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

Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire

An archaeological desk-based assessment

by Tim Dawson

Site Code MBW11/107

(SU 4580 4830)

Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire

An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

for Bewley Homes and Banner Homes

by Tim Dawson

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd

Site Code MBW 11/107

January 2012 Summary

Site name: Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire

Grid reference: SU 4580 4830

Site activity: Desk-based assessment

Project manager: Steve Ford

Site supervisor: Tim Dawson

Site code: MBW 11/107

Area of site: 3.12ha

Summary of results: The site lies within an area with a wide range of sites and finds of prehistoric, Roman and later date and is recognised as an area of high archaeological potential. The site contains one certain known heritage asset (an earthwork that is probably a Bronze Age round barrow) and it is considered that this monument and its immediate environs merit preservation in situ. It is also considered that other possible heritage assets are present on the site but which are likely to be of less significance than the round barrow. It is suggested that the area containing the probable round barrow is preserved in situ by a sympathetic design of the proposed development layout to accommodate this need. It is also suggested that information about any further heritage assets on the site should be determined by field observation (evaluation) in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits, if necessary, and that such a scheme is 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 All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.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 24.01.12 Steve Preston9 31.01.12

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 at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

by Tim Dawson

Report 11/107b Introduction

This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of a parcel of land located at Manor Farm,

Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Andrew Morris of

Bewley Homes, Inhurst House, Brimpton Road, Baughurst, Hampshire, RG26 5JJ, on behalf of Bewley Homes and Banner Homes, and comprises the first stage of a process to determine the presence/absence, extent, character, quality and date of any archaeological remains which may be affected by redevelopment of the area.

Site description, location and geology

The site currently consists of an irregular parcel of open, uncultivated land on the south-western fringes of the small town of Whitchurch. The land is c.3.12ha in area and rises up from the west to its highest point in the south-eastern corner. The site is bordered to the north by Bloswood Lane, to the east by a disused railway embankment and to the south and west by open fields and housing developments. A site visit was made on 20th

January 2012 (Pls 1–4). The development area is centred on NGR SU 4580 4830 and is located on river and valley gravel (BGS 1975). It is at a height of approximately 74m above Ordnance Datum.

Planning background and development proposals

Planning permission is to be sought for the development of a series of up to 100 dwellings arranged around squares or courtyards.

The Department for Communities and Local Government’s Planning Policy Statement, Planning for the

Historic Environment (PPS5 2010) sets out policies relating to archaeology, and other 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. Policy HE6.1 states that

‘Local planning authorities should require an applicant to provide a description of the significance of the heritage assets affected and the contribution of their setting to that significance. The level of detail should be proportionate to the importance of the heritage asset and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on the significance of the heritage asset. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage

1

assets themselves should have been assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary given the application’s impact. Where an application site includes, or is considered to have the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where desk-based research is insufficient to properly assess the interest, a field evaluation.’ [on which, see below].

PPS5 makes the significance of any ‘heritage asset’ a material consideration in the planning process, regardless of whether that asset is ‘designated’ or not, and places on local planning authorities the responsibility to weigh the benefits of a proposed development against any loss of significance in a heritage asset. Designated assets include World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Protected Wreck Sites, Registered

Battlefields, Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and Registered Parks and Gardens.

Policy HE9.1:

There should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets and the more significant the designated heritage asset, the greater the presumption in favour of its conservation should be. Once lost, heritage assets cannot be replaced and their loss has a cultural, environmental, economic and social impact. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Loss affecting any designated heritage asset 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, including scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings and grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.’

Policy HE9.6

‘HE9.6 There are many heritage assets with archaeological interest that are not currently designated as scheduled monuments, but which are demonstrably of equivalent significance. These include heritage assets: ‘• that have yet to be formally assessed for designation ‘• that have been assessed as being designatable, but which the Secretary of State has decided not to designate; or ‘• that are incapable of being designated by virtue of being outside the scope of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. ‘The absence of designation for such heritage assets does not indicate lower significance and they should be considered subject to the policies in HE9.1 to HE9.4 and HE10.’

