JOHN MOOREHERITAGE SERVICES - Archaeology Data Service

JOHN MOOREHERITAGE SERVICES




John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Cobrey Farm, Ross on Wye, Herefordshire 

An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 

 

 

This archaeological desk-based assessment was commissioned as part of the 

consideration of the errection of polytunnels and the excavation of three new ponds 

at Cobrey Farms, Coleraine Buildings, Coughton, Ross on Wye, Herefordshire. This 

study was specifically commissioned to assess the potential for archaeological 

remains to be present within the area of the proposed ponds. 

The location of the proposed development site at Cobrey Farm is split in to three 

areas as shown on Figure 1 as A, B and C. 

The potential for prehistoric remains in the area is low, except in Area C where the 

stone macehead was recovered, were it must be considered moderate to high. 

The chance of Roman remains in the site is though to be low, but moderate in Area A. 

Here, however, the remains are likely to be limited to field boundaries. 

The area appears to have been arable or farmland since the medieval period and the 

potential for remains of medieval, post-medieval and early modern date is considered 

low, although there is a low to moderate potential for quarry pits to be present in the 

vicinity of Area B. 

1



 

 

 

This archaeological desk-based assessment was commissioned by DLA Ltd on behalf 

of Cobrey Farms as part of the consideration of a proposal for new ponds at Cobrey 

Farms, Coleraine Buildings, Coughton, Ross on Wye, Herefordshire. 

 

This report has been prepared in accordance with Planning for the Historic 

Environment (PPS 5) issued by the Department for Communities and Local 

Government (2010); and with the policies relevant to archaeology in the 

Herefordshire Local Development Framework 2026 (Draft June 2008). In format and 

contents this report conforms to the standards outlined in the Institute for 

Archaeologists’ guidance paper for desk-based assessments (IfA revised 2008). 

 

 

Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS 5 2010) provides guidance related to 

archaeology within the planning process. The following Policy points are key to this 

development: 

HE4.1 Local planning authorities should consider whether the exercise of permitted 

development rights would undermine the aims for the historic environment. If it would, local 

planning authorities should consider the use of an article 4 direction to ensure any 

development is given due consideration 

HE6.1 Local planning authorities should require an applicant to provide a description of the 

significance of the heritage assets affected and the contribution of their setting to that 

significance. The level of detail should be proportionate to the importance of the heritage 

asset and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on the 

significance of the heritage asset. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record 

should have been consulted and the heritage assets themselves should have been assessed 

using appropriate expertise where necessary given the application’s impact. Where an 

application site includes, or is considered to have the potential to include, heritage assets with 

archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an 

appropriate desk-based assessment and, where desk-based research is insufficient to properly 

assess the interest, a field evaluation. 

HE6.2 This information together with an assessment of the impact of the proposal should be 

set out in the application (within the design and access statement when this is required) as 

part of the explanation of the design concept. It should detail the sources that have been 

considered and the expertise that has been consulted. 

 

The Draft Archaeology and Development Supplementary Planning Document (2008) 

highlights several key policies that will affect this development: 

ARCH1 – Prior to determination of applications for development on sites where there is 

reason to believe there are remains of archaeological importance, an archaeological field 

evaluation may be required. 

2



ARCH 3 – Development proposals and works, which may adversely affect the integrity, 

character or setting of Scheduled Ancient Monuments will not be permitted. 

ARCH 8 – Proposals affecting sites of archaeological interest will be required to show how 

the interest will be protected and where feasible can be enhanced. 

 

 

 

The primary aim of the desk-based assessment is to provide a professional appraisal 

of the archaeological potential of the site. This follows the Government guidance in 

PPS 5 by presenting a synthetic account of the available archaeological and historic 

data and its significance at an early stage in the planning process. The report will 

provide the evidence necessary for informed and reasonable planning decisions 

concerning the need for further archaeological work. The information will allow for 

the development of an appropriate strategy to mitigate the effects of development on 

the archaeology, if this is warranted. 

In accordance with PPS 5, the report presents a desk-based evaluation of existing 

information. It additionally follows the Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) Standard 

definition of a desk-based assessment (IfA revised 2008). In brief, it seeks to identify 

and assess the known and potential archaeological resource within a specified area 

(‘the site’), collating existing written and graphic information and taking full account 

of the likely character, extent, quantity and worth of that resource in a local, regional 

and national context. It also aims to define and comment on the likely impact of the 

proposed development scheme on the surviving archaeological resource. 

The IfA Standard states that the purpose of a desk-based assessment is to inform 

appropriate responses, which may consist of one or more of the following: 

The formulation of a strategy for further investigation, whether or not 

intrusive, where the character and value of the resource is not sufficiently 

defined to permit a mitigation strategy or other response to be devised. 

The formulation of a strategy to ensure the recording, preservation or 

management of the resource 

The formulation of a project design for further archaeological investigation 

within a programme of research 

In accordance with PPS 5, the desk-based assessment forms the first stage in the 

planning process as regards archaeology as a material consideration. It is intended to 

contribute to the formulation of an informed and appropriate mitigation strategy. 

 

 

The format of the report is adapted from an Institute for Archaeologist Standard 

Guidance paper (IfA, revised 2008). 

In summary, the work has involved: 

3



- Identifying the client’s objectives 

- Identifying the cartographic and documentary sources available for 

consultation 

- Assembling, consulting and examining those sources 

The principal sources consulted in assessing this site were the Historic Environment 

Records for Herefordshire and the Herefordshire Records Office. The first holds 

details of known archaeological sites. The Records Office contained copies of 

relevant early editions of Ordnance Survey maps, other cartographic sources and 

documentary sources. Archaeological sites in Herefordshire within 600 m of the 

proposal site have been noted. Aerial photographs of the area held at the National 

Monuments Record in Swindon were also consulted. 

The extent to which archaeological remains are likely to survive on the site will 

depend on the previous land use. The destructive effect of the previous and existing 

buildings/infrastructure/activity on the site has therefore been assessed from a study 

of available map information and other documentary sources. 

In order that the appropriate archaeological response/s can be identified, 

consideration has been given to the need for further assessment and evaluation by 

fieldwork, in order to identify and locate surviving archaeological deposits on the 

site. 

