Non-technical summary (NTS) 1: Introduction 2: Site description and development proposal 3: Environmental issues and methodology 4: Air quality 6 5: Community and social effects 6: Cultural6: heritage:Cultural heritage: designated designated heritage heritage assets assets 7: Cultural heritage: undesignated heritage assets 8: Hydrology and water quality 9: Land use 10: Landscape and visual effects 11: Natural heritage 12: Noise and vibration 13: Traffic and transport 14: Summary tables 15: Future development Glossary King’s Gate, Amesbury ES Chapter 6: Cultural heritage - designated heritage assets Bloor Homes Ltd
6 Cultural heritage - designated heritage assets
Introduction
6.1 This chapter considers the impacts of the proposed development at King’s Gate, Amesbury on the designated elements of the historic environment: scheduled monuments, listed buildings, and area designations covering historic town centres, designed landscapes and the Stonehenge, Avebury and associated sites world heritage site.
Legislation and policy
6.2 National and international policy recognises the value and significance of cultural heritage and the public interest in the preservation of particular assets, and sets out mechanisms to ensure that it is taken into account in planning decision making. Sites and features of identified interest are protected by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, as amended, and within the planning system by the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. As a State Party to the 1972 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (the World Heritage Convention), the UK is required to protect, conserve, present and transmit to future generations its world heritage sites.
6.3 National planning policy guidance on the conservation of the historic environment is provided by Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS5), published in March 2010. Guidance on implementation of this policy is provided in the accompanying Planning for the Historic Environment Practice Guide. The objectives of the PPS are to conserve the historic environment for its own intrinsic value and to take account in decision making of its potential instrumental value for place making and contribution to sustainable development. Designated and undesignated heritage assets are distinguished from the wider definition of historic environment, the majority of which is not covered by protective designations. Specific protection within the planning system applies to world heritage sites, through the Circular for England on the Protection of World Heritage Sites and related guidance (2010).
6.4 Detailed policies on development management concern the need to clearly define the significance of any potentially affected site or area, the pre- application information requirements for any proposals, including for archaeological field evaluation, and the principles to be considered in determining any proposal for change potentially affecting heritage assets. There is an overall requirement to gather sufficient information to ensure an adequate understanding of the significance of an asset before any decisions affecting its future are made. A key concept in the PPS is that of proportionality; that the information required, efforts to preserve, and degree of public benefits necessary to offset any harm or loss of an asset should be based on an understanding of its significance.
Terence O’Rourke Ltd March 2012 151004d King’s Gate, Amesbury ES Chapter 6: Cultural heritage - designated heritage assets Bloor Homes Ltd
6.5 The relevant planning policies regarding cultural heritage are set out in the Salisbury Local Plan 2011. Conservation policies are CN5 on development potentially affecting the setting of a listed building, CN11 on the effects of new development on conservation areas, CN18 on development affecting historic parks and gardens, CN20 - 23 on the archaeological implications of new development and CN24 on development affecting the Stonehenge WHS.
6.6 A number of additional documents are relevant to this assessment. The Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan (2009) sets out the strategy for the protection of the outstanding universal value of the 2,600 hectare inscribed area. Its primary aim is the protection of the archaeological landscape, but it also addresses other issues such as access, farming and local community. The plan explains the international significance of the site, outlines the key management issues and provides long term aims and detailed policies. Wiltshire Council has adopted the management plan as supplementary guidance and it is a material consideration in determining planning applications that affect the Stonehenge WHS.
6.7 The Settlement Setting Assessment (CBA, 2008) produced as part of the Salisbury district landscape character assessment considers the key sensitivities of the landscape to development and change, with particular reference to the setting of the area’s main settlements. The Salisbury Historic Environment Assessment (Land Use Consultants, 2009) produced for English Heritage extends that assessment to give greater consideration to impacts on the historic environment. The report assesses likely implications for the historic environment of a number of development proposals, one of which is the Archers Gate allocation.
Methodology
6.8 The EIA has included both desk based work and a programme of archaeological evaluation (see chapter 7 for the assessment of on site archaeology). The desk-based studies assess the cultural heritage of the site and its environs as it appears in existing information through designation, the national or local archaeological record, documentary sources or other studies. A site visit was undertaken on 12 January 2012 to inform the baseline and to validate the impact assessment. The study area covers the proposed application site itself and a 5 kilometre radius, to allow the consideration of the potential for any regional-scale effects. The data sources consulted are outlined in table 6.1. All designated heritage assets are illustrated on figures 6.1 to 6.3 and listed in the gazetteers in technical appendix C1.
Terence O’Rourke Ltd March 2012 151004d King’s Gate, Amesbury ES Chapter 6: Cultural heritage - designated heritage assets Bloor Homes Ltd
CBA, Salisbury District Landscape Character Assessment: Settlement Setting Assessment 2008 Communities and Local Government 2010 Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment Dyer C, The archaeology of medieval small towns, Medieval Archaeology, Vol 47, 2003 English Heritage 2009 Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan English Heritage 2008 Conservation principles – policies and guidance for the sustainable management of the historic environment English Heritage, 2011, The setting of heritage assets: English Heritage guidance, http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/ http://list.english-heritage.org.uk Institute of field archaeologists 2008 Standards and guidance for archaeological desk based assessments Lambrick G, 2008 Setting Standards; A Review, IFA working group on the setting of cultural heritage features Lambrick, G. and Hind, J. 2005 Planarch 2: Review of Cultural Heritage Coverage in Environmental Impact Assessments Oxford Archaeology Land Use Consultants for English Heritage, April 2009, Salisbury Historic Environment Assessment Lane, R, 2011, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project; Architectural Assessment, English Heritage Research Department Report Series no 42-2011 Pevsner N and Cherry B, Buildings of England; Wiltshire 1975 Roberts, B.K. and Wrathmell, S., 2000, An Atlas of Rural Settlement in England, English Heritage Publications Salisbury District Council, Amesbury Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan September 2008 Salisbury District Council, Durrington Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan, September 2008 Salisbury District Local Plan 2011 Table 6.1 Data sources consulted
6.9 The chapter makes use of the ZVI and viewpoint photographs produced for the landscape and visual effects assessment in chapter 10. In order to gain an appreciation of the theoretical extent the proposed development may extend to, and potentially interact with the designated archaeological assets within the 5 km study area (see figure 6.1), the ZVI (figure 10.5) was applied to the cultural heritage designations (figure 6.8). The model is based on available data including Lidar data from the Environment Agency (flown January 2011) across the site and western study area at 1metre accuracy. This height data takes account of extant development and woodland and adds a level of accuracy to the theoretical visibility model, an essential consideration in an assessment in close proximity to such a significant WHS landscape. Further detail on the methodology of the ZVI modelling is presented in annex 1 of chapter 10. All viewpoint photographs are taken from publicly accessible locations. There are currently no detailed proposals; the only parameters for the EIA are the master plan layout, building heights, density, access and landscape strategy figures 2.1 to 2.5.
Terence O’Rourke Ltd March 2012 151004d King’s Gate, Amesbury ES Chapter 6: Cultural heritage - designated heritage assets Bloor Homes Ltd
Scope of work
6.10 The intention of the assessment is to provide a description of the likely value, extent, state of preservation and potential significance of the designated heritage assets within the wider 5 km study area that could potentially be affected by the proposals. It includes consideration of all nationally and locally identified buildings and areas and their settings, and of the overall historic character of the area. The archaeological element of the study was undertaken with reference to the Institute for Archaeologists’ Code of Conduct and appropriate standards (revised 2008).
Scoping opinion
6.11 The response to scoping issued by Wiltshire Council on 16.02.2010 confirmed that the council was satisfied with the issues to be examined in the ES. Detailed comment was provided on the approach to the on-site archaeology, which is considered in chapter 7. On the potential for effects on the WHS through changes to setting, the council highlighted in particular the need for the ES to consider the potential for impacts through the creation of a hard edge and increased urban influence, e.g. through light pollution and sky glow. The response confirmed the ES should also determine the potential for effects on the designed landscape at Amesbury Abbey through the visibility of additional development.
6.12 A separate scoping response issued by English Heritage (21/02/2010) confirmed the highly sensitive nature of the area and made detailed recommendations, largely based on the historic characterisation report produced in 2009. The response referred to the identification of the scheduled monument adjacent to the site (SM 28941 lynchets at Southmill Hill) as being at risk, and stated that the application should include a management plan for this monument. No reference of this site could be found on the online Heritage at Risk Register, and as this scheduled monument is owned by a third party and falls outside the current application boundary, no legally binding plan can be provided here. In considering impacts on the wider historic environment, the response indicated that the ES needed to consider the contribution of the application site to the setting of the WHS and to Amesbury Abbey as an element in views from the watermeadows. The response also mentioned the role of the site area in the setting of Amesbury and its prominence in the approach to the town from the south. Copies of the full scoping responses can be found in technical appendix A.
Limitations of the study
6.13 The assessment’s conclusions are limited to the extent and detail of information required for this outline planning application at the site. The detail on the design rationale and proposed appearance of the buildings is provided in the design and access statement. The application is described in chapter 2 of this ES and the master plan for the EIA is shown in figures 2.1 to 2.5.
