AJA

andrew josephs associates

consultancy | project management | expert witness

Longlands Quarry

Corntown Bri d gend CF35 5BA

OS1900

Cultural Heritage Assessment

November 2018

E:mail [email protected] ● Telephone 07990 571908

16 South Terrace, Sowerby, Thirsk, YO7 1RH

Andrew Josephs Ltd. Registered Office, Antrobus House, 18 College St, Petersfiel d, GU31 4AD. Registration no. 4547366 Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

CONTENTS

1 Introduction 3 1.1 Scope of this Report 1.2 Location and Setting 1.3 R elevant Legislation, Policy and Guidance 1.4 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria 2 Baseline 9 2.1 Methodology 2.2 Designated Heritage Assets 2.3 Historic Environment Record 2.4 Historic Maps 2.5 Site Visit 3. Impacts and Mitigation 14 3.1 Direct Impacts and Mitigation 3.2 Indirect Impacts and Mitigation 4. Assessment of Effects 15 5 . Conclusion 18

Figures (after page 19 )

Photographs (after page 25 )

Appendix A: Consultation Response

2 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

1. Introduction

1.1 SCOPE OF THIS RE PORT

1.1.1 Description of the proposed development This report has been commissioned by Quarryplan on behalf of Green Circle Aggregates Ltd, and presents the findings of a cultural heritage assessment to inform the planning application process in connection with the extension of Longlands Quarr y, Corntown, Bridgend. The proposal involves the extension of the quarry and its consolidation with the existing mineral permission at the site as well as the retention of the existing inert waste recycling operation.

The development proposals consist o f a 6.2ha lateral extension to the east of the existing quarry. The proposed extension area (PEA) would be worked to a depth of 46m AOD to match the existing floor level at the quarry. As part of the proposals, the applicant would be prepared to relinquish permitted reserves at depths below the existing floor in favour of a lateral eastern extension .

From an archaeology and heritage perspective, the eastern extension is the focus of this assessment where the development would involve disturbance of previou sly unworked land .

Cultural heritage is represented by a wide range of features that result from past human use of the landscape. These include historic structures, many still in use, above ground and buried archaeological monuments and remains of all p eriods, artefacts of anthropological origin and evidence that can help reconstruct past human environments. In its broadest form cultural heritage is represented by the landscape and townscape itself.

1.1.2 Scope of cultural heritage

The report conside rs both direct and indirect effects upon cultural heritage. Indirect effects can occur as a result of significant changes to the setting of a landscape or asset, whether permanent or temporary. This is particularly relevant to designated cultural heritage assets, such as Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Registered Parks and Gardens.

All work has been undertaken in accordance with Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Desk - Based Assessment (Institute for Archaeologists 2008) . 1.1.3 Authorship This Assessment and Heritage Statement has been written by Andrew Josephs, Managing Director of Andrew Josephs Associates, a consultancy specialising in archaeology and cultural heritage founded in 2002. He has extensive experience of all periods and facets of cultural heritage, including the authorship of over 800 Heritage Statements. He was previously Principal Consultant (Director of Heritage and Archaeology) at AMEC and Wardell Armstrong, where he started in 1992, beco ming of the UK’s first consultants in the post - PPG16 era of developer - funded archaeology. Prior to 1992, he worked as a field - based archaeologist and researcher for universities and units in the UK, Europe and the USA. He graduated with a BA (Honours) in Archaeology and Environmental Studies in 1985.

3 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

1.2 LOCATION AND SETTING Longlands Quarry is located about 500m to the east of the village of Corntown and approximately 2 km to the southeast of Bridgend in the Vale of Glamorgan.

The Ordnance Survey grid r eference for the centre of the PEA is SS 9296 770 5 and its location is shown on Figure 1 . To the north of the PEA runs the B4524 road , with agricultural fields to the east and south. The quarry adjoins the PEA to the north - west, as shown on Figure 2 .

Th e PEA lies in a rural area and occupies a location towards the peak of a hill on the southern side of the valley for the River Ewenny between elevations of 5 0 m above Ordnance Datum (m AOD) and 7 0m AOD. The surrounding land consists of areas of improved pas ture , arable cultivation , blocks of plantation woodland to the south and the large settlement of Bridgend to the north.

The underlying solid geology is composed of Friars Point limestone formation and dolomite overlain by Blue Lias shelly limestone ( BGS Geology of Britain viewer ).

