Archaeology Desk Based Assessment

GW Heritage April 2021

ARCHAEOLOGICAL DESK-BASED ASSESSMENT

Oxford Brookes University Clive Booth Student Village

Prepared by GWHeritage

on behalf of Oxford Brookes University

15-04-2021

Esther Robinson-Wild, Hannah Sims and Prepared by: Gerald Wait

Approved by: Gerald Wait Date: 24-03-2021 Final Issue 15-04-2021 Revised red line boundary

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0.1 Oxford Brookes University has commissioned GWHeritage to prepare an Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment as a Technical Annexe for the Environmental Statement for an area of land off Marston Road – the Clive Booth Student Village of Oxford Brookes University (hereafter the ‘Site’ see Figure 1). The Assessment has been commissioned to accompany a planning application for a proposed student accommodation and associated access and landscaping at the Site. The Assessment is only concerned with buried archaeological remains – issues of listed buildings and conservation areas – the built assets of the historic environment – are considered in ES chapter 5.

1.0.2 The Site, consists of a series of student accommodation blocks – the existing layout is shown in Figure 2 below.

1.0.3 The aim of this assessment is to determine, in so far as is reasonable by desk-based research, and a site visit, the presence or absence of archaeological assets and the character, survival and state of preservation of such assets on and near the Site.

1.0.4 The assessment comprises an examination of data obtained from the Oxford Historic Environment Record (OHER), Oxford Archives and Records Service, and other source repositories as appropriate, and incorporates other available published and unpublished data obtained from web-based sources including the Archaeological Gateway, PastScape and Historic England’s National Archaeological List for England (‘NHLE’) databases. A Site visit was conducted on the 22 August 2017 in dry, bright conditions with good light quality under overcast skies. The OHER was originally acquired in 2017 and a second complete search was done in January 2021.

1.0.5 The Assessment Area was drawn up to include an initial review of known archaeological assets, both designated and non-designated, within the Site and a 500m radius of its deemed centre at NGR: SP529067. Based on the research undertaken for the assessment, this report highlights any potential direct and indirect impacts to any archaeological assets and provides options for appropriate measures for the treatment of known or suspected archaeological assets within the framework of the planning process. This report has been prepared in accordance with The Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment (2017) excepting that only buried archaeological assets are considered.

1.0.6 There are no registered World Archaeological Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Registered Parks and Gardens or Registered Battlefields wholly or partly within the Site or the 500m radius Assessment Area established for the purposes of this report. There are no Listed Buildings within the Site. The Site does contain a record of an archaeological investigation by OA (2001) which revealed a 19th century farm structure, and within the Assessment Area there are 4 other archaeological investigations which produced no significant results and one which produced Roman ceramics (possible amphora support rings?). The walk-over survey did not reveal anything of archaeological note, but did confirm that the existing Clive Booth Student Village would, during its construction, have involved very extensive ground works likely to have disturbed, if not entirely destroyed any archaeological remains that may have been present.

1.0.7 Due to the separation distance, the intervening landform and the characteristics of the built environment the proposed development on the Site would not lead to any direct or indirect impact on the designated archaeological assets or their settings.

1.0.8 GWHeritage reserves the right to amend, add or remove any elements of this document to respond to the publication of any new evidence, policy, guidance, etc. after the submission of the planning application.

2.0 LEGISLATIVE AND PLANNING POLICY BACKGROUND

2.1 National Planning Policy Framework

2.0.2 The place of heritage assets (such as non-designated archaeological sites and scheduled monuments) within the planning system is governed by Section 16 (‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘NPPF’) (2012, Revised 2018, Updated 2019). In the discussion below policy clauses not directly relevant to the proposals under consideration, e.g. pertaining to designated assets, have been omitted.

2.0.3 The NPPF sets out land-use planning principles which should underpin both plan-making and decision-taking. Central to the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. At a very high level, the objective of sustainable development can be summarised as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three interdependent overarching objectives, these being economic, social and environmental. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are required to take account of viability, design, well-being and the protection and enhancement of the historic environment, amongst others. This should allow for any proposals to be considered in the context of the overarching objectives which lead to the achievement of sustainable development.

2.0.4 Section 16 ‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’ sets out the policies relating to conserving and enhancing the historic environment. It directs that heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations.

2.0.5 The NPPF defines ‘Heritage Assets’ as “A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest.”

2.0.6 The definition extends to both designated heritage assets and non-designated heritage assets, the latter being those which are identified by a local planning authority as having local interest, and sometimes recorded as being of such through local listing.

2.0.7 Non-designated heritage assets are more specifically dealt with under the Planning Practice Guidance (‘PPG’) (2019), a supplementary guidance document to the NPPF in which it states, “These are buildings, monuments, sites, places, areas or landscapes identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, but which are not formally designated heritage assets. In some areas, local authorities identify some non-designated heritage assets as ‘locally listed’.” The PPG contains a section on the historic environment that provides advice on enhancing and conserving the historic environment, and viable uses for heritage assets; sets out the approach to assessing harm to heritage assets; and details what is meant by the term public benefits in the context of development, amongst others.

