Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension Barton-Under-Needwood Staffordshire

BLANK Aggregate Industries UK Limited Proposed Extension to Newbold Quarry Environmental Statement Technical Appendices

Contents

Volume 1

Technical Appendix A – Landscape and Visual Considerations

Technical Appendix B – Nature Conservation and Ecology

Technical Appendix C – Noise

Technical Appendix D – Air Quality and Dust

Technical Appendix E – Soils, Land Quality and Agriculture

Volume 2

Technical Appendix F – Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

Technical Appendix G – The Impact on Water Resources

Technical Appendix H – Flood Risk Assessment

Technical Appendix I – Transportation and Traffic

Aggregate Industries UK Limited Proposed Extension to Newbold Quarry Environmental Statement Technical Appendices

Technical Appendix F – Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

P H O E N I X C O N S U L T I N G A r c h a e o l o g y L i m i t e d

CULTURAL HERITAGE CONTRIBUTION TO AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension Barton-under-Needwood Staffordshire

on behalf of:

A Richmond BA PhD MIfA FSA

21st October 2011 Contents

Non technical summary

1 INTRODUCTION

2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

Objectives Key tasks Desk Based Assessment Geophysical Survey Trial Trench Evaluation Consultation Mitigation measures Types of impact Defining setting Views

3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

4 PLANNING AND LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT

Legislation National planning guidance Local planning guidance Minerals and Waste Development Framework

5 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Location and current landuse Geology and soils Archaeological and historic landscape Information from the Historic Environment Record (HER)

Information from the field evaluations The surrounds of the application site Listed Buildings and other cultural heritage assets

6 PREDICTION/ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS

Assessment of direct impacts of construction/establishment Assessment of indirect impacts of construction/establishment Assessment of operation/decommission impacts Suggested mitigation Cumulative impacts Residual impacts

7 SUMMARY

Annex 1a Desk Based Assessment Annex 1b Geophysical Assessment Annex 1c Trial Trench Assessment

Non-technical summary

A wide range of sources were consulted for this impact assessment, including the local Historic Environment Record, published articles and books and manuscript documents. In addition the site has been comprehensively evaluated by geophysical survey and trial trenching The results from the extensive investigations on the existing Newbold and Tucklesholme Quarry have also been reviewed. The data gathered has provided the information required with which to appropriately assess the impact of the development proposals of the archaeological and historic landscape.

The assessment of direct impacts on archaeology and cultural heritage assets within the proposed development boundary shows that significant impacts in EIA terms comprise a high magnitude of change to the identified Romano-British archaeological evidence, being a low sensitivity receptor. Whilst the predicted impact is of moderate significance, it can be appropriately mitigated by the implementation of an approved scheme of archaeological works prior to development. This will preserve the archaeological interest of the site ‘by record’.

There are no other identified direct significant effects on the archaeological and heritage resource as a result of the proposed quarry extension. There will be an impact to other (later) archaeology identified within the confines of the Site and potentially to other undated and unidentified archaeological remains. However, the assessed sensitivity of these receptors (being low), together with the proposed mitigation, has identified all impacts as being of minor magnitude which does not equate to a significant impact in EIA terms.

The assessment of indirect impacts on all cultural heritage assets within the study area shows that significant impacts in EIA terms comprise a low magnitude of change to the Grade II* Listed Dunstall Hall, being a High sensitivity receptor. Whilst the predicted impact is of moderate significance, in that the secondary setting of the Hall extends to the site, there are no clear functional or significant historic associations with this wider landscape. The wider rural landscape beyond the Hall’s associated parkland comprises a ‘backdrop’ rather than an integral part of the setting

4 of the building. The creation of soil storage bunds, which will be grassed over and placed along this edge, will afford an increased protection to the secondary setting of the Hall whilst quarry operations take place. Quarry operations within the vicinity of Dunstall Hall will be temporary in nature, lasting c. 5 years prior to approved restoration taking place. Following site restoration the secondary setting of the Hall will be appropriately restored.

There are no other identified significant indirect effects on the archaeological and heritage resource as a result of the proposed quarry extension. The extension is not located within the primary setting of any surrounding cultural heritage asset. There will be changes to long distance and obscured views in some circumstances, but none of these changes are relevant to planned views or vistas from cultural heritage assets and those changes are not assessed as compromising the understanding or historic importance of any feature.

CULTURAL HERITAGE

1 Introduction

1.1 Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd has been instructed by Aggregate Industries UK Ltd to prepare a Cultural Heritage assessment for their proposed Newbold Southern Extension near Barton-under-Needwood, Staffordshire. This document assesses the extent and importance of known archaeology and other features of cultural heritage interest in and around the application area (‘the Site’). It also discusses the likelihood of further archaeological finds being made on site, the potential impacts of the proposed development on archaeology and other features of cultural heritage interest, and a range of mitigation measures to minimise those potential impacts.

1.2 Specifically, the document evaluates direct and indirect impacts on archaeological finds and sites in addition to any potential indirect impacts on other cultural heritage components in the surrounding landscape (including Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas).

1.3 Historic Battlefields, Registered Parks and Gardens and World Heritage Sites are not considered within this assessment because there are no such designations within the study area.

1.4 National and local policy guidelines on archaeology recommend that important archaeological sites should be protected and where possible preserved in situ. However, for features of lesser importance preservation by record is an acceptable alternative. If important sites are assumed to exist, a condition may be attached to any granted planning permission which requires their preservation in situ or outlines a scheme of further archaeological investigation.

2 Assessment Methodology Objectives

2.1 The key objectives of the impact assessment are to: ● identify key archaeological finds and sites, including Scheduled Monuments, on and within 1km of the Site; ● identify key Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas within 1km of the Site; ● identify any Registered Parks & Gardens within 2km of the Site; ● assess the impacts of constructing, operating and decommissioning the quarry upon the cultural heritage assets listed above, including consideration of their setting; ● identify measures for avoiding or mitigating potential impacts; ● detail any residual impacts that cannot be mitigated.

Key Tasks

2.2 The assessment has involved the following key tasks: ● a desk-based assessment to collect all readily available information on the archaeology and historic aspects of the landscape and to assess the probability of the survival of archaeological remains – see Annex 1a; ● assessment of the results of the geophysical survey to obtain information concerning the presence, character, date and level of preservation of any surviving archaeological remains across the site – see Annex 1b; ● targeted trail trenching to assess presence and extent of archaeology on the site, its date and level of preservation –see Annex 1c; ● consultation with relevant parties; ● site visit to assess setting of cultural heritage assets; and ● consideration of a range of measures to mitigate potential impacts of the proposed development on known and potential archaeology and other cultural heritage assets.

Desk-Based Assessment

2.3 To assess the probability of the survival of archaeological and other cultural heritage assets across the Site a desk-based assessment was undertaken (Annex 1a). This collected all available data of the study area and its surrounds (Coates & Richmond 2011). The information was considered in the context of 'background information' on the physical environment, particularly geological and geomorphological conditions and past and present land-uses of the area. The sources of information used in the desk assessment are summarised below:

Historic Environment Record

2.4 The Historic Environment Record (HER) of Staffordshire County Council was made available during the assessment. The Council HER Officers assisted with the collection of known records for the area. Computer printouts of relevant archaeological information were obtained from these sources.

2.5 The HER is not a complete listing of the actual archaeology and other cultural heritage features which may exist across, or in the vicinity of the site, nor is it seen as such by the Council Archaeological Officers, but it is a useful basis on which to begin an assessment.

Documentary and Cartographic Research

2.6 Relevant documentary and cartographic records held by the Staffordshire Council HER were consulted during this assessment, and are reported upon below. In addition Local Records Offices and Local Studies Libraries were visited. The aim of the research was to provide a summary of the landscape history of the Site. Documents held by the Public Record Office (PRO) in Kew and the National Monuments Record (NMR) in Swindon were also consulted.

Aerial Photographic Data

2.7 Aerial photographs covering the application area and its surrounds which are held by the County Council (Stafford) were analysed. These included vertical and oblique shots.

Geophysical Survey

2.8 The site was investigated by a magnetometer survey, supplemented by magnetic susceptibility tests (Annex 1b). Readings were collected on 1m transects using Bartington fluxgate gradiometers, and were plotted at 25cm intervals along each transect (Bartlett & Coates 2011).

Trench Evaluation

2.9 The geophysical plot provided the basis for the location of trial trenches (Annex 1c). Trenches were positioned across geophysical anomalies that suggested below-ground archaeology, geophysical anomalies that were of uncertain character, cropmark features as detailed in the HER as well as blank areas to act as a control.

Consultation

2.10 In the preparation of this impact assessment, consultation has taken place with all relevant curatorial officers involved in the protection and management of archaeology and the historic landscape within the areas to be affected by the proposed development. This has included:

● Staffordshire County Council (Stephen Dean – Principal County Archaeologist); ● East Staffordshire Borough Council (Michael Brown – Planner) ● Staffordshire County Council (Suzy Blake – Historic Environment Records Officer). ● English Heritage (Ian George, Inspector of Ancient Monuments,

West Midlands Region)

Mitigation Measures

2.11 A range of measures that might be taken to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on known and potential archaeology and other cultural heritage features in the landscape is provided following the discussion of potential impacts.

Types of Impact

2.12 A development can result in two types of impact upon a cultural heritage asset: direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts arising from a quarry development are likely to only affect archaeology and heritage features within the site boundary. Indirect impacts are defined as any impacts upon the settings of built and other heritage features as a result of the presence of the proposed development. Policy guidance recognises the need to protect the ‘setting’ of historic buildings and heritage features, although the exact definition and extent of ‘setting’ is not explicitly or clearly defined.

2.13 There are currently no set criteria on how to exactly define the extent of the setting of heritage assets, although English Heritage has prepared a consultation draft entitled: The Setting of Heritage Assets: English Heritage Guidance (2010). The methodology below draws upon this published draft, guidance contained within PPS5 (2010), together with professional experience and judgement in dealing with quarry applications and other large developments.

Defining Setting

2.14 Policy HE10 of PPS 5 (Planning for the Historic Environment) refers to the setting or surroundings of designated cultural heritage assets as being of importance in the assessment of impacts, but it does not explicitly define it, albeit it states that ‘setting is the surroundings in which an asset is experienced’. The section below sets out to define

the concept of setting and how it can be assessed. The issue of setting primarily refers to sites that are visible (or have visible components), as it is visible heritage assets which have settings that can be most affected by development. Issues of setting are less relevant when one is discussing buried archaeological sites that are not identifiable on the surface. As stated by Policy HE10, the issue of setting is most relevant to designated features of national importance, such as Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas, although certain other aspects of the historic environment, for which there are no specific statutory controls, such as historic parks and gardens, can also be deemed to have a setting.

2.15 Paragraph 114 of the guidance to PPS 5 indicates that setting is made up of a number of constituent elements which include:

● views to and from an asset; ● the experience of an asset in its setting; ● the spatial association of an asset; & ● the understanding of the historic relationship between places;

2.16 PPS 5 says that setting will generally be more extensive than curtilage (para 115). There is the suggestion that the setting of a heritage asset in an urban context would often be associated with areas in close proximity to the asset and the spatial quality and relationship between an asset and its surroundings. It is clear, however, that some degree of interpretation is required; not all development within the wider landscape of, say a listed building, can reasonably be assumed as falling within its setting. PPS 5 is concerned with the ‘significance’ of an asset and whether this significance will be altered by a development. It states that ‘any development or change capable of affecting the significance of a heritage asset or people’s experience of it can be considered as falling within its setting’ (para 118).

2.17 Local Authorities need to come to an opinion as to whether a proposed

development affects the setting of a heritage asset. PPS 5 states that ‘understanding the significance of the asset will enable the contribution made by its setting to be understood’. There is certainly room for interpretation, reinforcing the essentially undefined scope and nature of settings. Guidance published by English Heritage set out in ‘Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the sustainable management of the historic environment’ (April 2008) at Paragraph 76 (pg.39) defines setting as:

‘an established concept that relates to the surroundings in which a place is experienced, its local context, embracing present and past relationships to the adjacent landscape. Definition of the setting of a significant place will normally be guided by the extent to which material change within it could affect (enhance or diminish) the place’s significance’.

2.18 The English Heritage definition of setting is a reactive one rather than a proactive one, in that its definition only comes as a result of an effect upon it. There is consequently some degree of interpretation in assessing the ‘setting’ of any given heritage asset, and accordingly there is potential for conflicting definitions as to the exact extent and composition of the ‘setting’ of it. By implication an assessment of the setting of a heritage asset may reflect a particular interpretation rather than an absolute conclusion. It is nevertheless considered possible to present a balanced and informed view on the setting of an asset through assessment. It is clear that the setting of heritage assets can vary considerably on a case-by-case basis, according to specific circumstances (this is made very clear in English Heritage’s Consultation Draft, The Setting of Heritage Assets (2011).

2.19 PPS 5 implies that the setting of a heritage asset would normally extend in all directions. Nevertheless, it is also clear that:

● The setting of most structures will not be of equal importance in all directions. There is, for instance, a clear hierarchal difference between the frontage and rear elevations of formally designed buildings, and planned views will be of much more importance than unintended or ‘incidental’ views.

● There are seldom physical features which will denote the exact extent of the setting of buildings, particularly in rural landscapes. Field or land parcel boundaries, for instance, may theoretically be useful to denote historic associations, although these often bear little or no direct relation to existing conditions or features and may have little relevance in terms of defining the physical setting of a building or cultural heritage feature. Associated boundary walls and planted boundaries, however, can sometimes clearly define the settings of features.

● The setting of some listed structures will be confined to their immediate surroundings, which, in some cases, can be very limited. Examples of such structures include headstones, mile stones, footbridges, steps, war memorials, boundary walls, gates and gate posts.

● What is of importance in assessing the setting of a heritage asset is its qualitative relationship with its surroundings, and in some instances also significant historic associations and relationships with surviving physical features, particularly planned vistas and interrelated buildings. The latter will normally be recognised in published literature, list and schedule descriptions.

● A building set within a rural landscape will normally have a close spatial relationship with its immediate context and surroundings (such as a farmhouse and its outbuildings; a church and its church yard). Unless there are clear functional or significant historic associations with the wider landscape, the rural landscape will comprise a ‘backdrop’ rather than an integral part of the setting of a building.

2.20 In turn it is important to differentiate between the setting of different types of heritage asset according to their characteristics and constituent parts. For example, the setting of conservation areas differs from the setting of listed buildings, which in turn differ from the setting of registered parks and gardens. A summary of the definitions of setting used as a basis for this assessment are set out below:

Setting of Listed Buildings

2.21 For the purposes of this assessment the setting of a listed building has been divided into primary and secondary. The primary setting of a listed building is formed of land which materially relates or contributes to the understanding and interest of the listed building. For example, a country house may have formal gardens and associated outbuildings which contribute to the overall historical evolution and understanding of the site and the interest of the building itself. In this manner, the primary setting contributes to the heritage asset’s significance.

2.22 The secondary setting of a listed building can be defined as land outside the primary setting of the listed building but still adjacent and with a visual relationship to the listed building. The secondary setting should have some kind of historical connection to the listed building, but will often not be as clearly defined as the primary setting.

Setting of Conservation Areas

2.23 The setting of a conservation area is made up of land surrounding the boundary of the designated area and is often considered to either detract or enhance the characteristics of the area, including views into and out of it. The setting of a conservation area is not usually taken to extend very far as it is the intrinsic value of the area which is of most importance. Therefore views into or out of conservation areas can, in some circumstances, contribute to the character or appearance of an area. In many circumstances conservation areas fall within village or

town centres with a distinctly inward looking character and are often screened from view by surrounding buildings and trees. PPS 5 Policy HE9.5 states that ‘not all elements of a Conservation Area will necessarily contribute to its significance’.

2.24 It is the quality and interest of areas, rather than that of individual buildings, which should be the prime consideration in identifying conservation areas. It is recognised that the desirability of preserving or enhancing an area should be a material consideration in the planning authority's handling of development proposals which are outside the conservation area but would affect its setting, or views into or out of the area.

Setting of Registered Parks and Gardens

2.25 These are areas designated as being of interest due to their special historic interest and are normally associated with listed or unlisted buildings and structures. Very often these areas have been specifically designed to take advantage of natural or man-made topography and landscape elements to create areas and views of interest. Some registered parks and gardens, especially those associated with a country house with planned landscapes, have deliberate vistas and sight lines to landscape markers or specific points on the horizon. It is important to remember that registered parks and gardens often have incidental views from many locations within the registered area, not all of specific importance. With the exception of specific planned vistas and sightlines the setting of registered parks and gardens is limited.

2.26 Therefore the setting of a registered park/garden can, where planned views exist, extend over a greater distance in that specific view.

Setting of Scheduled Monuments

2.27 PPS 5 does not explicitly define what the setting of a monument is but

it is accepted that where nationally important remains and their settings, whether Scheduled or not, are affected by development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation. It is important to note that the setting of SMs is generally more limited than that for listed buildings because SMs are primarily archaeological features, limited to earthworks and indiscernible landscape features. In most circumstances the land surrounding a SM does not contribute to the understanding of the feature, although where a SM encompasses upstanding remains which might have specific relationships with the surrounding land these may have a wider setting than most.