1.3 RELEVANT LEGISLATION, POLICY AND GUIDANCE 1.3.1 Policy and Guidance In accordance with The Town and Country (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Wales) 201 7 the significance of an effect should be identified as part of this cultural heritage assessment. The importance of cultural heritage is clearly recognised at both national and local level s. Certain features that are deemed to be of particular importance are given legal protection through the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (Scheduled Monuments) and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Listed Buildings and Conservati on Areas) . The p lanning system has a central role to play in conserving heritage assets and utilising the historic environment in creating sustainable places. Planning Policy Wales (PPW) 2016 sets out the land use planning policies of the Welsh Government. Chapter 6 of PPW deals with planning policies as they relate to conservation of the historic environment. The Welsh Government’s objectives are listed:  conserve and enhance the historic environment, which is a finite and non - renewable resource and a vital and integral part of the historical and cultural identity of Wales;  recognise its contribution to economic vitality and culture, civic pri de, local distinctiveness and the quality of Welsh life, and its importance as a resource to be maintained for future generations;  base decisions on an understanding of the significance of Wales’ historic assets;  contribute to the knowledge and understan ding of the past by making an appropriate record when parts of a historic asset are affected by a proposed change, and ensuring that this record or the results of any investigation are securely archived and made publicly available; and specifically to:  pr otect the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Sites in Wales;

4 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

 conserve archaeological remains, both for their own sake and for their role in education, leisure and the economy;  safeguard the character of historic buildings and manage change s o that their special architectural and historic interest is preserved;  preserve or enhance the character or appearance of conservation areas, while at the same time helping them remain vibrant and prosperous;  preserve the special interest of sites on the r egister of historic parks and gardens in Wales; and  conserve areas on the register of historic landscapes in Wales. With respect to archaeological remains , PPW6 notes (paras 6.5.5 and 6.5.6) that: The conservation of archaeological remains is a material co nsideration in determining a planning application, whether those remains are a scheduled monument or not. Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings are likely to be affected by proposed development, the re should be a presumption in favour of their physical protection in situ. It will only be in exceptional circumstances that planning permission will be granted if development would result in an adverse impact on a scheduled monument (or an archaeological site shown to be of national importance) or has a significantly damaging effect upon its setting. In cases involving less significant archaeological remains, local planning authorities will need to weigh the relative importance of the archaeological remain s and their settings against other factors, including the need for the proposed development. The needs of archaeology and development may be reconciled, and potential conflict very much reduced, if developers discuss their proposals with the local planning authority at an early stage in pre - application discussions. A desk - based archaeological assessment can be commissioned by a developer (sometimes as part of a wider Environmental Impact Assessment) to provide information on the archaeological signi ficance of a site before submitting a planning application. Where archaeological remains are known to exist or there is a potential for them to survive and a study has not already been undertaken by the applicant, the local planning authority should reques t an applicant to undertake a desk - based archaeological assessment and, where appropriate, an archaeological evaluation. The results of any assessment and/or field evaluation should be provided as part of a planning application and form part of the local p lanning authority’s consideration of that application. The amount of information and analysis required should be proportionate to the potential impact that the proposal has on the significance of the archaeological remains and sufficient to determine the extent of this impact. If this information is not provided to an appropriate standard . L ocal planning authorities should consider whether it is necessary to request the applicant to supply further information, or whether to refuse permission for an inad equately documented proposal. In 2011 CADW published Conservation Principles for the sustainable management of the historic environment in Wales. This recognises that the whole of the historic environment is a finite and shared resource. Cadw therefore enc ourages an understanding of historic character to highlight the distinctiveness of urban and rural areas in Wales, and to guide decisions about their future. 5 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

1. 4 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA In accordance with the EIA Regulations the significance of an impact or effect should be identified. This is achieved using a combination of published guidance and professional judgement.

Four criteria have been considered in evaluating the significance of the residual effects of the proposed development .

1.4.1 Type of Impact Impacts may be beneficial, adverse, neutral (i.e. no discernible effect) or none. They may be permanent or temporary, of long, medium or short duration, direct or indirect. They may also be cumulative or combin ed with other effects occurring in the vicinity.

Direct impacts have a physical effect upon an archaeological site, structure or cultural heritage asset. This may lead to the partial or total destruction of that asset.

Indirect impacts of development up on scheduled monuments, listed buildings, parks and gardens and other designated asset s of the cultural heritage landscape are more difficult to assess. Consideration should include the context (or setting) of a cultural heritage asset (or place) and how w e should assess its significance. Contextual relationships may be visual, but can also be, for example, functional or intellectual.

