Heritage and

Archaeological Assessment

______

Burgate Solar Farm

Proposal, Hainforth,

Norfolk

Burgate Solar Farm | 1 August 2020 | Project Ref 5809B

Project Number: 5809A File Origin: P:\HC\Projects\Projects 5501-6000\5801 - 5900\05809 - Burgate Solar Farm, Hainford\05809B-Heritage and Arch Assessment\AC\Reports\Final report PDF

Author with date Reviewer code, with date

CV, 18.08.2020 RD-0076, 20.08.2020 PLJ, 14.09.2020 JE-0071, 19.09.2020

JM-0060, 21.09.2020

Burgate Solar Farm | 2

Contents

Non-Technical Summary

1. Introduction ...... 6 2. Methodology ...... 11 3. Relevant Policy Framework ...... 12 4. Significance ...... 17 5. Impact Assessment ...... 28 6. Conclusions ...... 30

Annexes

Annex. 1 Scale of Harm table (Heritage Collective, 2019)

Annex. 2. Historic Environnent Record Tables

Figures

Fig. 1 Site Location

Fig. 2 Designated Heritage and Archaeological Assets in the 3km ZTV

Fig. 3 Non-Designated Heritage Assets in the 1km Study Area

Fig. 4 Previous Archaeological Investigations within the 1km Study Area

Fig. 5 Historic Landscape Characterisation Zones within the 1km Study Area

Fig. 6 Superficial Deposits within the 1km Study Area

Fig. 7 Topography within the 1km Study Area

Fig. 8 Lidar Coverage of the Site

Fig. 9 1946 Aerial Photography

Fig. 10 Faden’s map of Norfolk 1797

Fig. 11 Plan of the Parish of Hayneforth, 1837

Fig. 12 Ordnance Survey 1st Edition

Burgate Solar Farm | 3

Fig. 13 Ordnance Survey 1951, 1: 2,500

Fig. 14 Satellite View of Application Site

Fig. 15 The Proposed Development

Burgate Solar Farm | 4

Non-Technical Summary

This heritage and archaeological assessment has been prepared by HCUK Group, on behalf of Pathfinder Clean Energy UKDev Ltd (PACE) to inform proposals for the installation of a photovoltaic solar array which will also include new access tracks,, an inverter station, a substation battery, temporary compounds,, new services and the erection of a 2m high fence around the perimeter of the proposed development.

Heritage

The designated assets initially comprised 52 Listed buildings, which were identified within a 3km radius of the Site. There are no designated heritage assets within or immediately adjacent to the Site. Seven of the assets within the 3km study area (five grade II, one grade II* and one grade I listed building) were found to be located within or close to the boundaries of the ZTV as part of Step 1 of the staged GPA3 settings assessment. The site visits associated with the settings assessment confirmed that none of these assets possessed any direct intervisibility with the Site due to intervening topography, built form and vegetation, and they are therefore not considered to be susceptible to impact by the proposals.

Archaeology

There are 32 non-designated archaeological assets within the 1km study area, all of which are non-designated archaeological heritage assets.

There are no designated archaeological heritage assets (scheduled monuments or registered battlefields) in the Site or within the 1km radius study area..

There is medium-high potential for hitherto unknown below-ground archaeological remains or finds dating to the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods to be present in the Site. The potential for remains dating to the Medieval and Post-medieval periods is considered to be medium and the potential for all other periods is low. If found the importance of any archaeology on the Site is likely to range from low to medium.

The preservation of any archaeological remains present in the Site is considered to be medium depending on previous uses of fields within the Site. Deep ploughing is likely to have truncated shallow features, however more deeply cut features are likely to survive.

The instillation of the proposed photovoltaic solar array will require the predrilling of holes at regular intervals across the extent of the Site. Earthmoving activities will also be required for the excavation of trenches for services, access tracks, perimeter fencing, the installation of an inverter station, substation battery, temporary compounds and the planting of trees. All these activities have the potential to remove or disturb any known or hitherto unknown archaeology within the Site.

The assessment provides sufficient archaeological information for the determination of a planning application. The conclusions of this assessment and in particular the recommendations in respect of the determination of the planning application, are in accordance with national planning policy

Burgate Solar Farm | 5

1. Introduction Background

1.1 This heritage and archaeological assessment has been prepared by Charlotte Vallance of Archaeology Collective and Paula Jones of Heritage Collective on behalf of PACE Ditto Energy Limited. Heritage Collective and Archaeology Collective are both part of the HCUK Group.

1.2 The site is located (Figure 1) to the south of the village of Hainford, Norfolk and occupies an area of 36ha and is centred at NGR TG 23111 17274. It is hereafter referred to as the Site.

1.3 The Site comprises open agricultural land which at the time of the site visit was being used to produce crops.

1.4 The purpose of this assessment is threefold. First, to determine the significance of built heritage assets, and the potential for harm to arise from change within their setting. Second, to determine the significance of above-ground archaeological heritage assets, and the potential for harm to arise from physical change and/or change within their setting. Third, to determine and assess the potential for buried archaeology with the Site and to assess the significance of any relevant heritage assets identified. The assessment is informed by a site visit, historic mapping, grey literature and Historic Environment Data provided by Norfolk County.

1.5 A Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) has been utilised in the settings assessment. This assessment seeks to provide sufficient information to allow an informed understanding of the potential impact of the proposed development on the significance of designated heritage assets, and to consider the need for design solutions where necessary.

1.6 The designated assets initially comprised 52 Listed buildings, which were identified within a 3km radius of the Site. There are no designated heritage assets within or immediately adjacent to the Site. Seven of the assets within the 3km study area (five grade II, one grade II* and one grade I listed building) were found to be located within or close to the boundaries of the ZTV as part of Step 1 of the staged GPA3 settings assessment. The site visits associated with the settings assessment confirmed that none of these assets possessed any direct intervisibility with the Site due to intervening topography, built form and vegetation, and they are therefore not considered to be susceptible to impact by the proposals.

1.7 The report considers heritage assets of heritage and archaeological interest, including buildings, structures, earthworks, finds/findspots of artefactual and ecofactual material (e.g. stone tools, bone), and locations, features or objects

Burgate Solar Farm | 6

referenced from historic documents. Where appropriate, it refers to archaeological and palaeoenvironmental deposits, including sub-surface archaeological remains of features, buildings and structures.

1.8 This assessment has been prepared in accordance with Standards and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment published by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA), and in accordance with relevant guidance issued by the Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC) and by Historic England. It takes into account the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), local planning policy guidance on Archaeological Desk-based Assessment issued by Norfolk County Council1.

1.9 This assessment comprises an examination of digital data held by the Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Record (HER) together with documentary research. It incorporates a map regression indicating the impact of change over time.

