Ridge and Furrow of Field Boundaries P Enhancement - Preserve Buried Archaeology - Improved public access + conservation

Bierton

Fields •• N •• N -Well -Anglo Saxon Site Preserved -Prehistoric/Roman Parliamentary cropmarks Enclosure -Ridge and Furrow

Broughton Farmland •• • •• •• -Parliamentary -Broughton -Broughton and Vatches -Listed Enclosure Hamlet Farm ?SAMs Buildings

P P -Broughton Barn at -Broughton SAM as Risk Green infrastructure

11 Aylesbury Environs Study: Natural and Historic Environment Assessment April 2005

Character Historic Historic Archaeological Setting Area Landscape Buildings Sites Stoke

Mandeville/ • N •• N Weston -Parliamentary -Ridge and Furrow Enclosure -Roman Sites Turville Bishopstone Farmland: •• • •• • -Parliamentary -Sedrup Hamlet -Ridge and Furrow -Hartwell Park and old -Anglo Saxon enclosures Cemetery

Thame

Valley •• N • ••• -Ancient -Ridge and Furrow -Setting of Enclosures Hartwell and Eythrope Parks Hartwell Park ••• ••• •• ••• -Hartwell -Hartwell House - Garden Archaeology -Conservation Park - DMV (Deserted Area Medieval Village) Hartwell Park

Winchendon Hills ••• •• ••• ••• -Eythrope Park -Eythrope House - Ridge and Furrow Eythrope Park - Eythrope ‘DMV’ and House P Park enhancement Weedon

Farmland •• N • • - Well -Ridge and Furrow -Quarrendon preserved Parliamentary Enclosure Table 3:Character Area Sensitivity and Impact Ratings

12 Aylesbury Environs Study: Natural and Historic Environment Assessment April 2005

3.4. Northern Vale:

This area lying to the north of Aylesbury would be highly sensitivity to change. Any development would have a large-scale impact upon the historic environment of the area. The historic landscape is characterised by large irregular fields that were probably established by enclosure of open fields by the Lee family for cattle and sheep production in the late 15th to early 16th century. The character area has a wide expanse of meadows on the outskirts of Aylesbury, which are some of the best examples in Buckinghamshire. These rare, ancient field patterns are in a fair condition but in some places there has been a degree of boundary loss due to agricultural intensification; the landscape would benefit from enhancement and restoration of former field boundaries. The character area also contains a nationally important archaeological site at Quarrendon; this comprises several earthworks including deserted medieval settlements, a ruined church and the site of a Tudor moated mansion and gardens. The northern end of the character area also has some well-preserved remains of ridge and furrow that could be lost under development. The richness of the heritage is further underlined by the extent of hidden archaeology in this area; important, known sites are particularly focussed around the former Roman road of Akeman Street, (the present A41). At Fleet Marston there is a substantial archaeological site of a Roman ‘town’; field evaluation would be essential to establish the extent of this site and the nature of a possible villa and temple associated with the Roman settlement, (Kidd 2003). To the north of the Roman settlement is the deserted medieval village of Fleet Marston. The only tangible remains of this settlement is the Grade II* redundant parish church of St Mary’s, dating to 12th –13th century. This landscape has only a moderate capacity to absorb new development as it displays high historic value with considerable diversity and high potential for conservation management for public amenity benefit. A large part of this character area is designated for development in the Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan 2004 as the “Berryfields MDA”. Considerable care will be required in the design and implementation of this and any future development to minimise negative impacts and maximise positive opportunities.

Fig.3: HLC of the Northern Vale

13 Aylesbury Environs Study: Natural and Historic Environment Assessment April 2005

Fig. 4: Large Irregular fields of the Northern Vale

Fig.5: Quarrendon Archaeological Earthworks

14 Aylesbury Environs Study: Natural and Historic Environment Assessment April 2005

3.5. Weedon Farmland:

This character area centres around the fields to the south of Weedon Village and would be moderately sensitive to change. The landscape is composed primarily of Parliamentary enclosure fields dating to the 1802 when the parish was enclosed. There are a number of modern additions to field boundaries to create smaller paddocks but the enclosure layout has remained largely unchanged since the 19th century. There are no known constraints for historic buildings. In terms of archaeological constraints the area contains some ridge and furrow of local importance. Ideally this complete parish of almost unchanged parliamentary enclosure would be retained intact but if development is necessary there is moderate potential for absorbing new development in which case it would be desirable to reflect the large scale sub- divisions of the surveyed parliamentary enclosures.

Fig.6: HLC Map of Weedon Farmland

Fig.7: Well maintained field boundaries of the Weedon Farmland.

15 Aylesbury Environs Study: Natural and Historic Environment Assessment April 2005

3.6. Bierton Fields:

This area located to the north of Bierton village defined by the parish boundary, is of moderate sensitivity to changes to the historic environment. The landscape is characterised by well- preserved parliamentary enclosure, most of the field boundaries remain unchanged since the 19th century and probably little has changed since enclosure in 1780. The majority of enclosure boundaries endure because the fields are predominantly grassland for livestock farming; this land-use has also enabled the preservation of some fragments of ridge and furrow, which is of local significance. There are no implications for historic buildings in this area although any development would have a bearing upon the setting of the Bierton village. In terms of the archaeological presence, there is evidence forsignificant Prehistoric, Roman and Saxon occupation. Further field evaluation would be necessary to assess the archaeological potential of the area. The historic landscape has moderate capacity to absorb new development within the large-scale surveyed structure of the parliamentary fields. The old enclosures forming the immediate setting of Bierton village should be protected.