2.0.8 The following paragraphs from Section 16 of the NPPF are particularly relevant and are quoted in full: Paragraph 189. “In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum, the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.” Paragraph 190. “Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.” Paragraph 192. “In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.” 2.0.9 In considering any planning application for development, the local planning authority must have regard to the national policy framework detailed in the NPPF and other material considerations.

2.0.10 With respect to local policy, the Adopted Oxford Local Plan 2036 (adopted June 2020) is the statutory document against which planning decisions are made in the Oxford City area. The policies relating to archaeological assets and those relevant to the application for the site are reproduced below.

Policy DH4: Archaeological remains Within the City Centre Archaeological Area, on allocated sites where identified, or elsewhere where archaeological deposits and features are suspected to be present (including upstanding remains), applications should include sufficient information to define the character, significance and extent of such deposits so far as reasonably practical. This information should include: a) a Heritage Assessment that includes a description of the impacted archaeological deposit or feature (including where relevant its setting), an assessment of its significance and the impact of the proposed development on its significance, in all cases using a proportionate level of detail that is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal. The Statement should reference appropriate records (including the information held on the Oxford Historic Environment Record); and b) if appropriate, a full archaeological desk-based assessment and the results of evaluation by fieldwork (produced by an appropriately qualified contractor. Pre- application discussion is encouraged to establish requirements). In the City Centre Archaeological Area where significant archaeological asset types can be shown to be subject to cumulative impact from development, the desk-based assessment should contain appropriate contextual assessment of this impact. Development proposals that affect archaeological features and deposits will be supported where they are designed to enhance or to better reveal the significance of the asset and will help secure a sustainable future for it. Proposals which would or may affect archaeological remains or features which are designated as heritage assets will be considered against the policy approach as set out in Policy DH3 above. Archaeological remains or features which are equivalent in terms of their significance to a scheduled monument are given the same policy protection as designated heritage assets. Proposals which affect the significance of such assets will be considered against the policy test for designated heritage assets set out in Policy DH3 above. Subject to the above, proposals that will lead to harm to the significance of non-designed archaeological remains or features will be resisted unless a clear and convincing justification through public benefit can be demonstrated to outweigh that harm, having regard to the significance of the remains or feature and the extent of harm. Where harm to an archaeological asset has been convincingly justified and is unavoidable, mitigation should be agreed with Oxford City Council and should be proportionate to the significance of the asset and impact. The aim of mitigation should be where possible to preserve archaeological remains in situ, to promote public enjoyment of heritage and to record and advance knowledge. Appropriate provision should be made for investigation, recording, analysis, publication, archive deposition and community involvement.

3.0 LOCATION, GEOLOGICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND

3.1.1 The Site is situated off Marston Road, via John Garne Way, in east-north-east Oxford. The British Geological Survey identifies, at 1:50 000 scale, bedrock as: Beckley Sand Member - Sandstone. Sedimentary Bedrock formed approximately 156 to 161 million years ago in the Jurassic Period. Local environment previously dominated by shallow seas. Setting: shallow seas. These rocks were formed in shallow seas with mainly siliciclastic sediments (comprising of fragments or clasts of silicate minerals) deposited as mud, silt, sand and gravel. The superficial deposits are not mapped. 3.1.2 The site at present is dominated by some 14 accommodation buildings, most of 3 storey brick construction, with semi-mature landscaping, streets, pavements, and all the service infrastructure appropriate to a large complex of university accommodation, with an urban, scholastic character.

3.1.3 The topography is locally complex as a result of the current buildings, but in general the Site is on a hill-top and slope, which slopes down to the west-south-west to the River Cherwell.

Figure 1 Site Location Plan

Figure 2 Site Plan 4.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 The following section is a summary of the historic environment data found within a 500m radius of the Site, this wider area is referred to as the ‘Assessment Area’. The data has been compiled from the Oxford Historic Environment Record (OHER), Oxfordshire Archives and Records Services, and other documentary and cartographic sources. The data collected is considered to provide a good indication of the character, distribution and survival of any potential archaeological assets within and near the Site and helps define its significance. The locations of the identified archaeological assets and recording events within the Assessment Area are shown in Figure 3 below and are also detailed in a gazetteer embedded within the figures and in text section 4.2 – 4.4 below.

4.1.2 In summary, The OHER records six designated archaeological assets (UIDs: 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) within the Assessment Area, one of which are recorded within the Site (12, the 19th century farm structure investigated in 2001). There are no recording events (find spots or aerial photographs) for the Site but there are five within the Assessment Area.

4.1.3 There are no World Archaeological Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Registered Parks and Gardens or Registered Battlefields wholly or partly within the Assessment Area. The nearest Scheduled Monument – Oxford City Walls – is located c. 800m to the west but the intervening topography and built environment means the Site, in its current form, makes no positive contribution to the heritage significance of the Oxford City Walls and the proposed development at the Site would not harm the heritage significance of the Oxford City Walls as there would be no adverse impact to its setting.