(Figure 1) 

The location of the proposed development site at Cobrey Farm is split in to three 

areas as shown on Figure 1 as A, B and C. The site is currently used for general 

agricultural use. The site is located approximately 2km to the south of Ross-on-Wye. 

The farm is centred at grid reference SO 615 219 located in a valley location with 

elevations across the farm ranging from approximately 40m to 115m AOD. 

The geology of the site has been identified from British Geological Survey Map 215 

(Ross-on-Wye) and consists of alluvium in the valley base underlain by the 

sandstones and mudstones of the Brownstone Formation of the Lower Old Red 

Sandstone. The Soil Survey of England and Wales classify the soils at the farm as 

Sub-group 541c: well drained reddish coarse loamy soils over sandstone, shallow in 

places especially on brows. Some reddish fine silty soils over shale and siltstone. 

 

The planning application is for the erection of polytunnels across the site 

predominantly for the growing of vegetables and soft fruit. Associated with these 

polytunnels are three proposed ponds for water retention. 

4

John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES 

Figure 1. Location Map 

B 

C 

5 

A 

Cobrey Farms, Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire 


0 m 

1000 m



 

 

(By Stephen Yeates) 

The name Cobrey was first recorded in the later medieval 

period. It has various other variable forms including Cokebury, Colbrey and 

Coughbury and the prefix is of a similar origin to that of Coughton, recorded as 

Cocton(e) 1216-72 (Coplestone-Crow 1989, 197-8). Bannister (1916, 51) suggested 

that the name contained the personal name Cocca. Coplestone-Crow (1989) 

suggested the prefix was Old English coc, a cock, or that the word was cocc, a 

pyramidal shaped hill, in respect to Chase Hill. Consequently Coplestone-Crow 

interpreted as Cobrey as the manor house by Cocc, the pyramidal shaped hill. 

Coplestone-Crows place-name interpretation suggests that there could be a significant 

medieval site in the vicinity of Cobrey, in this interpretation burh, is being used for a 

medieval manorial site. Banister (1916, 51) noted that the site of Cobrey (Cokebury) 

lies on ground at the base of Chase Hill on which a prehistoric camp is known to 

exist. The name Cockbury has been recognised as a specific name applied to 

prehistoric camps elsewhere, for example the large prehistoric camp on Nottingham 

Hill in Gloucestershire (Smith 1964, 90), where the name was recorded Coccanburh 

in 769-85. The etymology given in this case is Cocca’s fortification. The name may 

be part of a series of names with a wider use (Yeates 2008, 102-6). 

The camp is first illustrated on Taylor’s map of 1754 at Chase Wood. The first 

description is by Fosbrooke, a renowned antiquarian whose main works were on 

Gloucestershire, but who also provided an important account of sites in southern 

Herefordshire in his Ariconensia (1821, 20, 33). Here the description is of a camp on 

the Penyard in Chase Wood, claimed as a Roman station. The finds described as 

coming from the site at this early date include beads. Fleeting descriptions occur of 

the texts in Playne (1875, 234) and Lines (1877, 11), but it is the RCHME (1932, 

167) that provides the first detailed account and survey of the camp. Here the camp is 

described as oval and in poor condition with steep defences due to the natural fall of 

the hillside. From the 1960s accounts of further finds occur including middle Iron- 

Age pottery and later Roman coins of the 3 rd -4 th centuries (Leach 1969, 479-80). The 

bead from the site has been given a date of 210-90 BC (Halliwell 1993, 376), while 

recent accumulative accounts of the material the 12.5ha, scarping, berm, outer bank, 

and original northeast entrance are available (HER 904, 4143, 7144; Yeates 2006, 

1141-2). 

Riverside settlement of the late Iron Age and early Roman periods has been noted 

during excavations at the Welsh Water Depot at Coughton (SO 596 213). Here two 

ditches were identified one with Iron-Age and Roman pottery, and another substantial 

ditch containing Severn Valley ware (Shoesmith 2004, 106). No structures were 

found but significant quantities of pottery indicative of settlement nearby. This 

indicates that settlement of a later prehistoric and Roman nature occurred along the 

course of the Coughton Brook. 

The present belief is that a settlement located in Weston-under- 

Penyard parish was first recorded historically in the 2 nd century AD. A large Roman 

6



settlement has been identified in the area of Bury Hill (the hill with the fortification) 

and Bromsash (the earliest known hundred name). The name ARICONIO is recorded 

in the Antonine Itinerary XIII (Rivet and Smith 1979, 257-8). The name is associated 

with that of Archenfield an area on the west of the River Wye (Coplestone-Crow 

1989). 

Horseley (1732, iii.468) was the first antiquarian to claim that Ariconium lay in the 

vicinity of Ross-on-Wye. A description of c. 1750 described the location of extensive 

walls and roads covered with dense thickets (Bull 1882, 249-50). The camp at Bury 

Hill is marked on Taylor’s Map of 1754. In 1785 Hopkins Meyrick provided 

information on this Roman station (Fosbrooke 1821, 22-38; Bull 1882, 249-50), he 

had carried out ploughing on the site and disturbed vast quantities of stone, a 

description of a building is given along with other walls and tesserae finds. The finds 

included building fragments, tufa blocks and arches, a vault, statues, urns, finger and 

earrings, broaches, and Roman coins. The iron slag spreads were extremely extensive 

and early descriptions are of a site covering 20 acres. Among the early descriptions is 

that of a large cast bronze head with ram’s horns that was melted down, but must 

have been part of a cult statue. In 1788 a description of Diana is recorded as being 

recovered from the Roman town (Bevan and Haverfield 1896, 13). In 1804 the 

remains of a further impressive building was described, perhaps a temple, around 

which human burials were described (RCHME 1932, 209). The first synthesis of the 

site occurred in 1844 (Jack 1922, Additional 1-44, 36-37). The earliest discoveries at 

Weston-under-Penyard were from random finds. 

The British Archaeological Society visited the site and observed the collections of 

finds in 1870 (Palmer and Hills 1871, 203-18). Their field walking first determined 

that the site covered 100 acres. The locations included Bollitree, Upper and Lower 

Hask Fields, Cinder Hill, and Bury Hill. It was also noted at this time that there was 

probably an Iron-Age predecessor to the site. The vast majority of coins came from 

Upper Hask Field, suggestive of a temple site or at least a market area. 

