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

Waterditch Farm, Lower Waterditch, Christchurch, Dorset

Desk-based Heritage Assessment

by Richard Tabor

Site Code WDD13/131

(SZ 1780 9510)

Prospective Solar Site, Waterditch Farm, Lower Waterditch, Christchurch, Dorset

Desk-based Heritage Assessment

for New Forest Energy Ltd

by Richard Tabor

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd

Site Code WDD13/131

July 2013 Summary

Site name: Waterditch Farm, Lower Waterditch, Christchurch, Dorset

Grid reference: SZ 178 951

Site activity: Desk-based heritage assessment

Project manager: Steve Ford

Site supervisor: Richard Tabor

Site code: WDD13/131

Area of site: c. 45 ha

Summary of results: The site lies within an area of moderate archaeological potential, which has not previously been subject to much previous archaeological investigation. The nature of the development proposal is likely to involve only slight disturbance to the relevant horizons and a watching brief should provide adequate mitigation of any adverse impact. If this is required, this could be secured by an appropriately worded condition attached to any planning consent granted.

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 All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.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 Preston 8.08.12 Steve Ford 08.08.13

i

TVAS (South West),Unit 21, Apple Business Centre, Taunton TA2 6BB Tel. (01823) 288 284; Fax (01823) 272 462; email [email protected]; website : www.tvas.co.uk

Prospective Solar Site, Waterditch Farm, Lower Waterditch, Christchurch, Dorset Desk-based Heritage Assessment

by Richard Tabor

Report 13/131 Introduction

This report is an assessment of the archaeological potential of a large parcel of land located west of Waterditch

Farm, Lower Waterditch, Christchurch, Dorset (NGR SZ 1780 9510) (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by

Mr Jeremy Hinton of New Forest Energy Ltd, Meyrick Estate Office, Hinton Admiral, Christchurch, Dorset,

BH23 7DU, 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 Christchurch Borough Council to develop the site as a Solar

Farm.

Site description, location and geology

Waterditch Farm is on the coastal plain between Christchurch and Bransgore, south-west of the New Forest. The proposal site is 800m west of the village of Burton and 1km north of the A35 ring-road around the north of

Christchurch, east Dorset. It comprises an area of c. 45ha divided into seven fields, bounded by Hill Lane bridle way (Pl. 1) to the south, Hawthorne Road to the west and extant field boundaries to the north and east (Fig. 1).

Trees conceal a broad ditch (Pl. 2) along the north side of Waterditch Lane which divides the two northern fields from those to the south. Waterditch Farm itself is set on a low rise at slightly over 10m above Ordnance Datum

(aOD). The proposal area is essentially flat at 9–10m aOD.

On the west of the proposal area fields 1, 2, 4 and 6 were under wheat (Pls 3 – 6) and to the east fields 3, 5, and 7 (Pls 7 – 9) were under maize at the time of the site visit. An area of set-aside in Field 7 included small plantations of saplings at its south end surrounded by scrub and bolted grass (Pls 9 and 10). A mound of earth covered in recently regenerated vegetation had been deposited c. 15m north of the access from Waterditch Lane.

Plantation strips of mature trees, c. 20m wide, form windbreaks between the fields on the west and east sides of the proposal site (Pls 3-9).

Quaternary river terrace deposits of the proto Solent river of sand and gravel overlie solid geology of

Boscombe Formation Palaeogene sedimentary sand deposits derived from a shoreline setting (BGS 1991). In general the soils are free-draining, slightly acid loams of low fertility (NSRI 2013).

1

Planning background and development proposals

Planning permission is to be sought from Christchurch Borough Council to develop the site as a Solar Farm.

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 140 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. There are no Scheduled Monuments in the vicinity.

The Christchurch Borough Council Consolidated Plan (CBC 2007) anticipates many of these points.

Christchurch Borough Council, 'saved' policy BE20 states:

‘There is a presumption in favour of the physical preservation of Scheduled Ancient Monuments and nationally important archaeological sites and their settings.... In order to protect scheduled monuments and nationally important sites from inappropriate development, planning permission will not be granted for development which would adversely affect monuments or sites, involve significant alteration to them or would have a significant impact on their setting.'