Proposals for development which would have an adverse impact on assets not so designated must be weighed against the significance of the asset.

Policy HE10 states:

‘When considering applications for development that affect the setting of a heritage asset, local planning authorities should treat favourably applications that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset. When considering applications that do not do this, local planning authorities should weigh any such harm against the wider benefits of the application. The greater the negative impact on the significance of the heritage asset, the greater the benefits that will be needed to justify approval.’ The accompanying Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide (DCLG et al. 2010) clarifies what is meant by field evaluation: paragraph 62 states:

2

‘Where a desk-based assessment does not provide sufficient evidence for confident prediction of the impact of the proposal, it may be necessary to establish the extent, nature and importance of the asset’s significance through on-site evaluation. This may be achieved through a number of techniques, some of which may potentially be harmful to the asset and will need careful consideration. These include ground-penetrating radar, trial-trenching, test-pitting, field-walking, x-ray and other forms of remote-sensing, geo-archaeological borehole investigation, opening-up and building analysis and recording…Evaluation is normally a rapid operation. It is designed to inform the decision-making process.’ Early consultation between the applicant and the local planning authority is stressed as important in the process in paragraphs 63–6.

Paragraph 130: ‘Where development will lead to loss of a material part of the significance of a heritage asset, policy HE12.3 requires local planning authorities to ensure that developers take advantage of the opportunity to advance our understanding of the past before the asset or the relevant part is irretrievably lost. As this is the only opportunity to do this it is important that: ‘1. Any investigation, including recording and sampling, is carried out to professional standards and to an appropriate level of detail proportionate to the asset’s likely significance, by an organisation or individual with appropriate expertise. ‘2. The resultant records, artefacts and samples are analysed and where necessary conserved. ‘3. The understanding gained is made publicly available. ‘4. An archive is created, and deposited for future research.’

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.

The Basingstoke and Deane Borough Adopted Local Plan (B&DBC 2006) included Policy E4 which detailed provisions made for the preservation of ancient monuments and archaeological sites, either in situ or through recording, and Policy E5 which dealt with Historic Parks and Gardens. Policies E4 and

E5 were expired in July 2009 as they were found to repeat national guidance on these matters. National guidance will therefore be followed in this case.

The Whitchurch Archaeological Assessment Document (Roberts 2002a) designates the area of earthworks on the western side of the former railway towards Manor Farm, i.e. the proposal site, as an area of High

Archaeological Importance. This is defined as an area which may:

‘contain well preserved archaeological deposits which may not be of national importance, but which are of importance to the understanding of the origins and development of the town.’ And therefore:

3

‘Those remains are likely to merit preservation in situ. Where preservation is not justified appropriate archaeological recording will be required.’

Methodology

The assessment of the site was carried out by the examination of pre-existing information from a number of sources recommended by the Institute for Archaeologists paper ‘Standards in British Archaeology’ covering desk-based studies. These sources include historic and modern maps, the Hampshire Archaeology and Historic

Buildings Record, geological maps and any relevant publications or reports.

Archaeological background

General background

The archaeological potential of the area has been presented in An extensive urban survey of Hampshire’s and the

Isle of Wight’s Historic Towns (Roberts 2002a). This records the presence of a prehistoric trackway, The

Harroway, running east-west c.2km north of the town and a bowl barrow to the south of the town. Until recently, one sherd of pottery and one coin were the only evidence of the Roman period in Whitchurch parish.

Little is known about Saxon or medieval Whitchurch (Roberts 2002a) although several inhumation burials were discovered during the construction of the railway station 100m west of the church, in the area of the Manor

Farm site, in the 19th century. Although no evidence for their date exists, it is thought that they may have been

Anglo-Saxon. However evaluation of a parcel of land immediately to the south of the proposal area (Wallis

2007) found nothing of archaeological interest.

A walkover earthwork survey and trial trenching as a part of this development proposal has revealed a number of features of certain and possible interest. A near-circular mound was considered to be possible round barrow and was subject to trial trenching and geophysical survey (Crabb 2012; Sabin and Donaldson 2011). The mound is now considered to be a probable round barrow, also with Roman occupation in the same vicinity.

