ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 1

Archaeology & Cultural Heritage Assessment

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 2

INTRODUCTION

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY Objectives Key Tasks Desk Based Assessment Geophysical Survey Trial Trench Evaluation Consultation Mitigation Measures Types of Impact Defining Setting Views

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Assessing Impact

BASELINE CONDITIONS Proposals Location & Topography Geology & Soils The Archaeological and Historic Landscape Information from the Historic Environment Record (HER) The Geophysical Survey The Trial Trench Evaluation Listed Buildings and other Cultural Heritage Features

PREDICTED LIKELY EFFECTS Assessment of Direct Impacts of Construction/Establishment Assessment of Indirect Impacts of Construction/Establishment Assessment of Operational/Decommissioning Impacts Restoration activities across the wider quarry

SCOPE OF MITIGATION

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 3

RESIDUAL EFFECTS

CONCLUSIONS

Tables 1.4 - 1.9

Annex 1.1 Legislative and Policy Framework

Annex 1.2 Desk-Based Assessment

Annex 1.3 Geophysical Survey

Annex 1.4 Trial Trench Report

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 4

Introduction

1.1 PHOENIX CONSULTING ARCHAEOLOGY LTD has been instructed by DAVID L WALKER LTD on behalf of TARMAC to prepare an Archaeology & Cultural Heritage assessment to support a planning application for a c.47.6ha. Southern Extension to their extant workings at Alrewas Quarry, Staffordshire (NGR SK16741241). Although the application includes for re-phasing of the current site, the means of archaeological mitigation is already covered on the current site and therefore this report addresses the potential for impact from the proposed extension only (the Site).

1.2 This chapter assesses the extent and importance of known archaeology and other features of cultural heritage interest in and around the Site. It also discusses the likelihood of further archaeological finds being made on Site, the potential impacts of the proposed development on archaeology and other features of cultural heritage interest, and a range of mitigation measures to minimise those potential impacts. Specifically, the chapter evaluates direct and indirect impacts on archaeological finds and sites in addition to any potential indirect impacts on other cultural heritage components in the surrounding landscape (including Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments and Conservation Areas).

1.3 Registered Parks and Gardens, Historic Battlefields and World Heritage Sites are not considered within this assessment as there are no such designations within the wider landscape.

1.4 National and local policy guidelines on archaeology (see Annex 1.1) recommend that important archaeological sites should be protected and where possible preserved in situ. However, for features of lesser importance preservation by record is an acceptable alternative. If important sites are assumed to exist, a condition may be attached to any granted planning permission which requires their preservation in situ or outlines a scheme of further archaeological investigation.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 5

Assessment Methodology

Objectives

1.5 The key objectives of the impact assessment are to:

● identify key archaeological finds and sites, including Scheduled Monuments, on and within 3km of the Site; ● identify key Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas within 3km of the Site; ● identify other heritage assets, such as non-Listed Historic Buildings within 1km of the Site; ● assess the impacts of constructing and operating the development upon the cultural heritage assets listed above, including consideration of their setting; ● identify measures for avoiding or mitigating potential impacts; ● detail any residual effects that cannot be mitigated.

Key Tasks

1.6 The assessment has involved the following key tasks:

● a desk-based baseline assessment to collect all readily available information on the archaeology and historic aspects of the landscape and to assess the probability of the survival of archaeological remains – see Annex 1.2; ● review of the results of an archaeo-geophysical survey across the Site – see Annex 1.3; ● review of the results of an archaeological trial trench survey across the Site – see Annex 1.4; ● consultation with relevant parties; ● site visit to assess setting of cultural heritage assets; and ● consideration of a range of measures to mitigate potential impacts of the proposed development on known and potential archaeology and other cultural heritage assets.

Desk-Based Assessment

1.7 To undertake an initial assessment of the survival of archaeological and other

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 6

cultural heritage assets across the Site a desk-based assessment has been undertaken (Annex 1.2). This collected all available data of the study area and its surrounds. The information was considered in the context of 'background information' on the physical environment, particularly geological and geomorphological conditions and past and present land-uses of the area. The sources of information used in the desk assessment are summarised below:

Historic Environment Record 1.8 The Historic Environment Record (HER) of Staffordshire County Council was made available during the assessment (search 2019). The Council HER Officer assisted with the collection of known records. Computer printouts of relevant archaeological information were obtained from this source.

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

Documentary and Cartographic Research 1.10 Relevant documentary and cartographic records held by the County and District Records Offices (Stafford and Lichfield) were consulted during this assessment and are reported upon below. In addition, Local Studies Libraries were visited. The aim of the research was to provide a summary of the landscape history of the Site. Documents held by the Public Record Office (PRO) in Kew and the National Monuments Record (NMR) in Swindon were also consulted.

Aerial Photographic Data 1.11 Aerial photographs covering the Site and its surrounds which are held by the NMR were reviewed. These included vertical and oblique shots.

Geophysical Survey

1.12 The majority of the site has been investigated by a detailed magnetometer survey (Annex 1.3). Readings were collected on 1m transects using fluxgate gradiometers, and were plotted at 25cm intervals along each transect (Bartlett

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 7

2012). The results from the geophysical survey are discussed in more detail below.

Trial Trench Evaluation

1.13 The geophysical survey plots provided the basis for the location of trial trenches (Annex 1.4). Trenches were positioned across geophysical anomalies that suggested below-ground archaeology, geophysical anomalies that were of uncertain character, cropmark features as detailed in the HER as well as blank areas to act as a control. The results from the trial trench survey have provided the necessary information with which to appropriately assess the impact of the proposed development on the archaeological resource.

Consultation

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

● Mr Shane Kelleher – County Archaeological Officer, Staffordshire County Council Natural, Rural County Advisory Team; ● Suzy Blake – Historic Environment Records Officer, Staffordshire County Council Natural, Rural County Advisory Team; ● Mr Nick Carter – Inspector of Ancient Monuments, Historic England (West Midlands Team); ● Ms Claire Hines– Conservation Officer, Design and Conservation Team, Lichfield District Council; ● Mr Edward Higgins – Conservation Officer, Design and Conservation Team, Lichfield District Council;

Mitigation Measures

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

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 8

Types of Impact

1.16 A development can result in two types of impact upon a cultural heritage asset: direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts arising from a development are likely to only affect archaeology and heritage features within the Site boundary. Indirect impacts are defined as any impacts upon other heritage features (including impacts to settings) as a result of the presence of the proposed development. Policy guidance recognises the need to protect the ‘setting’ of historic buildings and heritage features.

1.17 Historic England have published guidance on how to define the extent of the setting of heritage assets: The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment: Good Practice Advice in Planning, Note 3 (second edition) 2017. The following methodology below draws upon that document, guidance contained within the NPPF (2019), and the National Planning Practice Guide (NPPG 2014).

Defining Setting

1.18 The NPPF (2019 - Chapter 16: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) refers to the setting or surroundings of designated cultural heritage assets as being of importance in the assessment of impacts. It states that ‘setting’ is ‘the surroundings in which an asset is experienced’. It must be recognised from the outset that ‘setting’ is not a heritage asset, and cannot itself be harmed. Its importance relates to the contribution it makes to the significance of the heritage asset. The section below sets out to define the concept of setting and how it can be assessed.

1.19 As stated under the NPPF (2019), the issue of setting is most relevant to designated features of national importance, such as Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas, although certain other aspects of the historic environment, for which there are no specific statutory controls, such as historic parks and gardens, also frequently have a setting.

1.20 Historic England’s policy documentation (2017) and guidance states that setting is made up of a number of constituent elements which include:

● views from, towards, through and across an asset;

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 9

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

1.21 There is the suggestion that the setting of a heritage asset would often be associated with areas in close proximity to the asset and the spatial quality and relationship between an asset and its surroundings. It is clear, however, that some degree of interpretation is required, as not all development within the wider landscape of, say a Listed Building, can reasonably be assumed as falling within its setting. Unless there are clear functional or significant historic associations with the wider landscape, the surrounds will comprise a ‘backdrop’ rather than an integral part of the setting of a heritage asset.

1.22 The NPPF (2019) is concerned with the ‘significance’ of an asset and whether this significance will be altered by a development. It suggests that any development capable of affecting the significance of a heritage asset or people’s experience of it can be considered as falling within its setting. It is the degree of harm to the asset’s significance rather than the scale of the development that should be assessed (NPPG 2014.017).

1.23 Historic England guidance identifies that ‘change to heritage assets is inevitable, but it is only harmful when significance is damaged’ (HE 2017). In that regard, ‘significance’ is defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF as ‘the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic’.

1.24 As such, when assessing the impact of proposals on heritage assets beyond the boundary of a development site, it is not a question of whether setting would be affected, but rather a question of whether change within an asset’s ‘setting’ would lead to a loss of ‘significance’ based on the above ‘heritage interest’ as defined in the NPPF.

1.25 Local Authorities therefore need to come to an opinion as to whether a proposed development affects a heritage asset in line with the guidance detailed above. The objective is to determine the impact of proposals on heritage assets beyond the boundary of a development site, and in doing this it is necessary to first define the significance of the asset in question - and the

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 10

contribution made to that significance by its 'setting', in order to establish whether there would be a loss, and therefore harm.

1.26 The NPPF (2019.73) defines setting as:

‘The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surrounds evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral’.

1.27 There is some degree of interpretation required in assessing the ‘setting’ of any given heritage asset, and accordingly there is potential for conflicting definitions as to the exact extent and composition of the ‘setting’ of it. By implication an assessment of the setting of a heritage asset may reflect a particular interpretation rather than an absolute conclusion. It is nevertheless considered possible to present a balanced and informed view on the setting of an asset through assessment and whether a proposed development will adversely affect it.

1.28 On a practical level, Historic England Guidance (2017.8) identifies an approach to assessing setting in relation to development management which is based on a five-step procedure:

a. Identify which heritage assets are capable of being affected;

b. Assess whether, how and to what degree setting makes a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset(s);

c. Assess the effects of the proposed development, whether beneficial or harmful, on that significance (see table under HE 2017.13);

d. Explore ways of maximising enhancement and avoiding or minimising harm; and

e. Make and document the decision and monitor outcomes.

1.29 As far as Step (b) is concerned, guidance makes the following observations:

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 11

The second stage of any analysis is to assess whether the setting of a heritage asset makes a contribution to its significance and the extent and/or nature of that contribution…this assessment should first address the key attributes of the heritage asset itself and then consider:

• The physical surroundings of the asset, including its relationship with other heritage assets; • The way the asset is appreciated; and • The asset’s associations and patterns of use.