1.10 This data has been collected for an area comprising a 1km radius of the Site boundary, which is referred to as the ‘study area’. This radius has been selected on the basis of professional judgment as being sufficient to determine the archaeological potential of the Site, taking into account its location, topography, and character. Geology

1.11 The British Geological Survey2 identifies a mixture of superficial geology across the Site. Briton's Lane Sand and Gravel Member and Happisburgh Glacigenic Formation (sand and gravel) covers the majority of the Site. Due the Site’s position on the edge of a water channel, the superficial geology along its western edge is formed of alluvium (Figure 7). Early communities would have found these ground conditions highly favourable for settlement and agriculture. Location and Topography

1.12 The four fields that comprise the Site (Fields A,B,D and E on Figure 15) are situated in farmland between settlements at Hainford, Newton St Faith and Frettenham. A water course known as Stone Beck follows a course close to the western boundary of the Site. The Site is bordered to the north and south by woodland and open land and to the east by Spixworth Road. The Site is situated on the side and on the top of a wide valley which rises from approximately 5m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) in the west to approximately 30m AOD in the east (Figure 7).

1 NCC 2018 2 http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html

Burgate Solar Farm | 7

Historic Landscape Character

1.13 Norfolk County Council assigns the character of the Site a roughly 50/50 split between ‘20th Century Agriculture’ (formally comprising 18th-19th Century Enclosure) and ‘18th-19th Century Enclosure’ (Figure 5). This landscape is characterised by large open modern fields whose formation has resulted in significant boundary loss. Two of the fields in the east and south of the Site have retained their 18th-19th century field boundaries which were laid out during the process of Parliamentary Enclosure in this period. Site Visit

1.14 A site walkover was undertaken on in July 2020 in fine and dry weather. Most of the Site was being utilised for crop production (Images 1, 2, 3 and 4) which at the time of the visit had not been harvested. A selection of photographs is presented below.

Image 1: View looking south-west across the northern part of the Site.

Burgate Solar Farm | 8

Image 2. View looking south across the eastern part of the Site.

Image 3. View looking south across marshland immediately beyond the eastern edge of the Site.

Burgate Solar Farm | 9

Image 4: View looking north across the northern part of the Site.

Burgate Solar Farm | 10

2. Methodology Sources

2.1 In preparing this assessment we have compiled readily available archaeological and historical information from documentary and cartographic sources, primarily:

• NCC (Norfolk County Council) HER for known archaeological sites, monuments and findspots within 1km of the Site (i.e. the study area).

• Maps and documents held by Norfolk Record Office and online. Due to the Covid 19 National Emergency, the record office was closed.

• The National Heritage List for England (Historic England).

• Air photographs held by Norfolk County Council3.

2.2 The information gathered from the above sources has been verified and augmented as far as possible by a site visit, in order to arrive at conclusions on the significance of the various heritage assets and archaeological remains that have been identified. Assessment

2.3 The assessment seeks to understand and define the significance of heritage assets identified from the sources above, taking into account the categories of special interest defined in the NPPF, primarily archaeological interest, historic interest, architectural interest and artistic interest.

2.4 The assessment also considers change to the setting and significance of heritage assets. Archaeological Potential

2.5 The report concludes with (1) an assessment of the archaeological potential of the Site, (2) an assessment of the significance of any archaeological remains that may be present, and (3) an assessment of the likely effects of the proposed development on heritage assets, both in terms of physical impact and change to setting.

3 http://www.historic-maps.norfolk.gov.uk/

Burgate Solar Farm | 11

3. Relevant Policy Framework National Planning Policy Framework

3.1 The significance of a heritage asset is defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019 as being made up of four main constituents, architectural interest, historical interest, archaeological interest and artistic interest. The setting of the heritage asset can also contribute to its significance. Setting is defined in the NPPF as follows:

“The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.”

3.2 Historic England advocates in The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 3 (Revised December 2017) that a stepped approach should be taken to the assessment of impacts on setting and significance. This guidance, which was originally issued by English Heritage in 2011, is generally known as GPA3. It should be noted that the advice states in paragraph 1 that it does not constitute a prescriptive methodology.

3.3 The most recent authority relating to the concept of the setting of heritage assets is to be found in the case known as Catesby Estates, which in essence confirms that the setting of heritage assets is not confined to visual matters or views. Abstract and historical considerations are part of setting, and while it is reasonable to consider the extent of setting there is usually no fixed boundary to it.

3.4 The assessments of setting and significance (and the assessments of impact) are normally made with primary reference to the four main elements of special significance identified in the NPPF described above.

3.5 The NPPF requires any impact involving harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset to be considered in terms of either “substantial harm” or “less than substantial harm” as described in paragraphs 193 to 196 of that document. Paragraph 193 states that:

“When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.”

3.6 Paragraph 194 of the NPPF then states that

Burgate Solar Farm | 12

“Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of:

a) grade II listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens, should be exceptional;

b) assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, registered battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.”

3.7 Paragraph 196 of the NPPF then goes on to describe the balancing exercise in cases where there is less than substantial harm as follows:

“Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.”

3.8 Paragraph 197 of the NPPF describes the approach to be taken towards non- designated heritage assets, as follows:

“The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.”

3.9 Paragraph 039 of National Planning Practice Guidance, as revised in July 2019, described non-designated heritage assets as follows:

“Non-designated heritage assets are buildings, monuments, sites, places, areas or landscapes identified by plan-making bodies as having a degree of heritage significance meriting consideration in planning decisions but which do not meet the criteria for designated heritage assets.

A substantial majority of buildings have little or no heritage significance and thus do not constitute heritage assets. Only a minority have enough heritage significance to merit identification as non-designated heritage assets.”

3.10 Paragraph 040 of National Planning Practice Guidance, as revised in July 2019, provides local planning authorities with the following advice on the identification of non-designated heritage assets:

“There are a number of processes through which non-designated heritage assets may be identified, including the local and neighbourhood plan-making processes and conservation area appraisals and reviews. Irrespective of how they are identified, it is important that the decisions to identify them as non-designated heritage assets are based on sound evidence.”

Burgate Solar Farm | 13

3.11 Footnote 63 of the NPPF, which is attached to paragraph 197, states that “Non- designated heritage assets of archaeological interest, which are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets.” Further guidance on non-designated heritage assets is contained in National Planning Practice Guidance, as revised in July 2019, notably paragraph 040 which states that “Irrespective of how they are identified, it is important that the decisions to identify them as non-designated heritage assets are based on sound evidence”, [see note above in paragraph 3.10] and paragraph 041 which in full reads as follows:

“What are non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest and how important are they?

