Chapter 6 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

AECOM A1-SENSLR: MNB – Environmental Impact Assessment – Part 2: Environmental Statement 6-2

6.1 INTRODUCTION This archaeological and cultural heritage assessment examines the known archaeology and built heritage in areas adjacent to the route of the proposed bypass, as well as considering the potential for previously unrecorded archaeological remains. This chapter assesses the likely significant impacts of the development upon archaeology and cultural heritage. The site location can be seen on Figure 1.1; Figure 2.1 shows the proposed scheme in detail. Details of the proposed bypass are discussed in Chapter 2 of this ES. A corridor width of approximately 500m from the road alignment was assessed to gain an understanding of the nature of the surrounding archaeological landscape and to place sites within their wider context. This search radius was taken from guidelines within the Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) (henceforth referred to as HA208/07). 6.1.1. Legislation and Policy National legislation and planning policy which is relevant to cultural heritage for England includes: Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990; Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979; and Planning and Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment.

Regional and local planning policies which are relevant to the consideration of cultural heritage include: The North East of England Plan: Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (July 2008) Policy 32 Historic Environment now revoked; and Northumberland Consolidated Planning Policy Framework (April 2009). Annex A Spatial Theme Definition: Built Environment.

6.2 METHODOLOGY 6.2.1. Data Sources The archaeological assessment has been undertaken following guidelines from the Institute for Archaeologists for archaeological desk-based assessments (2008a) and the DMRB HA208/07. The sources consulted were: Northumberland Historic Environment Record (HER); National Monuments Record (NMR) for archaeology, aerial photographs and listed buildings; Aerial photographs; Northumberland Record Office; and Envirocheck Report (Envirocheck Geology Maps 2008).

A walkover survey of the proposed bypass and its environs was undertaken on the 16 th September 2009. 6.2.2. Consultation A consultation meeting with the Northumberland County Archaeologist was held on the 16 th September 2009. The main concern of the County Archaeologist was the potential for prehistoric settlement within the area. Following this meeting a programme of geophysical surveys were undertaken in March 2010. The area between the A1 and the A192 was assessed in December 2002 as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment for the A1 – A192 Link Road (The Archaeological Practice Ltd, 2002) . The land to the east of the study area has been subject to open cast coal mining, therefore , only the area between the A192 and the How Burn was subject to additional survey. Evaluation excavation is currently in progress and the results will form a supplement to this report. There is sufficient information using a precautionary approach to assess the potential impacts on heritage assets from the proposed bypass. This excavation exercise will provide a detailed enhancement to the baseline data and enable a suitable AECOM A1-SENSLR: MNB – Environmental Impact Assessment – Part 2: Environmental Statement 6-3

assessment to be made of further mitigation requirements in conjunction with the County Archaeologist. Refined mitigation measures will need to be implemented as part of the construction works. 6.2.3. Scope of Assessment The scope of the assessment was to: Determine the presence of known archaeological and built heritage sites that may be affected by the proposed bypass; Assess the likely potential of finding previously unrecorded archaeological remains; Assessment of the likely significant impacts of the development on the historic environment; and Suggest mitigation measures. 6.2.4. Assumptions and Limitations The assessment has been undertaken based upon available data sources and records, and on the description of the proposed bypass as set out in Chapter 1 of this ES. The baseline data is reliant on previously recorded archaeological information and documentary sources. Any judgements on the potential of previously unrecorded archaeology is based upon a variety of techniques, including known records, topography and geology, prior experience and comparative analogy with similar areas. 6.2.5. Impact Assessment Methodology This Detailed Assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the guidelines detailed in HA208/07. The guidance encompasses the sub-topics of Archaeological Remains, Historic Buildings and Historic Landscapes. HA 208/07 contains guidance for assessing the significance and value of archaeological, built and cultural heritage. This includes historic landscapes. These values may vary by area and region, although this will be factored into any consideration of designation by the local authority archaeological advisors. Appendix 6.1 summarises these values. The principles of the impact assessment methodology rest upon independently evaluating the value of the cultural heritage resource and the magnitude of impact upon the resource. The magnitude can be positive or negative. The factors in the assessment of the magnitude of impact of each sub-topic can be seen in Appendix 6.1. By combining the value of the cultural heritage resource with the predicted magnitude of impact, the significance of impact can be determined. The impact significance can be beneficial or adverse. This assessment of value, magnitude of impact and significance of impact has been carried out using the methodology outlined in Chapter 5 and annexes 5, 6 and 7 of DMRB. Table 6.1 Significance of Impact Moderate/ Large/ Very Very high Neutral Slight Very Large Large Large Moderate/ Large/ Very High Neutral Slight Moderate/ Large Slight Large Medium Neutral Neutral/ Slight Slight Moderate Moderate/ Large VALUE Low Neutral Neutral/ Slight Neutral/ Slight Slight Slight/Moderate Negligible Neutral Neutral Neutral/ Slight Neutral/ Slight Slight No change Negligible Minor Moderate Major MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT Note: Shaded boxes indicate a significant impact in terms of EIA AECOM A1-SENSLR: MNB – Environmental Impact Assessment – Part 2: Environmental Statement 6-4