1.30 Appeal decisions, e.g. Javelin Park, Gloucestershire (Ref 12/0008/STMAJW), have clarified the interpretation of existing guidance, establishing that the ability to see a proposed development, either from the heritage asset itself or from within its setting, should not be equated with harm to the significance of the asset. The key issue is whether and, to what extent, the proposed development would affect the contribution that setting makes to the significance of the heritage asset.

1.31 The assessment of potential setting effects, employed in the preparation of this report, focused on the completion of a site survey, and concentrated on the following three main areas:

a. Identifying those heritage assets that are capable of being affected by the proposed scheme and the manner (if any) in which they would be affected; b. Defining the contribution made to their significance by their setting; and c. Assessing the likely impact upon their significance as a result of the form of development proposed being implemented.

1.32 Policy guidance implies that the setting of a heritage asset would normally extend in all directions. Nevertheless, it is also clear that:

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

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 12

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

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

● Some heritage assets are very tall, such as churches with prominent towers and spires. Such assets are often widely visible across landscapes. Unless new development competes with such assets (such as tower blocks, wind turbines, etc.) then potential impacts are more likely to be landscape based as opposed to heritage based (2017.7).

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

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

1.33 In turn it is important to differentiate between the setting of different types of heritage asset according to their characteristics and constituent parts. For example, the setting of Listed Buildings differs from the setting of Scheduled Monuments, which in turn differ from the setting of Conservation Areas. A

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 13

summary of the definitions of setting used as a basis for this assessment are set out below:

Setting of Scheduled Monuments (SM’s) 1.34 The NPPF (2019) does not explicitly define what the setting of a monument is, but it is accepted that where nationally important remains and their settings, whether Scheduled or not, are affected by development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation (ibid. 31). The setting of some SMs, such as those that are represented by buried remains that have no discernible understanding on the ground-surface, is generally more limited than that for listed buildings. In these circumstances the wider landscape surrounding the SM does not necessarily contribute significantly to the understanding of the feature, although where a SM encompasses upstanding remains which might have specific relationships with the surrounding land these may have a wider setting than most. It is recognised that some buried monuments retain a presence in the landscape and may have a setting that extends beyond its curtilage. The location of former battles for instance, may not be discernible on the surface, but can leave an historic trace.

Setting of Listed Buildings 1.35 For the purposes of this assessment the setting of a Listed Building has been divided into primary and secondary. The primary setting of a Listed Building is formed of land which materially relates or contributes to the understanding and interest of the Listed Building. For example, a country house may have formal gardens and associated outbuildings which contribute to the overall historical evolution and understanding of the site and the interest of the building itself. In this manner, the primary setting contributes greatly to the heritage asset’s significance.

1.36 The secondary setting of a Listed Building can be defined as land outside the primary setting of the building but still adjacent and with a visual relationship to it. The secondary setting should have some kind of historical connection to the Listed Building, such as surrounding parkland, but will often not be as clearly defined as the primary setting.

Setting of Conservation Areas 1.37 The setting of a Conservation Area is made up of land surrounding the

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 14

boundary of the designated area and is often considered to either detract or enhance the characteristics of the area, including views into and out of it. The setting of a Conservation Area is not usually taken to extend very far as it is the intrinsic value of the area which is of most importance. Therefore, views into or out of Conservation Areas can, in some circumstances, contribute to the character or appearance of an area. In many circumstances Conservation Areas fall within village or town centres with a distinctly inward-looking character and are often screened from view by surrounding buildings and trees.

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

Views

Vistas and Sightlines 1.39 A built heritage feature, such as a listed house with associated formal gardens, may have planned vistas and views, for example avenues of trees centred on a landmark or point on the horizon which are intended to provide a pleasing aspect. Historic England (2017.6) discuss the importance of deliberately designed views, including those intended to create a particular effect, that illustrate a particular aspect of a landscape or which focus on a particular feature or features in a landscape. These views are seen to be ‘intended’ views.

Incidental Views 1.40 Many heritage assets set within a rural landscape may be seen from a number of locations, on footpaths, down streets and from the surrounding landscape. Views to and from such assets, where incidental and not intentionally designed, except where this forms part of the setting, are not covered in this chapter because incidental views are not integral to their special architectural or historic interest.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 15

Significance Criteria

1.41 The significance of potential impacts is assessed by taking into account the sensitivity of the heritage asset and the potential magnitude of change. Magnitude of change is a function of the nature, scale and type of disturbance or damage to the heritage asset. For example, a high magnitude of change may result in the loss of, or damage to, a feature of archaeology or built heritage. Criteria for assessing the magnitude of predicted change are provided in Table 1.1

Table 1.1 Criteria for assessing magnitude of change on receptors

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

1.42 The sensitivity/significance of the archaeological and/or built heritage feature will depend on factors such as the condition of the site and the perceived heritage value/importance of the site. The sensitivity of the receptor (archaeological and/or built heritage feature) is defined by its importance in terms of national, regional or local statutory or non-statutory protection. Table 1.2 sets out the criteria for assessing sensitivity and significance.

1.43 The sensitivity of the heritage asset, together with the magnitude of change, defines the significance of the impact (Table 1.3). Impacts of ‘major’ or ‘moderate’ significance are considered to equate to significant impacts in the context of the EIA Regulations. Grade I and II* Listed Buildings and their setting are all of high sensitivity and so even low levels of predicted magnitude of change to these features will be significant in EIA terms.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 16

Table 1.2: Criteria for assessing sensitivity & significance of receptors

Sensitivity & Criteria Significance High • Scheduled Monuments and their settings. • Archaeological sites of schedulable quality and importance. • Listed Buildings of Grade I and II* status. • Registered Parks and Gardens and their settings. Medium • Undesignated sites of demonstrable regional importance. • Listed Buildings of Grade II status. • Local Authority designated sites such as Conservation Areas and their settings. Low • Sites/buildings with specific and substantial importance to local interest groups. • Sites whose importance is limited by poor preservation and poor survival of contextual associations. No • Sites with no surviving archaeological or historical Importance component. Unknown • Importance cannot be ascertained.

Table 1.3: Criteria for assessing significance of impact

Sensitivity Magnitude of Change

High Medium Low No Impact

High Major Major Moderate Negligible

Medium Major Moderate Minor Negligible

Low Moderate Minor Minor Negligible

No importance Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 17

Assessing Impact

1.44 Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to (or total loss of significance of) a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss.

1.45 Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

1.46 The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

1.47 The threshold between substantial and less than substantial harm has been clarified in the courts. Whilst the judgement relates specifically to the impact of development proposals on a listed building, Paragraphs 24 and 25 of Bedford BC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 2847 remain of relevance here in the way they outline the assessment of ‘harm’ for heritage assets:

“What the inspector was saying was that for harm to be substantial, the impact on significance was required to be serious such that very much, if not all, of the significance was drained away.

Plainly in the context of physical harm, this would apply in the case of demolition or destruction, being a case of total loss. It would also apply to a case of serious damage to the structure of the building. In the context of non- physical or indirect harm, the yardstick was effectively the same. One was looking for an impact which would have such a serious impact on the significance of the asset that its significance was either vitiated altogether [i.e. destroyed] or very much reduced”.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 18

1.48 In other words, for the ‘harm’ to be ‘substantial’ – and therefore require consideration against the more stringent requirements of Paragraph 195 of the NPPF compared with Paragraph 196; the proposal would need to result in the asset’s significance either being:

“vitiated altogether or very much reduced”. This represents a very high threshold to be reached.

Baseline Conditions

Proposals

1.49 The planning application is for a southern extension to Alrewas Quarry, Staffordshire. The application area covers c.47.6 hectares and will involve the extraction of an additional 1.53 million tonnes of sand and gravel at a rate of up to 750,000 tonnes per annum. Working operations (the winning and working, and processing and treatment for sale of mineral) within the existing site should cease mid-2027. Restoration to arable farm land and nature conservation habitats will take place thereafter. Although the application includes for re-phasing of the current quarry site, this report addresses the potential for impact from the proposed extension only.

Location

1.50 The proposed southern extension to Alrewas Quarry is located to the east of the A38, south of the village of Alrewas and SW of the confluence of the Rivers Trent and Tame, in East Staffordshire. Brookhay Wood and Ironstone Lane define the southern extent, with the Lichfield to Derby railway line forming the western boundary. The eastern boundary is defined by a minor C-class road (Stockford Lane), beyond which lies agricultural land associated with Sittles Farm and the former Whitemoor Haye Quarry.

1.51 Workings associated with Phase 3A of the permitted Alrewas Quarry lie immediately beyond the NE boundary. The northern extent tapers up to an area of ponding within a small wooded copse, beyond which is an agricultural field that runs up to Roddige Lane.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 19

1.52 At the time of writing the Site is agricultural land. This comprises of five fields of arable, with two light-aircraft ‘lawn runways’ crossing the southern extent. An abandoned cottage, depicted on historical mapping dating back to the early 19th century, lies adjacent to the runways, in apparent isolation. A large (modern) rectangular reservoir is also located in this part of the Site, having been excavated in the last 30 years. The fields of the Site are generally flat (between the 55m and 60m AOD contours), rising slightly towards Sittles Farm, which occupies the most elevated part of the immediate landscape.

Geology &Soils

1.53 The Site lies on a gravel terrace bordering the western bank of the River Tame. The floodplain consists of spreads of alluvial deposits which overlie the Pleistocene gravel sub-surface, which in-turn overlie Triassic Mercian Mudstones, sandstones and Bunter Beds. The floodplain extends away from the water course to the gently cambered gravel terrace. Beyond the alluvium, soils tend to be stony and sandy loams and are classified as gleyic brown earths. Most soils in the area are well suited to modern arable farming, although areas adjacent to the river are susceptible to seasonal flooding.

The Archaeological and Historic Landscape

1.54 The archaeological and historic background to the Site is detailed in the desk- based assessment (Annex 1.2). What follows here is a summary of the main points. Locations of records are indicated in figure 2 under Annex 1.2.

1.55 The ‘regional’ archaeological context around the Site is also briefly provided below. It provides a review of known archaeology and historic landscape development around the application site in order to put the area in its archaeological and historical context.

Information from the Historic Environment Record (HER)

The Site

1.56 There are 3 HER records within the site boundary (Annex 1.2, Figures 2 & 3) that relate to cropmarks plotted from aerial photographs taken in the 1970s.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 20

On the northern extent of the site, a possible double trackway cropmark is detailed running north [01]. This feature remains undated and has not been investigated by evaluation. The HER suggests that a purported enclosure (outside of the extension boundary) associated with this cropmark, might be of Prehistoric date.

