VSM Estates Ltd
MoDEL RAF Bentley Priory
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
Contents Amendment Record
This report has been issued and amended as follows:
Issue Revision Description Date Signed
001 000 Draft for Client Comments 15.10.07 JM
Halcrow Yolles
th
5 Floor
3 Shortlands
Hammersmith
London, W6 8DA
Tel +44 (0)20 8233 3800 Fax +44 (0)20 8233 3801
www.halcrowyolles.com
Halcrow Group Limited has prepared this report in accordance with the
instructions of their client, VSM Estates Limited, for their sole and
specific use. Any other persons who use any information contained
herein do so at their own risk.
© Halcrow Group Limited 2007
Contents
1 Executive Summary 6
2 Introduction 8
2.1 Project Background 8
2.2 Site Location and Description 8
2.3 Proposed Development summary 9
3 Aims and Methodology 10
3.1 Aims 10
3.2 Methodology 10
3.3 Brief and Consultation 12
3.4 Sources Consulted 12
3.5 Limitations 12
4 Planning and Legislative Framework 14
4.1 Introduction 14
4.2 Outline of Planning and Legislative Framework 14
4.3 National Planning Policy 14
4.4 Regional Planning Policy 15
4.5 Strategic and Local Planning Policy 16
5 Cultural Heritage Resource Baseline Data 21
5.1 Geology and Paleo-environment (including Geotechnical Records) 21
5.2 Topography and Historic Landscape Aspects 21
5.3 Statutory/Non-statutory Protected Features 21
5.4 Historic Environment Record (HER) 22
5.5 Previous archaeological assessment, investigation or survey (including
Aerial Photography, Field Walking and Geophysical Survey etc.) 22
5.6 Archaeological and Historical Background (including Placename
Evidence etc) 23
6 Additional Archaeological and Historical Research 28
6.1 Site Visit and Walkover 28
7 Assessment of Archaeological Potential and Mitigation 29
7.1 Known constraints 29
7.2 Archaeological Potential 29
7.3 Significance 29
7.4 Past impacts (including former and existing structures, infrastructure,
services, contamination etc.) 30
7.5 Proposed Development and Impacts 30
7.6 Recommendations for Further Work and/or Mitigation 31
7.7 Conclusions 32
8 Acknowledgements 33
9 Appendices 34
1 Executive Summary
Halcrow Yolles has been appointed by VSM Estates Ltd to undertake an
archaeological desk-based assessment covering RAF Bentley Priory, within
Stanmore, in the London Borough of Harrow. The site is approximately 22 ha and
consists of some extensive areas of green open space around an 18th century
mansion (a Grade II listed building), much altered and added to. The mansion is
set within a 19th century Italian Garden and some remnants of the surrounding
former pleasure grounds and historic parkland still survive and all are within the
curtilage of a Registered Park & Garden (Grade II).
Masterplan Options are in preparation based on the retention of the Grade II
listed mansion complex – part of which forming a new museum - and the Italian
Garden. The development proposal provides for approximately 110 dwellings,
both apartments and houses. The impact of the development on any
archaeological remains that might exist could be significant.
The assessment has suggested that generally there is significant potential for
archaeological remains. In particular, the discovery of Roman coins and cremation
burial urns next to the mansion in the 18th century indicates that there is most
likely to have been a settlement or shrine on or nearby the site. The Anglo-Saxon
origin of the name Bentley and the date of 1171 for the foundation of Bentley
Priory by the Augustinian Canons indictates the possibility of Late
Saxon/Medieval activities on the site although the priory itself may have been a
small community or cell. In respect of the Post-Medieval and Modern periods
there is potential for buried remains of known and unknown structures etc. From
the creation of the estate beginning with the house and other features built in 1788
through to its incorporation in part in the Marquis of Abercorn’s mansion
designed by Sir John Soane together with other new structures in the grounds,
followed by various additions and alterations commissioned by Sir John Kelk
(including the Italianate Gardens) and, finally, the 80 year occupation by the RAF,
the site has been extensively ‘redeveloped’.
From its architect Sir John Soane and the artistic and political circles surrounding
the Marquis of Abercorn in the early 19th century (including Wordsworth, Sir
Walter Scott and leading members of the Tory party), to Air Chief Marshall
Dowding, Fighter Command and the Battle of Britain in the 20th century (the
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 6
residue of the estate was sold to the Air Ministry in 1926), the Priory has been the
scene of notable events and it’s cultural heritage significance is undoubtedly high.
The assessment concludes that more information about the archaeological
potential of the site is required in order to design a mitigation strategy to avoid
impacts. As the first stage a proposed programme of integrated geo-technical and
archaeological investigations has been accepted in principle by English Heritage
and it is anticipated that a second phase of archaeological trial trench evaluation
will follow once the detailed impacts of the proposed scheme have been assessed.
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 7
2 Introduction
2.1 Project Background
Halcrow Yolles (“Halcrow”) has been appointed by VSM Estates Ltd to undertake
an archaeological desk-based assessment (DBA) covering RAF Bentley Priory,
within the modern parish of Stanmore, in the London Borough of Harrow.
2.2 Site Location and Description
Within this report reference to an area within the application boundary is stated as
‘the site’. A location plan of the site is presented in Figure 1. The site is located in
north-west London within the London borough of Harrow at it’s centre lies at
National Grid Reference (NGR) TQ 15453 93298 (Figure 2). To the north the
main entrance to the site is directly off The Common (A4140) and much of the
site boundary lies behind residential buildings which front onto that road. To the
east, part of the site boundary lies behind residential buildings which front onto
Priory Drive and the remainder borders a private road which is a spur off Priory
Drive. To the south, the boundary borders that of the Bentley Priory Nature
Reserve (known locally as the Bentley Priory Open space and formerly part of the
Bentley Priory estate and latterly RAF Bentley Priory). To the west, the boundary
continues to border the Bentley Priory Nature Reserve with a short stretch
bordering Common Road. The site covers approximately 22ha.
The site consist of some extensive areas of green open space around an 18th
century mansion (a Grade II listed building) much altered and added to
(Photograph 1). The mansion is set within its 19th century Italian Garden and
some remnants of the surrounding former pleasure grounds and historic parkland
still survive. The site together with the Bentley Priory Nature Reserve - formerly
part of the estate - is a Registered Park and Garden (Grade II). The Nature
Reserve is designated a site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The site also
comprises numerous RAF buildings, an underground bunker etc (Figure 3).
At present the application site is utilised as a non-flying Royal Air Force station
although it was famous as the headquarters of Fighter Command during world
War II. The station provides accommodation for the Defence Aviation Safety
Centre, Air Historical Branch and RAF Ceremonial. The Ministry of Defence is
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 8
releasing the site as part of its Greater London Estate consolidation , project
MoDEL (Ministry of Defence Estate in London). The current station role will
cease in 2008.