Where it is considered that a proposal might affect 'archaeological sites of local importance' Christchurch

Borough Council policy 4.56 states:

'Applicants will need to provide information at an early stage on the likely effect of the development on the site's archaeological significance. Where archaeological remains are known to exist or where there are indications that the remains are likely to prove significant, the planning authority will request that the developer arrange for an archaeological evaluation to be carried out before any planning decision is taken. When developments are permitted which affect a site of archaeological interests the Council will ensure through planning conditions, that an opportunity is provided for the site characteristics to be examined and recorded before and during development. The Council will seek the advice of the County Archaeological Officer on such matters.'

There are several listed buildings within 1km of the proposal area but none within it. Christchurch

Borough Council 'saved' policy BE15 states:

‘The setting of listed buildings shall not be adversely affected by development and wherever possible the preservation of the setting shall be achieved.’

4

With respect to conservation areas Christchurch Borough Council 'saved' policy BE5 states:

‘A proposal for a new development, or alteration to a building or demolition of a building that is outside but close to the boundaries of a conservation area will be permitted provided it preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the adjacent conservation area.'

Within a conservation area Christchurch Borough Council 'saved' policy BE5 states:

‘Historically significant boundaries or other features contributing to the established pattern of development in the area are retained.’

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 Dorset Record Office, Hampshire

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

Archaeological background

General background

The proposal site lies within an area of moderate archaeological interest for many periods with a density and range of sites typical of lowland Britain. The gravel terraces of the extinct River Solent, which occupy much of the coastal strip on which the site lies, have been sources of secondarily deposited Palaeolithic artefacts (Webster

2008, 30) recorded in important synthetic studies (Bridgland 2001; Hosfield 1999; Wymer 1999). Hengistbury

Head is particularly important as the location of rare primary Upper Palaeolithic and Early Mesolithic sites

(Barton 1992).

To the north-east, many earthwork sites, notably Bronze Age round barrows, survive in good condition on the New Forest heathland. The defences of St Catherine’s Hill, hilltop enclosure 3km west of the site were constructed in the 6th to 5th centuries BC and refurbished throughout the Iron Age (Cunliffe 2005, 384). Pottery from its Middle to Late Iron Age phases has lent its name to a ceramic zone defined by Cunliffe, covering much of Hampshire (Cunliffe 2005, 104). A promontory fort at Hengistbury Head, 4.5km to the south, rivalled Poole

Harbour as an important trading site during the Iron Age (Cunliffe 1987), and also boasts a concentration of

Bronze Age barrows. A relative lack of positive evidence from the immediate vicinity of the proposal site is likely to be the result of the lack of modern investigation: where work has been carried out in comparable locations, previously ‘blank’ areas often turn out to contain evidence for past settlement (Ford 2005; Moore et al.

2008).

5

Hampshire Archaeology and Historic Buildings Record and Dorset Historic Environment Record

Searches were made of the Dorset History Centre (DHC; 17th July 2013) and the Hampshire Archaeology and

Historic Buildings Record (AHBR; 18th July 2013) for a radius of 1km around the proposal site, which was expanded by 200m on the Hampshire side due to a cluster of records extending beyond the periphery of the initial study area. Only one of 15 entries within the search radius fell within 500m of the site. On the Dorset side of the border records comprised Post-medieval and Victorian listed buildings and features marked on early

Ordnance Survey maps whilst on the Hampshire side the record was dominated by interpretations of air photographic transcriptions revealing possible Prehistoric, Medieval and Post-medieval earthworks and cropmarks (Appendix 1; Figure 1). There are no entries within the site itself and none of those within the study radius are Scheduled Monuments.

Bronze Age The attribution of sites to the Bronze Age has been based on the interpretation of air photographs carried out for the National Monuments Record (NMR). A curvilinear enclosure [Fig. 1: 1] 1km east of the site lies at the centre of a cluster of barrows [2, 3] which extends beyond the mapped area (AHBR 28969). A sub-circular feature lies to the west of the group [5] and a second curvilinear enclosure (AHBR 59541) is just outside the mapped area.

Mounds recorded from the air immediately south of Neacroft may also be barrows [4].