1.57 Two further extensive cropmark groups [02] and [03] are recorded to the south of Fine Lane. Both have been investigated by way of a geophysical survey (Annex 1.3) and trial trenching (Annex 1.4), as part of a previous planning application. The geophysical survey was unable to positively identify the various cropmark features, although several post-Medieval boundaries (relating to former field plots) were noted in the results.

1.58 Subsequent trial trenching across cropmark group [02] identified several undated pits and ditches (Trenches 22-24). While the various features here remain undated, they are considered to relate to scattered Prehistoric activity (as identified elsewhere in the surrounding landscape), as well as former post- Medieval field boundaries.

1.59 Trial trenching of cropmark [03] also identified a number of pit and ditch features. Whilst no conclusive Prehistoric activity was found here, Trench 27 did identify Medieval activity (1066 to 1540 AD) in the form of a large ditch, a pit, several gullies and a post-hole. Excavation uncovered ‘domestic-style’ pottery of 13th to 15th century date suggestive of ‘an enclosed rural farmstead, on its raised position overlooking the surrounding rural landscape’ (Annex 1.4).

Historic Landscape Character

1.60 The landscape of Staffordshire as we see it today is the result of both natural and man-made actions which have taken place over many years. Activities such as settlement, farming and recreation have all left behind physical traces that help to give individual parts of the County their own special character. In order to have a better understanding of the historic dimension of today’s landscape, Staffordshire County Council and Lichfield District Council have undertaken various Historic Landscape Characterisation Studies (see Annex 1a for detail).

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 21

1.61 In the County Council study, the entire site is detailed under one HLC Zone, being ‘Post-War Amalgamated Fields’. This character zone borders ‘Ancient Woodland’, ‘Post-1880s Reorganised Fields’ and ‘18th/19th Century Planned Enclosure’ to the south, ‘Piecemeal Enclosure’ to the west’, and more ‘Post- War Amalgamated Fields’ to the north and east. Post-War Amalgamated Fields are described as ‘Post-1945’ and reflect the intensification of agriculture from the end of the Second World War, which resulted in the loss of many field boundaries.

1.62 Under the District study the Site is detailed under the very broad Historic Environment Character Zone (13e), which is detailed as a ‘mix of field systems of different dates from later Medieval to modern. Water-meadows were important within the area’ and there is a potential to discover both Prehistoric and Roman remains, as well as later archaeology associated with settlement.

The wider landscape

1.63 The proposed Southern Extension to Alrewas Quarry is located within a wider landscape where there is a relatively dense scatter of archaeological evidence. Much archaeology was originally recorded from the air as cropmarks, but has subsequently been investigated through excavations, predominantly associated with mineral extraction.

1.64 Whitemoor Haye Quarry lies to the immediate east of the Site, and was archaeologically investigated (prior to mineral extraction) between the years 1998 to 2012 (Coates 2002; Hewson 2006; Mann forthcoming). The 180ha quarry included within its boundaries a 47ha Scheduled Monument (archaeologically excavated under SMC) that represented an extensive Iron Age and Roman farming landscape (with associated settlement). The extant Alrewas Quarry lies to the immediate north of the Site, and has been progressively investigated (prior to mineral extraction) since 2013 (Cornah & Jackson 2016, Wilkins & Mann 2019 and Wilkins 2019). Here archaeology of Prehistoric and Roman date has been recovered, including the significant find of a Bronze Age cemetery that included both urned and un-urned cremations.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 22

1.65 Further important excavations in the surrounding landscape include those at Fisherwick (Miles 1969), Barton Quarry (Francis and Richmond 2016), Newbold Quarry (Francis 2017) and Tucklesholme Quarry (Francis and Richmond 2018). In addition, an Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF) project called ‘Where Rivers Meet’ has studied the archaeology of the Trent- Tame confluence (Buteux & Chapman 2009, Watters et al. 2003, Bain et al. 2005). A further publication, ‘Trent Valley Landscapes’, usefully summarises the archaeological background of the Trent Valley (Knight & Howard 2004). Together these investigations allow for a detailed settlement sequence for the study area to be drawn up (see Annex 1.2 for additional detail).

Geophysical Survey

1.66 The majority of the site has been investigated by a detailed magnetometer survey (see Annex 1.3). Readings were collected on 1m transects using fluxgate gradiometers, and were plotted at 25cm intervals along each transect. Across that part of the site now represented by the proposed Southern Extension (field plots 8-11 of the geophysical survey) findings were limited mainly to linear markings of variable quality. A number were identified as former boundaries as detailed on OS maps, and others corresponded to previously recorded cropmarks (mainly linears). The circular cropmark features, however, were not picked up.

Trial Trench Evaluation

1.67 The geophysical survey plots provided the basis for the location of trial trenches (see Annex 1.4). Trenches were positioned across geophysical anomalies that suggested below-ground archaeology, geophysical anomalies that were of uncertain character, cropmark features as detailed in the HER as well as blank areas to act as a control.

1.68 Across the Site, the trial trenching identified undated (but suspected Prehistoric) pits and ditches in Trenches 22, 23 & 24 and the site of a potential Medieval farmstead in Trench 27. The undated archaeology in Trenches 22, 23 & 24 was seen to be severely truncated by modern ploughing. The identified archaeology is considered to be of ‘low significance’ (with regard to

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 23

the criteria as detailed in Table 1.2 above), being ‘sites of … importance to local interest groups’ and ‘sites whose importance is limited by poor preservation and poor survival of contextual association’.

Listed Buildings and other Cultural Heritage Features

1.69 The assessment of potential setting effects employed in the preparation of this chapter, focused on the completion of a site survey and concentrated on:

1) identifying those heritage assets that are capable of being affected by the proposed scheme and the manner (if any) in which they would be affected, 2) defining the contribution made to their significance by their setting; and 3) assessing the likely impact upon their significance as a result of the form of development proposed being implemented.

1.70 Within the study area, the following key Listed Buildings and other cultural heritage assets have been identified as requiring assessment (See Figure 1):

● 6 Scheduled Monuments within 3km of the Site (Sites A to F). Such sites and their settings are high sensitivity receptors.

● 1 Grade I Listed Building within 3km of the Site (Site G). Such buildings and their settings are high sensitivity receptors.

● 4 Grade II* Listed Building within 3km of the Site (Sites H to K). Such buildings and their settings are high sensitivity receptors.

● 8 Grade II status Listed Buildings within 2km of the Site (Sites L to S). These buildings and their settings are medium sensitivity receptors.

● 4 Conservation Areas within 3km of the Site (Sites T to W). These are classed as medium sensitivity receptors.

● 1 non-listed building/structure within the Site boundary (Site X). These are classed as low sensitivity receptors.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 24

1.71 There are no Registered Parks and Gardens in the wider study area. The closest Registered Parks and Garden is Lichfield’s ‘Beacon Park and Minster Pool’, c.4.5km to the SW.

Scheduled Monuments

1.72 There are 6 Scheduled Monuments in the wider study area. The nearest Scheduled Monument to the Site is recorded as ‘Settlement Sites and Enclosures 500yds NE of Sittles Farm’ (UiD 1006091), which is 0.4km to the east. This relates to an extensive Iron Age and Roman rural settlement which has been archaeologically excavated (in accordance with SMC) prior to development of the existing (Whitemoor Haye) quarry. Despite having been completely excavated the site still remains on the register, although its archaeological significance has now been removed. The next nearest monument is ‘Causewayed Enclosures, Fradley’ (UiD 1002964), which is 1.6km to the west. A full assessment of the setting and significance of these monuments is provided under Table 1.4.

Listed Buildings

1.73 There are c.50 Listed Buildings in the wider study area, of which 13 were chosen for detailed assessment (due to their locations in relation to the Site). One is of Grade I status, four are of Grade II* status and 8 are of Grade II status. The nearest Listed Building to the Site is the Grade II Fradley Arms Hotel, c.0.4km to the west. Descriptions of the assessed buildings and their settings are provided under Table 1.5.

Conservation Areas

1.74 The nearest Conservation Areas to the Site are Alrewas (1.7km distance) and Elford (1.75km distance). The Trent and Mersey Canal (c.2km distance) is also a designated Conservation Area, as is Fradley Junction (c.3km distance). Conservation Areas are designated for their character and appearance which are deemed as being of local importance and interest and usually encompass listed buildings and features which form a group which the local authority deems appropriate to preserve. Table 1.6 gives a description of the character and appearance of the assessed Conservation Areas as well as their setting.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 25

Non-listed buildings/structures

1.75 There is one non-listed (derelict) building within the confines of the Site. The description of the assessed building and its setting is provided under Table 1.7.

Predicted Likely Effects

Assessment of Direct Impacts of Construction/Establishment

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

- Establishment of quarry infrastructure;

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

- Soil stripping across quarry phases prior to extraction;

- Creation of soil storage and landscape screening bunds;

1.77 Within the development area these construction/establishment actions can create direct impacts upon archaeology and other cultural heritage features that may be present on the Site. Predicted direct impacts together with the proposed mitigation of those impacts are detailed under Table 1.8.

Assessment of Indirect Impacts of Construction/Establishment

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

- the establishment and erection of quarry infrastructure;

- the creation of soil storage areas;

- the establishment of the phases for subsequent quarrying;

- quarrying activities across the Site, and associated activities.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 26

1.79 These construction/establishment actions can create indirect impacts upon archaeology and other cultural heritage features outside of the development site. For example, indirect effects can occur as a result of significant adverse changes to the setting of a site. Predicted indirect impacts together with the proposed mitigation of those impacts (if present) are detailed under Table 1.9.

Assessment of Operational Impacts

1.80 In the case of a quarry development, direct impacts on archaeology and other cultural heritage assets within the boundaries of the development arise from disturbance relating to excavations and soil stripping. Given that these operations are most likely to be experienced during the construction/establishment phase (i.e. site establishment, soil and overburden stripping) there are no anticipated additional impacts on such receptors during the operational phases. Operational impacts of a direct character are therefore identified as negligible.

1.81 Indirect effects can occur as a result of significant adverse changes to the setting of a site. It is assessed that operational cultural heritage impacts will have no greater significance than those identified at the construction/ establishment stage.

Restoration activities across the wider quarry

1.82 The Site covers a 47.6ha area between Sittles Farm and the Derby to Birmingham mainline railway. It forms part of a wider application area that encompasses the extant (permitted) quarry workings to the north, that cover an additional area of c.290ha. The full application involves the winning and working of sand and gravel across remaining phases of the permitted quarry as well as the newly proposed 47.6ha southern extension, the re-phasing of existing permitted workings and subsequent restoration across the whole site to arable land and nature conservation habitats.

