Land off Laburnum Close, Ambrosden near Bicester, Oxfordshire · Land off Laburnum Close, Ambrosden near Bicester, Oxfordshire An Archaeological Evaluation ... The top of this upper

Land off Laburnum Close, Ambrosden near Bicester, Oxfordshire

An Archaeological Evaluation

for Annington Developments Limited

by Stephen Hammond and Steve Ford 

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd

Site Code AHB 05/27

April 2005

i

Summary

Site name: Land off Laburnum Close, Ambrosden, near Bicester, Oxfordshire Grid reference: SP 6020 1938 Site activity: Field evaluation Date and duration of project: 23rd–30th March 2005 Project manager: Steve Ford Site supervisor: Stephen Hammond Site code: AHB 05/27 Area of site: c. 6000 sq m Summary of results: Five trenches were excavated. A post-medieval tunnel previously located in an earlier archaeological evaluation was investigated further and its course and construction recorded. A limestone culvert wall and robber trench which were also uncovered are considered to be the remnants of the former manor houses on the site. All the deposits were of later post-medieval date. Monuments identified: Tunnel, walls, culvert, robber trenches Location and reference of archive: The archive is presently held at Thames Valley Archaeological Services, Reading and will be deposited with Oxfordshire Museums Service in due course. This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder Report edited/checked by: Steve Preston 15.04.05

1

Land off Laburnum Close, Ambrosden, nr Bicester, Oxfordshire An Archaeological Evaluation

by Stephen Hammond and Steve Ford

Report 05/27

Introduction

This report documents the results of an archaeological field evaluation carried out at land off Laburnum Close,

Ambrosden, Bicester, Oxfordshire (SP6020 1938) (Fig. 1). The work was commissioned by Mr Clive Warlow of

Annington Developments Ltd, 1 Eaglethorpe Barns, Peterborough Road, Warmington, Peterborough, PE8 6TL.

Planning permission (04/02435/F) has been gained from Cherwell District Council to construct new

housing and associated car parking on the site. A brief provided by Oxfordshire County Archaeological Service

(Fluck 2005) highlighted the potential of the site. In summary, the site lies within the historic core of Ambrosden

and includes the likely sites of the manor houses, one built c. 1675 and demolished in 1768 and its 1797

replacement. As a consequence of the possibility of archaeological deposits on the site which may be damaged

or destroyed by groundworks, a field evaluation comprising trial trenching and survey by ground penetrating

radar was requested. These investigations located some deposits of archaeological interest but could not fully

explore the site because of various access restrictions. The one success of the evaluation was in the location of

the top of a brick-capped tunnel which formed part of a complex of subterranean works for the later manor

house. Consequently, further trenching was requested to record the tunnel and to cover areas that were

previously not fully investigated.

This is in accordance with the Department of the Environment’s Planning Policy Guidance, Archaeology

and Planning (PPG16 1990), and the District’s policies on archaeology. The field investigation was carried out

to a specification approved by Ms. Hannah Fluck, Planning Archaeologist with Oxfordshire County

Archaeological Service, advisers to the District. The fieldwork was undertaken by Stephen Hammond with the

assistance of Sarah Coles and Simon Cass and the site code is AHB 02/57. The archive is presently held at

Thames Valley Archaeological Services, Reading and will be deposited with Oxfordshire Museums Service in

due course.

Location, topography and geology

The site comprises an L-shaped parcel of land off Laburnum Close, Ambrosden, near Bicester, Oxfordshire. It is

currently open ground. The land is at a height of approximately 68m above Ordnance Datum and can be seen to

2

have been landscaped to make it relatively flat across much of the site area before dropping off towards south-

east and south-west. The underlying geology according to the Geological Survey (BGS 1994) is a limestone

cornbrash formation. This was confirmed during the evaluation.

Archaeological background

The archaeological background to the project has been detailed in a brief for the project (Fluck 2005). In

summary, the site of the proposed development lies within the historic core of Ambrosden as shown on the Davis

map of 1797. The site is located within in an area likely to contain the manor houses of Sir William Glynne

(built 1673 or soon after) and Sir Edward Turner (built to a Sanderson Miller design in 1740 and demolished

1768). The Glynne house replaced a dilapidated medieval manor house though the location of the latter is

unclear. The Page-Turner (as the family later became) house had extensive cellars and underground offices that

were entered from a covered passage opening some distance from the house. It also possessed an extensive

formal park with lakes, statues, etc. The ruins of the basement were uncovered in 1819 with a view to rebuilding

but this project was abandoned and they were backfilled again (VCH 1957, 15–16).