Other linear earthworks on the site, form no particular pattern (to us), but are likely to be field or paddock boundaries of medieval and/or later date.

4

Hampshire Archaeology and Historic Buildings Record

A search was made on the Hampshire Archaeology and Historic Buildings Record (AHBR) on 7th December

2011 for a radius of 1km around the proposal site. This revealed 37 entries within the search radius. These are summarized as Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 1.

Prehistoric Six AHBR entries exist for sites that date to the general prehistoric period, all of which pertain to cropmarks and earthworks. A number of earthworks have been recorded for the proposal site, one of which is a near-circular mound recorded in the north-eastern corner [Fig. 1: 1]. This mound has been evaluated and is now considered to be a round barrow (Crabb 2012; Sabin and Donaldson 2011). Of the remaining five entries two detail sets of earthworks identified on aerial photographs and three relate to cropmark evidence also seen from the air. The earthworks comprise a circular single bank enclosure [2] and a fragment of a rectilinear enclosure [4], both c.500m north-west of the site. Two sets of cropmarks are visible in the same area; the first of these is two small pits [3] while the second is a series of ditches which form a rectilinear field system [5]. Another rectilinear enclosure, thought to be the remains of a prehistoric or Roman defended settlement enclosure, is visible as cropmarks c.400m north of the site [6].

Iron Age Further sets of cropmarks and earthworks, also identified on aerial photographs, have been interpreted more specifically as dating to the Iron Age. Several of these were excavated in 1998 prior to development. A group of pits were recorded as cropmarks and later excavated c.400m north of the proposal site [7] while slightly further north the remains of a settlement and accompanying field system identified from cropmark evidence were excavated to reveal an Iron Age and Roman settlement complex [8, 10]. A set of parallel ditches were identified on aerial photographs running north–south c.600m north of the site [9] and a large double-ditched oval enclosure with an inner square enclosure has been located c.500m to the north-west on a hill overlooking the site [11].

Roman Several of the Roman sites recorded in the AHBR are continuations of Iron Age occupation at the sites listed above. Excavations on Iron Age ditches also revealed six Roman graves [7] while excavations in the same area which uncovered Iron Age settlement evidence also identified pits, building material and terracing which dated to the Roman period [8, 10]. The evaluation trench on the mound revealed a ditch with its upper layers infilled with a large volume of early and late Roman material, perhaps from a midden [1].

Saxon There are no records dating to the Saxon period within the search area.

5

Medieval The AHBR search returned one site which dated to the medieval period. Manor Farm House, c.25m north of the proposal site [12], is a Grade II listed building with its origins in a 15th-/16th-century medieval hall house. Only three trusses of the original house remain today as much of the house was rebuilt in the 18th century to create a four square plan form. A manor house and dovecot are recorded as occupying the site in the 15th century. The

12th-century church is just beyond the search radius examined here. A few sherds of medieval pottery were recovered by evaluation from the subsoil levels overlying the probable round barrow [1]. Linear earthworks nearby are possibly of medieval date.

Post-medieval An archaeological evaluation on the plot of land adjacent to the proposal site to the south (Wallis 2007) [13] uncovered no features of archaeological interest except three probably post-medieval postholes. The AHBR records a series of cropmarks and earthworks as being visible on aerial photographs, which have been identified as several post-medieval chalk pits [14, 15, 17] and a dewpond [16]. The remaining AHBR entries for this period are a Grade II listed timber-built barn at Manor Farm [18], a cob-built outbuilding and boundary wall which separate the proposal site from Manor Farm itself [19] and form part of the site boundary, the site of Whitchurch

Lodge in Hurstbourne Park [20] and the Grade II listed statue of a Roman ‘Emperor’ and crouching child on its pedestal - the only surviving remains of the landscaped Hurstbourne Park [21].

Victorian There is a single AHBR entry for the Victorian period within the search area. This records the railway station

[22] that once stood on the Didcot, Newbury and Southampton Railway which was later taken over by the Great

Western Railway. The building is described by the AHBR as ‘High Victorian, decorative red brick building with

Cottage Ornée overtones’.