6.3 BASELINE CONDITIONS There are 83 previously recorded heritage assets. 55 of these were recorded on the HER, two from the NMR and 14 from the Environmental Statement for the A1-A192 Link (The Archaeological Practice 2002). An additional two sites have been identified from cartographic sources, three sites identified from aerial photographic sources, including one overlying a previously recorded site, and one from the walkover survey, respectively. A further seven possible heritage assets were identified from the geophysical survey. Throughout the following description of these assets, the numbers in brackets relate to those shown on Figure 6.1 and in Appendix 6.2. The geology along the proposed bypass corridor mainly consists of till with patches of glaciofluvial deposits (Envirocheck Geology Maps 2008). The soils comprise slowly permeable seasonally waterlogged fine loamy soils, some over clayey soils (Soil Survey of England and Wales 1983). The land through which the proposed bypass runs is currently a combination of agricultural land and a former mineral extraction site. The route is bisected by two watercourses, Cotting Burn and the How Burn, which flow southwards and join the River Wansbeck in Morpeth. 6.3.1. Designated Sites There are no World Heritage sites, Registered Battlefields, Registered Parks and Gardens or Conservation Areas within the study area. There is one Scheduled Monument. The monument consists of two lozenge-shaped pillboxes (1) constructed during World War II. They are part of a group of four pillboxes, with two being outside of the study area. There are two other designated sites, both listed buildings, within the study area. These are a Grade II listed 18 th century farmhouse (2) and a Grade II listed stone bridge (3). Although outside of the study area, the centre of Morpeth will experience reduced traffic as a result of the proposed bypass which may result in indirect beneficial impact on the setting of heritage assets and this should also be considered. Morpeth is a historic market town and was established in the medieval period when a motte and bailey castle was constructed here. Ecclesiastical sites followed, including the monastery at Newminster. Permission to hold a market at Morpeth was granted in the twelfth century. The town centre contains a number of heritage assets which date to the medieval and post-medieval development of the town. These include the Scheduled Monuments of Morpeth Old Bridge (No. 35421) and the Clock Tower (ND110) close to the market place. A number of buildings along the road network in Morpeth are also designated as listed buildings and the centre of Morpeth is a Conservation Area. 6.3.2. Non-Designated Sites Prehistoric (to 43 AD) The earliest recorded archaeological sites within the study area comprise of Mesolithic activity recovered during the excavations at Pegswood Moor Farm (9). This was in the form of residual lithic material found within features of a later date. Further lithic material dating to the Neolithic and Bronze Age were also recovered during the excavations. The Pegswood Moor Farm excavations (9) primary aim was to record the Iron Age and Romano-British multiple phase occupation site located here prior to mineral extraction. The Iron Age evidence consisted of round houses, field systems and enclosures and was probably a farmstead. The excavations revealed several phases of occupation at the site and suggested that the settlement moved from being unenclosed to enclosed during the later part of the Iron Age. The site has been described as being of regional importance. A further three sites are recorded as being of prehistoric date. These comprise cropmarks identified from aerial photography. There has not been any subsequent archaeological investigation on these cropmarks to confirm a specific period. However, it is likely that they are of a later prehistoric date, although late Bronze Age or Romano- British origins are also possible. These are discussed in more detail below. Roman (43 to 450 AD) AECOM A1-SENSLR: MNB – Environmental Impact Assessment – Part 2: Environmental Statement 6-5

