aarrcchhaaeeoollooggiiccaall · t h a m e s v a l l e y s e r v i c e s...

T H A M E S V A L L E Y

S E R V I C E S

AAAARRRRCCCCHHHHAAAAEEEEOOOOLLLLOOOOGGGGIIIICCCCAAAALLLL

Camp End Manor, Tor Lane, St George's Hill, Weybridge, Surrey

An archaeological desk-based assessment

by Tim Dawson

Site Code CEM 12/193

(TQ 0855 6165)

Camp End Manor, Tor Lane, St George’s Hill, Weybridge, Surrey

An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

for Herakles Estates and Herakles Estate II Limited

by Tim Dawson

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd

Site Code CEM 12/193

November 2012

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

Summary

Site name: Camp End Manor, Tor Lane, St George’s Hill, Weybridge, Surrey Grid reference: TQ 0855 6165 Site activity: Desk-based assessment Project manager: Steve Ford Site supervisor: Tim Dawson Site code: CEM 12/193 Area of site: 0.61ha Summary of results: The proposal site lies within the hillfort on St George’s Hill which is a Scheduled Monument. The impacts of re-development are considered and it is concluded that, based on an assessment of other investigations in the vicinity which returned negative results, the likelihood of encountering archaeology on this site is correspondingly reduced. However, it is recommended that scheduled monument consent be obtained to carry out a field evaluation to determine the specific archaeological potential of the site. 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 All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.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 3.12.12

Camp End Manor, Tor Lane, St George’s Hill, Weybridge, Surrey An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

by Tim Dawson

Report 12/193

Introduction

This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of Camp End Manor, an irregular parcel

of land located on the southwest side of Tor Lane, St George’s Hill, Weybridge, Surrey (Fig. 1). The project was

commissioned by Ms Katherine Marshall, of Lees Associates, Suffolk House, 127-129 Great Suffolk Street,

London, SE1 1PP 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 currently consists of a house with a separate garage and annexe set in 0.61ha of land. The gardens,

which surround the house on three sides, are bordered to the south and west by the ramparts of the hillfort. They

consist of a series of steep banks which have been terraced in some places where they have been incorporated

into the gardens. The remainder of the site is remarkably flat, although whether this is natural or the result of

landscaping it is not possible to tell. The ramparts are sparsely wooded and are covered with a thick undergrowth

of rhododendron bushes whereas, aside from some ornamental trees and borders, the gardens are grassed (Plates

1-4). A summer house and swimming pool stand in the southern corner of the site and a pier of decking with a

hot tub at the end stands out above the ramparts on the southern edge of the garden. The neighbouring plots on

all sides are occupied by similar large houses in enclosed grounds. There is a steep drop below the eastern

rampart to the property beneath. A site visit was made on 3rd December 2012. The development is centred on

NGR TQ 0855 6165. The majority of the site is located on Plateau Gravel with Barton Beds beneath the site’s

south west boundary (BGS 1981). It is at a height of approximately 78 m above Ordnance Datum.

Planning background and development proposals

Planning permission is to be sought for the redevelopment of the plot of land at Camp End Manor. The current

house is to be demolished and replaced with larger structure which is to include a lower ground floor cut into the

hill (Fig. 2). A new external garage with staff flats above will also be built linked to the main house by a tunnel.

1

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.’

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

2

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 141 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.’

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:

3

‘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.

St George’s Hill is a Scheduled Ancient Monument so in this case 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.

Items HEN16 and HEN17 in the Elmbridge District Local Plan that pertain to Areas of Archaeological

Importance and development within them are detailed below:

AREAS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE

HEN16 There is a presumption in favour of the physical preservation of scheduled ancient monuments, nationally important archaeological remains, and County Sites of Archaeological Importance and their settings, as listed in Appendix C. Development will not be permitted if it fails to preserve the archaeological value and interest of the archaeological remains, or their settings.

