Oak Tree Fields, Spine Road, South Cerney, Gloucestershire

Oak Tree Fields, Spine Road, South Cerney, Gloucestershire

An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

for Hills Minerals & Waste

by Steve Ford

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd

Site Code OTF04/73

August 2004

i

Summary

Site name: Oak Tree Fields, Spine Road, South Cerney, Gloucestershire

Grid reference: SU 0650 9560 Site activity: Desk-based assessment Project manager: Steve Ford Site supervisor: Steve Ford Site code: OTF04/73 Area of site: 30ha Summary of results: The site, by virtue of its size and the proximity of known archaeological remains, is considered to have moderate to high archaeological potential which should be further explored prior to mineral extraction. This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder Report edited/checked by: Jennifer Lowe 18.08.03 Steve Preston 18.08.03

1

Oak Tree Fields, Spine Road, South Cerney, Gloucestershire An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

by Steve Ford

Report 04/73 Introduction

This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of a parcel of land located to the east of

Spine Road, South Cerney, Gloucestershire (SU06509560) (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr John

Salmon, of Land & Mineral Management Limited, Roundhouse Cottages, Bridge Street, Frome, Somerset,

BA11 1BE on behalf of Hills Minerals & Waste 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

A site visit on the 11th August 2004 revealed that the site is mostly occupied by several fields of grassland. The

south-western portion of the site has been previously quarried and restored. No archaeological deposits

surviving as earthworks were observed. The development area is centred on NGR SU 0650 9560, and the

underlying geology is first terrace gravel with a very small area of Jurassic kellaway clay to the north, and

(formerly, now quarried) an area of alluvium overlying gravel to the south (BGS 1982). It is at a height of

approximately 84m above Ordnance Datum and is approximately 30ha in size including 10ha of land which has

been previously quarried and restored (Fig. 2).

Planning background and development proposals

Planning permission has been granted to extract sand and gravel from the site.

Archaeology and Planning (PPG 16 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:

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

2

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...’


‘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.


‘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 Gloucestershire County Council Structure Plan (GCCSP 1999 and 2002).

Policy M.3 states:

‘In making provision for the supply of minerals, and taking into account national and regional guidance, the appropriate degree of protection must be afforded to: a) Internationally, nationally, regionally and locally important areas of landscape, nature conservation, archaeological interest; …’ (GCCSP 1999)

Policy NHE.6 states:

The distinctive historic environment of the County will be conserved and enhanced. Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, and their settings will be preserved. Historic settlements and landscape, historic parks and gardens, and sites of archaeological importance will be protected from the adverse effects of development. (GCCSP 1999).

The proposed wording of Policy MR.7 in the 3rd Alt. deposit draft (GCCSP 2002) reiterates the exact wording

of NHE.6 except for the addition of registered battlefield sites to the list in the final sentence.

3

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 Gloucestershire Sites and

Monuments Record, aerial photographic interpretative plots, geological maps and any relevant publications or

reports.

Archaeological background

General background The county of Gloucestershire and adjoining areas of Wiltshire, is generally regarded as archaeologically rich

and the site lies within a topographic zone (the valley floor of the Thames) which is regarded as of great

archaeological interest in both prehistoric and historic times. Arising from both the suitability of the underlying

geology for the formation of cropmarks, and the scale of archaeologically monitored mineral extraction, a great

density of archaeological deposits has been recorded, which provides a widespread view of settlement and land-

use, especially in Iron Age and Roman times (Benson and Miles 1974; Fulford 1992; Hingley and Miles 1984).

The perception of the Upper Thames gravels in these periods is that of a densely packed, highly organized,

subdivided landscape with sites spaced at roughly one every 0.5–1km in places. The environs of Ashton Keynes

and South Cerney has witnessed much mineral extraction and a large number of sites and finds have been

recorded with further sites recorded from the air. Relatively little fieldwork, though, has taken place for the

immediate environs of the proposal site.

Gloucestershire Sites and Monuments Record

The Sites and Monuments Record was consulted on 3rd August 2004 with a search area of 500m radius centred

on the site. This revealed 10 entries for the environs of the site which are summarized in Appendix 1 and

displayed on Figure 1 and Figure 7. One entry, that for a linear cropmark of uncertain origin and date is

recorded as lying just inside or on the boundary of the north-eastern corner of the site.