There are two sites with evidence dating to the Roman period recorded within the study area. The first is the multiphase site at Pegswood (9) where an enclosed settlement, stock enclosures and field systems were recorded. The evidence suggests a continuation from the Iron Age occupation, although with significant remodelling of the enclosures and activity on the site. The site has been described as having at least regional importance. The second Roman site is a find spot of a 2nd century brass coin of Antoninus Pius. The coin is noted as being found at Hebron although no more precise location is known. Early Medieval (450 to 1066 AD) There are no recorded sites of an early medieval date within the study area. Medieval (1066 to 1500 AD) There are 19 medieval sites recorded within the study area. Seventeen of these comprise ridge and furrow cultivation, three of which were found during geophysical survey (10, 63 & 64) whilst the others (13, 28, 61, 65, 66, 68, 69, 71-74 & 78-80) may date either to the medieval period or later. Six areas of ridge and furrow still retain some form of visible earthworks (61, 65, 66, 69, 71 & 74) whilst the other 11 are visible only as cropmarks (10, 13, 28, 63, 64, 68, 72, 73, and 78-80). The two additional sites comprise roads. An old public road leading to Shield Hill (25) has been identified. It has been postulated during previous archaeological investigations (NAA, 1999) that this may have been a route to Cottingwood. The Great North Road (62) follows the route of the A192 where it bisects the study area. The road is known to have at least medieval origins and it has been hypothesised that it was once a Roman route, although this has not been confirmed by excavation. Post-Medieval (1500 to 1900 AD) There are 33 recorded sites dating to the post-medieval period, including the two listed buildings described previously. The rest of the entries mainly comprise structures and sites normally expected in a relatively rural setting. There are a small number of industrial sites. Several are related to mineral extraction (31, 32 & 43) and the How Burn Colliery tramway (34) crosses the search area. Further sites that may relate to mineral extraction include a mound that may be the result of spoil from mining (33), a possible extraction pit or pond (46) and a bell pit or clay pit (35). Also recorded within the search area is a brick and tile works (20) and a hydraulic ram (11), which is presumably related to former industry in some form. Sites relating to agriculture include Butterwall Cottage (38) and Pegswood Farm (47), both of which are shown on the early OS maps. Two accumulations of rubble (26 & 27) are located near to East Cottingwood Farm and are thought to relate to activities there such as field clearances or removal of old farm buildings and debris. In addition to these there are four wells within the search area (19 & 49-51). East End Lane Farm (67) dates to the early 19 th century, although it may lie atop an older site, possibly a medieval grange of Newminster (The Archaeological Practice, 2002). An area of post-medieval ridge and furrow cultivation (70) is recorded near to the A192 road. The ridge and furrow is visible as earthworks. To the north of Morpeth, on Cottingwood Common, lies the site of the former Morpeth Racecourse. Established in 1730, it is still shown on a town plan of 1796 and whose outline is still legible in the field boundary layout . Further recorded post-medieval sites within the vicinity include two sets of stone channels (22 & 23) on the east side of the former racecourse, which probably relate to drainage, a guide post (42) and a mile post (48), two bridges (52 & 54) and four fords (39-41 & 53). A further two sites are recorded from the 1895-7 Ordnance Survey (OS) map. A building is depicted on the 1895-7 map (57). It is not clear if the structure is shown on the 1866 OS map. The building is indicated as being on a boundary meeting point. Slightly to the north-east is a second building, also within the road corridor. An additional site has been tentatively identified to the south of East Shield Hill. This is of a possible ford or stepping stones (59) leading from a footpath and crossing into Howburn Wood.

AECOM A1-SENSLR: MNB – Environmental Impact Assessment – Part 2: Environmental Statement 6-6

Modern (1900 AD to present) There are nine recorded sites pertaining to the modern period, including the scheduled pillboxes. A further five pillboxes (5-8 & 55) are recorded within the area, although not all of these remain extant. The Northern Command: River Wansbeck Stop Line, of which the pillboxes are a part, formed a defensive line during the Second World War. This line extended from the coast inland along the River Wansbeck and formed part of the defences to prevent a German invasion from the north reaching Newcastle. There is an aircraft crash site (37) dating from the Second World War. A German aircraft, a Heinkell III, was brought down in August 1941 in the vicinity of Howburn Wood and is recorded as being relatively intact. The final two sites of modern date are Northgate Hospital (4), which opened in 1938 as a mental deficiency colony, and a mound (36) which is thought to be modern in origin. Unknown There are nine sites of unknown date recorded within the study area. A number of these have been noted from aerial photography and may be prehistoric in date. The exact date of these sites has yet to be confirmed by further archaeological investigation. The sites identified from aerial photographic sources comprise linear cropmarks (12), a complex of cropmark enclosures including a ring ditch (14), which may be of Iron Age or Romano-British date, and a rectilinear enclosure and two parallel ditches (17), also thought to date to the Iron Age or Romano-British periods. A sub-circular cropmark (18) may represent further activity from these periods. A series of cropmarks (21) to the north of the former racecourse suggests medieval or post-medieval activity. They consist of an area of ridge and furrow visible as earthworks, a series of ditches and a possible pond. Within the area of Pegswoood, two sets of cropmarks were identified (29 & 30). These may have been geological or agricultural field drains but are now no longer extant due to the quarrying. A possible feature was identified from aerial photographs as a circular cropmark with a central smaller cropmark (45). The HER record suggests that this may have originated from marks left on the field from a modern animal feeder, although if there is a square enclosure surrounding them, as has been postulated, this may suggest it is archaeological in origin. The final site of a hollow-way (24) was identified running westwards towards a stream. This may have been a trackway leading animals to water although the date and definite function remain unknown. 6.3.3. Cartographic Evidence The earliest available map covering the area of the proposed bypass is Speed’s map dating to 1610. Both Morpeth and Heborne (Hebron) are shown, but little more detail is visible. Armstrong’s map of 1769 shows the land surrounding Morpeth in a more systematic and detailed manner, but still lacking in sufficient detail from which specific sites could be identified. The racecourse to the north of Morpeth is depicted on this map, as are a number of dwellings and farmsteads in the area. It is possible that two of the sites are East Lane End Farm and East Shield Hill Farm. Both Fryer’s map of 1820 and Greenwood’s map of 1828 depict much the same as Armstrong’s map. The tithe maps dating to the early 1840s, of the parishes of Morpeth, Newminster Abbey, High and Low Highlaws and Spital Hill, provide far more detailed information on the field boundaries and buildings in the parishes. Unfortunately much of the area covered by the proposed bypass was not shown on these maps and the sections which were available of the western portion of the route did not show any detail. The 1:10,560 OS maps of the study area are the first available systematic cartographic sources. The 1 st edition OS maps depict the area predominantly as an agricultural landscape, much as it is today. Wooded areas such as How Burn and Cotting Burn are more extensive and the road system is less developed. Several of the present day farms are shown, namely West Lane End and East Lane End Farms, and East Shield Hill Farm. There does not appear to be any industrial sites within the area covered by the road corridor at the time of drafting of the map. AECOM A1-SENSLR: MNB – Environmental Impact Assessment – Part 2: Environmental Statement 6-7

