archaeological desk-based assessment fanuc house …

ARCHAEOLOGICAL DESK-BASED ASSESSMENT

FANUC HOUSE STATION APPROACH RUISLIP HILLINGDON

DECEMBER 2015 Updated

MAY 2016 Planning � Heritage

Specialist & Independent Advisors to the Property Industry

Planning Authority:

Hillingdon Borough Council

Site centred at: TQ0952187109

Author:

Suzanne Gailey BA (Hons) MA

MCIFA

Approved by:

Duncan Hawkins BA (Hons) MSc FSA MCIFA

Report Status:

FINAL Issue Date:

December 2015 Updated

May 2016

CgMs Ref:

21187

© CgMs Limited

No part of this report is to be copied in any way without prior written consent.

Every effort is made to provide detailed and accurate

information, however, CgMs Limited cannot be held

responsible for errors or inaccuracies within this report.

© Ordnance Survey maps reproduced with the

Archaeological Desk Based Assessment Fanuc House, Station Approach, Ruislip

CgMs Consulting 1 SG/21187

CONTENTS

Executive Summary

1.0 Introduction and Scope of Study 2.0 Planning Background and Development Plan Framework 3.0 Geology and Topography 4.0 Archaeological and Historical Background and Assessment of Significance

5.0 Site Conditions, the Proposed Development and Impacts on Archaeological Assets 6.0 Summary and Conclusions

Sources Consulted

Appendix One HER Location Plan (GLHER 2015)

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 1 Location map

Fig. 2 1766 Rocque

Fig. 3 1860 Ordnance Survey






Fig. 9 Aerial Photograph (GoogleEarth 2006)

Fig. 10 Site as Existing

Fig. 11 Proposed Development – Ground Floor



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Fanuc House, Station Approach is proposed for redevelopment

There are no Scheduled Monuments on or close to the site.

In addition this assessment considers that the site has a low potential for remains of

archaeological interest dating to all past periods.

Due to the site’s low archaeological potential and the extent of past ground disturbance,

the proposed development is considered unlikely to impact any significant

archaeological assets.

As a result we suggest that further archaeological mitigation measures would not be

appropriate in this instance.



1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF STUDY

1.1 This archaeological desk-based assessment has been prepared by Suzanne Gailey of

CgMs Consulting on behalf of RS Station Approach Ltd and their agent Stace LLP.

1.2 The subject of this assessment, also known as the study site, is land at Fanuc House,

Station Approach, Ruislip, Middlesex HA4 8LF. The site is centred at TQ0952187109

(Fig 1).

1.3 In accordance with government policy, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF),

this assessment draws together the available archaeological, historic, topographic and

land-use information in order to clarify the archaeological potential of the site.

1.4 Additionally, in accordance with the ‘Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment

Desk-Based Assessments’ (Chartered Institute for Archaeologists 1999, revised 2014),

an examination of published and unpublished material and charts historic land-use

through a map regression exercise.

1.5 As a result, the assessment enables relevant parties to assess the significance of

archaeological assets on and close to the site, assess the potential for hitherto

undiscovered archaeological assets and thus enable potential impacts on assets to be

identified along with the need for design, civil engineering or archaeological solutions.



2.0 PLANNING BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FRAMEWORK

2.1 In March 2012, the government published the National Planning Policy Framework

(NPPF), this was supplemented by National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) in

March 2014.

2.1.1 Section 12 of the NPPF, entitled Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

provides guidance for planning authorities, property owners, developers and others on

the conservation and investigation of heritage assets. Overall, the objectives of

Section 12 of the NPPF can be summarised as seeking the:

• Delivery of sustainable development

• Understanding the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits

brought by the conservation of the historic environment

• Conservation of England's heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their

significance, and

• Recognition that heritage makes to our knowledge and understanding of the

past.

2.1.2 Section 12 of the NPPF recognises that intelligently managed change may sometimes

be necessary if heritage assets are to be maintained for the long term. Paragraph 128

states that planning decisions should be based on the significance of the heritage

asset and that level of detail supplied by an applicant should be proportionate to the

importance of the asset and should be no more than sufficient to review the potential

impact of the proposal upon the significance of that asset.