Medieval, Post-medieval, Victorian, World War 2 The AHBR entries are entirely derived from air photographic interpretation and inevitably are dated only broadly. Pits south of Neacroft may have been for quarry prospection [6] and there are cropmarks of a field system to their east [7]. A cropmark of a small enclosure which appears to have subdivided a modern field is south of Burton Rough [8] and a quarry is situated at the east end of Hill Lane [9].

The HER lists a late 18th- to early 19th-century cottage 280m north of the site [10], west of Hawthorn

Farm, and several listed buildings and other entries are clustered either side of Salisbury Road, on the east side of the village of Burton. Those shown in Figure 1 include an 18th-century weatherboarded granary mounted on staddle stones [11] at Burton Green Farm, a Victorian timberyard [12] and gravel pit [13] marked at the south end of the village on the first and second edition Ordnance Survey maps respectively, and the Church of St Luke, built 1874–5 [14].

Two groups of bomb craters between Burton Rough [15] and Burton Common reflect the vulnerability of the south coast to aerial attack during World War 2.

6

Cartographic and documentary sources

Waterditch Farm's relationship with local administrative centres has changed significantly in the past 150 years.

In 1877, three years after the building of the Church of St Luke, the ecclesiastical Parish of Burton was formed following the subdivision of the civil parish of Christchurch. It included Winkton, South Bockhampton and

Waterditch (VCH 1912, 101–10, fn. 23). At that time it was part of Hampshire but since the revision of boundaries in 1974 it was been part of Dorset. Records from both counties have been consulted but some important documents have not been traced, most notably the enclosure map.

Rare and ambiguous early references to Waterditch and Burton feature as elusive records concerning

Christchurch. Neither are mentioned at the time of Domesday Book (1086) but both are cited as having been named during the 12th century in William Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum (VCH 1912, 83-101, fns. 37, 38), presumably in respect of holdings of the church. Citation is vague concerning the inclusion of a church at Burton amongst those administered from the Church of Holy Trinity, Twyneham (Thuinam or Tuinam; effectively the later Christchurch; VCH 1903, 152) which might be of an earlier date.

The placename 'Waterditch' seems self-explanatory. The OE dic means 'ditch' or 'dyke' (Gelling 1984, 206;

Mills 1998, 113) and 'water' names usually derive from the OE waeter (Gelling 1984, 30), although other suggestions in particular contexts include 'wether' or a personal name (Mills 1998, 367). The common name

'Burton' is usually from OE burh-tun, meaning 'farmstead near a fortification' or 'fortified farmstead' (Mills 1998,

64-6).

Twyneham was a church holding of five hides and one virgate prior to the Norman conquest which had 24 heads of household recorded in Domesday Book (Williams and Martin 2002, 105). It remained so in 1086 when

Burton and Waterditch would have fallen within one of four hundreds which by 1316 had become the single

Hundred of Christchurch (VCH 1912, 81-2). The two most likely contenders are the Hundreds of Shirley

(Schirlega), made up of Sopley, Ripley, Avon and Winkton and, more probably, Edgegate (Egheiete), which included Twyneham, Holdenhurst, Hurn, Knapp, Stanpit, Hubborn, Bashley and Bortel. By the reign of Edward

I (1272-1307) a subdivided 'Out Hundred' of Chichester included Burton (VCH 1912, 81-2, fn. 12) which was mentioned again as part of the Hundred in 1316 (VCH 1912, 81-2).

The subsequent history of the vicinity contains nothing of note.

7

A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at Dorset History Centre and online in order to ascertain characterise activity 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 of 1575. The nearest marked settlement is

Avon, on the east side of the similarly-named river but by 1595 Norden shows Burton (Fig. 2), albeit further to the west than might be expected. Burton alone continued to be shown on succeeding maps throughout the 17th century (Fig. 3) and up to 1751. Curiously it is omitted from the first map to mark Waterditch. In 1759 Taylor shows buildings which appear to stretch along the north side of Waterditch Lane from the area of the present farm to that of the modern settlement (Fig. 4).

Milne's map of 1791 marks both settlements (Fig. 5). Buildings are shown along the south of Waterditch

Lane, as well as the north, the area around the farm seemingly the principal focus. To the south-west of the farm the none of the network of west to east roads and tracks which exist today are shown, possibly indicative of a more open, pre-enclosure landscape.

