Surrey Archaeological Society

Watching brief by C Currie of CKCA during the excavations for a lift shaft revealed possible evidence for the foundation wall of either 16th or 18th century houses, both formerly on the site, and a drainage channel. The investigation was however too limited in scale to provide conclusive dating evidence for any features.

Observation of groundworks undertaken during road improvements by N Shaikhley of SCAU. No finds or features of archaeological interest were noted, although the work was conducted at a late stage in construction operations and any archaeology present on the site may already have been removed

Monitoring of geotechnical test pitting by G Priestly-Bell of ASE. No features were recorded, but the quantities of burnt and worked flint contained within the topsoil were thought to be suggestive of prehistoric activity in the area.

Evaluation by A Haslam of PCA revealed no finds or features of archaeological interest.

Evaluation by R Poulton of SCAU revealed no finds or features of archaeological interest.

Evaluation by R Poulton of SCAU revealed no finds or features of archaeological interest.

Evaluation by M Collings of ASE revealed no finds or features of archaeological interest.

Evaluation by T Malim of GAP encountered extensive remains of 19th century structures relating to gunpowder manufacture on the site, although little evidence for earlier activity was observed

Evaluation by J Pine of TVAS revealed evidence for 13th–15th century layers, with the possibility of a cut feature of medieval date also being discovered, although this could not be confirmed. Evidence of 17th–18th century pitting activity was also revealed, followed by 19th–20th century disturbance in a relatively deep sequence that suggested continuous activity on the site for some considerable time.

Topographic survey by D and A Graham of SyAS of a Bronze Age barrow previously investigated by Pitt-Rivers in 1877. The survey revealed clear evidence for the external bank and ditch, although previous suggestions of a related causeway were disproved. (Bulletin 382)