2.1.3 Heritage Assets are defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF as: a building, monument, site,

place, area or landscape positively identified as having a degree of significance

meriting consideration in planning decisions. They include designated heritage assets

(as defined in the NPPF) and assets identified by the local planning authority during

the process of decision-making or through the plan-making process.

2.1.4 Annex 2 also defines Archaeological Interest as a heritage asset which holds or

potentially could hold evidence of past human activity worthy of expert investigation

at some point. Heritage assets with archaeological interest are the primary source of

evidence about the substance and evolution of places, and of the people and cultures

that made them.



2.1.5 A Designated Heritage Asset comprises a: World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument,

Listed Building, Protected Wreck Site, Registered Park and Garden, Registered

Battlefield or Conservation Area.

2.1.6 Significance is defined as: The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations

because of its heritage interest. This interest may be archaeological, architectural,

artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical

presence, but also from its setting.

2.1.7 In short, government policy provides a framework which:

• Protects nationally important designated Heritage Assets (which include World

Heritage Sites, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Listed Buildings, Protected Wreck

Sites, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields or Conservation

Areas)

• Protects the settings of such designations

• In appropriate circumstances seeks adequate information (from desk based

assessment and field evaluation where necessary) to enable informed decisions

• Provides for the excavation and investigation of sites not significant enough to

merit in-situ preservation.

2.2 In considering any planning application for development, the planning authority will be

mindful of the framework set by government policy, in this instance the NPPF, by

current Development Plan Policy and by other material considerations.

2.3 The relevant Strategic Development Plan framework is provided by the London Plan

Consolidated with Alterations Since 2011 published March 2015. The policy relevant to

archaeology at the site is as follows:

POLICY 7.8 HERITAGE ASSETS AND ARCHAEOLOGY STRATEGIC A. LONDON’S HERITAGE ASSETS AND HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT, INCLUDING LISTED

BUILDINGS, REGISTERED HISTORIC PARKS AND GARDENS AND OTHER NATURAL AND

HISTORIC LANDSCAPES, CONSERVATION AREAS, WORLD HERITAGE SITES, REGISTERED

BATTLEFIELDS, SCHEDULED MONUMENTS, ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS AND MEMORIALS

SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED, SO THAT THE DESIRABILITY OF SUSTAINING AND ENHANCING

THEIR SIGNIFICANCE AND OF UTILISING THEIR POSITIVE ROLE IN PLACE SHAPING CAN

BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

B. DEVELOPMENT SHOULD INCORPORATE MEASURES THAT IDENTIFY, RECORD, INTERPRET,

PROTECT AND, WHERE APPROPRIATE, PRESENT THE SITE’S ARCHAEOLOGY.



PLANNING DECISIONS C. DEVELOPMENT SHOULD IDENTIFY, VALUE, CONSERVE, RESTORE, RE-USE AND INCORPORATE

HERITAGE ASSETS, WHERE APPROPRIATE.

D. DEVELOPMENT AFFECTING HERITAGE ASSETS AND THEIR SETTINGS SHOULD CONSERVE

THEIR SIGNIFICANCE, BY BEING SYMPATHETIC TO THEIR FORM, SCALE, MATERIALS AND

ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL.

E. NEW DEVELOPMENT SHOULD MAKE PROVISION FOR THE PROTECTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL

RESOURCES, LANDSCAPES AND SIGNIFICANT MEMORIALS. THE PHYSICAL ASSETS SHOULD,

WHERE POSSIBLE, BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ON-SITE. WHERE THE

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSET OR MEMORIAL CANNOT BE PRESERVED OR MANAGED ON-SITE,

PROVISION MUST BE MADE FOR THE INVESTIGATION, UNDERSTANDING, RECORDING,

DISSEMINATION AND ARCHIVING OF THAT ASSET.