Terence O’Rourke Ltd March 2012 151004d King’s Gate, Amesbury ES Chapter 6: Cultural heritage - designated heritage assets Bloor Homes Ltd
Assessment of significance
6.14 The broad criteria developed for measures of the importance or sensitivity of the resource affected, and the magnitude or scale of the change are shown on figures 6.5 and 6.6 respectively. The generic definitions of the degree of the potential effects can then be generated by feeding the two resultant sets of criteria into the degree of effect matrix (figure 6.7). Effects of more than moderate degree are classed as significant effects for the purposes of the EIA. Chapter 3 explains the assessment methodology used throughout this ES.
6.15 In order to assess the potential effects on cultural heritage of the proposed development, the chapter first makes an overall assessment of the components, qualities and level of importance or value of all designated heritage assets within the study area, including above and below ground sites and structures and their settings. The evaluation of significance is ultimately a matter of professional judgement.
6.16 The issue of setting concerns the potential contribution of surrounding land to the significance of any single asset or group of assets. The 2011 guidance by English Heritage aims for a consistent approach to the assessment of setting and the range of historic, visual and functional relationships of an asset to the surrounding land area. These include both physical attributes and perceptual values, depending on the nature of an asset and its past and present surroundings. Potentially significant views can be deliberately designed or incidental, or the result of later changes. The importance of the surrounding land or particular views or vistas to the significance of a feature or building, and to how it is understood and appreciated, can therefore vary greatly.
6.17 The assessment of value, coupled with reference to national and local legislation, relevant policy statements and best professional practice, allows a judgement to be made of the importance or significance of the asset. The focus is the inherent value and importance of the historic asset itself, which is clearly separated in the assessment from any public amenity value particular sites may have, or potential contribution to tourism or other interests.
6.18 The judgement of the magnitude of change likely to occur as a result of development is based on available information on the proposed development; immediate and direct changes, such as ground disturbance from construction, the removal of existing structures, routes or trees, any changes to drainage and changes to the landform, or from the addition of new structures and transport networks or changes to views of or from heritage features, or perception of their priority in the landscape. The potential effects of development on the settings of either buildings or areas can depend very much on issues of detailed design that may not be available for outline planning applications.
Cumulative effects
6.19 Chapter 15 considers the potential cumulative effects of future phases of development.
Terence O’Rourke Ltd March 2012 151004d King’s Gate, Amesbury ES Chapter 6: Cultural heritage - designated heritage assets Bloor Homes Ltd
Baseline
Archaeology
6.20 The following section details the known and recorded scheduled monuments within a 1 km and 5 km study area of the application site. The on-site archaeological resource is discussed in chapter 7, with supporting documentation on the schemes of evaluation provided in technical appendix D.
Designated archaeological assets within 1 km study area, figure 6.1
6.21 There are 163 scheduled monuments recorded within 5 km of the site, only six within 1 km of the development edge (figure 6.1), and none present within the site itself. The closest lies to the north of the site area, the group of four strip lynchets across the north west facing slope of Southmill Hill (SM 28941). They are medieval in date and are the result of deliberate terracing for cultivation purposes. They survive as wide terraces, up to 15 metres wide cut into the slope and are separated by steep sections of bank between 2.5 and 5.5 metres in height. The northernmost lynchet survives to the greater height, declining gradually in height to the southern earthwork. Lynchets are clear landscape indicators of medieval, and possibly earlier, agricultural activities in downland areas of southern England and have been shown through excavations to reflect former land use and farming practices at the time of their creation.
6.22 Three Bronze Age burial monuments are recorded to the east and south east of the development site. Two are categorised as bowl barrow monuments, one within Boscombe Down Airfield (SM 28939) and one to the east of Stockport farmstead (SM 28937). The former is sited between buildings within the airfield and survives as a mound c.16 metres in diameter, 1.4 metres high and has a depression 5 metres wide and 0.4 metres deep on its summit. This may be an indicator of previous intrusion by antiquarian excavators some time between the 18th and 19th centuries, when this practice was widespread across the downlands in southern England. The second bowl barrow lies c.340 m east of Stockport, on the western perimeter of the airfield, to the east of the A345 (SM 28937). With previous survey information and analysis of aerial photographs, the overall diameter is calculated at c.16.5 m. Access to the site is restricted, as it is sited between two security fences, but it has suffered from recent ploughing and construction work. Like other examples that have been affected by intensive farming, the below ground remains will comprise the outer ditch, along with one or multiple burials dating from the Late Neolithic to the Late Bronze Age. Bowl barrows are the most numerous form of prehistoric round burial barrow, with more than 10,000 surviving examples nationally. They occur either in isolation or grouped in cemeteries close to former settled land and sited on prominent land. This prominence led to the monuments being the focus for further burials in later periods, as they were viewed as ownership markers in the landscape.
Terence O’Rourke Ltd March 2012 151004d King’s Gate, Amesbury ES Chapter 6: Cultural heritage - designated heritage assets Bloor Homes Ltd
6.23 Also within Boscombe Down Airfield are the Early Bronze Age remains of a disc barrow with a World War II pillbox constructed on its summit (SM 28938). These types of barrow burial monuments are described as being the most fragile type. They are constructed as a circular or oval area of level ground, with a bank and internal ditch with one or more low mounds covering cremation burials, usually in pits along with pottery, ornaments and tools. This barrow has an overall diameter of 74 m, and is situated on a slight slope with a central mound 12 m in diameter. Disc barrows are rare nationally, with only 2,500 recorded. The grave goods revealed in those excavated examples have led many to categorise their interred burials as reflecting high status individuals. The extant pillbox has been constructed on a low mound on the eastern side of the barrow and stands to c. 1.3 metres high, has six sides, each 2.2 m long, and is constructed from reinforced concrete. The elevated position of the barrow on a slight slope was probably the deciding factor for the location of the pillbox.
6.24 To the south and south west of the development site are two alignments of extant linear earthworks; a north-south aligned example c.250 metres west of Stockport (SM 28940) and further west an L-shaped example on Amesbury Down (SM 28935). These extensive linear earthwork features have been dated through selective excavations to be Middle Bronze Age, but were probably utilised in subsequent periods. They comprise one or multiple ditches and banks, which would have involved a significant workforce and effort to construct. They would have indicated significant territorial boundaries at the time of construction. Where examples have suffered erosion, above ground analysis of aerial photographs can assist with tracing the visible cropmark anomalies across the present landscape.
6.25 The section of earthwork c.250 metres west of Stockport (SM 28940) lies on a gentle north facing slope. It survives as a shallow depression c.430 metres long and is c.3 metres wide, flanked on either side by a bank between 2.5 and 3 metres wide. These banks have been levelled by cultivation, but the ditch will still survive as a buried feature. The 1926 Ordnance Survey map denotes a longer alignment of this particular earthwork extending north westwards towards Southmill Hill and Amesbury. It is uncertain whether the earthwork had any southern extension, but was once part of a much larger field system, which has now been largely levelled by cultivation. Of probable contemporary date and function is the L-shaped earthwork to the west on Amesbury Down (SM 28935) on a gentle south west facing slope. An extension of this earthwork is denoted on aerial photographs to the north. The northern extension of the designated alignment measures 120 metres in length, with a ditch 3.5 metres wide and 0.5 metres deep with a bank on either side, making the overall width 12 metres. The linear boundary changes direction to run north west-south east, and at this section an excavation was undertaken in 1966 revealing three phases of excavation and a possible gate. This portion of the earthwork measures 170 metres to the Great Durnford road and is 6 metres wide and 0.5 metres deep. The final 90 metres extends from the southern side of this road, with an overall width of c.10 metres, with the banks and ditch levelled from cultivation practices.
Terence O’Rourke Ltd March 2012 151004d King’s Gate, Amesbury ES Chapter 6: Cultural heritage - designated heritage assets Bloor Homes Ltd
Designated archaeological assets within a 5 km study area, figure 6.2
6.26 The development site lies 1.25 km south east of the boundary of the Stonehenge world heritage site (WHS), a landscape of international importance by virtue of its remarkable concentration of well-preserved and varied complex of prehistoric monuments. The Stonehenge landscape is a highly complex amalgamation of human activity and it is beyond the scope of this chapter to describe the sites and monuments in detail. In recognition of this significance, the 180 scheduled areas, incorporating 415 individual designated scheduled monuments in an area of c.2,665 ha surrounding Stonehenge, was inscribed as a WHS in 1986. “The WHS provides an outstanding illustration of the evolution of monument construction and of the continual use and shaping of the landscape over more than 2000 years, from the early Neolithic to the Bronze Age” (Statement of Significance, WHS Site Management Plan, English Heritage, 2009).