Prehistoric

A single prehistoric entry is recorded, that for a hand axe of Palaeolithic date [Fig. 1: 6]. The specific area is not

noted for its abundance of Palaeolithic finds and the location of this find and the proposal site on one of the

lower terraces of the Thames suggests that at best, any Palaeolithic material present will not be in situ where

4

discarded (Wymer 1999). Nevertheless this handaxe is of relative importance being precisely provenanced

within a specific gravel deposit (Saville 1984).

Post-medieval

Three, possibly four entries belong this period. Three entries relate to the now disused Midland and South

Western Junction Railway which linked the Midlands with Southampton. It was opened to passenger services in

1891 but struggled financially, was taken over by the Great Western Railway and was eventually disused in

1961. The route of the railway forms the northern boundary of the site [7] and two bridges over the railway are

extant [1 and 5], one of which is a listed building.

One entry relates to a cropmark complex visible on aerial photographs and which was also visible

following topsoil stripping prior to gravel extraction [3]. The cropmark evidence was considered to represent

field ditches and enclosures of post-medieval date whereas the additional information following topsoil stripping

suggested a complex with characteristics more typical of Iron Age or Roman occupation. No fieldwork was

carried out to confirm or refute these opinions though the compiler of the SMR entry prefers the post-medieval

interpretation.

Undated

The majority of the entries relate to deposits observed as cropmarks from the air as shown on Figure 7. These

comprise a length of trackway just to the west of the site [2], enclosures and linear features just to the north-east

with a short length of ditch on the boundary of, or just within the site [4], and a larger complex of ditches and

enclosures further to the north [3]. An evaluation just to the north of the site revealed a series of gullies, ditches

and pits, none of which were dated but thought to represent the presence of prehistoric or Roman occupation in

this area [9].

Negative evidence

A watching brief was carried out during remodelling of the margins of the extracted gravel pit without locating

any finds or deposits of archaeological interest [8].

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

There are no scheduled ancient monuments on or adjacent to the site.

5

Cartographic and documentary sources

A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at Gloucestershire Record

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 maps available of the area are small scale county maps produced during the 16th to 19th

centuries. One of these, that of Christopher Saxton in 1675 is reproduced as Figure 3. This and other maps by

Speed, (1610), Morden (1695) and Kitchin (1786) sometimes indicate the presence of South Cerney but provide

no detail for the site itself. Greenwood (1831) provides more detail including the road pattern (Fig. 4) and using

the latter as a guide, this appears to indicate the presence of structures on or very close to the site. These are

likely to represent Crosslane Cottages. One part of this complex is shown within the site but no corresponding

structures are present on later maps for this area.

A detailed map of the site is that of the South Cerney Inclosure map of 1820 (Fig. 5). This map shows the

two roads forming the south and west boundaries and indicates a field pattern that is almost identical to the

present day. No buildings are shown. Ownership is recorded for this map but not landuse.

A detailed map of the parish of South Cerney by R. Hall in 1831 is identical to the Inclosure map and is

presumably copied from it. The Tithe Map of 1863 does not show the site.

The Ordnance Survey First Edition map of 1884 and the subsequent Second Edition of 1900 (Fig. 6) show

no change in the field patterns. Apart from the loss of one field boundary and the building of farm buildings

opposite Crosslane Cottages (Fig. 1), the pattern was the same until gravel extraction took place on the southern

part of the site.

There are some general documentary sources for Cerney but none can be related specifically to the site

itself. The earliest reference was in Saxon times when land at Cerney (Cyrne) valued at 15 hides was granted by

King Athelred to Abingdon Abbey in AD 909 (Grundy 1935, 61–4). In Domesday Book (1086) South Cerney is

held by Walter fitzRoger and assessed at 14 hides, occupied by 34 villagers and a priest. Interestingly, the

ownership is in dispute, with the claims of St Mary’s (Abingdon) being denied by the shire (Williams and

Martin 2002, 467). In medieval times South Cerney was recorded as containing 3 manors (Fosbroke 1807,

471ff).

6

Geotechnical test pits

A two phase geotechnical survey was carried out by C & C Mineral Planning Services (1988) (Fig. 8). A full list

of the results is reproduced in Appendix 3, and their locations displayed on Figure 8.