The 1:2,500 scale OS maps of 1895-7 capture the landscape in greater detail than previous mapping. The maps indicate that the wooded areas of Howburn Wood and Shield Hill were more extensive and the road system is less developed, similar to that shown on the 1:10,560 1 st edition OS map. Several of the present day farms are shown; West End Lane and East Lane End Farms and East Shield Farm, although these were present by the mid-19 th century and are shown on earlier OS maps. 6.3.4. Aerial Photography Aerial photographs consulted as part of this study are listed in Table 6.2. A number of sites were identified or confirmed following assessment of the available aerial photographs of the area. A combination of oblique and vertical photographs was viewed. In total three further sites were recorded from the analysis. These comprised of a relict field boundary (58) and two areas of ridge and furrow (44 & 60). Further sites, which had previously been recorded from surveys, were also viewed and their presence confirmed. This established that the enclosure complex at Pegswood Moor Farm was far more extensive than that excavated. The cropmark evidence suggests that it continued to the west and south at least as far as How Burn. Cropmarks in the vicinity of recorded earthworks (21) may be related to them. However, at least one of the possible features overlaps the ridge and furrow. It is not clear if the features predate the ridge and furrow but this is a possibility. Table 6.2 Aerial Photographs Reference Number Frame Number Date Taken RAF/CPE/SCOT/UK/221 4129 27 June 1947 RAF/CPE/SCOT/UK/221 4131 27 June 1947 RAF/541/A/479 3386 21 June 1949 RAF/541/A/479 3389 21 June 1949 RAF/58/2657 24 30 December 1958 RAF/58/2657 26 30 December1958 OS/77130 10 28 August 1977 OS/67306 1 20 August 1967 OS/95064 211 06 April 1995 OS/95064 253 06 April 1995 NZ 1987 / 7 /18 12 August 1977 NZ 1988 / 17 /19 26 July 1999 NCC NZ 17 86 119 91 143 1991 NCC NZ 17 87 119 91 142 1991 NCC NZ 17 87 119 91 023 1991 NCC NZ 19 87 119 91 024 1991 NCC NZ 19 88 119 91 141 1991 CPE/Scot/UK221 2313 27 th June 1947 BKS NZ 17 86 U 050581 No date BKS NZ 17 86 U 050582 No date BKS NZ 17 86 U 050501 No date BKS NZ 17 86 U 050502 No date BKS NZ 17 86 U 050503 No date

AECOM A1-SENSLR: MNB – Environmental Impact Assessment – Part 2: Environmental Statement 6-8