The first systematic excavations carried out on the site took place in 1922 when six 

locations were investigated (Jack 1922 Additional 1-44, 1-53). These identified the 

remains of a substantial building with tufa masonry and cinder deposits. In 1928 

cropmarks were observed that marked the road layout of the town, on investigation 

these were constructed of slag deposits (Watkins 1928, 228-31). A second synthesis 

of the site was produced by the RCHME (1932, 209). In 1932 the remains of a cinder 

road was identified running towards the Forest of Dean (Watkins 1932, 184-91). In 

1955 a trench was cut across a Roman road in Wig Meadow (Cohen 1955, 66-72). In 

1963 excavations were carried out on bloomer slags of the settlement (Bridgewater 

1965, 124-35). Further excavations have commenced on the site that show that the 

later Roman layers have been truncated by ploughing. In 1995 excavations took place 

on the line of the Ryeford bypass, some 1km from the Weston site, which identified 

the remains of a road with various structures and cobbled surfaces built along the 

road (White 1994, 47-8, 1995, 45). These excavations show that considerable 

activity, either sporadic satellite settlement, or more likely Roman cemetery activity 

continues for some distance along the line of the Roman roads outside this extensive 

Iron-Age to Roman settlement. 

7


0 

2 m 

Bridstow 

Wilton 

Walford 

Major Royal Manor 

Major Ecclesiastical Manor 

Sub-Royal Manor 

Sub-Ecclesiastical manor 

Nucleated Roman Settlement 

Cleeve 

Coughton 

Brampton Abbots 

Ross-on-Wye 

Chase 

Wood 

Cobrey 

Kingstone 

Westonunder-Penyard 

Ruardean 


An Archaeological Desk Based Assessment 

Bury Hill 

Linton 

Eccleswall 

Lea 

Hope Mansell or Sutton 

Figure 2: The interlinked Medieval Manorial and Parochial system of Ross-cum-Linton 

8 

Aston Ingham



Historically, as we shall see below, the manors of Walford and 

Weston-under-Penyard had a complicated arrangement with other manors located at 

Ross-on-Wye and Linton (near Ross). The first historical reference any of these 

manors is in 1016 when Edmund Ironside is reputed to have granted the manor at 

Ross-on-Wye to the bishop of Hereford (Finberg 1964, no.420). The grant is lost, 

probably destroyed by in a Welsh attack on Hereford, when the cathedral and its 

library were destroyed. Ross was the centre of a large and complicated estate (see 

below) and an early medieval parochial system (see below). The ecclesiastical land 

(church of Saint Mary, Priory, other ecclesiastical lands, and outlying burials) covers 

a large rectangular area of Ross, suggesting the plan is determined by earlier 

archaeology. This has been confirmed recently by excavations in the Prospect 

Gardens where substantial Roman masonry was uncovered (Shoesmith 2009, 149). 

The place-name Weston, first recorded in 1086 as Westune, indicates 

the west settlement (Coplestone-Crow 1989, 202). It is a directional estate name, and 

is counterbalanced by Aston Ingham and Aston Crews, the east settlements. The two 

names are directional names pinpointing an earlier estate centre of the Roman or early 

medieval period; hence the centre is the Roman settlement of Bromsash or the royal 

manor at Linton. 

The name of Walford also shows possible early medieval origins, in that its first 

recording in 1086, Walecford, is considered to have an etymology of the Welshman’s 

ford, and is considered to apply to a crossing of the river Wye (Coplestone-Crow 

1989, 197). A name of this type could date from the reign of Athelstan when an 

agreement was drawn up between the king and the Welsh princes to recognise that 

river as the boundary between the two territories. 

The earliest surviving references to Walford and Weston-under- 

Penyard are to be found in the Domesday Book of 1086. Here we also have to be 

aware of other manors such as that at Linton (near Ross) and also Kingstone (a part of 

Weston-under-Penyard). The combined manor of Ross, Walford-on-Wye and Upton 

Bishop were assessed as a multiple manor to which an estate at Whippington was 

included (Thorn and Thorn 1983, 2.22-25). The combined manorial system is evident 

in later recognised manorial arrangements. Each of the main manors accounted for 7 

hides, while Whippington contained 3 hides. Some of the manor at Walford was 

waste as the record refers to an area of 2 further hides that could be brought back into 

cultivation. The village contained 6 villagers, 4 smallholders, meadow, and 3 hedged 

enclosures or haiæ. The hedged enclosures are not located but could include Bishop’s 

Wood on the Forest of Dean escarpment to the south of the village and Chase Wood 

Hill to the north of the village. The bank and ditches may also refer to the hill-fort 

located on Chase Hill. The third area is not located but presumably was also located 

on the Dean escarpment to the south. 

The manor of Linton was retained by the king, being ranked as his first manor in 

Herefordshire, and accounts for 5 hides (Thorn and Thorn 1983, 1.1). There are 10 

villagers, 5 smallholders, 6 slaves, a mill, 1 Frenchman with ½ hide, with the manor 

paying £10 in white pence. The church of the village had been awarded by the 

Norman king to Saint Mary’s of Cormeilles, along with a priest, the whole tithe, and 

a villager with 1 virgate of land. A further 2 hides of the manor with 9 villagers and a 

9



virgate of land are identified but not fully located (see below). The past importance of 

the manor is hinted at by this manor having rights to dues of honey and sheep in 

Archenfield. This can be identified as coming from Bridstow (Yeates 2006), a parish 

on the west side of the Wye from Ross-on-Wye. The church at Linton is a 

complicated structure and predated the Norman Conquest, a pair of reused Roman 

tufa arches have been recognised in the building, which must come from the Roman 

settlement at Bury Hill, Weston-under Penyard (Yeates 2005, 21-32). 

