T H A M E S V A L L E Y ARCHAEOLOGICAL S E R V I C E S Woolley Hall, Westacott Way, Littlewick Green, Maidenhead, Berkshire Desk-based Heritage Assessment by Tim Dawson and Genni Elliott Site Code WHL13/86 (SU 8484 8012) Woolley Hall, Westacott Way, Littlewick Green, Maidenhead, Berkshire Desk-based Heritage Assessment for Millgate Homes by Tim Dawson & Genni Elliott Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd Site Code WHL 13/86 April 2013 Summary Site name: Woolley Hall, Westacott Way, Littlewick Green, Maidenhead, Berkshire Grid reference: SU 8484 8012 Site activity: Desk-based heritage assessment Project manager: Steve Ford Site supervisor: Tim Dawson Site code: WHL 13/86 Area of site: c.14.1ha Summary of results: The development proposal comprises several elements which in summary, includes restoration of a listed building and its garden, conversion of buildings to residential use, demolition of other buildings and modern extensions, and construction of new housing. It is anticipated that there will be two components of work required to mitigate the effects of redevelopment on heritage topics. Firstly, a requirement to conduct building recording prior to conversion of Woolley Hall into flats and a record of the extant buildings of Woolley Farm. Secondly, a requirement for field evaluation in areas of new build in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits, if necessary. Such schemes of work could be implemented as appropriately worded conditions 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 All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.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 Ford 30.04.13 i Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47–49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading RG1 5NR Tel. (0118) 926 0552; Fax (0118) 926 0553; email: [email protected]; website: www.tvas.co.uk Woolley Hall, Westacott Way, Littlewick Green, Maidenhead, Berkshire Desk-based Heritage Assessment by Tim Dawson and Genni Elliott Report 13/86 Introduction This report is an assessment of the archaeological potential of a large irregular parcel of land located at Woolley Hall, Westacott Way, Littlewick Green, Maidenhead, Berkshire (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Jon Furneaux of Millgate Homes, Millgate House, Ruscombe Lane, Ruscombe, Twyford, RG10 9JT 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 is currently of mixed usage with two distinct building complexes - Woolley Grange and Woolley Hall with associated roads, grassy areas and woodland. The development area is centred on NGR SU 8484 8012. The site is located on Seaford and Newhaven Chalk formations (BGS 1981). It is at a height of approximately 47m above Ordnance Datum. Planning background and development proposals Planning permission is to be sought for the restoration and re-development of the site for 47 residential dwellings set in landscaped grounds. A provisional layout is presented as Figure 14. The proposals seek to restore the historic appearance of the property (Pls. 1 and 2) and as such are intended to enhance it in itself, via the removal of a number of unattractive 20th century additions and the restoration of the Mawson landscape, including the observatory (Pl. 3). It is proposed to convert the existing stable block (Pl. 4) into five houses. Proposed housing within view of the Hall is to be kept to a minimum and screened by existing trees (Pls 5 and 6). Propose housing to the south of the property is in an area where glasshouses were previously located (Pl. 7). The northern part of the site (location of a lodge and Woolley Grange) is screened by an existing line of trees which are to be retained (Pl. 8). It is proposed to restore the Lodge House (Pl. 9), which would have served as the gatehouse to the Hall, which is now in considerable disrepair. It is intended to demolish Woolley Grange, which is not a listed building and is not included in the curtilage of Woolley Hall and replace it with 24 detached houses and landscaped features to the north. The Grange was originally called Woolley Farm (first seen on the 1 1801 Feens Farm estate map (Fig. 5) and later on the 1846 tithe map (Fig. 7)) and aspects of this can still be seen in the property today, despite the various 20th century extensions and the conversion into office space (Pl. 10). A site visit on 29th April 2013 identified a two-storey building, a single storey shed and a threshing barn still extent in the northern range (Pl. 11) and an ‘L-shaped’ two-storey building on the eastern range (Pl. 12) joining to the one on the northern range. A number of alterations had been made to these buildings. 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: 2 ‘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.’ 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