Although several enclosure maps of Christchurch were consulted none showed the area of the proposal site, including the closest, that including the area of Nea Common. No trace was found of a Burton tithing enclosure map of 1806 mentioned in the Victoria County History (VCH 1912, 83-101). However, the Ordnance Survey, first series map of 1810 does show several of these routes, as well as some large bounded areas (Fig. 6).

The proposal site was readily identifiable on the ‘Christchurch with Holdenhurst’ Tithe map of 1841 (Fig.

7). It was divided between six landowners and six occupiers in 14 plots, all down to arable use. A group of five contiguous plots on either side of Waterditch Lane were named ‘Tithe Pits’ (1957, 1970, 1973-5), a further five were named by their acreages. ‘Home Ground’ (1985) adjoined the north boundaries of ‘House’ (1977) and

‘Homestead’ (1978) and ‘Crossway Ground’ (1969) clearly reflected its position at the junction of Preston Lane and Waterditch Lane with Hawthorn Road. A Brown's Charity' owned plots 1972 and 1974, the former named after its owner. No records were found concerning the charity.

The layout of the fields was unchanged on the First Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1870 with the exception of the removal of the boundary between plots 1958 and 1959 (Fig. 8), giving the full outline of the modern Field 3. No further changes occurred on maps of 1896-9, 1907-9 and 1923 and as late as 1931 the only alteration was the southward extension of the boundary between tithe plots 1975 and 1985 at the expense of plot

1976 (Fig. 9). The last map before the outbreak of World War II (1938-9) was unchanged and as recently as

1963-8 modification was restricted to the removal of the western half of the boundary between fields 2 and 4

8

(Fig. 10). That boundary was entirely unmarked and the tithe plots 1974, 1975 and 1985 had been amalgamated as Field 7 and plots 1972 and 1973 as Field 6 in the map of 1974-5 (Fig. 11). The two new fields were separated from each other by one of the first two linear windbreak copses, the other being that between plot 1970 and Field

4. The introduction of the copses probably reflected a change in government guidelines in response to problems of erosion and wind-damage to crops as very similar examples were mapped for the first time close to the proposal area.

The map of 1983-88 showed Field 5 newly created from tithe plots 1957 and 1970, whilst Field 6 had grown to include plot 1971 (Fig. 12). Against the trend towards amalgamation the whole of the boundary between fields 1 and 2 had been reinstated. Discrete linear spaces had been created along the west side of Field 3 as further windbreak plantations. No further changes were shown on the map of 2002 but at the time of the proposal site visit the boundary between fields 2 and 4 had been reinstated in its entirety as a hedge (Pl. 5; far horizon, right) but the extreme west of the boundary between fields 1 and 2 had been removed (Pl. 4; middle ground, extreme right).

Listed buildings

The closest listed buildings to the site is late 18th to early 19th century Tally Ho! Cottage, South Bockampton, c.

280m north of the proposal site. Intervisibility with the site would be obscured by buildings and hedgerows as is true of the listed buildings clustered around Salisbury Road, Burton. The nature of the proposed development is unlikely to have an adverse effect on the settings of these buildings.

Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields

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

Historic Hedgerows

The Hedgerows Regulations 1997, Schedule 1, Part II, defines an 'historic' hedgerow as one marking 'the boundary, or part of the boundary, of at least one historic parish or township' which existed before 1850 (among other criteria, not relevant here). The hedgerows outlining the north and south areas of the site all follow

9

boundaries which have existed since at least 1841, as have internal boundaries on the east sides of 1, 2, 4, 6 and

8, as well as that between fields 1 and 2. However, none appear to meet the criteria for an historic boundary.

Aerial Photographs

A selection of potentially informative vertical and oblique air photographs of the site and its surrounding area has been extracted from a list supplied by the National Monuments Record (NMR) (Appendix 3). The aerial photographic record of the area has recently been studied in depth (Trevarthen 2010) and results have already been incorporated into the relevant HER/AHBR records. as the NMR catalogue includes photographs taken as recently as 2010, possibly after the study noted above was completed, these photographs were viewed on 3rd

September 2013. Images taken in 2001 and more especially 2010 clearly show a concentration of cropmarks, not previously noted, in the field two fields to the east of Field 3, south of Waterditch Farm, along with others further afield at Hawthorne Farm, and marks of less significance within the site itself, in Field 7.