Views Vistas and Sightlines

2.28 A built heritage feature, for example a listed house with associated formal gardens, may have planned vistas and views, for example avenues of trees centred on a landmark or point on the horizon which are intended to provide a pleasing aspect. A draft consultation document published in April 2008 by English Heritage ‘Seeing the History in the View’ defines a Designed View as: ‘A view that is the product of a deliberate design, usually intended to create a particular effect, illustrate a particular aspect of a landscape or focus on a particular feature or features in a landscape. Such a landscape and its features do not themselves have to be designed, but they may be’.

Views Into and Out of Conservation Areas

2.29 Local planning authorities should have regard to development which may affect views into and out of conservation areas (PPS 5 Policy HE10). Many conservation areas encompass the central areas of villages and towns where there are views into and out of the area from surrounding streets and sometimes, the surrounding countryside. Whilst these views are often incidental, they can be identified as adding to the general character and appearance of an area.

Incidental Views

2.30 Many heritage assets set within a rural landscape may be seen from a number of locations, on footpaths, down streets and from the surrounding landscape. Views to and from such assets, where incidental and not intentionally designed, except where this forms part of the setting, are not covered in this chapter because incidental views are not integral to their special architectural or historic interest.

3 Significance Criteria

3.1 The significance of potential impacts is assessed by taking into account the sensitivity of the archaeological and/or built heritage features and the potential magnitude of change. Magnitude of change is a function of the nature, scale and type of disturbance or damage to the feature. For example, a high magnitude of change may result in the loss of or damage to a feature of archaeology or built heritage. Criteria for assessing the magnitude of predicted change are provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Criteria for assessing magnitude of change on receptors

Magnitude of Change Definition High Total loss or major alteration to key elements or features of the pre-development conditions, such that its post- development character, composition or setting would be fundamentally changed. Medium Loss or alteration of one of the key elements or features of the pre-development conditions such that its post- development character or setting would be partially changed. Low Slight alteration from pre-development conditions including alteration of the setting of a built heritage feature. No Change Very slight or no change from pre-development conditions.

3.2 The sensitivity/significance of the archaeological and/or built heritage feature will depend on factors such as the condition of the site and the perceived heritage value/importance of the site. The sensitivity of the receptor (archaeological and/or built heritage feature) is defined by its importance in terms of national, regional or local statutory or non- statutory protection. Table 2 sets out the criteria for assessing sensitivity and significance.

Table 2: Criteria for assessing sensitivity & significance of receptors

Sensitivity & Criteria Significance

High  SMs and their settings and Areas of Archaeological Importance  Archaeological sites of schedulable quality and importance  Listed Buildings of Grade I and II* status

 Registered Parks and Gardens and their settings

Medium  Undesignated sites of demonstrable regional importance  Listed Buildings of Grade II status

 Local Authority designated sites such as Conservation Areas and their settings

Low  Sites with specific and substantial importance to local interest groups

 Sites whose importance is limited by poor preservation and poor survival of contextual associations

No  Sites with no surviving archaeological or historical Importance component

Unknown  Importance cannot be ascertained

3.3 The sensitivity of the archaeological and/or built heritage feature, together with the magnitude of change, defines the significance of the impact (Table 3). Impacts of ‘major’ or ‘moderate’ significance are considered to equate to significant impacts in the context of the EIA Regulations. Grade I and II* Listed buildings and their setting are all of high sensitivity and so even low levels of predicted magnitude of change to these features will be significant in EIA terms.

Table 3: Criteria for assessing significance of impact (shaded boxes highlight significant impacts in EIA terms)

Sensitivity Magnitude of Change

High Medium Low No Impact

High Major Major Moderate Negligible

Medium Major Moderate Minor Negligible

Low Moderate Minor Minor Negligible

No importance Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

4 Planning and Legislative Context

Legislation

4.1 Legislation provides for the protection (through being added to the scheduled list of archaeological monuments and thus preservation in- situ) of the most important and well-preserved archaeological sites and monuments (Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, 1979). There are no SMs within the proposed development area, however two

are listed within the search area, with a further monument lying just outside of it. The two monuments within the search area (SM ST 222 and ST 221) have both been affected by recent development; although still remain on the register. SM ST 222 relates to a Bronze Age barrow cemetery bordering the Birmingham to Derby Railway line and lies 0.25km to the east of the proposed development area. The majority of this monument has been investigated and since built over. SM ST 221 relates to a purported prehistoric enclosure 0.35km to the north of the proposed development area. This monument was archaeologically investigated in 2002 and subsequently the area was quarried. The next nearest SM to the site lies 1.1km to the south, being the site of cropmarks and earthworks to the south of Fullbrook Farm (SM ST 209).

4.2 Legislation protecting buildings and areas of special architectural or historic interest is contained in the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Sections 16, 66 and 72 of the 1990 Act are of particular relevance. They establish that special regard must be given by the decision maker in the exercise of planning functions to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting and to the desirability of preserving the character, appearance and setting of a conservation area.

4.3 There are 40 Listed Buildings in the study area, with two buildings, Lower Farm (Grade II) and Newbold Manor Farm (Grade II), being within the application boundary. Of the Listed Buildings in the wider landscape, five are Grade II*, with the remainder being Grade II. There are no Listed Grade I buildings in the search area.

4.4 The nearest Conservation Area to the site is represented by the Trent and Mersey Canal, which lies outside of the eastern boundary of the proposed development site. The historic settlements of Barton-under- Needwood and Tatenhill are also designated Conservation Areas.

National Planning Guidance

PPS 1 4.5 The Government’s objectives for the historic environment are set out in PPS 5 (2010), although they are also reflected in Planning Policy Statement 1 (2005) which states:

Planning should facilitate and promote sustainable and inclusive patterns of urban and rural development by ...... protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment.

PPS 5 4.6 Planning Policy Statement 5 was published in March 2010 and replaces PPG15 (DoE 1994) and PPG16 (DoE 1990). PPS 5 gives local planning authorities guidance on the appropriate ways of dealing with the historic environment, including archaeology, in the planning process. The guidance is that local authority development documents and plans should include policies for the protection, enhancement and preservation of sites of heritage interest and their settings, and that the proposals maps should define the areas and sites to which these policies and proposals within the development plan apply. The policies in PPS 5 are a material consideration which must be taken into account in development management decisions.

4.7 PPS 5 also gives backing to local planning authorities, at the stage of applying for planning permission, to request additional information from prospective developers about their site before determination of any submitted planning application. The information contained in this document and its annexes forms that additional information. Policy HE6 Information Requirements for Applications for Consent Affecting Heritage Assets states that:

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 asset.

4.8 PPS 5 requires all applicants to provide a level of information that is proportionate to the significance of the asset and the potential impact upon that significance.

4.9 The main thrust of the guidance in PPS 5 is that, where development is proposed, the significance of a heritage asset and its settings should be protected if that significance is deemed to be special. Where loss of significance is justified on the merits of new development, local planning authorities should impose appropriate planning conditions requesting the heritage asset to be appropriately recorded prior to its loss. PPS 5 is primarily concerned with the protection of heritage assets which are designated. Some non-designated assets are of heritage significance, but not at a level that would pass the threshold for national designation. The desirability of conserving them is a material consideration, but individually less of a priority than for designated assets. The requirements for recording and understanding any such assets that are to be lost apply to these assets, although the requirement imposed upon any permission will need to be proportionate to the nature and lower level of the asset’s significance.

Local Planning Guidance

4.10 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 outlines the means of transition to a new Planning System. As part of the change, County Structure Plans and District Local Plans are no longer being produced. For the abandoned policies, sufficient guidance is now deemed to be provided under PPS 5, local planning guidance and the emerging Local Development Frameworks (LDF). Presently, certain policies contained within the Structure Plan have, however, been saved, and remain in

place with regard to archaeological and other cultural heritage issues. These are detailed below.

Adopted Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996- 2011 – saved policies

4.11 The Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan acknowledges the importance of archaeological sites and the provision of information required to inform planning decisions (Policy NC14). Developments that have a negative effect upon sites of national archaeological importance will only be allowed in exceptional circumstance (Policy NC15).

NC14 Sites of Archaeological Importance:

Proposals for development or land use change affecting sites of known or potential archaeological importance, and their settings, will be considered in the light of information held by the County or City Councils. Where necessary, developers will be required to supplement this information with the results of desk-based assessments and field evaluations before any decision on the planning application is taken. Where the planning authority decides on the basis of professional advice that archaeological remains are not sufficiently important to warrant physical preservation in situ, developers will be required to make appropriate and satisfactory provision for the excavation and recording of the remains prior to development, and for the publication of the results.

NC15 Sites of National Archaeological Importance:

Development which would adversely affect Scheduled Ancient Monuments or archaeological sites of national importance or, in either case, their settings, will only be allowed in the most exceptional circumstances.

4.12 There are no SMs within the proposed development area, although two are listed within the search area, with a further monument lying just outside of it. The two monuments within the search area (SM ST 222 and ST 221) have both been affected by recent development; although still remain on the register.

4.13 The Structure Plan also includes policies that protect Historic Parks and Gardens and Listed Buildings from the adverse effects of development (Policies NC17A and NC18, respectively). Policy NC19 protects the integrity of Conservation Areas and development within them or outside, that may affect their settings. There are 40 Listed Buildings in the study area, with two buildings, Lower Farm and Newbold Manor (both Grade II), being within the application boundary. Of the Listed Buildings in the wider landscape, five are Grade II*, with the remainder being Grade II. There are no Listed Grade I buildings in the search area. The nearest Conservation Area to the site is represented by the Trent and Mersey Canal, which forms a length of the eastern boundary to the proposed development site. The historic settlements of Barton-under-Needwood and Tatenhill are also designated Conservation Areas. There are no recorded Historic Parks and Gardens within 3km of the site. The nearest Registered site is Stapenhill Cemetery, c. 6 km to NE.

4.15 This document fulfils the requirements for a desk-based assessment and field evaluation as detailed under Policy NC14.

East Staffordshire Borough Council Local Development Framework (LDF)

4.16 East Staffordshire Borough Council is required to set out its planning policies for the borough in its Local Development Framework (LDF). The LDF will comprise a number of different documents (Development Plan Documents). The key document will be a Core Strategy

Development Plan Document which will set out the overall vision and strategy for development in the area and will also provide a framework with which future Development Plan Documents will have to conform. The LDF replaces the East Staffordshire Borough Council Local Plan.

4.17 Preparation of the Core Strategy is likely to continue through to 2012. The developing Core Strategy (Guidance on the Development Principles – February 2011) sets out the Borough Council’s favoured approach with regard to future development.

Staffordshire & Stoke-on-Trent Minerals Local Plan 1994 – 2006

4.18 The Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Minerals Local Plan (1994 – 2006) is being replaced by the Minerals Core Strategy as part of the Staffordshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework. Preparation of the Minerals Core Strategy is currently under review and will continue through to 2012. The existing MLP Policy 16, considering the impact of mineral operations on archaeological sites, protected or not, has not been saved under Paragraph 1(3) Sch.8 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

4.19 Minerals developments should follow guidance provided by English Heritage in their published policy statement and practice guide:

● Mineral Extraction and the Historic Environment – English Heritage 2009.

● Mineral Extraction and Archaeology: A Practice Guide – English Heritage 2009.

5 Baseline conditions Location and Current Landuse

5.1 The proposed extension area is located to the west of the A38, south- west of the town of Burton-upon-Trent and north of the village of Barton-under-Needwood, in east Staffordshire. Dunstall Road and Armitage Hill border the western limits of the site, with the northern and eastern boundary defined by the present Newbold Quarry. The Trent and Mersey Canal lies outside of the south-eastern limit. At the time of writing the site is agricultural land with areas of arable fields and pasture. Lower Farm and its complex of farm buildings is located in the northern part of the area, with Small Meadows located to the south, both approached by access roads. Newbold Manor Farm borders the eastern boundary. The site is generally flat, bordering the elevated area of Dunstall which gently rises from the western boundary of the site. The extension lies between the 50m and 45m AOD contours.

Geology and Soils

5.2 The site is located to the west of the River Trent on terrace gravels, approximately 5km to the north of the river’s confluence with the River Tame. It lies within a riverine landscape characterised by mineral workings stretching from the southern side of Burton-upon-Trent south towards Lichfield. The Pleistocene terrace gravels generally overlie Triassic Mercian Mudstone, sandstones and Bunter Beds. The soils across the majority of the site are of the Wigton Moor Association, with a Fladbury 2 Association soils in the north, and Wick 1 Association soils to the east (Soil Survey 1983). These soils are described as permeable loams (Wigton Moor Association), stoneless clay and silty loams (Fladbury 2 Association) and well drained coarse sandy soils over gravel (Wick 1 Association). Borehole data indicates that they vary in depth between 0.3 and 0.7 metres above the gravel deposits.

The Archaeology and Historic Landscape of the Application Area

5.3 The heritage background to the Site is detailed in the desk based assessment (Annex 1a). What follows here is a summary of the main points. Locations of records are indicated in figure 2 under Annex 1a.

5.4 The regional archaeological context around the Site is also provided below. It provides a comprehensive review of known archaeology and historic landscape features around the application site in order to put the area in its archaeological and historical context.

Information from the Historic Environment Record (HER)

5.5 It should be born in mind that the HER, upon which knowledge of the ‘known’ archaeology of an area is based, contains records that have been identified in the following ways: as earthworks or other standing monuments, as cropmarks on aerial photographs, as chance finds of artefacts on the ground surface and as discoveries made during ground disturbance, usually associated with gardening, ploughing or construction work. The collection of data for the HER is therefore random and un-systematic. Much buried archaeology does not reveal itself in the ways mentioned above. Therefore the HER is by its nature provisional and cannot be taken as a definitive list of surviving archaeological remains.

The proposed extension area (numbers in bold text refer to entries discussed in the desk assessment – Annex 1a).

5.6 There are 15 entries recorded in the HER that are within the boundary of the proposed extension area. At the southern end, a number of cropmark features have been identified on aerial photographs [01] [02] [03], including several possible ring ditches. Whilst undated, their morphology suggests a late Neolithic/Bronze Age date (c. 3,000 BC to 800 BC).

5.7 At the northern end of the proposed extension an expanse of cropmark linears and enclosures have also been identified [04]. Whilst undated, the HER provides them with a broad Prehistoric to Roman date (c. 2,500 BC to 410 AD). This is because several sherds of pottery from these periods were recovered during a nearby evaluation in 1992 (Hughes 1992).

5.8 A copper alloy strap fitting from a stirrup [05] was recovered during metal detecting in 2001, which probably dates to the 11th century, the Anglo-Saxon period (410 AD to 1066 AD). Further cropmark enclosures and linears are recorded along the eastern and southern boundaries of the area, but all remain undated [06], [07] [08] [09] [10] [11]. It is likely many relate to former episodes of land division, probably of Medieval and later date. To the east of Newbold Manor Farm are the remains of ridge and furrow [12], which may be associated with the cultivation of the fields surrounding the former farm.

5.9 Lower Farm is a Grade II Listed farmhouse [13] located within the northern part of the proposed extension. It was built in the early 19th century and was constructed in red brick, two storeys high and of rectangular plan. To the south-west of the farm complex is a former mill pond [14], which may have had associated buildings located nearby. Newbold Manor [65] is located close to the eastern boundary of the application area. It is a late 18th century 3 storey brick farmhouse with later additions.

Information from the field evaluations

5.10 The site has been subject to a comprehensive field evaluation comprising of geophysical survey and trial trenching. The results from these surveys have provided an enhanced understanding of the site.

Geophysical Survey

5.11 A proportion of the evaluation area was subject to a detailed magnetometer survey supplemented by a magnetic susceptibility scan (see Annex 1b). The survey identified widespread magnetic activity and disturbances, but only a few of the detected features could be categorised as of possible archaeological interest or concern. These were limited mainly to possible former field boundaries and cultivation effects. Parallel cultivation markings which could indicate surviving traces of ridge and furrow were seen at several locations. In one field these linear features appeared to terminate at a possible headland.

5.12 Linear markings in several of the fields could indicate former boundaries, and a possible enclosure was postulated for one of the southern fields (see Annex 1b). Other findings included at least two different types of land drain, and strong disturbances suggesting former buildings and an access road. The survey did not detect any clearly identifiable groups or clusters of magnetic anomalies which would suggest the presence of a substantial ancient settlement or industrial site of archaeological significance.

Trial Trenching

5.13 Following the geophysical survey the site was subject to a targeted trial trench evaluation which was conducted in full accordance with the requirements and conditions of the archaeological adviser to the MPA (see Annex 1c). A total of 25 trenches were excavated, the majority being positioned in areas where the geophysical survey suggested the presence of below ground features. Trenches were also positioned in areas where the HER had plotted cropmarks of potential archaeological origin. Other trenches were positioned in blank areas to act as a control.

5.14 Archaeological features were identified in 17 trenches. Of these, only four contained features with dateable evidence (trenches 3, 14, 16 and 22), of which only one feature, a ditch in trench 3, contained sherds dating before the late Medieval period. The pottery here was of Roman date. The remaining dated features related to former field boundaries and trackways of late Medieval and post-Medieval date. The large number of undated features predominantly related to former field boundaries, which could be traced on historic maps, although some, in the south-east part of the site, could (based on their morphology) relate to prehistoric activity.

