Addington Village Farm, Addington Village Road, London Borough of Croydon

Transcription

1 Addington Village Farm, Addington Village Road, London Borough of Croydon An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment for Bewley Homes PLC by Steve Ford Thames Valley Archaeological Services Site Code ARC00/47 July 2000

2 Addington Village Farm, Addington Village Road, London Borough of Croydon An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment Introduction by Steve Ford Report 00/47 This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of a former engineering works located at Addington Village Farm, Addington, in the London Borough of Croydon (TQ ) (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Michael Stephens of Bewley Homes Ltd, Bewley House, Park Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 8NP. 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. Site Description, Location and Geology A site visit was made on the 12th July 2000 revealed that the site comprises a staggered rectangular plot covering an area of approximately 0.24 h. on the north-west side of Addington Village Road (Fig. 2). It is currently occupied by redundant farm buildings, two semi-detached houses with small gardens and a yard. The site is located on dry valley deposits infilling an Upper Chalk-cut valley (BGS 1981). It lies at a height of approximately 79m above Ordnance Datum. Planning Background and Development Proposals Two planning applications (99/0784/P and 99/0785/P) have been made for the redevelopment of the site for residential use. The preferred application will be for eight units arranged in four blocks with a single detached garage, car parking area and access road (Fig. 3). Archaeology and Planning (PPG ) 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

3 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. Further guidance is provided by the London Borough of Croydon Unitary Development Plan (CUDP 1997): Policy SP6: The Council will protect and enhance Croydon s archaeological heritage. Para. AR1: An archaeological site evaluation report will be required for development proposals which involve significant ground disturbance in the archaeological priority zones defined on the proposals map. Elsewhere, an evaluation report will be required if the Council has good reason to believe that remains of archaeological importance would be affected. The reports should be prepared by professionally qualified and competent archaeologists. AR2: The siting and design of development should have regard to the desirability of minimising the disturbance of archaeological remains. AR3: There will be a presumption against development which would harm archaeological remains of national importance. Decisions on development proposals affecting other remains will take account of the archaeological importance of those remains, the need for the development. the 2

4 likely extent of any harm, and the prospects of the proposals successfully preserving by record the archaeological interest in the site. AR4: On sites where archaeological remains do not need to be preserved in situ, the Council will make sure that there is investigation, excavation, recording, analysis and publication to a specification agreed by the Council, secured where appropriate by the use if agreements. AR5: The Council will encourage the provision of facilities which interpret and explain archaeological sites to the public. The site lies adjacent to one of the Boroughs Areas of Archaeological Priority (area 19) 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 Greater London Sites and Monuments Record, geological maps, and any relevant publications or reports. Archaeological Background The general area of the site is one of the richer parts of the old county of Surrey for archaeological finds and deposits (Bird and Bird 1987). There are a number of find spots of Mesolithic and Neolithic axe heads in areas to the west of Addington (ibid., figs 3.4 and 4.7) but with rather more finds of Bronze Age date including (probable) early Bronze Age round barrows and finds of middle and late Bronze Age metalwork (ibid., figs 5.6, 5.16 and 5.18). A rare middle Bronze Age occupation site is recorded to the east just over the Kent County boundary (ibid., fig. 5.7). Similarly there is a reasonable cluster of Iron Age sites in the area to the west of the site (ibid., fig. 6.1). Somewhat surprisingly, there are relatively few late Iron Age or Roman sites noted in the general area (ibid., fig. 7.7). Much of the knowledge of the county in the Saxon period is gained only from place names and some burial deposits and the Addington area, like much of the rest of the county, is not well known. This background impression is further enhanced by material within the Greater London Sites and Monuments Records (GLSMR). A search was made of this on 11th July 2000 for a radius of 500m around the site. The results are summarised in Appendix 1 and the locations of the entries are shown on Figure 1. The 3