The first phase of work comprised excavation of test pits with the second being a borehole survey. A total

of twenty-four test pits were excavated on the site, and three beyond the perimeters of the site boundary. The

stratigraphy encountered in the majority of these comprised topsoil approximately 0.20–0.25m thick, which, in

most cases, overlay subsoil which varied in thickness from 0.10–0.80m. The natural gravels were encountered in

almost all the test pits, except for three located close to the north-western edge of the site, and one at the south-

east edge of the site, where a blue clay was encountered.

The subsequent borehole survey produced similar results with between 0.20–0.40m of topsoil overlying a

clayey subsoil (not encountered in every borehole) which in turn overly natural gravels.

Listed buildings

There are no buildings, listed or otherwise on the site.

Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields

There are no registered parks, gardens or battlefields on the site.

Aerial Photographs

The catalogues of aerial photographs in the collections maintained by Royal Commission on the Historic

Monuments of England (RCHM(E)) housed in the National Monuments Record at Swindon and Cambridge

University Unit for Landscape Modelling were consulted during August 2004.

The English Heritage collection contained 27 vertical prints from 13 sorties for the study area taken

between 1946 and 1990. The collection also contained 10 oblique prints taken between 1975 and 1997.

The Cambridge University collection had no coverage of the site area.

None of these photographs have been examined directly for this study as the site lies within an area which has

recently been the subject of detailed transcription of all known photographs by the National Monuments Record

(English Heritage) (a plot of which is reproduced here as Figure 7).

7

Historic hedgerows

Although some of the hedgerows present on the site appear to have been in place at least as early as the

enclosure map (1820), none of them meets the archaeological or historical criteria for definition as historically

‘important’ under Part Two of Schedule 1 of The Hedgerows Regulations 1997.

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. The

south western portion of the site has been previously quarried and restored and no longer has any

archaeological potential. The remainder of this discussion considers the other, unquarried areas.

The above detail indicates that the proposal site lies within an area of archaeological interest. There are a

number of archaeological sites nearby but as yet no known deposits on the site itself though a cropmark

representing a ditch of uncertain date and function lies on the site margins. It is tempting, (but perhaps overly

speculative) to suggest that with the combination of aerial photography, evaluations, watching briefs and

excavations, that the major Iron Age and Roman settlement foci in the area have been located. However, it is

increasingly clear from recent work that in these periods the landscape was remarkably ‘full’ of low density

activity. As such the proposal site might be expected to contain contemporary elements of lesser importance

such as landscape features (boundary features, field systems), or smaller occupation or burial foci of earlier

prehistoric date which are much less susceptible to discovery from the air.

This assessment, coupled with the size of the site, indicate that the chance of encountering archaeological

deposits on the unquarried areas is moderate. The survival of archaeological deposits, if present, will be typical

of dry land sites in agricultural (ploughed) settings which are encountered widely across most of southern

Britain. What is less easy to estimate is the scale and nature of such deposits, though it seems doubtful that any

deposits, if present, will meet any of the criteria for scheduling as ancient monuments.

The potential impacts of development on buried archaeological deposits in this instance are, for the most

part, clearcut, as extraction of minerals will lead to total destruction. More subtle effects such as dewatering of

previously waterlogged deposits (where organic remains are preserved) in adjacent areas and the need for

ancillary facilities may lead to further damage of greater or lesser extent. ‘Damage’ may also extend even to

remains which are themselves physically preserved intact, through ‘loss of legibility’; i.e., the loss of

interpretability resulting from damage to surrounding deposits.

8

It might be considered from the above discussion that there is sufficient information available to draw up

an appropriate mitigation strategy without a need for further fieldwork derived information, such as from field

evaluation. However, the course of action is already effectively guided by the existence of the extant planning

consent for mineral extraction. The principal objective for pre-determination evaluation, is the identification of

sites worthy of preservation in-situ (ie of schedulable importance) and enforcement of this through the planning

process. In this case the enforcement of preservation in-situ is no longer an option and preservation by record (or

preservation in-situ by agreement) is the course of action to be followed. The value of field evaluation in this

instance now lies in its ability to identify the scale of any deposits present and an excessive financial risk that

these might present to the client should a wealth of deposits be revealed. Arguably, the details presented in this

document have indicated the likely extent of this risk.

It is suggested therefore, that a watching brief (strip and record) should be carried out by a competent

archaeological contractor during the archaeologically supervised removal of overburden from the site and prior

to extraction. This should take place according to a written scheme of investigation drawn up in consultation

with, and agreed by the Gloucestershire County Archaeological Officer.