LDF PREPARATION F. BOROUGHS SHOULD, IN LDF POLICIES, SEEK TO MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE THE

CONTRIBUTION OF BUILT, LANDSCAPED AND BURIED HERITAGE TO LONDON’S

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, CULTURAL IDENTITY AND ECONOMY AS PART OF MANAGING

LONDON’S ABILITY TO ACCOMMODATE CHANGE AND REGENERATION.

G. BOROUGHS, IN CONSULTATION WITH ENGLISH HERITAGE, NATURAL ENGLAND AND OTHER

RELEVANT STATUTORY ORGANISATIONS, SHOULD INCLUDE APPROPRIATE POLICIES IN

THEIR LDFS FOR IDENTIFYING, PROTECTING, ENHANCING AND IMPROVING ACCESS TO THE

HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE ASSETS AND THEIR SETTINGS WHERE

APPROPRIATE, AND TO ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSETS, MEMORIALS AND HISTORIC AND

NATURAL LANDSCAPE CHARACTER WITHIN THEIR AREA.

2.4 The Hillingdon Borough Core Strategy was adopted in April 2012 and contains the

following policies relating to the historic environment:

POLICY HE1: HERITAGE THE COUNCIL WILL: 1. CONSERVE AND ENHANCE HILLINGDON'S DISTINCT AND VARIED ENVIRONMENT, ITS SETTINGS AND THE WIDER HISTORIC LANDSCAPE, WHICH INCLUDES: - HISTORIC VILLAGE CORES, METRO-LAND SUBURBS, PLANNED RESIDENTIAL

ESTATES AND 19TH AND 20TH CENTURY INDUSTRIAL AREAS, INCLUDING THE GRAND UNION CANAL AND ITS FEATURES;

- DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS SUCH AS STATUTORILY LISTED BUILDINGS, CONSERVATION AREAS AND SCHEDULED ANCIENT MONUMENTS;

- REGISTERED PARKS AND GARDENS AND HISTORIC LANDSCAPES, BOTH NATURAL AND DESIGNED;

- LOCALLY RECOGNISED HISTORIC FEATURES, SUCH AS AREAS OF SPECIAL LOCAL CHARACTER AND LOCALLY LISTED BUILDINGS; AND

- ARCHAEOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS, INCLUDING ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRIORITY ZONES AND AREAS.



2. ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE THE REGENERATION OF HERITAGE ASSETS, PARTICULARLY THOSE WHICH HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN ENGLISH HERITAGE'S 'HERITAGE AT RISK' REGISTER OR ARE CURRENTLY VACANT. 3. PROMOTE INCREASED PUBLIC AWARENESS, UNDERSTANDING OF AND ACCESS TO THE BOROUGH'S HERITAGE ASSETS AND WIDER HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT, THROUGH SECTION 106 AGREEMENTS AND VIA COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH ACTIVITIES. 4. ENCOURAGE THE REUSE AND MODIFICATION OF HERITAGE ASSETS, WHERE APPROPRIATE, WHEN CONSIDERING PROPOSALS TO MITIGATE OR ADAPT TO THE

EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE. WHERE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON A HERITAGE ASSET IS IDENTIFIED, SEEK ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO ACHIEVE SIMILAR CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION OUTCOMES WITHOUT DAMAGE TO THE ASSET.

2.5 The Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan was adopted in 1998. The Plan contains the

following ‘saved’ policies:

BE1 ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WILL THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY

ALLOW DEVELOPMENT TO TAKE PLACE IF IT WOULD DISTURB REMAINS OF

IMPORTANCE WITHIN THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRIORITY AREAS.

BE3 THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY WILL ENSURE WHENEVER PRACTICABLE THAT

SITES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTEREST ARE INVESTIGATED AND RECORDED EITHER

BEFORE ANY NEW BUILDINGS, REDEVELOPMENT, SITE WORKS, GOLF COURSE OR

GRAVEL EXTRACTION ARE STARTED, OR DURING EXCAVATION AND CONSTRUCTION.

DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD DESTROY IMPORTANT ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS

WILL NOT BE PERMITTED.

2.6 There are no Scheduled Monuments or other designated heritage assets the site. The

closest Listed Building is Ruislip Station which lies approximately 50m south-west of the

study site. The closest Scheduled Monument (Ruislip Motte and Bailey) lies

approximately 750m north-west of the study site. Modern urban development occupies

the setting of these designated assets and consequently the proposed development is

likely to have a neutral effect on the setting of these designated assets. They will

therefore not be considered further in this assessment.

2.7 The site does not lie on or close to an Archaeological Priority Area.

2.8 In accordance with NPPF, this assessment therefore considers the potential for as yet to

be discovered archaeological assets and provides a proportionate level of information to

enable an informed planning decision.



3.0 GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY

3.1 Geology

3.1.1 The solid geology of the study site is shown by the British Geological Survey Sheet to

lie on Lambeth Group – Clay, Silt and Sand.

3.2 Topography

3.2.1 The study site lies in a landscape that rises gently from south-east to north-west. The

site itself is approximately level at c47m AOD.

3.2.2 No natural water channels or other topographical anomalies lie on or close to the site.



4.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND ASSESSMENT OF

SIGNIFICANCE

Timescales used in this report:

Prehistoric

Palaeolithic 450,000 - 12,000 BC

Mesolithic 12,000 - 4,000 BC

Neolithic 4,000 - 1,800 BC

Bronze Age 1,800 - 600 BC

Iron Age 600 - AD 43

Historic

Roman AD 43 - 410

Saxon/Early Medieval AD 410 - 1066

Medieval AD 1066 - 1485

Post Medieval

Modern

AD 1486 -

AD 1800 -

1799

Present

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 Archaeological information from a ‘study area’ comprising land within a 750m radius of

the study site held in the Greater London Historic Environment Record (GLHER) has

been collected and reviewed.

4.1.2 This chapter reviews existing archaeological evidence for the site and the

archaeological/historical background of the general area, and, in accordance with

NPPF, considers the potential for as yet undiscovered archaeological evidence on the

site.

4.1.3 Chapter 5 subsequently considers the site conditions and whether the theoretical

potential identified in this chapter is likely to survive.

4.2 Prehistoric

4.2.1 A large retouched flake was found at King Edward Road approximately 500m north-

west of the study site (MLO2673 TQ09058734) and is the only prehistoric find

recorded within a 750m radius of the study site.



4.2.2 It is likely that the study site lay in a landscape that comprised dense woodland during

these periods. The site’s location some distance from any natural water source suggest

that it was unlikely to have been a favoured location for prehistoric occupation. As a

result the archaeological potential for evidence of settlement activity dating to the

prehistoric periods is considered to be low although unstratified isolated artefacts may

be present.

4.3 Roman

4.3.1 The route of the Iron Age/Romano British linear earthwork known as Grims Dyke is

thought to have passed through Ruislip. The use of this linear bank and ditch is

unknown but is thought to have been defensive or territorial and to have passed

through Eastcote and Ruislip towards Ickenham and Uxbridge.

4.3.2 Roman brick and tile were incorporated in the later Medieval walls of Ruislip Church

approximately 600m north-west of the study site (MLO253 TQ09158761) suggesting

Roman settlement in the vicinity. A sherd of Roman pottery was found within Parkers

Field during excavations approximately 700m north-east of the study site (MLO268

TQ09708780).

4.3.3 Although much of the surrounding landscape may well have remained within woodland

during this period it is clear that some settlement was taking place in the vicinity of

the study site.

4.3.4 Overall, though difficult to quantify, the archaeological potential of the study site for

evidence of in situ settlement evidence dating to the Roman period is considered to be

low.

4.4 Anglo-Saxon and Medieval

4.4.1 The study site lies approximately 750m south-east of the Motte and Bailey castle

built soon after the Conquest in 1066. After 1097 the castle was passed on to the

Abbey of Bec who founded a small Priory in its place. The Abbey was subsequently

demolished during the dissolution (MLO10247 TQ09058780).