Modern The cropmarks of a pit [23] thought to be modern, have been identified from aerial photographs of the area c.800m north-west of the proposal site.

Undated Four undated sites have been recorded from aerial photographs and are listed in the AHBR. These include a complex of linear features [24] in the former Hurstbourne Park, a possible ring ditch and linear features [26], six small mounds [27] and a small pit [28], all visible to the north-west of the proposal site. Linear earthworks revealed by a walkover earthwork survey on the proposal site are undated though thought to be of medieval or post-medieval date [1].

6

There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments in the area.

Cartographic and documentary sources

Whitchurch first appears in the historical record in AD 909 when King Edward of Wessex confirmed the lands of Hwitancyrice to the monks of Winchester (VCH 1911). The placename derives from the Old English hwīt + cirice, and literally means ‘white church’ (Cameron 1996, Mills 1998) though it is unclear whether this refers to a church built of white stone, i.e. chalk, a whitewashed building or the general difference in colour between a stone building and the more common wooden ones (Cameron 1996, VCH 1911).

Whitchurch appears in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles (Swanton 2002, 132, VCH 1911) when, in AD 1001 a

Danish raiding army swept through Hampshire on their way west. Among those who were killed were Leofric of

Whitchurch, Wulfhere, the bishop’s thegn, and Godwine of Worthy, the son of Bishop Ælfsige of Winchester.

The Chronicles record that 81 men were killed in all and there were many more Danish killed although “they had possession of the place of slaughter”, i.e. had won the battle.

By the time of the Domesday survey in 1086 the estate of Whitchurch, now called Witcerce, was held by the bishop for the sustenance of the monks of Winchester and had been so for a long period of time (Williams and Martin 2002, 98). Domesday Book records that the pre-conquest estate was assessed at 50 hides of land, which had decreased to 38 by 1066 and 33 by 1086. The population is recorded as 42 villans, 50 bordars and 10 slaves with a further 3 bordars on one hide of land at the church which was held by Ælfric the priest. The estate included land for 33 ploughs, 3 mills which rendered a total of 40s, 15 acres of meadow and woodland for 40 pigs. Whitchurch’s pre-conquest value was assessed at £30 but by Domesday it had risen to £35. It is not known why the assessment decreased from 50 hides pre-conquest to 33 by 1086 or why the estate’s value rose from £30 to £35 over the same period.

Domesday Book lists a further three manors in Whitchurch: there is a little confusion about whether the lands noted for these estates were also included in the main entry. The first of the satellite estates is Freefolk, held by Ralph fitzSeifrid, which was also for the sustenance of the monks. Pre-conquest it was assessed at 9 hides but, by the time of Domesday this had reduced to 4 hides with land for 5 ploughs. Freefolk is recorded as having a population of 24: 2 villans, 17 bordars and 5 slaves, a mill which rendered 20s and 4 acres of meadow.

The manor had its value assessed at £16 pre-conquest and £10 at the time of Domesday. The second manor is

7

recorded as 7 hides in Whitnal and in 2 other places that were held by William de Fecamp and two thegns of the bishop. It is recorded as having land for 7 ploughs and a population of 8 villans, 11 bordars and 18 slaves. As with Freefolk, there is a mill which rendered 20s as well as 4 acres of meadow and its assessed value dropped from £10 pre-conquest for £7 by Domesday. A third portion of the land at Whitchurch is recorded as being held by Mauger, although in comparison to the previous two manors his allotment seems very small with a size of just

“1 hide of the villans’ land”. This is reflected in the population which numbers 2 villans and 1 bordar with one plough and its value of just 20s.

In 1132 the bishop of Winchester gave the church to the Hospital of St Cross, Winchester and in 1284 one of his successors handed the manor over to the Prior and monks of St Swithun (VCH 1911). The town became increasingly prosperous, due in part to its location at the junction of the roads to Winchester, Salisbury and

Oxford. A weekly market was granted in 1241 and continued as a regular event until 1823. Several of the roads in and around Whitchurch appear to have been in existence for several hundred years with Bloswood Lane, on which the proposal site lies, being first mentioned in 1650 (VCH 1911).