5.15 A number of trenches contained no features (trenches 1, 2, 4 and 7- 11). This suggests an absence of archaeological activity across broad swathes of the northern and western parts of the proposed extension.

The wider landscape

5.16 The archaeological context around the Site is briefly discussed here in order to put the site in its archaeological and historical context. For the full assessment see Annex 1a.

5.17 The earliest archaeology in the surrounding landscape is of Mesolithic date (c. 8,500-3,500 BC) and is in the form of a flint blade found during fieldwalking. A further flint arrow of probable Mesolithic date has been recovered to the north of the proposed extension. These stray finds attest to a transitory occupation of the area during this period.

5.18 Evidence dateable to the Neolithic period (c. 3,500-2,000 BC) is represented by stray finds, including flint and stone axes. A Neolithic axe is recorded to the north of the proposed extension. Cropmark evidence along the Trent and Tame gravel terraces attests to the presence of Neolithic groups with the identification of causewayed enclosures, (Alrewas and Mavesryn Ridware), cursus monuments

(Catholme) and hengiform structures (Catholme). The evidence suggests a ‘monument complex’ at the confluence of two major rivers.

5.19 The Bronze Age (c. 2,000-1,000 BC) is better understood, being predominantly represented by the cropmarks of ring ditches (ploughed out round barrows) which are presumed to be of that period. They are distributed throughout the region with their highest concentration around the confluence of the Tame and Trent (Vine 1982). A flat cremation cemetery is recorded at Tucklesholme Farm (SM ST 222) and two Bronze Age cremation cemeteries have been excavated at Whitemoor Haye (Hewson 2006, WHEAS forthcoming).

5.20 In addition to the funerary evidence, Bronze Age pit alignments have been excavated at the Barton Business Park (Coates and Richmond 2002) and Alrewas (Coates 2003), and have been recorded on air photos to the south of Tatenhill (Richmond 2005). Such alignments are thought to signify territorial boundaries.

5.21 Iron Age (c. 1,000 BC-AD 43) settlement is assumed to be represented by the extensive cropmark complexes which have been revealed through aerial photographic surveys as existing all along the river terraces of the region. The majority of the complexes, however, remain undated (Whimster 1989), although excavations at Fisherwick showed an extensive settlement dateable to the Late Iron Age and at Whitemoor Haye excavation identified a similar complex which continued into the Romano-British period.

5.22 Just to the north of the proposed quarry extension is the site of a scheduled monument detailed as an Iron Age D-shaped enclosure (ST 221). This site was investigated as part of the archaeological works associated with the existing Newbold Quarry, but was shown not to be of archaeological interest, and rather a series of later field boundaries and furrows. Indeed, constant archaeological supervision across the existing Newbold Quarry over the past 7 years has identified very little

of archaeological significance. It appears that the gravel terrace upon which Newbold Quarry lies was a less favourable location for settlement and associated activities in the past than the lower gravel terrace upon which the quarries of Tucklesholme, Barton and Whitemoor Haye sit.

5.23 The nearest Roman (AD 43-410) centre, Letocetum (Wall) was occupied during the Claudian period, and appears to have been a military centre with links to Wroxeter and Derby (Derventio). Outside of the centres farming communities developed and have been investigated at Fisherwick (Miles 1969), Tucklesholme Farm (Martin 1998) and Whitemoor Haye (Coates 2002, Hewson 2006), The present-day A38 follows the line of the Roman Ryknield Street. A number of isolated finds of Roman date, including pottery and coins have been made for the area.

5.24 Our understanding of the post-Roman Anglo-Saxon period (AD 410- 1066) is far from clear. Tamworth is known to have developed into the capital of Mercia in the 7th century and Lichfield may have developed in to the centre for the early Bishopric of Diuma. Although it is generally thought that the area did not become densely settled until the 8th century, an extensive 7th settlement has been identified at Catholme (Losco-Bradley and Sheeler 1984, Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002). Anglo-Saxon cemeteries have also been identified at Branston, Tucklesholme and Wychnor, although their proper date and exact locations are a matter of speculation as they are all known from chance finds in the 19th century during the construction of the Birmingham to Derby railway line.

5.25 Barton-under-Needwood is the nearest settlement to the proposed extension and is first mentioned in an Anglo-Saxon charter dating to 941 AD. It developed, however during the Medieval period (AD 1066– 1539) and is mentioned in the Domesday Survey of 1086, when it was in the ownership of the King in the Offlow Hundred. The village

developed at the centre of the surrounding agricultural landscape. Ridge and furrow earthworks and associated cropmarks survive in and near the proposed extension, which may have had origins in this period. Dunstall Park lies outside the western boundary of the proposed extension which is recorded as a probable Medieval deer park. A further landscaped park is located close to the south-western corner of the site, being associated with Barton Hall.

5.26 The landscape altered most significantly during the post-Medieval period with the building of the transport links of the Trent and Mersey Canal (1771) and the railway line (1839-1855), both in close proximity to the site.

Historic Landscape Characterisation

5.27 The landscape of Staffordshire as we see it today is the result of both natural and man-made actions which have taken place over many years. Activities such as settlement, farming and recreation have all left behind physical traces that help to give individual parts of the County their own special character. In order to have a better understanding of the historic dimension of today’s landscape, Staffordshire County Council has undertaken an Historic Landscape Characterisation Project.

5.28 The landscape, in which the proposed extension lies, is characterised under four historic zones. The majority of the site (c. 80%) is recorded as ‘18th/19th century semi-planned enclosure’. To the south of Newbold Manor a small zone (c.14%) is recorded as ‘18th/19th century planned enclosure’, which stretches down to, and beyond Barton Turn. To the SW of Small Meadows are four fields (c.5%) detailed as ‘post-1880’s small replanned enclosure’, whilst at the site’s northern extent is a small area (c.1%) of ‘modern plantation’. The site also borders zones detailed as ‘extractive’ (the existing quarry), ‘parkland’ (around Dunstall Hall) and ‘piecemeal enclosure’ (bordering Dunstall Road).

Listed Buildings and other Cultural Heritage Features

5.29 Within the study area, the following key listed buildings and other cultural heritage features have been identified (see Annex 1a):

● 2 Scheduled Monuments (SMs) within 1km of the Site. These are high sensitivity receptors. ● 5 Grade II* status Listed Building within 1km of the Site. Such buildings and their settings are high sensitivity receptors. ● 35 Grade II status Listed Buildings within 1km of the Site. These buildings and their settings are medium sensitivity receptors. ● 3 Conservation Areas within 1km of the Site. These are classed as medium sensitivity receptors. ● No registered parks and gardens within 2km of the Site. The nearest Registered site is Stapenhill Cemetery 6km to the NE. Such sites are classed as high sensitivity receptors.

Scheduled Monuments

5.30 Two Scheduled Monuments are recorded within 1 km of the site. The nearest is SM ST 222, being 0.25km to the east, and is recorded as ‘the remains of a barrow cemetery SW of Tucklesholme Farm’. Since scheduling, the majority of this site has been archaeologically investigated and built over. A portion of its northern extent remains, under a paddock and plant hire compound. No archaeology is visible on the surface. Monuments with no visible remains (earthworks, cropmarks etc) do not generally have a discernable setting unlike monuments with upstanding remains. The second monument, ST 221 lies 0.35 km to the NE, and is recorded as ‘an enclosure N of Tivey’s House’. Whilst still registered on the schedule, this monument has been archaeologically investigated and the area fully developed as part of the existing quarry. The next nearest monument lies 1.1km to the SE, being ‘earthwork remains NW of the Junction Inn, Efflinch’, SM ST

209. It has no sight-lines to the proposed development site. An assessment of the setting and significance of monuments within 1km of the site boundary is provided under Table 4.

Listed Buildings

5.31 There are 40 Listed Buildings within 1km of the proposed development. Five are of Grade II* status (high sensitivity receptors) and the remainder are of Grade II status (medium sensitivity receptors). Of these, 33 buildings have no significant views to the site, being within the core of the surrounding villages, and are not discussed further. Descriptions of the remaining 7 buildings (including all those of Grade II* status) and their settings are provided under Table 5. Two buildings, Lower Farm House and Newbold Manor (both Grade II) lie within the application boundary, but will be preserved, and not directly affected by the proposals.

Conservation Areas

5.32 There are three Conservation Area located within 1km of the proposed development, being the historic settlements of Barton-under-Needwood and Tatenhill and the Trent and Mersey Canal. Conservation Areas are designated for their character and appearance which are deemed as being of local importance and interest and usually encompass listed buildings and features which form a group which the local authority deem appropriate to preserve. Conservation Areas are medium sensitivity receptors. Table 6 gives a description of the character and appearance of the Conservation Areas as well as their setting.

Registered Parks & Gardens

5.33 Registered parks and gardens are designated for their historic interest as designed landscapes including layout and features of manmade and natural origin, which could be vulnerable to change, i.e. resulting from

development. All registered parks and gardens are of importance at national level2, and are considered to be high sensitivity receptors. No registered parks and gardens are within 2km of the proposed development. The nearest Registered site is Stapenhill Cemetery 6km to the NE. Dunstall Park is not a Registered Park or Garden, and is classed a low sensitivity receptor as its importance is limited by poor preservation and poor survival of contextual associations.

6 Prediction/Assessment of Impacts

6.1 In the case of archaeological and other cultural heritage features, operational (i.e. mineral extraction) and de-commissioning (i.e. restoration following extraction) impacts will have no greater significance than those at the construction/establishment stage (i.e. site development and soil stripping to allow for extraction). Therefore predicted impacts (direct and indirect) of operational and subsequent de-commissioning activities on archaeology, listed buildings, scheduled monuments and conservation areas are considered in the sections on construction/establishment impacts below.

Assessment of Direct Impacts of construction/establishment

6.2 Sources of impacts upon archaeology and other cultural heritage features are likely to arise from excavations and soil stripping as a result of the following:

- Establishment of quarry infrastructure; - Creation of haulage and access routes across the quarry workings;

2 Circular 01/01 Arrangements for handling heritage applications - notification and directions by the Secretary of State requires local planning authorities to consult English Heritage on planning applications for development likely to affect any grade I or II* historic park or garden. English Heritage will be notified where exceptional impact on grade II parks and gardens is likely.

- Soil stripping across quarry phases prior to extraction; - Creation of soil storage and landscape screening bunds;

6.3 Within the development area these construction/establishment actions can create direct impacts upon archaeology and other cultural heritage features that may be present on the site. Predicted direct impacts together with the proposed mitigation of those impacts are detailed under Table 7.

Assessment of Indirect Impacts of construction/establishment

6.4 Sources of impacts upon cultural heritage assets outside of the development boundary, i.e. indirect impacts, have the potential to arise as a result of the following:

- the development and erection of quarry infrastructure; - the creation of screening and other soil bunds; - the establishment of the phases for subsequent quarrying.

6.5 These construction/establishment actions can create indirect impacts upon archaeology and other cultural heritage features outside of the development site. Indirect effects can occur as a result of significant adverse changes to the setting of a site. The issue of setting primarily refers to sites that are visible, as it is predominantly visible remains that have tangible settings. Issues of setting are less relevant when discussing buried archaeological sites that are not identifiable on the surface. Predicted indirect impacts together with the proposed mitigation of those impacts are detailed under Table 8.

Assessment of Operational/Decommissioning Impacts

6.6 In the case of a quarry development, direct impacts on archaeology and other cultural heritage assets within the boundaries of the development arise from disturbance relating to excavations and soil

stripping. Given that these operations are most likely to be experienced during the construction/establishment phase (site establishment, soil and overburden stripping) there are no anticipated additional impacts on such receptors during the operational (actual extraction following soil stripping) or decommissioning/restoration phases. Whilst there is likely to be disturbance to some degree during the decommissioning/restoration phase (i.e. removing infrastructure from the Site and creation of new landforms), it is not anticipated to extend beyond those areas disturbed during the construction period. Decommissioning/restoration impacts of a direct character are therefore identified as negligible.

6.7 Indirect effects can occur as a result of significant adverse changes to the setting of a site. It is assessed that operational and decommissioning cultural heritage impacts will have no greater significance than those identified at the construction/establishment stage. The establishment of the proposed development has been assessed to have a moderate indirect effect on the Grade II* listed Dunstall Hall. Therefore, the predicted impact has been assessed as being of moderate significance. It should be made clear that the identified impact will only be temporary in character, as the quarry development is a ‘temporary development’, which will be restored in the medium term. Following approved site restoration any effect to the setting of the Hall will be restored.

Suggested Mitigation

6.8 Mitigation measures that it may be appropriate to put in place in response to the identified impacts are detailed in tables 7 and 8. Implementation of the mitigation measures will be able to effectively deal with the identified effects.

Cumulative Impacts

6.9 Aside from the existing Newbold Quarry to which this application represents an extension, there are two other quarries (operational, consented or at application stage) within the wider cumulative assessment study area. These are Tucklesholme Quarry (operated by Aggregate Industries UK Ltd) and Barton Quarry (operated by Hanson Aggregates). There are, however, no identified cumulative impacts on archaeological or other cultural heritage assets during the construction, operational or decommissioning phases of the proposed quarry.

Residual Effects

6.10 Residual effects are those that remain after the mitigation measures detailed above are taken into account and are those that remain where the mitigation measures are not able to deal with the relevant effect. There are no anticipated residual effects for the construction or after completion phases of the development following implementation of the mitigation measures detailed.

7 Summary

7.1 A wide range of sources were consulted for this assessment, including the local Historic Environment Record, published articles and books and manuscript documents. In addition the site has been comprehensively evaluated by geophysical survey and trial trenching The data gathered has provided the information required with which to appropriately assess the impact of the development proposals of the archaeological and historic landscape.

7.2 The assessment of direct impacts on archaeology and cultural heritage assets within the proposed development boundary shows that significant impacts in EIA terms comprise a high magnitude of change to the identified Romano-British archaeological evidence, being a low

sensitivity receptor. Whilst the predicted impact is of moderate significance, it can be appropriately mitigated by the implementation of an approved scheme of archaeological works prior to development. This will preserve the archaeological interest of the site ‘by record’.

7.3 There are no other identified direct significant effects on the archaeological and heritage resource as a result of the proposed quarry extension. There will be an impact to other (later) archaeology identified within the confines of the Site and potentially to other unidentified and undated archaeological remains. However, the assessed sensitivity of these receptors (being low), together with the proposed mitigation as detailed in table 7, has identified all impacts as being of minor magnitude which does not equate to a significant impact in EIA terms.

7.4 The assessment of indirect impacts on all cultural heritage assets within the study area shows that significant impacts in EIA terms comprise a low magnitude of change to the Grade II* Listed Dunstall Hall, being a High sensitivity receptor. Whilst the predicted impact is of moderate significance, in that the secondary setting of the Hall extends to the site, there are no clear functional or significant historic associations with this wider landscape. The wider rural landscape beyond the Hall’s associated parkland comprises a ‘backdrop’ rather than an integral part of the setting of the building. The creation of soil storage bunds, which will be grassed over and placed along this edge, will afford an increased protection to the secondary setting of the Hall whilst quarry operations take place. Quarry operations within the vicinity of Dunstall Hall will be temporary in nature, lasting c. 5 years prior to approved restoration taking place. Following site restoration the secondary setting of the Hall will be appropriately restored.

7.5 There are no other identified significant indirect effects on the archaeological and heritage resource as a result of the proposed quarry extension. The extension is not located within the primary

40 setting of any surrounding cultural heritage asset. There will be changes to long distance and obscured views in some circumstances, but none of these changes are relevant to planned views or vistas from cultural heritage assets and those changes are not assessed as compromising the understanding or historic importance of any feature.

Tables 4 - 8

Table 4: Scheduled Monuments within 1 km of the site boundary.

Table 5: Listed Buildings assessed within 1 km of the site boundary.

Table 6: Conservation Areas assessed within 1 km of the site boundary.

Table 7: A summary of the potential direct impacts during construction/establishment.

Table 8: A summary of the potential indirect impacts during construction/establishment.

Table 4: Scheduled Monuments within 1 km of the site boundary.

Table 4: Scheduled Monuments within 1 km of the site boundary

SM No Name Distance from site Description (D), Analysis of feature and setting (A), and boundary Significance (S)

ST 222 Remains of a barrow 0.25km D: Site of a Bronze Age barrow cemetery represented by both cemetery 320m SW of urned and un-urned cremations. Tucklesholme Farm.

A: The majority of this site has been archaeologically investigated and built over. Only a portion of its northern extent remains undisturbed, under a small paddock and part of a plant hire compound. The surviving portion of the monument comprises below ground remains with no remains above ground. The primary setting of the monument is confined to the paddock field in which it lies, and the field boundaries surrounding it. The site has no wider setting, being within the confines of an industrial estate and bordered by a mainline railway line. Due to built development, the A38 duel-carriageway and mature trees bordering the Trent and Mersey Canal, there are no significant views in the direction of the application area which lies out-of-sight, 0.25km to the west.

S: All Scheduled monuments are high sensitivity receptors.