Figure 3: Location of Historic Environment Records (HER) Data – Monuments and Finds Archaeological Assets and Interventions

Note the purple square is the geographic designation for Oxford’s Civil Ware defences, asset number 3

Figure 3: Richard Davis Map, 1797

4.2 Prehistoric Period: Palaeolithic (500,000 - 12,000 BC), Mesolithic (12,000 – 4,000 BC) and Neolithic (4,000 – 1,800 BC), Bronze Age (1,800 - 600 BC), Iron Age (600 - 43 AD)

4.2.1 There are no known archaeological deposits from the Prehistoric periods within the Site nor within the Assessment Area and it is considered that the likelihood of archaeological remains from this period to be present on the Site is very low.

4.3 Romano-British Period (43- 410 AD)

4.3.1 The find spot number 2 on Figure 3 above is for a likely Roman period ceramic find, possibly amphora rings. However, this is of limited significance on its own, and the absence of archaeological material relating to this period prevents any general assessment of the type and extent of settlement, if any, in the vicinity of the Site. The absence of known remains of this period within the Site suggest that there is a low likelihood that artefacts or archaeological deposits dating to this period extend into the Site.

4.4 Saxon/Early Medieval Period (410 - 1066 AD)

4.4.1 There is evidence of early Saxon settlement within the county, and of course within Oxford city, but none within the Site or the Assessment Area. There are no confirmed archaeological remains from the Saxon/early Medieval period recorded or known within the Site and this suggests that there is a low probability that artefacts or archaeological deposits dating to this period extend into the Site.

4.5 Medieval Period (1066 - 1485 AD)

4.5.1 Analysis of historic cartographic sources and the extant settlement pattern indicates that there are no known nuclei of Medieval activity within or adjacent to the Site or the Assessment Area. The known field patterns are not suggestive of an early, medieval origin. The first historical reference to the village is in the Domesday Survey and the entry suggests that it was a settlement of some significance in economic terms.

Domesday data created by Professor J.J.N. Palmer, University of Hull Built with open source: PostgreSQL, PostGIS, GeoDjango, and OpenStreetMap.): The King holds HEDINTONE. 10 hides there. Taxable units: Taxable value 10 geld units. Now in lordship 6 ploughs. 20 villagers with 24 Payments of 20.12 miscellaneous. smallholders have 14 ploughs. Value: Value to lord in 1086 £60. Two mills at 50 shillings, five fisheries at 20 Households: 20 villagers. 24 smallholders. shillings Ploughland: 6 lord's plough teams. 14 men's From the meadows and pastures £4. From the plough teams. year’s corn £8. Other resources: 2 mills, value 2.5. 5 From “half-week” 30s. From church tax 10s 6d. fisheries. From other customary dues 100s and 25d. Lord in 1066: King Edward. The Jurisdiction of two Hundreds belongs to this Lord in 1086: King William. manor. Richard of Courcy withdraws for himself Tenant-in-chief in 1086: King William. [the Jurisdiction] of 16 hides. Phillimore reference: 1,2 In total, it pays £60 [a year at] face value.

4.5.2 During this period, there is no archaeological evidence that the Site was occupied by buildings, being outside of the historic village core. The presence of possible agricultural activity of the medieval period does not necessarily suggest that there is a probability that artefacts or archaeological deposits dating to this period are present within the Site. It is considered that the likelihood of archaeological remains from this period to be present on the Site is very low.

4.6 Post Medieval Period (1486 – Present)

4.6.1 The landscape of the Assessment Area experienced very little change during the post- medieval period and specifically up until the mid-late 20th century with historic cartographic evidence (Figures 4 – 15) indicating limited development within the vicinity of the Site and the student village. A narrative of this later post-medieval period in much greater detail can be found in the heritage report by Worlledge Associates (2021) included within the ES.

4.6.2 In the post-war period and more recently, the Site remained in agricultural use until c. 1994 (the 1994 map was not available for reproduction). Thereafter the existing Student Village complex was built.

Figure 5: OS Surveyor W Stanley 1814

Figure 6: Bryant’s Map 1823

Figure 7 OS surveyed 1876, published 1887

Figure 8: OS map rev 1898 published 1900

Figure 9: Ordnance Survey rev 1911 published 1922

Figure 11: Ordnance Survey rev 1938 published c. 1947

Figure 12: Ordnance Survey, 1947

Figure 13: Ordnance Survey, One-inch 1959

Figure 14: Ordnance Survey, 1: 25,000, 1960

Figure 15: Google Aerial Photograph,2004

Figure 16: Google Aerial Photograph, 2009

Figure 17: Google Aerial Photograph, 2017 5.0 ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

5.1 Significance of Heritage Assets

5.0.2 The archaeological remains associated with the above are classified as non-designated heritage assets. An assessment of the significance of these heritage assets includes consideration of the archaeological, historic, architectural, and artistic interests pertaining to them (The Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, 2014). The glossary attached to Planning Practice Guidance defines significance (for heritage policy) as the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.

5.0.3 Assessing the of significance of heritage assets is to a great extent based on knowledge of the asset type, a comparison with what exists elsewhere, and the extent to which it may be distinctive or have special meaning for different groups of people. The incorporation of a values-based benchmark within the assessment helps to ensure a consistency of approach when determining significance in the context of managing change to significant places. http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/policy/achieving- sustainabledevelopment/annex-2-glossary/ The following categories have been used to define the significance (importance) of the identified heritage assets.

