ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT
CASTLE ORCHARD HOUSE, CASTLE ORCHARD, BUNGAY
(SMR ref. BUN 055)
A REPORT ON THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING OF GROUNDWORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXTENSION, A CONSERVATORY
AND A GARAGE BLOCK AT CASTLE ORCHARD HOUSE, BUNGAY (Application No. W/1915/2)
Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service Report No. 2005/6
(OASIS Ref. suffolkc1-3950)
Summary: Archaeological monitoring of groundwork associated with the construction of an extension and a conservatory at Castle Orchard House, Castle Orchard, Bungay (NGR TM 3354 8967), was undertaken during August and September 2004. Despite being within the outer bailey of Bungay Castle, no significant archaeological deposits were identified and no artefacts were recovered. This monitoring event is recorded on the Sites and Monuments Record under the reference BUN 055. The archaeological monitoring was undertaken by the Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service, Field Projects Team, with funding from the owners, Mr and Mrs Youngs.
Figure 1: Location Plan
(c) Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Suffolk County Council. Licence No. 100023395 2004
Introduction
An application for the construction of an extension, a conservatory and a garage block at Castle Orchard House, Castle Orchard, Bungay, (application no. W/1915/2) was approved but with an attached condition calling for a programme of archaeological works to be put in place prior to construction work. The archaeological interest in the site was due to it
being located less than 100m from the keep of Bungay Castle in an area within the castle�s outer bailey.
A Brief and Specification (B&S) calling for archaeological monitoring of groundwork associated with the proposed development was produced by the Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service, Conservation Team (Appendix 1). The extension and the conservatory were to be constructed on strip footings and it was the excavation of these that had the greatest potential to reveal and damage archaeological deposits or features that may be present. Due to the high archaeological potential of the site the B&S stated that an approved archaeological contractor observe the footing trenches during their excavation by a building contractor as well as after.
The National Grid Reference for the approximate centre of the site is TM 3354 8967; for a location plan see figure 1 above. This monitoring event is recorded on the Suffolk County Sites and Monuments Record under the reference BUN 055. The archaeological monitoring was undertaken by the Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service, Field Projects Team, with funding from the owners, Mr and Mrs Youngs.
Figure 2: Areas of New Build
(c) Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Suffolk County Council. Licence No. 100023395 2004
Methodology
The first site visit was made to observe the excavation of the footing for an extension on
the north side of the existing house. The depth of the footing trench was recorded and the face of a short length of the trench was trowelled clean and photographed. The make-up of the ground as revealed by the footing trench was noted and a sample section was then drawn at a scale of 1:20. The spoil was initially retained onsite in a low heap, which was occasionally examined for artefacts. The spoil was later carted from the site. During the monitoring visits a limited photographic record was compiled.
Later visits to the site were restricted to just the inspection of the footing trenches after they had been excavated and examination of the resultant spoil.
The proposed garage block was to replace an existing brick built structure and it was intended to reuse as much of the existing foundation as possible. As no archaeological deposits or features had been seen in the relatively extensive footings of the extension and conservatory monitoring of the small amount of new footing that would be required for the new garage block was unlikely to yield worthwhile results and was consequently not undertaken.
Results
Site visits were made on the 10th and 11th August 2004 in order to observe the excavation of the footings for the extension to the north side of the existing house (see figure 2). A 1m deep footing trench was excavated to a depth of 1m by the building contractors using a �mini-digger�, although a fair proportion of the eastern half was hand dug due to problems of machine access. The footing was excavated through 0.6m of dark loamy soil that contained occasional fragments of slate and late 20th century glass. These finds only occurred in the upper half of this deposit although no obvious layering was visible. The dark loamy soil overlay a c.0.15m thick layer of pale brown sand which in turn overlay a deposit of clean yellow sand thought to be the natural subsoil. The interface between this natural subsoil and the overlying pale brown sand layer was irregular and blurred suggesting the natural subsoil surface had not been truncated but the interface between the pale brown sand and the dark loam was quite distinct. Plate II is photograph of a sample section of the trench. The finished trench was relatively clean giving a good opportunity to identify any cut features or archaeological deposits but none were identified.
The spoil was initially stockpiled onsite in a low heap before being trucked away at regular intervals throughout the day. This spoil heap was examined on an occasional basis and the loading operations were casually observed for artefacts although no artefacts were recovered.
The site was revisited on the 9th September 2004 to inspect the conservatory footings. At
the time of the visit these had already been excavated by the building contractors and the spoil removed from site. Inspection of the footing trench revealed an identical soil profile to that recorded within the extension footings. Again the footings were relatively clean giving a good opportunity to identify cut features or deposits but none were seen.
The monitoring archive from this project will be deposited at the Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service offices in Bury St Edmunds under the reference BUN055, it is also recorded on the OASIS, online database, reference: suffolkc1-3950.
Conclusion
No significant archaeological deposits appear to have been damaged or destroyed by the development of this site. The footing trenches were cleanly dug and gave good opportunities to observe for archaeological features and deposits and their absence has to be considered a real phenomenon.
The only deposit of note was the layer of pale brown sand over lying the natural subsoil that may be a buried topsoil, the upper surface of which did appear to be slightly truncated.
During the visits it was noted that the area of Castle Orchard is uneven and slopes away to the south and the east although the actual grounds of Castle Orchard House itself are relatively level with a steep drop off to the roadway to the northeast. The road is not sunken in this area as there is no corresponding bank rising up on the opposite side of the road as the ground continues at a similar level. The thick deposit of dark loam recorded in the footing trenches is likely to be associated landscaping of the site to create a slightly more level plateau and is probably associated with the original construction of the house. It presumably consists of imported material that may have originated from the adjacent Castle Hills area of earthworks that formed part of the castle or town defences.