4.4.2 The Domesday Survey of 1086 records the hamlet of Rislepe comprising a heavy

wooded landscape with arable and pasture land and a priest. The current church

dates from 13th century but an earlier church is thought to have once existed on the



same site. The hamlet of Ruislip is therefore likely to have been established by the

late Saxon period.

4.4.3 The core of the Medieval settlement at Ruislip focussed on the church and castle

approximately 750m north-west of the study site (MLO68633 TQ09108770).

Isolated sherds of pottery dating to the Medieval period have been found within this

area (MLO10639 TQ09038756, MLO4550 TQ09148769).

4.4.4 The site lies some distance from the core of any Medieval settlement. Consequently

a low archaeological potential can be identified for evidence of settlement activity

dating to these periods.

4.5 Post Medieval & Modern (including map regression exercise)

4.5.1 By the Post Medieval period the focus of settlement at Ruislip remained around the

High Street and Bury Street close to the church and Manor Farm. Rocque’s map of

1766 (Fig. 2) shows the site comprising part of an open field to the south-east of the

village core.

4.5.2 There was no change to the site by the late 19th century (Fig. 3 and 4).

4.5.3 In 1904 Ruislip Station was opened and the metropolitan line ran to the south of the

study site. The 1914 Ordnance Survey shows the site remained undeveloped by this

date (Fig. 5).

4.5.4 Between 1914 and 1935 Pembroke Road was constructed bounding the site to the

north. By this date the site was occupied by a tennis court associated with the

adjacent club (Fig. 6).

4.5.5 Between 1935 and 1962 Station approach had been constructed and bound the site to

the west. The site was occupied by a carpark by this date (Fig. 7).

4.5.6 Between 1962 and 1988 Fanuc House was constructed (Fig. 8).

4.5.7 There has been no subsequent change to the study site (Fig. 9 and 10).

4.5.8 The archaeological potential of the study site for evidence of settlement activity dating

to the Post Medieval period is considered to be low.



4.7 Assessment of Significance

4.7.1 There are no designated archaeological heritage assets on the site. Additionally

there are no non-designated archaeological assets recorded on the site in the

GLHER.

4.7.2 The site has a low potential for as yet to be discovered archaeological assets dating

from the prehistoric to the Post-Medieval periods.



5.0 SITE CONDITIONS, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND IMPACTS ON

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSETS

5.1 Site Conditions

5.1.1 The study site currently comprises Fanuc House. A building constructed in the

1970s/80s with associated carparking and landscaping to the rear.

5.1.2 No development took place at the study site until the 20th century. Soil stripping and

any levelling works during the construction of the tennis courts will have had a

widespread below ground impact. Subsequent redevelopment of the site will have had

a cumulative impact.

5.2 Proposed Development

5.2.1 It is proposed to redevelop the site with residential apartments and associated

carparking and landscaping (Fig. 11).

5.3 Impacts on Archaeological Assets

5.3.1 The proposed development will not impact on any designated archaeological assets or

known non-designated assets.

5.3.2 Due to the site’s low archaeological potential and the extent of past ground

disturbance, the proposed development is considered unlikely to impact any significant




6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

6.1 In accordance with central and local government policy, a desk-based assessment has

been undertaken to clarify the archaeological potential of the study site.

6.2 No designated archaeological assets lie on the site.

6.3 The site is considered to have a low potential for remains of archaeological interest

dating from the prehistoric to the post-medieval periods.

6.4 Due to the site’s low archaeological potential and the extent of past ground

disturbance, the proposed development is considered unlikely to impact any significant


6.5 Consequently, we suggest further archaeological mitigation measures would not be

appropriate in this instance.