2.3 Proposed Development summary
Masterplan Options are in preparation based on the retention of the Grade II
listed mansion complex – part of which forming a new museum - and the Italian
Garden. The current proposal provides for approximately 110 dwellings, both
apartments and houses, mainly concentrated to the north around the entrance off
The Common and to east and west of the mansion (Figure 4).
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 9
3 Aims and Methodology
3.1 Aims
It is in the interest of the local community, the developer and the Local Authority
that archaeological issues are discussed, with an appropriately trained specialist, at
an early stage in the planning process. This assessment represents such a
commitment to establishing early advice to establish the Archaeological Resource
of the site and surrounding study area.
The aims of this archaeological assessment were therefore to:
• Identify statutory and non-statutory archaeological constraints (including
planning constraints) within and in the immediate vicinity of the site
• Assess the baseline conditions and offer an analysis of the extent,
preservation, sensitivity, potential and importance of the recorded
archaeological resource within the site
• Assess the baseline information and offer an analysis for the potential that
unrecorded archaeological remains survive within the site
• Assess the potential impacts upon the known and currently unknown
archaeological resource, taking into account the severity of the impacts
and the importance of the resource
• Propose a programme of further works and/or suitable mitigation
measures to avoid, reduce or remedy any adverse impacts caused by
development, if required
3.2 Methodology
This assessment was conducted with regard to standards set out by the Institute of
Field Archaeologists (IFA, 1999).
Information was obtained for a study area extending approximately 750m from the
centre of proposed development at OS grid-point TQ 15453 93298. The scope of
resources examined included statutorily designated cultural heritage sites such as
Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments, and Conservation Areas, as well as
features of the cultural heritage resource recorded on the Greater London Sites
and Monuments Record (SMR).
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 10
The general approach and methodology has been to consider the effects on
cultural heritage resources in the main groups as follows:
• Archaeological Sites and Monuments (including palaeo-environmental
deposits) – Potential destruction or damage to sites and monuments due
to permanent or temporary landtake and/or physical intrusion and
indirect effects, such as changes to the drainage pattern
• Built Heritage (comprising Listed Buildings and non-Listed Buildings of
historic interest) – Potential direct effects through loss or damage to
buildings and indirect effects due to changes in their setting or vibration
and air quality related damage
• Historic Landscape Character and Features - Potential direct loss or
damage to landscape features and indirect effects on the setting of such
features
These resources may be nationally or locally designated (by Registration, Listing or
Scheduling), may appear in the national or local archaeological record, or may be
identified from specialist study of the landscape and historic records.
A gazetteer listing the known cultural heritage resource within the study area was
compiled and is provided in Appendix 1. Each entry has been assigned a Site
reference number, marked on a cultural heritage features plan (Figure 2) and
discussed in the text. In addition this report has involved a map regression study.
In summary the work has involved:
• identifying the sources available for consultation
• assembling, consulting and analysing the available resources
• consulting specialists as appropriate
• visiting the site
• preparing the written report
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 11
3.3 Brief and Consultation
No specific Brief was provided but reference has been made to the Greater London
Archaeology Advisory Service (GLAAS), English Heritage, Archaeological
Guidance Papers, 1. Desk-Based Assessments (Revised June 1998).
On 27th July 2007, the author of this report met with Kim Stabler, GLAAS Area
Officer, and discussed various aspects of the site. Kim noted that in addition to the
listed building and Registered Park and Garden, English Heritage would be seeking
agreement to the retention of the Soane music room; the retention of the cisterns
(see below, 7.3) and an assessment of the World War II bunker.
3.4 Sources Consulted
Sources included, though were not limited to, the following:
• The Greater London Sites and Monuments Record (SMR), maintained for
this area by the Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service. This is a
primary repository of all known archaeological and cultural heritage finds
and features that have been identified within the area covered by the SMR.
• Local Studies Centre, Harrow Council Civic Library
• The Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC)
website (http://www.magic.gov.uk)
• Cartographic Sources and Documentary Sources
• Historic Ordnance Survey mapping supplied by Envirocheck;
• Contemporary published accounts (e.g. travel guides, agricultural surveys);
• Place-name information
• Site visits and walkovers to provide further information on the
archaeological potential of the site based on topography, current land use,
and the extent of past ground disturbance.
3.5 Limitations
It should be noted that:
• The report has been prepared under the express instructions and solely for
the use of VSM Estates.
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 12
• All work carried out in preparing this report has utilised and is based upon
Halcrow’s professional knowledge and understanding of current
(September 2007) relevant United Kingdom standards and codes,
technology, and legislation. Changes in these areas may occur in the future
and cause any conclusions, advice, recommendations or designs contained
in this report to become inappropriate or incorrect. Halcrow does not
accept responsibility for advising VSM Estates Ltd or any other interested
parties of the facts or implications of any such changes in the future.
• This report has been prepared utilising factual information obtained from
others. Halcrow take no responsibility for the accuracy of such
information.
• This report represents an early stage of a phased approach to assessing the
archaeological and cultural heritage resource of the site and study to allow
the development of an appropriate mitigation strategy, should this be
required. It does not comprise mitigation of impacts in itself.
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 13
4 Planning and Legislative Framework
4.1 Introduction
The following section highlights the key national, regional and local planning
policies relevant to the study area.
4.2 Outline of Planning and Legislative Framework
This assessment has taken into account relevant national and local legislation and
policy, including:
• Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979
• Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990
• DoE Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) Note 16, Archaeology and
Planning 1990
• DoE/DNH PPG Note 15, Planning and the Historic Environment 1994
• DCMS, Heritage Protection for the 21st Century (White Paper), 2007
• DoE, The Hedgerow Regulations 1997 (and new guidance 2002)
• The Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9) 2001)
• The London Plan, 2004
• Harrow Council London, Harrow Unitary Development Plan (Written
Statement and Proposals Plan) 2007
4.3 National Planning Policy
4.3.1 National Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and Planning
The importance of archaeology in the planning process is detailed in PPG16. The
underlying principle is that archaeological remains should be seen as a finite and
non-renewable resource and should be regarded as a part of the environment to be
protected and managed. The primary objective is to secure the best possible
treatment of the archaeological heritage.
Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and
their settings, are affected by a proposed development there should be a
presumption in favour of their physical preservation. If physical preservation in
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 14
situ is not feasible, an archaeological excavation for the purposes of ‘preservation
by record’ may be an acceptable alternative. From an archaeological point of view,
this should be regarded as a second best option.