A further royal manor was located at Cleeve with its outlier Walton covering 14 ½ 

hides (Thorn and Thorn 1983, 1.8). This manor was located in the modern parishes of 

Walford and Bridstow. There were 20 villagers, a reeve, 11 smallholders, 9 male and 

5 female slaves, a ploughman, 2 mills and a fishery. The numbers of Welshmen that 

belong to this manor are not numbered. The church of the manor is held by the Saint 

Mary’s of Cormeilles, along with a priest the tithe and 1 villager. This could be a 

repetition of the Linton holding but is more likely a reference to the church at 

Bridstow or less likely Walford. Woodland and tithes are also mentioned with tithes 

of honey and sheep, besides another 2 hides, half a fishery (presumably the other half 

is tithe free or belongs to another manor), and 2 hides less 1 virgate at Ashe Ingen in 

Bridstow parish. 

The Abbey of Cormeilles is also recorded in the Domesday Book as holding a manor 

at Kingsone, which was located in the later parish of Weston-under-Penyard (Moore 

1982, 1.11; Thorn and Thorn 1983, 3.1). This estate covered 2 hides, but tax and 

service was paid in Gloucestershire, by they lived and came to pleas in the hundred of 

Bromsash. The manor probably originated as part of the manors of Linton and 

Cleeve, a series of dispersed estates throughout the earlier parochia of Ross-cum- 

Linton (see below), but was in 1086 accounted as part of the royal manor of 

Westbury-on-Severn (Moore 1982, 1.11) along with a number of other diverse 

holdings up the Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Gloucestershire borders. 

The manors of Pontshill and Weston-under-Penyard where held by Durand of 

Gloucester in 1086 (Thorn and Thorn 1983, 22.2-3). Bernard Newmarch held these 

estates from Durand, while Gunnar held them in 1066. Pontshill was accounted as an 

estate of 1 hide with 6 small holders. The manor of Weston had 2 hides had 2 

smallholders. 

An account of the manor of Hope Mansell and the other lands held by William son of 

Baderon also has to be provided as will be evident in the later accounts of the 

manorial holdings (Area C). All of William’s land holdings mentioned here were 

located in the hundred of Bromsash (Thorn and Thorn 1983, 15.1-3), the hundred in 

which was dominated by the parochial system of Ross-cum-Linton. The manor of 

Hope Mansell was divided into two manors of 4 hides, with 1 villager and 1 small 

holder with 1½ ploughs. A further third part of the manor was held by the abbey 

church of Saint Peter’s at Gloucester. The village of Hope Mansell contains a house 

called Sutton House, and it is likely that one of these manors may have been known 

as Sutton, a directional estate name that would match Weston and Aston and thus 

start to combine the parish and manor into the larger early medieval estate. William 

also held Ruardean, which Hardwic held from him, with the land assessed at 4 hides. 

The last holding was 1 virgate in the manor of Linton, the king’s manor, which 

10



Leofstan held from him. The later manorial associations here may mean that this part 

of Linton Manor could be part of Hope Mansell parish, as later data indicates that 

isolated parts of Linton manor lay along the Coughton valley. 

As indicated above the churches of Ross-on-Wye and 

Linton appear to have had a previous importance as implied through textual sources 

on chapels and land holdings. The parochial arrangement has been discussed 

previously by Yeates (2005, 21-32; Yeates 2006, 1137-49), although broadly correct 

there is room for refinement of the points in these arguments. The place-name 

Eccleswall contains the Brittonic word eclēs, a loan word from Latin, which has an 

early formation date, and is suggestive of early medieval Christianity occurring in the 

area (Cameron 1987, 1-7). The place lies near the parish boundary of what was Ross 

and Linton, and may not refer to a church at that location but a well on the boundary 

of the ecclesiastical establishment. 

The chapels of Ross are identified as follows: Bampton in 1356 (Parry 1912, 228), 

Weston-under-Penyard over tithes in Kingstone in 1290 (Capes 1909, 239-40), burial 

rites granted at Walford in 1321 (Bannister 1908, 174), burial agreement at Wilton in 

1163 x 86 (Barrow 1993, no. 127), Ruardean a chapel of Walford in 1200 (VCH 

1996, 244), a chantry at Rudhall in 1307 (Cooke 1882, 123), a chapel at Pontshill in 

1321 (HER 12578), a chapel at Hom Green or Cleeve in the 12 th century (Cooke 

1882, 118), and a chapel at Coughton in 1610 on Speed’s map. Those churches tied to 

the church at Linton include Bridstow in 1086 (Thorn and Thorn 1983, 1.8; Duncomb 

1812, 392), in Kingstone in 1168 (Atkyns 1712, 570-1), and at Lea in 1418 (Parry 

1918, 35-7). 

Accounts of the manorial descent of these estates are to be found in 

Duncumb’s History of Herefordshire (Cooke 1882), though this is dated. Here it is 

apparent that the parishes of Ross and Walford formed the manors of Ross Borough 

and Ross Foreign (at Walford). Here the large manorial system was split between 

town and country as at Ledbury and Wotton-under-Edge. The manor of Walford as 

part of Ross Foreign remained part of the episcopal manor (Cooke 1882, 179-80) and 

formed part of a knight’s fee. Historically Hugh de Walford held the knights fee in 

1182, and Thomas de Walford and heir when 5 hides is recognised as being under 

ancient feoffment. In 1282 John de Walford held the manor, he is recorded as 

accompanying the king’s forces into Wales. Henry de Walford is accounted as a 

witness to a deed in 1336, concerning the transfer of a house from Adam Wodelaw to 

Henry Tulle. The de Walford family had lost the manor by 1441 when bishop 

Spofford granted the manor to a relation John Chambers for a rent of 12d. 

The bishop of Hereford’s register contains some accounts of the extensive woods that 

were under the protection of members of the bishop’s household (Cooke 1882, 180- 

1). In 1523 there was a directive from the see of Hereford through the incumbents of 

the parishes of Walford, Goodrich, Bridstow and Foy to the parishioners not to carry 

away the eggs of Hawks. This would cover the woods of Bishop’s Wood and Chase 

Wood. The Bishop’s Wood was an area of 2000 acres, which in 1614 was formerly 

declared wasteland of the manor of Ross Foreign. These woodlands had seen 

surreptitious enclosure in the 1600s, and presumably Bishoip’s Wood and Chase 

Wood could have been far more extensive in the past. 

11



The statement of the location of Bishop’s Wood was probably as a result of the 

manors of Ross Foreign and Ross Borough being sold 1602-3 (Cooke 1882, 180-1). 