A 17m stretch of this tunnel was examined in 1972 (information from Oxfordshire SMR) but ‘a much

greater length’ running between the site of the house and St Mary’s church could not be examined as it had

collapsed and was blocked with rubbish. The top of this tunnel was rediscovered by Oxford Archaeology in July

2003 and noted to be on a WSW–ENE alignment heading towards the church situated just beyond the site

boundary. However, the tunnel was not further investigated nor was its full height established. The presence and

location of the remains of the manor house(s) could also not be established.

Objectives and methodology

The purpose of the evaluation was to determine the presence/absence, extent, condition, character, quality and

date of any archaeological deposits within the area of development. This work was to be carried out in a manner

which would not compromise the integrity of archaeological deposits which warrant preservation in situ, or

might be better excavated under conditions pertaining to full excavation. The specific research aims of this

project are:

• To determine if archaeologically relevant levels have survived on the site of the manor house.

• To determine if archaeological deposits of any period are present.

• To determine if archaeological deposits representing medieval occupation of the site are present.

3

• To determine if any elements of the post-medieval manor house are present.

• To produce a record of the cross section of the tunnel.

In order to achieve these aims it was intended to dig four trenches, two 10m long within the potential footprint of

the manor houses and two more at between 5 to 10m long, designed to produce two transverse sections of the

tunnel previously uncovered. The trenches were proposed to be initially 1.6m wide with the intention of making

them wider and to be stepped, shored or battered to enable safe access should it be required. A contingency for

an additional 5m of trenching was included within the proposal should this be required to clarify the nature of the

initial findings. Machining was carried out under constant archaeological supervision using a JCB-type machine

fitted with a ditching bucket to expose either the archaeologically sensitive levels or the highest naturally

occurring geological horizon, depending on the contents of the individual trench.

A complete list of trenches giving lengths, breadths, depths and a description of sections and geology is

given in Appendix 1.

Results (Figs 3–6, Pls 1–4)

Five trenches were eventually dug ranging in length from 5m to 14.65m as shown on Figure 3. Several of the

trenches were partially widened to facilitate better examination of deposits or battered for safe access.

Trench 1 (Pls 1 and 2)

This trench was 14.65m long and up to 2.7m deep and was located in the area where the former manor houses

were thought to have stood. Three features of interest were noted beneath various deposits of made ground. The

made ground was of a considerable thickness up to 2.5m above the natural geology. The most striking structure

uncovered was a small tunnel, or more probably a culvert (1) aligned NW–SE (Pl. 2). The culvert is made from

limestone block walls with an arched top and a stone floor, largely set in a cut into the natural geology. It is 0.6m

wide and 1m deep at the maximum. The blocks range from 0.10m x 0.15m x 0.05m thick to 0.20m x 0.20m by

0.10m thick and consist of 9 to 10 courses set in pale grey-yellow lime mortar in irregular bonding. The arch is

formed of the same materials (52), some of the blocks here being larger.

Above the culvert a second arch has been constructed of brick which stands proud of the natural geology.

The top of this upper arch is 1.5m below the surface.

Just 1.5m to the south-west of the culvert on the same alignment is a mortared limestone wall or foundation

(7) which is 1m wide and cuts the natural geology to a depth of 0.5m. This consists of similar blocks to the

4

culvert walls bonded in a yellow limestone mortar. It is overlain by made ground which also overlies the culvert

and the wall will have been robbed out before the upper arch of the culvert was constructed (Fig. 5, Pl. 2). To the

north-east was a vertical sided cut (2) 1.7m wide and 2m deep into the natural geology, backfilled with clean

grey clay which overlay limestone blocks (Pl. 1). It is considered that this a robber trench, and can be supposed

to mark the location of one of the manor houses. There was no evidence to date this feature.

Trench 2 (Pl. 3)

This trench was 10.00m long and at 2.65m deep was of similar depth to Trench 1. It too was located in the area

where the former manor houses are thought to have stood. A considerable thickness of made ground was

revealed overlying the natural geology but no structures of interest were noted.