4.3.2 National Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and Historic Environment
PPG15 recognises that the listed buildings, conservation areas and other historic
sites, which together form some of the individual elements of the historic
environment, are a unique and irreplaceable record that contributes to our
understanding of both the present and the past.
In any development control decision, planning authorities are required to fully take
account of and mitigate the possibility of unnecessary erosion or damage to this
resource. PPG15 ensures that protection should be given not only to the assets
themselves but also to the settings, which contribute to their character.
4.4 Regional Planning Policy
4.4.1 Regional Planning Guidance for the South East, 2001 (RPG9)
The Regional Planning guidance provides a context for planning in London, and
identified 12 main principles that should govern the continuing development of
the region. It reflects a variety of guidance related to achieving sustainable
development, embracing the urban renaissance and the need to concentrate
development in urban areas, securing economy in the use of land, and integrating
land use and transport. The relevant heritage section and policy is:
Section D8
8. Management of the
Historic Environment
8.1 The historic environment includes the physical evidence of past human activity.
It is all around us as part of everyday life, and it is therefore dynamic and
continually subject to change. It is not limited to the built environment and
archaeological sites, but includes landscapes, both urban and rural and as an
example of its great diversity, marine heritage sites around the coast. These
environments are fragile and require protection, but also have an enormous
potential to contribute to a sense of place and identity and add to the quality of our
daily lives through understanding and appropriate management and access.
POLICY BE7:
MANAGEMENT OF THE HISTORIC
ENVIRONMENT
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 15
In developing and implementing plans and strategies, local authorities and
other bodies should adopt policies and proposals which support the
conservation and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the
historic environment and the contribution it makes to local and regional
distinctiveness and sense of place. Proposals that make sensitive use of
historic assets through regeneration, particularly where these bring
redundant or under-used buildings and areas into appropriate use, should
be encouraged.
A Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East (RSSSE) has been prepared and
once it has been approved by Government it will replace Regional Planning
Guidance for the South East (RPG9). Consultation on the draft RSSSE plan ended
23 June 2006, and the Examination in Public ran from 27 November 2006 to 30
March 2007. The Report of the Examination in Public Independent Panel was
published on 29 August 2007. The Secretary of State will now consider the
recommendations contained in the Report and expects to publish any Proposed
Changes to the draft Regional Spatial Strategy for consultation towards in the New
Year.
4.5 Strategic and Local Planning Policy
4.5.1 Strategic Plan Policies - The London Plan (February 2004)
The regional strategic planning context is provided by the spatial development
strategy for London, the Mayor’s London Plan. The policies in the Harrow Unitary
Development Plan have been drafted in the light of the vision, objectives and
strategic policy content of the London Plan. The relevant heritage policies and
sections are:
Built heritage and views
Policy 4B.10 London’s built heritage
The Mayor will work with strategic partners to protect and enhance
London’s historic environment.
UDP policies should seek to maintain and increase the contribution
of the built heritage to London’s environmental quality, to the economy,
both through tourism and the beneficial use of historic assets, and
to the well-being of London’s people while allowing for London
to accommodate growth in a sustainable manner.
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 16
Policy 4B.11 Heritage conservation
Boroughs should:
• ensure that the protection and enhancement of historic assets
in London are based on an understanding of their special character,
and form part of the wider design and urban improvement agenda,
and that policies recognise the multi-cultural nature of heritage issues
• identify areas, spaces and buildings of special quality or character
and adopt policies for their protection and the identification of
opportunities for their enhancement, taking into account the strategic
London context
• encourage and facilitate inclusive solutions to providing access for
all, to and within the historic environment.
Policy 4B.12 Historic conservation-led regeneration
The Mayor will, and boroughs should, support schemes that make use
of historic assets and stimulate environmental, economic and community
regeneration where they:
• bring redundant or under-used buildings and spaces into
appropriate use
• secure the repair and re-use of Buildings at Risk
• help to improve local economies and community cohesion
• fit in with wider regeneration objectives
• promote inclusiveness in their design.
Policy 4B.13 World Heritage Sites
The Mayor will work with the relevant boroughs, English Heritage and
site owners and occupiers to prepare management plans for London’s
World Heritage Sites. UDPs and management plans should protect their
historic significance and safeguard, and where appropriate enhance,
their settings.
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 17
Policy 4B.14 Archaeology
The Mayor, in partnership with English Heritage, the Museum of London
and boroughs, will support the identification, protection, interpretation
and presentation of London’s archaeological resources. Boroughs in
consultation with English Heritage and other relevant statutory
organisations should include appropriate policies in their UDPs for
protecting scheduled ancient monuments and archaeological assets
within their area6.
4.60 Two thousand years of building have left layers of history, illuminating
London’s social, political and economic heritage. Today London has a
great wealth of fine historic buildings, spaces and archaeology, including
four World Heritage Sites and many buildings and sites of national
importance that add to the capital’s identity, attractiveness and cultural
richness. The historic environment also helps to attract tourists, and
provides valuable leisure opportunities and commercial and residential
space, and is an important part of London’s economy. The Mayor wishes
to see the sensitive management of London’s extraordinary historic assets
planned in tandem with the promotion of the very best modern
architecture and urban design. Designation of historic buildings is not
enough. Sensitive management requires clear details of what needs to be
protected, how and why. The Mayor expects boroughs and others to use
appropriate tools to manage the historic environment, including character
appraisals and conservation plans.
4.61 Much of London’s historic inheritance is inaccessible, badly maintained
or not viewed as relevant to local communities. The sensitive and
innovative use of historic assets within local regeneration should be
encouraged. Schemes such as Townscape Heritage Initiatives, Heritage
Economic Regenerations Schemes and Buildings at Risk Grants and their
successors, can play an import role in fostering the regeneration of
historic areas (see Policy 4B.12).
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 18
4.62 Part of the city’s unique character is the juxtaposition of many different
types of buildings and spaces and this should be reflected in the way the
historic environment is managed. Buildings and places should not be seen
in isolation, and the settings of historic assets are often important to their
character and should be appropriately protected.
4.5.2 The Unitary Development Plan (30 July 2004)
The Plan was adopoted by Harrow Council and replaced a previous UDP (28
Novemebr 1994) which was entirely superseded. The 2004 UDP contained the
following policy in respect of cultural heritage:
SD2 Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Sites of Archaeological
Importance, and Historic Parks and Gardens
2.60 Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, archaeological features and Historic
Parks and Gardens are of strategic importance as part of London’s built
heritage and will be rigorously protected from harm, and enhancements
sought where possible. The Council, as Local Planning Authority, has
powers to designate parts of the Borough as Conservation Areas and, in
the exercise of its functions under the Planning Acts, has a general duty to
pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the
character or appearance of such areas. This duty will be given priority
over other planning policies. In addition to the Statutory List compiled by
the Secretary of State for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport,
the Council maintains a local list of buildings of special architectural or
historic interest. Both are published as Supplementary Planning Guidance
to this Plan.