1.83 With regard to the wider quarry application (i.e. existing permitted workings and restorations) there are no identified additional Direct or Indirect impacts on archaeological of cultural heritage assets on, or in the vicinity of the Site, beyond those recognised at the point of the earlier applications. Suitable mitigation is in place for the extant workings via an approved WSI regulated

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 27

through the planning conditions on site. This uses a targeted approach, utilising a combination of archaeological ‘strip, map and sample’ and/or ‘watching brief’ measures.

Scope of Mitigation

1.84 Mitigation measures that it may be appropriate to put in place in response to any identified effects are detailed in Tables 1.8 and 1.9. Implementation of the mitigation measures will be able to effectively deal with any identified impacts. Implementation can be secured by design and by the preparation of written schemes of investigation (WSI’s) agreed with the Council Archaeological Office by way of a suitably worded planning condition.

Cumulative Impacts

1.85 There are no identified cumulative impacts on archaeological or other cultural heritage assets during the construction or operational phases of the proposed development.

Residual Effects

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

Conclusions

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

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 28

1.88 The assessment of direct impacts on archaeology and cultural heritage assets within the proposed development boundary shows that there will be an impact to:

1) Archaeological features as identified during trial trench investigations across parts of the site, including undated, but suspected Prehistoric archaeology (Trenches 22, 23 & 24) and Medieval settlement archaeology (Trench 27).

2) A small derelict two-storey brick-built building as detailed on maps dating back to c.1800 will be demolished.

There is also a suggested impact to:

3) Presently uncharacterised archaeological remains that may exist elsewhere on the Site (as represented by various cropmarks but not identified in subsequent field evaluations).

1.89 It is therefore proposed to undertake the following to mitigate the perceived impacts:

1) Archaeological investigation of parts of the site (i.e. areas of identified archaeology and also areas of cropmark expression) prior to mineral extraction. An appropriate level of investigation and recording to mitigate any potential impact to identified and suspected remains will take place. This would likely be in line with the approved scheme of works presently being followed for the existing quarry (Coates and Richmond 2015), involving a combination of targeted ‘strip, map and sample’ excavation and ‘watching brief action’.

2) A photographic and written record (HE Level 1) of the two-storey brick building in accordance with the publication ‘Understanding Historic Buildings; a guide to good recording practice’, Historic England 2016.

1.90 Any such works can be secured through the imposition of a suitably worded planning condition. Works would be agreed with the Council Archaeological

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 29

Office and be carried out in full accordance with approved WSI’s. The WSI’s will detail the undertaking of appropriate investigations to allow for a full and proper record of identified archaeological and historic remains to be made. This will mitigate any perceived impacts to the heritage resource.

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

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 30

Figure 1 Heritage Assets discussed in text and as detailed under Tables 1.4 to 1.9

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 31

Table 1.4: Scheduled Monuments assessed within 3km of the Site boundary

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

ST200 Settlement sites and 0.4km D: The Whitemoor Haye scheduled site was a rural settlement complex which emerged UiD 1006091 enclosures 500 yds NE of during the Middle Iron Age and continued into the Romano-British period covering a Sittles Farm. large area on the gravel terrace of the River Tame. It was initially recorded as a cropmark site, but has been extensively excavated in accordance with scheduled Plan location A monument consent (SMC) over the past 15 years prior to mineral extraction. The whole site has now been investigated and published and has been restored back to farmland and lakes. It still remains, however, on the scheduled list.

A: The site has been archaeologically investigated prior to development in accordance with SMC and shown to be a late prehistoric and Romano-British rural settlement and associated farming landscape. The scheduled site is now represented by restored farmland and activity lakes. Its archaeological significance has been removed.

S: n/a

ST250 Causewayed Enclosure 1.6km D: Air photographs record cropmarks of linear ditches, which appear to mark the line of UiD 1002964 NE of Fradley Junction. a causewayed enclosure. These sites are known to be of Neolithic date, representing ceremonial monuments. The site covers two arable fields either side of a minor c-class Plan location B road to the NE of Fradley Junction.

A: The monument comprises below ground remains with no discernible remains above ground. The primary setting of the monument is confined to the two fields in which it lies, being to the south of a stretch of the Trent and Mersey Canal. The site’s secondary setting takes in views across surrounding open fields and bordering woodland.

S: All scheduled monuments are high sensitivity receptors.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 32

21528 Moated site and plunge 2.25km D: The monument at the Manor House is a rare example of a Medieval moated site UiD 1011063 bath at The Manor House, which was converted to a fish farm in the early 18th century. The 17th century plunge Streethay. bath is an unusual feature associated with the Manor. Parts of the moat, which will have Plan location C originally been filled with water, have been filled in, but sections do survive as earthworks along the western and southern extents. A later pond has destroyed part of the eastern section. Part of the northern arm has been re-dug in recent times. Documentary records indicate that the ‘Great Moat’ was cleaned out and converted into a fish farm in 1704. Slight earthworks in the vicinity indicate the presence of former buildings.

A: The monument is a rare example which has survived moderately well. It comprises visible earthworks and buried remains. Its primary setting is the rather overgrown meadow in which it lies, together with the neighbouring historic Manor House and plunge bath. There is little discernible secondary setting, with the monument occupying a site bordering the busy A38 duel carriageway. There are pleasant rural views to the north and west.

S: All scheduled monuments are high sensitivity receptors.

ST199 Site of round barrow near 2.15km D: Site of a Bronze Age round barrow bordering a turn in the River Tame. A buried UiD 1006090 the River Tame. archaeological monument with little surviving remains on the surface. Currently a patch of set-aside meadow within the confines of the National Memorial Arboretum. Plan location D

A: The monument comprises below-ground remains with no discernible remains above ground. The primary setting of the monument is confined to the memorial field in which it lies, being on the west bank of the River Tame. The site’s secondary setting takes in views across open fields to the NE, across the river and to the gentle hills beyond.

S: All scheduled monuments are high sensitivity receptors.

ST174 Cropmarks SW of Elford. 2km D: Air photographs record cropmarks of linears and other features within meadows on UiD 1006100 the floodplain of the River Tame to the south of the village of Elford. They remain undated and uncharacterised. A suggested buried archaeological monument with little surviving remains on the surface. Plan location E

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 33

A: The monument comprises below ground remains with few discernible remains above ground. The primary setting of the monument is confined to the two low-lying meadows in which it lies, being on the south bank of the River Tame. The site’s secondary setting takes in views across surrounding open fields and views to the village of Elford to the north.

S: All scheduled monuments are high sensitivity receptors.

21536 Hlaew and settlement 2.9km D: A hlaew is a burial monument of Anglo-Saxon date, comprising a mound of earth UiD 1011069 remains at Croxall. over a primary burial or burials of individuals of high rank. As there are only 60 such monuments in England, they are all considered worthy of preservation. Associated with Plan location F this site are Medieval settlement remains.

A: The monument includes the Saxon burial mound, its encircling ditch and the remains of Medieval settlement, bordering the St John the Baptist Church at Croxall. The burial mound has been built in a prominent location, on the edge of the east bank of the River Mease. It stands to a height of c. 5m. Much of the ditch has been infilled and is no longer visible. The mound has been partly overlaid by the churchyard on one edge. The mound has since been incorporated into a garden and re-used as an ornamental feature. The earthwork remains of the Medieval settlement lie within a meadow to the NE of the Saxon mound. It once covered a larger area, but much has been ploughed.

The primary setting of the monument comprises the field in which it lies together with the spur on the elevated bank of the River Mease, which represents a purposeful topographic location. The bordering Church also forms part of the site’s primary setting. The secondary setting takes in the wider rural landscape and the surrounding historical aspects of the settlement of Croxall, including Croxall Hall. Due to a heavy band of mature trees along the river’s edge, there are only obscured views to the south and west across the lower-lying floodplain and valleys of the Rivers Mease and Tame. These views would be more apparent in winter following leaf-fall.

S: All scheduled monuments are high sensitivity receptors.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 34

Table 1.5: Listed Buildings assessed within 3km of the Site boundary

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

272525 Church of All Saints, 2km I D: Parish Church off Mill End Lane, Alrewas, C13 replacing earlier church, additions in Alrewas. C14, C16 and C19. Large coursed and squared sandstone blocks, lead roofs with low Plan pitch. West tower, 3-bay nave with transepts and south porch. Tower is of C14, 3 stages location G with angle buttresses dying into the second stage. West door is c. 1200.

A: The primary setting of the Church takes in the graveyard to all sides, up to the defined boundaries which are demarcated by low brick walls, mature hedges and mature trees. The secondary setting takes in this part of the historic village including parts of Mill End Lane, Church Road and the Vicarage.

Due to topography, distance and intervening built development there are no views from the Church to the proposed development Site. The proposals will have no impact on the accessibility of the asset nor of the understanding or significance of the same.

272565 Church of St Peter, 1.95km II* D: Parish Church of Medieval foundation, tower of 1598, but mostly re-built 1848-9 in Elford. Medieval style. Ashlar, with slate and lead roofs with coped verges. West tower with Plan diagonal buttresses and semi-octagonal stair turret to south. 3-bay nave with south aisle location H and porch and 2-bay chancel with south and north chapels. West tower is of 4 stages marked by strings with a crenelated parapet and crocketed corner pinnacles. First stage has 3-light pointed west window with cusped intersecting tracery. The second stage has a rectangular loop to the west and north; third stage has a 2-light pointed west window with decorated style tracery.

A: The primary setting of the Church takes in the graveyard to all sides, up to the defined boundaries which are demarcated by C19 iron railings and modern wood post-fencing. The Church occupies a very enclosed setting within this part of the settlement of Elford, with numerous mature trees in and around the churchyard. The secondary setting takes in this part of the historic village including the avenue up to the Church from the east, and parts of Church Road and Old Hall Drive.

Due to topography, tree belts and distance, there are no views from the Church to the proposed development Site. The proposals will have no impact on the accessibility of the asset nor of the understanding or significance of the same.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 35

272548 Chetwynd Bridge. 2km II* D: Road bridge, dated 1824 by Joseph Potter, County Surveyor. Cast iron and rusticated ashlar. 3 segmental arches spanning the River Tame. Latticework spandrels and a Plan balustrade interspersed with panelled piers. Abutments sweep round to end buttresses location I which also flank the central arch.

A: The primary setting of the bridge takes in its position as a crossing of the River Tame, with the riverine landscape to each side and the flanking meadows of the river’s floodplain. The secondary setting comprises the wider surrounding riverine landscape on all sides.

There are no views from the bridge to the Site, which lies at c. 2km distance. The proposals will have no impact on the accessibility of the asset nor of the understanding or significance of the same.

