| Abstract: |
An archaeological desk-based assessment was undertaken in advance of the proposed redevelopment of the site. The assessment revealed that the site, in general terms, lay within an archaeologically and historically rich part of the Thames Valley. Furthermore, the northern part of the site was identified as one of archaeological potential on the local plan constraints map. However, when more specific details of the environs of the site were assessed, the archaeological potential of the site was less marked. There were four components with which to consider the significance of the site. Firstly, the site lay within the boundary of the medieval deer park but was in a peripheral location which, at that time, would have been used as wood parkland and it was most unlikely that structures relating to the use of the park would be present. There were relatively few entries in the SMR for the area being studied, although one entry did relate to finds immediately adjacent to the site. Secondly, the definition of part of the site as a constraint on the Borough local plan appeared to have been determined on the basis of the finding of two struck flints in the rear garden of an adjacent property. Enquiries of the current archaeological staff at the Surrey County Council did not provide detail as to why their predecessors identified this location as important. To the author, these two flints appeared to be a tenuous justification for the defining of an archaeological constraint within the local plan. Unless these finds were associated with a larger quantity of other struck flints, which had not been recorded but indicated a prehistoric occupation site, then there was no reason to interpret them as anything but stray finds, of minor consequence to the development proposals. Thirdly, the site area, at c.5300 sq. m, was larger than the threshold of intervention defined by the Surrey County Structure plan (0.4ha) but was not markedly over this limit. Within an (originally) rural setting, the chances of encountering archaeological deposits on such a small plot of land were accordingly reduced, even if they could not be discounted completely. Lastly, the site had been subject to two phases of development, one in the late 19th/20th century and the other in the 1960s. For this non-urban location, the previous phases of development would, at the very least, have damaged any archaeologically deposits present, even if outright destruction could not be demonstrated. On balance, therefore, it was felt that the archaeological potential for the site was much less than indicated by the inclusion of part of it as a constraint on the Borough Local plan. It was recommended that the site merited no more than a watching brief, to observe and record any archaeological features present and to retrieve any further flint finds that may come to light during the redevelopment. [Au(adp)] |
