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

Land adjacent to The Rozzers, Arlington Farm, Bibury, Gloucestershire

Desk-based Heritage Assessment

by Steve Preston

Site Code RBG12/200

(SP 1073 0667)

Land adjacent to The Rozzers, Arlington Farm, Bibury, Gloucestershire

Desk-based Heritage Assessment

for Cirencester Housing Association

by Steve Preston

Thames Valley Archaeological

Services Ltd

Site Code RBG12/200

January 2013 Summary

Site name: Land adjacent to The Rozzers, Arlington Farm, Bibury, Gloucestershire

Grid reference: SP 1073 0667

Site activity: Desk-based heritage assessment

Project manager: Steve Ford

Site supervisor: Steve Preston

Site code: RB12/200

Area of site: c. 0.35 ha

Summary of results: The site does not contain any known heritage assets. However, it is in an area of considerable archaeological potential, close to a Scheduled Iron Age hillfort and with a number of other significant sites not far away, including a possible henge. Moreover its location is one that would have been attractive to settlement of all periods. The absence of archaeological finds from within the site only reflects an absence of investigation. The site has never been developed in any way since mapping began. It will be necessary to provide more information on the archaeological potential of the site from field investigation, to provide sufficient information to permit a scheme to be devised to mitigate any archaeological impact of the proposal.

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 All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.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 09.01.13

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

Land adjacent to The Rozzers, Arlington Farm, Bibury, Gloucestershire Desk-based Heritage Assessment

by Steve Preston

Report 12/200 Introduction

This report is an assessment of the archaeological potential of approximately 0.35ha of land located adjacent to

The Rozzers, Arlington Farm, Bibury, Gloucestershire (SP 1073 0667) (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Colin Woodhouse, of Hills Property Management, Ailesbury Court, High Street, Marlborough, Wiltshire

SN8 1AA, on behalf of Cirencester Housing Association, 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 Cotswold District Council for the erection of eleven two-storey houses, with associated access and landscaping on the site. In accordance with the National Planning Policy

Framework (NPPF 2012) this assessment will accompany the application in order to inform the planning process with regard to the potential heritage implications of the proposal. Only outline proposals are available at time of writing (Fig. 2).

Site description, location and geology

The development area is centred on NGR SP 1073 0667 and covers approximately 0.35 ha. The site currently consists of a single field of rough pasture, with several mature trees and small areas of blackthorn scrub (Pls 1 and 2). The site is located on Signet Member (part of the Great Oolite white limestone formation, consisting of rubbly limestone with mudstone beds (BGS 1998). It is at a height of approximately 128m above Ordnance

Datum, mainly level, although the area generally slopes gently up towards the north-west and there is a slight hollow towards the south-east of the site. The site is towards the top of the steep slope of the valley of the river

Coln which flows in two channels to the north and east of the site. The site is bounded to the east by residential properties forming the western limit of Arlington village, to the south by the B4425 (Burford to Cirencester), and open agricultural land on the other sides. There is a disused quarry not far to the north. Arlington itself nestles in the steep Coln valley, on the southern fringes of the Cotswolds, between Cirencester (to the south-west) and

Burford (to the north-east) .

1

Planning background and development proposals

Planning permission is to be sought for the development of the site to provide eleven two-storey houses, with access and landscaping.

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.’

2

Specific guidance on assessing significance and the impact of the proposal is contained in paragraphs 131 to 135:

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

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

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

3

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

(NPPF 2012, 56) as:

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

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

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.

Cotswold District Council’s Local Plan 2001–11 (CDCLP 2006) also contains policies relating to the historic environment. Existing Local Plan policies have been saved until the Emerging Local Plan comes into effect.

Policy 11:

‘1. Within the historic landscape, development will be permitted provided it avoids harming the character, appearance or setting of historic landscape features, including Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest. ‘2. Schemes to enhance, restore and improve the management of historic landscape features will be sought in connection with, and commensurate with the scale of, any development affecting them.’ ‘POLICY 12: SITES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTEREST ‘1. Development will not be permitted where it would involve significant alteration, or cause damage to, nationally important archaeological remains (whether scheduled or not), or which would have a significant impact on the setting of visible remains. ‘2. Development that affects other remains of archaeological interest will only be permitted where the importance of the development is sufficient to outweigh the local value of the remains. ‘3. In archaeologically sensitive areas, applicants may be required to commission an archaeological assessment (and/or a field evaluation as appropriate) to establish the archaeological implications of the proposed development before the Council determines the application. The result of that assessment/ evaluation shall be submitted with the application, together with an indication of how the impact of the proposal on the archaeological remains will be mitigated. ‘4. Where proposed development would harm significant archaeological remains, applicants should seek to minimise this impact by design solutions allowing the preservation in situ of the archaeological remains. The recording of archaeological remains harmed by development will be secured by planning conditions or legal agreements, and will comprise archaeological excavation or other programmes of investigation as appropriate, followed by the preparation and publication of a report. ‘5. Opportunities will be sought for the management and presentation of archaeological sites for educational recreational and tourism purposes.’

Policies on other aspects of the historic environment such as Listed Buildings are not relevant to the current proposal.

4

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 Gloucestershire Historic Environment

Record, geological maps and any relevant publications or reports.

Archaeological background

General background

The site is in a broad area of generally high archaeological interest, which has seen extensive investigation over many years. In very broad terms, to the south-west is the Roman town of Cirencester (Corinium Dobunnorum), capital of the civitas (originally, loosely, ‘tribe’, later meaning an administrative division of the Roman

Province) of the Dobunni. The area lies between two Roman roads out of Cirencester. The Foss Way heads north and north-east, ultimately for Lincoln, while Akeman Street leads more easterly from Cirencester towards

Alchester and eventually Verulamium (St Albans) and passes south of the area, crossing the Coln not far downstream from Bibury. Roman Cirencester has been extensively excavated, although recent work has tended to be on a small scale (McWhirr 1976; 1981; 1988; Wacher 1995, 304–22; Holbrook 1998; Holbrook and Juřica

2006). It seems likely that the building stone for the town, and gravel for its streets, came at least in part, from the immediate hinterland, and many of the quarry pits in the area may date back to Roman times (Wacher 1995,

305; 308). The area around the Roman town attracted a concentration of prosperous villa estates and was a centre for a distinctive style of mosaic floor manufacture, amongst other industries. A villa is known just on the far side of Bibury. The town was serviced by aqueducts and long-distance wooden water pipes, and beyond the walls, cemeteries would have extended along the major roads, so that the town walls were by no means a limit on its area of influence in the surrounding countryside. Nearby Coln St Aldwyns may have had a Roman ‘small town’ or market. In the later Roman period, Cirencester may have been the capital of Britannia Prima, although this is by no means certain (Holbrook 2007, 157). Although the Roman town has dominated archaeological research in the area, with the countryside having received less attention, prehistoric remains and earthworks also abound in the wider area.

For later periods, Cirencester again dominates its hinterland as an important Saxon burh, and prosperous medieval town, with a 12th-century Augustinian priory that was one of the greatest of that Order’s houses (Platt

5

1976, 140), and a castle (which was sacked in 1142 and whose location is now unclear). Again, the countryside that fed the centre has been little explored, but the prosperity of the town, founded almost wholly on the wool trade, indicates a close relationship with the land around.

Closer to the site area, there has been relatively little archaeological research in and around Bibury, probably as a result of the obvious historic character of the area, which has meant little recent development and hence few opportunities to investigate. This contributes to an apparent absence of archaeological remains which may not reflect the true potential of the area.

Gloucestershire Historic Environment Record

A search was made on the Gloucestershire Historic Environment Record (HER) on 5th December 2012 for a radius of 1km around the proposal site. This revealed 35 entries within the search radius. These are summarized as Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 1. A large number of these entries are for cropmarks visible on aerial photographs, which have been comprehensively plotted and interpreted as part of English

Heritage’s National Mapping Programme (NMP) (Janik et al. 2011). By the nature of the evidence, these are mainly undated, although dates can be suggested based on form.

Neolithic, Bronze Age A single entry certainly relates to the Neolithic period, and a second possibly. A ground stone axe found at a site in Barnsley is believed to have come from topsoil imported from the Bibury Trout Farm [Fig. 1: 1], which is on an eyot in the Coln, well east of the proposal area. In this location, it might have been in situ on dry land but it is probable that it could have been deposited in the river anywhere upstream, so even its purported provenance must be treated with caution. To the north of the proposal site, aerial photographs of 1967 and 1993 showed a cropmark of a huge circular ditch (9m wide and 60m in diameter), which the NMP interpreted as probably a

Neolithic henge [2]. The HER’s alternative suggestion of a Bronze Age barrow less likely, given the size: few barrows reach 50m diameter and a 9m wide ditch is also unusual, though not impossible.