2.61 Change of use under these circumstances may fall within the category of
"Enabling Development". Enabling Development is not a statutory term,
although it has been established in the courts as a legitimate planning
tool. It is generally used to denote a development that would be
unacceptable in planning terms but for the fact that it would bring benefits
to a heritage asset such as a listed building, sufficiently to justify it being
carried out. The benefit to be secured by enabling development is typically
the survival of the asset through rescue from decay, bringing it into
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 19
beneficial use, securing its long-term future by some form of endowment,
enhancing it, or its setting, by reversing inappropriate past development,
or making it more accessible to the public. Enabling development will only
be acceptable where the benefits to the community are clear, and clearly
outweigh any disbenefits, and where the heritage asset and its setting are
not materially harmed.
2.62 In addition, the applicant will have to demonstrate that the proposals will
secure the long term future of the site in beneficial use, and without
detrimental fragmentation; that the development proposed is the minimum
necessary to secure the future of the heritage asset; that sufficient
financial assistance to secure the future of the heritage asset is not
available from another source; and that the need for the development
stems from the nature of the heritage asset, rather than from the
circumstances of the owner. Further information on enabling development
is available in English Heritage's Policy Statement "Enabling Development
and the Conservation of Heritage Assets", and detailed practical guidance
in their "Proposals for Enabling Development Affecting Heritage Assets".
However, following a direction from the Secretary of State fifty-six policies
including SD2 were deleted from the Harrow Unitary Development Plan (HUDP)
on Friday, 28 September 2007. This was because the policies repeated and/or were
inconsistent with national or regional policy. There are currently no proposals to
specifically replace SD2.
4.5.3 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
Planning consultancy DPP has been appointed by the London Borough of Harrow
to help prepare Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for the RAF Bentley
Priory scheme.
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 20
5 Cultural Heritage Resource Baseline
Data
5.1 Geology and Paleo-environment (including Geotechnical Records)
The geological map shows that the site is covered by Stanmore Gravel, comprising
sandy and clayey gravel in part (British Geological Survey, 1995). This is underlain
by Claygate Beds. The Claygate Beds comprise silt and fine grained sand. This
stratification extends to a total depth of some approximately 10m. London Clay
underlies the Claygate Beds and is approximately 80m thick in this location. A
borehole was carried out in 1993 (Enviros, 2005) to assess ground conditions in
the underground bunker and the sequence below the bunker compares to that set
out above. Water seepage was encountered at a depth of 15m.
5.2 Topography and Historic Landscape Aspects
The site is located to the north-east of suburban Stanmore in north-west London,
situated on the western spur of a range of hills near the border of Middlesex and
Hertfordshire. It is the highest point in the historic county of Middlesex. The site
is on a naturally inclined plane in a semi-rural area. The topography varies greatly
across the site with a steep slope down towards the south, south-west and a smaller
slope to the east. The site is at an elevation of approximately 140m above
Ordnance Datum (AOD).
5.3 Statutory/Non-statutory Protected Features
According to the MAGIC website, an interactive map based resource that contains
information on key environmental schemes and designations, as supplied by seven
government organisations including English Heritage, there are no Registered
Battlefields; Protected Wreck Sites; Heritage Coasts; or World Heritage
Sites within a 2 km radius of the area surrounding the site of the proposed
development. Within the 750m study area there are no Scheduled Ancient
Monuments; there is one Historic Park and Garden, Bentley Priory (Figure 5),
within which there is a designated Area of Ancient Woodland. Bordering the
Bentley Priory Nature Reserve to the south-west there is an Archaeological
Priority Area.
The NMR was consulted to identify if any Buildings of Special Architectural or
Historic Interest (Listed Buildings) survive within the limits of the site or wider
study area. This showed that within the site there are two listed structures: the
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 21
Central Entrance Block to Bentley Priory (Grade (II*), including the gate and
railings, and the Garden Pavilion in the grounds of ‘Ad Astra’, Priory Drive (Grade
II).
5.4 Historic Environment Record (HER)
The local HER is still referred to as the Sites and Monuments Record (SMR), held
by Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service, was consulted to establish if
any Archaeological Findspots and Sites1 or other Cultural Heritage remains were
recorded on their database within the site or a 750m radius study area surrounding
it. This identified 28 such features and/or findspots within the study area (see
Figure 6 & Appendix 1), 10 of which (Site nos. 1,2,3,7,8,9,19,20,24,25) were
located within the site.
5.5 Previous archaeological assessment, investigation or survey (including
Aerial Photography, Field Walking and Geophysical Survey etc.)
Neither the Greater London SMR or the Museum of London Archaeological
Archive Centre (LAARC) has any record of any previous archaeological desk-
based assessment (DBA) having been undertaken for this site. However, An
Historical Assessment of RAF Bentley Priory, Stanmore, London Borough of Harrow was
issued in July 2004, undertaken by Niall Hammond on behalf of Defence Estates
at the request of Project MoDEL. It contains much useful material, analysis and
detailed recommendations about wider aspects of cultural heritage and it is
recommended that it is considered in conjunction with this report.
The intensive use of much of the site during former times (in particular, World
War II) meant that it was not conducive to field walking or even aerial
photography and no such surveys are known. Also, there have been no
archaeological excavations carried out within the estate although there have been
two recent minor archaeological investigations. In 1992, evaluation trenches (site
code RBP92) were undertaken by the Museum of London Archaeology Service
1 A ‘Findspot’ represents the location of an archaeological artefact or scatter of artefacts. The circumstances of such
findings are often uncertain and, as a general rule, they are unlikely to have been found as part of a formal
archaeological investigation. The full significance of such findings is therefore often uncertain, although the
presence of such finds usually suggest that the area has the potential to contain as yet undefined or undetected
archaeological sites. A known ‘Site’ represents the known presence of an archaeological or other Cultural Heritage
receptor.
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 22
(MoLAS) in which were recorded natural clay, truncated by probably 19th/20th c
landscape layers which in turn were cut by bedding trenches, possibly associated
with Glentham House (Figure 6, MLO58972). A 20th century footing that was
revealed was probably part of the World War II air base (details of the location of
the trenches are still awaited]. In 1995, a geophysical survey [site code RAB05) was
carried out by GSB Prospection. Two areas were surveyed, one over a series of
18th-19th century brick cisterns on the W side of the site, the other over a
purported 18th century Sir John Soane designed music room attached to the N side
of the present Officers’ Mess (Figure 7). The extent of the brick cisterns was
successfully identified and high amplitude anomalies - perhaps the music room -
were encountered, though they could be interpreted as landscaping features.