Fig.8 & 9: HLC interpretation of Bierton Farmland and a photographic sample of the parliamentary enclosures in the area.

16 Aylesbury Environs Study: Natural and Historic Environment Assessment April 2005

3.7. Broughton Farmland:

This area encompasses a large area of rural land to the east and southeast of Aylesbury and has been assessed as having a high degree of sensitivity. The historic landscape character of this area is composed predominantly of parliamentary enclosed fields laid out in the beginning of the 19th century, with some incidences of earlier irregular enclosures and modern fields. The area is not greatly constrained by the built environment, although the medieval moat and aisled barn at Broughton would benefit from positive management and the canal presents opportunities for recreation. The character area does contain two scheduled ancient monuments: the moated sites at Broughton and Vatches Farm, Aston Clinton. Development would damage these sites and their settings unless carefully designed including provision to bring them into positive management. There is significant potential for buried archaeology in this area, especially in proximity to the former Roman road of Akeman Street, now the current A41 which runs diagonally through the southern end of the area and in association with the medieval settlements. Further field evaluation would be required if development was to be considered in this area. From an historic environment perspective, there is moderate potential for absorbing new development provided the most sensitive sites are protected and enhanced and the large-scale sub-divisions of the surveyed parliamentary enclosure landscape are reflected.

Fig.10: HLC interpretation of Broughton Farmland

17 Aylesbury Environs Study: Natural and Historic Environment Assessment April 2005

Figs. 11 & 12: Broughton Farmland View to the north towards the Chiltern hills.

18 Aylesbury Environs Study: Natural and Historic Environment Assessment April 2005

3.8. Stoke Mandeville - Weston Turville:

This landscape comprises an area of farmland south of Aylesbury and to the north and the villages of Stoke Mandeville and Weston Turville. The character area has minor degree of sensitivity. The historic landscape is a mixed composition of parliamentary enclosure fields created in 1800 ancient and modern fields, with a golf course to the north of Weston Turville. There are no scheduled ancient monuments in this area but past survey has indicated the possibility of archaeological sites including ridge and furrow and a Romano British site all of which would be vulnerable to development. The incomplete and somewhat fragmented nature of the parliamentary enclosure suggests that this area has a high capacity to absorb new development, although the old enclosure to the west of Stoke Mandeville could be protected to retain the identity of the historic core and its setting.

Fig.13: HLC Interpretation of Stoke Mandeville & Weston Turville Landscape

Fig.14: Sample of enclosures in Weston Turville looking south towards the Chiltern Hills.

19 Aylesbury Environs Study: Natural and Historic Environment Assessment April 2005

3.9. Bishopstone Farmland:

This landscape character area is located to the south west of Aylesbury is of moderate sensitivity. The historic landscape character is composed predominately of large rectangular fields with hawthorn hedges from parliamentary enclosure act of Harwell and Stone dating to 1777. There are also a number of smaller closes around the hamlet of Sedrup centred on the farms that have grade II listed status. These fields were probably enclosed at an earlier time. Development could affect the setting and subtle distinctiveness of this settlement. The character area is part of an area of Buckinghamshire that has its own distinctive building style, many listed properties have witchert as a building material; this is a limestone/clay based rendering, producing walling material of high quality. Although there are no scheduled ancient monuments in this area, there are a number of archaeological earthworks including shrunken medieval village at Sedrup and fragmented areas of ridge and furrow that could be regarded as being of local importance. There are also a number of buried archaeological sites that merit consideration in any prospective development plans; these include two Anglo-Saxon cemeteries, flanking the north and south of Bishopstone village and a potential Iron Age site on the perimeter of Aylesbury. Field evaluation would be required to assess the archaeological potential. From an historic environment perspective, there is moderate potential for absorbing new development provided the most sensitive sites are protected and enhanced and the large-scale sub-divisions of the surveyed parliamentary enclosure landscape are reflected.

Fig.15 HLC map of the Bishopstone Farmland

20 Aylesbury Environs Study: Natural and Historic Environment Assessment April 2005

Fig.16: Sample of enclosures in the Bishopstone Farmland Character Area.

21 Aylesbury Environs Study: Natural and Historic Environment Assessment April 2005

3.10. Hartwell Park:

This area is dominated by the Park and Garden of Hartwell House; the landscape and setting of this character area would be highly sensitive to change. Hartwell is largely an 18th park with pleasure grounds laid out around an early 17th century country house with remnants of an early 18th century formal layout, subsequently naturalised in the 19th century. Hartwell is acknowledged as one of Buckinghamshire’s finest estates. This is reflected in the designation by English Heritage as a Registered Park and Garden with Grade II* status. In terms of the built environment, Hartwell House is a Grade I listed building with work dating from the 17th century with various additions from subsequent periods. The gardens and park also contain a number of significant edifices with listed status, these vary from statutes to neo-classical temples. The landscape is also made up of a 20th century golf course that impinges upon the former extent of the historic park. The concentration of listed buildings and the significance of the surrounding park has afforded Hartwell conservation area status. Any major development of the grounds would be detrimental to this nationally important park and should be avoided. Enhancement opportunities exist for the park to restore parts of the northern avenue. The impact of development on surrounding land on the park’s setting would need very careful assessment.

Fig. 17 & 18: HLC map and photograph of Hartwell Park