272781 Croxall Hall and 2.8km II* D: Large house, late C16, restored and enlarged in 1868 by Joseph Potter of Litchfield. attached garden wall, Red brick, English Bond, with sandstone and ashlar dressings. Two storeys on coped Plan Edingale. plinth. Plain tile roofs with coped verges on shaped kneelers. Brick end stacks and ridge location J stacks, some with C16 octagonal shafts. Formerly a U-shaped house with hall range of two parallel blocks aligned EW facing north, and wings to the east and west enclosing 3 sides of a northern courtyard. West wing destroyed by fire in 1942. 1868 extensions to the NE. C16 garden wall with stone coping attached and extends for 150m. It incorporates a doorway with a Tudor arch. The C16 details are entirely Gothic.

A: The primary setting of the hall takes in its associated gardens to the north and south and the surrounding historic outbuildings forming the Croxall Hall complex. The gardens constitute a formal and planned arrangement, but are of small scale. The secondary setting comprises the surrounding farmscape and paddocks and the riverine setting (the River Mease) to the immediate south. The Church of St John The Baptist to the SE can also be considered to fall within the Hall’s secondary setting, providing historic ‘group value’ to this part of the hamlet of Croxall.

Due to distance, topography and vegetation, there are no views from the Hall to the proposed development area. The proposals will have no impact on the accessibility of the asset nor of the understanding or significance of the same.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 36

272778 Church of St John the 2.85km II* D: Parish Church of which oldest remains are c. 1200. Church largely rebuilt in later C13 Baptist, Croxall, and remodelled early C14. Minor alterations in C15, C18 and C19. Coursed rubble of c. Plan Edingale. 1200, otherwise dressed stone blocks, some C18 brickwork. West tower, 3-bay nave, 2- location K bay chancel, north-east vestry. West Tower two main stages of different dates, off-set plinth, moulded and crenelated parapet. Nave and chancel roofs are probably C18; massive tie beams on short cantilevered beams which are supported by stone corbels.

A: The primary setting of the Church takes in the graveyard to all sides, up to the defined boundaries which are demarcated by C19 iron railings and modern wood post fencing. The Church occupies a prominent position on the elevated eastern bank of the River Mease which represents a purposeful topographic location for the building. Along this side there is a belt of quite dense mature trees, preventing views across the Mease and Tame valleys beyond. The secondary setting takes in the surrounding meadows, including the Scheduled site of Hlaew and its associated settlement. The secondary setting also extends to Croxall Hall to the immediate NW and this portion of the Mease river valley. There may be obscured, long-distance views of parts of the Site during winter months when the surrounding trees have lost their leaves. These distant views would only constitute a minor backdrop, and do not represent an integral part of the setting of the Church.

The proposals will have no impact on the accessibility of the asset nor of the understanding or significance of the same.

272547 Fradley Arms Hotel. 0.4km II D: House now inn. Late C18. Painted brick; plain tile roof with raised verges; brick integral end stacks. L-shaped plan, main range aligned north-east/south-west facing north-west. 3 Plan storeys, reduced proportions to second floor; 3 bays, C18 window surrounds with gauged location L brick heads, fixed light glazing bar windows to ground floor, 4-pane sashes with horns to first floor, 8-pane sashes to second floor; central door and fanlight with radiating glazing bars, wooden doorcase with panelled pilasters and dentilled frieze. Rear wing has 2 C18 glazing bar sashes with segmental heads.

A: The setting of the Fradley Arms is quite limited. Its primary setting takes in its immediate surrounds (gardens to SW) and the roadside to the frontage. It has little discernible secondary setting, with modern buildings to the rear and side elevation.

Due to distance, topography and vegetation, there are no views from the building to the proposed development area. The proposals will have no impact on the accessibility of the asset nor of the understanding or significance of the same.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 37

272546 Roddige Farmhouse. 0.5km II D: Farmhouse of late C18 date, red brick (Monk Bond), plain tile roof with raised verges. Brick integral end stacks. T-shaped in plan, main range aligned east-west, facing south. Plan Rear wing extended to the west in the mid C19. 2 storeys, with dentilled eaves. Central location M C19 6 panelled door with wooden doorcase and fanlight.

A: The primary setting of the farmhouse extends to the building’s associated former farm complex, gardens to the south and the mature trees forming boundaries to the east and south. The secondary setting takes in the surrounding rural fieldscape. Dense vegetation obscure views to the south (front elevation) and east. To the south there are obscured long-distance views through trees to a part of the northern extent of the site. These distant views constitute a minor backdrop, and do not represent a significant part of the setting of the property.

The proposals will have no impact on the accessibility of the asset nor of the understanding or significance of the same.

272590 Blue Gates 0.65km II D: Farmhouse. Circa 1700 with later alterations. Brick, plastered and lined as ashlar; plain Farmhouse. tile roof; plastered central stack. 2-cell baffle-entry main range aligned north-west/south- Plan east facing south-west, single-cell rear wing to the north-west aligned north-east/south-west location N and rear out-shut to the south-east. One storey and gable-lit attic; 2 windows, C20 casements, storey band or continuous dripstone with rectangular block to the right-hand corner of the left-hand window; central door-tiled canopy. Included for group value.

A: The primary setting of the farmhouse extends to the building’s associated former farm complex and gardens to the west. The secondary setting takes in the surrounding rural fieldscape to all sides. Dense vegetation obscure views to the north and NE.

Due to distance, topography and vegetation, there are no views from the building to the proposed development area. The proposals will have no impact on the accessibility of the asset nor of the understanding or significance of the same.

272591 Barn and Granary NE 0.65km II D: Barn and granary. C18. Red brick; plain tile roof with raised verges; brick ridge stack. 4- of Blue Gates bay range aligned north-west/south-east incorporating a 3-bay barn to the north-west and a Plan Farmhouse. single-bay granary to the south-east. One storey with eaves band; full height barn doors to location O left of centre, vertical air vents to left and right of doors. The right-hand gable has tallet steps and a loft door with segmental head. Interior: king-post roof, single purlins.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 38

A: The barn has been listed due to so-called ‘group value’. Its primary setting extends to the building’s associated farm complex, including Blue Gates Farmhouse. The secondary setting takes in the surrounding rural fieldscape. Dense vegetation obscure views to the north and NE.

Due to distance, topography and vegetation, there are no views from the barn to the proposed development area. The proposals will have no impact on the accessibility of the asset nor of the understanding or significance of the same.

272552 Park Farmhouse. 1.55km II D: Farmhouse. Late C18 with mid-C19 alterations. Red brick; hipped plain tile roof; central brick stacks. Roughly square plan facing west with short wings attached to the north-east Plan and south-east angles. 3 storeys, reduced proportions to second floor; continuous first floor location P band and moulded stone eaves cornice; 3 bays, glazing bar sashes with gauged brick heads, mid-C19 canted bay windows to ground floor with cyma recta-moulded cornice and glazing bar sashes; central mid-C19 porch with glazed doors, rectangular overlight and cyma-recta-moulded cornice, the porch is approached by 3 stone steps. 2 storey, single- bay set-back wings to left and right with storey band and casements with gauged brick heads. Mid-C19 conservatory to the right, in the angle between house and wing, hipped slate roof, altered mid to late C20.

A: The primary setting of Park Farmhouse takes in its formal gardens to the west (principal elevation) and south, as well as former stable block and outhouses to the east (rear elevation) and north. The secondary setting takes in the wider historic farm complex (now much altered through conversion) as well as pleasant views to the west. Whilst in the general direction of the Site, these pleasant views do not extend particularly far, due to the undulating topography and frequent surrounding tree belts.

Due to distance, topography and intervening vegetation there are no views from the property to the Site. The proposals will have no impact on the accessibility of the asset nor of the understanding or significance of the same.

272563 Coach House to Elford 1.9km II D: Former stables and coach house now a pair of houses. Early C19, re- modelled circa Hall. 1980. Red brick; hipped slate roof; C20 brick off- ridge stacks. Central stable range aligned Plan north-south facing east flanked by coach house wings aligned east-west. Single-storey location Q central range of about 11 bays, flanked by projecting single-bay wings, each with a full height semi-circular blind arch, springing from an impost band; C20 casements with gauged heads, C20 doors to left and right each with a Tuscan porch, garage doors to right of centre. Included for group value.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 39

A: The former coach house and stable block has been converted to residential accommodation. Its primary setting takes in its gardens to all sides, which are bordered by many mature trees. The secondary setting takes in aspects of the former (now demolished) Elford Hall, including kitchen garden walls to the west. It also has a pleasant association with the bordering Church and this part of the historic settlement.

Due to distance, topography and intervening vegetation there are no views from the building to the Site. The proposals will have no impact on the accessibility of the asset nor of the understanding or significance of the same.

272553 Elford Park 2km II D: Farmhouse. Early C18 with later additions, on a Medieval site. Red brick; plain tile roof; 272555 Farmhouse, together brick integral end stacks and off-ridge stack. Originally 2 parallel ranges aligned east-west 272554 with Barn and Stables facing south, extended to the west in the early to mid-C19. Early C18 house to the right, C19 addition attached to the left. C18 house. 3 storeys with storey bands and dentilled Plan eaves band; 2 bays, casements; half-glazed door to left. Single-storey lean-to extension to location R the right. C19 addition: 2 storeys with dentilled eaves band; 3 bays, the outer ones are gabled and project slightly, glazing bar sashes with wedge lintels; central glazed door with C20 gabled porch. Listed Grade II Barn and Stables in association.

A: The primary setting of this large farmhouse takes in its formal and informal grounds to all sides, together with the associated historic outbuildings (including barns, stables and former granary). The secondary setting takes in the wider historic farm complex (now much altered through conversion) as well as pleasant views to the north and south. Due to many surrounding mature trees, views from the property do not extend particularly far.

Due to distance, topography and intervening vegetation there are no significant views from the property to the Site. The proposals will have no impact on the accessibility of the asset nor of the understanding or significance of the same.

272488 Oldbrook Cottage 0.7km II D: House. Late C17. Timber framed now rendered; plain tile roof; brick central stack. 3- framed bay baffle-entry plan, aligned north-south facing east, narrow south bay containing Plan the scullery. One storey and attic; 2 windows, glazing bar casements, eyebrow dormer to location S the right; central door. Interior: large open fireplace in central bay; exposed wall framing, 3 square-panels to eaves with straight braces; roof trusses have V-struts above the collar, one pair of purlins and ridge piece.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 40

A: The setting of the Cottage is quite limited due to surrounding modern development. Indeed, there is little historic context to the buildings being positioned within a 1980’s housing estate.