Whitchurch continued to grow as the town became a centre of cloth-making with the decline of Winchester in the 16th century and underwent a major population explosion in the 17th century (Roberts 2002a).

The Saxon church from which the town takes its name was likely to have been located on the site occupied by the current structure, c.500m south of the proposal site. The building was almost completely rebuilt in 1866 although despite this, the nave still contains bays dating to between 1190 and 1200 and the north aisle and the oak stair turret inside the tower are of 15th century origin. The oldest part of the church, however, was found during the renovations incorporated into the nave wall. This consisted of a mid-9th century arched tombstone bearing a figure of Christ and an inscription in Latin recording that the stone marks the burial place of Frithburga

(VCH 1911). The stone is presumably local and suggests that a Saxon cemetery was located close-by.

The 19th century saw the first major expansion beyond the medieval core of the town. This was particularly shaped by the constructions of the two railway lines, the London & South West Railway to the north of the town and the Didcot, Newbury & Southampton Railway to the west between the town and the proposal site. This stimulated some expansion in these areas which saw the construction of terraces of cottages (Roberts 2002a). At this time the town had three mills, thought to stand on the sites of their medieval counterparts, two flour and one silk, and a jam manufactory, noted as being a major employer (VCH 1911).

8

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

Office 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 1579 map of Hampshire (Fig. 2) which shows a small town or village on the west bank of the river Test, to the north of an area of wood- and parkland, Hurstbourne

Park. Much the same is shown on Norden’s map of Hampshire (Fig. 3), which was surveyed c.1600, except for the emergence of settlements such as Frifalke (Freefolk) to the north-east of Whitchurch and Charlecote on the opposite side of the river.

The first map to show the site itself in any detail is the Whitchurch enclosure map of 1798 (Fig. 4). This map shows the site much as it is today except for a boundary dividing the area in two. Manor Farm, Bloswood

Lane and the boundary which runs along the site’s southern edge appear unchanged.

The Ordnance Survey preliminary map of 1810 (Fig. 5) gives an overall view of Whitchurch and the surrounding area though not in any great detail. Manor Farm is possibly shown though not named and in the wrong place and the site itself does not appear in any detail on this map but Whitchurch is shown spreading out towards the area with buildings lining what is now Bell Street. The only major buildings depicted on the western edge of the town are the church to the south and Hurstbourne Park to the southwest, which includes the location of a statue, presumably the one still extant there). Cary’s 1825 map of Hampshire shows a level of detail between that of Saxton and the preliminary Ordnance Survey and as such does not show either Whitchurch or the area of the proposal site with any great accuracy.

Forty-three years after the enclosure map the 1841 Whitchurch tithe map shows enough detail to see that the proposal site has not changed at all (Fig. 6). The central field division is still present and Manor Farm and

Bloswood Lane are both unchanged. Even at this date, there appears to be very little development immediately to the east of the site on the western outskirts of the town.

The First Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1870 (Fig. 7) shows the site as containing scattered trees and two footpaths, both of which, along with the field boundary, appear as they do today. The presence of trees in this area when compared with the lack of trees depicted within the surrounding fields suggests that the site may have been an orchard or gardens, probably associated with Manor Farm. This is the first map to show in detail the eastern extents of Manor Farm with the cob-built outbuilding and boundary wall which are recorded in the

AHBR making their first appearance. The only other major development is the continued slow spread of

Whitchurch although this is still limited to the east side of Wells Lane.

9

It is in the years intervening between the First Edition Ordnance Survey of 1870 and the Third of 1910 that the only major disturbance in the site’s history occurs. The 1910 map (Fig. 8) shows the G.W.R. (Great Western

Railway), previously the Didcot, Newbury and Southampton Railway, atop an embankment which runs north- south across the eastern end of the field to form the eastern boundary of the modern field and proposal site.

Aside from this, the only other changes are the further development of Whitchurch to the east of the railway and the appearance of some small structures to the north of Manor Farm on the opposite side of Bloswood Lane. The site itself is unaltered.