AREAS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE

8.29 There are a number of sites in the Borough which have been identified as being of archaeological importance. Some of those of national importance, such as St. George's Hill Camp, Oatlands Palace and Brooklands, have been given statutory protection as scheduled ancient monuments. Their numbers are likely to be increased by the Monuments Protection Programme (MPP) being progressed by English Heritage. Some sites of potential national importance have been identified by the County Archaeologist and designated as County Sites of Archaeological Importance. A list of scheduled ancient monuments and County Sites of Archaeological Importance is contained in Appendix C. The number and extent of these sites may also be revised during the Plan period, as new sites are identified and new information obtained on existing sites. The Council will resist the loss of ancient monuments, whether scheduled or unscheduled, and will protect them and their settings from inappropriate development, in accordance with the advice in PPG16 "Archaeology and Planning". Any proposal affecting a scheduled ancient monument will also require an application for Scheduled Monument Consent to be made to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Council has adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance the Surrey County Council publication "Archaeology and Historic Landscapes". Where appropriate, the Council will encourage the management and interpretation of sites to develop their cultural, recreational or educational potential.

DEVELOPMENT WITHIN AREAS OF HIGH ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL

HEN17 In considering proposals for development within areas of high archaeological potential, the Council, in consultation with Surrey County Council, will:-

i. Require that an initial assessment of the archaeological value of the site be submitted as part of any planning application;

ii. Where, as a result of the initial assessment, archaeological remains are considered to exist, require an archaeological field evaluation to be carried out prior to the determination of any planning application;

4

iii. Determine whether the archaeology identified is important enough to warrant preservation in situ and, where remains are to be left in situ, impose conditions or seek agreement, where appropriate, to ensure that damage to the remains is minimal;

iv. Where important archaeological remains are found to exist but their preservation in situ is not justified, seek a full archaeological investigation of the site, in accordance with a scheme of work to be agreed in writing with the Council prior to the granting of planning permission; and

v. Require that the results of the investigation and any excavation be published and made available for display at either the Elmbridge Museum or other suitable location.

DEVELOPMENT WITHIN AREAS OF HIGH ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL

8.30. These sites are in addition to scheduled ancient monuments and County Sites of Archaeological Importance. They are based on information contained in the County’s Sites and Monuments Record, where there is good evidence for the existence of archaeological remains from maps and previous finds. They include historic towns and village centres. The current list of sites is contained in Appendix C of the REBLP. New sites and new information on existing sites will mean that additional areas of high archaeological potential may be identified during the lifetime of the REBLP. Policy PE13 of the SSP'94 contains firm guidelines on the need for a proper investigation of remains. The Council will continue to liaise with the County Archaeologist and other archaeological organisations, who are able to provide professional advice for a proper assessment of the effect of proposed development on archaeological remains. The initial assessment will evaluate the archaeological potential of the site. A further field evaluation should include an assessment of the impact of the development upon the preservation of any archaeological remains. Where possible, remains should be left in situ. Proposals for development should avoid damage to, or disturbance of, the archaeological remains. Where it is agreed that preservation in situ is not feasible, then the developer will be required to arrange for an archaeological excavation and the preparation and publication of a report, all to professional standards. This work should be carried out in accordance with specifications agreed by the County Archaeologist. The Council will encourage the display of archaeological material found within the Borough. Information on these sites and areas will be revised from time to time as new discoveries are made.

8.31. It is always necessary to take into account that unexpected discoveries can be made. This is partly because very few areas have been systematically surveyed for archaeological purposes. It is reasonable to assume that any large-scale development is likely to affect features of potential archaeological interest. Consequently, in accordance with SSP’94 Policy PE13, developers of sites larger than 0.4 hectare outside existing areas of high archaeological potential, will be required to liaise with the County Archaeologist, in order to secure a proper assessment and/or evaluation of the site prior to the submission of a planning application.

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 Surrey Historic Environment Record,

geological maps and any relevant publications or reports.

5

Archaeological background

General background

The site lies within the eastern ramparts of the large multivallate hillfort on St George’s Hill. The hillfort

encloses c. 5.5ha of the hilltop, with the ramparts following the contours of the hill, leaving an irregular ground

plan. The 75m contour ramparts generally consist of an inner bank with an external ditch and outer, counter-

scarp, bank, although the more accessible area to the west contains three banks and two ditches. An extra D-

shaped rampart to the northeast encloses an area where a stream formerly ran. Most of the banks of the hillfort

have survived, although many of the ditches are partially or completely in-filled. Excavations in the early 20th

century (Gardiner 1911) located Iron Age pottery, confirming the broad dating of the site, whilst subsequent

work found both Early and Late Iron Age pottery and iron slag (information from the Schedule of Monuments).