1.4.2 Likelihood of the impact occurring An assessment is made as to the likelihood of the identified impact occurring. Pr obability is considered as certain, likely, unlikely or not known.

1. 4 .3 Sensitivity Three categories of sensitivity are identified: high, medium and low. These are expanded upon in Table 1 , below.

Table 1 Definitions of sensitivity

Sensitivity Definition

High Sites and settings of national importance . Scheduled Monuments. Registered Battlefields. Grade I and Grade II* Listed Buildings and Registered Historic Parks and Gardens. Sites may also be discovered as a result of new researc h that are also of national importance and are candidates for scheduling.

Medium Sites and settings of regional importance . Archaeological sites and assets that are not considered sufficiently important or well - preserved to be protected as Scheduled Monu ments. Grade II Listed Buildings and Grade II Registered Historic Parks and Gardens. Conservation Areas.

Low Archaeological sites and structures, and other components of the historic environment that contribute to the local landscape. Locally designated assets.

1.4.4 Magnitude The magnitude of change to a cultural heritage asset or landscape is considered in terms of its vulnerability, its current condition and the nature of the impact upon it. With respect to sub - surface archaeology, there may be a degree of uncertainty of the magnitude of change, and where this is the case it is noted. Magnitude is assessed as high, medium, small or negligible/ none and the criteria used in this assessment are set out in Table 2 , below.

6 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

Table 2 Criteria for Assessing Magnitude of Change

Magnitude of Change Description of Change

High Complete destruction of a well - preserved archaeological site, historic structure or element of the cultural heritage landscape . Change to the setting of a cultural heritage asset such that our ability to understand the resource and its historical context is permanently changed . Major contribution to archaeological and heritage research, repair or improvement to setting of a designated asset.

Medium Complete d estruction of an archaeological site or other cultural heritage asset already in degraded condition , or destruction of a significant percentage (> 20%) of an asset in a well preserved condition. Change to the setting of a cultural heritage asset such that our ability to understand the resource a nd its historical context is partly or temporarily changed . Moderate contribution to archaeological and heritage research, repair or improvement to setting of a designated asset.

Small Complete d estruction of an archaeological site or other cultural herit age asset already in highly degraded condition , or destruction of a small percentage (<20%) of an asset in a well - preserved condition. Change to the setting of a cultural heritage asset such that our ability to understand the resource and its historical co ntext is slightly or temporarily changed . Minor contribution to archaeological and heritage research, repair or improvement to setting of a designated asset.

Negligible/ None No physical effect upon an archaeological site or other asset of the cultural heritage landscape No discernible effect upon the setting of a cultural heritage asset, or our ability to understand the resource and its historical context

1. 4 .5 Assessing significance The four criteria are considered together to reach a conclu sion upon the significance of residual effects taking into account any mitigation measures. In accordance with the EIA Regulations these are quantified as significant, not significant or neutral (i.e. no change to the existing situation). They may be benef icial or adverse. In some cases it may not be possible to quantify the significance of an effect, for example due to a gap in information, and this is noted.

Table 3 presents a matrix of the inter - relationship of sensitivity with magnitude.

7 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

Table 3 Inter - relationship of sensitivity with magnitude

Magnitude High Medium Small Negligible/ None

Sensitivity High Significant Significant Not significant Neutral Medium Significant Not significant Not significant Neutral Low Not significant Not significant Not significant Neutral

8 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

2. Baseline

2.1 METHODOLOGY

As part of the desk - based assessment, the following repositories were searched for readily available information:

 The Glamorgan Gwent HER database for the locations of all known archaeology (Monuments, Events etc ) within a 1 km radius of the centre of the PEA was undertaken.

 Cadw’s listed building and scheduled monument database for the locations of designat ed sites.

R eadily available historic maps of the assessment area were consulted . A site visit was carried out in July 201 8.

2.2 DESIGNATED CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS No designated assets of cultural heritage significance lie within the boundary of the PEA . 2.2.1 Scheduled monuments One scheduled monument lies within 1km of the PEA. It is describ ed in Table 4 , below , and the location shown on Figure 3 . There is no intervisibility between the SM and the PEA due to topography and intervening vegetation. Table 4 Scheduled Monument within 1km of the PEA

SM No. Description Distance from PEA

GM585 Corntown causewayed enclosure 500m southwest The monument comprises the remains of a causewayed enclosure, dating to the Neolithic period (c4,400 - 2,300BC). The enclosure is visible as a crop mark in a field under arable cultivation and comprises multiple rings of interrupted dit ches. A large assemblage of Neolithic worked flint has been recovered from the area of the site.