Table 6.2 Continued Reference Number Frame N umber Date Taken BKS NZ 17 86 18725 1960 CPE/Scot/UK221 3175 27 th June 1947 CPE/Scot/UK221 3178 27 th June 1947 CPE/Scot/UK221 3179 27 th June 1947 CPE/Scot/UK221 4130 27 th June 1947 CPE/Scot/UK221 3127 27 th June 1947 CPE/Scot/UK221 3174 27 th June 1947 CPE/Scot/UK221 3211 27 th June 1947 CPE/Scot/UK221 4125 27 th June 1947 CPE/Scot/UK221 4269 27 th June 1947 CPE/Scot/UK221 4257 27 th June 1947 CPE/Scot/UK221 NZ 1986 NZ 18 NE 27 th June 1947 CPE/Scot/UK221 3173, NZ 1988 NZ 18 NE 27 th June 1947 CPE/Scot/UK221 4256, NZ 1786 NZ 18 NE 27 th June 1947 050583 NZ 1788 NZ 18 NE 1949 6.3.5. Site Walkover A site walkover was undertaken on 16 th September 2009. It was not possible to gain access to every field and the eastern part of the scheme, subject to mining activity, was not visited as no archaeological remains survive there. The land was in use as arable and pasture land grazed by cattle. The earthwork features recorded on the HER (21) largely survive in situ. The ridge and furrow survives and a hollow-way, which curves around to the west to meet the brook along the west of this field and a second hollow-way (24). The ridge and furrow measured c.4.5m from ridge to ridge. Other than an additional area of ridge and furrow (56), no other archaeological features were noted. 6.3.6. Historic Landscape Characterisation The Northumberland Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) project has mapped the various land and townscape characters within the county in relation to their formation and origin. The landscape to the north of Morpeth is composed of four main historic character types. These comprise piecemeal enclosure of fields, other small wavy edged surveyed enclosed fields, straight edged enclosed fields, and other medium irregular fields. An area of mineral extraction lies in the north-eastern portion of the route. Much of this landscape would have formed in the post-medieval period. The land to the north of Morpeth was privately owned by the Duke of Portland and thus may not have been enclosed by Parliamentary Act. The area retains much of its historic legibility from the pre-industrial period in the form of field boundaries. The medium irregular fields possibly predate the post-medieval period, being remnants of ancient enclosure. The other three types, piecemeal, wavy edged and straight edged enclosed fields, all date from the mid 17 th century to mid 19 th century in origin. The route of the proposed bypass also encroaches on an area of ancient replanted woodland, of which there are several surrounding Morpeth. Howburn Wood is depicted on the 1604 map of Morpeth, although it is unclear how far back the woodland has been in existence. The woodland would originally have extended further to the north following the course of the How Burn . AECOM A1-SENSLR: MNB – Environmental Impact Assessment – Part 2: Environmental Statement 6-9

6.3.7. Geophysical Survey A geophysical survey was undertaken by Archaeological Service Durham University between 8 th and 15 th March 2010. The area surveyed ran eastwards from the A192 to the How Burn. The area from the A192 to the west was surveyed as part of the A1-A192 Link Road assessment (The Archaeological Practice, 2002) and the area to the east on Pegswood Moor has been surface mined. A copy of the report can be seen in Appendix 6.3. A number of the geophysical features correlate with previously recorded heritage assets. These mainly comprise remains of ridge and furrow (e.g. 21, 28, 60 & 73). A number of previously unrecorded features of possible archaeological origin were also identified, including a further example of ridge and furrow (76). Other features comprise pits and ditches (77, 78 & 80) and small features of possible enclosures (79, 81 & 82). 6.3.8. Evaluation Excavation Evaluation excavation is currently underway along the route between the A192 and the How Burn. A 5% sample of this area will be subject to evaluation trenches. This is in accordance with published guidance from the IfA (2008b) and follows recommendations from the County Archaeologist. These are located to target both previously recorded archaeological sites, features identified during the geophysical survey, and on seemingly blank areas. The evaluation also forms a mechanism allowing the potential for previously unrecorded archaeological remains to be established sufficiently in advance of any construction activities to allow suitable mitigation techniques to be formulated. The results of the evaluation excavation will form an addendum to this report and will be submitted during the planning determination period as agreed with the County Archaeologist. 6.3.9 Archaeological Potential There are 83 recorded archaeological sites within the study area. Cropmark sites form a large portion of these known archaeological assets along with sites associated with agriculture. Table 6.3 summarises the current visibility of archaeological sites within the study area and the predicted likelihood of further discovery. Further details of the reasoning for these predictions can be found below. Table 6.3 Archaeological Potential Likelihood of further Period Visibility Presence/Absence discovery Palaeolithic Very Low Absent Low Very Limited – Residual Mesolithic Very Low Low Material Very Limited – Residual Neolithic Low Low Material Very Limited – Residual Bronze Age Low Low Material Present – Multiple cropmarks Iron Age Average High and some confirmed sites Romano-British Average Present – Multiple cropmarks High Early Medieval Low Absent Low Present – Mainly outside Medieval Average study area at Morpeth and Moderate Newminster Abbey Present – Multiple sites and Post-Medieval Good Moderate good historic map coverage

AECOM A1-SENSLR: MNB – Environmental Impact Assessment – Part 2: Environmental Statement 6-10

