Land at Overwood House, Old Compton Lane, Farnham, Surrey
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
T H A M E S V A L L E Y ARCHAEOLOGICAL S E R V I C E S Land at Overwood House, Old Compton Lane, Farnham, Surrey Archaeological Desk-based Assessment by Tim Dawson Site Code: OHF15/171 (SU 8559 4638) Land at Overwood House, Old Compton Lane, Farnham, Surrey Archaeological Desk-based Assessment for Mr and Mrs Lamb by Tim Dawson Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd Site Code OHF 15/171 August 2015 Summary Site name: Land at Overwood House, Old Compton Lane, Farnham, Surrey Grid reference: SU 8559 4638 Site activity: Archaeological desk-based assessment Project manager: Steve Ford Site supervisors: Tim Dawson Site code: OHF 15/171 Area of site: c.1.2ha Summary of results: There are no known heritage assets on the site itself although a Roman pottery kiln was excavated immediately adjacent to the western corner. In addition, the entire field falls within an Area of High Archaeological Potential. Further Roman kilns were discovered to the south-west in the first half of the 20th century and it is considered that the site has high archaeological potential. This potential will need to be determined by the provision of further information from field observations (evaluation) in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits if necessary. This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp. Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford 18.08.15 Steve Preston 17.08.15 i Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47–49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading RG1 5NR Tel. (0118) 926 0552; Fax (0118) 926 0553; email: [email protected]; website: www.tvas.co.uk Land at Overwood House, Old Compton Lane, Farnham, Surrey Archaeological Desk-based Assessment by Tim Dawson Report 15/171 Introduction This report is an assessment of the archaeological potential of a parcel of land located to the south-west of Old Compton Lane, Farnham, Surrey (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Ms Carole Stellman of JKL Planning, 12 Rushmoor Close, Fleet, Hampshire GU52 7LD, on behalf of Mr and Mrs M Lamb, 63 Broomleaf Close, Farnham, Surrey, GU9 8DQ and comprises the first stage of a process to determine the presence/absence, extent, character, quality and date of any archaeological remains which may be affected by redevelopment of the area. Planning permission is to be sought from Waverley Borough Council for the construction of two dwellings on the site. This report will be submitted along with the application in order to inform the planning process in relation to the potential archaeological impact of the proposal. Site description, location and geology The site lies approximately 1.5km to the east of the centre of Farnham and directly south-west of the hamlet of Compton. The area spans two meadows witch proposed access extending north-westwards to Old Compton Lane, giving a total area of c.1.2ha (Fig. 1). The main (western) site area is thickly wooded around its fringes with mixed deciduous and coniferous trees, with a more open space towards the centre of the site (Pls 1-2). A gravel drive leads from the proposed entrance into the north-eastern corner of the site. Topographically, the immediate area is flat although the ground surface is locally undulating due to the presence of numerous roots and tree management activities. The development area is centred on NGR SU 8559 4638 and the underlying geology is recorded as Folkstone Formation sandstone (BGS 1976). The site slopes up from c.90m above Ordnance Datum (aOD) in the eastern corner to c.97m aOD at the western edge. Planning background and development proposals Planning permission is to be sought from Waverley Borough Council for the construction of two dwellings in the main western site area with an access route extending south-eastwards and north-westwards to Old Compton Lane. 1 The Department for Communities and Local Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2012) sets out the framework within which local planning authorities should consider the importance of conserving, or enhancing, aspects of the historic environment, within the planning process. It requires an applicant for planning consent to provide, as part of any application, sufficient information to enable the local planning authority to assess the significance of any heritage assets that may be affected by the proposal. The Historic Environment is defined (NPPF 2012, 52) as: ‘All aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through time, including all surviving physical remains of past human activity, whether visible, buried or submerged, and landscaped and planted or managed flora.’ Paragraphs 128 and 129 state that ‘128. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. ‘129. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.’ A ‘heritage asset’ is defined (NPPF 2012, 52) as ‘A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. Heritage asset includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing).’ ‘Designated heritage asset’ includes (NPPF 2012, 51) any ‘World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument, Listed Building, Protected Wreck Site, Registered Park and Garden, Registered Battlefield or Conservation Area designated under the relevant legislation.’ ‘Archaeological interest’ is glossed (NPPF 2012, 50) as follows: ‘There will be archaeological interest in a heritage asset if it holds, or potentially may hold, evidence of past human activity worthy of expert investigation at some point. Heritage assets with archaeological interest are the primary source of evidence about the substance and evolution of places, and of the people and cultures that made them.’ Specific guidance on assessing significance and the impact of the proposal is contained in paragraphs 131 to 135: ‘131. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of: the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; 2 the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. ‘132. 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. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. ‘133. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply: the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. ‘134. 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. ‘135. 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 affect directly or indirectly 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. Paragraph 139 recognizes that new archaeological discoveries may reveal hitherto unsuspected and hence non-designated heritage assets ‘139.