Iron Age, generic prehistoric The Iron Age evidence in the area is particularly significant. To the north of the proposal site is Ablington Camp

(or Rawbarrow Camp) [3], a set of earthworks interpreted as a univallate hill fort, which partially uses the natural slope as its defences and partly consists of a roughly semi-circular bank (apparently no ditch). Some earthworks remain visible above ground (the bank was described as 9 feet high in 1881 and possibly stone-faced;

Witts 1883, 1–2), but others are more or less fully ploughed out and now known only from cropmarks. One source suggests that it appears to be at least in part, actually multi-vallate but the NMP plot suggests that the

6

simple univallate interpretation is correct. A ‘considerable’ number of flint flakes are recorded as coming from the interior, hinting at earlier use of the site. It is a Scheduled Ancient Monument. An uninscribed Iron Age coin was found ‘at Bibury’ in 1907 [4]. The location plotted for this is deliberately non-specific. Finally unspecified flints were found during a watching brief on a pipeline to the north of the area [5].

Roman, Saxon There are no HER entries for sites of these periods within the 1km search radius, except that some unspecified and unstratified Roman pottery was recovered from a pipeline route [5].

Medieval Arlington Row, by the riverside within Arlington village, is a row of cottages converted in the late 17th century from an earlier (14th-century) cruck-built barn [6]. They are Grade I listed. North of Ablington Camp, across the river and close to the manor house, cropmarks and earthworks suggest a deserted medieval village [7], which might include a moated site: the NMP plot suggests several phases may be involved and the impression of a

‘village’ could be misleading and it is perhaps a precursor to the manor, with later water meadows or fields.

Earthworks visible from aerial photographs show a large area of lynchets (cultivation terraces), probably medieval, well to the south of Arlington (and of the proposal site) [8]. Aerial photographs again provide the evidence for extensive areas of ridge and furrow which can be either medieval or post-medieval [9, 10]. Neither is on or especially close to the proposal site.

Post-medieval There are several entries for post-medieval listed buildings or landscape features in and around Arlington.

Ablington manor, well to the north of the proposal site and across the river [10], dates from 1590, with many later additions. It is Grade I listed and its gardens are also included in the HER, although substantially remodelled in the 20th century. The 17th- and 18th-century buildings in the village of Arlington include mills

(one now a museum), the ‘pound’, cottages and a pigsty [12, 14, 16, 20]. There is also a generic reference for documentary mention of the fine buildings. Of most immediate relevance to the proposal site, the turnpike road of 1753 linking Cirencester to Burford (and beyond) closely follows the current B4454 which forms the site’s southern boundary [13, 21]. Two toll houses are known to have existed along the line of this road in the vicinity, one in the village [13a] and one not far to the west of the site [13b]. The Ordnance Survey mapping also shows milestones along this road, not included in the HER (‘MS’ on Fig. 1). Cropmarks visible on aerial photographs show extensive evidence for water meadows, almost certainly post-medieval, all along the Coln valley, including several examples with the search radius here [16–19]. The pipeline watching brief towards the north of the

7

search radius failed to identify features associated with previously known sites long the route but did record some previously unknown post-medieval features and recovered finds from the period.

Undated As noted above, much of the information in the HER for this area derives from aerial photographs, and is necessarily undated. Some of this is discussed above under its likely period of derivation. Less easy to assign even a speculative date are numerous entries for isolated, dubious, or enigmatic cropmarks [22–29]. none of these is especially close to the proposal site, but possibly of most relevance are the suggested quarry pits to the north [25]. Cotswold limestone has been an important resource for building, both humble and grand, since the medieval period. The geology mapped as underlying the proposal site, however, suggests very low grade stone not suitable for building.

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

Ablington Camp to the north of the proposal site is a Scheduled Monument, a 3.2ha univallate Iron Age hillfort on a spur that locally dominates the valley, and around which the Coln makes a sharp diversion. The monument is not visible from the proposal site, and setting of the faint earthworks which survive would not be adversely affected by development on the site.