There are no Palaeolithic sites recorded within the study area and sites of this date are rare within Northumberland as a whole (Davis et al; 2006). Evidence has mainly come from isolated find spots such as the tools found at Howick. However, there is the opinion that the lack of Palaeolithic material is due to a failure to recognise evidence of such date and the relative visibility of these sites given their ephemeral nature ( ibid. ). Despite this it is considered that the potential for any evidence of Palaeolithic activity to survive within the road corridor to be low. The only evidence of Mesolithic date within the study area comes from the excavations at Pegswood Moor Farm where residual lithic material was recovered (Proctor, 2003). Further afield, there is evidence from Howick, Low Hauxley and Bolam (Waddington et al; 2003) within the county, amongst other sites. Most of the main sites of Mesolithic date come from coastal areas, rock shelters and upland or riverine locations (Davis et al; 2006). It is considered that the potential for Mesolithic remains to exist within the study area to be low. Neolithic remains are recorded only as residual material (Proctor, 2003) within the study area, although the period has been heavily researched in the past decade in Northumberland. Extensive evidence of activity has been documented in the Milfield Basin in North Northumberland as well as possible settlement evidence at Bolam. Much of the evidence of Neolithic date within Northumberland comes from rock art, burial sites and monuments. Settlement activity is known, such as that at Bolam, but it is scarce. The evidence found during the excavations at Pegswood may simply represent residual material from exploitation of the terrace overlooking the River Wansbeck. Given the lack of sites of Neolithic date and the known remains being of a residual nature, it is considered that the potential for further remains is low. Bronze Age material has been recorded from the excavations at Pegswood ( ibid 2003) but not elsewhere within the study area. The material from Pegswood is noted as being of early Bronze Age date ( ibid 2003). Lithic technology of early Bronze Age date has much in common with late Neolithic flintwork and it may be that all the material is from either period (Butler, 2005). Later Bronze Age material or sites are absent from the record within the study area although it is possible some of the cropmark sites identified in the area may date to this period. It is considered that the potential for previously unrecorded remains of a Bronze Age date is low. Sites of Iron Age date within the study area are known with Pegswood Moor Farm, which, as discussed above, provided evidence for multiple phases of occupation. This occupation also extended into the Romano-British period (Proctor, 2003). Aerial photography has further revealed enclosures that may well date to the Iron Age, although these may also span the Romano-British period and it is not inconceivable that they may have an earlier origin. Iron Age sites are more common in Northumberland than the preceding periods although this may be a case of the type of settlement and activity evidence being better suited to preservation in the archaeological record. Given the previously recorded evidence of Iron Age activity in the study area it is predicted that there is a high potential for further Iron Age evidence to be present within the proposed bypass. Further settlement activity cannot be discounted and evidence of Iron Age field systems might also be expected. Confirmed Roman and Romano-British sites are limited to Pegswood Moor Farm and a coin found near Hebron. As previously discussed, cropmark sites may be of Roman date. Within the wider region there are a number of Roman sites, many of them related to the Roman military. Dere Street, a Roman Road, passes to the west of Morpeth at some distance. A road further north leads to the Roman fort at Learchild (Allason-Jones et al 2006). Given the nature of the Romano-British remains at Pegswood it is predicted that the potential for encountering further remains of this date within the road corridor is high. There are no recorded sites of an early medieval date within the study area. Evidence of early medieval settlement and activity is spread throughout the county with a number of sites known within the Milfield Basin to the north. It is speculated that Morpeth may have originated during this period as there is evidence within the town layout indicators of early medieval origins (Aalen, 2006), although it is not named within the Domesday Book. If Morpeth formed a settlement in this period, associated remains might be found in the wider area. However, given the paucity of remains of this date, it is considered that the potential for early medieval remains along the road corridor to be low. AECOM A1-SENSLR: MNB – Environmental Impact Assessment – Part 2: Environmental Statement 6-11

Previously recorded medieval remains within the study area are still scarce. This is in part due to Morpeth lying further to the south of the study area. Further to the north-west of the site lies the deserted medieval village of Pigdon (Hale & Villis, 2008). The ecclesiastical site of Newminster Abbey and the motte and bailey castle also attest to the burgeoning importance of Morpeth in the medieval period. Despite this, the evidence within the study area is comprised predominantly of ridge and furrow cultivation and two transport routes, which possibly date to the medieval period. This suggests there may be the potential for previously unrecorded settlement, possibly in the form of farmsteads and agriculture-related sites, but little in the way of more urban or industrial activities. While it is possible that some of the less salubrious industrial practices were located away from the town it is thought unlikely that these would have been within the proposed bypass given the distance from the town. Consequently, it is considered that there is a moderate potential for remains of a medieval date to be located within the road corridor, although these are likely, but not definitely, to be of relatively low archaeological importance. The post-medieval period is the most highly represented and also the most visible of the periods prior to the modern. Many of the remains of this period are related to the expansion of the agricultural economy and industrial practices into these areas (Ayris et al; 2006). Cartographic evidence begins to form part of the evidence-base for the landscape and hence much more is known regarding the post-medieval period. With the possible exception of the areas of ancient woodland surrounding How Burn, the landscape was formed during the post-medieval period by the enclosure of what was previously open fields and woodland. With much of the post-medieval archaeological record presumed to be recorded, it is considered that the potential for previously unrecorded remains of this period to be moderate. This is likely to be in the form of agricultural and industrial remains, particularly those of the earlier post- medieval period where cartographic coverage is sporadic and limited away from the town boundaries.