The 1973 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 9) shows the site in almost the same form as it was in 1910 with the only difference being the re-routing of the western footpath. The railway to the east has been dismantled but the embankment still exists and Whitchurch has grown further to the west, crossing Wells Lane and the railway to the north and south of the site. This new development includes houses, a bowling green, a haulage depot and an engineering works on the northern side of Bloswood Lane.

By the time of the 2011 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 10), the western footpath has disappeared, although it was noted as still present on the ground during the site visit, and the central field boundary has been removed and replaced with one further to the east. Changes outside the site include the construction of housing on land adjacent to the south and the replacement of the industrial buildings to the north with further housing.

Listed buildings

While there are no listed buildings on the site itself the Grade II listed Manor Farm House [Fig. 1: 12] and an accompanying timber granary [18] are located c.50m north of the site. While the farmhouse grounds do overlook the proposal site on one side, it is almost surrounded by what appear to be large industrial or farm-related sheds to the north-west, housing development on the opposite side of Bloswood Lane to the north-east and a smaller housing development adjacent to the farm to the south-east. Whilst not a major consideration, the development proposal would need to be sympathetic to the setting of the historic building.

Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields

Hurstbourne Park, c.400m to the southwest of the proposal site, is a Grade II Registered Park. This consists of a late 18th century park and pleasure grounds around a late 19th century house. The park incorporates a wooded deer park of 14th century origin and surviving features from early 18th century landscape designs by Thomas

10

Archer. These earlier features include the statue of the Roman ‘emperor’, detailed above, and a series of paths laid out in the shape of the, then newly formed, Union Flag. The deer park is located closest to the proposal site.

Historic Hedgerows

As study of the historical maps has shown, the site has remained virtually unchanged in layout since the

Whitchurch enclosure map of 1798 (Fig. 4). This would suggest that any hedgerows present today, of which there is one, may have historic origins. The remaining hedgerow runs along the northern boundary of the proposal site, marking the border between the field and Bloswood Lane. However, it is composed primarily of young-looking managed trees with a post and barbed wire fence running down the centre. This implies that, while the boundary line may be historic, the hedgerow itself has been planted relatively recently.

Aerial Photographs

The site and surrounding area has been the subject of an extensive study which has examined aerial photographs of the location and identified any cropmarks and earthworks that were present. These have since been added to the Hampshire AHBR (Fig. 11) and those within 1km of the site are discussed above and listed in Appendix 1.

Discussion

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 survey of the archaeological and historical sources indicates that the site lies within an area of archaeological potential. This is further corroborated by its inclusion as an Area of High Archaeological

Importance as designated by the Whitchurch Archaeological Assessment Document (Roberts 2002a). The site is located to the west of the historic centre of Whitchurch in an area of earthworks that may be the remains of medieval or earlier settlement or fringe industry.

The cartographic sources indicate that the site has remained largely unchanged from, at the earliest, 1798, with only the location of an internal site boundary having moved. The area immediately outside the site boundaries has been developed to the north, east and south with the construction of the railway embankment and, more recently, housing.

11

The site contains one certain known heritage asset and several possible ones. A walkover survey recorded several linear earthworks and a near-circular mound. A trial trench was dug across the mound and the area subjected to geophysical survey, in an attempt to determine its nature. This work concluded that the mound is very likely to be a round barrow surrounded by a ditch, which was in-filled during the Roman period, presumably from Roman occupation in the immediate vicinity.

It is considered that there are two components of archaeological constraint on the site which need to be addressed as a part of the planning process. Firstly, it is considered that the probable round barrow, as an upstanding monumental earthwork, should be preserved in-situ by sympathetic design of the development layout. Secondly, it is considered that any further heritage assets on the site are of less significance and are thus unlikely to merit preservation in-situ as a requirement of the planning process. If such deposits are present they could be preserved by record (ie excavated in advance of groundworks). In line with the Whitchurch

Archaeological Strategy Document (Roberts 2002b), it will be necessary to provide further information about the potential of the site (excluding the zone around the round barrow) 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 and any follow-up work will need to be drawn up and approved by the archaeological advisers to the Borough and carried out by a competent archaeological contractor. This scheme would be implemented as an appropriately worded condition to any consent gained.