The purchaser of Ross Foreign was William the 7 th Earl of Clainricarde, and his wife 

Frances, and Robert the Earl of Essex. 

The manor of Coughton or Coketon was given by Richard I to 

Richard Talbot, and was at that time recognised as a subordinate manor to the manor 

of Eccleswall and Linton (Cooke 1882, 183). This indicates that Coughton Manor 

formed part of the Domesday royal manors of Linton and Cleeve, the territory or 

which was distributed over a number of parishes. In the reign of Edward III Gilbert 

Talbot is recorded as the holder of the manor of Coughton, and that he was 

responsible for the conveyance of the manor to the priory of Wormsley. Initially they 

were awarded the rent of the mill but the priory eventually obtained the whole of the 

manor. 

The suppression of the monasteries saw the manor being purchased by George 

Chaldecote (Cooke 1882, 183-4), who sold this to Richard Warnecombe. The 

daughter of Richard, Joanne, married Walter Kyrle, and their eldest son Robert 

inherited the manor of Coughton. By 1758 the manor of Coughton had passed to 

William Nourse. 

The Kyrle family obtained the manor of Walford Court in 

the reign of Edward IV (1461-83), but the earliest mention of the family in the area is 

in 1289 when a Robert Ceorl/Curl was resident at Homme Farm in Ross and was 

bailiff of the larger manor of Ross (Cooke 1882, 184-9). William Crull obtained Hill 

Court c. 1318. In 1483 it is apparent that Walter Kyrle holds the mesne land of 

Walford Court and Hill Estate. The youngest son of Walter, James, inherited the 

manor of Walford Court. This manor also obtained land at English Bicknor, 

Ruardean, Hope Mansel, and Colbrey (Cobrey in Walford). The Kyrle family 

continued to inherit the manor into the early 1600s, and the present Walford Manor 

was built in the 16 th century by Thomas Kyrle. 

The farm of Colbury Coughbury or Cobrey is first 

recorded as being owned by John Markey, who was the second husband of Alice 

Kyrle (Cooke 1882, 189-90). Alice Kyrle was the daughter of Walter Kyrle of Hill 

Court, whose first husband was Christopher Clarke. A Thomas Kyrle held Cobrey, 

who sold the land in 1718 to the Bond Family. 

A message of land in the area called Castlebrook is considered to be the land recorded 

in the 11 th century as Chalceburge covering 1 hide, which belonged to a Saxon named 

Gunner (Cooke 1882, 190). The identification is far from assured. 

The manors of Weston and Ponshill in 1086 were held by 

Bernard Newmarch from Durand (see above). In the 12 th century the manor of 

Weston passed to the de Brett family, and from them to the Nourse Family (Cooke 

1882, 210-1). In 1531 William Wylles married Johanna Nourse. The manor contained 

the farms of Brooke, Walton and Woodend. 

12



The manor of Kingstone formed a large part of the 

parish of Weston-under-Penyard parish (Cooke 1882, 218-20). This included the area 

that later became Penyard. The first holders of this manor after Domesday are the 

Talbot family, when they held the manor it is known to have been subordinate to the 

manor of Eccleswall and Linton. The estate was later vested in the 1 st Earl of 

Shrewsbury. In 1631 many of the trees across Penyard Park were felled for the 

purpose of iron smelting. In the 1630s the holder of the manor was the Earl of Kent 

who died in 1639, his widow who inherited the estate held this until 1647 and it 

continued to descent in the family. In 1792 the estate was sold to William Partridge of 

Bishop’s Wood. The site of the old manor house or castle is considered to be that of 

Weston-under-Penyard old rectory, which is considered to be the location of an older 

fortification that commanded the defile between Penyard Hill and the Forest of Dean. 

The abbey of Cormeilles had a priory cell at Newent in Gloucestershire; it was this 

priory that was responsible for the holding of the manor at Kingstone in the parish of 

Weston-under-Penyard (Area A). The priory like others produced a cartulary (HRO 

AS 85/1-3) this provides an account of the land holdings of the Kingstone Manor, and 

shows the payments received by the priory and also some of the field names. There 

are various quitclaims between the abbot of Cormeilles and the abbot of Gloucester 

accounted in the texts, suggesting that some of the estate bordered lands held by the 

abbey of Gloucester (in the area of Hope Mansell). The field names recorded include 

Benmede or Benmedw, Hurland, Redale, Hent Tessparoc, Rudarsmede and Belawe. 

The only name identified to date is Redale, considered to be an early form of Rudhall, 

located on the northern boundary of Weston-under-Penyard parish. The name Belawe 

is also worthy of some assessment as the final component is undoubtedly Old English 

hlæw or hlāw, a mound or tumulus (Gelling 1976, 880). The word transforms into a – 

lowe and ultimately –low. Only one regional name in the parish contains this name 

Wallow, now a farm located to the south of Area A. It is possible that the first part of 

the name may be corrupted. The extract in the cartulary refers to this place as a 

location where horses were bought and sold. A barrow in the Wallow area may be 

suspected, it could be Roman, located along the line of a Roman road leading from 

the large Roman settlement to the south into the Forest of Dean. The cartulary (HRO 

AS 85/1-3) also mentions wood and forest named Yarkeldone in the Forest of Dean 

(Smith 1965, 192); this is located on the parish boundaries of Aston Ingham and 

Newent and shows that some of the holdings of the manor were detached. 

The manorial arrangement of the lands around Walford-on- 

Wye and Weston-under-Penyard are complex and it is not simply the case that a 

straightforward line of descent can be described for Cobrey Park or the area around 

Frogmore in Weston. The manors of the king, which were originally focused on 

Linton, and the ecclesiastical manors, focused on Ross-on-Wye, formed a large 

cohesive territory (see the parochial arrangements below). The division of this 

territory between lay holdings and ecclesiastical holdings must have originally 

occurred in the early medieval period, for which we can only start to appreciate the 

complexity of the arrangement through the catalogue of manors in the Domesday 

Book. Though Coughton and Cobrey Manor and Penyard Park lay in the parishes of 

Walford and Weston it is apparent in the later medieval records that these lands must 

have originally been catalogued in the estate holdings of the king at Linton, Cleeve 

(to the southwest of Ross) and Kingstone. Post the dissolution of the monasteries the 

13



interrelationships of the owning families means that various parcels of land change 

hands between the original manorial holdings. 