Cartographic and documentary sources

‘Arlington’ is one of several identical modern place names all with different derivations (Mills 1998). This example is first recorded as Aelfredincgtune in AD 1004 and comes from the Old English (Anglo-Saxon) elements Ǽlfred (a man’s name) -ing (simply a connective, ‘associated with’) and -tun, settlement or estate, so means simply ‘Alfred’s estate’. ‘Ablington’ to the north is the same formation but based on the name Ēadbeald.

‘Bibury’ is also Old English and its derivation is less straightforward than it appears. it first appears in the 8th century as Beaganbyrig and has become Begeberie by AD 1086, gradually being corrupted/elided to its modern form. It combines a woman’s name, Bēage and byrig which is the dative of burh (fort). In this instance the burh referred to must be the Iron Age hillfort rather than a contemporary Saxon fort, and the unexpected association with Beage is confirmed as she is named in the early to mid 8th-century document which is a lease on the estate

(Mills 1994, 36).

8

Bibury church appears to have Saxon origins (Reece 2006, 161) but little other history is recorded for the parish (no VCH volume has yet appeared for the area). William Morris declared the village the prettiest in

England.

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

Office and online in order to ascertain what activity had been taking place throughout the site’s later history and whether this may have affected any possible archaeological deposits within the proposal area (see Appendix 2).

The earliest map available of the area is Saxton’s county map dated 1577 (Fig. 3). Bibury (Byburye) is shown east of the Coln but with no sign of an extension to the west bank but there is no detail for the area and this absence need not be significant. The first detailed map is the tithe map of 1840 (Fig. 4), which shows the village layout already substantially as it is today. The site occupies a small portion of land parcel 140. Apart from a small enclosure alongside the road, the area is wholly open field. Two small cottages (possibly one building) form the westernmost limits of the village, which clings to the north side of the road, leaving the south side undeveloped.

The First Edition Ordnance Survey of 1884 shows almost no change in the area (Fig. 5). The small enclosure along the roadside is possibly slightly larger, but this may simply be more accurate mapping. The last building in the village is now marked as ‘Police Station’, and there is a small quarry on the south side of the road but otherwise the area is unchanged. The site itself does not change on the map of 1903 (Fig. 6). The quarry is now marked as ‘old’ and that land plot has become allotments, and the police station is no longer named as such, but there is no substantial change. The map of 1921 is essentially identical (Fig. 7). No mapping was available between the revisions of 1921 and 1975. The 1975 map, however, does show some change to the area generally, although none to the site itself (Fig. 8). The old police station is now marked as ‘Laurel Cottage’ and a new

‘Police Office’ has been built next to it. The south side of the road has now been developed somewhat. The site remains open land. There is no significant change by 1994 (Fig. 9).

Listed buildings

There are no listed buildings on the site or in a position to be affected by its development.

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 hedgerows, historic or otherwise, on the site. or There are no hedgerows on the site that would qualify as ‘important’ as defined by Schedule 1 of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997.

Aerial Photographs

The site areas lies within an area for which the aerial photographic evidence has been comprehensively mapped as part of English Heritage’s National Mapping Programme (Janik et al. 2011). and the results incorporated into the HER. 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. The road which passes along the south edge of the site follows the old turnpike road, but the modern road is not in itself a heritage asset. 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.

In general terms, the area can be considered to be archaeologically rich, overlooking one of the major tributaries of the Thames, which would have been a favoured location for settlement in all periods. There is an

Iron Age hillfort close by, and two Roman roads and a villa not very far distant, and what may be a medieval moated site or even deserted village to the north. The relative scarcity of more minor archaeological remains or finds spots nearby probably reflects a lack of investigation more than a genuine absence. For example, the

National Monuments Programme recently identified (among hundreds of other discoveries) three possible new henge monuments in the Cotswolds study area, doubling the number of such sites in the area. One of these lies not far to the north of the proposal site. Henges, often quite major features in the prehistoric landscape, tended to

10

attract other ritual monuments to their vicinity. The air-photographic evidence does not suggest that has happened in this case, but not all such monuments need necessarily be visible as cropmarks.

The cartographic review shows that the site has remained open land since detailed mapping began.

The absence of finds from within the site itself reflects its long use as pasture, and if any archaeological deposits were present they would be expected to have survived reasonably intact. The proposed development would undoubtedly involve subsurface disturbance of previously undeveloped land and thus potentially carry a threat of destruction of features of archaeological interest if present. It will be necessary to provide further information about the potential of the site from field observations in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits if necessary. A scheme for this evaluation will need to be drawn up and approved by the archaeological advisers to the District Council and implemented by a competent archaeological contractor.