6.27 The sheer scale of some of the surrounding monuments is without parallel. To the north of Amesbury is the site of the largest henge enclosure in Britain at Durrington Walls, at 500 metres in diameter, and the smaller Woodhenge outside it. Both contained concentric timber structures and would have been a major focus in the landscape prior to and during the main stone placement phase at Stonehenge. The partial plan of the 40 metre-diameter Southern Circle, comprising six concentric rings of timber posts, was recovered during excavations in 1967 in advance of the new A345. Further excavations and geophysical surveys since 2003 as part of the Stonehenge Riverside Project have allowed its full plan to be reconstructed. This successful academic project has also led to the discovery of Durrington Avenue, which ran from the riverside to the Southern Circle, a distance of just over 170 metres. These monuments would have been the main components of a ceremonial complex that was at the centre of a very large Neolithic settlement, also uncovered during the project. The discovery of houses within and outside Durrington Walls suggests that a large area of the valley in which the henge lies was probably covered in dwellings.
6.28 The early Bronze Age saw the surrounding landscape being the focus of ceremonial monuments such as the many surviving barrow sites, sited individually or, more ceremonially perhaps, in cemetery clusters or alignments. Studies have expressed how Stonehenge would have been a single monumental structure in an otherwise carefully structured landscape, where elements of inter-visibility were essential to the siting of earthen monuments in the surrounding landscape and on approaches to Stonehenge. It was also linked physically with the valley of Stonehenge Bottom and the valley of the River Avon by a c.3 km long ceremonial approach, now known as The Avenue. Stonehenge is framed spatially within contemporary lines of round barrows, such as the King Barrows, the Cursus group and those on Normanton Down, all built on prominent ridges that create a well-defined area or ‘amphitheatre’ with Stonehenge at its centre (Stonehenge WHS Management Plan, Part 2, English Heritage, 2009). These sites clearly demonstrate the ability of prehistoric peoples to “conceive, design and
Terence O’Rourke Ltd March 2012 151004d King’s Gate, Amesbury ES Chapter 6: Cultural heritage - designated heritage assets Bloor Homes Ltd
construct features of great size and complexity” (Statement of Significance, English Heritage).
6.29 More diverse activities were played out towards the end of the Bronze Age, as seen in the creation of linear banks and ditches, such as those that traverse Wilsford Down and Lake Down, which carefully divided up the landscape, possibly based on territorial ownership. There is little evidence for sustained ceremonial use in the Stonehenge environs in later prehistory, except for an impressive hillfort constructed at Vespasian’s Camp. This monument is now densely covered with trees, and falls within the designed landscape at Amesbury Abbey (see below). No excavations have taken place at the site, so little is known of its intended function, internal layout or role the landscape in either the Iron Age or Romano-British periods.
6.30 To the south west of the development site is the site of Ogbury Camp hillfort at Great Durnford (SM WI 186), enclosing an oval shaped area c.25 ha in size and shown to have a number of internal enclosures on aerial photographs. The ditch is now completely filled, while the ramparts are heavily mutilated as a result of cultivation works. The north west and eastern (original entrance) part of the earthworks are currently heavily overgrown, but the rampart is quite well exposed in its southern sector and stands to a height of between two and four metres. Ogbury Camp was excavated in the early 19th century, with Iron Age pottery and a Neolithic scraper discovered here. A pair of Bronze Age round barrows are situated within a conifer belt to the south of Ogbury Hillfort, with an ancient field system recorded in the land between the hillfort and barrow sites.
6.31 A number of bowl barrows are also recorded on Amesbury Down; a triple bell barrow (SM 28936) and two bowl barrows, with a third levelled example north east of Normanton House (SM 28933). The former represents an unusual variation in this Bronze Age class of burial monument, but cultivation has now caused what were once three contiguous mounds to now appear as a single oval mound 35 metres long, 24 metres wide and c.0.9 metres high, surrounded by a berm c.4 metres wide. It is aligned east-west and currently sits between two belts of woodland plantation on a broad plateau. There are records of fragments of a human skull and other bones being discovered in the ploughsoil in 1972. Since then the monument has been marked by 14 concrete bollards. Further west of this, a small ‘cemetery’ group of bowl barrows lie c.460 metres north east of Normanton House, situated on a gentle spur overlooking the valley of the River Avon on Amesbury Down. The central barrow of three has been levelled by ploughing, with the northern barrow 19 metres in diameter and one metre high, and the southern barrow 26 metres in diameter and 0.5 metres high. Quarry ditches are visible surrounding these barrows on aerial photographs, with a chalk pit, probably of medieval or later date, situated to the north of the monuments.
Historic development and built heritage, figure 6.3
6.32 The historic development of the study area through the medieval period continued to be heavily influenced by the key landscape division between the
Terence O’Rourke Ltd March 2012 151004d King’s Gate, Amesbury ES Chapter 6: Cultural heritage - designated heritage assets Bloor Homes Ltd
river valleys, which were the focus for settlement, and the high chalk downland. In the north of the study area, the strong influence of the military uses of the downlands over the last century has altered the focus for development.
6.33 The settlement that became the town of Amesbury originates in a late Saxon royal estate set in the valley within a meander of the River Avon. A Benedictine nunnery had been founded around 979 and the site became a place for pilgrimage based on the shrine of St. Melor. Amesbury remained a royal manor after the conquest, and at the time of the Domesday survey it was recorded as a relatively large population centre with extensive land, including large areas of pasture and woodland and eight mills. The priory was refounded in 1177 and new buildings were constructed on a site near the old Saxon complex. Both were demolished at the dissolution and the house and park of Amesbury Abbey now occupies the site.
6.34 Amesbury did not gain formal borough status until 1217, but it is probable that it already had urban functions and characteristics by that date. The town form is defined by the layout on the long distance routes that descend to the river and form High Street and Salisbury Street with a market on the latter. The location of the abbey church is probably the only remaining element of the Saxon settlement plan. There is some evidence of planning in the 13th century, when the funnel-shaped market was laid out. Some of the main streets appear not to have been developed until relatively late. Medieval prosperity of the town was based on its role as a market for a large agricultural area, the continued pilgrimage role for the shrine to St. Melor and the advantages of its location on one of the main routes to the south west.
6.35 Surviving buildings of medieval date are the church of St. Mary and St. Melor (LB27, grade I), which was built as the church for the refounded abbey as well as the parish church. No other monastic buildings remain. The church is of flint and limestone and includes multiple later phases of alterations and restoration in the 1850s. The 12th century nave dates from the abbey’s foundation and there is also some Roman brick incorporated into the 15th century south aisle. There are no other buildings in the town with identified medieval elements surviving. Two buildings are described as being of 16th century origin; number 59 High Street, and the George Hotel, which dates to c.1560 (LB14, 18).
6.36 The settlement of the wider rural hinterland was sparse and focused almost exclusively on the valleys of the River Avon and the River Bourne. The parishes have the common long narrow Saxon form that includes the high downland as well as valley areas. Named manors in the Domesday survey are Bulford, which was part of the lands of the church at Amesbury, as were Boscombe and Allington on the valley to the east of the block of chalk downs. Durrington is recorded as two separate manors of West End and East End, a division that is still legible in present layout of the historic fragment of the much expanded village.
Terence O’Rourke Ltd March 2012 151004d King’s Gate, Amesbury ES Chapter 6: Cultural heritage - designated heritage assets Bloor Homes Ltd
6.37 The medieval buildings in the study area are primarily the churches for each parish, which together form a group of similar churches of 12th century origin, (St. Michael’s at Wilsford (LB82, grade II*), St. Andrew’s at Durnford (LB109, grade I), All Saints at Idmiston (LB152, grade I), St. Leonard’s at Bulford (LB192, grade I), St. Mary at Milson (LB210, grade II*) and All Saints at Durrington (LB220, grade II*). These churches are mainly built of flint and retain significant Norman elements. In form they are low structures, with small towers or spires that do not have a significant landmark role.
6.38 Some elements of medieval secular buildings survive within the study area. West Amesbury House (LB 65, grade I) incorporates a 15th century parlour wing with a timber roof in the larger house of 17th century date. The manor houses of the 16th century and later are built of flint and limestone chequerwork, which was the high status version of the vernacular form. To the south, Lake House (LB95, grade I) is dated 1578 and was built for a clothier, Idmiston Manor (LB158, grade II*) is dated c.1600 and was built of rendered flint, Bulford Manor (LB 195) is of late 16th century date and was used as the official dwelling of GOC Land Forces (UK), and Milston manor house is dated 1613 (LB208, grade II*). Aside from these high status houses, there is little domestic building from before the later 17th century within the study area. Vernacular scale houses of flint and later of brick are common across the study area, forming the small hamlets along the river valleys. The strong vernacular and narrow range of materials gives a consistent quality to the historic villages through the valleys of the study area.
6.39 Amesbury experienced a decline from its medieval prosperity from the 17th century, and there was minimal population growth until the late 19th century. The town therefore retained its vernacular scale and modest status, with few examples of the later 18th and 19th century pattern of the increased influence of polite architecture and classical forms leading to the rebuilding or refronting of older areas of the town. There are also few large public buildings. The listed buildings within the present built up area therefore include some of the larger hotels on the main streets, and the late 18th century Old Grammar School (LB17). On the main road out of the town, a number of former farms are now subsumed within the suburban expansion of Amesbury to the east. On Salisbury Road, the Red House (LB5) is a farmhouse of around 1700 built of red brick, while Old Viney’s Farmhouse (LB8) dates to the mid 1600s. There are also several isolated cottages within the modern built up area. Closest to the development site is the group at South Mills including the mill house of c.1770 and two dwellings (LB1-3).