The National Planning Policy Framework identifies two categories of non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest:

(1) Those that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments and are therefore considered subject to the same policies as those for designated heritage assets (National Planning Policy Framework footnote 63). They are of 3 types:

those that have yet to be formally assessed for designation.

those that have been assessed as being nationally important and therefore, capable of designation, but which the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has exercised his/her discretion not to designate.

those that are incapable of being designated by virtue of being outside the scope of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 because of their physical nature.

The reason why many nationally important monuments are not scheduled is set out in the document Scheduled Monuments, published by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. Information on location and significance of such assets is found in the same way as for all heritage assets. Judging whether sites fall into this category may be assisted by reference to the criteria for scheduling monuments. Further information on scheduled monuments can be found on the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s website.

(2) Other non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest. By comparison this is a much larger category of lesser heritage significance, although still subject to the conservation objective. On occasion the understanding of a site may change following assessment and evaluation prior to a planning decision and move it from this category to the first.

Where an asset is thought to have archaeological interest, the potential knowledge which may be unlocked by investigation may be harmed even by minor disturbance, because the context in which archaeological evidence is found is crucial to furthering understanding.

Burgate Solar Farm | 14

Decision-making regarding such assets requires a proportionate response by local planning authorities. Where an initial assessment indicates that the site on which development is proposed includes or has potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, applicants should be required to submit an appropriate desk- based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. However, it is estimated that following the initial assessment of archaeological interest only a small proportion – around 3% – of all planning applications justify a requirement for detailed assessment.”

3.12 Paragraph 199 of the NPPF also makes provision for the recording of heritage assets that are likely to be demolished or destroyed by development. Legislation

3.13 The decision maker is required by section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. The decision maker must also give considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving the setting of the listed building4. For present purposes, one of the meanings of preservation, as it is meant in section 66(1) of the Act, is to keep safe from harm5. There is a strong presumption against the grant of permission for development that would harm the setting of the listed building, though the presumption can be overcome in certain circumstances.

4 Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Limited v East Northamptonshire District Council and others [2014] EWCA Civ. 137. 5 South Lakeland v Secretary of State for the Environment [1992] 2 AC 141.

Burgate Solar Farm | 15

Relevant Local Policies

3.14 The following local policies are relevant to the historic environment and this assessment.

Table 2: Local Policies

Local Plan Relevant Policy

Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Policy 1: Addressing climate change Norwich and South Norfolk and protecting environmental assets Adopted March 2011, amendments The built environment, heritage assets, adopted January 2014 and the wider historic environment will be conserved and enhanced through the protection of buildings and structures which contribute to their surroundings, the protection of their settings, the encouragement of high- quality maintenance and repair and the enhancement of public spaces

Burgate Solar Farm | 16

4. Significance Introduction

4.1 This chapter assesses the sensitivity/importance and cultural heritage significance of the known or potential heritage assets. A statement of cultural heritage significance is presented for those assets that will be subject to a harmful impact from the solar farm proposal. The NPPF specified heritage values: historical, aesthetic, architectural, and archaeological interests are applied. Where appropriate, the contribution of an asset’s setting to its significance is discussed in accordance with the guidance set out in Step 1 and Step 2 of GPA3.

4.2 This chapter also includes a summary of the historical and archaeological background of the general area. It is presented by archaeological and historical period and has been compiled in order to place the study area into a wider archaeological context.

4.3 The preceding chapter will discuss the changes to those assets that maybe impacted by the proposed improvements. Both potential positive and negative changes (harm) are discussed. Listed Buildings

4.4 The designated assets initially comprised 52 Listed buildings, which were identified within a 3km radius of the Site (tabulated in Annex 2). There are no designated heritage assets within or immediately adjacent to the Site.

4.5 Seven of the assets within the 3km study area (five grade II, one grade II* and one grade I listed building) were found to be located within or close to the boundaries of the ZTV (Figure 2) and were therefore given further consideration as part of Step 1 of the staged GPA3 settings assessment. These assets are tabulated below:

List Entry Name Location Grade List Date 1050903 MIDDLE FARM Horsham St. Faith and Newton II 27/02/1984 HOUSE St. Faith, Broadland, Norfolk, NR10 1152516 THE LILACS Horsham St. Faith and Newton II 19/01/1952 St. Faith, Broadland, Norfolk, NR10 1152520 GRANARY 30 YARDS Horsham St. Faith and Newton II 27/02/1984 EAST OF MIDDLE St. Faith, Broadland, Norfolk, FARM HOUSE NR10 1372937 PARISH CHURCH OF Crostwick, Broadland, Norfolk, I 10/05/1961 ST PETER NR12

Burgate Solar Farm | 17

1372955 CHURCH OF ST Frettenham, Broadland, II* 10/05/1961 SWITHIN Norfolk, NR12 1372963 THE WHITE HOUSE Horsham St. Faith and Newton II 27/02/1984 St. Faith, Broadland, Norfolk, NR10 1443388 Frettenham War Frettenham, Broadland, II 15/03/2017 Memorial Norfolk, NR12

4.6 Site visits were undertaken as part of Step 1 in order to confirm any potential susceptibility of these assets. The site visits confirmed that none of these assets possessed any direct intervisibility with the Site due to intervening topography, built form and vegetation, and they are therefore not considered to be susceptible to impact by the proposals. Further details are provided below.

4.7 The grade II listed Middle Farm House and its associated Granary (1050903 and 1152520) are the closest designated assets which sit at the approximate edge of the ZTV projection (Figure 2). The farm is not publicly accessible and is situated along a private lane, however it is evident from aerial imagery which shows the level of intervening wooded screening and views towards the site from nearby Fairholme Road (closer to the Site) that the site will be screened from view (see also Image 5, below).

Image 5: Aerial image of Middle Farm and line of sight towards the Site boundary.

Burgate Solar Farm | 18

4.8 It is also evident from the mapping that the orientation of the farmhouse is north – south, and that while any long ranging views from it would be considered to be fortuitous, rather than inherent in its design, views to the east in the direction of the Site are less pertinent to its setting. Furthermore, the agricultural fields which surround the farmhouse and granary, and which make the most beneficial contribution to its setting and significance will remain unaltered by the proposals.

Image 6: View towards the Site from in front of the Lilacs.

4.9 View from in front of the grade II listed Lilacs (1152516) were assessed, however the local topography along with intervening woodland prevent any views in the direction of the site (Image 6, above).

4.10 The grade II listed Whitehouse (1372963) is located at a further distance from the Site, and although the lane adjacent to the building affords wide vistas there are no views of the Site itself from this location (Image 7, below).

4.11 The grade II* Church of St Swithen (1372955) and the adjacent grade II Frettenham War Memorial (1443388), as well as the grade I Church of St Peter (1372937) are entirely surrounded by dense wooded areas and possess no intervisibility with the Site (Images 8 and 9, below).