Due to distance, topography and intervening built development, there are no views from the property to the proposed development area. The proposals will have no impact on the accessibility of the asset nor of the understanding or significance of the same.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 41

Table 1.6: Conservation Areas assessed within 3km of the Site boundary

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

Alrewas 1.7km D: Alrewas was designated as a Conservation Area in recognition of the special architectural and historic interest of the area. Its boundary was designed to enclose the full extent of the historic settlement pattern of the village as set out on the Plan location T Tithe map of c.1840. It includes the original plots of the village in the east and south of Main Street. North of the village the boundary runs just north of the River Trent. The rest of the boundary picks up the plot edges of the original settlement. The village dates from the late Saxon period, and its Medieval origins and development can be discerned in its topographic framework of streets and spaces. The village is quite closed in. Much of the settlement has an irregular pattern of development and a mix of architectural styles and dates. There are 46 listed structures within the Conservation Area, including All Saints Church which is the only building in the wider landscape which has Grade I status.

A: The character and appearance of the Conservation Area is derived from its historic pattern, the use of traditional materials and buildings. The character is not uniform throughout, and there are two main areas of interest. One lies to the south and east of the Trent and Mersey Canal with Main Street as its spine. The other area is Mill End, to the north and west of the canal. The Main Street Character Area has a winding alignment which ensures that only small sections of the street are seen at any one time. It has a high proportion of timber-framed buildings and a general unity of scale. The Mill End Character Area has an irregular pattern, threaded through by the canal and which is bounded to the north by the river. The principal characteristic of this area is the informal sitting of cottage properties in red brick and timber frame gathered around All Saints Church, which provides a focal point. The character here is more open, with some properties having large gardens. The gardens provide a transition between the historic village centre and the countryside to the north of the settlement. With the canal, mill stream and the river, water is clearly a dominant feature through the area.

Few buildings have an outward focus. The village is located on predominantly flat ground, which limits views out of the Conservation Area. In many directions, hedges and banks of trees also restrict views out. Significant views are along streetscapes. There are no significant views toward the proposed development site, due to extensive modern development between the designated area and the proposed development site. Much of this modern development is alien to the character of the area, being inappropriate in plot size and shape, material and design.

The operations at Alrewas Quarry are long established and are proven to have no impact on the Conservation Area. This is mainly of a function of all HGV activity staying out of the core of the village, which will remain the case going forward.

Elford 1.75km D: The village of Elford lies along the banks of the River Tame, c. 1.75km to the SE of the Site. The village is said to have derived its name from the great number of eels with which the river here formerly abounded, although it may also have Plan location U been a fording point along the river. The settlement is mentioned in the Domesday Survey, and it therefore follows that it has Saxon origins. In post-Medieval times, the settlement was dominated by Elford Hall, a grand manor with gardens beside the Church. It was pulled down in the 1960’s, with only the walled garden remaining. There are 13 Listed Buildings

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 42

throughout the village, the majority along Church Road and the Square. There is a range of building styles, meaning that there is no overriding architectural style.

A: The character and appearance of the Conservation Area is derived from its historic pattern and its association with the Church, the use of traditional materials and buildings set in a fairly diffuse arrangement. The setting of the majority of buildings is focussed along Church Road and the banks of the River Tame. Few buildings have an outward focus. Significant views are along streetscapes and along the river corridor. Elford is likely to have become established here as it was a suitable place to ford the river. The river, and the views across and along it, can therefore be considered part of its setting.

Due to distance, topography and vegetation there are no views from the Conservation Area to the Site. The Site is also distant enough such that any interaction effects related to amenity would be negligible.

Fradley Junction 3km D: Fradley Junction lies 3km W of the Site. It is a part of the Trent and Mersey Canal corridor, which formed part of a section which ran from Coventry to Fradley Junction and was operational from 1789. It is situated at the point that the Plan location V Coventry Canal joins the Trent and Mersey Canal. The canal-side settlement at Fradley Junction was established after the link was completed in 1790 and Fradley became a major junction on the Victorian canal network. Both the Trent & Mersey and the Coventry Canal companies built houses and cottages for their workers, while two warehouses, complete with hoists, were erected at Junction Row alongside the Swan public house. The majority of these buildings are now Listed Grade II and form an integral part of the Conservation Area. They have increased importance due to their ‘group value’.

A: The character and appearance of the Conservation Area is derived from its historic pattern, the use of traditional materials and buildings set in a linear arrangement. The setting of the majority of buildings is focussed along the canal with a decidedly inward focus. Few buildings have an outward focus. Significant views are along the historic canal corridor. Due to distance, topography and vegetation there are no views from the Conservation Area to the Site.

Trent & Mersey 2km D: Canal linking the River Mersey to the River Trent, deemed to be of special archaeological and historical importance. Canal This section being between Fradley Junction and Alrewas. Work began on the canal in 1766, being built by engineers James Brindley and Hugh Henshall, and the section near the Site was opened in 1771, although the whole route was not Plan location W completed until 1777. It was the first of the major inland waterways to be constructed. Trade in goods such as coal, bar- iron, pottery, ale and pig-iron was brisk, but by the 1840’s trade began to decline with the coming of the railways. Commercial traffic continued until the 1950’s. Today it is only used by pleasure craft.

A: The Conservation Area has a distinct linear focus along the canal corridor and its setting varies between sections. Due to distance, topography and vegetation there are no views from the Conservation Area to the Site.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 43

Table 1.7: Non-Listed Buildings assessed

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

A small derelict On Site D: Small, isolated two-storey dwelling, brick-built with slate roof and grey ceramic ridge tiles. T-plan, with two brick-built two-storey brick- chimney stacks. Four windows to principal (south-facing) elevation. All in a ruinous condition, with most window-frames built building as removed, and damage to loft space. detailed on maps dating back to

c.1800. A: Cartographic sources suggest that the building may once have been part of a large farming complex, all since

demolished, with an access track onto Stockford Lane. Buildings (potentially) shown on maps dating back to 1775, and

(certainly) from 1818. The Tithe Award Map of 1840 suggests up to five buildings were once at this location. Plan location X

Presently the derelict building looks out over rural farmland.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 44

Table 1.8: A summary of the potential direct impacts during construction/establishment

Site Predicted Direct Impact Suggested Mitigation

Archaeological Earlier archaeological investigation by geophysical survey Where appropriate, it is proposed to undertake targeted archaeological features as identified and trial trenching (see Annex 1.3 & 1.4) have identified investigation of parts of the site prior to mineral extraction. In the event that during trial trench archaeological remains which would be affected by the remains are identified, an appropriate level of archaeological investigation and investigations across development proposals. These include undated (but recording to mitigate any potential impact to any identified remains will take parts of the site, suspected Prehistoric) pits and ditches in Trenches 22, 23 & place. This would likely be in line with the approved scheme of works presently including undated, 24 and the site of a potential Medieval farmstead in Trench being followed for the existing quarry, involving a combination of targeted ‘strip, but suspected 27. map and sample’ excavation and ‘watching brief action’. Prehistoric archaeology The undated archaeology in Trenches 22, 23 & 24 was Any such works can be secured through the imposition of a suitably worded (Trenches 22, 23 & 24) severely truncated by modern ploughing, and is likely planning condition. The works would be agreed with the Council Archaeological and Medieval indicative of any surviving archaeology on the Site. Office and be carried out in full accordance with approved WSI’s. The WSI’s will settlement detail the undertaking of appropriate works to allow for a full and proper record of archaeology (Trench The development is anticipated to have a high magnitude of identified archaeological remains to be made. These works will mitigate any 27). change on these low sensitivity receptors. Therefore, the perceived impacts to the archaeological resource. predicted impact is of moderate significance which does equate to an impact in EIA terms requiring mitigation.

Uncharacterised Potential, though uncharacterised archaeological remains Where appropriate, it is proposed to undertake targeted archaeological archaeological sites that may exist on the Site as represented by cropmarks, but investigation of additional parts of the Site (i.e. recorded cropmark areas) prior to that may exist on the not always picked up in later surveys. If present these mineral extraction. In the event that remains are identified in these areas during site as represented by features are likely to be of low sensitivity indicative of the soil stripping, an appropriate level of archaeological investigation and recording to cropmarks. archaeology in the area around the Site. mitigate any potential impact to any identified remains will take place.

The development is anticipated to have a high magnitude of Any such works can be secured through the imposition of a suitably worded change on this receptor. If archaeology is present, the planning condition. The works would be agreed with the Council Archaeological predicted impact would be of moderate significance which Office and be carried out in full accordance with approved WSI’s. The WSI’s will does equate to an impact in EIA terms requiring mitigation. detail the undertaking of appropriate works to allow for a full and proper record of identified archaeological remains to be made. These works will mitigate any perceived impacts to the buried archaeological resource.

A small derelict two- The derelict building will be demolished as part of the It is proposed to undertake a photographic and written record (HE Level 1) of the storey brick-built development proposals. The fact that the building does not two-storey brick building in accordance with the publication ‘Understanding building as detailed appear on local listings indicates that is has no special Historic Buildings; a guide to good recording practice’, Historic England 2016. on maps dating back historic features or merits, and is therefore of low sensitivity. This will mitigate the perceived impact to the heritage resource. to c.1800.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 45

The development is anticipated to have a high magnitude of Any such works can be secured through the imposition of a suitably worded change on this low sensitivity receptor. Therefore, the planning condition. The works would be agreed with the Council Archaeological predicted impact is of moderate significance which does Office and be carried out in full accordance with approved WSI’s. The WSI’s will equate to an impact in EIA terms requiring mitigation. detail the undertaking of appropriate works to allow for a full and proper record of identified historical remains to be made. These works will mitigate any perceived impacts to the heritage resource.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 46

Table 1.9: A summary of the potential indirect impacts during construction/establishment

Site Predicted Indirect Impact Mitigation

Scheduled Monument: This monument has been fully excavated in accordance with SMC prior to past As the predicted impact is of negligible quarrying operations at Whitemoor Haye Quarry. The scheduled site is now significance, no mitigation is considered Settlement sites and enclosures represented by restored farmland and activity lakes. Its archaeological significance necessary. 500 yds NE of Sittles Farm. has been removed. As the site has been archaeologically excavated, the quarry extension will have no impact upon this receptor (which still remains on the List) UiD 1006091 and therefore the predicted impact is of negligible significance.

Plan location A

Scheduled Monument: The interest of this site is derived from its archaeological potential in that it may As the predicted impact is of negligible contain the remains of a prehistoric causewayed enclosure; a significant early significance, no mitigation is considered Causewayed Enclosure NE of Neolithic monument type. necessary. Fradley Junction. The monument comprises below ground remains with no discernible remains UiD 1002964 above ground. The setting of the monument is confined to the two fields in which it lies, being to the south of a stretch of the Trent and Mersey Canal. Plan location B Key views associated with the monument do not extend to the Site. Its significance will not be affected by the proposed development.