6.40 To the west of the town centre, the former site of the abbey was replaced with the country house and designed landscape at Amesbury Abbey, which had been emparked by 1560 and developed in several phases to a peak of elaboration in the late 19th century (LB 37-47, registered park grade II*). The earliest phase was the construction of a new house in 1601 for the Earl of Hertford set within a park laid out in the former abbey precincts. Two gatehouses of this date survive; the small triangular lodges built of flint on Countess Road known as Diana’s House and Kent House (LB 44 and 47, grade II*). In 1661 a new formal classical house was built to a design by John
Terence O’Rourke Ltd March 2012 151004d King’s Gate, Amesbury ES Chapter 6: Cultural heritage - designated heritage assets Bloor Homes Ltd
Webb. This was extended in the early 18th century by Henry Flitcroft, who also added a number of garden buildings. Associated with this was an extended park with a planned formal landscape laid out by Charles Bridgeman. This followed the purchase in 1760 of the estate at West Amesbury, which allowed the expansion of the park to the west and north across the river, and taking in the Iron Age hillfort known as Vespasian’s Camp. New buildings by William Chambers, and additional areas were brought into the designed landscape in the later 18th century, linking the park to the visible monuments associated with Stonehenge. Alongside the course of The Avenue, the prehistoric road to Stonehenge, are the remaining tree groups of the Nile Clumps. Originally consisting of 26 clumps of beeches, these were planted after the death of Admiral Lord Nelson at Trafalgar, on the layout of the French and British ships at his earlier victory in the battle of the Nile. The house was rebuilt from the 1830s behind the retained and expanded façade. The house (LB38, grade I) has been in use as a nursing home since 1960. Queensberry Bridge (SM 28942) was built in 1775 to a design by John Smeaton at the expense of the 3rd Duke of Queensberry. It comprises five arches and a solid parapet of limestone ashlar blocks and replaced a smaller earlier wooden and stone bridges. Its located on the edge of the park and the main route into the town.
6.41 There is another area of designed landscape at the 16th century house at Lake, where a small park was laid out in the early 18th century on the River Avon, with formal gardens added when the house was restored in the early 20th century.
6.42 The small villages in the wider study area share a similar form, based on the church and manor with estate cottages as the overall pattern. All are tightly nucleated, with farmsteads within the villages with few buildings in the open downland. The exception is the single isolated 19th century farmstead at Down Barns (LB135).
6.43 The 1st edition Ordnance Survey map 1878 (figure 6.4) shows very clearly the division between the river valley as the concentration of settlement, with linear woodlands and extensive areas of watermeadows between, and the open downs, where the few divisions are created by roads and tracks. The development site is featureless aside from a single track. The town of Amesbury set within a meander of the river is very small, with a simple layout based on the medieval roads. To the north is the large parkland of Amesbury Park, including the wooded Vespasian’s Camp to the west, with several ornamental lakes and channels formed on the river. Beyond is the layout of the Nile Clumps across the fields to Seven Barrows. Outside the town are large areas of watermeadows within the loop of the river. The approach to the town along Salisbury Road remains largely undeveloped, with several named houses, including the complex at South Mills, Red House and a workhouse. To the west, Stonehenge and surrounding monuments are shown within open downs, with few features other than several solid woodland blocks.
6.44 The area experienced significant change from the later 19th century and into the 20th through the military use of Salisbury Plain. Land at Bulford had been
Terence O’Rourke Ltd March 2012 151004d King’s Gate, Amesbury ES Chapter 6: Cultural heritage - designated heritage assets Bloor Homes Ltd
in use for training from c.1898, and was a base for the Royal Artillery from 1905. The camp at Durrington was established from 1899. Initially these were tented camps, but more permanent structures were built as the camps established. The railway that had been built to Amesbury in 1902 was extended to Bulford in 1906. The military presence in the area was increased before and during the First World War, with the establishment of several aerodromes on the high downs to the north of the town, at Larkhill and Netheravon. Two groups of aircraft hangars of c.1910 at Larkhill (LB233) are listed grade II*.
6.45 Another distinctive element of the 20th century development at Amesbury is the group of experimental smallholders’ cottages built in 1919/1920 for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to the east of the town centre on Holders Road (LB49 - 60). These show a range of materials, using colourwashed cob, reinforced in-situ concrete and chalk concrete blockwork, as well as brick or timber frame construction. Again this area has been absorbed in the eastwards suburban expansion of Amesbury.
The setting of the Stonehenge WHS
6.46 “Setting is the surroundings in which an asset is experienced” (English Heritage 2011) and it is appropriate to outline the extent of the present setting of the Stonehenge WHS. Topographically the central part of the WHS is reasonably well-defined visually by the immediate ridgelines and horizons that surround Stonehenge, particularly in the east, along King Barrow Ridge, and to the south, where Normanton Down Ridge forms the boundary. The key associated sites within the WHS are sited along important ridge-top approaches, such as the Cursus Barrows, Normanton Down Barrows, New King and Old King Barrows, Lake Barrows and Winterbourne Stoke Barrows, as well as Woodhenge, the henge enclosure of Durrington Walls and the Stonehenge Avenue and Cursus earthworks.
6.47 The present landscape contains the extensive survival of the densest and most varied complex of Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments in England, a lot of which remain a visible component. The south, east and west of the WHS landscape lie upon the chalk river valleys, with a high density of historic villages clustered along the sides of the watermeadows. The northern area has large tracts of unimproved downland, used for much of the 20th century for military training. The key characteristics of the landscape as outlined in the WHS Management Plan (2009, 23) are; “much of the WHS is an open landscape in which the sky dominates. The undulating landform, with large fields bounded by fences and long distant views of plantations, clumps of trees, roads and upstanding archaeological features are the most distinctive characteristics of the downland plateau landscape.” The general absence of hedgerows and buildings is also a notable feature.
6.48 Many individual monuments are sited within the WHS in the landscape laid out during the 20th century, with intensive military use still an integral part of the landscape. To the north, the Larkhill Garrison dominates the rising slopes, while the buildings at Boscombe Down are prominent on the skyline to the
Terence O’Rourke Ltd March 2012 151004d King’s Gate, Amesbury ES Chapter 6: Cultural heritage - designated heritage assets Bloor Homes Ltd
east. Original, intentional monument relationships are less clear in the northern part of the WHS around the settlement of Larkhill, where there is a considerable amount of modern development. Other obvious intrusive elements are the many roads (A303, A344 and A360) that impede intended visual and physical links across the prehistoric downlands with their associated traffic and noise. Two distinct forms of woodland exist within the WHS; ridgeline clumps of mixed deciduous trees (e.g. beech) planted in the 18th and 19th centuries along King Barrow Ridge and Winterbourne Stoke Clump, and plantations of pine planted at the end of the Second World War, such as at Larkhill Plantations. Noteworthy is the role certain woodlands play in providing screening of modern structures in views from Stonehenge.
6.49 Two key proposals express the intent promised at the time of Stonehenge gaining WHS status in 1986, namely the stopping-up of the road extent adjacent to the stone circle, namely the A344, and the relocation of the adjacent visitor facilities and car park. It was agreed that these two elements had an adverse impact on the visual integrity of the site. English Heritage has stated, following a successful planning proposal for new visitor facilities, that “Assuming all the relevant orders are granted by February 2012, the plan is for the works at Airman's Corner to proceed in June 2012 and at Longbarrow Crossroads in October 2012, and to be completed before closing the A344 in 1 June 2013, with the opening of the visitor centre in October 2013” . Following a public inquiry in 2011, the Secretary of State granted the orders to close the current section of the A344 (from Stonehenge Bottom to Byway 12) and restore it to grass in order to reunite the stone circle with its processional Avenue, a key relationship reflected in the single schedule entry for the two sites. These two measures will lead to beneficial effects to the immediate setting, sense of place and spiritual qualities of the stone circle and its original role in the ceremonial landscape in which it was carefully sited.
6.50 The Stonehenge WHS has always been subject to change, some of which, particularly in the 20th century, has caused a loss of significance. The ongoing conservation of the WHS is detailed in the management plan (English Heritage 2009 60-64) and clearly identifies the need for maintaining suitable settings for the WHS and its attributes (associated sites) of its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). The key aspects / attributes of the relationship between the archaeological sites and the landscape include:
• The location of prehistoric barrow groups along visually prominent ridgelines • Gradual change in the visual relationships between the stone circle and other principal sites as the observer moves through the WHS, which may have been a deliberate intention of their builders • The importance of the sequential and unfolding nature of the visual experience in approaches to Stonehenge
1 http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/stonehenge/our-plans/stonehenge-visitor- centre-faqs/roads-and-the-surrounding-area/
Terence O’Rourke Ltd March 2012 151004d King’s Gate, Amesbury ES Chapter 6: Cultural heritage - designated heritage assets Bloor Homes Ltd
• The careful and deliberate placing of Bronze Age barrows within the landscape has been much debated but many are known to contain lavish grave goods, such as gold, indicating a social hierarchy • A gradual resumption of arable agriculture has taken place in the WHS since the 17th century, which reflects a pattern of ancient settlements and field systems, suggesting such practices extend to early prehistoric times in the WHS • Archaeological evidence suggests that, from the Middle Neolithic through to the Bronze Age, the original woodland cover had been removed and the landscape had a sparsely wooded appearance, much like today.