Burgate Solar Farm | 19

Image 8: The wooded churchyard of the church of St Swithens.

Image 9: Wooded location of the Church of St Peter.

Burgate Solar Farm | 20

Conservation Areas

4.12 There are no Conservation Areas susceptible to impact by the proposals.

Scheduled Monuments

4.13 There are no Scheduled Monuments susceptible to impact by the proposals.

Non-Designated Archaeological Heritage Assets

4.14 A total of 32 within the 1km study area. There are 15 records in the HER for assets or findspots of prehistoric date, five from the Roman period, two from the Early Medieval period, 10 for the Medieval period, four for the Post-medieval period and three for the Modern period (WW2) and three undated heritage assets. Some of these records hold information for finds or features from multiple archaeological/historical periods and therefore the same reference HER number may appear more than once in the section below.

Timescales

4.15 Timescales used in this assessment:

Table 3: Timescales

Period Approximate date Prehistoric Palaeolithic – c.450,000 – 12,000 BC Mesolithic – c. 12,000 – 4000 BC Neolithic – c.4000 – 1800 BC Bronze Age – c.1800 – 600 BC Iron Age – c.600 BC – AD 43 Historic Roman (Romano-British) – AD 43 – c. AD 410 Saxon / Early Medieval – c. AD 410 – AD 1066 Medieval– 1066 –1485

Post-Medieval Period – 1485 – 1760 Modern – 1760 – Present

Burgate Solar Farm | 21

Prehistoric

Palaeolithic

4.16 The majority of the evidence for Lower and Middle Palaeolithic occupation in the county survives as redeposited flakes and tools recovered from river gravel deposits and only a small number of sites with in situ archaeological material have been discovered and excavated in recent years6.

4.17 A Palaeolithic flint handaxe (MNF18828) was recovered 600m to the east of the Site prior to 1983. No further details are known.

4.18 Stray finds between 1987 and 1988 and metal-detecting between 1998 and 2012 recovered prehistoric worked flint, including a potentially Middle Palaeolithic flint handaxe approximately 600m from the Site (MNF24415).

4.19 The potential for archaeological remains dating to the Palaeolithic period in the Site is considered to be low and limited to stray finds. The importance of any remains if present is likely to be medium.

Mesolithic and Neolithic

4.20 The county is rich in Mesolithic sites and has a far more widespread distribution of known remains than for the Palaeolithic. However, although there have been numerous surface finds, there have been very few excavations of sites with material in primary context, particularly where there has also been associated dating and environmental evidence7.

4.21 The Neolithic period has produced a larger archaeological record than the previous prehistoric periods due to the impact and changing surroundings that the Neolithic peoples had on the landscape, from industrial to maybe religious needs. In this period, communities seem to have preferred Norfolk's light soils and well-drained river valley tracts, rather than the heavily wooded central claylands, although these were probably occupied to some extent and also exploited for hunting and foraging. The Fens, Fen-edge, river valley bottoms and intertidal zone are all prime locations for recovery of well-preserved sites of both Mesolithic and Neolithic date.

6 Austin 1997, 5 7 ibid 4

Burgate Solar Farm | 22

4.22 Norfolk is rich in flint which was a widely utilised resource up to the end of the Bronze Age8. Lithic scatters reflecting a variety of settlement density and land use strategies have been revealed by survey work throughout the region.

4.23 Fieldwalking in 1988 (MNF24651) identified a probable Neolithic flint-production site 1km from the Site, represented by a large number of worked flints, including many flakes, cores, adzes, axehead roughouts, scrapers and other implements. Although the majority of the pieces were of probable Neolithic date, it was thought that a number of blades and a proportion of the waste flakes were potentially Mesolithic. Subsequent metal-detecting and fieldwalking on the same area between 2008 and 2012 recovered a range of additional finds, including Mesolithic flint blades and flakes.

4.24 Multiple Neolithic axe heads (MNF13851, MNF54731, MNF44141, MNF7979), a miniature adze (MNF70978), a leaf-shaped arrowhead (MNF17166), an arrowhead (MNF24415) and Mesolithic and Neolithic worked flints (MNF54964 MNF16548) have been recovered from metal-detecting events and chance findings across the study area. The closest of these finds to the Site was axehead MNF7979, which was recovered 100m from its eastern border at Burgate Hill.

4.25 The potential for archaeological remains dating to the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods in the Site is considered to be medium. The importance of any remains if present is likely to be medium-high.

Bronze Age

4.26 In Norfolk, settlement evidence in the Bronze Age is largely lacking9. The obvious exceptions are the large quantities of domestic debris, and useful range of environmental data, from the upper fills of the Grimes Graves mine shaft.

4.27 Metal detecting 100 to the north of the Site recovered a fragment of Late Bronze Age socketed axe (MNF57472).

4.28 The potential for archaeological remains dating to the Bronze Age period in the Site is considered to be low and limited to stray finds. The importance of any remains if present is likely to be medium.

Iron Age

4.29 There are few Early Iron Age settlements in Norfolk and the quality of the evidence is generally poor. There is evidence of expansion and intensification of settlement in

8 Saville 1995, 1–23 9 Lawson 1984, 141–178

Burgate Solar Farm | 23

most parts of the region including the boulder clays of Norfolk10 during the later Iron Age, and settlement is known to varying degrees of intensity over most of the soils and environmental zones in the region11.

4.30 Metal detecting approximately 300m to the south of the Site (MNF47313) recovered Iron Age metal objects of unknown purpose.

4.31 The potential for archaeological remains dating to the Iron Age period in the Site is considered to be low and limited to stray finds. The importance of any remains if present is likely to be medium. Roman

4.32 Evidence for the Roman period in the study area is limited to discoveries of single coins (MNF43717, MNF66921, MNF54964 and MNF57753) and ‘artefacts’ (MNF44141) found by metal detectorists across the study area, but not in the Site. There are no known villa sites, farmsteads or Roman roads in the study area.

4.33 The potential for Roman archaeology in the Site is considered to be low. The importance of any remains if present is likely to be medium. Saxon/Early Medieval

4.34 Early Anglo-Saxon settlement in the county appears to be largely restricted to the lighter soils and river valleys, indicating a dramatic fall in population size in comparison with the Roman period although a substantial fall in population appears to have taken place in the 4th century12. The Norfolk HER now contains nearly 500 Middle Saxon sites, known from surface scatters of finds and virtually every parish may contain a settlement which varied considerably in size. During the Late Saxon period, both population size and density again increases. Norfolk has pottery of this date recorded from over 1,400 sites.