Recent fieldwork has uncovered the sequence of construction of the ramparts (Poulton and O’Connell 1984), and

a shallow linear feature was found immediately to the south-west of the hillfort (Hawkins and Douglas 1999).

However several archaeological evaluations and watching briefs inside the hillfort, including one on and three

adjacent to the proposal site (Dawson 2012b, Hayman 1994, 2004, Poulton 2001), have found nothing of

archaeological interest.

Surrey Historic Environment Record

A search was made on the Surrey Historic Environment Record (HER) on 27th November 2012 for a radius of

1km around the proposal site. This revealed 107 entries within the search radius. These are summarized as

Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 1.

Palaeolithic

Three findspots for Palaeolithic artefacts are recorded in the HER. These were found in various locations around

St George’s Hill and consist of a group of five handaxes which were found together in 1900 [Fig. 1: 1], an

unfinished flint axe [1] and an unspecified implement found in 1913 [2].

Mesolithic

A collection of Mesolithic flint tools, including blades, scrapers and microburins, is recorded as being found near

the hillfort [3].

Neolithic

The HER records the finding of a flint scraper from the hillfort ramparts at the western end of the monument [2]

and a polished flint axe at the northern edge of St George’s Hill [4].

6

Bronze Age

Of the two HER entries that concern the Bronze Age the first is for Silvermere Barrow to the south of the

hillfort, which was destroyed in the 1830s [5]. Records show that it contained three inurned cremations and a

separate large collared urn. The second entry is for a looped bronze palstave which was bought in Salisbury

market in 1820 with a description of its finding on St George’s Hill [6], however, study of the decoration on the

blade has suggested that it is of Irish origin.

Iron Age

There are three HER entries for the Iron Age period. The first of these is for an iron knife or dagger that was

found in 1914 during the construction of St George’s Hill golf course [7] and the second is for the hillfort itself

[8]. This has variously been described as both univallate with triple defences in areas, and multivallate with

single defences in other areas presumably as the ramparts vary in depth depending of the contours of the hill.

Finds, including pottery and iron slag, recovered from a small number of excavations around the hillfort have

confirmed the monument’s Iron Age date. The third entry concerning the Iron Age is a findspot for fragments of

Iron Age and Roman pottery between 1912 and 1914 which is located to the west of the hillfort, outside the

ramparts [9].

Prehistoric

One site that is only datable to the general prehistoric period is recorded in the HER. This is a linear feature that

contained both worked and burnt flint fragments that was discovered during an archaeological evaluation at the

southern-most tip of the hillfort [10]. It was tentatively interpreted as the remains of a possible Iron Age field

system, which would be a rare discovery if confirmed.

Roman

A hoard of 35 Roman coins is recorded as being found in 1913 at the northern end of St George’s Hill [11].

These dated to between AD 138 and 378 but detailed analysis was not possible. As mentioned above, an

assemblage of Iron Age and Roman pottery was found adjacent to the hillfort [9].

Saxon

One feature of Saxon date is recorded in the HER. This is a long-distance boundary bank called the Fullingdic

which stretched from the Thames to Blackheath and Wotton. It passed through Wisley and Ockham Commons,

southwest of St George’s Hill, following the line of the old Ockham-Cobham parish boundary. It survives today

in a very fragmentary state with a section being identified in the north-western corner of St George’s Hill [12],

c.1km from the proposal site.

7

Post-medieval

A watching brief at Wood End 300m to the south of the hillfort recorded a ditch which contained finds of post-

medieval date [13].

Modern

The majority of the HER entries for the modern period relate to Grade II listed buildings of 20th century date.