Future baseline
6.51 Construction of 170 dwellings and associated infrastructure on an area of approximately 3.8 ha on the edge of the Amesbury link road to the east of the application site began in early 2011 and will be completed before the commencement of future phases of work. This development has been considered as part of the existing baseline for the assessment. The landscape planting provided as part of the earlier phases of development, along the edge of the Amesbury link road and by the balancing pond is anticipated to be relatively dense and substantial by the time the present phase of development is constructed.
6.52 As part of the vision outlined in the management plan for the Stonehenge WHS, there is a commitment “to provide a more tranquil, biodiverse and rural setting for it, allowing present and future generations to enjoy it and the landscape more fully.” The recent decisions to stop-up the road alongside Stonehenge and to relocate the Stonehenge visitor centre away from its present location will deliver a more tranquil (as much as is possible so close to the A303 dual carriageway) rural setting immediately surrounding Stonehenge.
Assessment of importance
Scheduled monuments
6.53 The elevated position of the development site allows views across to King Barrow Ridge, overlooking Stonehenge, as well as towards the great henge enclosure of Durrington Walls. North and east of Amesbury are the linear barrow cemeteries of New Barn Down, Earl’s Down Farm and Boscombe Down West, while to the north west, within the town of Amesbury, are the Ratfyn Seven Barrows. Whilst not designated assets, the recent discoveries of three Bronze Age Beaker graves: the “Amesbury Archer”, his “Companion” and the “Boscombe Bowmen” (radiocarbon dated to 2400–2200BC), throw much light on this rich prehistoric landscape and the world of copper age (Beaker and late Grooved Ware) and Early Bronze Age burial practices dated to c.2400–1600BC2.
2 http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba115/feat4.shtml
Terence O’Rourke Ltd March 2012 151004d King’s Gate, Amesbury ES Chapter 6: Cultural heritage - designated heritage assets Bloor Homes Ltd
6.54 The development site lies 1.25 km south east of the boundary of the Stonehenge WHS, with its outstanding complex of ceremonial burial monuments that, with their settings and associated sites, together form a landscape without parallel. The chosen design, positioning and inter- relationship of the burial monuments and sites within the defined WHS provide the evidence of a wealthy (shown by the many gold artefacts recovered) and highly organised prehistoric society able to impose its concepts on this downland environment. While the on-going excavations at Durrington Walls continue to reassess previous ideas on the prehistoric communities who lived, possibly created, and are even interred in the numerous burial monuments across this landscape, the human endeavour applied to creating the 3 km long processional earthwork, The Avenue, aligned from the River Avon to the monumental stone structure of Stonehenge is without comparison. Their ceremonial awareness and likely astronomical responsiveness is shown in constructing the great stone monument on the axis of the midsummer sunrise and midwinter sunset.
6.55 The Stonehenge WHS Management Plan (2009, paragraph 8.2.2) states how “The main pressures on the landscape nowadays continue to include development and changes in land use which can alter or even destroy these often subtle, but important visual and thematic relationships. Such relationships contribute to, or may be attributes of, the OUV of the WHS.” The WHS was inscribed on the World Heritage List as a cultural site and not a cultural landscape, as that was not recognised as a category until 1992. Many academics have argued that a cultural landscape designation would be more suitable for this WHS, and a review of Stonehenge’s OUV will be undertaken during the lifetime of the 2009 management plan (English Heritage 2009, 102). In setting out the WHS statement of significance, the key monuments that were singled out for the significant contribution to the OUV are the Cursus Barrows, Normanton Down Barrows, New King and Old King Barrows, Lake Barrows and Winterbourne Stoke Barrows, as well as Woodhenge and the henge enclosure of Durrington Walls and the Stonehenge Avenue and Cursus earthworks. These key associated sites within the WHS area are sited along important ridge-top approaches to Stonehenge stone circle.
6.56 Whilst the importance of Stonehenge and its associated site WHS is undisputed, elsewhere in the wider 5 km study area prehistoric burial monuments are noticeable by their absence in contrast to the landscape clusters present within the WHS area. There are six scheduled monuments within 1 km of the development site, with further contemporary burial sites at Durnford (south west), and near Porton (south), but none are recorded between Porton and Boscombe Down and Earls Farm Down to the east. In the north of the 5 km study area, an east-west concentration of Bronze Age barrows survive along the ridgeline overlooking Bulford (to the north), and a similar concentration strung out along the alignment of the A303, the New Barn barrows. The barrow cemeteries to the north of Amesbury appear to have been sited along ridgelines and routeways leading to the focus of this ceremonial landscape at Stonehenge itself. The development site is offset from this spatial relationship.
Terence O’Rourke Ltd March 2012 151004d King’s Gate, Amesbury ES Chapter 6: Cultural heritage - designated heritage assets Bloor Homes Ltd
Built heritage and historic landscape
6.57 The listed buildings within the study area are concentrated in the historic centres of the sequence of villages along the two valleys of the River Avon and River Bourne, the small town centre of Amesbury, and the remaining historic areas of the settlements of Bulford and Durrington that are now dominated by military facilities. Higher status buildings are represented by the distinctive group at Amesbury Abbey, and some of the larger manor houses, particularly along the Avon valley to the south. The list includes some 20th century buildings in the hangars remaining from the pioneering phase of aviation development at Larkhill, and the group of experimental smallholders’ cottages on the edge of Amesbury. Listed buildings within the study area are of high importance.
6.58 There are two areas of designed landscape within the study area. Amesbury Abbey and the park developed from the early 18th century onwards, to include areas of watermeadows and the woodland covering the Iron Age hill fort of Vespasian’s Camp, in addition to a series of garden structures. The south boundary of the park on the river is set by Queensberry Bridge, which allows one of the few views into the park. The park is significant in defining the western edge of Amesbury and is included in both the conservation area and (in part) within the WHS. The park at Lake on the slopes above the River Avon, which also falls within the WHS, is a 20th century formal garden created for the restored Elizabethan house within an 18th century park. Parks and gardens within the study area are of high importance.
6.59 The conservation areas at Amesbury, Bulford and Durrington are small areas of much expanded settlements characterised by modern development, in the case of the latter two with the military dominant. The villages of West Amesbury, Lake, Wilsford, Great Durnford, Netton, Porton and Boscombe are designated with small conservation areas tightly drawn around the village centres. Conservation areas within the study area are of medium importance.
6.60 While the focus of the WHS is the Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial monuments of the high downland, the western side of the inscribed area includes most of the historic villages of the Avon valley, which contribute through the strong impression of the divide in topography and landscape character and as an element of the rural setting.
6.61 Table 6.2 summarises the importance of the designated heritage assets within the study area.
Receptor Importance of receptor Stonehenge world heritage site High Scheduled monuments High Listed buildings High Registered parks and gardens High Conservation areas Medium Table 6.2: Cultural heritage, summary of importance
Terence O’Rourke Ltd March 2012 151004d King’s Gate, Amesbury ES Chapter 6: Cultural heritage - designated heritage assets Bloor Homes Ltd
Potential effects
6.62 The proposed development could be a source of impacts on the cultural heritage value or significance of the designated heritage assets in the study area through changes to setting as a result of:
• The removal of existing buildings, landscape elements or character • The new built form, its scale, extent, appearance and character • The new road layout, access and patterns of circulation • Changes to the visual qualities of the site, including through lighting
6.63 The assessment of effects that follows considers the effect with the measures that have been included as part of the proposals (principally the limits set for the built element, the use of the playing fields as a less intensive edge, building heights and a further stage of landscape planting to link to that already in place) The integration of reduction and mitigation into the master plan is described in chapter 2 and outlined in paragraphs 10.49 - 10.56 in the landscape and visual chapter.
6.64 The development will take place in several phases over approximately ten years, therefore construction and operational effects will occur concurrently.
6.65 The impact assessment that follows makes use of the LVIA viewpoints (VPs) in figures 10.7 to 10.18 in chapter 10. Those viewpoints most relevant to this assessment are VPs 2 and 3 on the approach to Amesbury from the south, VP 5 on the River Avon on the south of Amesbury Park, VP 6 on the slopes at Wilsford, VP 7 at Beacon Hill near Bulford, VP 8 near Larkhill, VPs 9 and 10 from near Stonehenge and VP 11 from near South Mills. Of these, VPs 6, 8, 9, 10 are from within the inscribed area of the WHS. The assessment also refers to the ZVI (figure 10.5, chapter 10). This confirms the application site is not visible from most of Amesbury and land to the north and east. The River Bourne to the south is separated entirely from the application site by the landform, which prevents any effects in this area. Buildings and conservation areas in this part of the study area are therefore not considered further in this assessment. Visibility to the west is in blocks, defined by the topography, with the largest area to the north, beyond the A303 and along the facing slopes of the Avon valley to the west.
