Bridge Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire

Transcription

1 Bridge Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment for Salmon Harvester Properties Ltd by Steve Ford Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd Site Code BRM04/56 June 2004

2 Summary Site name: Bridge Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire Grid reference: SU Site activity: Desk-based assessment Project manager: Steve Ford Site supervisor: Steve Ford Site code: BRM 04/56 Area of site: c. 3.03ha Summary of results: This large site is considered to have archaeological potential as it is located on the periphery of the historic town adjacent to the main medieval road from the town to the bridge. Historical maps indicate the presence of some structures on the site in early post-medieval times. The site is also located in the type of topographical setting frequently occupied in prehistoric times. This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder Report edited/checked by: Joanna Pine Steve Preston i

3 Bridge Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment by Steve Ford Report 04/56 Introduction This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of land at Bridge Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Edward James of FPD Savills, 20 Grosvenor Hill, London on behalf of Salmon Harvester Properties Limited 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 development area is centred on SU and covers approximately 3.03ha. The site is located to the east of Maidenhead town centre, at the junction of Bridge Road (to the north) and Oldfield Road (to the east) (Fig. 1). Beyond the western and southern boundaries are various industrial units with some residential properties and a public house on Oldfield Road (Fig. 9). A site visit on 5th June 2004 revealed that the northern portion of the site is currently free of all buildings but with areas of hard standing still present. This northern portion of the site area is level and is raised by about 0.5m relative to Oldfield Road. The southern part of the site is occupied by extant and in-use commercial structures with areas of car parking. The underlying geology is floodplain gravel (BGS 1974) and the site lies on a shallow ridge at a height of approximately 25m above Ordnance Datum, with alluvial areas to both east and west. Planning background and development proposals Planning permission (app no 04/41269) (one of several recent applications) has been gained for the redevelopment of the site for 242 residential units and 4200 sq m of light industrial units. Archaeology and Planning (PPG16, 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: 1

4 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. 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. The Berkshire Structure Plan provides further guidance on this: Policy EN6 states: Scheduled Ancient Monuments and the most important non-scheduled remains, together with their settings, will be protected and managed to ensure that they are not damaged or destroyed. Where a lack of information precludes the proper assessment of a site or sites with archaeological potential, this information will have to be provided in advance of any decision to affect that site or area. Where preservation is not possible local planning authorities should be satisfied before granting planning permission that appropriate arrangements have been made for excavation and recording to take place prior to development. Similarly policy Arch 2 of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan, Deposit Draft 1994 also states: The Borough Council will normally require the protection of unscheduled sites of archaeological importance or potential archaeological interest and their settings from harmful development. In cases where development is proposed, the Borough Council will consult the County Archaeologist on the type and extent of archaeological importance of any site. An archaeological assessment will 2

5 normally be required before an application can be determined. If development is acceptable permission may be granted provided that:- 1) The amenity value of the site is preserved 2) Adequate provision is made for the protection of archaeological features 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 Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Sites and Monuments Record, geological maps and any relevant publications or reports. Archaeological background General background The site lies within the archaeologically rich Thames Valley. The archaeology of the valley is relatively well known from a variety of sources of information (Ford 1987). For example, many sites have been recorded from the air (Gates 1975) and numerous finds from both prehistoric and later periods represented by tools and weapons of flint, bronze and iron dredged from the Thames (e.g., Chappell 1987). Many finds have also come to light during both casual, and, more recently, systematic examination of large areas of mineral extraction (Barnes and Cleal 1991) and of fieldwork carried out as a part of the planning process (Foreman et al., 2002). The town of Maidenhead was originally a small settlement recorded in Domesday Book in 1086 as South Ellintone (Elentone or Aylington) and is of late Saxon origin. The name remained thus until 1296 when Maidenhead (Maydeheth; Maydenheth) is first recorded (VCH 1972). The settlement increased in importance following the erection of a new bridge across the Thames in c which carried traffic from London to Bristol, traffic which was formerly routed via Cookham. There are some features to suggest that Maidenhead was of urban status in medieval times, and was possibly a planned town, as it lies on the boundary of two parishes (Bray and Cookham), but other typical indicators of this status are absent (Astill 1978). The town did not become a parish in its own right until The core of the historic town is believed to have been sited at least some 0.75 km west of the bridge, to the far (west) side of a secondary north-south channel of the Thames at Chapel Arches, with expansion eastwards towards the bridge not coming until much later. However, few archaeological observations have taken place to test this theory. 3