The largest concentration of these is Whiteley Village [14], a planned village of Arts and Crafts buildings, all of

which are listed Grade II, built in 1912 to house old people in need. The entries include almshouses, the lodge,

an administration centre and lampposts, pillars, railings and terrace walls. There are several other listed houses

on St George’s Hill itself. These include a house designed in 1914 by Tubbs, Messer and Poulter [15], a 1938

house and lodge by Ian Forbes [17, 18] and a house on the southern edge of the hill, adjacent to Byfleet Road,

designed by Leslie Gooday in 1964-8 [20]. Other listed structures within 1km of the proposal site are a pair of

1929 K3 telephone kiosks and a 1956-type AA call box, all on the same site, [16]. The remaining HER entries

for the modern period are the crash site of Hawker Hurricane Mk. I L1652, which hit the ground in the northern

area of St George’s Hill after taking off from the Vickers factory at Brooklands on 6th September 1938 [19], a

lake, garden and golf course south of Byfleet Road [21] and a watching brief done in the same area which

recorded the footings of 20th century glasshouses [22]. A watching brief following a desktop study at The

Ramparts found shallow features with modern finds which are most likely modern garden features [28] (Dawson

2012a, 2012b).

Negative

Surprisingly, the majority of fieldwork event entries in the HER for archaeological projects that took place either

inside the hillfort or immediately adjacent to it record negative results, i.e. nothing of archaeological importance

was found. The records consist of a variety of watching briefs, evaluations and desk-based assessments at

Hevesta [23], the golf course [24], an area adjacent to The Ramparts [25], Ravenspoint [26], Ardenne Cottage

[27], The Ramparts itself [28], Deepcut [29], Windy Heights [30], Brindle Crest (Anthony 2002) [31], Camp

End [32], Caesar’s Cottage (Milbank 2009, Dawson 2011) [33] and Highclere [34].

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

The hillfort on St George’s Hill is a Scheduled Ancient Monument, number 23001.

8

Cartographic and documentary sources

Historical sources mentioning the hillfort on St George’s Hill are few and far between. Both Weybridge to the

north and Byfleet to the west were assessed in Domesday Survey (Williams and Martin 2002) but neither entry

nor their place-names (Cameron 1996, Mills 1998) allude to the presence of the fortification. The Victoria

County History of Surrey (1911) describes “a very considerable fortification” on St George’s Hill which covers

13½ acres and “is the largest work of the kind in Surrey”. It interprets the hillfort as playing a role in defending

near-by Coway Stakes, a possible ancient crossing point of the Thames where Julius Caesar was thought to have

crossed the river during his second invasion, although this has now been shown to be unlikely (Bird 2004, 21).

Oatlands, the Duke of York’s estate, included the area of St George’s Hill and is described as containing a

Roman or British camp (VCH 1911) which was apparently destroyed by the Earl of Lincoln in the 18th century

when he was improving the park. However, a map drawn up for the sale of the Oatlands estate in 1827 clearly

shows the Roman camp with the same shape and position as the hillfort (Fig. 8) so it would appear that the camp

and the hillfort described in the VCH were one and the same.

A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at the Surrey History

Centre 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 1579 map of Surrey, Sussex, Kent and Middlesex (Fig. 3)

which shows the location of St George’s Hill as a hill between Waybrigdge and Byflet. There is no sign of the

hillfort itself. Seller’s map of Surrey, produced in 1690 (Fig. 4), depicts the area as a series of hills, this time

labelled St Georg Hill. Senex, in his 1729 map of Surrey (Fig. 5), shows a shaded approximation of the hill’s

contours along with the trackways that lead across it and marks the southern end as St Georges Hill and Cobham

Heath. Rocque’s map of 1768 (Fig. 6) gives a more detailed version of Senex with the addition of two buildings

in enclosures on the north and east sides of the hill and a possible representation of the promontory on which the

southern tip of the hillfort sits. Despite the increase in detail there is still no explicit mention of the hillfort and it

is not until the 1811 Ordnance Survey Old Series (Fig. 7) that the outline of the ramparts is plotted.

The map of the St George’s Hill area of the Duke of York’s Oatlands Estate that was produced for its sale

in 1827 (Fig. 8) is the first to depict the hillfort in any detail. It shows the outline of the fortifications, labelled as

a Roman camp, surrounded to the west, south and east by scrubby woodland. To the north the land appears clear

and, to the northern end of St George’s Hill, gives way to enclosed fields. A road cuts across the hillfort through

9

the south-western ramparts across to the section where the D-shaped extension meets the main fortifications. The

interior of the hillfort is empty and devoid of trees.