ST 221 Enclosure 320m N of 0.35km D: A D-shaped enclosure as identified on aerial photographs and Tivey’s House. suggested to be of Iron Age date. The site has since been archaeologically investigated and developed, but still remains on the schedule.

A: This site was reputed to be an Iron Age D-shaped enclosure. The site was archaeologically investigated prior to development in accordance with SMC but shown not to be of archaeological significance, but rather a series of later field boundaries and furrows. The area is now part of the existing quarry workings, but remains on the schedule list of monuments.

S: n/a

Table 5: Listed Buildings assessed within 1 km of the site boundary.

Table 5: Listed Buildings assessed within 1 km of the site boundary

IoE Name and Parish Distance from Grade Description (D) and Analysis (A) of building and its setting. Number Site NB: descriptions taken from List Description and on-site observation.

1374405 Barton Hall, 225m II* D: Large house in grounds, C18, the core perhaps earlier. Brick with tiled Barton-under- roof, plain parapet, moulded cornice and brick stacks. Two storeys. Long, Needwood. front elevation facing road.

A: The primary setting of the house extends to the building’s surrounding gardens, with a predominant view to the front elevation facing Dunstall Road. The gardens to the rear are bordered by mature trees and hedges. The secondary setting takes in this part of the village, together with views along Dunstall Road and to the west across open fields. There are obscured views from the building’s rear elevation across open fields toward the site. These views are considered a backdrop, and not an integral part of the setting of the building.

1374402 Wales End Farm, 900m II* D: A large detached house of late Medieval origin, comprising hall and 5 Brookside Road, cross wing, the former having raised cruck truss with carved bosses and Barton-under- moulded ceiling beams. Timber frame and brick with tiled roof and brick Needwood. stacks. Much altered with irregular front elevation which has two gables. Two storeys. Once a farmhouse forming part of the dispersed village farm.

A: The primary setting of the house extends to the building’s small gardens to the east and west with surrounding tall evergreen hedging. There is little discernable secondary setting to the building, as it is surrounded by modern development on all sides constructed during the 1960’s and 70’s. Due to surrounding built development there are no sight-lines from the building to the site.

1038487 Dunstall Hall, 450m II* D: Large country house, early C19, altered and extended mid C19. Ashlar, Dunstall. flat roof, balustrade parapet, ashlar stacks. Large L-shape plan, two storeys, 3 bays. 7-bay orangery attached to right (north). Entrance to south, 1850’s tetrastyle Ionic with carved parapet. Gardens to south and east and parkland to east and north.

A: The primary setting of the house takes in its associated gardens to the east and the surrounding outbuildings. The gardens constitute a formal and planned arrangement, but are of small scale. The secondary setting comprises the surrounding mature parkland on all sides. There are distant views from the building’s eastern elevation toward the northern extent of the proposed development site. These views are partly obscured by mature tree clumps within the surrounding parkland.

1038545 Church of St 550m II* D: Parish Church, dated 1517 and built by Dr John Taylor, a native of the James, Barton- village and chaplain to Henry VIII. Stone with embattled parapets. Nave under-Needwood. and chancel retain low-pitched roofs. Much altered C19.

A: The primary setting of the Church takes in the graveyard to all sides, up to the defined boundaries which are demarcated by brick walls and iron- railing, hedges and mature trees. The secondary setting takes in this part of the historic village including parts of Church Lane, Main Street and Dunstall Road. There may be obscured views of the site in long-distance views from the Church tower, but these would only constitute a minor backdrop, and not an integral part of the setting of the building.

1038486 Church of St 785m II* D: Parish Church, 1852-3 by Henry Clutton. Random coursed, dressed and Mary, Dunstall. squared Hollington stone, tiles roof with parapets. Loosely decorated style. Tower of three stages on plinth with diagonal buttress.

A: The primary setting of the Church takes in the graveyard to two sides, up to the defined boundaries which are demarcated by iron-railings, hedges and mature trees. The secondary setting takes in the surrounding fieldscape, on all sides. There may be obscured views of the site in long- distance views from the Church tower, but these would only constitute a minor backdrop, and not an integral part of the setting of the building.

273599 Lower Farm Within II D: Farmhouse. Early C19. Red brick; tiled roof, dentilled eaves; end stacks. House, Dunstall development Rectangular plan. 2- storey and gable-lit attic, 3-window front; glazing bar boundary sashes with panted wedged heads; central entrance, painted flat pilaster surround to hood, overlight of circle and quadrant-pattern glazing bars; part- glazed 6-panel door.

A: The primary setting of the farm house extends to the building’s associated farm complex, gardens to the east and yard fronted by low brick wall to the west. It forms part of a working farm. The secondary setting takes in the surrounding fieldscape, especially to the west; the front elevation. Modern farm buildings obscure views to the north and south. There are views in several directions across the proposed development area.

273600 Newbold Manor Within II D: Farmhouse. Late C18 with minor later alterations. Red brick; low- pitched House, Dunstall development hipped slate roof with broad soffit; brick stacks on hips; double depth boundary rectangular plan; formal entrance to front, farm door to rear. 3-storey, 3- window front on small plinth; glazing bar sashes; gauged brick heads; height of windows reduced to upper storeys, central entrance has painted surround of open pediment on half- round pilasters. Similar sides of 2 bays.

A: The primary setting of the farm house extends to the building’s associated farm complex and gardens to the north (partially surrounded by brick wall), east and south. The secondary setting takes in the surrounding fieldscape, especially to the north, east and south, with the building’s front elevation facing to the east. There are views in several directions across the proposed extraction area from the building.

Table 6: Conservation Areas assessed within 1 km of the site boundary.

Table 6: Conservation Areas assessed within 1 km of the site boundary

Name Distance from Site Description (D) and Analysis (A) of Character, Boundary Appearance and Setting

Barton-under- 20m D: Barton-under-Needwood was designated in 1970 in recognition of the special Needwood architectural and historic interest of the area. The village is quite closed in, especially to the south where there has been much modern development. With the exception of modern housing, Barton’s setting is essentially rural. Much of the settlement has an irregular pattern of development and a mix of architectural styles and dates. The presence of six ‘character areas’ reinforces the settlements diverse architectural character. Parts of Station Road do detract from the appearance of the Conservation Area with modern housing, although some buildings, such as the Thomas Russell Infant School positively contribute to the character of the area. Open spaces form important parts of the settlement, such as the open junction at the intersection of Main Street, Station Road and Dunstall Road.

A: The character and appearance of the conservation area is derived from its historic pattern, the use of traditional materials and buildings set in a predominantly linear arrangement along Station Road, Main Street, Church Lane and Dunstall Road. The setting of the majority of buildings is focussed along Main Street, Church Lane and Station Road with a decidedly inward focus, often toward the Church. Few buildings have an outward focus. The village is located on flat ground, which limits views out of the Conservation Area. In many directions hedges and mature banks of trees also restrict views out. Significant views are along streetscapes. There are no significant views toward the proposed development site, which can only be seen from occasional points, being the rear of properties, along Dunstall Road and Station Road.

Tatenhill 800m D: Tatenhill lies 3km SW of Burton-on-Trent, enfolded in a narrow valley, descending toward the Trent Plain. Because of its position between the hills, the village has developed as a ribbon of housing along this road, and around the crossroads with the lane from Branston to Rangemore. On both sides of the road the village is dominated by the surrounding hills, particularly to the west. An especial feature of the village is the narrow village street, tightly confined by its building groups. There are two main groups of settlement; the area around the crossroads and the built settlement to the north. Important views into and out of the Conservation Area are deemed to be to the north of the crossroads, looking both east and west, and not south in the direction of the proposed development. The settlement displays a range of building styles, including much modern infill, meaning that there is no overriding architectural style.

A: The character and appearance of the conservation area is derived from its historic pattern, the use of traditional materials and buildings set in a fairly diffuse and linear arrangement. The setting of the majority of buildings is focussed along Main Street and Dunstall Road with a decidedly inward focus. Few buildings have an outward focus. Significant views are along streetscapes and out of the village to the north. Due to topography and vegetation there are no significant views toward the proposed development site.

Trent & Mersey Canal 25m D: Canal linking the River Mersey to the River Trent, deemed to be of special archaeological and historical importance. This section being between the Lichfield Road and Woodend Farm. Work began on the canal in 1766, being built by engineers James Brindley and Hugh Henshall, and the section near the site was opened in 1771, although the whole route was not completed until 1777. It was the first of the major inland waterways to be constructed. Trade in goods such as coal, bar-iron, pottery, ale and pig-iron was brisk, but by the 1840’s trade began to decline with the coming of the railways. Commercial traffic continued until the 1950’s. Today it is only used by pleasure craft.

A: The Conservation Area has a distinct linear focus along the canal corridor and its setting varies between sections. Whilst there are occasional landscape views from the Conservation Area to the Site, these are not seen as planned views. Change of this view is not seen as compromising the understanding or historic importance of the Conservation Area.

Table 7: A summary of the potential direct impacts during construction/establishment.

Table 7: A summary of the potential direct impacts during construction/establishment

Site Predicted Direct Impact Suggested Mitigation

Roman archaeology Archaeological feature identified as cropmark Prior to development proceeding a written scheme for (field ditch) identified and as investigated by trial trenching (Tr. 3) in archaeological investigation (WSI) will be prepared outlining the in one trench, this area will be removed during the archaeological investigation of the identified archaeology in this corresponding to development. location. The document will be prepared in full consultation with the cropmark County Archaeological Office. The WSI will detail the undertaking The proposed development is anticipated to of appropriate works to allow for a full and proper record of the have a high magnitude of change on this low archaeological remains to be made. These works will mitigate the sensitivity receptor. Therefore the predicted perceived impact. impact is of moderate significance which does equate to a significant impact in EIA terms.

Late Medieval Two areas of the site where trial trenching Prior to development proceeding a written scheme for archaeology (field recovered 14th century pottery from former archaeological investigation (WSI) will be prepared outlining the ditches) identified in ditch features (Tr. 14, 22). These features will archaeological investigation of the identified archaeology in these 2 trenches, one be largely removed during the development. locations. The document will be prepared in full consultation with corresponding to One of the ditches is recorded as a cropmark the County Archaeological Office. The WSI will detail the cropmark ditch which continues outside of the site. undertaking of appropriate works to allow for a full and proper record of the archaeological remains to be made. These works will The proposed development is anticipated to mitigate the perceived impact. have a medium magnitude of change (in that some of these field boundaries continue outside of the site and hence will not be totally lost) on these low sensitivity receptors. Therefore the predicted impact is of minor significance which does not equate to a significant impact in EIA terms.

Undated archaeology Eight trenches, the majority over cropmarks Prior to development proceeding a written scheme for identified in various plotted across the southern extent of the site, archaeological investigation (WSI) will be prepared outlining the trenches (often where ditch features were identified which archaeological investigation of the identified archaeology in these corresponding to remain undated (Tr. 12, 15, 19, 20, 23, 25-27). locations. The document will be prepared in full consultation with cropmark plot) which In most cases features appear to be field the County Archaeological Office. The WSI will detail the is perceived to date boundaries, but they do not correspond with undertaking of appropriate works to allow for a full and proper to before the post- historic mapping, and therefore may be earlier record of the archaeological remains to be made. These works will Medieval period. than post-Medieval date. Some cropmarks mitigate the perceived impact. here are of a type that suggests a prehistoric date.

The proposed development is anticipated to have a medium magnitude of change (in that some of the cropmark groups continue outside of the site and hence will not be totally lost) on these low sensitivity receptors. Therefore the predicted impact is of minor significance which does not equate to a significant impact in EIA terms.

Unrecorded Unknown impact to presently unrecorded In the event that archaeological remains exist on the site that have archaeological sites archaeological remains that may exist on the not been previously identified it is proposed to put in place an site. appropriate level of archaeological cover during soil stripping and other operations that have the capacity to have an impact upon the The proposed development is anticipated to present ground surface. This will mitigate any potential impact to have a medium magnitude of change on this presently unrecorded remains. low sensitivity receptor. Therefore the predicted impact is of minor significance Any such works will first be agreed with the Council Archaeological which does not equate to a significant impact Office and be carried out in accordance with an approved WSI. in EIA terms.

Historic Landscape The historic landscape character of this part of The existing landform has been recorded as part of the present Character of the site the Trent Valley will be altered from its current assessment. Restoration to an acceptable landscape type following state. The landscape is described under development will mitigate the temporary loss of the current several different landscape headings, including landscape form. ‘18th/19th century semi-planned enclosure’, ‘18th/19th century planned enclosure’, ‘post- 1880’s small replanned enclosure’ and ‘modern plantation’. Today it is a typical modern agricultural landscape with few historic associations.

The proposed development is anticipated to have a medium magnitude of change on this low sensitivity receptor. Therefore the predicted impact is of minor significance which does not equate to a significant impact in EIA terms.

Table 8: A summary of the potential indirect impacts during construction/establishment.

Table 8: A summary of the potential indirect impacts during construction/establishment

Site Predicted Indirect Impact Mitigation

Scheduled Monument ST 222 The interest of this site is derived from its archaeological As the predicted impact is of negligible potential in that it contains the remains of a Bronze Age significance, no mitigation is considered Remains of a barrow cemetery barrow cemetery. The majority of this site has, however, necessary. 320m SW of Tucklesholme been archaeologically investigated and built over. Only a Farm. portion of its northern extent remains undisturbed, under a small paddock and part of a plant hire compound.

The surviving portion of the monument comprises below ground remains with no remains above ground. The primary setting of the monument is confined to the paddock field in which it lies, and the field boundaries surrounding it. The site has no wider setting. There are no significant views in the direction of the application area which lies out-of-sight, 0.25km to the west.

The quarry extension will have no impact upon the setting of this high sensitivity receptor and therefore the predicted impact is of negligible significance.

Scheduled Monument ST 221 Recorded on the schedule as a D-shaped enclosure visible n/a on aerial photographs and suggested to be of Iron Age date. Enclosure 320m N of Tivey’s The site has, however, been archaeologically investigated House. and shown not to be of archaeological significance, but it still remains on the scheduled list. The area is now a working quarry.

Listed Building The special interest of this building is derived from its As the predicted impact is of negligible survival, fabric, age and preservation. The setting of the significance, no mitigation is considered Barton Hall, Grade II* building does not extend to the site. There are obscured necessary. views from the building’s rear elevation across open fields toward the site. These views are considered a backdrop, and not an integral part of the setting of the building.

The quarry extension will have no impact on the setting of this high sensitivity receptor and therefore the predicted impact is of negligible significance.

Listed Building The special interest of this building is derived from its As the predicted impact is of negligible survival, fabric, age and preservation. The setting of the significance, no mitigation is considered Wales End Farm, Grade II* building does not extend to the site. There are no views of necessary. the site from the building.

The quarry extension will have no impact on the setting of this high sensitivity receptor and therefore the predicted impact is of negligible significance.

Listed Building The special interest of this Country House is derived from its The views from the building to the survival, fabric, age and preservation. The building’s proposed quarry are obscured by existing Dunstall Hall, Grade II* secondary setting comprises the surrounding mature trees and copses within the surrounding parkland on all sides. There are distant views from the parkland and by mature trees along the building’s eastern (side) elevation to the northern extent of Dunstall Road. The creation of soil the proposed quarry. These views are partly obscured by storage bunds which will be grassed over mature tree clumps within the surrounding parkland. and placed along this edge will afford an increased protection to the secondary The quarry extension will have a low magnitude of change setting of the Hall whilst quarry operations upon the setting of this high sensitivity receptor and therefore take place. Quarry operations will be the predicted impact is of moderate significance, which does temporary in nature, lasting c. 5 years prior equate to a significant impact in EIA terms. to restoration taking place. Following site restoration, any effect to the secondary setting of the building will be restored.

Listed Building The special interest of the Church is derived from its survival, As the predicted impact is of negligible fabric, age and preservation. The building’s setting is limited significance, no mitigation is considered Church of St James, Barton- to its immediate surrounds within the historic core of the necessary. under-Needwood, Grade II* village and, despite the Church’s height, does not extend to the proposed quarry extension.

The quarry extension will have no impact on the setting of this high sensitivity receptor and therefore the predicted impact is of negligible significance.

Listed Building The special interest of the Church is derived from its survival, As the predicted impact is of negligible fabric, age and preservation. The Church’s setting takes in significance, no mitigation is considered Church of St Mary, Dunstall, the surrounding churchyard and surrounding fieldscape on all necessary. Grade II* sides. There may be obscured views of the site in long- distance views from the upper Church tower, but these would only constitute a minor backdrop, and not an integral part of the setting of the building.

The quarry extension will have no impact on the setting of this high sensitivity receptor and therefore the predicted impact is of negligible significance.

Listed Building The special interest of this building is derived from its date, Whilst no significant impacts are built-form and fabric. The building’s setting is limited to the envisaged, it is worth stating that the Lower Farm, Dunstall, Grade II surrounding farm complex. There are views in several quarry operations will be temporary in directions across the proposed development area. These nature. During site working screening views will temporarily alter during the development until bunds will be placed around the farm approved restoration takes place and settings are restored. complex affording increased protection. Following site restoration, any temporary The quarry extension will have a low magnitude of change minor effect to the secondary setting of the (i.e. alteration to the setting of a built heritage feature) on the building will be mitigated by approved setting of this medium sensitivity receptor and therefore the restoration. predicted impact is of minor significance which does not equate to a significant impact in EIA terms.