5.6 Archaeological and Historical Background (including Placename Evidence
etc)
This section provides a brief overview of the archaeological background of the
study area which will aid in understanding the likelihood of encountering currently
unrecorded resources within the application site and potentially determine their
significance and likely condition. A Bibliography of sources consulted is contained
in Appendix 2.
5.6.1 Prehistoric Period (c. 500,000 BP – AD42)
Although no prehistoric remains are known from the site, William Stukeley, a 18th
century antiquarian, reported a seeing a Bronze Age 'barrow' near Brockley Hill,
some 2.3km to the north-east of the site. Grim's Dyke (or Ditch), is a formidable
pre-Roman landscape feature that crosses Brockley Hill and passes near to Bentley
Priory. Until quite recently it was doubted whether the various apparently
localized earthworks known by that name amounted to a single entity. Since the
early 1990's it has been more definitely recognized as a 2,400 year old bank and
ditch, some 50 miles in length, running from the northern limit at Dunstable,
across the Chilterns, then south toward the Thames.
The potential is assessed as low to moderate.
5.6.2 Roman Period (AD42 – AD410)
Both coins and cremation burials of the Roman period have been discovered
within and adjacent to the RAF estate. In Lyson’s Environs of London, 1795
(Vulliamy 1930, 204), it is reported that men digging near Bentley Priory in 1781
found about 50 gold coins, two gold rings, a gold bracelet, etc., and the author
states that ‘great quantities of antiquities , as coins, urns, gold rings etc., have been
found in this neighbourhood’ [Site MLO15618]. In the immediate vicinity of the
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 23
mansion there are a number of locations in which Roman remains have been
discovered (Figure 6, Sites MLO15616/7/9). The recorded incidences of the
discovery of Roman coins on the site is notable: MLO15616 - number of Roman
coins found in Money Dell, including one of gold of Vespasian; MLO15617 -
between 1766-88 a considerable quantity of gold Roman coins were found near the
house while digging foundations of a wall: MLO15616 - 2 brass Roman coins of
Tetricus and Constantine the Great found in drain repairs 1940-2 (in a barrel
drain). Such remains may relate to ritual activity and it has been conjectured that a
temple site may have been erected in the vicinity.
At Brockley Hill is the Roman settlement of Sulloniacae described as ‘An antient city
in Antonine’s Itinerary’ (a descriptive road map of Roman Britian). Stukeley, , in
his Itinerarium Curiosum, describes how ‘Mr Philpot, when digging his canal and
foundations, …… which are upon the site of an old city, found many coins,
[cinerary] urns and other antiquities, …… a great quantity of Roman bricks, gold
rings and coins have ben found in the digging’. Sulloniacae is thought to have been
the site of a fort erected during the initial years of the Roman invasion and
thereafter the site of a posting-station or mutationes, on the main military highway
into the heart of the new Roman province. Excavations conducted in 1970 within
the grounds of the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital found much evidence in
confirmation of a flourishing pottery industry in Roman Brockley Hill.
The potential is assessed as high.
5.6.3 Early Medieval Period (AD410 - AD1066)
The name ‘Bentley’ is of Anglo-Saxon origin which literally translated means ‘a
clearing or pasture of coarse grass’ (Gover et al, 1942). This suggests that at least
by the late Saxon period the immediate area had an established agricultural
population.
The potential is assessed as low-moderate.
5.6.4 Later Medieval Period (AD1066 – c. AD1550)
The Augustinian Priory or cell which gave its name to the estate was founded
around 1171, perhaps by Ranulf de Glanville, one of the most illustrious statesmen
of the reign of Henry II. The Priory was dedicated to St Mary Magdalene and
located just within the parish of great Stanmore. It appears to have been a small
establishment. Dugdale’s Monasticon has only a short account of Benethley or
Bentley Priory and it appears little was known about it. The Harrow Manor Court
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 24
rolls of 1512 record that the Archbishops of Canterbury gave the building with all
its lands to the Priory of St Gregory, outside Canterbury (Bowlt, 2000, 28). The
rolls complained that no cannon had been presented to Bentley for 20 years past
and no priest had said mass there for two years. The priory was not suppressed at
the time of the Reformation suggesting that it was no longer in existence in the
1530’s. In 1536 the mother house was dissolved and the Bentley land was handed
over to Thomas Cranmer: the priory building may have been ‘slighted’ ie the roof
at least taken off. The location of the Priory is not known and no trace of the
original monastic building have been found on the site but there is a tradition that
it was near Lower Priory Farm, off Clamp Hill some 750m to the south-west of
the mansion (Figure 6, Site MLO15633), outside the development area, and lower
down the slope which in a more sheltered location (see below, 5.6.5). Relics are
reported to have been found near this site including a figure of the Virgin (Bowlt
2000, 28) (Figure 6, Site MLO42722). However, other traces of the priory’s
activities may survive on the site.
The potential is assessed at end as low to moderate.
5.6.5 Post-Medieval (AD1550 - AD1800) and Modern Period (AD1800+)
After the Dissolution there was a succession of owners starting with Archbishop
Cranmer in 1543, up until 1766 when the priory buildings and 329 acres of the
estate were sold to James Duberley, a clothier made wealthy through supplying the
army. Duberley is reported to have thrown down the remains of the old priory and
had his new house erected away from the old site and on top of the hill to take
advantage of the views. Much of Duberley’s house was incorporated into the later
Sir John Soane mansion for the Marquis of Abercorn between 1788 and 1798.
Soane substantially remodelled the house and designed several buildings for the
grounds of Bentley Priory in 1789-90. These consisted of lodges, a greenhouse,
stables and a coach house, a diary, hothouses, a peach house, gardener’s rooms, a
bathing house, a boat house, an ice house and a pavilion. It may have been during
this period that many of the cisterns (Photographs 2 & 3) located to the north-
west of the house were constructed (see below 7.3). Thereafter, Sir Robert Smirke
was then engaged by the Marquis and undertook enlargements to the Priory during
1810-18.
After the death of the Marquis in 1818, the estate passed into the hands of his
grandson, the 2nd Marquis and later Duke of Abercorn, who live there until he
moved to an estate in Scotland in 1840.The Dowager Queen Adelaide, widow of
William IV, leased the Priory from 1846 until her deathin1849. After this the estate
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 25
appears to have been little used until its purchase by Sir John Kelk, an eminent
railway engineer. Kelk lavished money on improvements to the house and grounds
remodelling them on Italianate lines and constructed of conservatories and
ornamental gardens (Photograph 4). Under Kelk the late Victorian flowering of
Bentley Priory had the greatest effect on the walled gardens - now gone - and the
terraces which survive and for which there are detailed plans (Figure 8). The great
importance of the historic landscape at Bentley Priory resides in its association
with the picturesque. This was a theory about landscape that can easily be traced
into the middle of the 18th century but that was brought in to sharp focus by its
antagonism to Capability Brown and its support for the French Revolution. An
Historic Landscape Character Areas study has been undertaken (Debois, 2007 -
Figure 9).