6 Windsor and Maidenhead Sites and Monuments Record A search was made of the Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) on the 8th June 2004 for a radius of 500m surrounding the site. This revealed 24 entries within the search radius. One entry lay within the development area itself. The results from this search are listed in Appendix 1 and summarized below; their locations are plotted on Figure 1. Prehistoric Prehistoric entries for the study area are few, though the numbers of finds recorded are more impressive. Most of the finds were recovered from the Thames [Fig. 1: 2, 3, 4, 5] and comprise Mesolithic (possibly) and Neolithic flint and stone axeheads, and Bronze Age bronze sword, dagger and spearheads. Struck flints, probably of Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age date, including a pick, axe and knife were found to the north-east of the site though not necessarily associated with each other. Finds of human and animal bone are also recorded from this location, perhaps suggesting the presence of a burial site [1]. Roman and Saxon No finds of Roman or Saxon date are recorded within the study area though the settlement of Elentone is mentioned in Domesday Book and was in existence in late Saxon times. Medieval A range of medieval sites and finds are recorded. One find, a spoon, was dredged from the Thames [7]. The other entries are for Maidenhead Bridge which was built of timber c and replaced in 1423 [8] and again in [12]. A chapel or hermitage was built on the western side of the bridge. Another bridge, Chapel Arches, which allows the road to cross the stream to the west of the site, is also listed as being built in 1280 [9]. A structure of late medieval date, now a public house (The Gardener s Arms) is recorded to the west of the site on Moorbridge Road [6]. It is a Grade II Listed Building. The foundations of a structure made from flint and chalk with an earth floor are also recorded on Moorbridge Road, dated to the medieval or early-post-medieval period [11] and a tile hearth is recorded abutting a medieval or early post-medieval structure nearby [10]. Post medieval The remaining entries are for post-medieval and modern structures. These comprise Smyth s almshouses built in 4

7 c just to the north-west of the site on Bridge Road (Listed Grade II*) [15], the railway [13] and Brunel s railway bridge (also listed Grade II*) [14], brick-lined wells [17], industrial buildings and houses [18, 19], and a milestone [22]. A single find of a pottery sherd of later post-medieval date is the entry recorded for the site itself [16]. Unknown A limestone loomweight has been found but details are few and its date is uncertain [21]. The Bath Road (A4) is also recorded as of unknown date but was in use at least from 1280 when the bridge was constructed [24]. Negative evidence A field evaluation at Moorbridge Road, did not reveal any deposits of archaeological interest except for a few finds of late post-medieval date [20]. Cartographic and documentary sources Maidenhead s entry in Domesday Book (where it is called Elentone) is brief and sugests a very minor place indeed, assessed at just 3 hides, with land for 4 ploughs, and a small area of meadow (Williams and Martin 2002, 152). Elentone as a placename is somewhat obscure, meaning either farm at the place where eels are caught or farm of Ælle or Ella or (just possibly) Eli. Maidenhead is certainly the maidens landing place but the significance of the maidens is lost to us (Mills 1991, 231; Cameron 1996, 171). As Astill (1978, 44) records, other documentary sources for the early history of the town are few and start relatively late. A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at Berkshire Records 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 map of Berkshire The town of Maidenhead is well established by this time but due to the scale of this map, no detail can be obtained for the site itself. This is true of a later map of Berkshire by John Speed in 1611 (Fig. 2) and is typical of the maps of this period. A map by Norden of Windsor Forest in 1607 (Fig. 3) shows more detail than previously, though is again largely schematic. It does show that the town is located at some distance from the bridge with unoccupied land (where the site probably lies) along the established road between town and bridge, which must be Bridge Road itself. 5