The first map to show the proposal site itself is the Ordnance Survey of 1840 (Fig. 9). The earthworks are

plotted in detail as are a myriad of paths and trackways that criss-cross the hill, including two that

circumnavigate the fort, one on top and the other at the base of the ramparts. The proposal site includes the inner

slope of the rampart bank and the trackway that follows around its circumference. The entire hillfort and the

landscape immediately around it are covered by a mix of coniferous and deciduous trees and scrub. The

monument itself is grandly labelled “British Camp, Occupied by Cæsar before the crossing of the Thames at

Cowey Stakes”.

The Ordnance Survey maps that follow the 1840 edition show much the same situation until the 1935

survey (Fig. 10), when the first houses start to appear in and around the hillfort. Areas of wood- and scrubland

have been cleared and boundaries demarked for these new properties, which include Camp End, the present

occupier of the proposal site. The house and garden comprise most of the site but an area in the northern corner

appears to have not yet been cleared of overgrowth. By 1971 (Fig. 11) the area is starting to fill with houses with

more of the land subsequently being deforested. In its present state (Fig. 12) the property has had an outbuilding

added to the north of the main house but the rest of the plot remains unchanged.

Listed buildings

There are several listed buildings within 1km of the proposal site but none are located in the neighbourhood of

the hillfort.

Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields

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

Historic Hedgerows

There are no hedgerows, historic or otherwise, on the site.

10

Aerial Photographs

The site area has been under continuous woodland cover since before the advent of aerial photography. No

photographic collections have therefore been consulted as the presence of the woodland negates the

archaeological value of this type of survey.

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 and future land-use

including the proposed development.

Relatively little is known about the history or development of the fortifications on St George’s Hill. There

is a paucity of documentary evidence concerning the earthworks and cartographic depictions do not appear until

the early 19th century. Even the many archaeological investigations that have been carried out have done little to

shed light on the purpose of the hillfort, the date of its use or any internal structures which may have existed. The

later cartographic evidence shows that, aside from the construction of the house at Camp End Manor, little

ground disturbance has taken place across the proposal site, therefore raising the possibility that undisturbed

archaeological deposits may have been preserved, particularly in the northern and western areas of the site.

The proposed re-development of Camp End Manor comprises a new construction after demolition of the

existing buildings. The new structure partly overlaps the footprint of the existing structure, a zone where

extensive damage or destruction of the archaeologically relevant levels can be presumed to have occurred, but

also includes an area of new land take within the garden at the rear of the house and to the front of the annexe

where the new garage is to stand. It is possible that this extension to the area of development will encounter

archaeological deposits, however, this opinion needs to be qualified following the detailed review of

archaeological investigations carried out in the vicinity presented in this document. There are now available

several modern investigations of the St George’s Hill hillfort complex. Most of these have returned negative

results and significantly, two investigations, one adjacent to the site and one within, have found nothing of

interest. This suggests that whatever the function of this hillfort, it did not require the extensive digging of below

ground features, as has been recorded elsewhere such as at Danebury in Hampshire (Cunliffe 1983).

Above ground, the new structure, will be of similar size and appearance to both the existing structure on the

site and others in the area and will not therefore detract from the setting of the scheduled monument as it

11

currently is. Construction impacts during excavation for the basement and underground tunnel linking to the

garage will necessarily be of a temporary nature with full reinstatement on completion.

It is recommended that those parts of the footprint of the new construction which will be located in the

current garden area and to the front of the annexe, are subject to field evaluation (trial trenching) in order to

provide further information about the archaeological potential of the site, and enable a scheme to be drawn up

mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits, if necessary. A scheme for

this evaluation will need to obtain scheduled monument consent granted by the Department of Culture, Media

and Sport in accordance with the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (1979) and be implemented

by a competent archaeological contractor.