 

 

(by Stephen Yeates) 

Inspection of the tithe maps for the area around Cobrey shows that there was 

previously a complicated arrangement of land holdings and that the parish boundaries 

have been altered. Field names were sought on four parochial maps: Walford, 

Weston-under-Penyard, Ross-on-Wye and Hope Mansell. The field names across 

Penyard Hill on the Ross-on-Wye tithe award were given no other names than that 

they were in Penyard Park (WNFC-Ross). 

The western field (Area B) was located in the parish of Walford (HRO BD87, BR79, 

WNFC-Walford), a reproduction of this 1840 map showing its field boundaries is 

produced in Fig 3. The field names listed are as followed: Cobrey Meadow (314, 

340), The Yelds and Meers (317-318), Cinqfoin (319), Clump of Firs (320), Ruffett 

(321), The Near Cockstone Field (322), Middle Cockstone Field (323), Ruffett and 

Road to Ross (324), Twelve Acre Piece (325), The How Pits (326), Trbandy (327), 

The Horn Meadow (328), The Near Ridding (329), Tuck Mill Meadow (330), The 

Inage (331-332), The Old Roadway (333), Mansion and Buildings (341), The Lawn 

(342) and Wood Croft (345). The name Old Roadway is suggestive of the course of 

the road between Chase Wood and Penyard Park of having its course altered 

previously. 

The eastern field (Area A) was located in the parish of Weston-under-Penyard (HRO 

B9/16-17, M35/24-7, WNFC-Weston), a reproduction of the 1838 map showing the 

field boundaries is produced in Fig. 4. The following field names are located in the 

vicinity of Frogmore and Wallow Farms: Wig Meadow (171, 172, 174. 324-326), 

Craw Bridge (330), The Moors (331), Marsh Meadow (332), The Butts (333), 

Slaughtern (334), Wall House Meadow (335), Draw Bridge Orchard (335a), Draw 

Bridge Common Field (336), Colling Bill (336a), Plantation (337), Birches (338), 339 

(Five Acres), Frogmore Homestead (340), Long Meadow (341), Six Acres (342), Part 

of Penyard Park (343), Wall Field (345), Wivington Piece (347), Bill Mill (359), 

Lawns (360), The Moors (361), Wallow Pleck (362), Moors (363), Tim Hill (390), 

Wallow Meadow (391), Wallow Orchard (392), Wallow Farm (393), New Croft 

Orchard (394), Old Field (395), The Meadow (396), and The Marsh Close (397). 

The central field (Area C) was located in a detached part of Hope Mansell parish 

(WNFC-Hope Mansell), a reproduction of the 1840 map showing the field boundaries 

is produced in Fig. 5 The following field names are recorded in the northern part of 

the parish: Twenty Acres (1), Lower Weavington (2), Upper Weavington (3), Brook 

(6), Bonners Meadow (7-8), Road from Hope Mansell to Ross (9), Upper Redding 

(10), Hen Grove (12), while nos. 4-5 and 11 are not named. 

The surviving inclosure map for Walford covers the area of Coughton Marsh in 1860 

(HRO Q/RI/47), while the surviving inclosure map for Hope Mansell in 1808 (HRO 

Q/RI/20), see Fig. 6. The 1808 map was a reworking of the original inclosure map, 

14


Cockstone Fields, indicating Prehistoric monument 

Names indicating Medieval Monuments 

Names indicating possible sites of medieval origin 

Post-medieval buildings marked on the Tithe Maps 

Undated Road, Roman to Post-Medieval 

Figure 3: A reproduction of the Tithe Map of Walford (Field 326 contains Area B) 

15 


An Archaeological Desk Based Assessment


Name indicative of 

Prehistoric site 

Name indicative of 

Medieval Settlement 

Names with some 

indication of Medieval 

activity 

Post-Medieval Buildings 

Name of interest 

but not fully explained 

Figure 4: Reproduction of Tithe Map of Weston-under-Penyard (Area A covers fields 334 and 335) 

16 




Field-names derived from Medieval Settlement names 

Figure 5: A Reproduction of the Hope Mansell Tithe Award (Field 8 is Area C) 

17 





with further fields being inclosed to the south, consequently the names listed 193-200 

in the detached part of Hope Mansell do not have their names surviving, but one can 

presume that they probably correspond to the field names recorded on the tithe maps. 

A map for the Cobrey Estate (Areas B and C) survives for 1849 (HRO BE34, C17/1), 

Fig. 7. Here the fields are catalogued as followed: Mansion and other buildings (1), 

Cobrey Meadow (2), Far Cockstone Field (3), Middle Cockstone Field (4), Near 

Cockstone Field (5), The Sainfoin later Near Cockstone (6), How Pits (7), Trebandy 

(8), Twenty Acres or Mill’s Piece (9), Lower Weavington (10), Upper Weavington 

(11), The Far Riding (12), The Near Riding (13), Bonnor’s Meadow (14), Horn 

Meadow (15), Tuck Mill Meadow (16), The Inage (17), Buting (18), The Yelds and 

Meers (19-20), O’Croft or Great Orchard (21), Wood Croft (22), New Field (23), 

New Field Wood (24), Upper Meadow (25), Middle Meadow (26), Lower Meadow 

(27), The Three Acres (28), Howell’s Orchard (29), Messuage, Cyder Mill and 

Garden (30), The Upper Firs (31), The Lower Firs (32), Mill House and Garden (33), 

Mill Orchard Pleck (34), East or Great Pigs Nash (35), West or Small Pigs Nash (36), 

Mill House Meadow (37), Mill House Orchard (38), Near Barn Piece (39) and Far 

Barn and Fold (40). A number of these field names are repeated in a variation of 

those already accounted. The names also occur on other documents relating to the 

farm such as the valuation of 1831 (HRO D37/1) and the deeds of 1773 (HRO AK 

57/1), where some of the field names are reproduced and others occur in a slightly 

different form: Two Pitts, Trebandy, Tuck Mill Meadow, Cowbry, Woodcroft, Innage 

Mill, Bill Mill, and Upper Lawn. The use of the name Coleraine is derived from a 

family name, while the deed refers to the lands as messuages and tenements in the 

parish and manor of Hope Mansell. 