2.2.2 Listed Buildings

L ocations are shown on Figure 3 .

The nearest listed buildings to the proposed extension are the courtyard range at Brocastle (ref 1945 8) and the House (1945 9), that lie about 500m east of the PEA. The former comprises part of a nineteenth century courtyard farm range probably contemporary with Brocastle House. T he latter is a Tudorbethan style stone house believed to have been built in the 1860s by David Vaughan for Adam Murray. Both are designated as Grade II. The view between these properties and the PEA is obstructed by mature trees com pletely screening views in that direction.

9 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

A further three listed buildings are present within the village of Corntown , fronting onto the main street. None of them has any sight of the PEA which is concealed by both topography and also buildings and vegetation. The furthest away from the PEA is the former Baptist church erected in 1841 (ref 11332), situated 1km from the P EA and 800m from the existing quarry. The next building is the Corntown Farmhouse (ref 19455) which includes some fourteenth century elements ; it lies about 1km from the PEA and 650m from the existing quarry. Corntown Court (ref 11363), a seventeenth or ei ghteenth century house remodelled in the mid nineteenth century, is 550m from the existing quarry and 900m from the PEA and is located behind a high and mature range of trees and shrubs .

2.2.3 Other Cultural Heritage Assets Within Corntown, just over 1.4 km from the existing quarry and 1.7 km from the PEA, is the historic park and garden of Ewenny Priory. The nearest conservation area is Colwinston Tregolwyn, about 2km southeast of the PEA. There is no intervisibility between either and the PEA due to top ography .

2. 3 HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT RECORD (HER)

A search of the regional Historic Environment Record ( HER ) revealed 11 known and recorded cultural heritage sites within a 1 km radius of the centre of the PEA ( Figure 4 ). The sites are set out in Table 5 be low .

Table 5 HER Entries within 1km of the PEA

PRN NGR Name Description (SS)

00402 9215 Chapel at A chapel is depicted on Rees’s map of Wales and the borders in the C14th 7738 Corntown but no trace could be identified on Tithe and Estate maps and there are no remains or associated field names

00868 926 Corntown Aerial photographs revealed what appears to be 3 concentric enclosures 765 enclosure each formed of a different number of close set ditches. An inner egg shaped enclosure defined by a singl e narrow ditch is 199 x 218m. Flints recovered from fieldwalking include leaf shaped arrowheads (4), arrowhead fragments (4), scarpers, polished axe fragments, over 300 pieces of flint knapping debitage. All are consistent with a Neolithic date

00869 92 45 Corntown Farm L - shaped earthworks and associated quarrying on N slope near Corntown 7725 Farm

00871 9275 Corntown Farm A roughly circular earthwork with a diameter of c 60m, at Corntown Farm. 7645 (Causewayed Corntown causewayed enclosure dates to the Neolithic and is visible as a enclosure GM585) cropmark of multiple rings of interrupted ditches. Site scheduled in 2004

01249 929 Brocastle Ridge and furrow was noted under permanent pasture at BroCastle near 775 Corntown

01791 9250 Corntown Farm A post medieval or earlier farm situated off the Heol - y - Cawl, Corntown. 7678 The house has early arch and cusp - headed windows which were probably originally fitte d with iron bars and had internal rebates for shutters 10 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

02213 92000 Corntown Court A house of C17 or C18 origins constructed of lime washed rubble, 77410 rendered side and rear and with a Welsh slate roof. Remodelled in mid C19. Said to be the dowager hous e to St Donats

02237 91971 Corntown A baptismal pool opposite Corntown Well 77371 baptismal pool

02484 9245 Hollow way The site of the L - shaped earthwork and adjacent quarrying (00869) is 7725 approached by a sunken lane from the NW

02486 9254 Post medieval Post medieval barn or shed at Corntown Farm 7645 barn

03139 925 Arrowhead Arrowhead 764 findspot

Apart from the records associated with the causewayed enclosure there do not appear to be any other prehistoric remains within the study area.

The modern A48 and the B4524 where they pass the existing quarry are identified as being on the line of a Roman road (RR60c) 1 between Cardiff and Neath , but no Roman remains are recorded in the vicinity of this line within the study area. About 2km from the PEA a section of agger 200m long was recorded 2 (RCAHMW 1976, 107) and there is also a record of an unpublishe d excavation 3 ‘ close to the correct line of sight ’ but no details are available.