Table 1 Defining significance or importance of assets

Significance / Description Importance

International Archaeological sites or monuments or landscapes of international significance and listed on the World Heritage Site List, or other sites Very Important monuments or landscapes of comparable quality

National Importance / Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings Grade 1, archaeological Significant sites or assets of comparable quality, Registered battlefields, Registered Parks and Gardens

Regional/County Conservation Areas and archaeological sites and remains which are not of national importance, historic landscapes of regional/county Medium importance Listed Buildings Grade II Local Archaeological sites that are of local importance, historic buildings on Local Lists or of, historic landscapes of local importance Not significant

Negligible Areas in which investigations have produced no or only minimal evidence for archaeological remains or where previous large-scale Not significant disturbance or removal of deposits can be demonstrated.

Unknown Archaeological sites whose importance cannot be determined with the information currently at hand. This can include sites where the extent of buried remains is unknown.

5.0.4 Considering the archaeological, historic, architectural and artistic interests and the value of the heritage assets to this and future generations it is concluded that the known and suspected heritage assets on the site, specifically those of the Prehistoric, Medieval and Post-Medieval Periods, are of Local Significance. This is considered on the basis that there is limited potential for future archaeological discoveries of the Prehistoric, Roman, and Saxon / Early Medieval periods within the site to contribute to the Solent-Thames (regional) Archaeological Framework.

5.2 Impact or Harm to Significance

5.0.5 The CIfA Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-based Assessment (2014) considers that an assessment of the cultural heritage significance of heritage assets should identify the potential impact of proposed or predicted changes on the significance of the asset, and the opportunities for reducing that impact. Paragraph 190 of the NPPF (Revised 2018) states that this evidence should be taken into account when considering the impact of a proposed development.

5.0.6 The level of harm to cultural heritage significance is the basis of assessing the significance of impact. In order to assess the level of harm from potential impact on cultural heritage assets, consideration has been given to:

• Assessing impacts in detail and the significance of the effects arising from the proposed development; and • Reviewing the evidence for past impacts that may have affected the heritage assets or their settings.

5.0.7 Key impacts are defined as those that would potentially harm the cultural heritage significance of the heritage asset and so consideration is afforded to the heritage values of the assets (see statement of significance Section 8). 5.0.8 The level of harm is often difficult to define. However, substantial harm is taken to be ‘total loss of significance of a heritage asset’ which implies loss of the asset, loss of its heritage values and and/or its setting.

5.0.9 Furthermore, Planning Practice Guidance states that ‘even minor works have the potential to cause substantial harm.’ It goes on to state ‘It is the degree of harm to the assets significance that is to be assessed rather the scale of the development’. Consequently, this provides a baseline for varying levels of harm with less than substantial harm being High, Medium, Low or negligible, as defined in Table 2.

Table 2 Criteria Used to Determine Level of Harm

Levels of harm Description

High Substantial harm as per NPPF 2012 para 133. Complete destruction of the asset or its setting (i.e. total loss of significance); change to the asset or its setting resulting in loss to significance which fundamentally changes our ability to understand and appreciate the resource. Minor works which adversely impact on heritage values which are intrinsic to the significance of the asset/setting have the potential to cause substantial harm. Medium Less than substantial harm as per NPPF 2012 para 133 Change to the asset or setting (some loss of significance) resulting in an appreciable change in ability to understand and appreciate the resource. Some heritage interest remains unaffected Low Change to the asset or setting (some loss of significance) resulting in a slight change in ability to understand and appreciate the resource. Overall, the heritage interests remain unaffected Negligible Negligible change or no material changes to the asset or setting. No real change in our ability to understand and appreciate the resource. The heritage interests remain unaffected

5.3 Significance of Effect

5.3.1 The significance of the effect on assets is a combination of the importance of the assets and the magnitude of the impact prior to mitigation. The significance of the effect is expressed using a six-fold scale (Substantial, Moderate-Substantial, Moderate, Minor- Moderate, Minor and Neutral) again derived from on the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. The required combination for identified remains has been undertaken with the aid of a matrix, as shown in Table 3, to assist professional judgements regarding importance and impact magnitude in order that a reasonable and balanced assessment of effect significance (either beneficial or adverse) can be reached. In summary, the significance of the effect assignment is based both on a matrix that assists judgements regarding the importance of the assets and the magnitude of the impact prior to mitigation, and professional judgement of post-mitigation outcomes.

5.3.2 Proposed development affecting a heritage asset may have no impact on its significance or may enhance its significance and therefore cause no harm. Paragraph 193 of the NPPF considers the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset and notes two categories of harm – substantial and less than substantial. The PPG goes further and directs that it is no longer enough to simply identify the category of harm with further articulation about where the proposal sits within that category now also required (Paragraph 018).

5.3.3 The significance of the effect on assets is a combination of the importance of the assets and the magnitude of the impact. The required combination for identified heritage assets and their respective key features/elements has been undertaken with the aid of a matrix, as shown in Table 3 below, to assist professional judgements regarding importance and impact magnitude in order that a reasonable and balanced assessment of effect significance (either beneficial or adverse) can be reached. In summary, the significance of the residual effect assignment is based both on a matrix that assists judgements regarding the importance of the assets and the magnitude of the impact, and professional judgement.