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

Scheduled Monument: The interest of this site is derived from its archaeological potential in that it is a rare As the predicted impact is of negligible example of a Medieval moated site which was converted to a fish farm in the 18th significance, no mitigation is considered Moated site and plunge bath at century. A 17th century plunge bath is an unusual feature associated with the necessary. The Manor House, Streethay. Manor. Parts of the moat have been filled in, but sections do survive as earthworks along the western and southern extents. UiD 1011063 There are pleasant rural views to the north and west of the site, but due to Plan location C topography, distance and built development, there are no views from the scheduled monument to the proposed development Site.

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

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 47

Scheduled Monument: The interest of this site is derived from its archaeological potential in that it may As the predicted impact is of negligible contain the remains of a Bronze Age burial. A buried archaeological monument significance, no mitigation is considered Site of round barrow near the with little surviving remains on the surface. Currently a patch of set-aside meadow necessary. River Tame. within the confines of the National Memorial Arboretum site at a particular geographic location on a curve on the banks of the River Tame. UiD 1006090 The surviving portion of the monument comprises below ground remains with no Plan location D visible remains above ground. The primary setting of the monument is confined to the memorial field in which it lies. The site takes in views across open fields to the NE, across the river and to the gentle hills beyond. Due to distance, and the existing structures associated with the National Memorial Arboretum there are no views from the scheduled monument to the proposed development Site.

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

Scheduled Monument: Undated and uncharacterised cropmark site within floodplain meadows to south of As the predicted impact is of negligible village. A suggested buried archaeological monument with little surviving remains significance, no mitigation is considered Cropmarks SW of Elford. on the surface. The site’s setting takes in views across surrounding open fields necessary. and views to the village of Elford to the north. Due to topography and distance, UiD 1006100 there are no views from the scheduled monument to the proposed development Site.

Plan location E The proposed quarry extension will have no impact upon the setting or significance of this High sensitivity receptor and therefore the predicted impact is negligible.

Scheduled Monument: The site of a Saxon burial mound and the remains of Medieval settlement, both As the predicted impact is of negligible bordering the St John the Baptist Church at Croxall. The burial mound has been significance, no mitigation is considered Hlaew and settlement remains at built in a prominent location, on the edge of the east bank of the River Mease. The necessary. Croxall. mound stands to a height of c. 5m, although much of the ditch has been infilled and is no longer visible. The mound has been partly overlaid by the churchyard on one UiD 1011069 edge and has since been incorporated into a garden and re-used as an ornamental feature. The earthwork remains of the Medieval settlement lie within a meadow to Plan location F the NE of the Saxon mound.

Due to mature trees along the river’s edge, there are only obscured views to the south and west across the lower-lying floodplain and valleys of the Rivers Mease and Tame. These views would be more apparent in winter following leaf-fall.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 48

Due to distance, (c. 3km) there are no significant views from the monument to the proposed development. The setting of the monument will not be altered and its significance will not be affected.

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

Listed Building: Grade I The special interest of this building is derived from its survival, fabric, age, As the predicted impact is of negligible preservation and historic association. significance, no mitigation is considered Church of All Saints, Alrewas. necessary. Key views associated with the Church do not extend to the Site. Its character and UiD 272525 setting will not be affected by the proposed development.

Plan The proposed quarry extension will have no impact upon the setting or significance location G of this High sensitivity receptor and therefore the predicted impact is negligible.

Listed Building: Grade II* The special interest of the Church is derived from its date, built-form, fabric and As the predicted impact is of negligible historic associations. The Church occupies a very enclosed setting within this part significance, no mitigation is considered Church of St Peter, Elford. of the settlement of Elford, with numerous mature trees in and around the necessary. churchyard. UiD 272565 Key views associated with the building do not extend to the Site. Its significance will not be affected by the proposed development. Plan location H The proposed quarry extension will have no impact upon the setting or significance of this High sensitivity receptor and therefore the predicted impact is negligible.

Listed Building: Grade II* The special interest of the Bridge is derived from its survival, fabric and As the predicted impact is of negligible preservation. The bridge’s setting is limited to its immediate surrounds being the significance, no mitigation is considered Chetwynd Bridge. riverine location on the River Tame. necessary.

UiD 272548 Key views associated with the bridge do not extend to the Site. Its character, setting and significance will not be affected by the proposed development. Plan location I The proposed quarry extension will have no impact upon the setting or significance of this High sensitivity receptor and therefore the predicted impact is negligible.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 49

Listed Building: Grade II* The special interest of this building is derived from its date, built-form, fabric and As the predicted impact is of negligible historic associations. The building’s setting is limited to its associated gardens to significance, no mitigation is considered Croxall Hall and attached garden the north and south and the surrounding historic outbuildings forming the Croxall necessary. wall, Edingale. Hall complex. Due to distance, topography and vegetation, there are no views from the Hall to the proposed development area. UiD 272781 Key views associated with the hall do not extend to the Site. Its character, setting and significance will not be affected by the proposed development. Plan location J The proposed quarry extension will have no impact upon the setting or significance of this High sensitivity receptor and therefore the predicted impact is negligible.

Listed Building: Grade II* The special interest of the Church is derived from its date, built-form, fabric and As the predicted impact is of negligible historic associations. The Church occupies a prominent position on the elevated significance, no mitigation is considered Church of St John the Baptist, eastern bank of the River Mease which represents a purposeful topographic necessary. Croxall, Edingale. location for the building. Along this side there is a belt of quite dense mature trees, preventing views across the Mease and Tame valleys beyond. UiD 272778 There may be obscured, long-distance views of parts of the development Site Plan during winter months when the surrounding trees have lost their leaves. These location K distant views would only constitute a minor backdrop, and do not represent an integral part of the setting of the Church.

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

Listed Building: Grade II The special interest of the building is derived from its date, built-form and As the predicted impact is of negligible preservation. The building occupies a road-side plot, facing to the west, across a significance, no mitigation is considered Fradley Arms Hotel. dual-carriageway and then to open arable fields. A modern annex to the hotel has necessary. been built to the rear (east). UiD 272547 Key views associated with the building are not in the direction of the Site. Despite Plan being of three storeys, there are no views from the property to the Site. Its location L character, setting and significance will not be affected by the proposed development.

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

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 50

Listed Building: Grade II The special interest of this building is derived from its survival, fabric and age. As the predicted impact is of negligible Vegetation obscure views to the south (front elevation), with quarrying operations significance, no mitigation is considered Roddige Farmhouse presently taking place to the north and east. necessary.

UiD 272546 Key views associated with the building do not extend to the Site. Its character, setting and significance will not be affected by the proposed development. Plan location M The proposed quarry extension will have no impact upon the setting or significance of this Medium sensitivity receptor and therefore the predicted impact is negligible.

Listed Building: Grade II The special interest of the farmhouse is derived from its fabric, age, preservation As the predicted impact is of negligible and association (group value). Due to distance, topography and intervening significance, no mitigation is considered Blue Gates Farmhouse. vegetation (tree belts), there are no views from the building to the Site. necessary.

UiD 272590 The proposed quarry extension will have no impact upon the setting or significance of this Medium sensitivity receptor and therefore the predicted impact is negligible. Plan location N

Listed Building: Grade II The special interest of the barn and granary is derived from their fabric, age, As the predicted impact is of negligible preservation and historic association with Blue Gates Farm. Key views associated significance, no mitigation is considered Barn and Granary NE of Blue with them do not extend to the Site. Their character and setting will not be affected necessary. Gates Farmhouse. by the proposed development.

UiD 272591 The proposed quarry extension will have no impact upon the setting or significance of these Medium sensitivity receptors and therefore the predicted impact is negligible. Plan location O

Listed Building: Grade II The special interest of Park Farmhouse is derived from its date, built-form and As the predicted impact is of negligible preservation. Due to distance and topography, there are no significant views from significance, no mitigation is considered Park Farmhouse. the building to the Site. Its significance will not be affected by the proposed necessary. development. UiD 272552 The proposed quarry extension will have no impact upon the setting or significance Plan of this Medium sensitivity receptor and therefore the predicted impact is negligible. location P

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 51

Listed Building: Grade II The special interest of this building is derived from its date, built-form and As the predicted impact is of negligible preservation. It was formerly associated with Elford Hall (since demolished). Due significance, no mitigation is considered Coach House to Elford Hall. to its secluded setting there are no views from the building to the Site. Its necessary. significance will not be affected by the proposed development. UiD 272563 The proposed quarry extension will have no impact upon the setting or significance of this Medium sensitivity receptor and therefore the predicted impact is negligible. Plan location Q

Listed Building: Grade II The special interest of these buildings is derived from their fabric, age, preservation As the predicted impact is of negligible and association. Due to distance, and their rather secluded setting, there are no significance, no mitigation is considered Elford Park Farmhouse, together significant views from the buildings to the Site. Their significance will not be necessary. with Barn and Stables affected by the proposed development.

UiD 272553 The proposed quarry extension will have no impact upon the setting or significance 272555 of these Medium sensitivity receptors and therefore the predicted impact is 272554 negligible.

Plan location R

Listed Building: Grade II The special interest of the cottage is derived from its fabric, age and preservation. As the predicted impact is of negligible Due to distance, topography, vegetation and intervening built development there significance, no mitigation is considered Oldbrook Cottage are no views from the building to the Site. necessary.

UiD 272488 The proposed quarry extension will have no impact upon the setting or significance of this Medium sensitivity receptor and therefore the predicted impact is negligible. Plan location S

Conservation Area: The character and appearance of the Conservation Area is derived from its historic As the predicted impact is of negligible pattern, the use of traditional materials and buildings. The Character of the significance, no mitigation is considered Alrewas Conservation Area is not uniform throughout, and there are two main areas of necessary. interest. One lies to the south and east of the Trent and Mersey Canal with Main Plan location T Street as its spine. The other area is Mill End, to the north and west of the canal. Few buildings have an outward focus. The village is located on predominantly flat ground, which limits views out of the Conservation Area.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 52

Due to distance and extensive modern development there are no significant views toward the Site.

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

As the predicted impact is of negligible Conservation Area: The character and appearance of the Conservation Area is derived from its historic significance, no mitigation is considered pattern and its association with the Church, the use of traditional materials and necessary. Elford buildings set in a fairly diffuse arrangement. The setting of the majority of buildings is focussed along Church Road and the banks of the River Tame. Few buildings Plan location U have an outward focus. Due to distance, topography and vegetation there are no views from the Conservation Area to the Site.