The estate was sold by Kelk by auction in 1881 (Figure 10) and purchased by Sir
Frederick Gordon as a business venture and his company turned the house into a
private residential hotel. To improve access to the site from London, Gordon built
a railway from Harrow to Stanmore for his prospective guests. The hotel was not a
success and shortly after his death in 1908, it was converted for use as a school for
girls. Neither was the school a success and closed in 1924. Whilst the Priory stood
empty, the large estate was split into lots and the Priory and the present grounds
were sold to the Air Ministry in 1926. In 1936 it became the headquarters of
Fighter Command and it was from there that the defence of Britain was conducted
during the Battle of Britain (Photographs 5). Command and control systems vital
to the Battle of Britain were developed at Bentley Priory. The result was a great
deal of additional building both above ground (Figure 11) and below ground and
other ground disturbances including a vast underground bunker, air raid shelters
(Figure 12) etc., not all of which will be known.
The Officer’s Mess still contains the original office of Air chief Marshall Sir Hugh
Dowding (later Lord Dowding), Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Fighter
Command during the Battle of Britain, preserved with its original furniture. Other
battle of Britain historic artefacts are kept in the Officer’s Mess, including one of
the few remaining Battle of Britain Lace Panels. The Officer’s Mess is also notable
for the number of Royal portraits hanging in the building: there are two of Her
Majesty the queen, one each of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh,
George IV and the Queen Mother.
From its architect Sir John Soane and the artistic and political circles surrounding
the Marquis of Abercorn in the early 19th century (including Wordsworth, Sir
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 26
Walter Scott and leading members of the Tory party), to Air Chief Marshall
Dowding and the Battle of Britain in the 20th century, the Priory has been the
scene of notable events and it’s cultural heritage significance – both tangible and
intangible - is undoubtedly high.
The potential is identified at end as high.
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 27
6 Additional Archaeological and Historical
Research
6.1 Site Visit and Walkover
The author visited the site on two occasions: on July 23rd to undertake a walkover
survey and on 8th August in company with John Phibbs (Debois Landscape
Group) working on behalf of LiZLaKe (Chartered Landscape Architects and
Urban Designers) to view and discuss aspects of the historic landscape, especially
earthworks.
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 28
7 Assessment of Archaeological Potential
and Mitigation
7.1 Known constraints
Currently there is a lack of archaeological/geotechnical information about the site
and a lack of detailed information about previous impacts.
7.2 Archaeological Potential
Although there are relatively few known archaeological sites and findspots, this
assessment has suggested that there is potential for the recovery of as yet
unidentified archaeological remains within the study area.
The potential for finds from the Prehistoric and Medieval periods has been
assessed as low to moderate; for the Post-Medieval periods as moderate and for
the Roman and Modern periods as high.
7.3 Significance
The relative paucity of prehistoric finds from the vicinity of the site needs to be
considered in the wider context of known major prehistoric monuments in the
surrounding area.
The discovery in of Roman coins and cremation burial urns in the 18th century
indicates that there must have been a settlement on or in the immediate vicinity of
the site. Other than appearing to be a high class settlement from the type of
objects found, there is no evidence for the nature and extent of the settlement: it
could be a villa or village. The proximity of both Roman Watling Street and the
nearby settlement/industrial centre at Sulloniacae suggest that it may have been
strategically located to take advantage of the infrastructure in the area. Regarding
any burial urns that might be encountered, they would have to be excavated
carefully and with due reverence and the excavation area preferably screened off.
The Anglo-Saxon origin of Bentley and the date of 1171 for the foundation of
Bentley Priory by the Augustinian Canons in dictates that although this may have
been a small community or cell it was nevertheless significant, owned as it was for
a time by the Archbishops of Canterbury. The location of the Priory is not known
although Duberley is reported to have thrown down the remains of the old priory
and had his new house erected away from the old site and on top of the hill which
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 29
would imply that the Priory building was further down the slope to the south-west,
a view that is supported by local tradition. However about that, in any case the
Priory may well have had outbuildings and other features etc located elsewhere on
the site.
For the Post-Medieval and Modern periods any ground disturbance could reveal
the remains of structures and even landscaping and planting schemes, earthworks
and the form and extent of beds, walks etc. Regarding the potential for buried
structures, there are some 20-30 brick cisterns - some completely sealed ie capped -
to the north-west of the mansion. The remains of fourteen (Photograph 2) have
been studied by a specialist at English Heritage (Wittrick, 2001) who concluded
that they most likely provided a source of fresh water storage and probably
represent at least three separate phases of construction and reconstruction. He
considers their form to be typical of 18th century shaft construction.
7.4 Past impacts (including former and existing structures, infrastructure,
services, contamination etc.)
As well as former structures that have been removed, the known past impacts, in
particular associated with the use of the site by the RAF are extensive (eg the
underground bunker, air raid shelters etc.) , and there are likely to be many
significant impacts that are currently not known about, at least in detail. For
example, extensive development occurred between 1960 and 1963 with the
clearance of much of the woodland and the construction of numerous buildings
and roadways in the southern half of the site, but the majority of those buildings
had been removed by 1992 (Enviros, 2005). Areas of the site are known to be
quite heavily contaminated, for example, radioactive materials are present in the
bunker and other buildings contain asbestos (Figure 13). Information from Civil
Defence records regarding whether or not there was bomb damage during WWII
is still awaited, although the possible site of an aircraft crash is noted (Figure 13).
7.5 Proposed Development and Impacts
The Masterplan Options are currently at outline stage but the approximately 110
dwellings, both apartments and houses, mostly concentrated to the north, east and
west of the mansion (Figure 4) mainly in green areas where former major impacts
are not known, are likely to have significant impact together with new service runs
and other modifications eg new planting. The proposed foundation design for the
dwellings has not been determined but it doesn’t appear likely that there will be
basements or underground car parking. Another consideration will be the location
and extent of compounds for storage of plant, materials and site accommodation.
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 30
Any surviving archaeological deposits are likely to be very near existing surfaces
and could be vulnerable as a consequence. Similarly, specific arrangements limiting
the tracking of plant over open areas is to be recommended. Contamination
remediation could be another source of impact for which archaeological
considerations would need to be taken into account. Finally, a quite extensive
programme of Geo-Environmental Investigation has been under consideration
which potentially could have had implications for significant impact on any
archaeological remains (see below 7.6).