5.3.4 The assessment of impacts using this (EIA) methodology is not exactly the same as an assessment of impacts under the NPPF. The terminology is different, and the policy assessment in NPPF is geared to harmful impacts whereas the EIA assessment is geared to a range of effects that may or may not lead to significant impacts. In both cases, however, it is the impact on the heritage significance of the asset, as the receptor, that is key. For the purposes of this assessment, it is necessary to have regard to the provisions of the NPPF. Paragraphs 194 and 195 of the NPPF make it very clear that substantial harm amounts to the total or near complete loss of significance of a designated heritage asset. The NPPF use of ‘substantial harm’ sets a high threshold for significance of effect, shown in the table below graphically as effects which are of Substantial effect shown in red emboldened text (Table 3 below).

5.3.5 The assessment of impacts and effects following the NPPF differs in criteria and terminology from those used by Historic England (formerly English Heritage) for assessing significance in the context of managing change and formalised in Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance (2008). Notwithstanding the criteria and terminology differences, Conservation Principles also allows for system aided judgement through the incorporation of a values-based benchmark which helps to ensure a consistency of approach. The ‘interests’ expressed in Conservation Principles (archaeological, architectural, artistic and historic) are referenced in NPPF and do not clearly relate to the assessment of significance from EIA practice, but are nonetheless discernible in Table 3 below.

Table 3 Effect Significance Matrix for Assets

NPPF Classification: Less than NPPF Classification: Substantial Substantial Harm Harm

Very High Neutral Moderate Substantial Substantial

High Neutral Moderate Substantial Substantial

Medium Neutral Minor-Moderate Moderate-Substantial Substantial

Low Neutral Minor Minor-Moderate Moderate

Negligible Neutral Minor Minor Minor-Moderate

Unknown Neutral Neutral Minor Moderate IMPORTANCE OF ASSET Neutral Minor Moderate Substantial

MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT TO ASSET

Based on DMRB, Vol. 11 Environmental Assessment, Section 3, Part 2, HA 208/7, Cultural Heritage

5.3.6 Using the above methodology, the impact of the proposed development has been considered in the context of the legislative and planning policy related decisive issues. The decisive issues are the impacts upon the prevailing character and appearance of the conservation area and the special architectural, historic significance and setting of the listed heritage assets.

6.0 SITE CONDITIONS

6.0.1 A Site visit was undertaken on 22 August 2017 and again on 22January 2021. The locations from which the photographs were taken and directions of view are shown in Figure 18 below.

6.0.2 The Site photographs make two important points. First, the Site includes internally and to the periphery semi-mature tree planting and sightlines in, out and through are practically non-existent. Taking into account the concept that that visual connections between an archaeological asset and elements of its setting are not necessarily essential and determinative the impacts of the proposed development upon the settings of archaeological assets outwith the red line boundary would be practically non-existent. The Site of the proposed development forms a part of the surroundings in which the archaeological assets are experienced, and the proposed development is within the settings of these assets but the significances of archaeological assets outwith the red line boundary would not be harmed by the proposed development as there would be no adverse impact on the experiential encounter with any archaeological asset.

6.0.3 Second, the existing buildings are surrounded by extensive hard and soft landscaping – access roads, pavements, car park, bicycle stands, hard-standing for wheelie bins, gentle mounds for tree and shrub planting etc. A conclusion reached on the basis of over 30 years’ experience with archaeology on construction Sites leads us to conclude that the potential for archaeological remains, if any were likely to be present on Site, to have survived in anything other than very damaged and fragmentary conditions is extremely low.

7.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND POTENTIAL HERITAGE IMPACTS

7.1 Proposed Development

7.0.2 Oxford Brookes University wishes to obtain planning permission for a proposed student village, and associated landscaping and access on the site. A schematic master plan is shown below.

Figure 18: Locations and directions of view of site photographs

Figure 19: Proposed Plan of the Residential Development 7.2 Direct Impacts

7.2.1 The assessment of the non-designated archaeological assets in the Assessment Area and nearby has been undertaken in the knowledge of the uncertainties that arise when trying to assess a resource that is not wholly known and is often poorly understood. It should be noted that the assessment is based on information held in source repositories, published and unpublished data. None of these represent exhaustive and comprehensive sources of information on the presence/absence of archaeological features. However, from the data available it is possible to quantify and qualify the known archaeological resource, to determine the potential for yet unknown or unrecorded archaeological features to be present. These factors have been taken into consideration during the preparation of this report.

7.2.2 There are deemed to be pre-existing impacts which may have disturbed or destroyed hitherto unknown or unrecorded archaeological remains at the Site, in the form of the buildings, roadways, car-parks, services etc. within the rest of the Site.

7.2.3 Preparatory and construction activities with the potential to impact upon archaeological remains identified as archaeological assets include ground remediation, excavations for the foundations of buildings (although this can be lessened by sensitive foundation design), excavations for services such as drains and sewers and excavations to lay the sub-grade as a base for roads, paths and circulation areas. Site preparation works and construction would lead to substantial harm/total loss of archaeological assets on the site deemed of negligible significance, however there is no real likelihood to contribute to archaeological and/or historic research objectives.