Effects during construction
Scheduled monuments
6.66 The nearest designated archaeology asset, the extant series of medieval strip lynchets (SM 28941), is located c.40 metres from the application site boundary. No elements of the site preparation work or construction activities will take place anywhere in the vicinity of this designated site. Therefore, no material change is predicted to this, the closest designated asset or any other sites within the 5 km study area.
Terence O’Rourke Ltd March 2012 151004d King’s Gate, Amesbury ES Chapter 6: Cultural heritage - designated heritage assets Bloor Homes Ltd
Built heritage and designed landscape
6.67 Given the distance of the designated assets from the application site, the existing and ongoing construction activities and the nature of potential impacts, all effects are considered under post-construction effects.
Effects post-construction
Scheduled monuments
6.68 The undulating topography and extent of built development at Amesbury, Boscombe Down Airfield and the alignment of the A303 all present physical barriers to visual identification of the proposed development.
6.69 The medieval strip lynchets (SM 28941) are well-preserved visible earthworks (see VP11) located on the north west facing slope c. 40 m north of the development site. These earthworks extend away from the development site to the dry valley floor, and are therefore at a lower elevation and do not fall within the ZVI (see figure 6.8). The northern part of the site is proposed to comprise sports pitches and associated recreational space with no plans for external floodlighting. The ability to appreciate the medieval earthworking skill that went into constructing and maintaining these lynchets will not be lost as a consequence of the scale, nature or form of the proposed development. There were no intentional designed views to or from this monument to the application site. There is no material change predicted to this scheduled monument as a consequence of the proposed development.
6.70 Of the other recorded designated archaeology assets within 1 km of the application site, the three sites to the south (two linear earthworks and one bowl barrow) fall within the ZVI (see figure 6.8). As the bowl barrow (SM 28937) lies between two security fences, the closest visual representation of available views northwards towards the proposed development are presented at VP 1 (figures 10.7 and 10.8). The present views comprise modern development such as Boscombe Down Airfield and the on-going development of Archers Gate. The visual or spatial relationship between this bowl barrow site and other burial sites to the north east within the airfield has already been eroded, affecting the ability to appreciate this designated asset. The presence of the A345, the mixed deciduous and coniferous tree belt present on the south eastern side of the site and Stockport Farm reduce any wider intended spatial relationships with this bowl barrow and the wider landscape to the west containing the remnant earthworks. There is no material change predicted to this scheduled monument.
6.71 With reference to VP 2 (figure 10.9), looking north towards the development site close to the A345, the north-south aligned linear earthwork west of Stockport Farm (SM 28940) cannot be discerned. The scale of existing tree belts, industrial units and Boscombe Down Airfield buildings do not affect the ability to appreciate or detract in any way from understanding this enigmatic archaeological asset. Its setting also comprises the aural impacts of the A345 and new Amesbury link road. No material change is predicted to this
Terence O’Rourke Ltd March 2012 151004d King’s Gate, Amesbury ES Chapter 6: Cultural heritage - designated heritage assets Bloor Homes Ltd
scheduled monument as a consequence of the development. VP 3 (figure 10.10) is taken 0.9 km south west of the development site on the Great Durnford road and shows the gently undulating field parcels (left shot winter view) that the L-shaped earthwork (SM 28935) traverses. The ZVI predicts a view of the development from most of this feature. There is no spatial relationship between this earthwork and the development site, or any visual links to other designated assets in this southern study area extent. No material change is predicted to this scheduled monument.
6.72 Moving south west, the triple bell barrow (SM 28936) on Amesbury Down is situated on a broad plateau east of the River Avon. No landscape viewpoints represent the views north eastwards towards the development site. The barrow has 14 concrete bollards placed on its summit and has a woodland plantation to the east and the west, which extends northwards onto Amesbury Down. These immediate physical elements have effectively confined any intended spatial recognition of what was originally an unusual form of Bronze Age barrow monument. Cultivation and the addition of the concrete bollards to the top of the mound have also altered appreciation of the three original contiguous mounds. With this monument’s immediate setting considered to be significantly altered, the addition of development on the site c.1.5 km north east is of no relevance to its wider landscape setting or spatial associations. No material change is predicted to this scheduled monument.
6.73 Overlooking the valley of the River Avon, and sited on a gentle spur north east of Normanton House on Amesbury Down, are two surviving bowl barrows (SM 28933), with the central barrow of three having been levelled by ploughing. The two surviving barrows stand to between 0.5 and one metre high. The undulating topography between their siting overlooking the river, and the development site at nearly two kilometres to the east, presents no direct intervisibility. Any previous inter-relationship with these barrows and the aforementioned bell barrow to the south west is difficult to discern, with the presence of woodland plantation effectively screening views. The appreciation and understanding of barrow monuments in the study area continues to be at risk from ploughing and illicit metal detecting for grave goods. No material change is envisaged to the barrows’ wider landscape setting from the proposed development.
6.74 There are four representative viewpoints within the WHS that are relevant in determining potential effects to its setting. VP 6 (figure 10.13), looking east from the high downland above the River Avon on the eastern edge of the WHS area, illustrates the north-south alignment of electricity pylons intruding across the middle distance of the landscape. The view is expansive and the recent development at Archers Gate, while appearing new, is in scale and proportion to the surrounding urban form and built edge of Amesbury. The viewing distance of 3.1 km reduces the significance of visual effects along this eastern edge of the WHS, such that the development, although partially visible, will not significantly affect views to and from, or alter the ability to appreciate, the WHS. None of the aforementioned designated monuments are identifiable in this view and the landscape is shown to be of a scale to accommodate the development in its proposed location.
Terence O’Rourke Ltd March 2012 151004d King’s Gate, Amesbury ES Chapter 6: Cultural heritage - designated heritage assets Bloor Homes Ltd
6.75 Further west, and close to the western edge of the 5 km study area, VP 10 (figure 10.17) illustrates the view looking eastwards from the Normanton Down Barrow complex, a number of which are visible in the foreground and middle distance. The Archers Gate development is perceptible (due in large part to its present ‘new’ façade along the south west side) as part of the urban fringe of Amesbury just above the intervening downland plateau at c.4.2 km distant. A 360-degree appreciation of the setting from this viewpoint comprises the undulating, expansive downland that would have played a crucial part of the unfolding of sequential views of Stonehenge stone circle in approaches from the south. A noticeably discordant field parcel south of Longbarrow Cross Roads is currently utilised for organic pig farming. This large field appears as a dark area of open soil and mud, and with its corrugated huts is in stark contrast to the green open downland that surrounds it, but is part of the experience on approaches to and from Normanton and Stonehenge Downs. While the proposed development is shown on the ZVI as being visible from this viewpoint, the degree of change in views that currently contain the large hangars on Boscombe Down sited above rooflines of housing at Amesbury, will be imperceptible overall in the context of the urban edge of Amesbury. The setting of this barrow complex will not change or be altered in any way by the proposed development, given the lack of spatial association, with no change in appreciation and understanding of these key archaeological sites in the Stonehenge WHS.
6.76 VP 9 from Stonehenge (figure 10.16) is 4.2 km north west of the development site. Whilst the prevailing sensory experience is generated from the A303 in the immediate setting of Stonehenge, there are wide and expansive views but no direct intervisibility to the development site from the stone circle itself, as a consequence of the intervening plateau and woodland screening. No element of the development site appears prominent, conspicuous or dominant in the wider landscape or in key views to or from other key components of the WHS, as the site is afforded natural and topographical screening in views from the most crucial component of the Stonehenge WHS. No material change is predicted.
6.77 The final representative viewpoint in the WHS to the west of Woodhenge (VP 8, figure 10.15) shows no views of the site from this location and therefore the proposed development poses no visual intrusion from this key associated site of the WHS. No element of the development competes with or detracts from the key associated sites that together form the OUV of the Stonehenge WHS.
6.78 There are a number of policies outlined in the Stonehenge WHS Management Plan on how best to sustain and enhance the conservation attributes of the WHS. Of the 11 policies proposed, the following are relevant when considering potential effects on the setting of the WHS from development proposals outside the designated area:
• Policy 3d: The setting of visible monuments and sites in the landscape and their inter-relationships should be maintained and enhanced with
Terence O’Rourke Ltd March 2012 151004d King’s Gate, Amesbury ES Chapter 6: Cultural heritage - designated heritage assets Bloor Homes Ltd
particular attention given to achieving an appropriate landscape setting for the monuments and also the WHS itself • Policy 3i: Where opportunities arise, the visual character of the WHS landscape should be improved by the removal or screening of existing intrusive structures • Policy 3l: Explore with the local authority the possibility of addressing the issue of light pollution in the Local Development Framework
6.79 With regards the latter policy on the possibility of the local planning authority considering light pollution issues, there is no consideration of this in the Core Strategy. The proposed development has ensured that there will be no floodlights for the northern sports pitches / recreational area adjacent to Southmill Hill, and further details on the particular lighting regime envisaged for the main development will aim to safeguard levels of light spill from the site. The lighting strategy will form part of future reserved matters applications.
6.80 The proposed development maintains the setting of visible and key associated sites that together contribute to the OUV of the Stonehenge WHS. The intervening undulating downland topography between the site and the key sites of the WHS results in no adverse intrusion from the proposed development to established ‘intentional’ sightlines between the monuments. The inter-relationships between key sites, such as the Avenue and Stonehenge stone circle, or the alignment of barrows at Normanton Down, or New / Old King Barrows, will remain unaltered and unaffected by the proposed development.