4.35 Throughout the county, the Domesday Book is probably a better indication of population distribution than the archaeological evidence. The settlement of Frettingham lies to the east of the Site which had a recorded population of 34 households in 1086, putting it in the largest 40% of settlements recorded in Domesday13.

10 Davies 1996, 63–92 11 Bryant 1997, 5 12 Wade 1997, 47 13 https://opendomesday.org/place/TG2418/frettenham/

Burgate Solar Farm | 24

4.36 It is very likely that the Site during this time comprised farmland used for cereal production or animal husbandry. Two findspots that include a Late Saxon strap (MNF43717) and a Late Saxon finger ring and buckle (MNF54964) were recovered by metal detecting approximately 300-600m from the Site.

4.37 The potential for Saxon/Early Medieval archaeology in the Site is considered to be low. The importance of any remains if present is likely to be medium. Medieval

4.38 During the Medieval period, the population increased again. A marked expansion in the 12th/13th centuries was followed by a sharp decline in the 14th century (partly associated with the Black Death), and a steady recovery in the 15th century. In latter part of the period, Norfolk was the most densely populated and most intensively farmed region in England. The land was predominantly arable, much more so than in previous centuries. Where land could not be ploughed easily, it was managed as pasture. Crops grown included barley (for making beer), rye, oats and peas. Horses were introduced sooner in Norfolk than elsewhere and crop rotation helped to intensify cultivation14.

4.39 The rural landscape was characterised by monasteries, moated sites, churches and rural settlements which included Frettingham, Newton St Faith and Horsham St Faith in the Study Area and the now deserted village of Stanninghall in the wider area. It is very likely that the Site comprised farmland during this time.

4.40 Metal detectorists have recovered numerous artefacts from the Study Area, although none within the Site. These includes buckles, buckle plates and other metal objects (MNF66921, MNF61356, MNF61356, MNF33927 and MNF38473), coins (MNF43717 and MNF24415), dress accessories, a monumental brass fragment and thimble, medieval/post medieval skillet handle, padlock and a copper alloy vessel leg (MNF54964), a gilt bronze attachment stud (MNF24517), a medieval lead papal bull of Pope Gregory IX (1227-1241) and purse-bar loop (MNF24517).

4.41 A curvilinear earthwork bank (MNF59421) is visible as a cropmark on aerial photographs, on land to the east of Spixworth Hill on the edge of the study area. It is likely that this represents the former line of a medieval to post medieval road.

4.42 The potential for Medieval archaeology in the Site is considered to be medium. Finds and features to be expected are stray finds, evidence for trackways as well as

14 Wade-Martins and Judge 1998

Burgate Solar Farm | 25

relating to agricultural practices. The importance of any remains if present is likely to be low- medium. Post Medieval

4.43 Metal detectorists have recovered numerous artefacts from the Study Area dating to this period which include a buckle (MNF43717), post-medieval artefacts (MNF44141) and a strap or harness mount (MNF57753).

4.44 The site of a windmill marked on a map of 1797 (MNF55871) is located 900m to the east of the Site.

4.45 Cropmarks of an approximately circular enclosure (MNF11646) with several interrupted spaces in its perimeter are visible on 1946 RAF aerial photographs approximately 550m to the north of the Site. It has previously been suggested that this feature might be a Neolithic causewayed enclosure, but this is now thought unlikely. The site is marked as a heath and rabbit warren on an 18th century map, so it is possible that the cropmarks instead relate to this use.

4.46 The first available map to depict the Site is Faden’s map of Norfolk 1797 (Figure 11), which shows its approximate location between Stone Beck and a road which is part of a network of lanes connecting the surrounding settlements. The topographic symbols shows that the Site is situated on the side of a wide valley with Stone Beck at its base. The Tithe Plan of Hayneforth 1837 (Figure 12) shows the Site is formed of seven fields, which, by the time of the 1st Edition OS map (Figure 13), were six. The OS map, which was surveyed between 1879 and 1886, illustrates in detail the field boundaries, the marsh land, woodland (Pack’s Wood) and agricultural land within the Site. Burgate Hill is illustrated in the north and a dwelling is shown immediately beyond the Site’s northern border.

4.47 The potential for medieval archaeology in the Site is considered to be medium. Finds and features to be expected are stray finds, evidence for trackways as well as relating to agricultural practices. The importance of any remains if present is likely to be low- medium.

Modern

4.48 There are two World War Two aircraft crash sites recorded in the Study Area. The first (MNF24745) is the site of a Beaufighter aircraft from 68 Squadron 300m to the east of the Site. The second (MNF24746) is the approximate location of where a B24 Liberator of USAAF 754th Bomber Squadron ('Hookem Cow') crashed shortly after take-off, also 300m east of the Site. Only two of the seven crew survived. Between 2007 and 2008 a metal-detecting survey recovered many fragments of the aircraft from this crash site, which is now marked by a small memorial.

Burgate Solar Farm | 26

4.49 A World War Two hexagonal type 22 concrete pillbox (MNF32547), built in about 1940 as part of the anti-invasion defences of the time is located 500m east of the Site.

4.50 During this period, the six fields identified on the 1st Edition OS map have been amalgamated into three large fields, as seen on the current satellite view of the Site (Figure 14). The woodland and marshland have been turned over to agriculture and only two of the internal 19th field boundaries survive within the Site.

4.51 The potential for modern archaeology in the Site is considered to be low. The importance of any remains if present is likely to be low. Unknown

4.52 There are three heritage assets of unknown date recorded within the study area, which comprise several undated kilns (500m from the Site) uncovered before 1986 (MNF22950), a group of cropmarks of undated ditches, rectangular enclosures and linear features (1km from the Site) which are visible on aerial photographs (MNF17899) and a lump of undated iron slag (MNF7986) found in 1953, which could indicate a possible ironworking site located approximately 600m from the Site. Previous Archaeological Work

4.53 There are no recorded previous archaeological investigations within or in close proximity to the Site. Aerial Photographs and LiDAR

4.54 No discernible or obvious archaeological features were noted on the 1946 air photograph (Figure 9). The Lidar coverage of the Site (Figure 8) indicates possible disturbed ground in the north of the Site, likely caused by deep ploughing. There is also a clear reading of a NE-SW aligned trackway or field boundary separating two fields in the central part of the Site. There is no National Mapping Programme crop mark data for the Site.

Burgate Solar Farm | 27

5. Impact Assessment Proposed Development

5.1 The proposed development will comprise the installation of a photovoltaic solar array across the extent of the Site which will necessitate the excavation of service trenches and foundations for transformer stations, battery storage and temporary compounds. A 2m high security fence will be erected around the perimeter of the development and sections of tree planting are proposed around the perimeter. Designated Assets

5.2 Following the staged methodology of settings assessment set out in GPA3, the assessment has found that there are no designated heritage assets (including listed buildings, scheduled monuments, conservation areas and RPGs) which are considered susceptible to impact by the proposals.