References

Anthony, S, 2002, ‘Brindle Crest, Camp End Road, St George’s Hill, Weybridge, Surrey: An archaeological evaluation’, Thames Valley Archaeological Services report 02/01, Reading

BGS, 1981, British Geological Survey, 1:50000 Sheet 269, Solid and Drift Edition Bird, D, 2004, Roman Surrey, Tempus, Stroud Cameron, K, 1996, English Place Names, Batsford, London Cunliffe, B, 1983, Danebury: Anatomy of an Iron Age Hillfort, London Dawson, T, 2011, ‘Caesar’s Cottage, Camp End Road, St George’s Hill, Weybridge, Surrey: An archaeological

watching brief’, Thames Valley Archaeological Services report 09/51b, Reading Dawson, T, 2012a, ‘The Ramparts, Tor Lane, St George’s Hill, Weybridge, Surrey: An archaeological desk-

based assessment’, Thames Valley Archaeological Services unpublished report 12/24a, Reading Dawson, T, 2012b, ‘The Ramparts, Tor Lane, St George’s Hill, Weybridge, Surrey: An archaeological

evaluation’, Thames Valley Archaeological Services unpublished report 12/24b, Reading Gardiner, E, 1911, ‘The British Stronghold of St George’s Hill, Weybridge’, Surrey Archaeol Collect 23, 40–55 Hawkins, D and Douglas, A, 1999, ‘Archaeological investigations of land at Ravenscroft Road, St George’s Hill,

Weybridge’, Surrey Archaeol Collect 86, 210–14 Hayman, G N, 1994, ‘An archaeological evaluation near The Ramparts, St George’s Hill, Weybridge’, SCAU

unpublished report, Kingston-upon-Thames Hayman, G N, 2004, ‘An archaeological evaluation at Camp End Manor, Tor Lane, St George’s Hill,

Weybridge, Surrey’, SCAU unpublished report, Kingston-upon-Thames Milbank, D, 2009, ‘Caesar’s Cottage, Camp End Road, St George’s Hill, Weybridge, Surrey: An archaeological

evaluation’, Thames Valley Archaeological Services report 09/51, Reading Mills, A D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, OUP, Oxford NPPF, 2012, National Planning Policy Framework, Dept Communities and Local Government, London Poulton, R, 2001, ‘An archaeological watching brief at The Ramparts, St George’s Hill, Weybridge’, SCAU

unpublished report, Kingston-upon-Thames Poulton, R and O’Connell, M G, 1984, ‘St George’s hill fort: excavations in 1981’, Surrey Archaeol Collect 75,

275–80 VCH, 1911, Victoria County History of Surrey: Volume 3, London Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London

12

APPENDIX 1: Historic Environment Records within a 1km search radius of the development site

No HER Ref Grid Ref (TQ) Type Period Comment 737 08500 62200 Findspot Palaeolithic Five handaxes found together c.1900. 1 752 08500 62500 Findspot Palaeolithic Unfinished flint axe from a garden. 743 08340 61770 Findspot Palaeolithic ‘Abevillian’ implement found in 1913. 2 3176 08350 61820 Findspot Neolithic Flint scraper found on hillfort rampart. 3586 08600 61800 Findspot Mesolithic Flint blades, scrapers and microburins. 3 15320 08600 61800 Fieldwork Negative Watching brief adjacent to hillfort. 744 08550 62630 Findspot Neolithic Polished flint axe found in 1913. 4 7480 08561 62639 Water tower Modern 1914 water tower, Grade II listed.

5 673 08380 60930 Barrow Bronze Age Silvermere Barrow, destroyed c.1830, contained 3 inurned cremations and a large collared urn.

6 738 08000 62200 Findspot Bronze Age Looped bronze palstave found in 1820. 7 674 08460 61300 Findspot Iron Age Iron knife or dagger found in 1914 during construction of

the golf course. 8 717 08500 61700 Hillfort Iron Age Univallate hillfort with triple defences in areas, excavated

in 1911. Pottery and iron slag date the monument. 9 3149 08420 61730 Findspot Iron Age, Roman Iron Age and Roman pottery found 1912-1914. 10 4735, 266,

267 08600 61600 Fieldwork Prehistoric Evaluation found a linear feature with worked and burnt

flint fragments. 11 730 08560 62540 Findspot Roman 35 coins (AD 138-378) found in 1913. 12 3495

14795 08400 59510 - 08600 57980

Monument Saxon Fullingdic - long-distance boundary bank stretching from the Thames to Blackheath and Wotton and is possibly the line of the old Ockham/Cobham parish boundary.