There are a number of names of interest in the area that could refer to sites of 

archaeological significance: - 

Discussed in text above. 

A group of field names refer to a probable stone monument, possibly 

prehistoric in date, presumably in the location of Middle Cockstone Field (SO 608 

220), to the north of Area B. The name of Coughton and Cobrey may be associated 

with the name of this stone, perhaps Old English the pointed stone, or Welsh the red 

stone. 

A number of names using the Old English word croft can be 

recognised in the recorded place-names. Woodcroft (SO 212 607) and O’croft 

(Orchardcroft) are recorded amongst the names around Cobrey Manor to the 

southwest of Area B. The word croft in some forms referred to an enclosed piece of 

land, in other cases it referred to a dwelling in an enclosed piece of land. These 

enclosures may represent early forms of assating in the medieval period or even some 

of the freehold tenements accounted in the Domesday Book. 

Coleraine Farm (south of Area B and west of Area C) is not marked 

on any of the maps of the early 19 th century; rather there is an open series of lands 

alongside the Coughton Brook. The term Hom or Home was often applied to 

buildings or a farm at the centre of a large estate, quite often resulting in the 

18



formation of a name such as Home Farm. Alternatively the term can become 

confused with ham a water meadow. 

The field name of Area B (SO 612 219) refers to pits, one should consider 

that these are quarry pits. The first part of the name How is presumably derived from 

an Old English word for a spur of land, an apt topographical description, or in its 

alternative form Two Pits a reference to the number of quarry pits in the field. 

The reference to the field-name Inage is well attested, such names use the 

term in- that refers to the inner fields of a manorial holding (SO 612 217). It thus 

obtained its name from its proximity to Cobrey Park or to an earlier medieval centre 

closer to it. 

Is derived from a plant name. 

The field name of Area A is Slaughtern, a recognised name derived from 

the blackthorn or slow. 

The name Trebandy (SO 615 221) also requires older forms to confirm its 

origin. Tre- names are common in Wales and the Marches where it is often 

recognised that they are derived from tref, a settlement (Owen and Morgan 2007, 

463-74). Often in these names the –f– is dropped. 

The field to the south of Area B and to the west of Area C, 

which has now already been graded for a caravan park, was previously known as 

Tuck Mill Meadow (SO 613 216). The name has not been associated with other mills 

in the area and it is highly likely that the field represented the location of an earlier 

medieval mill. 

The field names recorded on the tithe map to the northwest of 

Area A are also of interest. Field 335 refers to Wall House Meadow (SO 632 222); 

the name could refer to a vallum and a house that took its name from the vallum. The 

house may have been located elsewhere and the reference may be to one of 

ownership. Adjoining these fields are the equally intriguing Draw Bridge (330), Draw 

Bridge Orchard (335a), Draw Bridge Common Field (336). The latter group of names 

refer to a bridge, but it is not altogether clear what type of bridge this is. A fortified 

site with a proper drawbridge would be expected to leave recognisable remains, none 

have been noted to date. It is possible that there was a bridge located on the brook 

here or that an earlier structure lies under Frogmore Farm, and even the possibility 

that Wall House could be located under Frogmore Farm. 

Discussed in text above, the location is immediately to the south of Area A. 

The name Old Field (SO 635 218) occurs to the southeast of the site, the term Old 

often indicates a relict feature, which may be the location of the barrow. 

Wig field names require older records to determine exactly what 

source they have derived from. The name could be associated with various forms of 

wic, in its simplest forms it could be a reference to a medieval dairy farm, in its more 

complicated forms it could be derived from vicus, a Roman settlement or town. 

19


Figure 6. Inclosure Map for Hope Mansell Parish 1808 

20 




Figure 7. Cobrey Estate Map of 1849 

21 





The Roman road runs across Wig Meadow, and near Ryeford cobbled areas and 

structures were noted in excavations (see above). The Roman settlement may have 

extended south along the line of this road across Wig Meadow. A further possibility 

is that it is derived from Welsh gwig, a moor or marsh, as equivalent English names 

occur to the south. 

: The names, though no early recordings have with this quick 

survey been identified, may be of significant. The fields lie to the north and east of 

Area C. The Domesday Book refers to a manor associated with Walford and Ross at a 

site called Wiboldingtvne (Thorn and Thorn 1983, 2.22, notes), which is mentioned 

above, is listed as 3 hides that are waste, but contain a fishery. The manor has been 

associated with Whippington Brook at Staunton in Gloucestershire (Smith 1964b, 

213), some 10 miles away. Whippington Brook, first recorded as Wybaltunesbroke in 

1282, does contain other medieval forms that would enable the manor to be 

associated with it (1996, 101-17) and it is likely that the manor was on the site of 

Bracelands. However, the forms of the field-names Wivington (SO 617 221, SO 620 

219, and SO 622 216) are indicative of a similarly formed name and there could be 

some confusion over the records and locations. The name Wall Field (SO 622 218) 

may also be associated with these names, the term wall often refers to a vallum, and 

this may refer to earthworks associated with the Wivington settlement or to a bank 

around Penyard Park. 

(by David Gilbert) 

In 1831 Area A is depicted as an orchard on the first series Ordnance Survey (OS) 

map (Fig. 8). The 1:2,500 OS map of 1889 shows the main boundary of the field as it 

is at present, however it is subdivided in two. It is not marked as an orchard on this 

map. There is no change recorded until the 1:2,500 OS map of 1969 which shows the 

western area, closest to the stream, marked as a marsh. The 1:10,000 OS map of 1972 

shows the same, however on that of 1992 the internal division is removed and the 

pond has been excavated. 

Figure 8. Area A on the 1831 OS map 

22



Area B is within field 304 on the 1:2,500 OS map of 1889. This field is one of several 

large fields to the north of the stream. These fields are depicted on the 1:10,560 OS 

map of 1968, but the field boundaries are not present on the 1:2,500 OS map of 1969. 