Listed Building The special interest of this building is derived from its date, Whilst no significant impacts are built-form and fabric. The secondary setting takes in the envisaged, it is worth stating that the Newbold Manor, Dunstall, surrounding fieldscape, especially to the north, east and quarry operations will be temporary in Grade II south, with the building’s front elevation facing to the east. nature. Following site restoration, any There are views in several directions across the proposed temporary minor effect to the secondary development area from the building. These views will setting of the building will be mitigated by temporarily alter during the development until approved approved restoration. restoration takes place and settings are restored.

The quarry extension will have a low magnitude of change (i.e. alteration to the setting of a built heritage feature) on the setting of this medium sensitivity receptor and therefore the predicted impact is of minor significance which does not equate to a significant impact in EIA terms.

Conservation Area: The character and appearance of the Conservation Area is Whilst no significant impacts are derived from its historic group association and survival. The envisaged, it is worth stating that the Barton-under-Needwood presence of six ‘character areas’ reinforces the settlements quarry operations will be temporary in diverse architectural character. The setting of the majority of nature. Following site restoration, any buildings is focussed along Main Street, Church Lane, Wales temporary minor effect to the setting of the Lane and Station Road with a decidedly inward focus, often Conservation Area will be mitigated by toward the Church. Few buildings have an outward focus. approved restoration. The village is located on flat ground, which limits views out of the Conservation Area. In many directions hedges and mature banks of trees also restrict views out. Significant views are along streetscapes. Whilst there are occasional landscape views from parts of the Conservation Area to the proposed quarry, these are not seen as planned views. Change of this view is not seen as compromising the understanding or historic importance of the Conservation Area or its constituent parts.

The quarry extension will have a low magnitude of change on the setting of this medium sensitivity receptor and therefore the predicted impact is of minor significance which does not equate to a significant impact in EIA terms.

Conservation Area: The character and appearance of the Conservation Area is As the predicted impact is of negligible derived from its historic group association and survival. An significance, no mitigation is considered Tatenhill especial feature of the village is the narrow village street, necessary. tightly confined by its building groups. There are two main groups of settlement; the area around the crossroads and the built settlement to the north. Important views into and out of the Conservation Area are deemed to be to the north of the crossroads, looking both east and west, and not south in the direction of the proposed development. Due to topography and vegetation there are no significant views toward the proposed development site.

The quarry extension will have no impact on the setting of this medium sensitivity receptor and therefore the predicted impact is of negligible significance.

Dunstall Hall Park: Dunstall Park surrounds Dunstall Hall and is recorded as the Whilst no significant impacts are possible remains of a Medieval Deer Park relating to an envisaged, it is worth stating that the HER 20752 earlier house. The Park is not a Registered Park of Garden, quarry operations will be temporary in and is classed as a low sensitivity receptor as its importance nature. Following site restoration, any is limited by poor preservation and poor survival of contextual temporary minor effect to the setting of the associations. former park will be mitigated by approved restoration. The quarry extension will have a low magnitude of change (i.e. alteration to the setting of a heritage feature) on the setting of this low sensitivity receptor and therefore the predicted impact is of minor significance which does not equate to a significant impact in EIA terms.

Annex 1a Desk Based Assessment. Annex 1b Geophysical Assessment Annex 1c Trial Trench Assessment

P H O E N I X C O N S U L T I N G A r c h a e o l o g y L i m i t e d

ARCHAEOLOGICAL DESK-BASED ASSESSMENT

Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension Barton-under-Needwood Staffordshire

PC314c

on behalf of:

G Coates BA MIfA & A Richmond BA PhD MIfA FSA

31st August 2011 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

CONTENTS

Non-technical summary

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The commission 1.2 Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd 1.3 Personal qualifications 1.4 In connection with the commission 1.5 Methodology

2.0 LOCATION, TOPOGRAPHY AND LANDUSE

2.1 Location and current landuse 2.2 Geology and soils

3.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL FEATURES

3.1 Introduction 3.2 The proposed extension area 3.3 The regional context and the surrounds of the extension area

4.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL

4.1 Archaeological and historical potential

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Concluding statement

References

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 2 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Location of the proposed extension area

Figure 2 Historic Environment Record data on and around the proposed extension area

Figure 3 Extract from 1775 Yates Plan of Staffordshire

Figure 4 1799 John Antrobus estate map

Figure 5 1803 Township of Dunstall map

Figure 6 1804 Township of Barton-under-Needwood

Figure 7 1838 Tithe map of Barton-under-Needwood

Figure 8 1839 Tithe map of Dunstall

Figure 9 1851 Dunstall Estate Sale plan

Figure 10 Extract from 1884/7 First Edition Ordnance Survey map

Figure 11 Extract from 1902 Second Edition Ordnance Survey map

Figure 12 Extract from 1955 Edition Ordnance Survey map

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1 View towards Newbold Manor Farm, looking south-eastwards

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A HER data in and around the proposed extension area (based upon entries held by Staffordshire County Council Historic Environment Records)

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 3 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

Non Technical Summary

This baseline assessment has identified fourteen recorded sites within the proposed extension, the majority detailed as cropmarks of suggested prehistoric date. These cropmarks may represent Bronze Age activity, although it is possible that a number may relate to agricultural activity and/or former field boundaries of post-Medieval date. Lower Farm, listed Grade II, lies central to the proposed development.

The extension lies in a wider landscape of prehistoric settlement and ritual activity, centred at the confluence of the Rivers Trent and Tame, which includes Neolithic monuments, Bronze Age burials, Iron Age farmsteads and pit alignments. The immediate landscape of the site and its surrounds is characterised by the development of the agricultural settlements of Barton-under-Needwood and Dunstall along with their associated farming fields, dating from the Medieval period onwards.

The map regression shows that the extension area has changed little over the centuries. The most notable change since the 19th century has been the removal of field boundaries to create larger fields. Newbold Manor Farm (Grade II) borders the south-eastern boundary.

On the basis of current evidence the proposed extension area can be assumed to have a ‘moderate’ potential for the recovery of archaeological remains. Further evaluation may be required to substantiate this view.

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 4 PROPOSED NEWBOLD EXTENSION QUARRY

Produced with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office Licence No. AL 100030371

AGGREGATE PHOENIX CONSULTING ARCHAEOLOGY LIMITED STUDLEY HOUSE Figure 1 Site Location STATION ROAD TURVEY INDUSTRIES BEDFORDSHIRE MK43 8BH 01234 888 800 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The commission

1.1.1 Aggregate Industries UK Limited are submitting a planning application for an extension to their Newbold Quarry, Barton-under- Needwood, Staffordshire. The area under consideration covers approximately 134 hectares, and is centred on NGR SK 195190 (see Figure 1). The proposals have highlighted the need for a desk-based appraisal, which considers the archaeology of the site and its surrounds and the historical elements of the landscape.

1.1.2 This report assesses the extent of known archaeology and historic landscape development in and around the proposed extension area and discusses the likelihood of further archaeological finds being made, potential impacts of the development and the mitigation of those impacts.

1.1.3 This document forms part of the information required by the curatorial authority in order to allow for the assessment of the site on archaeological grounds.

1.2 In connection with the commission

1.2.1 All records of archaeological sites and finds that relate to the proposed extension area and its immediate vicinity were collected from the offices of Staffordshire County Archaeology Service, which maintains the Historic Environment Record (HER) for Staffordshire. Reports on previous archaeological work in the area contained in the HER files were also consulted.

1.2.2 A search was made for all readily accessible manuscript and printed maps and plans and other relevant documents held in the Staffordshire Record Office, Stafford. In addition, maps and plans were obtained from local libraries.

1.2.3 Further research of published material has been undertaken to an extent appropriate to this desk-based assessment. A full list of all sources is provided in the Reference section at the end of the report.

1.2.4 A site visit was undertaken on 21st July 2011, during which observations were made and notes taken on topography, current landuse and any visible archaeological or historical features surviving in the immediate landscape.

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 5 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

1.3 Methodology

1.3.1 The desk-based assessment has been carried out in such a way as to allow the report to be structured as follows:

Introduction

An introduction provides a summary of the physical characteristics of the area. The extension area is placed in its topographical and landuse context.

Known and Potential Archaeology

The known archaeological and historic landscape interest of the proposed extension area and its surrounds is presented and interpreted. An assessment is thereafter made of the archaeological potential of the site, taking into account features of the physical environment and other factors that may enhance or reduce the opportunities for the survival of archaeological remains.

Impact of the development

An assessment is made of the likely effect that the proposed development would have on any surviving archaeological and historical remains.

2.0 LOCATION, TOPOGRAPHY AND LANDUSE

2.1 Location and current landuse

2.1.1 The proposed extension area is located to the west of the A38, south- west of the town of Burton-upon-Trent and north of the village of Barton-under-Needwood, in east Staffordshire (Figure 1). Dunstall Road and Armitage Hill border the western limits of the site, with the northern and eastern boundary defined by the present Newbold Quarry. The Trent and Mersey Canal, beyond which lies the A38 trunk road, lies on the south-eastern limit.

2.1.2 At the time of writing the site is agricultural land with areas of arable fields and pasture. Lower Farm and its complex of farm buildings is located in the northern part of the area, with Small Meadows located to the south, both approached by access roads. Newbold Manor Farm borders the eastern boundary. The site is generally flat, bordering the elevated area of Dunstall which gently rises from the western boundary of the site. The extension lies between the 50m and 45m AOD contours.

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 6 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

2.2 Geology and soils

2.2.1 The proposed extension is located to the west of the River Trent on terrace gravels, approximately 5km to the north of the river’s confluence with the River Tame. It lies within a riverine landscape characterised by mineral workings stretching from the southern side of Burton-upon-Trent southwards towards Lichfield. The Pleistocene terrace gravel deposits generally overlie Triassic Mercian Mudstone, sandstones and Bunter Beds.

2.2.2 The soils across the majority of the site are recorded as soils of the Wigton Moor Association, with a small area of Fladbury 2 Association, in the north, and an area of Wick 1 Association, to the east (Soil Survey 1983). These soils are described as permeable fine and coarse loamy (Wigton Moor Association), stoneless clayey, fine silty and fine loamy soils (Fladbury 2 Association) and well drained coarse loamy and sandy soils, located over gravel (Wick 1 Association). Borehole data indicates that they vary in depth between 0.3 and 0.7 metres above the gravel deposits.

Plate 1 View towards Newbold Manor Farm, looking south-eastwards

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 7 Key Proposed Cropmarks N southern extension Newbold Quarry HER area Current permitted extension area Location of HER 01 record Conservation Area (see Appendix A) II Scheduled Monument Listed Building II*

15 83 54 73 84 85 82 38 39 43 61 16 17 49 66 28 81 68 7 86 6 05 04 32 53 62 51 33 07 13

31 14 11 19

18 25 48 60 24 55 36 65 47 76 12

71 69 06 70 01 09 30 08 64 29 22 10 46 02 15 58 37 87 40 74 45 52 03 50 77 26 63 41 59 75 42 44 27 78 56 34 57

20 79 35 Produced with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office 80 21 Licence No. AL 100030371

Figure 2

PHOENIX CONSULTING ARCHAEOLOGY LIMITED Newbold Quarry South, STUDLEY HOUSE STATION ROAD TURVEY Historic Environment Record data on BEDFORDSHIRE MK43 8BH 01234 888 800 and around the proposed extension area Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

3.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL FEATURES

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 Any assessment of the archaeological and historical potential of a site depends not only on an understanding of known archaeological and historical features within it, but also an awareness of the deficiencies in the archaeological record, the archaeological and historical context of the locality in which the proposed development is situated, and also an understanding of the sites’ land-use history, geology and topography.

3.1.2 It should be born in mind that the Historic Environment Record (HER), upon which knowledge of the ‘known’ archaeology of an area is based, contains records of archaeological remains that have been identified in the following ways: as surviving earthworks or other standing monuments, as cropmarks on aerial photographs, as chance finds on the ground surface and as accidental discoveries made during ground disturbance, usually associated with gardening, ploughing or construction work.

3.1.3 The collection of data for the HER is therefore random and unsystematic. Much buried archaeology does not reveal itself in the ways mentioned above. Therefore the HER is by its nature provisional and cannot be taken as a definitive list of surviving archaeological remains.

3.1.4 The following section describes currently known archaeological remains and historical features within and bordering the proposed extension area. This information is from the Historical Environment Record, information held by the Local Records Office and the field visit undertaken. Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of known sites and features.

3.2 The proposed extension area (numbers in bold refer to sites on Figure 2 and described under Appendix A)

3.2.1 There are 14 entries recorded in the HER that are within the boundary of the proposed extension area. At the southern end, a number of cropmark features have been identified on aerial photographs [01] [02] [03], including several possible ring ditches. Whilst undated, their morphology suggests a late Neolithic/Bronze Age date (c. 3,000 BC to 800 BC). The ring ditches may be the ploughed-down remains of former burial barrows, of which a number have been excavated along the Trent and Tame Valleys in recent years.

3.2.2 At the northern end of the proposed extension an expanse of cropmark linears and enclosures have also been identified [04]. Whilst undated, the HER provides them with a broad Prehistoric to Roman date (c.

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 8 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

2,500 BC to 410 AD). This is because several sherds of pottery from these periods were recovered during a nearby evaluation in 1992 (Hughes 1992).

3.2.3 A copper alloy strap fitting from a stirrup [05] was recovered during metal detecting in 2001, which probably dates to the 11th century, the Anglo-Saxon period (410 AD to 1066 AD). Further cropmark enclosures and linears are recorded along the eastern and southern boundaries of the area, but all remain undated [06], [07] [08] [09] [10] [11]. It is likely many relate to former episodes of land division, probably of Medieval and later date. Cropmarks [06] and [10] are close to the line of the former Roman road known as Ryknield Street [36] and may be related to it. To the east of Newbold Manor Farm are the remains of ridge and furrow [12], which may be associated with the cultivation of the fields surrounding the former farm.

3.2.4 Lower Farm is a Grade II Listed farmhouse [13] located within the northern part of the proposed extension. It was built in the early 19th century1 and was constructed in red brick, two storeys high and of rectangular plan. To the south-west of the farm complex is a former mill pond [14], which may have had associated buildings located nearby2.

Figure 3 Extract from 1775 Yates Plan of Staffordshire

1 First depicted on the 1838 Tithe map of Dunstall, see below. 2 Not illustrated on the cartographic evidence until 1851.

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 9 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

Historic Map Evidence for the proposed extension

3.2.5 The area of the site is illustrated on the early maps of Kip (1610) and Bowen (1749), although the scale is too small to show any detail. Barton-under-Needwood and Newbolde are depicted on the 1610 map, while Bowen labels the area as Newbold Lands on his 1749 map. The earliest available map of the area that includes the site in moderate detail is the 1775 William Yates Map of Staffordshire (Figure 3), which is also reproduced in Shaw’s 1798 ‘History and Antiquities of Staffordshire’. This map shows the area as open ground with roads to the south and west. The newly constructed canal can be seen to the east, adjacent to Ryknield Street, the former Roman road. Newbold is depicted in the central area of the site.

3.2.6 The earliest detailed mapping, which unfortunately only covers part of the southern end of the extension, is the 1799 estate map of John Antrobus (Figure 4). The Grand Trunk canal is depicted to the east, with the Barton-Walton road to the south. The village of Barton- under-Needwood can be seen to the south-west. The portion of site covered depicts a number of different fields and field shapes, some of which are still discernible today. The most notable landowners/tenants adjacent to the Antrobus estate land include William Webb, Richard Meek, Thomas Gray, Nathaniel Brown, William Bridgewood and James Edwards.

Figure 4 1799 John Antrobus estate map

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 10 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

3.2.7 The earliest map of the northern half of the site is the 1803 Township of Dunstall (Figure 5), prepared at the time of the enclosure of the landscape. The site is divided into a number of fields with an east- west aligned stream dissecting the area. The buildings of Newbold Manor Farm (labelled as Newbold House) can be seen on the eastern side of the site with Dunstall Common Lane to the north. Lower Hall Farm has yet to be built. The 24 fields shown within the northern part of the site have today been reduced to just 12.

Figure 5 1803 Township of Dunstall

3.2.8 The remainder of the site is depicted on the 1804 Township of Barton under Needwood (Figure 6). Moor Lane runs to the south of the site, the Grand Trunk canal to the east and Nettle End road, to the west. Small Meadow Lane can be seen entering the extension area in the west. The site is generally divided into larger fields, although the characteristic thin strip fields associated with the pre-enclosure farming landscape can still be seen all along the western edge, being labelled as Barton Field and Small Meadows. The buildings of Newbold Manor Farm can be seen to the north-east of the extension, along with some cottages appearing adjacent to the southern boundary and Moor Lane.

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 11 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

Figure 6 1804 Township of Barton under Needwood

3.2.9 The 1825 Dunstall Estate map shows the northern extent of the proposed extension, but is very similar to the 1803 Township of Dunstall3. There also exist updated maps4 of the John Antrobus estate, in the southern part of the site, which show little more detail than those surveyed in 1804.