8 Rocque s map of Berkshire, 1761 (Fig. 4) shows the area in slightly more detail. The location of the site can be pinpointed from the junction of Oldfield Road and Bridge Road. The majority of the site appears to be undeveloped farmland but with developed areas beyond the site to the west. Several structures are shown within or just beyond the south-east boundary of the site which might be Oldfield Farm or a small cluster of buildings which are depicted on later maps. Pride s Map of Reading and the Country Around of 1790 (Fig. 5) shows less detail with which to locate the site, though the structures noted on Rocque s map are indicated and presumably lie on the site. A map of Maidenhead by Silver in c shows the site in detail (Fig. 6). Oldfield Road and Bridge Road are shown and the boundaries of the site are identifiable with various degrees of certainty. The majority of the site is open space with numerous structures concentrated on the Bridge Road frontage, and the east and south east of the site of the site. The site is subdivided into at least 7 plots perhaps with an orchard to the south west.the northern parts appear to have been used as a nursery. The Second Edition Ordnance Survey, 1899 (Fig. 7) shows remarkably few changes from the 1830s map with many of the structures still present and with the same site subdivisions. The site is still partly used as a nursery with woodland depicted to indicate an orchard. Waldeck Street has been developed to the west of the site with several residential porperties now present. The Ordnance Survey edition of 1912 again shows few changes (Waldeck Road Mission Hall has been constructed) which is also the pattern on the 1931 revision, although the presence of the Mission has led to Waldeck Road becoming Reform Road (Fig. 8). By 1993, however, the previous structures had been replaced by two large structures and several smaller outbuildings to the north (now demolished) and with various factory units to the south (still extant) (Fig. 9). Geotechnical test pits A geotechnical survey was carried out in May 2004 by Norwest Holst Soil Engineering Limited. Fourteen test pits and boreholes were dug on the site, and these are listed in Appendix 3. Their locations are shown as Figure 10. In summary, the boreholes recorded approximately m of made ground overlying a gravelly clay. Depths of made ground of 1.8m and 2.1m probably indicate areas of locally deep disturbance. The shallower depths of made ground would be consistent with dumping on the site prior to the construction of the recently demolished buildings and perhaps accounts for the higher level of the site relative to Oldfield Road. 6

9 Scheduled Ancient Monuments There are no scheduled Ancient Monuments located on or within close proximity to the site. Listed buildings There are no listed building located on the site. Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields The site does not lie within a registered park or garden; or within a registered battlefield. Aerial Photographs The site areas lies within an urban area which has been developed since before the advent of aerial photography. No photographic collections have therefore been consulted. 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, future land-use including the proposed development and the area of the development. The cartographic evidence indicates that the site is located on the periphery of the historic core of the town which has been previously taken to indicate the maximum likely extent of the medieval town (Astill 1978). There are, however, no detailed or accurate maps prior to the 17th century nor extensive archaeological observations to confirm or refute this opinion. Recent fieldwork on the periphery of towns such as Crawley (Saunders 1998) and Abingdon (Roberts 1997) has indicated that the medieval towns there were formerly more extensive than the town plans recorded in post-medieval times on the early maps. In 1760 the site is, at least, adjacent to the urban areas of the town (Fig. 4). It also has to be considered that the site fronts Bridge Road which is the main medieval (and later) thoroughfare from the bridge to the town and is a zone where medieval occupation is likely to be sited. The map of 1760 supported by detail on the 1830 map indicates the presence of a farm, and/or hamlet either within or adjacent to the south eastern margins of the site (Figs. 4 and 6). There is a reasonable possibility that these settlements could originate in late medieval or earlier times. 7