Built heritage and designed landscape
6.81 The site makes little contribution to the setting of individual listed buildings; it is distant from most, and has no historic or functional relationships that would give the land value, except as part of the wider context of the former downland of the edge of Amesbury. Potential effects will occur through the presence of the increased amount of development in the landscape, and the transition from a semi-rural to urban appearance. The ZVI confirms that direct intervisibility of the development site and individual buildings is not significant.
6.82 The closest listed buildings are the group at South Mills (LB1 - 3) These buildings are set on the curve of the river and have no visual or other links to the development site. No effects are predicted. VP 11, (figure 10.18) illustrates the role of the site in the outer areas of Amesbury, with the ridge and the slope of the lynchets to the north terminating views and marking the transition from the valley location of Amesbury to the higher downs. The application site area itself makes no contribution to the setting of any listed buildings on the approaches or within the tight urban centre of Amesbury. No effects are predicted.
6.83 Amesbury Abbey (LB37 - 47) and the grade II* registered park are the only assets with a series of visual and spatial relationships to a wider setting extending to the surrounding land. The grade I listed house (LB38) and the
Terence O’Rourke Ltd March 2012 151004d King’s Gate, Amesbury ES Chapter 6: Cultural heritage - designated heritage assets Bloor Homes Ltd
range of garden structures are set within the extensive designed landscape including the watermeadows and the tree-covered Vespasian’s Camp. The park is not publicly accessible, except for one element, the Lord’s Walk on the eastern side. There is significant enclosure around the central building group and the park is divided by significant tree lines. There are few external views or designed vistas. A view into the open parkland along the river is possible from Queensberry Bridge. The ZVI (figure 6.8) shows an area of predicted visibility along the south western side of the park. VP 5 (figure 10.12) from Queensferry Bridge on the river at the southern edge of the park illustrates the visual and spatial relationship to the watermeadows and the ridge to the east. The assessment in chapter 10 predicts a small visual change as a result of the development. The views beyond the park boundaries, particularly south across the watermeadows to the ridgeline are an element of its value. The 2009 characterisation report confirms the intrusion of rooflines of housing in the earlier phase of Archers Gate on this view. No effects are predicted on the principal design intentions and qualities of the park as a result of the current phase of development. The changes to the views across the watermeadows to the ridge on the horizon potentially increase the impression of the presence of recent development on the margins of the park although these may reduce as the planting within the earlier phases of development matures. In the context of the group of listed buildings and the park as a whole, the development results in a small to negligible change, giving a moderate to slight effect. This effect is significant for the EIA.
6.84 The group of listed buildings at West Amesbury have a similar relationship to the watermeadows and the ridge beyond. The hamlet consists of a tight sequence of buildings along the main street and the group at West Amesbury House within its walled boundaries (LB65- 71). The site may form part of distant views in the context of the developed area of Amesbury, but is not a significant element of the setting of these buildings. No effect on the listed buildings is predicted.
6.85 Within the wider study area, the built up area of Amesbury and Boscombe Down is a significant presence in the otherwise sparse settlement pattern, and differs in the extension of development from the historic focus of settlement on the valleys onto the high downland. In the south of the study area, the historic settlements of the River Avon valley are secluded within the valley setting, with few wider visual relationships. The ZVI predicts visibility of the development from the slopes above the valley, overlooking the villages, and VP 6 (figure 10.13) near Wilsford illustrates the limited presence of the built up area of Amesbury in views in these areas currently. Chapter 10 predicts a negligible visual change and the increase in the built up area of Amesbury is not significant. No effects on listed buildings in these areas are predicted as a result of the proposed development.
6.86 To the north of the study area, the historic centres within the enlarged settlements of Durrington and Bulford are divorced from the rural context beyond the downs to the south and are dominated by surrounding development. In VPs 7 and 8 (figures 10.14, 10.15) from the edge of these settlements, the development site appears as part of the long established
Terence O’Rourke Ltd March 2012 151004d King’s Gate, Amesbury ES Chapter 6: Cultural heritage - designated heritage assets Bloor Homes Ltd
context of development at Amesbury and there is no significant visual change. No effects are predicted.
6.87 There are a number of isolated structures located across the downland. The Beacon Hill triangulation pillar (LB177) is one structure with direct intervisibility of the application site. VP 7 shows Amesbury as part of the wider view from this elevated location. No effects are predicted.
6.88 The only conservation areas that could potentially be affected by the development are at Amesbury and West Amesbury.
6.89 The conservation area at Amesbury is tightly drawn around the small historic core and the parkland at Amesbury Abbey. The site area forms part of the overall rural setting of the town, within the long established pattern of development to the east of the historic core extending towards Boscombe Down Airfield. The conservation area appraisal states that the key influences on the conservation area derive from the layout and dominance of the abbey, and the small town centre of consistent quality and overall modest scale. Although the conservation area is characterised by the enclosure of the urban centre, the appraisal recognises the contribution of land outside the designated area when viewed from the single vantage point at Queensberry Bridge, which allows longer distance views across the watermeadows and to the ridge of the beginning of the downs to the east. The settlement setting assessment and historic characterisation reports confirm the value of the approaches to the town on the A345 and the role of the scheduled lynchets on the ridge in terminating the view along the flat straight route of Salisbury Road. The latter report highlights the effect of the intrusion of roof lines of the earlier phases at Archers Gate above the ridgeline when viewed from the watermeadows on the edge of Amesbury Abbey Park.
6.90 Chapter 10 confirms the localised large change in landscape character and in views as a result of the proposed development, resulting in a significant change in the approaches to Amesbury in this direction. The small designated area is at the north western extreme of the built up area, which is already considered disproportionate to the size of the historic core, and is some distance from the proposed development. The ZVI confirms few areas of direct intervisibility. However, the effect on the town form reinforces the impression of the dominance of modern development and the new focus of built development on the downs, rather than the historic low lying river location. The effect on the setting of the conservation area of the changed approaches and greater development is predicted to result in a small change to an asset of medium importance, which will result in a slight effect. This is not significant for the EIA.
6.91 The small village of West Amesbury is set on the river across the valley from the development site. The designated area includes the system of watermeadows to the south, including one of the group of sluices (LB64, 75). The ZVI shows some areas of visibility of the proposed development in this area, but this would be in the context of the built up area of Amesbury. No effect on the conservation area is predicted.
Terence O’Rourke Ltd March 2012 151004d King’s Gate, Amesbury ES Chapter 6: Cultural heritage - designated heritage assets Bloor Homes Ltd
6.92 This section considers the potential for effects on the historic settlements and landscape character as a result of the development to alter their contribution as part of the WHS and its setting. Although Stonehenge is not inscribed as a cultural landscape, being concerned with the archaeological value of the prehistoric landscape and monuments, the management plan recognises the potential for increased development on the margins of the WHS to affect tranquillity and the rural setting. The villages of the Avon valley are a key component of this setting. For the development site area specifically, the concern is the potential for the increased development at Amesbury to create a stronger urban influence on the margins of the WHS, and the effects of light pollution in particular.
6.93 The assessment predicts no effects on heritage assets within the villages along the Avon valley; their contribution to the WHS and its setting will therefore be unchanged. Potential effects are identified on the designed landscape at Amesbury Abbey and the conservation area at Amesbury, the latter mainly through a change to the town outline and the urbanising effect of its presence on the approaches from the south. The effect of changes to the contribution of the rural context and pattern of historic development to the significance of the WHS will result in a negligible change to a receptor of high importance, which is a slight impact. This effect is not significant for the EIA.
Mitigation
6.94 The mitigation of adverse effects has been considered during the design of the development throughout the evolution of the master plan, with the purpose of avoiding or reducing any adverse potential effects. This mitigation has been incorporated as an intrinsic part of the design process. The measures proposed and the use made of the existing historic landscape character in the master plan (landscape strategy figure 2.5) are described in chapter 2 and outlined in paragraphs 10.49 - 10.56 in the landscape and visual chapter.
6.95 The specific concern for the potential effects of light pollution on the edge of the WHS will be addressed at the detailed design stage.