3.2.10 The next set of detailed maps of the site are the 1838/9 Tithe maps of Barton-under-Needwood and Dunstall (Figures 7 & 8). The division of the site into a number of fields remains similar to those depicted in 1804, with some changes to field boundaries. On the western side of the extension, the 1804 strip fields have disappeared and large fields have been created in Barton Field and Small Meadows. Lower Farm (labelled Lower House) is depicted for the first time in the northern fields and Newbold Manor Farm (Newbold) can be seen on the north- eastern boundary.

3 There is no depiction of Lower Hall Farm or its associated entrance road on this map. 4 Surveyed in 1829 and 1835.

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 12 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

Figure 7 1838 Tithe map of Barton-under-Needwood

Figure 8 1839 Tithe map of Dunstall

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 13 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

3.2.11 The next available map is the 1851 Dunstall Estate ‘sale plan’ (Figure 9), which largely depicts the site in a similar fashion to the Tithe maps of 10 years earlier, with the occasional alteration/removal of field boundaries to create larger fields. Lower House is labelled as Lower Farm and we can see the first depiction of the mill pond [14], to the south-west of the farm.

Figure 9 1851 Dunstall Estate Sale plan

3.2.12 At the time of the 1884/87 First Edition Ordnance Survey map (Figure 10) we see that a number of field boundaries have been removed to continue the tradition of creating larger fields. Lower Hall Farm is labelled as Dunstall Fields, with Mill Pond visible to the south-west and Black Meadow Woods, to the east. An area labelled as Gravel Pits is also shown to the west of Dunstall Fields and woodland labelled as

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 14 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

Greenlane Plantation is depicted adjacent to the northern boundary. An area labelled as Nursery is also located to the south-east of the farm. The buildings of Small Meadows can be seen in the central part of the site and this is the first map that labels Newbold Manor Farm as Newbold Manor House.

Figure 10 Extract from 1884-7 First Edition Ordnance Survey map

3.2.13 The 1902 Second Edition Ordnance Survey map (Figure 11) shows no significant change from the 1884/7 edition. The field divisions remain largely the same, with only some removal of boundaries to create larger fields. Dunstall Fields farm is now labelled as Lower Farm and the south-western corner of the extension covers part of an area described as a ‘Golf Course’. This appears to be the situation at the time of the production of the 1925 Ordnance Survey edition, with the additional labelling of an Old Gravel Pit in the area of the Golf Course.

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 15 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

Figure 11 Extract from 1902 Second Edition Ordnance Survey map

3.2.14 By the time the 1955 OS edition was produced (Figure 12) a small number of field boundaries had been removed to create a field pattern close to how it survives today. The Golf Course is no longer depicted, but Lower Hall, Newbold Manor House and Small Meadows are still shown. The main differences in the recent ordnance survey mapping is the removal of a number of field boundaries to create much larger fields and the presence of the quarrying and restored lakes of Newbold Quarry to the east.

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 16 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

Figure 12 Extract from 1955 Edition Ordnance Survey map

Summary

3.2.15 The map regression has shown little landscape change over the past 200 years. Indeed, aside from the removal of several field boundaries to create larger fields, the pattern of land use appears little altered. Newbold Manor Farm is depicted c. 1800, with Lower Farm first appearing on maps of the 1830’s. Small Meadows farm is first depicted on the Ordnance Survey 1st edition of 1884.

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 17 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

3.3 The surrounds of the proposed extension area

3.3.1 No Historic Parks, Gardens or Historic Battlefields lie within 5 km of the proposed extension. The nearest Scheduled Monuments comprise an undated enclosure (ST221) [82], c.250m to the north-east, and an early Bronze Age cemetery (ST222) [29], c 400m to the east. Both these monuments have been investigated prior to gravel extraction and development, but remain as sites on the schedule. The nearest Registered Park or Garden is Stapenhill Cemetery, c.6 km to NE. The Conservation Areas of the villages of Barton-under-Needwood and Tatenhill, lie to the south and north, respectively, with the Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation zone lying on the eastern edge.

3.3.2 The earliest archaeological evidence in the region is of Mesolithic date (c. 8,500-3,500 BC) and is in the form of a flint blade found during fieldwalking [15]. It was associated with other flints dated to the later periods of the Neolithic (c. 3,500-2,000 BC) and Bronze Age (c. 2,000-1,000 BC). A further flint arrowhead of probable Mesolithic date has been recovered to the north of the proposed extension [16]. These stray finds attest to a transitory occupation of the area during this period.

3.3.3 Evidence dateable to the Neolithic period (c. 3,500-2,000 BC) is largely represented by stray finds, including polished flint and stone axes. A Neolithic stone axe discovered with an assemblage of Bronze Age flints is recorded to the north of the proposed extension [17]. Cropmark evidence along the Trent and Tame gravel terraces attests to the presence of Neolithic groups with the suggested identification of possible enclosures [18], [19], causewayed enclosures, (Alrewas and Mavesryn Ridware), cursus monuments (Catholme) and hengiform structures (Catholme)5. Evaluation of the two henges, as part of the ‘Where Rivers Meet’ Aggregates Levy project, confirmed their survival, pointing to a ‘monument complex’ at the confluence of two major rivers (Bain et al 2005). An isolated pit containing struck flints of Neolithic date was excavated recently in Barton Quarry (Coates and Richmond 2008). The assemblage included a core, flint flakes and an awl; all indicative of flint knapping activity.

3.3.4 Neolithic features have also been excavated at Whitemoor Haye (Lupton 1995, Coates 2002, Hewson 2006), Willowbrook Farm (Staffordshire County Council Report 1991) and Fisherwick (Miles 1969), although in most cases it has not been possible to identify whether the evidence relates to 'domestic' or 'ritual' activities.

3.3.5 The Bronze Age (c. 2,000-1,000 BC) is better understood, being predominantly represented by the cropmarks of ring ditches (ploughed out round barrows) which are presumed to be of that period [20] [21]

5 These are protected as Scheduled Monuments.

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 18 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

[22] [23]6 [24] [25] [26] [27]7. They are distributed throughout the region and are particularly frequent in the Tame Valley, although their highest concentration is around the confluence of the Tame and Trent (Vine 1982). Excavated examples tend to support a Bronze Age date (Hughes 1991, Ferris 1992, Coates and Richmond 2002, Coates 2002, Hewson 2006), however several ring ditches at Whitemoor Haye have turned out to be the remains of Iron Age round houses (Coates 2002). Two Bronze Age cremation cemeteries have also been excavated at Whitemoor Haye with over 100 burials being identified (Hewson 2006, WHEAS forthcoming).

3.3.6 Bronze Age domestic occupation is less easy to identify, and until recently has only been represented by groups of post holes revealed during the excavation of ring ditches, and assumed to represent the remains of structures pre-dating the barrows (Losco-Bradley 1984). Perhaps the best evidence for Bronze Age domestic activity has come from the excavations at Fisherwick (Smith 1979). Similar pit alignments have been excavated at Barton Business Park to the east (Coates and Richmond 2002), to the south-east of the settlement of Alrewas (Coates 2003) and have been recorded on air photos to the south of Tatenhill [28] (Richmond 2005). Such alignments are thought to signify territorial boundaries.

3.3.7 To the east of the proposed extension is the Tucklesholme Farm Bronze Age barrow cemetery [29] [30]. In recognition of the importance of this site, part of it was Scheduled as an Ancient Monument in 1970 (SM ST 222). Associated with the cemetery was a pit alignment, a cursus monument and an enclosure. The complex has been divided by the construction of the Birmingham to Derby mainline railway, with the scheduled area to the west, where at least four barrows were recorded, and an unscheduled area to the east, where three barrows were believed to exist.

3.3.8 A considerable amount of archaeological investigation has taken place with regard to the Tucklesholme barrow complex. An evaluation located and recorded several Bronze Age ring ditches together with a Medieval field system. In 1996 permission was given for the site to be archaeologically excavated in advance of development, during which time two barrows were excavated, together with several Romano-British pits and part of a Medieval field system (Martin and Allen 2002). Significantly, between the two ring ditches several pits were excavated and seen to contain complete Bronze Age vessels, each holding cremated human remains. In total 22 deposits were recognised which represented a flat-cremation cemetery, signifying a focus for burial rituals in the middle Bronze Age.

6 Excavated in 2011, with no dateable evidence. 7 These cropmarks were evaluated in 1991. The evaluation identified a number of potential archaeological features, but no secure dating could be afforded to them. The features were also all severely truncated by modern ploughing (Ferris and Buteux 1992).

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 19 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

3.3.9 The barrow cemetery continues to the east, under the railway line and into Tucklesholme Quarry [30]. In advance of the submission of an application for mineral extraction this cemetery area was subject to an archaeological evaluation in 1990 (Jones 1990, Hughes 1990) and an area excavation in 1991 (Hughes 1991). The evaluation indicated the presence of a round barrow, which was confirmed when the area was opened for detailed excavation (Coates et al. 2009). A large ring ditch was encountered which contained within its circuit two smaller concentric ditches. This constructional technique is recorded elsewhere and may represent the repeated re-use of a site for burial. Whilst few artefacts were recovered, and no human bone was positively identified, it is clear that the multiple ring-ditch forms part of a wider grouping of burial features in this part of the Trent Valley.

3.3.10 Further cropmarks, which may represent former field systems, enclosures and/or field boundaries dating to this period include those near Gorsehall Plantation [31] (now quarried away), near Tatenhill [32] [33], near Barton under Needwood [34] and at Millbridge [35].

3.3.11 Iron Age (c. 1,000 BC-AD 43) settlement is generally assumed to be represented by the extensive cropmark complexes which have been revealed through aerial photographic surveys as existing all along the river terraces of the region. The majority of the complexes, however, remain undated (Whimster 1989), although excavations at Fisherwick (Smith 1979) showed an extensive settlement site dateable to the Late Iron Age period and at Whitemoor Haye (Coates 2002, Hewson 2006) detailed excavation identified a similar complex which emerged during the Middle Iron Age and continued into the Romano-British period. Aside from settlement evidence a number of extensive pit alignments have been identified in the region, that are believed to represent territorial boundary markers of the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age periods (Coates 2002; Coates and Richmond 2002).

3.3.12 The nearest Roman (AD 43-410) centre, Letocetum (Wall) was occupied during the Claudian period, and appears to have been a military centre with major communication links to Wroxeter and Derby (Derventio). Outside of the centres farming communities developed and have been investigated at Fisherwick (Miles 1969), Tucklesholme Farm [30] (Martin 1998) and Whitemoor Haye (Coates 2002, Hewson 2006), although in most excavated instances the habitation sites of the Roman period do not appear to be very different from those identified during the late Iron Age. The present-day A38 follows the line of the Roman Ryknield Street [36].

3.3.13 Further evidence of activity dating to the Roman period include a possible building excavated in Barton-under-Needwood [37] and the following individual findspots:

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 20 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

 Pottery fragments, Knightley Park [38]  Urn discovered in Shobnall in 1869 [39]  Pottery and other artefacts recovered during fieldwalking in Barton in 2005 [40]  5 urns discovered in Barton, in 1783, and subsequently discarded [41]  Hadrianic Sestertius coin found by metal detecting in vicinity of Barton Turn [42]

3.3.14 Our understanding of the post-Roman Anglo-Saxon period (AD 410- 1066) is far from clear. Tamworth is known to have developed into the capital of Mercia in the 7th century and Lichfield, the successor of Wall, may have developed in to the centre for the early Bishopric of Diuma. Although it is generally thought that the area did not become densely settled until the 8th century (Gelling 1992), an extensive 7th settlement has been identified at Catholme (Losco-Bradley and Sheeler 1984, Martin 1998, Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002). This settlement included 65 buildings amongst trackways and enclosures, defined by a boundary on the gravel terrace (Losco Bradley & Kinsley 2002). Radiocarbon dates suggest that the settlement continued in use until the 9th century A.D. (ibid.).

3.3.15 Anglo-Saxon cemeteries have also been identified at Branston [43], Tucklesholme [44] and Wychnor, although their proper date and exact locations are a matter of speculation as they are all known from chance finds in the 19th century during the construction of the Birmingham to Derby railway line, with all artefacts having since been lost (VCH Vol 1 1908, Gelling 1992, Losco-Bradley and Wheeler 1984, Hughes 1991).

3.3.16 The supposed cemetery at Tucklesholme [44] was located in a ballast pit in 1851 and consisted of several urns with human bones and metal knives. Whilst it is recorded in the HER as existing close to a present day pond (thought to be the location of the ballast pit), its exact location is unknown. An evaluation took place in 1991 in the vicinity of the pond and monitored soil stripping in advance of quarrying was carried out in 2007, but no remains of archaeological significance were encountered (Ferris and Buteux 1992; Coates et al 2009). A chance find of a cast copper mount with Viking Ringerike style decoration, dating to the 10th to 11th centuries AD, was discovered by a metal detector in 2004 in the village of Barton-under-Needwood [45].

3.3.17 Barton-under-Needwood is the nearest settlement to the proposed extension and is first mentioned in an Anglo-Saxon charter dating to 941 AD [46]. It developed, however during the Medieval period (AD 1066–1539) and is mentioned in the Domesday Survey of 1086, when it was in the ownership of the King in the Offlow Hundred:

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 21 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

‘There are 3 hides with the appendages. There is land for 18 ploughs. In demesne are 2 [ploughs], and 2 slaves; and 17 villans and 8 bordars with 9 ploughs. There are 20 acres of meadow. The woodland is 2 leagues long and 1 broad. There is a mill rendering 6s. TRE (In the reign of King Edward) it was worth £6; now £7.’ (Williams & Martin (eds) 1992).

3.3.18 The village of Barton-under-Needwood developed at the centre of the surrounding agricultural landscape. Ridge and furrow earthworks and associated cropmarks survive in and near the proposed extension, which may have had origins in this period [47] [48]. There is evidence for a 13th century mill to the south of Burton [49], along with a former farmstead, Wales End Farm8, in Barton-under-Needwood [50]. Cropmarks, to the NE of Barton village, suggest an area of possible agriculture, with enclosures, trackways and a fishpond suggested [47]. A small settlement associated with the hamlet of Dunstall, appears to have existed in 1524-5, but abandoned in the 19th century, with earthworks surviving [51]. A single find of a late Medieval copper strap end was discovered in Barton-under-Needwood in 2009 [52].

3.3.19 The village of Barton-under-Needwood continued to grow throughout the post-Medieval period (AD 1540 onwards), with the surrounding landscape continuing to be exploited as an agricultural resource. A number of ridge and furrow earthworks and cropmarks appear to date to this period, probably at the point when enclosure began in the 19th century [53 - 60]. The earthwork remains of Dunstall Common Road also survives to the north of the area [61]. The landscape altered most significantly with the building of the transport links of the Trent and Mersey Canal (1771) [62], with associated bridges and locks [63] [64] and the railway line (1839-1855), both in close proximity to the site.

3.3.20 The village and surrounding landscape contains a number of Listed Buildings dating to the post-Medieval period: there are 35 Grade II and 5 Grade II* buildings. Adjacent to the eastern boundary is Newbold Manor Farm [65], a Grade II Listed 3 storey farmhouse in red-brick and dating to the late 18th century with later alterations. To the east of the farmhouse are the remains of ridge and furrow [12], which may be associated with the cultivation of the fields surrounding the former Manor.

3.3.21 Dunstall Park lies outside the western boundary of the proposed extension which is recorded as a probable Medieval deer park [66] [67]. The site of the Park’s former hunting lodge is now occupied by a splendid and substantial country house of early 19th century date [68]. The architectural importance of this building and its associated Orangery has

8 Listed Grade II*

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 22 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

resulted in them being Listed Grade II*. The park however, is not considered to be of sufficient historical merit in order to be Registered as an Historic Park by English Heritage.

3.3.22 A further landscaped park [69] is located close to the south-western corner of the site, being associated with Barton Hall [70], Listed Grade II*. Barton Hall dates to the 18th century, although its core may be earlier. A further extant landscaped park is located at The Knoll [71], to the north of Barton. Other features recorded in the HER, dating to this period, include a former watercourse [72], a former quarry near Dunstall Hall Park [73], a milepost north of Barton Turn [74] and former fishpond [75]. The site of a former salt works of early post-Medieval date lies close to the eastern extension boundary, next to Newbold Manor Farm [76]. This industrial site is believed to have opened c. 1620 and operated for about 100 years before closing down.

3.3.23 Three concrete World War II pillboxes, type FW3/24, are present within the wider landscape [77] [78] [79]. The structures are part of the inland defence network that can be traced throughout the river and rail systems of Trent and Tame Valleys.

3.3.24 There are 6 entries in the HER that are of unknown date. These include several linear cropmarks and possible enclosures [80] - [84]. A further entry relating to a house platform earthwork identified on the 1st edition Ordnance Survey map is also of unknown date [85].

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL

4.1 The Proposed Extension Area

4.1.1 It is difficult to assess the archaeological and historical potential of a site at the stage of desk-based research as there are several unknown factors that can only be estimated. In the case of the proposed extension, there are several areas of cropmarks which may be associated with prehistoric or later settlement activity. Investigations across Newbold Quarry and elsewhere in the region have shown that a large percentage of recorded cropmarks are in fact of geological origin or associated with the post-Medieval agricultural landscape.