At Hawthorne Farm [16] is a very clear series of cropmarks suggesting at least two rectangular enclosures, on different alignments, with other linear marks likely to be ditches, approaching them from the north (Pls 11,

12). The more easterly of these is either subdivided or has two phases, and within it is set a slightly less clear circular mark, perhaps structural, and possibly doubled (concentric), along with other ‘maculae’ that could also be archaeological features.

In Field 7, west of Waterditch Farm [17] are marks indicative of parallel ditches, either an old field boundary or another rectangular enclosure (Pl. 13). These marks are so crisp as to suggest they may represent features of no great antiquity, and indeed the cartographic evidence shows that they belong to a field present on the Tithe map and early Ordnance Survey maps, but by gone by 1931. Further marks in this field are certainly geological but some more discrete marks may potentially be of archaeological origin.

Immediately north of Burton Rough to the east [18] are more cropmarks suggesting a small sub-rectangular enclosure, perhaps subdivided, and possibly ditches associated with it, although the marks in this field are more difficult to disentangle from marks more likely to be geological: there may be even more or archaeological interest here than is initially obvious (Pl. 14).

Aside from these the only possible cropmark within the site is a very faint mark, aligned NNW–SSE through Field 3, possibly a ditch and possibly doubled towards the north end. This only appears in one year

(1982) and is considered dubious as of archaeological origin.

10

Discussion

There are no known heritage assets on the site or in a position to be affected by its development, but it is necessary to assess the potential for the presence of previously unknown heritage assets in the form of below- ground archaeological remains.

In considering the archaeological potential of the study area, various factors must be taken into account, including previously recorded archaeological sites, previous land-use and disturbance and future land-use including the proposed development.

The site is within 5km of areas of international importance for Palaeolithic and Iron Age archaeology and within 1km of a Bronze Age archaeological landscape of at least regional importance. The low level of recorded archaeological remains in this particular locality probably reflects a lack of systematic investigation.

Fieldwalking in comparable settings within the Hampshire Basin, 5km to the east, have revealed patterns of exploitation in the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods which can probably be extrapolated, albeit in the most general terms, to low rises such as that occupied by the house and buildings at Waterditch Farm (Ford 2005).

The extent of the site is large enough to increase the likelihood of archaeological remains of any period being present. The recent appearance of cropmarks in the vicinity of the site, certainly or probably created by features of archaeological interest, in areas where none had previously been noted, illustrates how archaeological knowledge builds up gradually over time. Some cropmarks in Field 7 may potentially be of archaeological origin.

The discussion above relates to post-glacial archaeology, in effect those finds and deposits present on the surface of or cut into the gravel. The relevant horizon is probably located just beneath the modern ploughsoil.

However, consideration has to be given to the possibility of Palaeolithic finds and deposits which may be present both on the surface of, within, and possibly even beneath the gravel. The potential specific to the site for

Palaeolithic archaeology is unclear, as is the nature of the methodology required to confirm or refute any such potential. There are no known Palaeolithic findspots from the immediate environs of the site recorded in the county AHBR. However, the site does lie on the lower terraces of the extinct River Solent and it is considered that Palaeolithic finds are (relatively) common from these (Bridgland 2001, 19).

Map regression shows that the units of land within the site and their use has been consistent since at least the middle of the 19th century. Prolonged arable farming may have encroached on archaeological deposits, although the laying down of alluvium during periods of flooding may have afforded some protection in such a low-lying, generally flat area.

11

The precise details of the subsurface impact of the proposed development are not to hand at the time of writing but it is anticipated that these will be minimally invasive and be similar to those on nearby solar farms at

Beckley and New Milton. Invasive procedures are likely to be limited to the digging of a small number of cable trenches and, possibly, topsoil stripping for the preparation of an electricity substation and any contractor’s haul roads and compounds. Their potential for impact on Palaeolithic or post-glacial archaeology would be minimal but should there be any specific concern, it is recommended that a watching brief allowing for the excavation and recording of any deposits which might be present should provide adequate mitigation. This could be secured by an appropriately worded condition attached to any planning consent granted.