13 4774, 309 08672 61244 Fieldwork Post-medieval Watching brief by SCC at Wood End revealed a ditch containing finds of post-medieval date.

14 7029, 7044-7, 7062, 7078-80, 7111-17, 7120, 7144, 7204-6, 7221, 7257-9, 7299, 7300-2, 7305, 7318, 7334, 7357, 7360, 7373-4, 7376, 7392, 7401, 7434, 7446, 7470-1, 7476-7, 7487, 7504

09425 62475 (centre)

Listed village Modern Whiteley Village, built in 1912. Records consist of Grade II listed almshouses, lampposts, a lodge, administration block, pillars, railings and terrace walls.

15 16836 08235 62361 Listed house Modern 1914 house by Tubbs, Messer and Poulter, Grade II listed. 7483 07962 61079 Phone box Modern Pair of K3 telephone kiosks, designed 1929, Grade II

listed. 16

7026 07948 61075 AA call box Modern 1956-type AA call box, Grade II listed. 17 7063 07787 61753 Listed house Modern 1938 house by Ian Forbes, Grade II listed. 18 7366 07718 61844 Listed lodge Modern 1938 lodge by Ian Forbes, Grade II listed. 19 16951 08000 62000 Aircraft crash

site Modern Hawker Hurricane Mk I L1652 crashed on takeoff from

Vickers’ factory at Brooklands, 6th Sept 1938. 20 7515 08220 62074 Listed house Modern 1964-8 house by Leslie Gooday, Grade II listed. 21 13593 08304 60916 Landscape Modern 20th century lake, garden and golf course. 22 15000 08400 60900 Fieldwork Modern Watching brief found footings of 19th and 20th century

glasshouses. 303, 304, 4516

08470 61880 Fieldwork Negative Evaluation and watching brief at Hevesta. 23

85, 5695 08480 61870 Fieldwork Negative Watching brief on the border between Hevesta and Huf House.

24 4522 08000 61800 Fieldwork Negative Watching brief adjacent to hillfort. 25 269, 4733 08690 61690 Fieldwork Negative Evaluation adjacent to The Ramparts. 26 268, 4734 08610 61660 Fieldwork Negative Watching brief at Ravenspoint. 27 318, 319,

4773 08540 61710 Fieldwork Negative Watching brief and desktop study at Ardenne Cottage.

320, 4775 08650 61740 Fieldwork Negative Watching brief at The Ramparts. 28 08650 61740 Fieldwork Modern Desktop study and evaluation at The Ramparts located

modern garden features. 29 251, 5609 08600 61840 Fieldwork Negative Watching brief at Deepcut. 30 86, 87, 5694 08300 61900 Fieldwork Negative Watching brief and desktop study at Windy Heights. 31 84, 5696 08520 61780 Fieldwork Negative TVAS evaluation at Brindle Crest. 32 833, 6925 08570 61620 Fieldwork Negative Evaluation at Camp End. 33 15001 08600 61900 Fieldwork Negative TVAS evaluation and watching brief at Caesar’s Cottage. 34 732, 746,

16105 08700 61930 Fieldwork Negative Desktop study and geoarchaeological study at Highclere.

13

14

APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1579 Christopher Saxton’s map of Surrey, Sussex, Kent and Middlesex (Fig. 3)

1594 John Norden’s map of Surrey

1610 John Speed’s map of Surrey

1690 John Seller’s map of Surrey (Fig. 4)

1729 John Senex’ map of Surrey (Fig. 5)

1768 John Rocque’s map of Surrey (Fig. 6)

1811 Ordnance Survey Old Series: Sheet 8 (Fig. 7)

1827 The Duke of York’s Oatlands Estate, including St George’s Hill (Fig. 8)

1840 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 9)

1896 Ordnance Survey






61000

62000

63000

TQ08000 09000

Camp End Manor, Tor Lane, St George's Hill,Weybridge, Surrey, 2012

Desk-based Heritage AssessmentFigure 1. Location of site within St George's Hill and Surrey

showing location of HER entries.