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

Conservation Area: The character and appearance of the Conservation Area is derived from its As the predicted impact is of negligible historic group association and survival. The Conservation Area has a distinct significance, no mitigation is considered Trent & Mersey Canal linear focus along the canal corridor and its setting varies between sections. necessary.

Plan location V Due to distance, topography and vegetation there are no views from the Conservation Area to the Site.

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

Conservation Area: The character and appearance of the Conservation Area is derived from its historic As the predicted impact is of negligible pattern, the use of traditional materials and buildings set in a linear arrangement. significance, no mitigation is considered Fradley Junction The setting of the majority of buildings is focussed along the canal with a decidedly necessary. inward focus. Due to distance, topography and vegetation there are no views from Plan location W the Conservation Area to the Site.

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

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 53

ANNEX 1.1

Legislative and Policy Framework

Legislation

Legislation provides for the protection (through being added to the scheduled list of archaeological monuments and thus preservation in-situ) of the most important and well- preserved archaeological sites and monuments (Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, 1979). The nearest Scheduled Monument to the Site is recorded as ‘Settlement Sites and Enclosures 500yds NE of Sittles Farm’ (UiD 1006091), which is 0.4km to the east. This relates to an extensive Iron Age and Roman rural settlement which has been archaeologically excavated (in accordance with SMC) prior to development of the existing (Whitemoor Haye) quarry. Despite having been completely excavated the site still remains on the register, although its archaeological significance has now been removed. The next nearest monument is ‘Causewayed Enclosures, Fradley’ (UiD 1002964), which is 1.6km to the west.

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

There are c.50 Listed Buildings in the wider study area, of which 13 were chosen for detailed assessment (due to their locations in relation to the Site). One is of Grade I status, four are of Grade II* status and 8 are of Grade II status. The nearest Listed Building to the Site is the Grade II Fradley Arms Hotel, c.0.4km to the west. The nearest Conservation Areas to the Site are Alrewas (1.7km distance) and Elford (1.75km distance). The Trent and Mersey Canal (c.2km distance) is also a designated Conservation Area, as is Fradley Junction (c.3km distance).

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 54

National Planning Guidance

The NPPF - 2019

The Government’s objectives for the historic environment are set out in the NPPF (2019 – Chapter 16 Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment). It gives local planning authorities guidance on the appropriate ways of dealing with the historic environment, including archaeology, in the planning process. The guidance is that local authority development documents and plans should include policies for the protection, enhancement and preservation of sites of heritage interest and their settings, and that the proposals maps should define the areas and sites to which these policies and proposals within the development plan apply. The principles and policies in the NPPF 2019 are a material consideration which must be taken into account in development management decisions.

The NPPF 2019 also gives backing to local planning authorities, at the stage of applying for planning permission, to request additional information from prospective developers about their site before determination of any submitted planning application. The information contained in this document and its annexes forms part of that additional information.

This chapter also takes account of the related guidance given in the National Planning Practice Guide (PPG) 2014 and Historic England’s publication, The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment: Good Practice Advice in Planning, Note 3 (second edition) 2017.

Historic England state that ‘conservation decisions are based on a proportionate assessment of the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal’ (2017.8). Local planning authorities should require an applicant to provide a description of the significance of the heritage assets that are potentially affected by a development, and the contribution of their setting to that significance. The level of detail should relate to the importance of the heritage asset and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on the significance of the asset.

The main thrust of the guidance is that, where development is proposed, the significance of a heritage asset and its settings should be protected if that significance is deemed to be special. Where loss of significance is justified on the merits of new development, local planning authorities should impose appropriate planning conditions requesting the heritage asset to be appropriately recorded prior to its loss.

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 55

The NPPF 2019 is primarily concerned with the protection of heritage assets which are designated. Some non-designated assets are of heritage significance, but not at a level that would pass the threshold for national designation. The desirability of conserving them is a material consideration, but individually less of a priority than for designated assets. The requirements for recording and understanding any such assets that are to be lost apply to these assets, although the requirement imposed upon any permission will need to be proportionate to the nature and lower level of the asset’s significance.

Local Planning Guidance

Lichfield District Local Plan (2008-2029)

The local plan strategy 2008-2029 was adopted on 17 February 2015. The local plan strategy is the first part of the new local plan for Lichfield District and will be followed by the local plan allocations document. The local plan strategy replaces the saved policies of the 1998 Lichfield District Local Plan. Policies and so-called Strategic Priorities relating to heritage are as follows:

Strategic Priority 14: Built Environment: To protect and enhance the District’s built environment and heritage assets (including Lichfield Cathedral), its historic environment and local distinctiveness, ensuring an appropriate balance between built development and open space, protecting the character of residential areas, protecting existing open spaces and improving the quality of and accessibility to open space and semi-natural green spaces.

Core Policy 3: Delivering Sustainable Development: The Council will require development to contribute to the creation and maintenance of sustainable communities, mitigate and adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, make prudent use of natural resources, reduce carbon emissions, enable opportunities for renewable energy and help minimise any environmental impacts. To achieve this, development should address the following (relevant) key issues:

• Use our natural resources prudently and conserve, enhance and expand natural, built and heritage assets and improve our understanding of them wherever possible;

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 56

Core Policy 14: Our Built & Historic Environment: The District Council will protect and improve the built environment and have special regard to the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment through positive action and partnership working. The historic environment contributes to sustainable communities, including economic vitality, and new development must make a positive contribution to the historic environment's local distinctiveness.

The significance of designated heritage assets including nationally protected listed buildings and their settings, ancient monuments, archaeological sites and conservation areas and their settings, will be conserved and enhanced and given the highest level of protection. Other heritage assets including locally listed buildings, and locally important parks and gardens will also be conserved and enhanced. In conjunction with Policy NR5, landscapes that form the setting to the built and historic environment will also be conserved and enhanced.

Change will be directed to the most appropriate locations taking into account the District's heritage assets and their settings, including the historic landscape, as informed by the local evidence base. Development proposals which conserve and enhance a heritage asset or its setting will be supported where clear and convincing justification has been provided through an assessment of the significance of the asset or its setting.

The sustainable re-use, maintenance and repair of listed buildings and other heritage assets will be supported, particularly those that have been identified as being at risk. In conservation areas, the built form will be protected and enhanced and there should be no net loss of trees, with physical improvements to conservation areas linked to the objectives contained within conservation area appraisals and their management plans where appropriate.

Opportunities to improve understanding of the District's heritage assets will be supported through partnership work with local communities and societies using a range of historic characterisation tools, the County Council’s Historic Environment Record, the expansion of the local list and the programme of Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans.

The District Council will seek to maintain local distinctiveness through the built environment in terms of buildings and public spaces and enhance the relationships and

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 57

linkages between the built and natural environment and through the realisation of proposed major new development.

The sky line of Lichfield City, characterized by the five spires emerging above the roofs and tree canopy will be protected and should inform the height, scale and layout for new developments. This and other locally important views within settlements and rural locations will be safeguarded and the integration of views and vistas shaping a strong sense of place in new development layouts will also be encouraged. High quality design, tree planting, landscaping and green spaces will be required as part of new development and elsewhere, to improve quality of place, reduce the urban heat island effect and contribute to the Forest of Mercia and National Forest where applicable.

Environmental improvement schemes will be implemented throughout the District in appropriate locations and the natural environment will play an important role in new development and regeneration through initiatives such green linkages, tree planting and effective landscaping to assist the health and well-being of the community and reduce health inequalities.

Policy NR5: Natural & Historic Landscapes: Development will be permitted where it does not negatively impact upon the geological, archaeological and historically important landscapes in the Lichfield District. The character and significance of the natural and historic landscape will be safeguarded through decisions which protect, conserve and enhance sites of international, national, regional and local importance. Where development or land use changes may affect national or locally important landscape assets, a full understanding of the context, characteristics, and significance should be provided and informed by the Historic Environment Character Assessment work of the County and District Councils. This Policy must be read in conjunction with Policy BE1: High Quality Development.

Policy BE1: High Quality Development: All development proposals should ensure that a high quality sustainable built environment can be achieved. Development will be permitted where it can be clearly and convincingly demonstrated that it will have a positive impact on:

• The significance of the historic environment, such as archaeological sites, sites of historic landscape value, listed buildings, conservation areas, locally listed buildings and skylines containing important historic, built and natural features (in conjunction with Policy NR5).

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 58

Staffordshire Minerals Local Plan (2015-2030)

The Staffordshire Minerals Local Plan sets out the Council’s vision for minerals developments through to 2030. Policies 4 and 6 relate (in part) to Heritage, and pertinent sections of those Policies state the following:

Policy 4 Minimising the impact of mineral development:

In assessing the impact of proposals for mineral development on people, local communities and the environment, where relevant, the following environmental considerations will be taken in to account:

Historic environment, having regard to the relative importance of designated and non- designated heritage assets and their settings, the potential for previously unrecorded archaeological remains; and having regard to the Staffordshire Historic Environment Record, the Staffordshire Historic Landscape Characterisation and the Aggregates and Archaeology in Staffordshire to ensure that the proposals protect and conserve the historic environment.

Where unacceptable adverse effects cannot be avoided, adequate mitigation should be demonstrated. As a last resort, where unacceptable adverse effects cannot be avoided or adequately mitigated, compensatory measures will be taken into account.

Having assessed the impacts of the proposals for mineral development and the mitigation and/ or compensatory measures, permission will only be granted where it has been demonstrated that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on human health, general amenity and the natural and historic environment, or the material planning benefits of the proposals outweigh the material planning objections.

The publication ‘Aggregates and Archaeology in Staffordshire’ sets out approaches to mitigation for the variety of aggregate resources found across the county.

Policy 6: Restoration of Mineral Sites

Proposals for the restoration of mineral sites will only be supported where it has been demonstrated that they accord with the plan policies, including Policy 4. Proposals for

JUNE 2019 TARMAC ALREWAS QUARRY – SOUTHERN EXTENSION P a g e | 59

the restoration of mineral sites, including the review of restoration strategies/ plans will only be supported where it has been demonstrated that the proposals are sufficiently comprehensive, detailed, practicable and achievable within the proposed timescales and where relevant, that:

• the restoration enhances valued landscapes, the setting of heritage assets and is informed by and sympathetic to landscape character (including heritage assets and the historic landscape character).

All the above policies and statements for best practice have been taken into consideration in the preparation of the assessment.

Whilst being updated, Minerals developments should also consider guidance provided by Historic England (formerly English Heritage) in their published policy statements and practice guide:

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

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

JUNE 2019 TARMAC