5 search revealed 34 entries for the vicinity of the site. In addition, a number of entries were for field investigations that failed to reveal any finds or deposits of archaeological interest. The earliest entries are for stray finds of flint tools including a handaxe of lower Palaeolithic date [Fig. 1: 1 and 22]. The Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age periods are mostly represented by finds of struck flint including arrowheads (types unknown) scrapers, blades and other struck flint [2, 3, 4, 18, 20 and 25]. One entry [29] relates to undiagnostic but prehistoric pottery. Several of the flint finds are single items and point to general activity in the area. Unfortunately, the collection factors of the larger groups of material [e.g. 4 and 25] are not known and it is unclear if these represent dense foci indicating occupation sites, or were dispersed finds collected from a wide area. A group of now levelled round barrows [9] (burial mounds) is recorded but various antiquarian reports mention between four and 25 mounds. A number of urns were observed in eroded areas of the mounds but it is not clear to which period these mounds or finds belong. They are most probably of earlier Bronze Age date but could include Saxon monuments or could have been reused in the latter period. Ditches or pits found during an evaluation to the south-west of the site [31] were found to contain late Bronze Age or early Iron Age pottery and indicate the presence of an occupation site nearby. No entries were recorded for the middle or late Iron Age periods but a number of Roman finds have been made [5, 16, 17, 27, 28 and 29]. All of these finds are pottery, some of which is of 2nd century date. None of these pottery finds necessarily indicate the location of Roman occupation sites but these are likely to be present somewhere in the vicinity. Similarly, there are two findspots of early or middle Saxon pottery [6 and 14] but the location of any contemporary occupation sites is unknown. The majority of the SMR entries relate to the Medieval and post-medieval periods. These include stray finds of pottery [23, 24, 29 and 34], earthworks [11, 13 and 31], a church [26], the excavated remains of buildings including a well [7, 10, 12 and 33], a 17th century Grade II listed building [32] to the north of the site, a 17th 18th century building to the south [8], and a post-medieval road [15]. Various archaeological excavations have been carried out by the Croydon Natural History and Scientific Society primarily to define the topography of the village in the vicinity of the church. It is thought that two manor houses [7 and 10] might have been examined, although the status of one is unclear. One of these sites [10] had gone out of use by the 14th century, whereas the other may have continued until the 17th century [7]. 4

6 These excavations also revealed a range of deposits such as floors, walls, rubbish pits, etc. A recent field evaluation at Lodge Lane [31] also located a number of pits and a lynchet of late Saxon and/or Medieval date. The church of St Mary [26] was not recorded in Domesday Book but some authorities suggest that it may have late Saxon origins. A hunting lodge built by Henry VIII [21] is thought to lie within the search area. There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments on the site. Historic and Photographic Background The place name Addington means estate associated with a man called Eadda or Aeddi (Mills 1998). Addington was first mentioned in Domesday Book (1086) and was called Eddingtone (VCH 1912). At the time of Domesday the manor was held by Tezelin the Cook (ibid.) and may have been two manors in later times (Warren 1984). Most of the history of Addington concerns the development of Addington Place, eventually Addington Palace, which was one of the manorial seats of the parish in Medieval times until ownership was transferred to the archbishop of Canterbury. The photographic collection of the Croydon local studies library was examined but no photographs of the site were found. A sketch of the forge (smithy) presented in Warren (ibid., 77) had some of the site buildings indicated in the background. Cartographic and Documentary Sources A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at the Croydon Local Studies Library in order to ascertain what activity had been taking place throughout the sites later history and whether this may have affected any possible archaeological deposits within the proposal area (Appendix 2). The earliest maps consulted for the area were small scale county maps by John Seller (1693) and John Senex (1729) (not illustrated). These do not show the area of the site in any detail and the precise location of the site cannot be determined; it merely indicates that Addington existed and had a church. The site can, however, be located on John Rocque s map of 1765 (Fig. 4) relative to Spout Hill and Addington Village Road. This shows that buildings were present on the site at this time, with farmland to the east. The approximate location of the site can also be determined on Lindley and Crosley s map of 1790 (not illustrated) and buildings were present at a small scale in the environs of proposal area. The Ordnance Survey preliminary edition (1816, not 5