7.2.4 Local planning policy notes that where decision-makers decide that the physical preservation in situ of archaeological remains is not justified, and it is considered here that the potential for archaeological remains on the Site is very low and if present are likely to be of negligible significance, a condition relating to mitigation works can be attached to the planning permission. In this regard, mitigation works are not proposed before or during development.

7.2.5 Local planning policy notes that if the existence and significance of deposits is confirmed, planning permission will only be granted where the proposal includes for the preservation of archaeological remains in situ (so far as reasonably practicable) and, for provision for the investigation and recording of any archaeological remains that cannot be preserved, including the publication of results. This assessment suggests that the potential for the existence of archaeological remains on the Site is very low and if present are likely to be of negligible significance.

7.2.6 The effect of development on the significance of the setting of archaeological assets (including archaeological assets) is a material consideration in determining a planning application and NPPF advises local planning authorities that they should require an applicant to provide a description of the significance of the archaeological assets affected and the contribution of their setting to that significance. Setting is defined as the surroundings in which an archaeological asset is experienced, and all archaeological assets have a setting, irrespective of the form in which they survive and whether they are designated or not. Therefore, all the archaeological assets identified during this assessment have settings and it is right and proper for this assessment to identify the key attributes of the archaeological assets and their settings and the potential impact upon the these occasioned by proposed development within the site.

7.2.7 To identify these key attributes, it is necessary to consider the physical surroundings of the assets, including relationships with other archaeological assets, including the way the assets are appreciated and the assets’ associations and patterns of use. A consideration of these attributes allows an estimation to be made of whether, how and to what degree setting contributes to the archaeological assets. Development can affect the settings of archaeological assets and the ability to understand, experience and appreciate them.

7.2.8 An assessment of the scope of the magnitude and effect of any impact on settings is part of the remit of this assessment and has been undertaken with reference to the Historic England document The Setting of Archaeological Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 3. It is noted that Historic England states that while archaeological assets such as archaeological sites which consist solely of buried remains may not be readily understood by a casual observer, they nonetheless retain a presence in the landscape (in terms of their location, topographical position, and spatial relationship with other archaeological assets) and so, like all archaeological assets, have a setting. While the form of survival of an asset may influence the contribution that its setting makes to its significance, it does not follow that the invisibility of the asset necessarily reduces that contribution. The value of an archaeological asset can be harmed or lost through alteration within or destruction of its setting. Current policy states that the extent of a setting is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. It is acknowledged that a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the value of an archaeological asset, it may affect the ability to appreciate that value or it may be neutral.

7.2.9 Setting is most commonly framed with reference to visual considerations and so lines of sight to or from an archaeological asset across, though into and out of its setting will play an important part in considerations of setting. However, non-visual considerations also apply, such as spatial associations and an understanding of the historic relationship between places. To undertake an assessment of significance of the settings to a level of thoroughness proportionate to the relative importance of the assets, the settings of which may be affected by development on the Site, this assessment has sought to describe the setting for each significant cultural archaeological asset and provide a measure of the contribution that the setting plays in the value of the asset.

7.2.10 Many archaeological assets within any given landscape may be visible from several locations – publicly accessible areas such as footpaths, streets and the open countryside and private spaces such as dwellings and private land. Many sightlines from, to, into and across archaeological assets are, therefore, incidental and are not intrinsically or intimately associated with the significances assigned to any given archaeological asset. However, there are instances where the characteristics of sightlines may have been intentionally designed and as part of the setting are integral to the significance.

7.2.11 Taking into account these considerations for the assets identified in this assessment, it is concluded that due to the combination of distance and the screening effects of the intervening landform, built environment and natural environment the evidential, historic, aesthetic, communal, archaeological, and architectural values and setting of the designated and un-designated archaeological assets, would not be harmed by the proposed development. It is further concluded that based on the separation of distance and the screening effect of the intervening landform, the proposed development would have no adverse effect on the settings of the archaeological assets in the immediate or wider vicinity.

Figure 20 Block Plan based on Ordnance Survey showing locations of past buildings on site 7.2.12 The complete summation of likely direct impacts is presented below.