CEM 12/193

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Explorer 160 at 1:1250Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880

Staines

Guildford

Egham

Woking Weybridge

ReigateAldershot Redhill

GodalmingFarnham

SITE

SITE

1

2 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2122

23

24

2526

27 28

2930

31

3334

1032

Architecture and Design

ssociA ateseseLSuffolk House127-129 Great Suffolk StreetLondon SE1 1PPTel: +44 (0)20 7403 1000Fax: +44 (0)20 7403 2233E-mail: [email protected]

DRAWING

CLIENT

PROJECT

PURPOSESCALE:

DATE

Rev. Date Description

Do not scale this drawing. Use figured dimensions. IF IN DOUBT ASK.This drawing is copyright. Do not reproduce it without written permission.Verify all dimensions on site before commencing any work or shop drawings.Inform the architects before any work starts if this drawing exceeds the quantities in anyway.

DRAWING NUMBER

ORIGINAL SIZE

LLP

DRAWN CHECKED BY

Camp End Manor

John Lees Development

N

Scale 1:200 @ A1SITE PLAN

30,333

19,7

03

24,118

4,09

3

outline of existinghouse to bedemolished

existing poolto be infilled

approximate extentof flat ground

existing raised timberdeck to be retained

Note:existing landscaping is to begenerally protected and retained

Note:all existing mature trees to be retainedand protected during constructionunless otherwise noted

tree to be transplantedto elsewhere on site,location TBC

trees to be removedshown dashed.

accessible ramp

tree to be transplantedto elsewhere on site,location TBC

outline of existingout building to bedemolished

outline of existinggarage to bedemolished

outline of existingsummer house tobe demolished

approximate extentof level ground

0 5 10 15m

proposed tunnelbelow

proposed newhouse

L e g e n d

Outline of existing buildings on site

Outline of proposed ramp to garage

Outline of proposed basement

Escarpmant

Trees to be removed

SITE PLAN

1:200

932_02_P1

NTS @ A3

P1 Issued for planning

07.12.12

A1

J L G A P

Planning

SITE AREA: 5360m²

12.12.12

P2 For approval11.01.13


Desk-based Heritage AssessmentFigure 2. Proposed development.

CEM 12/193


Desk-based Heritage AssessmentFigure 3. Saxton's map of Surrey, Sussex,

Kent and Middlesex, 1579.

CEM 12/193

Approximatelocation of site

N


Desk-based Heritage AssessmentFigure 4. Seller's map of Surrey, 1690.

CEM 12/193


N


Desk-based Heritage AssessmentFigure 5. Senex's map of Surrey, 1729.

CEM 12/193


N

The Ramparts, Tor Lane, St George's Hill,Weybridge, Surrey, 2012

Desk-based Heritage AssessmentFigure 6. Rocque's map of Surrey, 1768.

CEM 12/193


N


Desk-based Heritage AssessmentFigure 7. Ordnance Survey Old Series, 1811.

CEM 12/193


N


Desk-based Heritage AssessmentFigure 8. Map of the St George's Hill area of the Duke of

York's Oatlands Estate, 1827.

CEM 12/193


N


Desk-based Heritage AssessmentFigure 9. Ordnance Survey, 1840.

CEM 12/193N

SITE



CEM 12/193N

SITE

Plate 1. The front of the house with garages and annexe visible to the left, looking southeast from the driveway.

Plate 2. The southeast facade of the annexe, looking north.

Plate 3. The garden to the south. The ramparts fall away to the south (left), looking west.

Plate 4. The path and undergrowth within the ramparts along the site's western edge, looking southwest.


Desk-based Heritage AssessmentPlates 1 to 4.

CEM 12/193

TIME CHART

Calendar Years

Modern AD 1901

Victorian AD 1837

Post Medieval AD 1500

Medieval AD 1066

Saxon AD 410

Roman AD 43BC/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

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd,47-49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading,

Berkshire, RG1 5NR

Tel: 0118 9260552Fax: 0118 9260553

Email: [email protected]: www.tvas.co.uk

aarrcchhaaeeoollooggiiccaall · t h a m e s v a l l e y s e r v i c e s...

Documents