7 illustrated) shows that the site was occupied by a cluster of buildings with fields to the north and west. This is similar to the map produced by the Greenwoods in 1823 (not illustrated). The Tithe map of 1837 shows that the site was occupied by the western part of the farm and yard of William Fuller but owned by the Archbishop of Canterbury (Fig. 5). The First Edition Ordnance Survey of 1868 shows the site in detail and some of the current buildings are present (Fig. 6). The long, thin building which occupies most of the road frontage is present, as is the stable block at right angles to this and the access off the road. Another barn to the rear is shown but is no longer standing. The two semi-detached houses had not yet been built. The Second Edition Ordnance Survey of 1897 shows that the two houses had been built and the northern boundary of the farmyard moved southwards and located on the current boundary of the site (Fig. 7). The site was little changed on the maps of 1934 and 1955 (not illustrated). By 1971 the farm area had contracted in size to its present extent. Housing was now present to the north and east, with some of the former farm area occupied by open space. Most of the barns and conjoining outbuildings at the rear of the plot had been demolished. Further demolition of the remaining structures to the rear of the site is evidenced on maps of 1976 and 1981 (not illustrated). Listed Buildings There are no listed buildings on the site (LB 1996). The only listed buildings in the village are the Church, church yard wall and Flint Cottage, located to the west of the site, and a 17th century Grade II listed building to the north (see above). Discussion In the light of the information given above, there are several considerations with which to assess the archaeological potential of this site. The large number of entries in the GLSMR cover a wide range of periods, indicating that the site lies within an archaeologically rich area. The cartographic evidence indicates that the site was occupied by structures (a farm?) from at least the 18th century and probably earlier. The site lay on the fringes of the historic village until recent large-scale expansion and is sited adjacent to the main village road. This is reflected by the proximity of the site to the areas of archaeological interest in the Croydon Unitary Development Plan. The 6

8 Medieval topography of the village and any late Saxon precursors is partially known in the area close to the church but, with the effects of settlement shift and contraction due to epidemic or economic decline, there is a strong possibility that these early periods of the village history could be represented as archaeological deposits on the site. There does not appear to have been any excessive truncation of the site area, such as quarry pits, and, if archaeological deposits are present, they are likely to have a state of preservation typical of dryland locations in villages throughout southern England. It is recommended that further information about the potential of the site from field observation would be appropriate. This would provide detailed information on the archaeological potential of the site so that a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits could be drawn up. A scheme for this evaluation will need to be devised and approved by GLAAS and implemented by a competent archaeological contractor, such as an Institute of Field Archaeologists Registered Organisation. Whilst any archaeological deposits present are likely to be of local or regional significance, in terms of the development of the village and its contacts and relationships with other regions, there is no evidence to suggest that extensive, well preserved and nationally important remains are likely, such as would meet most or all of the criteria for Scheduling as an Ancient Monument in Annex 4 of PPG16 (1990). As such, it would be appropriate that any deposits present should be preserved by record, i.e. by full excavation, recording and publication of results. Both the initial evaluation and follow-up excavation, if needed, can be achieved by the implementation of a condition on the granting of planning permission. References BGS, 1981, British Geological Survey, Sheet 270, Drift Edition, Scale 1: Bird, J and Bird, D G (eds), 1987, The Archaeology of Surrey, Guildford CUDP, 1997, Croydon Unitary Development Plan, adopted January 1997 Mills, A D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2nd edition) LB, 1996, Department of the Environment list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest, London Borough of Croydon, October 1996, Croydon PPG16, 1990, Department of the Environment Planning Policy Guidance note 16, Archaeology and Planning, HMSO VCH, 1912, Surrey, Victory County History of England, IV, London (reprinted edition 1967) Warren, F, 1984, Addington, a History, Phillimore, Chichester 7