Table 4 Tabulated sites with significance and magnitude of probable impacts

UID No. MonUID / RecordType Name Year Min Year Max Period Status / GridRef EvUID Significance of Asset 1 MOX11529 Findspot Post Roman Clay Rings, Headington Hill 410 1900 Post Roman Local / Low SP 5338 0649 2 MOX24915 Fiindspot Find Spot - Evaluation at King's Mill Lane in Undated Local / Low SP 5278 0661 2000 3 MOX24935 Town Defences? Civil War Defences, Oxford 1642 1646 Post Medieval Regional / SP 516 062 Medium 4 MOX25966 Town Defences Fairfax Lines, Civil War 1633 1666 Post Medieval Regional / SP 52 06 Medium 5 MOX26764 Pit Iron Age settlement -800 -401 Early Iron Age Local / Low SP 5355 0669 6 EOC6096 Intervention / Magnetometer survey of land south of St 13/06/2012 13/06/2012 Local / Low SP 5293 0692 event Michael's Primary School Marston Road, Oxford 7 EOC6148 Intervention / Evaluation at Cheney Lane, Oxford Brooks 05/04/2001 12/04/2001 Local / Low SP 5325 0634 event University, Headington, Oxford 8 EOC6209 Intervention / Evaluation at Milham Ford School, 21/08/2006 22/08/2006 Local / Low SP 5305 0721 event Harberton Mead, New Marston 9 EOC6210 Intervention / Desk Based Assessment for Milham Ford 01/01/2002 31/12/2002 Local / Low SP 5305 0727 event Upper School, Oxford 10 EOC6505 Intervention / Watching brief at the Islamic Centre, King's 01/01/2001 28/02/2001 Local / Low SP 5278 0660 event Mill Road and Magdalen College Hockey Pitch, Oxford 11 EOX1715 Intervention / Milham Ford Upper School 01/02/2002 28/02/2002 Local / Low SP 53050 07300 event 12 EOX1732 Intervention / Air Raid Shelter at Milham Ford Upper 08/01/2001 10/01/2001 Local / Low SP 53092 07280 event School 13 EOX2267 Intervention / Oxford Brooks Masterplan: Headington 01/02/2007 28/02/2007 Local / Low SP 5330 0655 event Campus - Desk Based Assessment 14 EOX2553 Intervention / Proposed development at King's Mill Lane 01/07/1998 31/07/1998 Local / Low SP 5281 0663 event (Centre for Islamic Studies), Marston 15 EOX2560 Intervention / Centre for Islamic Studies, King's Mill Lane 01/10/1998 31/10/1998 Local / Low SP 5278 0653 event 16 EOX2611 Intervention / New Halls of Residence, Oxford Brookes 01/02/1999 28/02/1999 Local / Low SP 5323 0638 event University, Cheney Lane 17 EOX2775 Intervention / Site of Former Government Buildings, 01/10/2001 31/10/2001 Local / Low SP 52959 06755 event Marston Road 18 EOX2833 Intervention / Centre for Islamic Studies, Kings Mill Lane, 01/01/1996 31/12/1996 Local / Low SP 52775 06568 event Oxford 19 EOX4270 Intervention / Field evaluation at Marston Road, former 01/01/2001 31/12/2001 Local / Low SP 5300 0683 event Government Buildings 20 EOX4469 Intervention / Recorded observation at No 2 Ferry Road, 01/01/2009 31/12/2009 Local / Low SP 5277 0703 event Oxford 21 EOX4819 Intervention / Watching Brief in King's Mill Lane in 1998 01/01/1998 31/12/1998 Local / Low SP 5278 0660 event 22 EOX4853 Intervention / Evaluation at King's Mill Lane in 2000 01/01/2000 31/12/2000 Local / Low SP 5278 0661 event 23 EOX5720 Intervention / A watching brief at Headington 01/05/2014 30/05/2014 Local / Low SP 5355 0669 event School, Headington Road, Oxford HER data acquired Jan 2021. The OHER data presented herein has been reproduced under Historic Environment Record Data Licence No: BOHER 009 (2017-18)

Table 5 Tabulated Assessment of Impacts and Effects

UID No. MonUID / RecordType Name GridRef Impact upon Effects of Magnitude EvUID Significance of of Impacts upon Asset Significance of Asset 1 MOX11529 FINDSPOT Post Roman Clay Rings, Headington Hill SP 5338 0649 Negligible Negligible 2 MOX24915 FINDSPOT Find Spot - Evaluation at King's Mill Lane in 2000 SP 5278 0661 Negligible Negligible 3 MOX24935 TOWN DEFENCES? Civil War Defences, Oxford SP 516 062 Negligible Negligible 4 MOX25966 TOWN DEFENCES Fairfax Lines, Civil War SP 52 06 Negligible Negligible 5 MOX26764 PIT Iron Age settlement SP 5355 0669 Negligible Negligible 6 EOC6096 Intervention/event Magnetometer survey of land south of St Michael's SP 5293 0692 Negligible Negligible Primary School Marston Road, Oxford 7 EOC6148 Intervention/event Evaluation at Cheney Lane, Oxford Brooks University, SP 5325 0634 Negligible Negligible Headington, Oxford 8 EOC6209 Intervention/event Evaluation at Milham Ford School, Harberton Mead, New SP 5305 0721 Negligible Negligible Marston 9 EOC6210 Intervention/event Desk Based Assessmentfor Milham Ford Upper School, SP 5305 0727 Negligible Negligible Oxford 10 EOC6505 Intervention/event Watching brief at the Islamic Centre, King's Mill Road and SP 5278 0660 Negligible Negligible Magdalen College Hockey Pitch, Oxford 11 EOX1715 Intervention/event Milham Ford Upper School SP 53050 07300 Negligible Negligible 12 EOX1732 Intervention/event Air Raid Shelter at Milham Ford Upper School SP 53092 07280 Negligible Negligible 13 EOX2267 Intervention/event Oxford Brooks Masterplan: Headington Campus - Desk SP 5330 0655 Negligible Negligible Based Assessment 14 EOX2553 Intervention/event Proposed development at King's Mill Lane (Centre for SP 5281 0663 Negligible Negligible Islamic Studies), Marston 15 EOX2560 Intervention/event Centre for Islamic Studies, King's Mill Lane SP 5278 0653 Negligible Negligible 16 EOX2611 Intervention/event New Halls of Residence, Oxford Brookes University, SP 5323 0638 Negligible Negligible Cheney Lane 17 EOX2775 Intervention/event Site of Former Government Buildings, Marston Road SP 52959 06755 Negligible Negligible 18 EOX2833 Intervention/event Centre for Islamic Studies, Kings Mill Lane, Oxford SP 52775 06568 Negligible Negligible 19 EOX4270 Intervention/event Field evaluation at Marston Road, former Government SP 5300 0683 Negligible Negligible Buildings 20 EOX4469 Intervention/event Recorded observation at No 2 Ferry Road, Oxford SP 5277 0703 Negligible Negligible 21 EOX4819 Intervention/event Watching Brief in King's Mill Lane in 1998 SP 5278 0660 Negligible Negligible 22 EOX4853 Intervention/event Evaluation at King's Mill Lane in 2000 SP 5278 0661 Negligible Negligible 23 EOX5720 Intervention/event A watching brief at Headington School, Headington Road, SP 5355 0669 Negligible Negligible Oxford