6.4 IDENTIFICATION OF IMPACTS 6.4.1. Potential Impacts The following types of impacts could affect archaeological sites, the built heritage and the historic landscape: Physical impacts upon archaeological features; Visual impacts upon the setting of archaeological features; Visual impacts upon the setting of built heritage features; and Visual impacts on the historic landscape. 6.4.2. Value of archaeological sites There are 21 sites and four historic landscape types recorded along the route of the proposed bypass. These comprise a number of sites identified from aerial photography and geophysical survey, and several areas of ridge and furrow cultivation. Also affected are a hollow-way, a footpath, a possible quarry pit, a ford or stepping stones and two structures. Two listed buildings and a pillbox have their setting affected. The value of the affected sites can be seen in Table 6.4. The value of individual sites has been assessed following criteria in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2 and is based on current knowledge. AECOM A1-SENSLR: MNB – Environmental Impact Assessment – Part 2: Environmental Statement 6-12

Table 6.4 Value of Cultural Heritage Features No. on Fig. Site Name Grid Reference Value 6.1 East Shield Hill Farmhouse NZ 19936 88109 Medium 2 Bridge at East Shield Hill NZ 19975 88097 Medium 3 Pill Box NZ 19701 87572 Medium 5 Complex of earthworks NZ 196 877 Low 21 Hollow-way NZ 1946 8756 Low 24 Footpath NZ 1970 8758 Low 25 Ridge and Furrow NZ 1918 8747 Low 28 Structures shown on OS Map NZ 19061 87498 Low 57 Possible ford or stepping stones NZ 19846 87878 Low 59 Ridge and Furrow NZ 1886 8726 Low 60 Ridge and Furrow NZ 1850 8725 Low 61 Ridge and Furrow NZ 1785 8690 Low 64 Ridge and Furrow NZ 178 866 Low 65 Ridge and Furrow NZ 179 866 Low 66 Ridge and Furrow NZ 189 874 Low 73 Ridge and Furrow NZ 1978 8787 Low 76 Small linear features and pits NZ 1949 8778 Low 77 Possible rectilinear feature NZ 1909 8750 Low 79 Pits and possible ditches NZ 1896 8740 Low 80 Possible enclosure NZ 1881 8735 Low 81 Possible enclosure NZ 1883 8735 Low 82 Medium Irregular Fields NZ 1945 8773 Low - Piecemeal Enclosure NZ 1834 8709 Low - Surveyed Enclosure Straight Edged NZ 1858 8725 Low - Surveyed Enclosure Wavy Edged NZ 1888 8735 Low -

A number of heritage assets within Morpeth town centre will receive a positive magnitude of impact as a result of anticipated reduced traffic amounts within the town centre. These include the Clock Tower and Old Bridge Scheduled Monuments, both of high value, and the Conservation Area and listed buildings within the town centre and along the A-roads on the outskirts of the town. These are all of medium value, although some Grade II* listed buildings are of high value. These magnitudes of impacts are considered to be minor positive. 6.5 MITIGATION A number of archaeological sites have been identified along the route of the proposed bypass. These are to be further evaluated and the results of this will form an addendum to this report. Where identified features cannot be avoided they must be fully excavated and recorded in advance of the road construction to allow preservation by record. Other areas may require an archaeological watching brief during construction. The exact mitigation measures will be developed in conjunction with the County Archaeologist once the results of archaeological evaluation have been assessed. In addition, earthwork features should be subject to an earthwork survey. AECOM A1-SENSLR: MNB – Environmental Impact Assessment – Part 2: Environmental Statement 6-13