9 APPENDIX 1: Sites and Monuments Record entries within a 0.5 km search radius of the development site No SMR Ref Grid Ref Type Period Comment (TQ) Flint tool Palaeolithic Scraper Neolithic/Bronze Age Arrowhead Neolithic Struck flint Neolithic Pottery sherd Roman Samian Pottery sherd Early Saxon Manor House? Medieval/post-Medieval (13th 17th century) Building Post-Medieval (17th 18th century) Round barrows Bronze Age/Saxon Manor House Medieval (11th 14th century) Lynchet Medieval (12th century) Well Medieval (pre 14th century) Field bank Post-Medieval Pottery sherd Saxon Road Post-Medieval Pottery bowl Roman pottery sherds Roman Including Samian Scraper and blade Mesolithic Bronze Age Hammerstone Prehistoric? Flint blade Mesolithic/early Neolithic? Hunting Lodge Medieval/post-Medieval Site of? Handaxe Palaeolithic pottery sherds Medieval pottery sherds Medieval Flint implements Neolithic/Bronze Age Spearheads, arrowheads, scrapers / Church Medieval (11th 13th century) Possibly late Saxon Pottery sherds Roman Pottery sherds Roman (2nd century) / / / Pottery sherds Pottery sherds Pottery sherds Pottery sherds and cobbled floor Medieval Prehistoric Roman Post-Medieval Village Medieval Addington Evaluation Pit/ditches Pits and postholes Lynchet Demolition rubble Late Bronze Age Late Saxon/Medieval Medieval Post-Medieval House Post-Medieval (17th century) Listed Grade II / / House, outbuilding and cobbled surface Post-Medieval (17th century) / Pottery sherds Conduit Medieval/post-Medieval 8

10 APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted 1693 John Seller, Map of Surrey 1729 John Senex, Map of Surrey 1762 John Rocque, Map of Surrey (Fig. 4) 1790 Lindley and Crosley, Map of Surrey 1816 Ordnance Survey (preliminary edition) 1823 C and I Greenwood, Map of Surrey 1837 Addington Tithe map (Fig. 5) 1868 First Edition Ordnance Survey, Surrey Sheet XIV.16, 25 (Fig. 6) 1897 Second Edition Ordnance Survey, Surrey Sheet XIV.16, 25 (Fig. 7) 1934 Ordnance Survey, Surrey Sheet XIV.16, Ordnance Survey, TQ : Ordnance Survey, TQ : Ordnance Survey, TQ : Ordnance Survey, TQ : Ordnance Survey, Superplan 1:1250 (Fig. 2) 9

11 65000 SITE 1, 2, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 27, 30 21, , 26 3, , ,7, 33 8, 11, 15 SITE Addington Village Farm, Addington, London Borough of Croydon, Greater London, 2000 TQ ARC00/47 Figure 1. Location of site within Addington and Greater London. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Pathfinder1191 TQ26/36 1:25000 Ordnance Survey Licence AL52324A0001 (reproduced at 1:10000)

12 The Wicket SITE Spout Hill Houses Stables Addington Village Road Vicarage The Forge TQ Addington Village Farm, Addington, London Borough of Croydon, Greater London, 2000 ARC00/47 Figure 2. Location of site showing current land use.

13 The Wicket SITE Addington Village Road Vicarage TQ Addington Village Farm, Addington, London Borough of Croydon, Greater London, 2000 ARC00/47 Figure 3. Location of site showing development proposals.

14 SITE ARC00/47 Addington Village Farm, Addington, London Borough of Croydon, Greater London, 2000 Figure 4. John Rocque, Map of Surrey, 1765.

15 SITE Addington Village Farm, Addington, London Borough of Croydon, Greater London, 2000 ARC00/47 Figure 5. Tithe map, 1837.

16 SITE Addington Village Farm, Addington, London Borough of Croydon, Greater London, 2000 ARC00/47 Figure 6. 1st. Edition Ordnance Survey, 1868.

17 SITE Addington Village Farm, Addington, London Borough of Croydon, Greater London, 2000 ARC00/47 Figure 7. 2nd. Edition Ordnance Survey, 1897.