References Barton, R, 1992, Hengistbury Head, Dorset, volume 2: The late upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites, Oxford Univ Comm Archaeol mongr 34, Oxford BGS, 1991, British Geological Survey, Sheet 329, Solid and Drift Edition, 1:50 000, Keyworth Bridgland, D R, 2001, ‘The Pleistocene evolution and Palaeolithic occupation of the Solent River’, in (eds) F F Wenban-Smith and R T Hosfield, Palaeolithic Archaeology of the Solent River, Lithic Stud Soc Occas Pap 7, 15–26 CBC, 2007, Adopted Christchurch Borough Local plan, Consolidated Version, Christchurch Borough Council Cunliffe, B, 1987, Hengistbury Head, Dorset, volume 1: The Prehistoric and Roman Settlement, 3500 BC - AD 500, Oxford Univ Comm Archaeol Mongr 33, Oxford Cunliffe, B, 2005, Iron Age Communities in Britain, Abingdon Ford, S, 2005, Walkford and Beckley Farm, New Milton, Hampshire: an archaeological fieldwalking survey, Thames Valley Archaeological Services unpubl rep 03/66b, Reading Gelling, M, 1984, Place-names in the Landscape: The geographical roots of Britain's place-names, London. Hosfield, R, 1999, The Palaeolithic of the Hampshire Basin, BAR 286, Oxford Mills, A, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford. Moore, H, Pine, J and Taylor, A, 2008, ‘Prehistoric and Saxon features and Medieval land allotment at Lower Farm Pennington, Hampshire’, Proc Hampshire Fld Club Archaeol Soc (Hampshire Stud) 63, 88–100 NPPF, 2012, National Planning Policy Framework, Dept Communities and Local Government, London Trevarthen, E, 2010, Hampshire Aggregate Resource Assessment: Results of NMP mapping, English Heritage project No 5783, Truro VCH, 1903, Victoria History of the County of Hampshire, ii, London VCH, 1912, Victoria History of the County of Hampshire, v, London Webster, C, 2008, The Archaeology of South West England: South West Archaeological Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda, Somerset County Council Williams, A and Martin, G, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London Wymer, J, 1999, The Lower Palaeolithic occupation of Britain, Wessex Archaeology, Salisbury

12

APPENDIX 1: Hampshire Archaeology and Historic Buildings Record within a 1.2km search radius of the proposal site.

No SMR No Grid Ref (SZ) Type Period Comment 1 59540 19170 95148 Air photograph Bronze Age Curvilinear enclosure ditch. Interpretation by NMR. 2 28970 19150 95370 Documentary Bronze Age Barrow. No trace on visit in 1969. 3 59133 19126 94985 Air photograph Bronze Age Barrow ring ditch, part of. Interpretation by NMR. 4 59536 18722 96588 Air photograph Bronze Age Two subcircular mounds. Barrows? Interpretation by NMR 5 59542 18820 95022 Air photograph Bronze Age Subcircular enclosure ditch. Interpretation by NMR. 59541 19288 95048 Air photograph Bronze Age Curvilinear enclosure ditch. Interpretation by NMR. 28969 19280 95240 Documentary Bronze Age Bowl barrow with ditch truncated by a track on its west side. 6 59688 18581 96496 Air photograph Medieval/Post Possible quarry prospection pits. Interpretation by NMR. Medieval 7 59537 19107 96491 Air photograph Medieval/Post Cropmark field system. Interpretation by NMR. Medieval 8 59132 18831 94870 Air photograph Medieval/Post Enclosure. Interpretation by NMR. Medieval 9 59689 18966 95536 Air photograph Post Medieval Quarry. Interpretation by NMR. 15 59543 18959 95022 Air photograph World War 2 Four bomb craters. Interpretation by NMR. 16 - 179 961 Air photograph Undated Multiple enclosures with trackway and structure? (Pls 11, 12) 17 - 178 955 Air photograph Undated Field boundary (Pl. 13) 18 - 1835 9535 Air photograph Undated Enclosure with fields? (Pl. 14)

Dorset Historic Environment Record within a 1km search radius of the proposal site.