The 1:2,500 OS map of 1889 shows the main boundary of the field for Area C very 

similar to its present state. There is a slight variation to the western field edge, which 

has relatively recently been altered to accommodate farm buildings. The first of these 

buildings are depicted on the 1:2,500 OS map of 1969. 

(by David Gilbert) 

A study of all known archaeological sites in the Herefordhire HER within 600m has 

been carried out; these have been listed by chronological period. 

 

1. Find spot (SMR 38497 - MHE16482) a Neolithic greenstone macehead was found 

at Coleraine Farm. (SO 616 219). 

 

2. Structural material and pottery (SMR 840 - MHE379, Event: 840). Trenching by N 

P Bridgewater in 1958 revealed area of structural material beside road, 15" below 

ground level: flue tile, roof tile (stone), glass and pottery of 2-4 century. Several 

sandstone blocks, one being shaped, lay on floor and outside of, but did not form 

recognisable wall. (SO 634 225) 

3. Find spot (SMR 49938 - MHE22806). Pin of 1 st -3 rd century date (SO 63 22) 

4. Road (SMR 5322 - MHE2002). Cobbled surface observed on line of Roman road 

from Ariconium to the southwest. Excavation in 1959 S of Weston located the course 

of the road metalled with slag & quantities of slag charcoal & pottery. It lies on the 

correct alignment for the course of this road but the cobbled surface does not match 

that of the road excavated by Bridgewater. (SO 6332 2213) 

 

 

5. Building Probably late medieval (LBSUID 155513). Timber-framed, now with 

rendered stone walls and a slate roof. One storey with attic. Grade II listed. (SO 

63956 22076) 

6. Site of Chapel (SMR 12578 - MHE5081). Baisham Manor Customal 1750 of the 

manor here states "there is still the remains of a chapel at Ponshill now converted into 

a dwelling house & granted by lease to Henry Palmer, where in ancient times divine 

prayers were want to be said on St George's day" (SO 638 218) 

7. Fishpond (SMR 8556 - MHE3693) recorded on the 1840 Hope Mansel Tithe 

Award (SO 6291 2179). 

23


Figure 9. Prehistoric and Roman Sites 

1 

24 

4 

2 



3 

0 m 

1000 m


Figure 10. Medieval Sites 

9 

25 

8 

7 



6 

5 

0 m 

1000 m



8. Bill Mills (SMR 10999 - MHE4720). On the Castle Brook. The earliest mention of 

this mill is in deeds of 1418. (SO 6249 2161) 

9. Lynchets (SMR 6617 - MHE2639) on N bank of stream at Castle Brook Farm. 

Five terraces extending for c. 220yds (SO 608 216). 

 

10. Bill Mills (LBSUID 155503). Flour mill and paper mill, now soft drinks factory. 

Mid-C18, early C19 and late C19, on site dating from at least 1572. Sandstone rubble 

and timber-framing with slate roofs. Buildings grouped on north and west sides of 

mill pond. At the west end of the north range is the gable end of a timber-framed 

building with painted brick infill. Grade II listed. (SO 62537 21635) 

11. Castle Brook House (LBSUID 155463). Squared sandstone rubble with hipped 

slate roof. Two storeys, three bays. Mullion and transom cross windows have 

casements. Two gabled attic dormers. Plaque under eaves inscribed: "1750". (SO 

60997 21650) 

12. Site of Iron Works (SMR 12571 - MHE5074). Among state papers petition 

20.10.1631 from Henry E of Kent begging that John Kyrle to whom Penyard Park has 

been leased might be restrained from felling timber trees. These amounting to 20000 

had been reserved by the lease, but notwithstanding Sir John "has felled and 

converted into coal for making iron above 1800 trees & still continues". (SO 62 22) 

13. Historic Farm (SMR 12672 - MHE5528) recorded as part of the Herefordshire 

Historic Farmsteads Characterisation Project. Present on the Ordnance Survey First 

Edition, Pre-WW2 and Modern maps (SO 60739 21376). 

14. Landscape Park (SMR 31246 - MHE16251). Cobrey has been an estate since the 

Middle Ages. It was bought by Henry Barnett in 1813; he built the present mansion. 

The estate covered 324 acres in 1849; no park was laid out, but there were many 

trees. Coughton Brook runs through the estate, widening into a mill pond two fields 

away from the house. The 1840 tithe map names the area in front of the house 'The 

Lawn'. Neither the tithe map nor the 1831 OS 1" map shows a park, so the trees must 

have been planted after 1840. An 1849 sale plan shows a walled garden SW of the 

house. The gardens are described in an 1890 sale catalogue. They included: 

flowerbeds; tennis and other lawns; shrubberies; orchards; a well-stocked walled 

kitchen garden; tool houses; and forcing pits. The OS 25" map (c. 1886) shows the 

land between the house and road as parkland. A further sale catalogue of 1927 

describes the gardens as having lawns, tennis court, flower beds and borders, 

specimen trees, a detached conservatory, and a kitchen garden with greenhouse and 

vinery. (SO 6080 2140). 

15. Hollow Way (SMR 37259 - MHE17766). Aligned NE-SW, 3m wide, 0.5m deep. 

(SO 6062 2199). 

16. Hollow Way (SMR 37260 - MHE17767). Aligned N-S, 1m wide, 1m deep. (SO 

6059 2187). 

26



17. Hollow Way (SMR 37262 - MHE17769). At SO 60675 21780, aligned SW-NE, 

5m wide,


16 

17 

15 

18 

Figure 11. Post-Medieval Sites 

19 23 

14 

13 

11 

12 

28 

10 

22 

26 21 

20 

24 

25 



27 

28 

0 m 

1000 m


Figure 12. Early Modern Sites 

31 

29 

30 

29 

32 

33 



0 m 

1000 m



31 

29 

30 

29 

32 

33 



0 m 

1000 m



31 

29 

30 

29 

32 

33 



0 m 

1000 m



31 

29 

30 

29 

32 

33 



0 m 

1000 m



31 

29 

30 

29 

32 

33 



0 m 

1000 m



31 

29 

30 

29 

32 

33 



0 m 

1000 m



31 

29 

30 

29 

32 

33 



0 m 

1000 m



31 

29 

30 

29 

32 

33 



0 m 

1000 m

JOHN MOOREHERITAGE SERVICES - Archaeology Data Service

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?