References

BGS, 1998, British Geological Survey, 1:50,000 Sheet 235, Solid and Drift Edition, Keyworth CBC, 2006, Cotswold District Council Local Plan 2001–2011 (adopted 2006), Cirencester Holbrook, N, 1998, Cirencester Excavations 5: the Roman town defences, public buildings and shops, Cirencester Holbrook, N (ed), 2007, ‘Roman’ in (ed) C J Webster, The Archaeology of South West England: South West Archaeological Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda, Taunton, 145–60 Janik, J, Dickson, A and Priest, R, 2006, An Archaeological Aerial Survey in the Cotswold Hills: A Report for the National Mapping Programme, Swindon McWhirr, A D (ed), 1976, The Archaeology and History of Cirencester, Cirencester McWhirr, A, 1981, Roman Gloucestershire, Gloucester McWhirr, A D, 1988, ‘Cirencester (Corinium Dobunnorum)’, in (ed) G Webster, Fortress into City: the consolidation of Roman Britain, London, 74–90 Mills, A D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford NPPF, 2012, National Planning Policy Framework, Dept Communities and Local Government, London Platt, C, 1976, The English Medieval Town, London Reece, R, 2006, ‘East is east and west is Gloucestershire’, in N Holbrook and J Juřica (eds), Twenty-five Years of Archaeology in Gloucestershire, Cirencester, 161–5 Wacher, J S, 1995, The Towns of Roman Britain (2nd edn), London Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London Witts, G, 1883, Archaeological Handbook of the County of Gloucester, Cheltenham

11

APPENDIX 1: Historic Environment Records within a 1000m search radius of the development site

No HER Ref Grid Ref (SP) Type Period Comment 1 22323 114 069 Findspot Neolithic Ground stone axe from topsoil on a site in Barnsley; the soil had been imported from Bibury Trout Farm. 2 22405 1060 0690 Cropmark Prehistoric Ring ditch cropmark on aerial photographs could be a large Photographic Bronze Age barrow or Neolithic henge (60m diameter, 9m wide ditch places this at the larger end even for a henge, a barrow is unlikely). 3 84 1050 0735 Earthwork Prehistoric Ablington or Rawbarrow Camp, very faint earthwork remains of Iron Age Iron Age univallate hillfort of around 3.6ha. Scheduled monument 251. Flints have also been recovered 4 2512 11 06 Findspot Iron Age Uninscribed silver coin of the Dobunni, found at Bibury in 1907; NGR marginal. 5 20570 1135 0705 Watching brief Prehistoric Pipeline crossed a number of known sites. Finds of worked flint Roman and pottery of various dates were recovered (from these and other Post-medieval unknown sites) but few features. In particular a cropmark of an enclosure (HER 3294) was not present as a subsurface feature, although there was a pit there. Other features observed were all post-medieval. 6 2511 1155 0664 Listed Building Medieval 14th-century wool barn, converter late 17th century to row of cottages (Arlington Row). Grade I. 7 16247 1055 0759 Earthworks Medieval Possible deserted medieval village seen in aerial photographs Photographic over around 2.2ha, possibly including moated site 8 37780 1117 0541 Earthworks Medieval Large area of lynchets, also many other features- boundaries, Photographic quarries, etc. 9 37775 11204 06514 Earthworks Medieval Large area of ridge and furrow Cropmarks Post-medieval Photographic 10 37777 10324 06351 Earthworks Medieval Large area of ridge and furrow Cropmarks Post-medieval Photographic 11 2515 1037 0759 Listed Building Post-medieval Ablington Manor, 1590 with many additions; Grade I. Ablington 414539 10357 07545 Landscape Manor gardens, 16th-century, extensively remodelled. - 6415 11 06 Listed Building Post-medieval Generic entry for 18th century (possibly 17th) cottages on village square, NGR illustrative only; not plotted on Fig. 1 12 11149 1140 0680 Listed Building Post-medieval Late 17th-century water mill, now museum. 13 15460 0520 0325 Documentary Post-medieval 18th-century turnpike road (1753), modern B4425. 13a - 1140 0670 Documentary Post-medieval 18th-century (1753) Toll house 13b - 1050 0650 Documentary Post-medieval 18th-century (1774) Toll house 14 17094 1157 0674 Building Post-medieval Former Pound, now public conveniences. 15 22406 116 066 Park Post-medieval Bibury manor ornamental landscape 16 30152 11139 06764 Listed Building Post-medieval 17th-century house with 1803 bakery attached. 18th-century pigsty 17 37725 1087 0725 Cropmark Post-medieval Water meadows Photographic 18 37737 1119 0698 Cropmark Post-medieval Water meadows Photographic 19 37779 1029 0580 Earthworks Post-medieval Water meadow Photographic 20 41385 11373 06861 Listed building Post-medieval Late 17th-century wool and corn mills and cottages 41386 21 41788 05145 03179 Documentary Post-medieval Turnpike road 22 2521 10 07 Documentary Undated Long low earthen mound and ditch reportedly observed in 1880s but not now visible. NGR illustrative only/ 23 4210 1142 0659 Photographic Undated Three parallel banks seen on aerial photographs possibly field Earthworks banks associated with orchard. NMP maps them as four and suggests cultivation terraces (lynchets). 24 37735 1107 0710 Cropmark Undated Linear ditch, likely to be of no great antiquity Photographic 25 37726 1168 0709 Cropmark Undated Likely quarry pits. Photographic 26 37767 1177 0681 Earthworks Undated Likely field boundaries (medieval or later), possibly part of Photographic Bibury manor park. 27 37774 1118 0685 Earthworks Undated Several phases of intersecting bank earthworks. Photographic 28 37778 1079 0617 Cropmark Undated Possible linear boundary Photographic Listed Buildings Grade II unless stated.