Trench 3 (Pl. 4)

This trench was 5m long and up to 4.5m deep and was mostly occupied by a brick-built tunnel (3) with vertical

sides, an arched brick roof and a stone (or natural stone) floor, all beneath 1.2m of overburden. The bricks of the

roof (53) are mid-to-dark reddish brown, unfrogged, 0.22m x 0.11m by 0.06m thick laid in header and stretcher

bond with pale yellow-white lime mortar. The tunnel was aligned NW–SE. It is possible that the walls (54) are

made from limestone or from rendered brick, but this could not be confirmed during the investigation. Neither

the number of courses nor the wall bond could be ascertained safely. The tunnel was 2.2m wide and 3.2m high at

the top of the arch. The tunnel had been mostly backfilled with rubble. On either side of the tunnel at the height

of the overlying brick arch were two parallel brick-built, enclosed channels interpreted as drains. Deposits to

either side of the tunnel were of made ground but were presumably backfill of a construction cut.

Trench 4

This trench was 9.7m long and up to 2.3m deep. It was positioned as far as practicable to intercept obliquely the

projected line of tunnel (3) found in Trench 3 but did not unambiguously do so. Beneath 1.3m of topsoil and

rubble/overburden a line of rough stonework was revealed on the north-west side of the trench. The trench was

extended northwards and revealed that the rough stonework was backfill of a construction trench with a mortared

stone wall beyond. Further beyond this was loose rubble backfill thought to be infill of a former tunnel.

The new wall was on a different alignment from the tunnel discovered in Trench 3 suggesting either a bend

of about 40o in the line or another passageway.

5

Trench 5

This trench was 6m long and up to 1.7m deep. Its purpose was to confirm the alignment of the tunnel(s) found in

the trenches to the west. Topsoil and made ground were relatively thin with a depth of only 0.4m above the top

of structural deposits. The natural geology was not encountered and the lowest levels of the structural remains

were not uncovered. To the north-west was a brick wall (5) at least 0.4m wide which may be capping for a

limestone wall. Just 2m to the south east was a robber trench (6) backfilled with stone and brick rubble but with

some in situ brickwork. Between the two features was further brick and limestone rubble, indicating that the

stone work of the south eastern wall had been robbed subsequent to the infilling of the void between the two. It

is considered that this feature is also a tunnel which has been collapsed and been robbed, but is otherwise of

similar width to the tunnel uncovered in Trench 3 to the south-west. If the tunnel segments identified in these

three trenches are one and the same structure, the findings in Trench 5 confirm the change in its orientation as

already indicated by the findings in Trench 4.

Finds

No finds were recovered from the evaluation.

Conclusion

The evaluation trenches have revealed various deposits and structures of later post-medieval date and confirmed

their nature and location on the site. No finds or deposits of earlier periods, such as representing the presence of

a late medieval manor house, were revealed. Previous work on the site and documentary sources indicated the

presence of tunnels and other subterranean features and the trenches here have located and recorded one or

possibly two such tunnels. It is probable that only a single tunnel is present but if so, the tunnel changes

alignment towards the eastern end of the site. The tunnel has been infilled with rubble but survives as an intact

structure in one area, but has been robbed or collapsed in others.

Other deposits found appear to relate directly to one or other of the post-medieval manor houses with a

culvert, wall and robbed out wall present towards the north of the site. These deposits are deeply buried beneath

1m or more of made ground. It was not possible to establish to which of the building phases these belonged.

References

BGS, 1994, British Geological Survey, 1:50000, Sheet 237, Solid and Drift Edition, Keyworth Fluck, H, 2005, ‘04/02435/F - Land adj. To Laburnum Close, Ambrosden; Design Brief for Archaeological

Recording Action’, Oxfordshire County Council PPG16, 1990, Archaeology and Planning, Dept of the Environment Planning Policy Guidance 16, HMSO

6

VCH, 1957, Victoria History of the Counties of England; Oxfordshire, vol 6, London

7

APPENDIX 1: Trench details 0m at S/W end

Trench No. Length (m) Breadth (m) Depth (m) Comment 1 14.65 1.6 2.70 0-0.55m topsoil; 0.55-1.25m made ground (clay with rubble); 1.25-