7.6 Recommendations for Further Work and/or Mitigation
The major difficulty that currently exists is the lack of detailed archaeological
information about the site which means that it is not presently possible to set out a
detailed mitigation strategy. Furthermore, the Masterplan Options are still under
consideration and at present there is no detailed foundation design. Also, the
amount of buried structures and ground disturbance - both known and unknown -
militates against the likely effectiveness of the application of geophysical
techniques.
Fortunately, as is best practice, the quite extensive programme of Geo-
Environmental Investigations that has been proposed was developed jointly by
Halcrow colleagues in the Site Investigation/Geotechnical and Archaeology and
Cultural Heritage teams. In order to minimise the potential impact on any
archaeological remains on the site and in respect of the estate’s status as a
Registered Park and Garden, three techniques have been identified for obtaining
geotechnical and contaminated land samples. Each technique has been selected to
minimise the disturbance of Made Ground and natural ground whilst obtaining a
sufficient number of samples for characterising the geotechnical nature and quality
of the subsurface soil/geology. Trial pitting is the most intrusive technique of the
three to be used at Bentley Priory, however the SI has been designed to minimise
the requirement for trial pits. The following number of locations have been
identified and are marked on the site plan (Figure 8):
Window sample bores – 68
Cable percussion boreholes – 12
Trial pits – 10.
In particular, the ten Trial Pits provide an opportunity of gaining an insight into
the archaeological potential including that related to the former gardens eg design
and layout of bedding trenches, creation of earthworks etc. An archaeological
Watching Brief on the trenches with the provision for archaeologists supervising
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 31
the excavations should significant remains be uncovered has been identified as a
key element of the integrated approach. It will be a requirement that the
archaeological contractors have sieving and metal detector facilities on site. The
inclusion of a targeted earthwork survey as part of the exercise would be very
useful in respect of both landscape/garden and archaeological considerations.
The proposed Phase One of archaeological investigations as an integrated part of
the Geo-Environmental Investigations has been agreed in principle by English
Heritage.
The Phase One works should provide an insight into the archaeological potential
of the locations that are investigated and assist in designing Phase Two works
which are likely to comprise trial trench evaluation targeted on the specifics of the
assessment of detailed impacts of the proposed scheme. The level of ground
disturbance throughout much of the site - both known and unknown -
unfortunately would appear to militate against the use of geophysical techniques.
7.7 Conclusions
Although there is a lack of detailed archaeological information from the site, there
is evidence from historical and antiquarian sources both from the site and the
surrounding area to indicate that there is significant potential of archaeological
features/objects being found as a result of any ground disturbance.
English Heritage’s acceptance of the proposal for an integrated geotechnical and
archaeological investigation should prove to be a useful first step in gaining an
insight into a number of aspects of ground ‘conditions’. Once specific details of
the below ground impacts of the proposed scheme have been determined a second
phase of archaeological trial trench evaluation can be designed.
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 32
8 Acknowledgements
The help and assistance of various colleagues was much appreciated: Bhavini Vyas,
Ben Sansom and Josie Bristow. Consultation with Kim Stabler (Greater London
archaeology Advisory Service, English Heritage) was beneficial. Reports,
information and ideas were exchanged with John Phibbs (Debois Landscape
Associates) and Liz Lake (LiZLaKe, Chartered Landscape Architects and Urban
Designers). The staff at the Local Studies Centre, Harrow Civic Library, were very
helpful.
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 33
9 Appendices
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 34
Appendix 1: Cultural Heritage Features
Greater London SMR Name Monument Type Date Range
MonUID Reference
MLO15300 The Summer house Mound Post Medieval (1540 AD to 1900 AD)
MLO15616 Money Dell Findspot Roman (43 AD to 409 AD)
MLO15617 Bentley Priory House Findspot Roman (43 AD to 409 AD)
MLO15618 Money Dell in brickfield Findspot Roman (43 AD to 409 AD)
near to Bentley Priory
MLO15619 The Great Drive Findspot Roman (43 AD to 409 AD)
MLO15620 Priory Drive Findspot Roman (43 AD to 409 AD)
MLO15625 Stanmore Common Pillow mound Medieval (1066 AD to 1539 AD)
MLO15632 Stanmore Common Gravel pit, ditch, bank Post Medieval (1540 AD to 1900 AD)
(earthwork)
MLO15633 Bentley Priory Religious house, Priory Medieval to 19th century (1066AD to 1900 AD)
MLO16083 Stanmore Common Barrow Unknown
MLO16065 Heriots Wood Park Medieval to 19th century (1066AD to 1900 AD)
MLO16087 South of Bentley Priory Park pale, earthwork Medieval to 19th century (1066AD to 1900 AD)
MLO35642 The Common Stanmore Railings, gate Post Medieval (1540 AD to 1900 AD)
MLO42722 Bentley Priory Statue Post Medieval (1540 AD to 1900 AD)
MLO5477 The Common Stanmore Gat Lodge Post Medieval (1540 AD to 1900 AD)
MLO58972 RAF Bentley Priory Garden Post Medieval (1540 AD to 1900 AD)
MLO58973 RAF Bentley Priory Structure Post Medieval (1540 AD to 1900 AD)
MLO6245 Clamp Hill Stanmore Garden house Post Medieval (1540 AD to 1900 AD)
MLO68468 Stanmore Findspot
MLO68506 Stanmore Common Building Medieval to 19th century (1066AD to 1900 AD)
MLO68466 Stanmore Common Road Roman (43 AD to 409 AD)
MLO84614 Priory House Timber framed farmhouse 15th Century to 16th Century (1500 AD to 1599 AD)
MLO72546 Common Rd Landfill site Post Medieval (1540 AD to 1900 AD)
MLO84675 Garden Pavilion in Summerhouse 18th century to 19th Century (1800 AD to 1864 AD)
grounds of ‘Ad Astra’
MLO84701 Boundary Stone Boundary Stone 18th century to 19th Century (1800 AD to 1864 AD)
MLO84710 The Old Barn Timber framed barn 16th Century to Modern (1600 AD to 1915 AD)
MLO84714 The Windmill Public Public House 18th century to 19th Century (1740 AD to 1820 AD)
House
MLO84746 Central entrance block to Military Headquarters 18th century to Modern (1800 AD too 1979 AD)
Bentley Priory
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 35
Appendix 2: Sources
Bibliography
Anderson, N, September 2007, Bentley Priory Masterplan Options, Robert Adam Architects
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979
Ancient Monuments (Class Consents) Order 1984
Bowlt, EM, 2000, Harrow’s Past, Historical Publications
British Geological Survey, 1995, Geological Map Sheet 256 (North London) Solid & Drift Geology , Scale
1:50,000
Debois Landscape Group, August 2007, Bentley Priory Historic Landscape Survey
Department of the Environment (DoE), 1990, Planning Policy Guidance [Note 16]: Archaeology and
Planning (PPG 16)
Department of the Environment (DoE), & Department of National Heritage (DHN), 1994,
Planning Policy Guidance [Note 15]: Planning and the Historic Environment (PPG15)
Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) & Welsh Assembly Government (WAG),
2007, Heritage Protection for the 21st Century (White Paper)
GSB Prospection Ltd., 2005, Geophysical Survey Report 2005/91, RAF Bentley Priory, Stanmore,
Middlesex
The Hedgerow Regulations 1997 (amended 2002)
Enviros Consulting, 2005, RAF Bentley Priory Land Quality Assessment Phase One: Desk Study Land
Quality Assessment Report – Final
English Heritage Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service (GLAAS), 1999, Archaeological
Guidance Papers: 1. Desk-Based Assessments
Gover, EB, Mawer, A, Stenton, FM, Madge, SJ, 1942, The Place-Names of Middlesex, apart from the
City of London
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 36
Government Office for the South East, 2004, Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9)
Greater London Authority, 2004, The London Plan
Hamlin, JF, 1997, The History of Royal Air Force Bentley Priory and Stanmore Park
Hammond, N, 2004, An Historical Assessment of RAF Bentley Priory, Stanmore, London Borough of
Harrow (Version 2.0), Defence Estates (Document No.: ESWT/3055/3641/1)
Harrow Council London, 2007, Bentley Priory: Issues and Options Supplementary Planning Document
Harrow Council London, 2007, Harrow Unitary Development Plan (Written Statement and Proposals
Plan)
Institute of Field Archaeologists (IFA), 1999, Standards and Guidance for an Archaeological Watching
Brief. Institute of Field Archaeologists
Institute of Field Archaeologists (IFA), 2001, Standards and Guidance for Desk-based Assessment.