SOURCES CONSULTED

1. General

British Library

Greater London Historic Environment Record

National Archive

2. Bibliographic

Antiquities of Middlesex Vol 3 Bewlt, E 1994 Ruislip Past

Weinreb & Hibbert (eds.) The London Encyclopaedia 1995

3. Cartographic

1766 Rocque

1860 Ordnance Survey






509500

1870

00

Figure 1:

Site Location

1:4,000Scale at A4:

N:\21000-21999\21187 - Fanuc House, Ruislip\Figures\Mapping\GIS\Projects\A4 Figure 1 Portrait.mxd

© Ordnance Survey maps reproduced with the sanction of the controller of HM Stationery Office. Licence No: AL 100014723Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right [2015]

Planning ● Heritagewww.cgms.co.uk

LW / 10.12.15

0 100m

±

Bromley

Barnet

Havering

Enfield

Hillingdon

Croydon

Bexley

Ealing

Brent

Harrow

Sutton

Hounslow

Redbridge

Merton

Greenwich

Newham

Lewisham

Haringey

Lambeth

Wandsworth

Southwark

Camden

Waltham

Forest

HackneyIslington

Barking and

Dagenham

Tower

Hamlets

Richmond

Upon Thames

Kingston

Upon

Thames

3

1

2

4

1 Hammersmith & Fulham

2 Kensington & Chelsea

3 City of Westminster

4 City of London

PINNER

RUISLIP

Eastcote

Ickenham

UXBRIDGE

Ruislip CommonSouth Harefield

A40

A4180

A40(T)

A437

A404

A312

A4090

A408

HILLINGDON LONDON BORO

HARROW LONDON BORO

EALING LONDON BORO

Site Boundary

N

Site Location

Not to Scale:Illustrative Only

Figure 2:1766 Rocque

© Ordnance Survey maps reproduced with the sanction of the controller of HM Stationery Office Licence No: AL 100014723Contains OS data © Crown copyright [and database right] 2015

N:\21000-21999\21187 - Fanuc House, Ruislip\Figures\Mapping\CAD\Figures 2-11.dwg KP / 11.12.15

www.cgms.co.uk

Planning ● Heritage

C ON

SU L T I N

G

N

Site Boundary


Figure 3:1860 Ordnance Survey



www.cgms.co.uk


C ON

SU L T I N

G

N

Site Boundary





www.cgms.co.uk


C ON

SU L T I N

G

N

Site Boundary


Figure 9:Aerial Photograph



www.cgms.co.uk


C ON

SU L T I N

G

N

Site Boundary


Figure 10:Site as Existing



www.cgms.co.uk


C ON

SU L T I N

G



Appendix One

HER Location Plan

(GLHER 2015)

$+

$+

$+$+

$+

$+

$+

$+

$+$+

$+

$+

$+

$+

$+

$+

$+

$+

$+

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF!(

!(

!(

!(

DLO36174 - Ruislip APA

ELO11008ELO11006

ELO12039

ELO3979

MLO98527

MLO98527

MLO10247

MLO64623

Ruislip Village CA

Ruislip, Manor Way CA

MLO268

MLO253

MLO4550

MLO2673

MLO10247

MLO68690

MLO68685

MLO68633

MLO10639

508500 509000 509500 510000 510500

1865

0018

7000

1875

00

1:6,000Scale at A3:

N:\21000-21999\21187 - Fanuc House, Ruislip\Figures\Mapping\GIS\Projects\HER A3 Landscape.mxd

© Ordnance Survey maps reproduced with the sanction of the controller of HM Stationery Office. Licence No: AL 100014723

© English Heritage 2015. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2015

The Dataset contained in this material was obtained on 10.12.15

Planning ● Heritagewww.cgms.co.uk

LW / 10.12.15

0 200m

±

Site Boundary

Search Radius 750m

DesignatedHeritage Assets:

$+ Listed Building

Conservation Area

Non-DesignatedHeritage Assets:

HER Record (Point)GF Find Spot

!( Monument

HER Record(Polygon)

Monument

Archaeological PriorityArea

DLO36174 - RuislipAPA

Previous ArchaeologicalWork:

Event Record(Polygon)

Appendix 1:

HER Location Plan

(Greater London

HER 2015)

archaeological desk-based assessment fanuc house …

Documents