8.0 CONCLUSIONS

8.0.1 The proposed development on the site takes the form of a student village complex, the general characteristics of which are provided in the Proposed Plan of the Student Village (figure 19 above).

8.0.2 There are no registered World Archaeological Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields, Conservation Areas or Listed Buildings wholly or partly within the site. Therefore, this assessment confirms that the site does not contain any designated archaeological assets for which there would be a presumption in favour of preservation in situ and against development.

8.0.3 There is one non-designated archaeological assets within the site dating to the Post- Medieval period. However, the archaeological asset was investigated in 2001 and it would seem that no further work would be appropriate.

8.0.4 This assessment enables an informed, sustainable and responsible approach to the promotion of development of the site. The information provided meets the expectations of NPPF and local planning policy in that the applicant has described the significance of archaeological assets that may be affected by the proposed development and has also assessed any contribution made by the settings of the identified archaeological assets. It is considered that the level of detail provided is proportionate to the assets’ importance and is sufficient to allow the local planning authority to understand the potential impact of the proposal on the significance of the assets. The proposed development would not lead to substantial harm to the non-designated archaeological assets identified by means of direct, irreversible and permanent adverse impact.

8.0.5 The proposed development would have no adverse indirect effect on or harm the significance of any other non-designated or designated buried archaeological assets arising from changes to the settings of those assets. With respect to national policy considerations relevant to non-designated archaeological assets, the Council is directed to make “a balanced judgement . . . . having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the archaeological asset”. The scale of harm/loss to a known archaeological asset is not substantial and an ordinary (unweighted) balancing of the harm or loss against the significance of the asset is required.

8.0.6 It is concluded that there are no axiomatic reasons arising from historic environment considerations to refuse planning permission. One non-designated archaeological asset (already investigated) would potentially be affected as a consequence of the proposed development. However, the Council must make a balanced judgement with respect to the non-designated archaeological asset and other potential assets. The relevant guidance in

46

these matters (The Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (2017)) notes that while recommendations on further archaeological/archaeological work may be justified, in most circumstances within the planning framework the provision or recommendations to the local planning authority will be the responsibility of the relevant planning archaeologist. This document does not wish to prejudge the opinion of the Archaeological Officer at Oxford City Council, but it is considered appropriate and helpful to offer options for reducing or mitigating harm, should planning permission be granted.

8.0.7 In the first instance, the desirability of avoiding damage to archaeological asset has been considered during the design of the proposed development, but any attempts to achieve preservation in situ rendered the development proposals unfeasible. Thus, the design offers few additional opportunities for inherent mitigation with respect to the avoidance of harm to the potential for as yet un-identified archaeological assets.

8.0.8 However, the existing buildings are surrounded by extensive hard and soft landscaping – access roads, pavements, car park, bicycle stands, hard-standing for wheelie bins, gentle mounds for tree and shrub planting and extensive buried services arising from the phase development of the Site as a student village since 1994.

8.0.9 A conclusion reached on the basis of over 30 years’ experience with archaeology on construction sites leads to the conclusion that the potential for archaeological remains, if any were likely to have existed on site, to have survived in anything other than very damaged and fragmentary conditions, is extremely low.

8.0.10 Thus a considered conclusion is that this assessment provides the Council with adequate information on which to determine the planning application; that there is insufficient justification to refuse the planning application on the grounds of harm to the significance of archaeological assets and that the archaeological interest at the Site is not sufficient to merit any further archaeological responses either pre- or post-determination (should the Council grant permission).

47

9.0 SOURCES

9.1 General

The Oxford Historic Environment Record (OHER)

Oxfordshire Archives and Records Service

Replacement Of Clive Booth Student Village, Oxford Brookes University Heritage Report March 2021 by Worlledge Associates

9.2 Web-Based Sources http://historicengland.org.uk/advice/hpg/archaeological-assets/nhle/ https://pastscape.org.uk/ http://www.archaeologicalgateway.org.uk/gateway/ http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html) http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

48