No SMR No Grid Ref (SZ) Type Period Comment 10 MDO15787 17517 95999 Listed Building Post-medieval Late18th to early 19th century cottage, 'Tally Ho!'. 11 MWX1185 16799 94800 Listed Building Post-medieval Granary, 18th century. Weatherboarded, mounted on staddle stones. 12 MWX4840 167 943 Cartographic Victorian Timberyard marked on First Edition Ordnance Survey map. 13 MWX4795 16790 94299 Cartographic Victorian Gravel pit marked on Second Edition Ordnance Survey map. 14 LB 101638 16674 94871 Listed Building Victorian Church of St. Luke, built 1874-5, in early English style by B. Ferrey.

Listed Buildings Grade II unless stated.

13

APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1575 Christopher Saxton’s County map of Hampshire 1595 John Norden’s map of Hampshire (Fig. 2) 1605 Pieter van den Keere’s map of Hampshire 1610 John Speed’s map of Hampshire 1673 Richard Blome’s map of Hampshire (Fig. 3) 1695 Robert Morden’s map of Hampshire 1759 Isaac Taylor’s map of Hampshire (Fig. 4) 1791 Thomas Milne’s map of Hampshire (Fig. 5) 1805 Christchurch, Hinton, enclosure map 1810 Ordnance Survey, First Series (Fig. 6) 1811 Christchurch, Nea Common, enclosure map (unavailable) 1841 East Christchurch Tithe map (Fig. 7) 1870 First Edition Ordnance Survey, County Series (Fig. 8) 1896-99 First Edition Ordnance Survey, County Series, revised 1907–09 Ordnance Survey, County Series 1923 Ordnance Survey, County Series, revised 1931 Ordnance Survey, County Series, revised (Fig. 9) 1938-39 Ordnance Survey, County Series, revised 1957 Ordnance Survey, County Series, revised, provisional 1963-68 Ordnance Survey, County Series, revised (Fig. 10) 1974-75 Ordnance Survey, County Series, revised (Fig. 11) 1983-88 Ordnance Survey, County Series, revised (Fig. 12) 2002 Ordnance Survey 2011 Ordnance Survey – Explorer OL 22 (Fig. 1) 2012 Ordnance Survey Digital Mapping

14

APPENDIX 3: Aerial photographic catalogue

A>Specialist ( oblique)

Sortie Frame Date Flow NGR (SZ) Comment NMR 27229 1–10 23 JUN 2010 178 956 OSV 11276 070-100 18 SEP 1957 185 955 NMR 21353 1–6 25 JUL 2001 183 954 NMR 21316 12–14 25 JUL 2001 183 954 NMR 27228 42–6 23 JUN 2010 183 954 [Pl. 14] NMR 27229 1–10 23 JUN 2010 179 961 [Pls 11–13]

B> Vertical (non-specialist)

Sortie Frame Date flown NGR (SZ) RAF/CPE/UK/1893 3222–3, 3275–6 12 DEC 1946 172 959 RAF/CPE/UK/1934 2015–16 17 JAN 1947 180 951 RAF/CPE/UK/2102 4273–5 28 MAY 1947 184 954 RAF/58/2687 64–6 24 JAN 1959 183 944 RAF/543/1107 125–7 05 NOV 1960 173 944 RAF/543/1859 342–4 31 AUG 1962 185 941 Not available to view RAF/543/1859 342–4 31 AUG 1962 186 962 Frame 344 not available to view OS/82064 113–15-4, 135–7 25 APR 1982 182 946 OS/57R4 81–3, 119–20 18 SEP 1957 171 953 OS/66066 47–9, 112–13 17 MAY 1966 173 951 OS/81031 148, 150–1 07 JUL 1981 173 956 OS/89132 936–8 05 MAY 1989 186 953 OS/92200 79–81 15 JUN 1992 169 954 OS/99347 18–20, 39–41 09 SEP 1999 175 955 Not available to view OS/99630 84–6, 142–4 23 JUL 1999 185 959 Not available to view

15 Blandford Forum SITE

Bournemouth Bridport Poole Lyme Regis Dorchester Christ- church Weymouth

97000

4 6 7

16 96000 10 SITE

Field 7 17 9 Field 6 Field 5 18 2 Field 4 Field 3 Field 2 1 14 5 95000 15 11 Field 1 3 8

12 13

SZ16000 17000 18000 19000 MDD13/131 Prospective Solar Site, Waterditch Farm, Lower Waterditch, Christchurch, Dorset, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 1. Location of site in relation to Waterditch and within Dorset showing HER locations Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Explorer OL22 at 1:25,000 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 Approximate location of site