4.1.2 One Listed Building, Lower Farm (Grade II), is contained within the extension area and another, Newbold Manor Farm (Grade II) borders the south-eastern boundary. Development may have a minor indirect impact on their settings, although this is likely to be temporary in nature and adequately mitigated by appropriate working methods and screening. Two Grade II* buildings are within 0.5km of the proposed extension boundary.

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 23 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

4.1.3 The proposed extension lies in a wider landscape that contains a number of prehistoric sites dating from Neolithic times. These include Neolithic monuments, Bronze Age burials, Iron Age farmsteads and pit alignments. The immediate environs of the site is characterised by the development of the agricultural settlements of Barton-under- Needwood and Dunstall and their associated farming landscapes, dating from the Medieval period onwards.

4.1.4 The map regression indicates that the proposed extension has largely been an open area of agricultural fields since at least the 18th century, with the construction of Lower Farm and Small Meadows during the 19th century. The larger fields that we see in the landscape today are a result of the removal of field boundaries from earlier smaller fields that are likely to have had their origins in the pre-enclosure field system.

4.1.5 This preliminary assessment considers the archaeological potential of the southern extension area to be ‘moderate’. As with the existing quarry, any perceived adverse effects upon the region’s archaeological and historical record could be adequately mitigated through a considered programme of archaeological investigation during development.

5.0 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

5.1 Extension Area

5.1.1 A wide range of sources were consulted for this study, including the local Historic Environment Record, published articles and books and manuscript documents. In addition, the site was visited for a visual inspection. It is acknowledged that the HER does not provide a definitive record of historical and archaeological features that may be present on a site, but it does provide a baseline with which to begin an archaeological assessment of potential.

5.1.2 There are 14 recorded sites within the proposed extension area, the majority of which are detailed as cropmarks of possible prehistoric date. These cropmarks may represent Bronze Age activity, although it is possible that a number may relate to agricultural activity and/or former field boundaries of post-Medieval date. Others may be geological in origin.

5.1.3 The site lies in a wider landscape of recorded prehistoric settlement and ritual activity, centred at the confluence of the Rivers Trent and Tame. This includes Neolithic monuments, Bronze Age burials, Iron Age farmsteads and pit alignments. The immediate landscape of the site and its surrounds is characterised by the development of the

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 24 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

agricultural settlements of Barton-under-Needwood and Dunstall and their associated farming fields from the Medieval period onwards.

5.1.4 The map regression shows that the extension area has changed little over the centuries. The most notable change since the 19th century has been the removal of field boundaries to create larger fields. Lower Farm, Listed Grade II, lies central to the proposed development. Newbold Manor Farm (Grade II) borders the south-eastern boundary.

5.1.5 On the basis of current evidence the proposed extension area can be assumed to have a ‘moderate’ potential for the recovery of archaeological remains. Further evaluation may be required to substantiate this view.

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 25 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

REFERENCES

Bibliographic Sources

Bain K et al. 2005 Where Rivers Meet: Landscape, Ritual, Settlement and the Archaeology of River Gravels. Catholme Ritual Landscape Ground Truthing Project 2004. Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund. BA Rep. 1214

Bain K and Richmond A 2002 Report on an Archaeological Watching Brief, Scheduled Ancient Monument ST No 221, Newbold Quarry, Staffordshire Phoenix Consulting Document PC183b

Bartlett A 1999 Catholme Farm, Staffordshire, Report on Archaeo-geophysical Survey, Bartlett-Clark Consultancy

Bartlett A 1999a Fatholme Farm, Staffordshire, Report on Archaeo-geophysical Survey, Bartlett-Clark Consultancy

Bradley R 1992 The gravels and British Prehistory from the Neolithic to the Early Iron Age, in Developing Landscapes of Lowland Britain: the archaeology of the British Gravels, a review (eds Fulford, M and Nichols, E), Soc of Antiqu Occ Papers 14, 15-22

Cane J and Cane C K B 1986 The excavation of a Mesolithic cave site near Rugeley, Staffordshire, Staffordshire Archaeological Studies No 3

Coates G 2002 Excavations at Whitemoor Haye, Alrewas, Staffordshire, British Archaeological Reports 340, Oxford

Coates G 2007 Archaeological Strip, Map and Record Interim Report. Newbold Quarry Extension, Phases 3 & 4, Barton-under-Needwood, Staffordshire. Phoenix Consulting Document PC236c

Coates G et al. 2009 Archaeological Strip, Map and Record Interim Report. Tucklesholme Quarry, Phases 2, Stocking Area & haulage Route, Barton- under-Needwood, Staffordshire. Phoenix Consulting Document PC237b

Coates G & Cherrington R 2005 Archaeological Strip, Map and Record Interim Report. Newbold Quarry Extension, Phases 1 & 2, Barton-under-Needwood, Staffordshire. Phoenix Consulting Document PC236b

Coates G and Richmond A 2002 Report on a programme of archaeological excavation at Barton Business Park, Barton-under-Needwood, Staffordshire, Phoenix Consulting Report P138J

Coates G and Richmond A 2008 Barton Quarry Phases 12 and 13, Barton-under- Needwood. Staffordshire. Archaeological strip. map and sample. Interim report. Phoenix Consulting Report P231g

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 26 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

Cox C 1998 Fatholme Farm, Barton-under-Needwood, Staffordshire, Aerial Photographic Assessment, archaeology Air Photo Services Ltd, report No APSLtd/9798/23

Cox C 1999 Land at Catholme, Staffordshire, Aerial Photographic Assessment, archaeology Air Photo Services Ltd Report No 9900/01

Cox C & Palmer R 2000 Land at Catholme (East of Railway) Staffordshire. Aerial Photographic Assessment: Archaeology Rep. No. APSLtd/9900/14

Ferris I 1992 An archaeological evaluation at Echills Farm, Kings Bromley, Staffordshire, BUFAU archaeological report 214

Ferris I and Buteux S 1992 An Archaeological Evaluation at Tucklesholme Farm, Barton-under-Needwood, Staffordshire, BUFAU archaeological report

Gaffney V and Hughes G 1993 Settlement and Environment on the South-East Stafford Gravels: new approaches to a threatened resource, BUFAU archaeological report 237

Gelling M 1992 The West Midlands in the Early Middle Ages, Leicester

Geophysical Surveys of Bradford 1991 – Report on a Geophysical Survey at Newbold, Staffordshire, Report No 91/59

Gould, J 1983 Lichfield Canal and Wychnor Ironworks in Trans. South Staffs. Arch. & Hist. Society for 1981 – 82 Vol XXIII , 109-117

Hancocks A and Coates G 1999 Catholme, Staffordshire, Fieldwalking Report (surface collection), BUFAU Report No 620

Hart C R 1975 The Early Charters of Northern England and the North Midlands, Leicester University Press

Hewson M 2003 Barton Quarry, Barton-under-Needwood, Staffordshire. An Archaeological Watching Brief 2003. PN 1105

Hewson M 2006 Excavations at Whitemoor Haye Quarry, Staffordshire 2000-2004: a prehistoric and Romano-British landscape, British Archaeological Reports 428, Oxford

Hilton C 1979 Bower Farm, near Rugeley, West Midlands Archaeological Newsletter 22 7

Hodder M A 1982 The Prehistory of the Lichfield Area, Trans S Staff Archaeol Hist Soc 12, 13-23

Hughes E G 1991 The excavation of a ring ditch at Tucklesholme Farm, Barton- under-Needwood, Staffordshire, BUFAU archaeological report 163

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 27 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

Hughes E G 1992 An Archaeological Evaluation at Newbold Gravel Pit, Barton- under-Needwood, Staffordshire, 1991-2, BUFAU Archaeological Report 197

Johnson, S 1999 Fieldwalking on Land at Fatholme Farm, Staffordshire, John Samuel Archaeological Consultants, Report No 573/99/02

Jones A E 1992 Catholme, Staffordshire: an archaeological evaluation, BUFAU archaeological report 209

Jones H 2000 Newbold Quarry, Tatenhill proposed extension – a desk-top assessment, TPAU report 2634.

Knight D and Howard A 2004 Trent Valley Landscapes: The Archaeology of 500,000 Years of Change.

Losco-Bradley S and Kinsey G 2002 Catholme: An Anglo-Saxon Settlement in the Trent Gravels in Staffordshire

Losco-Bradley S and Wheeler H M 1984 Anglo-Saxon settlement in the Trent Valley: some aspects, in Studies in Late Anglo-Saxon Settlement, (ed M L Faull), 101-114

Martin A L 1998 Report on an archaeological desk-based assessment of land at Fatholme, Staffordshire, Gifford and Partners Ltd archaeological report B1488A.02R

Mayes, P, and Scott, K, 1984 Pottery Kilns at Chilvers Coton, Nuneaton Medieval Archaeol. Soc. Monog, 10

Meeson R 1991 Archaeological evaluation, Moat Field, Hamstall Ridware, Staffordshire, Staffordshire County Council Report

Miles H 1969 Excavations at Fisherwick, Staffordshire 1968 - a Romano-British farmstead and a Neolithic occupation site, Trans S Staff Archaeol Hist Soc 10, 1-22

Richmond A 1997a Report on a programme of archaeological at Monument Staffordshire 220c, Whitemoor Haye, Alrewas, Staffs, Phoenix Consulting Report Series PC213A

Richmond A 1997b Report on first phase of archaeological fieldwalking at Scheduled Ancient Monument Staffordshire 200, Whitemoor Haye, Alrewas, Staffs, Phoenix Consulting Report Series P/104c

Richmond A 2002 Written Scheme for Archaeological Watching Brief Action, Scheduled Ancient Monument, ST No 221, Newbold Quarry, Staffordshire. Phoenix Consulting Doc. Ref. PC183a

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 28 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

Richmond A 2004 Specifications for An Archaeological Strip, Map & Record Exercise Newbold Quarry Extension Barton Under Needwood Staffordshire Phoenix Consulting Doc. Ref. PC236a

Richmond A 2007 Written Scheme Of Investigation For Archaeological Mitigation Barton Quarry (East Of Railway) Barton-Under-Needwood Staffordshire Phoenix Consulting Doc. Ref. PC 231f

Shaw, S 1798 The History and Antiquities of Staffordshire Volume 1

Shotton F W 1973 Two Lower Palaeolithic Implements from South-East Staffordshire, Trans S Staff Archaeol Hist Soc 14, 1-14

Smith C 1976 Second report of excavations at Fisherwick, Staffordshire 1973: Ice wedge casts and a middle Bronze Age settlement, Trans S Staff Archaeol Hist Soc 16, 1-14

Stone R 2005 Barn at Hill Farm, Wychnor, Staffordshire: Report on excavation and watching brief. Marches Archaeology

Stubbs, N 1987 The History of Alrewas

Vine P M 1982 The Neolithic and Bronze Age Cultures of the Middle and Upper Trent Basin, BAR 105

Watters, M S 2003 Where Rivers Meet Volume 4. Geophysical Survey at Catholme Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund Project

Webster M & Hindmarch E 2000 Archaeological Evaluation of Land at Barton Quarry, Barton-under-Needwood Staffordshire June 2000. Northamptonshire Archaeology Report

Whimster R 1989 The Emerging Past: air photography and the buried landscape, London

Williams, A & G H Martin (eds.) 1992 ‘DomesdayBook. A Complete Translation’

Cartographic Sources

1610 Kip’s County Map of Staffordshire

1749 Bowen’s County Map of Staffordshire

1775 Yate’s Plan of Staffordshire

1799 Estate Map of John Antrobus, Barton under Needwood

1803 Plan of the Township of Dunstall. Taken for the purpose of Enclosure

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 29 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

1804 Plan of the Township of Barton under Needwood. Taken for the purpose of Enclosure

1804 Plan of the Township of Tatenhill. Taken for the purpose of Enclosure

1825 Dunstall Estate Map

1829 Estate Map of John Antrobus, Barton under Needwood

1835 Estate Map of John Antrobus, Barton under Needwood

1839 Plan of Tithable Lands in the Township of Dunstall in the Parish of Tatenhill

1839 Plan of Tithable Lands in the Township of Barton under Needwood

1851 Dunstall Estate Lodge Sale plan

1884 First Edition Ordnance Survey Staffordshire 47NW (6” to 1 mile)

1887 First Edition Ordnance Survey Staffordshire 47NE (6” to 1 mile)

1902 Second Edition Ordnance Survey Staffordshire 47NW (6” to 1 mile) Second Edition Ordnance Survey Staffordshire 47NE (6” to 1 mile)

1925 Edition Ordnance Survey Staffordshire 47 NW (6” to 1 mile) Edition Ordnance Survey Staffordshire 47 NE (6” to 1 mile)

1938 Edition Ordnance Survey Staffordshire 47 NE (6” to 1 mile)

1955 Edition Ordnance Survey Sheet SK11 NE 1:10,560 Edition Ordnance Survey Sheet SK12 SE 1:10,560 Edition Ordnance Survey Sheet SK21 NW 1:10,560 Edition Ordnance Survey Sheet SK22 SW 1:10,560

2010 Digital Edition Ordnance Survey Mapping

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 30 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

APPENDIX A

INVENTORY OF KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES & MONUMENTS (based upon entries held by Staffordshire Historic Environment Record)

Abbreviations used in listing below:

HER Record NGR National Grid reference

Unk of unknown date Palaeo Palaeolithic c 500,000-10,000 BC Meso Mesolithic c 10,000-3,500 BC Neo Neolithic c 3500-2000 BC BA Bronze Age c 2000-800 BC IA Iron Age c 800 BC - AD 43 RB Romano-British AD 43-410 AS Anglo-Saxon 410-1066 Med Medieval c 1066-1500 PMed Post Medieval c 1500-present

Within the proposed southern extension

01 Cropmark. Ring ditch and ridge and furrow. Date: Neo/BA & Med/PMed NGR: SK19300 18761 HER: 01448

02 Cropmark. Ring ditch and linear features. Date: Neo/BA &Unk NGR: SK19862 18596 HER: 01470

03 Cropmark. Ring ditch and linear features. Date: Neo/BA &Unk NGR: SK2010 1835 HER: 04521

04 Linear features and enclosures identified as cropmarks from aerial photographs. The features extend across more than one field, and are probably multi-period as pottery of Roman and Bronze Age date have been recovered from the plough damaged ditches. Date: BA - RB NGR: SK19793 20326 HER: 01402

05 A copper alloy strap fitting (from a stirrup) moulded in the shape of a zoomorphic face and of probable 11th century date, recovered during metal detecting in Dunstall parish in January 2001. Date: AS NGR: SK190 200 HER: 60621

06 An incomplete rectangular enclosure of possible Bronze Age to Roman date, which was probably identified from aerial photographs.Cropmark. Ring ditch and linear features. Date: BA - RB NGR: SK20444 18856 HER: 05296

07 Cropmark. Enclosure and linear features near Lower Farm Date: Unk NGR: SK19914 20153 HER: 04007

08 Cropmark. Two enclosures and parallel linear features near Barton Turn Date: Unk NGR: SK19751 18794 HER: 01469

09 Cropmark. Possible oval enclosure, may be mark on slide Date: Unk NGR: SK20241 18801 HER: 01450

10 Cropmark. Two parallel linear features near Newbold Manor Farm Date: Unk NGR: SK20406 18738 HER: 01449

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 31 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

11 Cropmark. Linear features and enclosures identified on aerial photographs, and interpreted as the probable remains of a former field system. Date: Unk NGR: SK20073 19722 HER: 01444

12 Cropmark. Ridge and furrow. Date: Med/PMed/Unk NGR: SK20466 18960 HER: 20268

13 Lower Farmhouse,Dunstall. Grade II Listed Farmhouse. Early C19. Red brick; tiled roof, dentilled eaves; end stacks. Rectangular plan. 2- storey and gable-lit attic, 3-window front; glazing bar sashes with panted wedged heads; central entrance, painted flat pilaster surround to hood, overlight of circle and quadrant-pattern glazing bars; part-glazed 6-panel door. Date: PMed NGR: SK1980 2002 HER: 12651

14 Mill pond depicted on 1st edition Ordnance survey map Date: PMed NGR: SK19689 19899 HER: 05445

In the vicinity of the proposed southern extension

15 A collection of flint finds recovered during field walking in Barton-under-Needwood Parish before January 2005. The finds were of Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age date and included blades, scrapers, knives and flakes. Date: Meso-BA NGR: SK 180 180 HER: 60504

16 A flint arrowhead recorded to have been found in the vicinity of Branston Cottage by Molyneux, sometime before 1869. Date: Meso-BA NGR: SK 20549 20562 HER: 00905

17 A Neolithic or Bronze Age stone axe, found in the Burton area. Date: Neo-BA NGR: SK 205 205 HER: 01620

18 Cropmark evidence for an oval enclosure of probable Prehistoric date. Further circular, rectangular and linear features recorded in this area are considered to be of agricultural or geological origin Date: Neo-IA NGR: SK 2063 1956 HER: 54293

19 Cropmark evidence for two enclosures of probable Prehistoric date and for a series of parallel linear features interpreted as the possible remains of medieval field boundaries. Further, more disordered linear features of uncertain date are also recorded in this area. Date: Neo-IA NGR: SK 2070 1972 HER: 01443

