T H A M E S V A L L E Y AARRCCHHAAEEOOLLOOGGIICCAALL S E R V I C E S 127-139 St Leonard’s Road, Windsor, Berkshire Archaeological desk-based assessment by Steve Preston Site Code SLW10/94 (SU 9630 7570) 127–139 St Leonard’s Road, Windsor, Berkshire An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment for Shanly Homes Ltd by Steve Preston Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd Site Code SLW10/94 February 2011 Summary Site name: 127–139 St Leonard’s Road, Windsor, Berkshire Grid reference: SU 9630 7570 Site activity: Desk-based assessment Project manager: Steve Ford Site code: SLW10/94 Area of site: c. 1ha Summary of results: The proposal site contains no know heritage assets. The site lies in an area of modest archaeological potential. Medieval Windsor itself never extended this far south and the site of a medieval leper hospital is believed to be further west. The area surrounding Windsor generally has few recorded sites or finds from other periods, probably because it has historically been forest, but this may also be partly a result of a lack of systematic investigation. There is no evidence to suggest that the site has been extensively truncated. It is recommended that further information should be supplied from the results of trial trenching in order to devise a scheme to mitigate the impact of the proposals on any archaeological features that might be present. Such a programme could be secured by means of an appropriately worded condition on 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 All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.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 22.2.11 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 127–139 St Leonard’s Road, Windsor, Berkshire An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment by Steve Preston Report 10/94rev Introduction This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of a plot of land covering approximately 1ha at 127–139 St Leonard’s Road, Windsor, Berkshire (SU 963 757) (Fig. 1). It 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. The project was commissioned by Ms Sophie Waggett of Shanly Homes Ltd, Sorbon, Aylesbury End, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, HP9 1LW. Planning consent (appln. no. 10/03056/FULL) has been sought from the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to redevelop the site for residential purposes. This report has been requested to inform the planning process with regard to the scheme’s archaeological implications and to form the basis of proposals to mitigate any potential archaeological impact. An earlier version of this report produced in March 2008 should be considered superseded by the present version. Site description, location and geology The site is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land of around 1ha on the southern edge of Windsor (Fig. 1). It is bounded to the west by St Leonard’s Road and surrounded by residential properties, with the southern tip of the site on Victor Road (Fig. 2). Most of the site is occupied by the large buildings of a former late 19th- or early 20th-century commercial laundry (much modified)(Pl. 1) in a Tarmacadamed yard, with one small area cobbled; towards the rear is a concrete hard standing area with container cabins. A small group of terraced houses at the street frontage was demolished not long ago. The northern portion of the site is occupied by number 127 St Leonard’s Road at the front (west) of the site (Pl. 2), a former public house now a nursery school, with a large single-storey structure also part of the nursery school behind this and a large area of carpark to the rear. The site lies on London Clay (BGS 1981) at 25m above Ordnance Datum. Windsor Great Park extends to the south and east. 1 Planning background and development proposals Planning consent has been sought for redevelopment of the site to include 23 houses and 23 flats, with associated car parking and landscaping. 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 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 extends protection to undesignated assets 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. 2 ‘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: ‘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.