MDD13/131 Prospective Solar Site, Waterditch Farm, Lower Waterditch, Christchurch, Dorset, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 2. Norden's map of Hampshire, 1595 Approximate location of site

MDD13/131 Prospective Solar Site, Waterditch Farm, Lower Waterditch, Christchurch, Dorset, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 3. Blome's map of Hampshire, 1673 Approximate location of site

MDD13/131 Prospective Solar Site, Waterditch Farm, Lower Waterditch, Christchurch, Dorset, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 4. Taylor's map of Hampshire, 1759 Approximate location of site

MDD13/131 Prospective Solar Site, Waterditch Farm, Lower Waterditch, Christchurch, Dorset, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 5. Milne's map of Hampshire, 1791 Approximate location of site

MDD13/131 Prospective Solar Site, Waterditch Farm, Lower Waterditch, Christchurch, Dorset, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 6. Ordnance Survey, 1810 Site

MDD13/131 Prospective Solar Site, Waterditch Farm, Lower Waterditch, Christchurch, Dorset, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 7. Tithe Map, 1841 Site

MDD13/131 Prospective Solar Site, Waterditch Farm, Lower Waterditch, Christchurch, Dorset, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 8. Ordnance Survey, 1870 Site

MDD13/131 Prospective Solar Site, Waterditch Farm, Lower Waterditch, Christchurch, Dorset, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 9. Ordnance Survey, 1931 Site

MDD13/131 Prospective Solar Site, Waterditch Farm, Lower Waterditch, Christchurch, Dorset, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 10. Ordnance Survey, 1963-8 Site

MDD13/131 Prospective Solar Site, Waterditch Farm, Lower Waterditch, Christchurch, Dorset, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 11. Ordnance Survey, 1974-5 Site

MDD13/131 Prospective Solar Site, Waterditch Farm, Lower Waterditch, Christchurch, Dorset, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Figure 12. Ordnance Survey, 1983-8 Plate 1. Hill Lane bridleway from east end, looking westwards

Plate 2. The eponymous ditch on the north side of the road, looking eastwards MDD13/131

Prospective Solar Site, Waterditch Farm, Lower Waterditch, Christchurch, Dorset, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Plates 1 and 2. Plate 3. Field 1 from Hawthorn Road access, looking south-eastwards

Plate 4. Field 2 from Hawthorn Road access, looking north-eastwards MDD13/131

Prospective Solar Site, Waterditch Farm, Lower Waterditch, Christchurch, Dorset, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Plates 3 and 4. Plate 5. Field 4 from Hawthorn Road access, looking south-eastwards

Plate 6. Field 6 from Hawthorn Road access, looking north-eastwards MDD13/131

Prospective Solar Site, Waterditch Farm, Lower Waterditch, Christchurch, Dorset, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Plates 5 and 6. Plate 7. Field 3 from mid east side, looking south-westwards

Plate 8. Field 5 from Waterditch Road access, looking south-westwards MDD13/131

Prospective Solar Site, Waterditch Farm, Lower Waterditch, Christchurch, Dorset, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Plates 7 and 8. Plate 9. Field 7 from within Waterditch Road access, looking north-westwards

Plate 10. Field 7 from within Waterditch Road access, looking north-eastwards MDD13/131

Prospective Solar Site, Waterditch Farm, Lower Waterditch, Christchurch, Dorset, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Plates 9 and 10. Plate 11. Aerial photograph NMR27229_04, showing field west of Hawthorne Farm; south to top..

Plate 12. Aerial photograph NMR27229_09, detail of south of field, showing cropmarks; east to top.

WDD 13/131 Prospective Solar Site, Waterditch Farm, Lower Waterditch, Christchurch, Dorset, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Plates 11 - 12. Plate 13. Aerial photograph NMR27229_01, showing field boundaries west of Waterditch Farm, and other potential features.

Plate 14. Aerial photograph NMR27228_45, showing enclosure and possible other features west of Burton Rough. WDD 13/131 Prospective Solar Site, Waterditch Farm, Lower Waterditch, Christchurch, Dorset, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment Plates 13 - 14. 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