Residual effects
6.96 The significant residual effects are summarised in table 6.3.
Topic Significant residual Importance Magnitude Duration Nature Degree of Level of effects of receptor of change effect certainty Effects post-construction
l
e Change in setting of High Small to Permanent Adverse Moderate to Reasonable a g r a
u the designed negligible slight t t i l r
u landscape at e C h Amesbury Abbey Table 6.3: Significant residual effects
Terence O’Rourke Ltd March 2012 151004d King’s Gate Amesbury Environmental Statement
5 km
Legend Listed buildings Scheduled monument World heritage site Registered parks and gardens Site boundary
All designated assets within 5km
Client / Project Amesbury Bloor Homes Ltd I
Drawn by: LegendMarch 2012 items JC Checked by: LegendScale: items1:40,000 JT 0 970 m Legend items Based upon the 2011 Ordnance Survey 1:25000 scale raster map with the permission of the Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her LegendMajesty's itemsStationery Office, © Crown copyright. Terence O'Rourke Ltd. Licence No. AL100017826. Data provided by English Heritage, 2012 Legend items Copyright Terence O'Rourke Ltd, 2012
0 1 2 3 4 5km
Chapter 6 Figure 6.1 Cultural heritage: designated heritage assets All designated heritage assets in the 5 km study area I 5km Drawn by: JC Checked by: JT 4 970 m 3 Environmental Statement Environmental 2 Listed buildings Heritage Site World parks Registered gardens and monument Scheduled boundary Site 2 1:40,000 1 Client / Project:Client Amesbury Bloor Homes Ltd All designated heritage heritage designated All assets within a 1km and 5km study area Based upon the2011OrdnanceSurvey 1:50000 scale raster map thewith permission of the Ordnanceon SurveyofHer behalf O'Rourke StationeryMajesty's © Office, copyright.Crown Terence Ltd. LicenceNo. AL100017826. Data provided by English Heritage, 201 2012 Ltd, O'Rourke Terence Copyright 0 March 2012 Scale: Legend Legend items Legend items Legend items Legend items Legend items Figure 6.2Figure the in scheduled monuments of Detail 5 km1 km study and area 0 28938 28939 28937 28940 28941 28935 1 km 5 km Chapter 6 Chapter assets heritage designated heritage: Cultural Amesbury Gate King’s Based upon the 2011 Ordnance Survey 1:10000 Scale Raster map with the permission of the Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright Terence O’Rourke Ltd Licence Number AL100017826. I 5km Drawn by: JC Checked by: SD 4 950 m 3 Environmental Statement Environmental Listed buildings parks Registered gardens and areas Conservation boundary Site 2 2 1:40,000 1 Legend Client / Project:Client Amesbury Bloor Homes Ltd Listed buildingsand designated landscapes within 5 km Based upon the2011OrdnanceSurvey 1:25000 scale raster map thewith permission of the Ordnanceon SurveyofHer behalf O'Rourke StationeryMajesty's © Office, copyright.Crown Terence Ltd. LicenceNo. AL100017826. Data provided by English Heritage, 201 Copyright Terence O'Rourke Ltd, 2012 Ltd, O'Rourke Terence Copyright 0 March 2012 Scale: Legend items Legend items Legend items Legend items Legend items Figure 6.3Figure designated and heritage built of Detail 5 km the study in areas area 0 171- 176 164- 170 148- 162 177 163 139- 147 138 137 136 135 186- 203 204 208- 212 49 60- 178 179 4 5 - 5 36 - 134 48 1 - 3 - 1 61 133 180 62 63 64 213- 232 181- 185 233 37 47- 75 72 91 102- 104- 117 65 71- 76 90- 118- 132 103 73 74 5 km Chapter 6 Chapter assets heritage designated heritage: Cultural Amesbury Gate King’s Based upon the 2011 Ordnance Survey 1:10000 Scale Raster map with the permission of the Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright Terence O’Rourke Ltd Licence Number AL100017826. y e e p rk a , u s v m o p r r r I a R e e ' m H O st : u
f y re e t ra o b
c
n S f y: e l n l e d b
a a e
5km C re h k n e e y sc c e T
w
b b e . 0
t ra h C T 0 n d c h D J C J 0 o e
g i 0 d i y n 1 y v yr : r o p 1 rve r a o y u p 4 c a
2
S n
a 1 m n t rve e 0 d a w u c 2 d 0
D n S
, ro
n
a 5 r . d e C t n 3
6 c u L 2
n rd ©
O 8 a e , O o 7 n
e 3 rk 1 e c u i Environmental Statement Environmental rd 0 b h f t o n f 0 O
f R 0 O ' 1 o 1
e y 1 d O 0 L r n
io t t 0 e 0 A e o i L 2
n
. c 0 si it : , o e s o n t s i d i S t h 4 e c e N 2 t r 2
a
e 1 d t e j : e 1 rm y n n m T S o r e c
1 o 0 r o t e n u p s p e 2 P
h e
H u b e y' /
g :
c t
h r i s t h g t d e s t L l c 1 yri e o
n e
e r . j 1 a h p e s s o e i t l a d a m 0 l i o a c t 2 C A B w B
L C M 0 1 S 1 M L Legend items Legend items Legend items Legend items Legend items Figure 6.4Figure First Survey Ordnance edition 25-inch 1878 scale dated map 0 Chapter 6 Chapter assets heritage designated heritage: Cultural Amesbury Gate King’s Based upon the 2011 Ordnance Survey 1:10000 Scale Raster map with the permission of the Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright Terence O’Rourke Ltd Licence Number AL100017826. King’s Gate Amesbury Environmental Statement
High Medium Low Negligible
World heritage site or its setting
Scheduled monument or its setting
Grade I or II* listed building or its setting, grade I or II* historic park and garden or its setting
Other heritage asset with archaeological interest of national importance
Grade II listed building or its setting
Grade II park and garden or its setting, shipwreck or battlefield of historic interest Typical Typical description of the receptor
Conservation area
Other heritage asset with archaeological interest of regional or county importance, locally listed building
Locally important or interesting site with educational or cultural value not qualifying as a heritage asset under PPS5 Annex 2
Site or feature with no significant value or interest
Chapter 6 Figure 6.5 Cultural heritage: designated heritage assets Receptor importance King’s Gate Amesbury Environmental Statement
Large Medium Small Negligible
Complete destruction of a heritage asset and its setting and historic context
A fundamental change in the ability to understand and appreciate a heritage asset and its setting and historic context
Such a change to a heritage asset that it makes an appreciable difference to the ability to understand and appreciate the asset and its setting and historic context Typical Typical description of the change predicted A minor change to a heritage asset such that it makes a small difference to the ability to understand and appreciate the asset and its setting and historic context
No material change to a heritage asset, or to the ability to understand or appreciate the asset and its setting and historic context
Chapter 6 Figure 6.6 Cultural heritage: designated heritage assets Impact magnitude King’s GateAmesbury Cultural heritage: designated heritage assets Chapter 6 If the degree of effect is moderate or above, then the effect is considered to be significant. be to considered is effect the then above, or moderate is effect of degree the If Significance interest. or value significant no with feature or site a to change any or asset heritage a to change material No Negligible: appreciation. cultural or education for value local with site a to change any or interest local of asset heritage a to change minor A Slight: interest. local identified of asset heritage a to change fundamental a or of, destruction complete the or importance, regional or national international, of asset heritage a to change minor A Moderate: asset. heritage identified formally other or area, conservation a interest, historic of battlefield or shipwreck or garden or park II grade a is which asset heritage a appreciate and understand to ability the in change fundamental a or of, destruction complete The Substantial: lost. or altered greatly is asset the appreciate and understand to ability the that so interest, archaeological with asset heritage other any or garden and park historic II* or I grade building, listed monument, scheduled site, heritage world a of setting the to change fundamental a or of, destruction complete The Verysubstantial: effect ofDegrees Magnitude / scale of change
Negligible Small Medium Large substantial High Very Substantial Sensitivity of receptor of Sensitivity Medium Moderate Slight Low Negligible Negligible Effect significance Effect Figure 6.7 Environmental Statement e
p k r a u m d t
o
r r I R e e ' n d n H O h st :
f s a y e i n e 8 a r l o . : b
c
g
f y e 6 l n a l d e n
b a e a m
e E r t e s h
c 5km k n r e i e y s t s c T u
u w
b b e . 0
s a g t h r C T i s e 0 n d
n h D J C J
F 0 o e rk
g i 5 d g e s o y y 2 a e yr vi : v p o r 1 g s r
r in o p m u y p a c
a
2
a
S 4 a
ve 1 n
t r ld e m 0 d d a d w u c 2 rit
o D S n d
, r 0 n m
e
a ui . d e e le 7 C r n t 6 c e u k s 9 L d 2 b n
r © u h e t
8 a e
, O
o n 5 t 7 k n
e r 1 d e
a d c 3 d u i r e 0 b h f Environmental Statement Environmental o t f is 0 e O
n n
e f R 0 O rld d ' 1 i d o t 1 g
h e t y r 1 O 0 L r g n
t o L 0 e h 0 A e e
i o c i VI 2 a
is n
. c s 0 t si t , e o n o e s s i i 2 d c i g Z L S W R S t h e 0 N 1 t r 2 e a
y j m 2 4 m t 0 e r e 1 : r e n n o o T 2 S r w e c
1 u
0 o
t , P n p H
s e p 2 b
d
e h
e
/ u I r s e y'
g g :
c i t h i h a g o e l d e st t n t L l c i yr
e
l o e r V e r . l j m a i h p s e l t e a a d i o c a B A t C H A Z B w M L
C S M 0 L 1 Legend items Legend items Legend items Legend items Legend items Figure 6.8Figure assets heritage designated All the to relation in ZVI across 5 km the study area 0 m k
5 Chapter 6 Chapter assets heritage designated heritage: Cultural Amesbury Gate King’s Based upon the 2011 Ordnance Survey 1:10000 Scale Raster map with the permission of the Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright Terence O’Rourke Ltd Licence Number AL100017826.