The majority of HER entries are of medieval or later date and in general relate to buildings such as the farms or industrial activities , including quarrying . An area of ridge and furrow may be a relic of the medieval agricultural landscape. The Baptismal pool at the east end of the village of Corntown is of note but of post medieval date.

2.4 HISTORIC MAPS

The historic maps show a very static landscape of rectangular fields in the nineteenth century that continued almost unchanged through the twentieth century . T he following historic maps were consulted as part of the desk - based assessment:

 1900 1:10,560 OS Map ( F igure 5 )

 1921 1:10 , 560 OS Map

 19 51 1:10 , 560 OS Map

The 1900 map shows Old Quarries and Lime Kiln within the PEA. A further Old Quarry is marked to the north of the road from the PEA .

1 Sherman A & Evans E 2004 Roman roads in Southeast Wales: desk based assessment with recommendations for fieldwork GGAT rpt 2004/073 2 RCAHMW 1976 An inventory of the ancient monuments in Glamorgan Vol I, part II, The Iron Age and Roman occupation 3 RCAHMW 1994 Roman Roads in Wales, a handlist based upon the archive holdings of the RCAHMW 11 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

The 1921 map shows the location of ‘ Old Limekil n ’ within the PEA , suggesting it was short - lived . By 1951 the present quarry was operating, although smaller than it is at present. The old quarries are shown but no longer labelled , but the Old Limekiln continues to be both marked and labelled, perhaps because it was a visible feature.

Apart from the site of the lime kiln , n one of the historic maps consulted as part of the desk - based assessment show any features of archaeological interest within the PEA .

2. 5 SITE VISIT

2.5.1 Methodology

The site visit was carried out on Thursday 5 th July 2018 by Ian Meadows of Andrew Josephs Associates. The aims of the visit were to:

 assess the historic and archaeological sites identified during the assessment of documentary, cartographic and photographic sources ;

 assess the condition of any unrecorded archaeological sites within the development area and the potential impact of development up on them ;

 assess the potential of the development area to yield new and unrecorded archaeological sites.

2. 5 .2 Results

The site visit was undertaken in bright sunshine.

The three land parcels that occupy the area of the PEA were under ley . The ground dip s to the north and east. No earthworks were noted in the surface of the fields and the site has been regularly ploughed .

The site of the ‘ Old Limekiln ’ i s an area of rough grass extending out into the field from the field boundary and close examination showed a large number of limestones between 0.15 - 0.3m across. None of the stones were in situ, nor obviously mortared or b urnt , P hotographs 1 - 2 .

The site visit located no previously unrecorded archaeological features.

12 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

3. Impacts and Mitigation

3 .1 DIRECT IMPACTS AN D MITIGATION The nature of mineral extraction results in the total loss of the archaeological resource whereve r extraction takes place, and the potential loss or damage in other areas associated with infrastructure and landscaping. The findings of the desk - based assessment and site visit would point to a low potential for archaeology within the PEA. L and - use, and in particular past ploughing , would indicate that any archaeology present will have been truncated . Planning guidance recognises that, should archaeology of less than national importance be identified, an acceptable alternative is preservation by record through archaeological excavation, recording, analysis and publication appropriate to significance of the archaeological resource. This would be achieved by the undertaking of an archaeological watching brief during development. Consultation with the Archaeological Planning Officer, Glamorgan - Gwent Archaeological Trust, as adviser to Vale of Glamorgan Coun cil, confirms that this approach is acceptable should consent be granted ( Appendix A ). R ecording of the limekiln, supported by documentary research, would also be undertaken. The mitigation strategy would be formalised within a Written Scheme of Investiga tion submitted to Vale of Glamorgan Council for approval before development commenced .

3 .2 INDIRECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Indirect impacts are those that do not physically affect a cultural heritage asset or landscape, but that alter the context or sett ing. One scheduled monument ( a Neolithic causewayed enclosure ) lies 500m to the southwest of the PEA. For reasons of topography there is no direct line of sight from the majority of the field containing the SM. From the northern edge of the SM views are p revented by hedges around the PEA and vegetation between the SAM and PEA Photographs 3 and 4 . There would be no effect upon its setting from the proposed development and a detailed assessment has therefore not been carried out. Five listed buildings are si tuated within 1km, the nearest being Brocastle, 500m east and Corntown Court, 550m from the existing quarry and 900m from the PEA in a westerly direction . None has views of the existing quarry or the PEA due to topography and vegetation , Photographs 5 and 6 .