2.5m made ground (various sloping layers); 2.55m+ natural geology (limestone) Culvert (1), wall (7), robber trench (2) [Plates 1 and 2]

2 10.00 1.6 2.65 0-0.31m topsoil; 0.31-0.72m made ground (limestone/brick rubble); 0.72-2.59m made ground (clay with some rubble in layers); 2.59-2.62m buried topsoil (grey/brown clayey silt); 2.62m+ Natural limestone [Plate 3]

3 5.00 1.6 4.50 0-0.3m topsoil; 0.3-4.5m made ground (clay with some rubble);4.5m+ made ground (clay with limestone (natural geology not observed but possibly base of tunnel). Tunnel (3) [Plate 4]

4 9.70 1.6 2.30 1.5m (W) 1.6m (E)

0-0.1m topsoil; 0.1-0.35m made ground (clay with some rubble); 0.35m+ made ground/rubble (natural geology not observed). Tunnel wall (4) and robbed wall (5)

5 6.00 1.6 1.70 0-0.4m topsoil; 0.4-1.4m made ground (clay with some rubble); 1.4m+ silty clay with limestone (natural geology not observed). Tunnel (6)

APPENDIX 2: Catalogue of features Feature Trench Comment 1 1 Culvert 2 1 Robber trench 3 3 Tunnel and drain 4 4 construction cut and tunnel wall 5 5 Tunnel wall 6 5 Robber trench (tunnel wall) 7 1 Wall

Land off Laburnum Close, Ambrosden, near Bicester, Oxfordshire, 2005

Archaeological Evaluation

Figure 1. Location of site within Ambrosden andOxfordshire.

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Pathfinder 1093 SP61/71at 1:12500

Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880

SITE

18000

19000

SP61000 62000 AHB05/27

SITE

Figure 2. Location of site

Laburnum Close, Ambrosden, near Bicester, Oxfordshire, 2005

AHB 05/27

0 50m

Willow Road

Laburnum Close

SITE

SP60200

19400

19500

St Mary's

N

N

Figure 3. Location of trenches

Laburnum Close, Ambrosden, near Bicester, Oxfordshire, 2005

AHB 05/27

Laburnum Close

1

2

3 4

5

TunnelAlignment(projected)

0 50m

SP60200

19400

culvert

wall

robbertrench

N

Figure 4. Plans of trenches

Laburnum Close, Ambrosden, near Bicester, Oxfordshire, 2005

AHB 05/27

0 5m

N

Trench 1

Trench 3

Trench 4

Trench 5

NaturalCulvert

Natural Natural

Robber trench (clayabove stone base)

0m 3m 7m 9m

Backfill of tunnel/culvert

Mortared stone wall

Stone rubble

Brick/mortar cap

Buried topsoil Natural Buried topsoil

Buried topsoil Brick rubble

Brick rubble

Brick/brick capped stone

wall

0m 5m

MadeGround

3Drain

Void/backfill

3

MadeGround

N

0m 9m

0m 5m

Drain

1 2

4

6 5

robber trench

Brick wall

brick arch

Wall Wall

Machined out

66.79m

67.16m

66.96m 65.00m 67.03m

68.75m

67.30m

68.84m

68.52m67.70m

67.71m

65.73m 66.34m

67.40m

67.15m

65.52m

65.66m

67.73m

66.92m

66.88m

66.48m66.45m

7

N

Figure 5. Sections

Laburnum Close, Ambrosden, near Bicester, Oxfordshire, 2005

AHB 05/27

Trench 1

Topsoil

Made groundMid brown

Made groundMid brownish yellow

Made groundblack

Wall 7 Natural

Mid brownsilty clay

Palebrownishyellow

Natural

Dark brownclayey silt

Paleyellowsand

52

50

Brick

Limestone

battered back section

66.81m AOD

SW

NE

1

0 2.5m

Figure 6. Sections

Laburnum Close, Ambrosden, near Bicester, Oxfordshire, 2005

AHB 05/27

Made ground Brick/limestone rubble

Limestone/brickrubble

Buried topsoilRubble

Wall 5

SubsoilMade groundTopsoil

543

53

MadeGround

MadeGround

Made ground

Topsoil

SE NW

Trench 3

Trench 5

Brick

68.75m AOD

SW NE

natural stone

0 5m

0 2.5m

Drain Drain

6