10 At a more general level of analysis, the site area occupies a relatively large parcel of land, especially so for a modern urban setting. It well exceeds the size threshold for archaeological consideration that is commonly applied purely on the basis of statistics: i.e., the larger the area, the greater the chance of encountering archaeological sites by chance. It is also noted that this site is located within a topographic zone favoured for early occupation. The various finds recorded from the river to the east and from land to the north east (Fig. 1) indicate a local intensity of activity in these low-lying settings comparable to that recorded for may other parts of the country. In particular, areas of higher ground adjacent to river floodplains such as terrace edges or gravel islands are well used, especially in prehistoric times before widespread flooding and alluviation became prevalent. The site lies on a gravel island. Finally, the site has been redeveloped in recent times and inevitably some damage to the archaeologically relevant levels will have taken place caused by foundations and services, etc. However, as the site is generally level, there is no reason to expect extensive truncation to have taken place and, if anything, field observation and the geotechnical data suggest that the site has been raised by dumping. There is every reason to expect reasonable preservation of any archaeological deposits present. It is considered therefore that the site has archaeological potential and it is recommended that further information about the potential of the site from field observation should be made in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits if necessary. A written scheme of investigation for such an evaluation will need to be drawn up and should be approved by the archaeological adviser to the Royal Borough and implemented by a competent archaeological contractor. References Astill, G, G 1978, Historic towns in Berkshire: An Archaeological Appraisal, Berkshire Archaeol Comm publ 2. Reading Barnes, I and Cleal, R M J, 1995, Neolithic and Bronze Age settlement at Weir Bank Stud Farm Bray, in I Barnes, W A Boismier, R M J Cleal, A P Fitzpatrick and M R Roberts (eds), Early settlement in Berkshire: Mesolithic-Roman occupation sites in the Thames and Kennet valleys, Wessex Archaeol Rep 6, 1 51 Salisbury BGS, 1974, British Geological Survey, Sheet 255, Solid and Drift Edition, Scale 1: Cameron, K, 1996, English Place Names, London Chappell, S, 1987, Stone Axe Morphology and Distribution in Neolithic Britain, BAR Brit Ser 177, Oxford Foreman, S, Hiller, J and Petts, D, 2002, Gathering the people and settling the land, the archaeology of a middle Thames landscape, Anglo-Saxon to post-medieval, Oxford Archaeol monogr 14, Oxford Ford, S, 1987, East Berkshire Archaeological Survey, Berkshire County Counc Dept Highways and Planning Occas Pap 1, Reading Gates, T, 1975,The Thames Valley, An archaeological Survey of the River Gravels, Berkshire Archaeol Comm Pubn 1, Reading Mills, A, D, 1991, Oxford Dictionary of English Place Names, Oxford University Press PPG16, 1990, Dept of the Environment Planning Policy Guidance 16, Archaeology and Planning, HMSO 8

11 Roberts, M R, 1997, Excavations at Mr. Warwick s Arms Hotel and the Crown Public House, Ock Street, Abingdon, Oxoniensia, LXII, Saunders, M J, 1998, Archaeological investigations on the route of the Crawley High Street relief road, Crawley, West Sussex, Sussex Archaeol Collect 136, Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London VCH, 1972, Victoria County History of Berkshire (reprint of 1923 edition), Vol 3, London 9

