Roakes Avenue, Chertsey Surrey An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment for Crest Nicholson (South) Ltd by Steve Preston Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd Site Code RAC07/03 January 2007 Summary Site name: Roakes Avenue, Chertsey, Surrey Grid reference: TQ 0460 6580 Site activity: Desk-based assessment Project manager: Steve Ford Site supervisor: Steve Preston Site code: RAC07/03 Area of site: c. 1.6ha Summary of results: The site is within a topographic zone typically much favoured for prehistoric activity. Little significant archaeology is recorded in the vicinity, but this does include a Bronze Age site almost adjacent to the proposal area. This suggests high potential for prehistoric archaeology to be present. The site is well beyond the likely extent of medieval Chertsey and there are no known Roman or Saxon remains close by: potential for these periods is probably lower. The site has been disturbed by modern development, but perhaps not extensively, and was not developed in the past. Field evaluation (trial trenching) should establish the presence/absence of archaeological deposits on the site so that an appropriate mitigation strategy may be devised. This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford9 23.01.07 Jo Pine9 23.01.07 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 Planning background and development proposals Outline planning permission has been gained for redevelopment of the site and a detailed proposal is now being brought forward, to include 132 residential units of mixed designs, with associated access, parking space and infrastructure. Archaeology and Planning (PPG 16 1990) provides guidance relating to archaeology within the planning process. It points out that where a desk-based assessment has shown that there is a strong possibility of significant archaeological deposits in a development area it is reasonable to provide more detailed information from a field evaluation so that an appropriate strategy to mitigate the effects of development on archaeology can be devised: Paragraph 21 states: ‘Where early discussions with local planning authorities or the developer’s own research indicate that important archaeological remains may exist, it is reasonable for the planning authority to request the prospective developer to arrange for an archaeological field evaluation to be carried out...’ Should the presence of archaeological deposits be confirmed further guidance is provided. Archaeology and Planning stresses preservation in situ of archaeological deposits as a first consideration as in paragraphs 8 and 18. Paragraph 8 states: ‘...Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation...’ Paragraph 18 states: ‘The desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration in determining planning applications whether that monument is scheduled or unscheduled...’ However, for archaeological deposits that are not of such significance it is appropriate for them to be ‘preserved by record’ (i.e., fully excavated and recorded by a competent archaeological contractor) prior to their destruction or damage. 2 Paragraph 25 states: ‘Where planning authorities decide that the physical preservation in situ of archaeological remains is not justified in the circumstances of the development and that development resulting in the destruction of the archaeological remains should proceed, it would be entirely reasonable for the planning authority to satisfy itself ... that the developer has made appropriate and satisfactory provision for the excavation and recording of remains.’ Surrey County Council’ Structure Plan (SSP 2004) includes policies with similar aims but even more robust provisions. Policy SE5 Protecting the Heritage: ‘Surrey’s valuable cultural heritage of buildings, sites and landscapes will be conserved and enhanced. Heritage resources are irreplaceable and development affecting them will only be permitted when it has been clearly demonstrated that there is an overwhelming need for the proposal which outweighs the need to protect the heritage interest, and that no alternative is possible. ‘Prior archaeological assessment, and if necessary evaluation, will be required on all development of sites over 0.4 hectares or within areas of high archaeological potential. Where important archaeological remains are found, there will be a preference for their preservation in situ. ‘A record will be required of any features discovered, removed or altered.’ Runnymede Borough’s Local Plan (following an earlier county plan) adopts a similar line (RBC 2001): Policy BE14 Ancient monuments and sites of archaeological interest ‘The Council will ensure the preservation, enhancement, proper management and interpretation of scheduled, and other nationally important, monuments and their settings and other sites of special archaeological interest and their settings. ‘Any development which would have an adverse effect on these sites of their settings will not be permitted.’ Policy BE15 Areas of high archaeological potential ‘The Council, in consultation with Surrey County Council, has identified areas of high archaeological potential in the Borough as indicated on the Map in Appendix ‘L’ of the Written Statement. 3 ‘Where development is proposed within these areas the Council will require the prospective developer to undertake an archaeological assessment, and where appropriate a site evaluation before the planning application is determined. Where finds are made they should be treated in accordance with Policy BE16.’ Policy BE16 Preservation and recording of archaeological remains ‘Where all or part of an important archaeological site is affected by proposed development, the first priority will be in situ preservation. Where it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council that this is not feasible, the Council will require adequate excavation and an accurate record to be made of any archaeological remains which will be destroyed. ‘This will preferably be achieved through agreements reached between the developer, the archaeologist and the planning authority or in the absence of such agreement, by planning condition.’ Policy BE17 Chance archaeological finds ‘The Council will ensure that arrangements are made for the preservation of chance finds of archaeological remains during the course of development of sites of 0.4ha or more. As a first priority such finds shall be preserved in situ. However, where there is good reason why they cannot be so preserved the excavation and recording shall be carried out in accordance with Policy BE16’. This last provision may seem bizarre to most readers, since it effectively forces the council to revoke permission on any site where, despite due diligence on the part of the developer (eg prior evaluation), unexpected archaeology turns up (not unusual) and forbid development on it, with full compensation, unless it is to be understood that the fact that the Council cannot afford to implement this policy might be counted as ‘a good reason’ not to bother with it. It is equally odd that the area of the site should matter under these circumstances. Further policies cover development affecting Listed Buildings, buildings of local interest, Conservation Areas and Historic Parks and Gardens, none of which applies to the present site. The site is not within an area defined as of high archaeological potential on the district map, although it is within an area most of us would say had high archaeological potential. The proposal area is close to a Registered Park/Garden, but has no sightlines to it. 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 of Field Archaeologists paper ‘Standards in British Archaeology’ covering desk-based studies. These sources include historic and modern maps, the Surrey Sites and Monuments Record, geological maps and any relevant publications or reports. Archaeological background General background Chertsey has a long history of archaeological investigation. Excavations at the Abbey were published as long ago as 1858 (Turner 1987, 223; Pocock 1858), and the town is the findspot of a unique Iron Age bronze shield (Stead 1993). However, despite this precocious start to organized investigation, until recently only a moderate amount was known about the town’s earlier past, beyond the two key sites of the Abbey itself and the hill-fort on St Ann’s Hill to the north-west. Excavation on the Abbey site (in 1853, 1862, 1922, 1934, 1954 and 1984–5) has produced a detailed plan not only of the buildings but also the precinct, including extensive fishponds and moats (summarized in Poulton 1988). Some limited recent work in the town was treated in a volume of Surrey Archaeological Collections (1998) dedicated to work in the county’s historic towns, including reports on two excavations, at The Crown Hotel and at 14–16, both on London Street, with summaries of knowledge to that point. The site at 14–16 London Street produced no evidence earlier than the 12th century AD but demonstrated unbroken (albeit modest) occupation of a single burgage plot (later subdivided)