References

BADBC, 2006, Basingstoke and Deane Borough Adopted Local Plan 1996-2011, Basingstoke BGS, 1975, British Geological Survey, Sheet 283, Solid and Drift Edition, 1:50000 Cameron, K, 1996, English Place Names, Batsford, London Crabb, S, 2012, ‘Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire: an Archaeological Evaluation’, Thames Valley Archaeological Services report 11/107b, Reading Roberts, E, 2002a, ‘Archaeological Assessment Document: Whitchurch’ in An extensive urban survey of Hampshire’s and the Isle of Wight’s Historic Towns, Hampshire County Council and English Heritage Roberts, E, 2002b, ‘Archaeological Strategy Document: Whitchurch’ in An extensive urban survey of Hampshire’s and the Isle of Wight’s Historic Towns, Hampshire County Council and English Heritage Mills, A D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford University Press, Oxford PPS5, 2010, Planning for the Historic Environment, The Stationery Office, Norwich Sabin, D and Donaldson, K, 2012, ‘Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire: Magnetometer Survey Report, Archaeological Surveys report 391, Chippenham Swanton, M, 2002, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, Phoenix Press, London VCH, 1911, Victoria History of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight: Volume 4, London Wallis, S, 2007, ‘Park View, Wells Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire: an Archaeological Evaluation’, Thames Valley Archaeological Services report 06/139, Reading Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London

12

APPENDIX 1: Archaeology and Historic Building Records within a 1km search radius of the development site

No AHBR Ref Grid Ref (SU) Type Period Comment 1 57686 45892 48167 Monument Prehistoric Possible prehistoric earthworks identified. 2 59828 45316 48715 Monument Prehistoric A small circular single bank enclosure with a fragment of outer bank along its north edge is visible on aerial photographs. 3 59829 45208 48446 Monument Prehistoric Two small pits visible as cropmarks on aerial photographs. 4 59831 45475 48574 Monument Prehistoric A fragment of a single ditch rectilinear enclosure visible on aerial photographs. 5 59832 45445 48533 Monument Prehistoric Fragmentary remains of a rectilinear field system visible as cropmark ditches on aerial photographs. 6 58924 45783 48736 Monument Prehistoric, A rectilinear enclosure visible as a cropmark on aerial Roman photographs. Its size and shape suggest that it is likely to be a defended settlement enclosure. 7 39648 45800 48510 Monument Iron Age Several Iron Age ditches were recorded as cropmarks 59833 45767 48494 and uncovered during an excavation. 39651 45820 48510 Roman Six Romano-British graves uncovered during an excavation. 8 59834 45736 48611 Monument Iron Age Two single ditch rectilinear enclosures and the 59835 45790 48580 fragmentary remains of a field system visible as 59836 45740 48741 cropmarks. 39630 45770 48600 Iron Age, Roman During excavation several features were found including building material, ditches, pits, stakeholes and terracing, all evidence of settlement. 9 60026 45813 48809 Monument Iron Age Parallel ditches visible on aerial photographs. 10 37905 45713 48671 Monument Iron Age, Roman An Iron Age and Romano-British settlement and 42811 45724 48732 associated pits are visible as a complex of cropmarks 58923 45749 48642 on aerial photographs. Excavated to reveal settlement evidence within an enclosure, including two infant burials. 17621 45740 48700 Findspot Roman to Modern A concentration of brick and tile fragments. 11 37952 45348 48545 Monument Iron Age, Roman A large, double-ditched oval enclosure with an inner square enclosure is visible on aerial photographs. 12 3474 45793 48289 Listed building Medieval, post- 15th-/16th-century Grade II listed Manor Farmhouse medieval and dovecot with 18th century additions 13 57903 45850 47950 Monument Post-medieval Archaeological evaluation comprising 26 trenches 57718 found nothing of archaeological value except 3 probable post-medieval postholes. 14 58918 45842 47922 Monument Post-medieval A disused quarry or chalk pit visible as an earthwork. 15 58921 45021 48936 Monument Post-medieval A disused quarry or chalk pit visible as an earthwork. 16 58922 45309 48452 Monument Post-medieval A sub-circular pit or hollow cropmark, likely to be a dewpond. 17 60023 45599 48437 Monument Post-medieval Seven pits visible as cropmarks on aerial photographs, probably extractive features. 18 3475 45752 48279 Listed building Post-medieval Grade II listed timber-built granary at Manor Farm. 19 15022 45850 48210 Historic building Post-medieval, Cob-built garden store/outbuilding and boundary wall modern at Manor Farm. 20 56746 45670 47723 Monument 18th century Site of Whitchurch Lodge in Hurstbourne Park. 56751 45669 47728 21 3291 45003 47857 Listed building 18th century Pedestal with statue of Roman ‘Emperor’ and crouching child, the sole surviving feature of a landscaped park. Grade II listed. 22 57839 45934 47970 Historic building 19th century High Victorian decorative red brick railway station building. 23 59830 45281 48803 Monument Modern Cropmarks of pit. 24 37958 45260 47930 Monument Undated A complex of linear features seen on the air photographs. 25 52675 45300 48500 Monument Undated Possible ring ditch and linear features identified as cropmarks on aerial photographs. 26 60024 45205 48863 Monument Undated Six small sub-circular mounds visible on aerial photographs. 27 60025 45422 48694 Monument Undated A small circular pit visible on aerial photographs.