References Benson, D and Miles, D, 1974, The Upper Thames Valley: an archaeological survey of the river gravels,

Oxfordshire Archaeol Unit Survey 2, Oxford BGS, 1974, British Geological Survey, 1:50,000, Sheet 252 Solid and Drift Edition, Keyworth C&C Mineral Planning Services, 1988, ‘Site Geotechnical Report’, Reading Fosbrooke, T, D, 1807, History of Gloucestershire, Gloucester Fulford, M, 1992, ‘Iron Age to Roman: a period of radical change on the gravels’, in (eds) M Fulford and E

Nicols, Developing landscapes of lowland Britain: the archaeology of the British gravels: a review, Soc Antiq London Occas Pap 14, 23–38

GCCSP1999, Gloucestershire County Council Structure Plan, 2nd Review Adopted, November 1999, Gloucester

GCCSP 2002, Gloucestershire County Council Structure Plan, 3rd Alteration Deposit Draft, November 2002, Gloucester

Grundy, G, B, 1935, Saxon charters and field names of Gloucestershire, Bristol Hingley, R and Miles, D, 1984, Aspects of Iron Age settlement in the Upper Thames Valley, in B Cunliffe and

D Miles (eds), Aspects of the Iron Age in central southern Britain, Oxford Univ Comm Archaeol Monogr 2, 52–71

PPG 16, 1990, Archaeology and Planning, Department of the Environment Planning Policy and Guidance Note 16, HMSO

Saville, A (ed), 1984, Archaeology in Gloucestershire, Cheltenham Wymer, J J, 1999, The Lower Palaeolithic occupation of Britain, Salisbury Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A Complete Translation, London

9

APPENDIX 1: Sites and Monuments Records within a 500 m search radius of the development site No SMR Ref Grid Ref (SU) Type Period Comment 1 2399 06360 96280 Railway bridge 19th Century Listed Grade II 2 3044 06050 95850 Double ditch Undated Cropmarks on aerial photographs 3 3045 06850 96650 Ditches and enclosures Undated Possibly of Roman or Iron Age date but

probably post-medieval. Now quarried 4 3130 07000 96500 Ditches and enclosures Undated Cropmarks on aerial photographs 5 3361 07280 95400 Railway bridge 19th/20th Century 6 3378 06100 96600 Hand Axe Palaeolithic 7 2681-1372 06600 96000 Railway 19th Century Disused in 1961 8 16249 06200 96660 - - Negative watching brief 9 21433 06880 96100 Gullies, ditches and pits Undated Cropmarks on aerial photographs 10 26813 06860 95940

06930 95870 06810 95770

Ditches Undated Cropmarks on aerial photographs

10

APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted 1574 Christopher Saxton, Map of Wiltshire (Fig. 3) 1610 John Speed, Map of Gloucestershire 1695 Robert Morden, Map of Gloucestershire 1786 T. Kitchin, Map of Gloucestershire 1820 South Cerney Inclosure map (Fig. 5) 1831 Charles Greenwood, Map of Gloucestershire (Fig. 4) 1831 R Hall, Map of the parish of South Cerney 1863 South Cerney Tithe Map 1884 Ordnance Survey First Edition 25” sheet LIX.8 1900 Ordnance Survey Second Edition 25” sheet LIX.8 (Fig. 6)

11

APPENDIX 3: Geotechnical data

Oak Tree Fields, Spine Road, South Cerney,Gloucestershire, 2004

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

Figure 1. Location of site within South Cerney andGloucestershire showing SMR entries

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Pathfinder 1134 SU 09/19 at1:25000 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880

04000

95000

96000

97000

98000

SU05000 06000 07000 08000OTF04/73

SITE

SITE

6

2

3

4

1

5

7

8

9



Figure 2. Detailed location of site within SouthCerney.

95000

96000

SU06000 07000

SITE

OTF04/73



Figure 3. Christopher Saxton’s map of Wiltshire. 1575

OTF04/73

SITE



Figure 4. Charles Greenwood’s Map ofGloucestershire 1831.

OTF04/73

SITE



Figure 5. South Cerney Inclosure map 1820.

OTF04/73

SITE

N



Figure 6. Ordnance Survey Second Edition 1900.

OTF04/73

SITE



Figure 7. Extract from cropmark plot by RCHM(E)

OTF04/73SU0600095000

96000

07000

SITE

Documents

Oak Tree Fields, Spine Road, South Cerney, Gloucestershire