5.3 Site assessments confirmed that there is no intervisibility between the seven assets identified through the overlay of the ZTV and the Site. The assets in closest proximity to the Site, which comprise the grade II listed Middle Farmhouse and Granary, do not possess any designed views in the direction of the Site and the setting of these assets is considered to be preserved. Inspections of nearby views also confirmed that the site is effectively screened from this general location, and the proposal to enhance the current level of tree planting around the perimeter will further solidify the current levels of screening.

5.4 No harm has been identified to any designated heritage assets. Factors Affecting Archaeological Survival

5.5 Archaeological remains can survive as earthworks and as below ground archaeological features, finds and layers. Part of the assessment process is to consider what factors may have affected archaeological survival. That is to say, what conditions would have enhanced the chances of survival and what conditions would have reduced the chances of survival.

5.6 The subject of archaeological preservation has been covered comprehensively elsewhere15, and it is a subject which is subject to ongoing review as our understanding grows. The following addresses some familiar scenarios for

15 Historic England 2016. Preserving Archaeological Remains. Decision-taking for Sites under Development

Burgate Solar Farm | 28

assessment reports such as this, to allow the reader an insight into some ‘typical’ scenarios.

Rural Locations

5.7 In rural locations, below ground remains are likely to be sealed by a relatively thin series of layers. Typically a topsoil of c.100-200mm and a subsoil of 100-300mm. Therefore, they may be sealed by 200-500mm of deposits.

5.8 Hydrology has a significant role to play in the preservation of remains and proximity to watercourses and wetlands should be considered as it affects the variety and type of artefacts/ecofacts that could be present on a site.

Table 4: Factors Affecting Archaeological Survival

Factors which enhance Factors which increase destruction preservation

Pasture/grassland provides a relatively Mechanised ploughing especially of static condition for archaeological deep rooting crops (e.g. Sugar Beet) remains causes truncation of archaeological deposits.

Potential Effects

5.9 The installation of the photovoltaic solar array will require the predrilling of holes, into which anchors are inserted, at regular intervals across the extent of the Site (Fields A, B, D and E on Figure 15). Earthmoving activities will also be required for the excavation of trenches for services, access tracks, perimeter fencing, the installation of an inverter station, substation battery, temporary compounds and the planting of trees. All these activities have the potential to remove or disturb any hitherto unknown archaeology within the Site.

5.10 If forthcoming archaeological investigations reveal significant archaeology of significance within the Site, a non-penetrative solution will be considered to limit harm to below-ground remains. This may include setting associated infrastructure such as transformers and batteries upon concrete feet to avoid ground disturbance. The need to excavate of cable trenches can also avoided by using cable trays as a non-intrusive alternative.

Burgate Solar Farm | 29

6. Conclusions

Heritage

6.1 The designated assets considered in this assessment initially comprised 52 Listed buildings, which were identified within a 3km radius of the Site. There are no designated heritage assets within or immediately adjacent to the Site.

6.2 Seven of the designated assets within the 3km study area (five grade II, one grade II* and one grade I listed building) were found to be located within or close to the boundaries of the ZTV as part of Step 1 of the staged GPA3 settings assessment. Each of these assets was given further consideration as part of the preceding assessment.

6.3 The site visits associated with the settings assessment confirmed that none of these assets possessed any direct intervisibility with the Site due to intervening topography, built form and vegetation, and it is therefore concluded that they are not susceptible to impact by the proposals and no harm has been identified to any designated heritage assets.

Archaeology

6.4 There is evidence for human occupation from all archaeological and historical periods in the study area, which is indicative of Norfolk’s rich and diverse past. There are 15 records in the HER for assets or findspots of prehistoric date, five from the Roman period, two from the Early Medieval period, ten from the Medieval period, four from the Post-medieval period, three from the Modern period (WW2) and three undated heritage assets. All of these heritage assets are non-designated, and none are located in the Site.

6.5 A review of the HER and historical mapping suggests that potential for below-ground archaeological remains dating to the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods is medium-high, the potential for remains dating to the Medieval and Post-medieval periods is medium and the potential for all other periods is low. If found the importance of any archaeology on the Site is likely to range from low to medium.

6.6 The preservation of any archaeological remains present in the Site is considered to be medium. Deep ploughing is likely to have truncated shallow features, however more deeply cut features are likely to survive.

6.7 In agreement with the Norfolk County Council Archaeological Advisor, a geophysical survey will be carried out across those parts of the Site subject to development. This survey and any subsequent intrusive investigations that follow will be a condition of the application if approved.

Burgate Solar Farm | 30

6.8 It is advised that this desk-based assessment is submitted to the Norfolk County Council Archaeological Advisor prior to submission of the planning application for comment.

Burgate Solar Farm | 31

Sources Consulted

Norfolk Historic Environment Record Primary Sources

1946 RAF Aerial Photography

1988 RAF Aerial Photography

Faden’s map of Norfolk 1797

Plan of the Parish of Hainforth 1837

Ordnance Survey 1st Edition

Ordnance Survey 1883, 1: 2,500

Ordnance Survey 1906, 1: 2,500

Ordnance Survey 1928, 1: 2,500

Ordnance Survey 1951, 1: 2,500

Ordnance Survey 1979, 1: 2,500

Secondary Sources

Bryant, S 1997 ‘Iron Age’. In J Glazebrook (ed), Research and Archaeology: A Framework for the Eastern Counties 1 Resource assessment. Norwich: East Anglian Archaeology Occasional Paper 3.

CIfA, 2017, Standard and Guidance for historic desk-based assessment.

Davies, J. 1996 ‘Where Eagles Dare: the Iron Age of Norfolk’, Proc. Prehist. Soc. 62, 63– 92

Historic England 2016, Preserving Archaeological Remains. Decision-taking for Sites under Development, Swindon.

Lawson, A., 1984 ‘The Bronze Age in East Anglia with particular reference to Norfolk’ in Barringer, C. (ed.), Aspects of East Anglian Pre-History, 141–178

Norfolk County Council 2018 Standards for Development‐Led Archaeological Projects in Norfolk

Wade, 1997 ‘Anglo-Saxon and Medieval (Rural). In J Glazebrook (ed), Research and Archaeology: A Framework for the Eastern Counties 1 Resource assessment. Norwich: East Anglian Archaeology Occasional Paper 3.