13

APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1579 Saxton’s Map of Hampshire (Fig. 2) c.1600 Norden’s Map of Hampshire (Fig. 3) 1798 Whitchurch enclosure map (Fig. 4) 1810 Ordnance Survey preliminary 1” drawing (Fig. 5) 1825 Cary’s A New Map of Hampshire 1841 Whitchurch tithe map (Fig. 6) 1870 Ordnance Survey First Edition (Fig. 7) 1910 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 8) 1973 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 9) 2011 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 10)

14 SITE Basingstoke Farnborough Andover

Winchester SOUTHAMPTON

New Forest 49000 Ringwood Gosport 15 PORTSMOUTH 26 23 9

2 27 6 10 4 8 11 5 25 7 3 16 17

18 12 19 1

48000 13 22 24 14 21 SITE

20

47000

SP45000 46000 MBW 11/107 Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire, 2012 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 1. Location of site within Whitchurch and Hampshire, showing HER records. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Explorer 144 at 1:12500 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 Approximate location of site

MBW 11/107 N Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire, 2012 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 2. Saxton's Map of Hampshire, 1579. Approximate location of site

MBW 11/107 N Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire, 2012 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 3. Norden's Map of Hampshire, c.1600. SITE

MBW 11/107 N Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire, 2012 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 4. Whitchurch enclosure map, 1798. Approximate location of site

MBW 11/107 N Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire, 2012 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 5. Ordnance Survey 1" preliminary, 1810. SITE

MBW 11/107 N Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire, 2012 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 6. Whitchurch tithe map, 1841. SITE

MBW 11/107 N Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire, 2012 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 7. First Edition Ordnance Survey, 1870. SITE

MBW 11/107 N Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire, 2012 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 8. Ordnance Survey, 1910. SITE

MBW 11/107 N Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire, 2012 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 9. Ordnance Survey, 1973. SITE

MBW 11/107 N Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire, 2012 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 10. Ordnance Survey, 2011. SITE

MBW 11/107 N Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire, 2012 Archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 11. Hampshire AHBR map showing features plotted from aerial photographs (pink). Plate 1. General view of the eastern end of the site, looking Plate 2. View of the south-eastern corner of the site, east. looking south towards the railway station.

Plate 3. The western end of the site, looking west. Plate 4. The mound, looking northwest, with evaluation trench in the foreground.

MBW 11/107

Land at Manor Farm, Bloswood Lane, Whitchurch, Hampshire, 2012 Archaeological desk-based assessment Plates 1 to 4. 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