20 Linear features and ring ditches identified as cropmarks on aerial photography in the area north east of Fatholme. Date: Neo-BA NGR: SK 2032 1773 HER: 01454

21 A rectangular enclosure, a probable ring ditch and a pit alignment identified as cropmarks on aerial photography. Date: Neo-RB NGR: SK 2002 1742 HER: 01455

22 A possible ring ditch identified on aerial photography to the east of Dunstall Road. Date: Neo-BA NGR: SK 1914 1873 HER: 54292

23 A linear feature of unknown date and a ring ditch circa 3000 BC - 701 BC are visible as cropmarks. Date: Neo-BA NGR: SK 2085 1792 HER: 04522

24 Linear features identified as cropmarks on aerial photography. Some of the linear features have been interpreted as the remains of ridge and furrow. Date: Neo-Med NGR: SK 2021 1933 HER: 01446

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 32 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

25 A ring ditch, pit alignment, enclosure, and (parallel) linear features, identified as cropmarks on aerial photographs from the 1970s. One of the linear features appears to be the remains of a former field boundary. The earthwork remains of ridge and furrow (possibly of two distinct periods) also survives. Date: Neo-Med NGR: SK 21280 19480 HER: 01457

26 A series of linear features and enclosures seen as cropmarks, which are probably the remains of a medieval or post-Medieval field system. Two, or possibly three ring ditches are also visible as cropmarks in this area. Part of this area is now built over. Date: Neo-BA NGR: SK 19881 18211 HER: 01471

27 Linear features, a ring ditch and a possible enclosure identified as cropmarks on aerial photographs in the area to the east of Walton Station Date: Neo-BA NGR: SK 2093 1835 HER: 01451

28 A series of intersecting linear features forming enclosures, identified as cropmarks on aerial photographs. A pit alignment is also visible on the photographs to the west of the other features. The linear features are interpreted as truncated field ditches of uncertain date. Date: Neo-RB NGR: SK 20495 20506 HER: 01403

29 The scheduled remains of a barrow cemetery at Tucklesholme Farm, identified as cropmarks from aerial photography. A number of other features, including a possible cursus and a pit alignment are also seen as cropmarks in this area. The area is now partly built over. Date: Neo-RB NGR: SK 2083 1886 HER: 0208

30 Ring ditches and associated linear features identified as cropmarks on aerial photographs from the 1960s and 1970s. Excavation has revealed that the ring ditch was the remains of a Bronze Age round barrow, with three ditches and a central pit containing a possible cremation. Date: BA NGR: SK 2108 1874 HER: 01447

31 Linear features with possible associated oval enclosure, identified as cropmarks on aerial photographs. Little survived of these features on the ground, but the possible remains of ridge and furrow was identified in this area. Date: BA-Med NGR: SK 2042 1983 HER: 01442

32 A series of linear features identified as cropmarks on aerial photographs and interpreted as the probable remains of a former field system. Excavation identified the linear features to be the remains of plough-damaged ditches of uncertain date. Date: BA-AS NGR: SK 2014 2053 HER: 01401

33 Intersecting linear features with possible associated oval enclosures identified as cropmarks on aerial photographs, which are the probable remains of a former field system. Date: BA -RB NGR: SK 20610 20159 HER: 01405

34 A linear feature and enclosure identified as cropmarks on aerial photography in the Barton Turn Farm area. Date: BA-RB NGR: SK 2020 1784 HER: 04520

35 A series of linear features (some of which represent post medieval field boundaries) and a pit alignment identified as cropmarks on aerial photography in the area to the north east of Millbridge. Date: BA-RB NGR: SK 1988 1765 HER: 01472

36 The approximate course of Ryknild Street Roman road (between Catholme and Clay Mills). Date: RB NGR: SK 229 218 HER: 05156

37 A series of features identified during a rescue excavation in 1989, and interpreted as the remains of structures of possible Romano-British date. Date: RB NGR: SK 1873 1857 HER: 04016

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 33 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

38 Fragments of pottery found in the bank of a fishpond. The pottery is described as Roman, although this may not be accurate. Date: RB NGR: SK 20551 20552 HER: 0894

39 A Roman Urn, recorded by Molyneux to have been found at Shobnall. Date: RB NGR: SK 20549 20559 HER: 0903

40 A collection of finds of Roman date recovered during field walking in Barton-under- Needwood parish before January 2005. The finds include spindle whorls, Samian ware and other pottery. Date: RB NGR: SK 180 180 HER: 60693

41 Five Roman urns, recorded to have been found in a field near the school at Barton in the late 18th century. Date: RB NGR: SK 192 182 HER: 0928

42 A coin of Romano-British date, found in the vicinity of Barton Turn. Date: RB NGR: SK 200 182 HER: 03567

43 The probable site of an Anglo-Saxon cemetery, disturbed by gravel extraction in the mid to late 19th century. Date: AS NGR: SK 2054 2054 HER: 0896

44 Several urns containing human bones recovered during the excavation of a ballast pit in the mid 19th century, interpreted as the possible site of an Anglo-Saxon cemetery. Date: AS NGR: SK 2051 1820 HER: 0917

45 A cast copper mount with Viking Ringerike style decoration, which is of probable mid 10th- 11th century in date. Recovered during metal detecting in Barton under Needwood parish in about January 2004. Date: AS NGR: SK 180 180 HER: 60586

46 A settlement, mentioned in a charter of 941. By the time of the Domesday survey the settlement had become a substantial village. Date: AS NGR: SK 18783 18595 HER: 02374

47 Extensive earthwork remains comprising of ridge and furrow field system and trackways and a fishpond. Date: Med-PMed NGR: SK 18722 19120 HER: 04082

48 The earthwork remains of medieval ridge and furrow identified from aerial photography Date: Med-PMed NGR: SK 2045 1948 HER: 20270

49 Documentary evidence for a watermill in the 13th century. The mill is reputed to have been in the area of Station Street and Moor Street, and the field name 'Moor Mill Dam' suggests the possible location in this area. Date: Med-PMed NGR: SK 20550 20550 HER: 0902

50 Wales End Farm only survives as a large detached house of timber frame construction, which is of late medieval origin. The house comprises of a hall and cross wing, the former having raised cruck truss with carved bosses, and moulded ceiling beams. This farmhouse is a grade II* listed building and formed part of the dispersed village farm. Date: Med-PMed NGR: SK 18466 18395 HER: 52596

51 A settlement referred to in lay subsidy returns from 1524-25, but which appears to have been deserted by the 18th century, and completely disappeared between 1836 and 1884. Earthworks possibly associated with former settlement have been identified in the area. Date: Med-PMed NGR: SK 18597 20251 HER: 2619

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 34 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

52 A copper alloy strap end of late medieval or early post-medieval date, recovered by chance in Barton-under-Needwood parish before January 2005. The strap end is inscribed on one (one side with 'IHS' (Greek for 'Jesus') and the other with a name. Date: Med-PMed NGR: SK 180 180 HER: 60694

53 The earthwork remains of medieval or later ridge and furrow, identified on aerial photographs from the 1960s. Date: PMed NGR: SK 18411 20289 HER: 20216

54 The earthwork remains of medieval or later ridge and furrow, identified on aerial photographs from the 1960s. Date: PMed NGR: SK 19970 21141 HER: 01366

55 The earthwork remains of medieval ridge and furrow, identified on aerial photography from 1971. Much of the ridge andfurrow was still extant in circa 1999/2000. Date: PMed NGR: SK 2142 1927 HER: 50817

56 Ridge and furrow found during archaeological excavation on land at Barton Quarry. Report dated to June 2000. Date: PMed NGR: SK 21000 18100 HER: 01452

57 Ridge and furrow of unknown date. Date: PMed NGR: SK 2087 1804 HER: 20267

58 The earthwork remains of medieval or later ridge and furrow, identified on aerial photographs from the 1960s. Date: PMed NGR: SK 18210 18242 HER: 20192

59 The earthwork remains of medieval or later ridge and furrow, identified on aerial photographs from the 1960s. Date: PMed NGR: SK 19347 18037 HER: 20194

60 Linear features identified as cropmarks on aerial photography. Some of the linear features have been interpreted as the remains of ridge and furrow. Date: PMed NGR: SK 2021 1933 HER: 54087

61 Earthworks identified during archaeological work at Newbold Quarry in 2005, which probably represent the remains of the former 'Dunstall Common Lane' Date: PMed NGR: SK 1989 2057 HER: 51540

62 A section of the Trent and Mersey Canal (between the Lichfield Road and Woodend Farm). The Trent and Mersey Canal was authorised in 1766, built by engineers James Brindley and Hugh Henshall, and opened in 1771. Date: PMed NGR: SK 1701 1625 HER: 05233

63 An accommodation bridge and canal lock dated tentatively to 1547 - 1900. Date: PMed NGR: SK 2016 1824 HER: 02912

64 A listed canal bridge over the Trent and Mersey Canal. Date: PMed NGR: SK 20624 18807 HER: 02913

65 Newbold Manor House, Alrewas. Grade II Listed Farmhouse. Late C18 with minor later alterations. Red brick; low- pitched hipped slate roof with broad soffit; brick stacks on hips; double depth rectangular plan; formal entrance to front, farm door to rear. 3-storey, 3-window front on small plinth; glazing bar sashes; gauged brick heads; height of windows reduced to upper storeys (12:12:6 panes); central entrance has painted surround of open pediment on half- round pilasters. Similar sides of 2 bays. Interior: central dog-leg staircase, open string, vase balusters, 2 per tread; segmental arch to stair hall. Date: PMed NGR: SK20375 19038 HER: 08583

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 35 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

66 Landscape Park around Dunstall Hall. Possible earlier deer park. Date: Med (?)PMed NGR: SK19046 20601 HER: 20752

67 A large earthwork bank standing immediately adjacent to Dunstall Road. The bank measures about 2 metres in height and 120 metres long and is covered with mature oaks and conifers. A stretch of about 15 metres (at about 10 metres from the north end) has been lowered, or constructed to a lower level. It is clearly man-made but its date and significance are uncertain. Alternative interpretations for the earthwork feature include the possible remains of a medieval park pale or the remains of a dam associated with the small lake behind it. The park pale interpretation seems unlikely due to lack of evidence prior to the 18th century and the size of the earthwork seems excessive for the purpose of a dam. It is therefore considered that the earthwork is most likely some kind of landscape feature connected with Dunstall Hall Park. Date: PMed NGR: SK 1954 2048 HER: 50897

68 Dunstall Hall and attached Orangery Grade II* Country house. Early Cl9, altered and extended mid-C19. Ashlar; flat roof invisible behind cornice and balustraded parapet; ashlar stacks beyond parapet. Large L-shaped plan. Garden front: to east of 2 storeys and 3:4:3 bays; raised string at first floor level; glazing bar sashes, glazing bars removed to ground floor; lower set-back central recess; 7- bay orangery attached to right; semi-circular headed glazing bar sashes. Entrance front: to south. 1850s Tetrastyle, Ionic porte cochere with parapet fretted to form "IS QUIDEDIT MIHI SERVIT"; tripartite sash to bay oven surmounted by frieze at parapet level and pediment set against attic. storey tower; pediment has coat-of-arms in a cartouche; all set against side of-early C19 house, 2 windows to left of porch and one (formerly 2) to right. Chamfered break to left end leads into late C19 ballroom wing of 7 bays and similar style, finished by 3-sided bay. The entrance set beyond the porte cochere is finely carved with low-relief hunting scenes in art nouveau style, carried across the 2 leaves of the door by Edward Griffiths, circa and dated 1898. Interior: staircase, also by Griffiths, circa 1900, depicting carved foliage and zoo animals; Roman mosaic to main hall of Cerberus and said to come from Tivoli. Date: PMed NGR: SK1905 2045 HER: 08581

69 A landscaped park lying to the east of Dunstall Road at Barton Hall (PRN: 40275). Barton park is documented in the medieval period. Date: PMed NGR: SK 19012 18869 HER: 40275

70 Barton Hall Grade II* Listed. Large house in grounds. C18, the core perhaps earlier. Brick with tiled roof, plain parapet, moulded cornice and brick stacks, some set diagonally. Two storeys. Long elevation to road having 11 sash windows and doorway in moulded wood architrave with hood on console brackets. Interior not inspected as alterations in hand at time of survey (1981). Associated landscaped park, documented in the medieval period. Date: PMed NGR: SK19012 18869 HER: 08554

71 A landscape park at The Knoll. Date: PMed NGR: SK 18403 18900 HER: 40141

72 The potential cropmark and earthwork remains of a watercourse of post-medieval date mapped from aerial photographs Date: PMed NGR: SK 1933 2185 HER: 53664

73 The site of a quarry identified from cropmark features Date: PMed NGR: SK 19260 20830 HER: 05341

74 A triangular cast iron milepost located on the A38 north of Barton Turn. The milepost gives distances to Alrewas, Lichfield and Burton Date: PMed NGR: SK 205 185 HER: 51365

75 An extant fishpond, which is of probable medieval or post-medieval date. Date: PMed NGR: SK 19105 18220 HER: 0929

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 36 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

76 The site of a salt works, recorded to have been established here in circa 1620. The salt works closed at some point in the 18th century. Date: PMed NGR: SK20369 19064 HER: 05298

77 Hexagonal pillbox (type fw3/24) near walton bridge Date: PMed NGR: SK 2136 1837 HER: 05297

78 Hexagonal pillbox (type fw3/24) on w side of R Trent. Defending walton bridge Date: PMed NGR: SK 2129 1807 HER: 05056

79 Hexagonal pillbox (type fw3/24) on w side of R Trent Date: PMed NGR: SK 2085 1772 HER: 05055

80 An enclosure and linear fature of unknown date or function, identified as cropmarks Date: Unk NGR: SK 19501 17600 HER: 01473

81 Two parallel linear ditches, seen as cropmarks on aerial photographs. Date: Unk NGR: SK 20641 20569 HER: 01404

82 A scheduled 'D-shaped Enclosure'. No evidence for the enclosure was identified during groundworks in 2002 suggesting its destruction by modern ploughing. Date: Unk NGR: SK 2020 2066 HER: 0206

83 Linear features and enclosures of unknown date and function, seen as crop marks on aerial photography Date: Unk NGR: SK 19932 21146 HER: 01367

84 A linear feature of unknown date or function, identified as a cropmark. Date: Unk NGR: SK 18673 20771 HER: 05335

85 The remains of a house platform approximately 40 metres square, which is shown on the 1st edition Ordnance Survey map of 1884. Date: PMed NGR: SK 18888 20758 HER: 05540

86 Church of St Mary. Parish church. 1852-3, by Henry Claudine for Peter Arkwright, succeeded by John Hardy, both of Dunstall Hall. Random coursed, dressed and squared Hollington stone; tiled roof with parapets. Loosely decorated style, south-west tower and spire, porch, nave, south aisle, chancel. Tower: of 3 stages on plinth with diagonal buttresses of 2 stages (gabletted to head of south west); circular stair tower set against south-east angle; broach spire on foliate corbelled cornice; quatrefoil-pattern; fretted parapet inset from eaves and linked to spire by short flying buttresses; large gabled 2-light lucarnes to each face with gargoyles at eaves. Paired pointed labelled single-light openings to bell chamber; ball flower intrados lancets to lower stages with quatrefoil opening to head of stair tower. Porch: artfully set against stair tower; steeply gabled buttresses run in the line of pitch give the impression of a triangle, labelled pointed arch, ball flower to intrados run down to short pilasters; trefoil headed south door with elaborate strap hinges; the porch has a stone tunnel vault with transverse ribs. South aisle: of 2 bays; lean-to against nave, on plinth and with string at cill level; 2-stage buttress at angle; trefoil headed lancets; paired to left and single to right of south face, 2-light pointed labelled window to east face. Chancel: of similar detail to aisle, set lower than nave, of 2 widely spaced bays; steeply pointed and labelled 2-light windows with quatrefoil tracery to head; trefoil-headed Priest door to centre. 3-light pointed East window. Lean-to vestry to north side. Interior: 4-bay nave, arcade to south; circular corbelled pilasters; vaulted tower arch, braced and boarded nave and chancel roofs; the chancel is completely lined in alabaster with tripartite stone reredos. Pulpit and font of Caen stone, the former circular and in floral diaper pattern, the latter square on 4 supports, with low relief carved sides. The stalls are fronted by blind geometric tracery. Glass: the east window is by Willement, the second south window (chancel) by Burlison and Grylls. B.o.E. Listed Grade II* Date: PMed NGR: SK 1874 2043 HER: 08584

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 37 Newbold Quarry Proposed Southern Extension PC314c

87 Church of St James. Dated 1517 and built by Dr. John Taylor, a native of the village, noted ecclesiastic, and chaplain to Henry VIII. Built of stone with embattled parapets. Nave and aisles (aisles widened C19), clerestory and polygonal apse. Nave and chancel retain original low pitched roofs. Contains several monuments, notably a good alabaster mural monument of 1691 to Joseph Sanders and a marble tablet to Edmund Antrobus (1732) and wife (1728). Listed Grade II*. Date: PMed NGR: SK 1878 1853 HER: 08552

Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd On behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 38