Mitigation measures to minimise the visual impact of the proposed bypass are limited. The use of planted screens and bunds may themselves be construed as a visual impact. It is recommended that photographic recording of the existing setting of sites should be undertaken before commencing any construction work. 6.6 RESIDUAL IMPACTS The impacts of the proposed bypass, taking into account the mitigation measures, can be seen below. This is separated into construction impacts and operation impacts. Table 6.5 Residual Construction Impacts Type No. on Duration Mitigation to be Magnitude of Significance Site of Value Fig. 6.1 of Impact applied Impact of impact Impact Complex of Earthwork Moderate 21 Direct Long Term Low Slight adverse earthworks recording negative Long Earthwork Minor Hollow-way 24 Direct Low Slight adverse Term recording negative Long Minor Footpath 25 Direct None suitable Low Slight adverse Term negative Watching brief / Long Minor Ridge and Furrow 28 Direct earthwork Low Slight adverse Term negative recording Structures shown Long Minor 57 Direct Watching brief Low Slight adverse on OS Map Term negative Possible ford or Long Minor 59 Direct Recording Low Slight adverse stepping stones Term negative Long Minor Ridge and Furrow 60 Direct Watching brief Low Slight adverse Term negative Watching brief / Long Minor Ridge and Furrow 61 Direct earthwork Low Slight adverse Term negative recording Watching brief / Long Minor Ridge and Furrow 64 Direct earthwork Low Slight adverse Term negative recording Watching brief / Long Minor Ridge and Furrow 65 Direct earthwork Low Slight adverse Term negative recording Watching brief / Long Minor Ridge and Furrow 66 Direct earthwork Low Slight adverse Term negative recording Long Minor Ridge and Furrow 73 Direct Watching brief Low Slight adverse Term negative Ridge and Furrow Long Moderate 76 Direct Watching brief Low Slight adverse Term negative Small linear Long Excavation/ Major 77 Direct Low Slight adverse features and pits Term Watching brief negative

AECOM A1-SENSLR: MNB – Environmental Impact Assessment – Part 2: Environmental Statement 6-14

Table 6.5 Continued Type No. on Duration Mitigation to be Magnitude of Significance Site of Value Fig. 6.1 of Impact applied Impact of impact Impact Possible rectilinear Long Excavation/ Major 79 Direct Low Slight adverse feature Term Watching brief negative Pits and possible Long Excavation/ Major 80 Direct Low Slight adverse ditches Term Watching brief negative Possible enclosure Long Excavation/ Major 81 Direct Low Slight adverse Term Watching brief negative Possible enclosure Long Excavation/ Moderate 82 Direct Low Slight adverse Term Watching brief negative Medium Irregular Long Minor - Direct None Low Slight adverse Fields Term negative Piecemeal Long Low Minor - Direct None Slight adverse Enclosure Term negative Surveyed Low Long Minor Enclosure Straight - Direct None Slight adverse Term negative Edged Surveys Enclosure Long Low Minor - Direct None Slight adverse Wavy Edged Term negative

Table 6.6 Residual Operational Impacts Type No. on Duration Mitigation to be Magnitude of Significance Site of Value Fig. 6.1 of Impact applied Impact of impact Impact Photographic East Shield Hill Moderate Moderate 2 Visual Long Term recording of Medium Farmhouse negative adverse setting Photographic Bridge at East Minor 3 Visual Long Term recording of Medium Slight adverse Shield Hill negative setting Photographic Moderate Moderate Pill Box 5 Visual Long Term recording of Medium negative adverse setting

The significance of impact upon heritage assets within Morpeth town centre is considered to be slight beneficial. The overall significance of impact is considered to be moderate adverse on the setting of heritage assets and slight adverse on archaeological features. 6.6.1. Cumulative Impacts There may be some cumulative impacts on archaeology as a result of the interaction of this scheme with other developments. However, many of the proposed developments in the area are located within any nearby town centres, including Morpeth, and the archaeology in those locations will be of a different form and period to the archaeology on the route of the proposed bypass. Overall, cumulative impacts are not considered to be significant. AECOM A1-SENSLR: MNB – Environmental Impact Assessment – Part 2: Environmental Statement 6-15

6.7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION This archaeological and cultural heritage chapter has collated baseline data within a study area of approximately 500m from the proposed bypass, as required by guidance in DMRB. Data was collected from the Northumberland Historic Environment Record, the National Monuments Record, aerial photographs, historic maps, and a site visit. A geophysical survey was also undertaken and evaluation excavation is also in process. These collective techniques are undertaken to provide information upon which to predict all easily foreseeable archaeological constraints. Eighty-three archaeological sites were identified within the study area. Some of these will be directly affected and other sites will have their setting affected. The results of ongoing archaeological work will be required to further develop a detailed mitigation strategy. It is anticipated that identified archaeological sites will require either archaeological excavation in advance of construction or an archaeological watching brief during construction. There will be beneficial impacts upon sites within the centre of Morpeth. The overall significance of impact is considered to be moderate adverse on the setting of heritage assets and slight adverse on archaeological features.