No mitigation is required in relation to designated cultural heritage assets.

13 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

4. Assessment of Effects

4 . 1 EVALUATION OF THE S IGNIFICANCE OF PREDI CTED EFFECTS In accordance with the EIA Regulations the significance of an effect should be identified. This is achieved using the methodology set out in section 1.4, above. The results of the evaluation of significance are drawn together in Table 6 , below, together with the rationale behind the evaluation.

14 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

This page is blank to allow back to back printing

15 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

Table 6 Effects and Evaluation of Significance

Effect Type of Effect Probability of Effect Sensitivity Magnitude of Effect Significance Rationale Occurring

Direct effects upon statutorily None Certain High None Neutral There will be no direct effects upon statutorily designated assets of the historic designated features. environment

Indirect effects upon statutorily None Certain High - Medium None Neutral A s a result of topography , intervening designated assets of the historic vegetation and distance there would be no environment adverse effects

Direct effects upon archaeology Negative Not known Low Medium Not significant The findings of the desk - based assessment and within the P E A site visit would point to a low potential for archaeology within the PEA. Land - use, and in particular past ploughing, would indicate th at any archaeology present will have been truncated. Consultation with the Archaeological Planning Officer, GGAT has confirmed that preservation by record through archaeological excavation, recording, analysis and publication of any archaeology recovered during a watching brief is acceptable mitigation should consent be granted (Appendix A). Recording of the site of the limekiln, supported by documentary research, would also be undertaken.

17 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

5 . Conclusion

Information gathered from the desk - based assessment and site visit has been assessed within the framework of national planning policy and guidance, and the significance of the findings assessed against the EIA Regulatio ns criteria . Having regard to the baseline conditions, the nature of the proposed development and the proposed measures that would be effective in mitigating the impacts of the scheme, there would be no significant residual effects upon known cultural heri tage assets. The proposed development therefore fully accords with planning policy, and in particular, Chapter 6 of Planning Policy Wales (2016).

18 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

Figures

19 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

Figure 1 Location of Proposed Extension Area (PEA) © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Licence number 100043831

20 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

Figure 2 Proposed Extension Area

21 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

Figure 3 Designated Assets within 1km of the PEA Base ph oto © Google 22 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

Figure 4 HER Entries within 1km of the PEA Base photo © Google

23 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

Figure 5 Ordnance Survey 1900

24 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

Photographs

25 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

Photograph 1 Site of Lime Kiln shown on OS 1900

Photograph 2 Stone rubble at site of lime kiln 26 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

Photograph 3 View towards PEA (not visible, arrowed) across scheduled monument GM585

Photograph 4 View from boundary of PEA towards scheduled monument GM585 (not visible, arrowed)

27 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

Photograph 5 View towards PEA (not visible, arrowed) from entrance to Brocastle

Photograph 6 View towards PEA (not visible) from outs ide curtilage of Corntown Court

28 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

Appendix A

Consultation Response

29 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Longlands Quarry : Cultural Heritage Assessment. November 2018.

From: Judith Doyle

Sent: 05 June 2018 14:53 To: Andrew Josephs Subject: RE: Longlands Quarry, Corntown , Bridgend

Dear Andrew

Many thanks for this.

I can’t see that we were consulted by VoG on this, and I can’t see a site boundary in anything as there are no details on the VoG website. We had responded when the area east of the quarry was a candidate site in the LDP consultation. In our response to that we noted that the northern border of t he site is noted as a Roman road, and there is a lime kiln in the southern hedge, and that mitigation by condition would be appropriate.

You may wish to ask VoG if an evaluation is what they really require, but we would be content with a WSI for recordin g the kiln if it is affected by the proposal, and a watching brief as there are flints recorded in the wider area and the Corntown Causewayed Enclosure (SAM) is c550m south west.

Hope this helps, let me know what develops. Our file ref is VOG1199.

Kind regards

Judith

Judith Doyle BA MBA MCIfA

Archaeological Planning Officer

Glamorgan - Gwent Archaeological Trust Ltd

Heathfield House

Heathfield

Swansea

SA1 6EL

30 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

consultancy | project management | expert witness

Specialists in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ~ T elephone 07990 571908 - Visit our website at www.andyjosephs.co.uk