Mark Sommers 15th January 2005
Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service Field Projects Team
Plate I: Castle Orchard House prior to extension (view facing west)
Plate II: soil profile as revealed on the northern side of the house
APPENDIX 1
SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICE - CONSERVATION TEAM
Brief and Specification for Archaeological Monitoring
CASTLE ORCHARD HOUSE, CASTLE ORCHARD, BUNGAY
1. Background
1.1 Planning permission to construct an extension and detached garage block on this site has been granted conditional upon an acceptable programme of archaeological work being carried out (W/1915/2). Assessment of the available archaeological evidence and the proposed foundation methods indicates that the area affected by new building can be adequately recorded by archaeological monitoring.
1.2 The proposal lies within the outer bailey of Bungay Castle and will involve significant ground disturbance.
1.3 As the house extension is modest and the new garage replaces an existing structure there will only be limited damage to any archaeological deposits, which can be recorded by a trained archaeologist during excavation of the foundation trenches by the building contractor.
2. Brief for Archaeological Monitoring
2.1 To provide a record of archaeological deposits which would be damaged or removed by any development [including services and landscaping] permitted by the current planning consent.
2.2 The main academic objective will centre upon the potential of this development to produce evidence for occupation relating to the medieval castle.
2.3 The significant archaeologically damaging activity in this proposal is the excavation of building footing trenches. These, and the upcast soil, are to be observed during and after they have been excavated by the building contractor.
3. Arrangements for Monitoring
3.1 The developer or his archaeologist will give the County Archaeologist (Keith Wade, Archaeological Service, Shire Hall, Bury St Edmunds IP33 2AR. Telephone: 01284 352440; Fax: 01284 352443) 48 hours notice of the commencement of site works.
3.2 To carry out the monitoring work the developer will appoint an archaeologist (the observing archaeologist) who must be approved by the Planning Authority�s archaeological adviser (the Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service).
3.3 Allowance must be made to cover archaeological costs incurred in monitoring the development works by the contract archaeologist. The size of the contingency should be estimated by the approved archaeological contractor, based upon the
outline works in paragraph 2.3 of the Brief and Specification and the building contractor�s programmeof works and time-table.
3.4 If unexpected remains are encountered, the County Archaeologist should be immediately informed so that any amendments deemed necessary to this specification to ensure adequate provision for recording, can be made without delay. This could include the need for archaeological excavation of parts of the site which would otherwise be damaged or destroyed.
4. Specification
4.1 The developer shall afford access at all reasonable times to both the County Archaeologist and the �observing archaeologist� to allow archaeological observation of building and engineering operations which disturb the ground.
4.2 Opportunity should be given to the �observing archaeologist� to hand excavate any discrete archaeological features which appear during earth moving operations, retrieve finds and make measured records as necessary.
4.3 In the case of footing trenches unimpeded access at the rate of one and half hours
per 10 metres of trench must be allowed for archaeological recording before concreting or building begin. Where it is necessary to see archaeological detail one of the soil faces is to be trowelled clean.
4.4 All archaeological features exposed should be planned at a minimum scale of 1:50 on a plan showing the proposed layout of the development.
4.5 All contexts should be numbered and finds recorded by context as far as possible.
4.6 The data recording methods and conventions used must be consistent with, and approved by, the County Sites and Monuments Record.
5. Report Requirements
5.1 An archive of all records and finds is to be prepared consistent with the principles of Management of Archaeological Projects (MAP2), particularly Appendix 3.This must be deposited with the County Sites and Monuments Record within 3 months of the completion of work. It will then become publicly accessible.
5.2 Finds must be appropriately conserved and stored in accordance with UK Institute of Conservators Guidelines. The finds, as an indissoluble part of the site archive, should be deposited with the County SMR if the landowner can be persuaded to agree to this. If this is not possible for all or any part of the finds archive, then provision must be made for additional recording (e.g. photography, illustration, analysis) as appropriate.
5.3 A report on the fieldwork and archive, consistent with the principles of MAP2, particularly Appendix 4, must be provided. The report must summarise the methodology employed, the stratigraphic sequence, and give a period by period description of the contexts recorded, and an inventory of finds. The objective account of the archaeological evidence must be clearly distinguished from its interpretation. The Report must include a discussion and an assessment of the archaeological evidence. Its conclusions must include a clear statement of the archaeological value of the results, and their significance in the context of the
Regional Research Framework (East Anglian Archaeology, Occasional Papers 3 & 8, 1997 and 2000).
5.4 A summary report, in the established format, suitable for inclusion in the annual �Archaeology in Suffolk� section of the Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology, should be prepared and included in the project report.
5.5 County Sites and Monuments Record sheets should be completed, as per the county SMR manual, for all sites where archaeological finds and/or features are located.
5.6 At the start of work (immediately before fieldwork commences) an OASIS online record http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/project/oasis/ must be initiated and key fields completed on Details, Location and Creators forms.
5.7 All parts of the OASIS online form must be completed for submission to the SMR. This should include an uploaded .pdf version of the entire report (a paper copy should also be included with the archive).
Specification by: Keith Wade
Suffolk County Council
Archaeological Service Conservation Team Environment and Transport Department
Shire Hall
Bury St Edmunds Suffolk IP33 2AR
Date: 24 May 2004 Reference: /Bungay-CastleOrchard05
This brief and specification remains valid for 12 months from the above date. If work is not carried out in full within that time this document will lapse; the authority should be notified and a revised brief and specification may be issued.
If the work defined by this brief forms a part of a programme of archaeological work required by a Planning Condition, the results must be considered by the Conservation Team of the Archaeological Service of Suffolk County Council, who have the responsibility for advising the appropriate Planning Authority.