12 APPENDIX 1: Sites and Monuments Records within a 500m search radius of the development site No SMR Ref Grid Ref (SU) Type Period Comment Find spot Prehistoric Finds including a knife, axe, pick and human and animal remains were uncovered on the Ray Park estate in 1892, possibly Neolithic Find Spot Prehistoric (Mesolithic to Late Neolithic) Finds from the River Thames below Maidenhead Railway Bridge include bronze and wood spears, flint axes Find Spot Neolithic Two axes, one flint, one Lava found in River Thames at Maidenhead Bridge Find Spot Early Neolithic to Late Bronze Age Flint axe and two bronze daggers from the River Thames Find Spot Early Neolithic to Late Bronze Age Flint axe and Bronze sword found in River Thames below Maidenhead Bridge Structure Medieval The Gardener s Arms Public House, an early to mid 15 th century hall house, part timber frame, part rendered brick with old tile roof. Grade II listed Find Spot Medieval to post medieval Spoon found in River Thames Structure Medieval to post medieval (?) Structure Medieval to post medieval Monument Medieval to post medieval Monument Medieval to post medieval Maidenhead Bridge, documented in 1280 as a timber structure, which was replaced in 1423, a hermitage was sited on the west side of the bridge. Replaced in Chapel Arches, bridge documented from Record appears to duplicate ref Tile hearth abutting medieval/tudor building. Moorbridge Road, late medieval or Tudor flint and chalk wall foundations with brickearth floor, probably two properties Structure Post medieval Maidenhead Bridge, the present stone bridge placed to the south of the original medieval bridge. Designed by Sir Robert Taylor Structure Post medieval Brick railway bridge, designed by Brunel in for Great Western Railway, Listed building Grade II* Monument Post medieval Taplow Station to Maidenhead Street railway line Structure Post medieval Smyth s almshouses, eight almshouses built in 1669 or 1659, listed Grade II* Findspot Post medieval Pottery sherd Monument Post medieval Brick lined wells located during demolition of shops at Moorbridge Road, now destroyed Monument Post medieval 17 th century floor on area covered by two properties, associated with industrial processes, now destroyed Monument Post medieval to modern Moorbridge Road, structures on site since at least 1840 consisting of houses, a row of shops, and a long warehouse Fieldwork Modern Moorbridge Road evaluation located only soil layers with post medieval finds, of clay pipes, pottery and tile Find Spot Unknown Limestone loomweight Findspot Unknown Milestone inscribed London 26 miles Documentary evidence Unknown Monument Unknown A4 Bath Road CORED-GWAL-LLYS painted on the wall below the flash lock at north Town, Cordwallis Farm, meaning the mansion of the weir wall 10

13 APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted 1611 Speed s Map of Berkshire (Fig. 2) 1607 Norden s map of Windsor Forest (Fig. 3) 1761 Rocque s map of Berkshire (Fig. 4) 1790 Pride s map of the Town of Reading and the country (Fig. 5) 1899 Second Edition Ordnance Survey, Berkshire, Sheet XXIV.15 (Fig. 6) 1907 Silver s map of Maidenhead in c (Fig. 7) 1912 Ordnance Survey, Berkshire, Sheet XXIV Ordnance Survey, Berkshire, Sheet XXIV.15 (Fig. 8) 1993 Ordnance Survey, Berkshire, Sheet SU8981 SE (Fig. 9) 11

14 APPENDIX 3: Geotechnical data (from Norwest Holst Engineering Limited) 12

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37 SITE SITE /11 18/ ,9, ,14 2 SU BRM04/56 Bridge Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2004 An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment Figure 1. Location of site within Maidenhead and Berkshire showing Sites and Monuments Record information Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Pathfinder SU88/98 at 1: Ordnance Survey Licence

38 SITE Bridge Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2004 An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment BRM04-56 Figure 2. Speed s Map of Berkshire, 1611

39 SITE Bridge Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2004 An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment BRM04-56 Figure 3. Norden s Map of Windsor Forest, 1607

40 SITE Bridge Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2004 An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment BRM04-56 Figure 4. Rocque s Map of Berkshire 1760

41 SITE Bridge Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2004 An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment BRM04-56 Figure 5. Pride s Town of Reading and Country 1790

42 SITE Bridge Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2004 An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment BRM04-56 Figure 6. Maidenhead c. 1830

43 SITE Bridge Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2004 An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment BRM04-56 Figure 7. Ordnance Survey, Second edition 1899

44 SITE Bridge Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2004 An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment BRM04-56 Figure 8. Ordnance Survey, 1931

45 SITE Bridge Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2004 An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment BRM04-56 Figure 9. Ordnance Survey, 1993

46 Bridge Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 2004 An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment BRM04-56 Figure 10. Location of geotechnical boreholes and test pits.