LiZLaKe, 2007, The Italian Garden, Bentley Priory: Inventory of Features
Lyson, 1795, Environs of London
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990
National Heritage Act 2002
Perring, D, 1991, Roman London
Potter, J, 1994, Bentley Priory, A Provisional History, Garden Conservation 1, Architectural
Association
Vuilliamy, CE, 1930, The Archaeology of Middlesex and London
Wittrick, A, July 2001, Bentley Priory Stanmore, Middlesex, LB Harrow: Brief report on the construction and
significance of a group of buried brick cisterns uncovered during works at this site, English Heritage Historical
Analysis & Research Team, Reports and Papers: 51 (Architectural Investigation, Report Series:
B/*/2001)
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 37
Internet Sources
British History Online
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/search.aspx?query=bentley%20priory
English Heritage Historic Environment Local Management (HELM):
http://www.helm.org.uk/server/show/nav.7740
Harrow Council London: RAF Bentley Priory Supplementary Planning Document
http://www.harrow.gov.uk/site/scripts/download_info.php?downloadID=560&fileID=913
Historical Directories
http://historicaldirectories.org/
The Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website:
http://www.magic.gov.uk/
Royal Air Force: RAF Bentley Priory
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafbentleypriory/
VSM Estates and RAF Bentley Priory as part of Project MoDEL
http://www.vsmestates.co.uk/RAF_Bentley_Priory.aspx
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 38
Appendix 3: Illustrations
FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Location
Figure 2: Ordnance Survey 2001
Figure 3: Site layout plan (Enviros, 2005)
Figure 4: Bentley Priory Masterplan Options (Robert Adam Architects, 2007)
Figure 5: Bentley Priory, Registered Park and Garden (English Heritage, 2001)
Figure 6: Cultural Heritage features plan (English Heritage, 2007)
Figure 7: Geophysical Survey location diagram (GSB Prospection, 2005)
Figure 8: Plan shewing the Ground Floor & Curtilage of Bentley Priory, Middlesex (for
Messers Debenham, Tewson, Farmer & Bridgewater, c. 1880)
Figure 9: Historic Landscape Character Areas (Debois, 2007)
Figure 10: Extract from Sale Catalogue estate map, 1880
Figure 11a: Plan of RAF Bentley Priory 1939
Figure 11b: Index for Plan of RAF Bentley Priory (Figure 11a) 1939
Figure 12: Ordnance Survey 1964
Figure 13: Potential Sources of Contamination (Enviros, 2005)
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 39
PHOTOGRAPHS
Photograph 1: Aerial view of part of the site of RAF Bentley Priory (VSM Estates)
Photograph 2: Some of the c. 18th century brick cisterns (English Heritage)
Photograph 3: The fenced area around the reburied cisterns showing a viewing chamber -
opposite is Building 268 (Halcrow Group Limited)
Photograph 4: View of the south facing aspect of the mansion and gardens (Halcrow Group
Limited)
Photograph 5: View of the north facing aspect of the mansion (Halcrow Group Limited)
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 40
Figure 1: Site Location
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 41
Figure 2: Ordnance Survey 2001
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 42
Figure 3: Site Layout Plan (Environ 2005)
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 43
Figure 4: Bentley Priory Masterplan Options (Robert Adam Architects, 2007)
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 44
Figure 5: Bentley Priory, Registered Park and Garden (English Heritage, 2001)
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 45
Figure 6: Cultural Heritage features plan (English Heritage, 2007)
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 46
Figure 7: Geophysical Survey location diagram (GSB Prospection, 2005)
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 47
Figure 8: Plan shewing the Ground Floor & Curtilage of Bentley Priory, Middlesex (for Messers Debenham, Tewson, Farmer & Bridgewater, c. 1880)
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 48
Figure 9: Historic Landscape Character Areas (Debois, 2007)
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 49
Figure 10: Extract from Sale Catalogue estate map, 1880
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 50
Figure 11a Plan of Bentley Priory 1939
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 51
Figure 11b: Index Plan for RAF Bentley Priory
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 52
Figure 12: Ordnance Survey 1964
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 53
Figure 13: Potential Sources of Contamination (Enviros, 2005)
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 54
Photograph 1: Aerial view of part of the site of RAF Bentley Priory (VSM Estates)
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 55
Photograph 2: Some of the c. 18th century brick cisterns (English Heritage)
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 56
Photograph 3: The fenced area around the reburied cisterns showing a viewing chamber - opposite is Building 268 (Halcrow Group
Limited)
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 57
Photograph 4: View of the south facing aspect of the mansion and gardens (Halcrow Group Limited)
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 58
Photograph 5: View of the north facing aspect of the mansion (Halcrow Group Limited)
PDFMBP012 Rev000 October 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 59