Burgate Solar Farm | 32

Wade-Martins and Judge, 1998, Historical Atlas of Norfolk, Norfolk Museums Service

On-line Sources

British Geological Society online viewer: www.bgs.ac.uk/data/mapViewers/home.html Accessed 16/07/2020

Open Domesday: https://opendomesday.org/place/TG0617/lyng/ Accessed 29/07/2020

Norfolk Heritage Explorer:www.heritage.norfolk.gov.uk: Accessed 29/07/2020

Google Earth www.googleearth.co.uk: Accessed 29/07/2020

Burgate Solar Farm | 33

Annex 1: Scale of Harm (Designated Heritage Assets)

Scale of Harm

Total removal of the significance of the designated heritage Total Loss asset.

Serious harm that would drain away or vitiate the significance Substantial Harm of the designated heritage asset

High level harm that could be serious, but not so serious as to vitiate or drain away the significance of the designated heritage asset.

Less than Substantial Medium level harm, not necessarily serious to the significance Harm of the designated heritage asset, but enough to be described as noticeable or material.

Low level harm that does not seriously affect the significance of the designated heritage asset.

Burgate Solar Farm | 34

Annex 2: Historic Environment Record Data

Designated Heritage Asset in the 3km study area List Entry No. Designated Heritage Asset Grade

1050898 HAINFORD PLACE II 1443388 FRETTENHAM WAR MEMORIAL II 1442416 CROSTWICK AND BEESTON ST ANDREW WAR MEMORIAL II 1450579 HORSHAM ST FAITH WAR MEMORIAL II 1449648 HAINFORD WAR MEMORIAL II 1372966 THE RECTORY II 1372963 THE WHITE HOUSE II 1372973 HALL FARM HOUSE AND OUTBUILDINGS II 1372971 1 AND 2, CHURCH ROAD II 1372984 BARN AT GRANGE FARM II 1372978 STANNINGHALL FARM HOUSE II 1372988 CORNMILL II 1372985 GAFFERS COTTAGE II 1372956 HAINFORD HALL II 1372955 CHURCH OF ST SWITHIN II* 1372958 THE CHEQUERS PUBLIC HOUSE II 1372957 CHURCH OF ALL SAINTS II 1372960 VILLAGE HALL II 1372959 CHURCH OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN AND ST ANDREW I 1372962 THE CLINK AND ADJOINING BOUNDARY WALL TO SOUTH II 1372961 THE OAKS II 1170828 LOWER FARM HOUSE AND ATTACHED BARN II 1152695 CHURCH OF ST PETER I 1250379 LODGE TO STRATTON STRAWLESS HALL II 1178260 STANNINGHALL FARM BARN II 1304708 THE KENNELS II 1250401 ICE HOUSE APPROXIMATELY 100 YARDS NORTH EAST OF II STRATTON STRAWLESS ROAD 1372937 PARISH CHURCH OF ST PETER I 1343677 2 PAIRS OF GATE PIERS AND ATTACHED RAILINGS II IMMEDIATELY SOUTH EAST OF NUMBER 200 BUXTON ROAD 1152454 THE PRIORY I 1068831 K6 TELEPHONE KIOSK, NORWICH ROAD II 1152499 METHODIST CHURCH II 1152491 WAYTES HOUSE II

Burgate Solar Farm | 35

1152516 THE LILACS II 1152508 MILL FARM HOUSE II 1152528 THE OLD POST HOUSE II 1152520 GRANARY 30 YARDS EAST OF MIDDLE FARM HOUSE II 1050901 THE KING'S HEAD PUBLIC HOUSE II 1050900 2-5, CHURCH STREET II 1050903 MIDDLE FARM HOUSE II 1050902 MEADOW FARM HOUSE II 1050915 GRANGE FARM HOUSE II 1050904 THE GILDENCROFT II 1050923 MANOR COTTAGE II 1050922 STRATTON STRAWLESS HALL II 1050874 BARN AT SITE OF SPIXWORTH HALL II 1050858 RUINED CHURCH OF ST PETER II 1050876 GRANARY TO WEST OF BARN II 1050875 GARDEN WALL AND GATEPIERS SOUTH OF BARN AND II GAFFER'S COTTAGE 1050897 REMAINS OF CHURCH OF ALL SAINTS II 1050896 LODGE FARMHOUSE II 1050899 THE LODGE II

Non-Designated Heritage Asset in the 1km Study Area NHER Ref Non-Designated Heritage Asset Period

MNF43717 MULTI-PERIOD METAL FINDS ROMAN MNF24746 WORLD WAR TWO AIRCRAFT CRASH SITE WORLD WAR TWO MNF24745 WORLD WAR TWO AIRCRAFT CRASH SITE WORLD WAR TWO MNF24651 MESOLITHIC TO NEOLITHIC FLINT-WORKING SITE, BRONZE AGE LOWER PALAEOLITHIC FINDS, AND MEDIEVAL AND POST MEDIEVAL METAL OBJECTS MNF24415 MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC, NEOLITHIC/BRONZE AGE AND MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC MEDIEVAL TO POST-MEDIEVAL FINDS, INCLUDING MEDIEVAL COIN HOARDS MNF17899 UNDATED DITCHES, ENCLOSURES AND LINEAR FEATURES UNKNOWN MNF11646 UNDATED ENCLOSURE, POSSIBLE POST MEDIEVAL RABBIT EARLY NEOLITHIC WARREN MNF59421 POSSIBLE MEDIEVAL TO POST MEDIEVAL CURVILINEAR BANK MEDIEVAL AND LINEAR DITCHES

Burgate Solar Farm | 36

MNF57472 LATE BRONZE AGE, ROMAN, MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL LATE BRONZE AGE FINDS MNF55871 SITE OF POST MEDIEVAL WINDMILL POST MEDIEVAL MNF54964 MULTI-PERIOD FINDS SCATTER EARLY MESOLITHIC MNF54731 NEOLITHIC POLISHED FLINT AXEHEAD NEOLITHIC MNF48022 HAYNFORD LODGE 16TH CENTURY MNF47313 MULTI-PERIOD FINDS EARLY IRON AGE MNF44141 MULTI-PERIOD FINDS EARLY NEOLITHIC MNF66921 ROMAN TO 19TH ROMAN AND MEDIEVAL TO POST-MEDIEVAL FINDS CENTURY MNF61356 MEDIEVAL TO 19TH MEDIEVAL AND MEDIEVAL/POST-MEDIEVAL BUCKLES CENTURY MNF57753 ROMAN COIN AND POST- MEDIEVAL HARNESS MOUNT ROMAN MNF38473 MEDIEVAL BUCKLE FRAME MEDIEVAL MNF33927 MEDIEVAL BUCKLE MEDIEVAL MNF24517 MEDIEVAL HARNESS PENDANT STUD MEDIEVAL MNF18828 PALAEOLITHIC FLINT HANDAXE PREHISTORIC MNF17166 NEOLITHIC LEAF-SHAPED ARROWHEAD PREHISTORIC MNF16548 PREHISTORIC FLINT FLAKE PREHISTORIC MNF13851 NEOLITHIC FLINT AXEHEAD PREHISTORIC MNF7986 UNDATED IRONWORKING WASTE UNDATED