12

APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1577 Saxton’s County Map (Fig. 3) 1840 Map of the hamlets of Arlington and Winson in the Parish of Bibury (tithe) (Fig. 4) 1884 Ordnance Survey First Edition (Fig. 5) 1903 Ordnance Survey Second Edition (Fig. 6) 1921 Ordnance Survey Revision (Fig. 7) 1975 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 8) 1994 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 9) 1996 Ordnance Survey Outdoor Leisure Sheet 45 (Fig. 1)

13 Stow-on- SITE the-wold CHELTENHAM

08000

GLOUCESTER

Cirencester Stroud

11 7

3

17

25 24 5

07000 2 22 18 SITE 1 27 20 16 12 26 14 13a 6

13 23 15 13b 9

10

21 28

06000 4

19

8 SP10000 11000 RBG12/200 Land adjacent to The Rozzers, Arlington Farm, Bibury, Gloucestershire, 2012 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 1. Location of site within Bibury and Gloucestershire, showing locations of HER entries. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Outdoor Leisure 45 at 1:12500 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 RBG12/200 Land adjacent to The Rozzers, Arlington Farm, Bibury, Gloucestershire, 2012 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 2. Outline development proposals (not to scale). Approximate location of SITE

RBG12/200 Land adjacent to The Rozzers, Arlington Farm, Bibury, Gloucestershire, 2012 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 3. Saxton's map of 1577. Approximate location of SITE

RBG12/200 Land adjacent to The Rozzers, Arlington Farm, Bibury, Gloucestershire, 2012 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 4. Tithe map of the Hamlets of Arlington and Winson in the Parish of Bibury, 1840. (East to top.) SITE

RBG12/200 Land adjacent to The Rozzers, Arlington Farm, Bibury, Gloucestershire, 2012 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 5. Ordnance Survey First Edition, 1884 SITE

RBG12/200 Land adjacent to The Rozzers, Arlington Farm, Bibury, Gloucestershire, 2012 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 6. Ordnance Survey 1903 SITE

RBG12/200 Land adjacent to The Rozzers, Arlington Farm, Bibury, Gloucestershire, 2012 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 7. Ordnance Survey 1921 SITE

RBG12/200 Land adjacent to The Rozzers, Arlington Farm, Bibury, Gloucestershire, 2012 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 8. Ordnance Survey 1975 SITE

RBG12/200 Land adjacent to The Rozzers, Arlington Farm, Bibury, Gloucestershire, 2012 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 9. Ordnance Survey 1994 Plate 1. General view of Site looking west from south-east corner.

Plate 2. General view of site looking south-east from northern boundary, towards 'The Rozzers'.

RBG12/200 Land adjacent to The Rozzers, Arlington Farm, Bibury, Gloucestershire, 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