Burgate Solar Farm | 37 © Crown copyright 2017. All rights reserved. Licence no. LAN1001544 Figure 1: Site Location. Archaeological Desk Burgate Solar Farm On behalf of July 2020 Based Assessment Proposal, Hainford Pathfinder Clean Energy UKDev Ltd (PACE) Key:

Site Boundary Site 500mBoundary Study Area HER Data Listed Buildings Heritage Asset - Point I HER Event - Point II Heritage Asset - Line II* AP Plot - Line Heritage Asset - Area Scheduled Monuments Listed Building - Grade I Horsford Castle HER Event - Area Roman camp and settlement site W of Horstead St Faith Priory Conservation Areas Horsham St Faith

Scale @A3:

Burgate Solar Farm, Hainford

Archaeological Desk Based Assessment

On behalf of

Pathfinder Clean Energy UKDev Ltd (PACE)

Figure 2. Designated Heritage Assets and Conservation Areas within the 3km Study Area superimposed on the Zone of Theoretical Visibility.

Project No. 05809A | 3/9/2020 | Revision 0 | Drawn By: EC

Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right (2019) Key:

Site Boundary 1km Study Area Listed Buildings II

Scale @A3:

Burgate Solar Farm, Hainford

Archaeological Desk Based Assessment

On behalf of

Pathfinder Clean Energy UKDev Ltd (PACE)

Figure 3. Designated heritage assets with the 1km Study Area.

Project No. 05656A | 28/7/2020 | Revision 0 | Drawn By: EC

Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right (2019) Key:

Site Boundary 1km Study Area Non-DesignatedN Archaeological Heritage Assets

Areas Prehistoric Roman Medieval Post Medieval Modern Undated

Points Prehistoric Roman Medieval Modern Undated

Scale @A3:

Burgate Solar Farm, Hainford

Archaeological Desk Based Assessment

On behalf of Pathfinder Clean Energy UKDev Ltd (PACE)

Figure 4. Non-Designated Archaeological Heritage Assets within the 1km Study Area.

Project No. 05656A | 27/7/2020 | Revision 0 | Drawn By: EC

Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right (2019) Key:

Site Boundary 1km Study Area Previous Archaeological Investigation

Scale @A3:

Burgate Solar Farm, Hainford

Archaeological Desk Based Assessment

On behalf of Pathfinder Clean Energy UKDev Ltd (PACE)

Figure 5. Previous Archaeological Investigations within the 1km Study Area.

Project No. 05656A | 27/7/2020 | Revision 0 | Drawn By: EC

Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right (2019) 316000 317000 318000 622000 623000 624000 Contains OS Contains © data Crown copyright right and (2019)database Key: Figure 6. Figure Pathfinder CleanEnergyUKDev Ltd(PACE) On Assessment Based Desk Archaeological Hainford BurgateSolar Farm, Historic Landscape Charecterisation Data Charecterisation Landscape Historic Characterisation (HLC) Data Historic Landscape behalf Woodland Parks, recreationgardens, Marginal Inland - managed wetland Industry 20th century agriculture 18th-19th century enclosure 1km Area Study Site Boundary Project No. 05656A | 27/7/2020 | Revision EC | Drawn By: | 0 27/7/2020 | Project No. 05656A of Scale@A3: . 316000 317000 318000 319000 622000 623000 624000 Contains OS Contains © data Crown copyright right and (2019)database 625000 Key: Figure 7. Figure BurgateSolar Farm, Hainford Geology of the Site. Pathfinder CleanEnergyUKDev Ltd(PACE) of behalf On Archaeological Desk Based Assessment Based Desk Archaeological Superficial Deposits Head Head - Clay, Silt, Sand And Gravel. Happisburgh Glacigenic Formation - Diamicton. - Happisburgh Glacigenic Formation Sand And Gravel. Briton's Lane Sand And Gravel - Member Alluvium - Clay, Silt, Sand And Gravel. 1km Area Study Site Boundary Sand Sand And Gravel. Project No. 05656A | 28/7/2020 | Revision EC | Drawn By: | 0 28/7/2020 | Project No. 05656A Scale@A3: 316000 317000 318000 319000 622000 623000 624000 Contains OS Contains © data Crown copyright right and (2019)database 625000 Key: Area Topography within the 1km Study Figure 8. Figure (PACE) Pathfinder CleanEnergyUKDev Ltd of behalf On Assessment Based Desk Archaeological Hainford BurgateSolar Farm, Project No. 05809A | 28/7/2020 | Revision EC | Drawn By: | 0 28/7/2020 | Project No. 05809A Height, metres (AOD) . 50 40 30 20 10 0 1km Study Area Site Boundary Scale@A3: 317000 623000 Contains OS Contains © data Crown copyright right and (2019)database Key: application Lidar data Figure (PACE) Pathfinder CleanEnergyUKDev Ltd of behalf On Assessment Based Desk Archaeological Hainford BurgateSolar Farm, Project No. 05656A | 28/7/2020 | Revision EC | Drawn By: | 0 28/7/2020 | Project No. 05656A Site BoundaryBoundary 9. coverage ofthe site. Scale@A3:

Figure 10: 1946 Aerial Photograph.

Figure 11: Faden’s map of Norfolk, 1797.

Archaeological Desk Burgate Solar Farm, On behalf of July 2020 Based Assessment Hainford Pathfinder Clean Energy UKDev Ltd (PACE) Figure 12: Tithe Plan of Hayneforth 1837. © Crown copyright 2017. All rights reserved. Licence no. LAN1001544 Figure 13: Ordnance Survey 1st Edition .

Archaeological Desk Burgate Solar Farm, On behalf of July 2020 Based Assessment Hainford Pathfinder Clean Energy UKDev Ltd (PACE) Based Based Assessment Archaeological Desk Figure Satellite 14: View of Application Site Hainford Farm, Solar Burgate . UKDev Ltd(PACE) Pathfinder Clean Energy On behalf of July 2020July

Copyright Google Earth 2020 317000 623000 Contains OS Contains © data Crown copyright right and (2019)database Key: The Figure On (PACE) Pathfinder CleanEnergyUKDev Ltd Assessment Based Desk Archaeological Proposal,Hainford BurgateSolar Farm Project No. 05656A | 28/7/2020 | Revision EC | Drawn By: | 0 28/7/2020 | Project No. 05656A behalf Proposed 15 Site Boundary of Scale@A3: Development .