The Bryn Yr Odyn Solar Park, Tyn Dryfol, Soar, Anglesey

Home , Archaeology of Wales

T H A M E S V A L L E Y ARCHAEOLOGICAL S E R V I C E S

Desk-based Heritage Assessment

by Steve Preston

Site Code TDA13/31

(SH3950 7380)

The Bryn Yr Odyn Solar Park, Tyn Dryfol, Soar, Anglesey

Desk-based Heritage Assessment

for New Forest Energy Ltd

by Steve Preston

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd

Site Code TDA13/31

April 2013 Summary

Site name: The Bryn Yr Odyn Solar Park, Tyn Dryfol, Soar, Anglesey

Grid reference: SH3950 7380

Site activity: Desk-based heritage assessment

Project manager: Steve Ford

Site supervisor: Steve Preston

Site code: TDA13/31

Area of site: 29ha

Summary of results: There are no known heritage assets on the site. There are, however, two Scheduled Monuments close enough to be in a position where their settings could be affected by its development. On balance it is not considered that the nature of the proposal would adversely affect the appreciation of these monuments. The area around the site, particularly to the south and east, is comparatively rich in known archaeological sites, with several small Roman settlements besides the two Scheduled Monuments, and the speculative line of a Roman road. The site covers a very large area, increasing the probability of archaeological remains being present simply by chance. The landscape of the site has been farmland since cartographic depictions began, and most of the fields are comparatively recent constructions. The proposal overall does not obviously carry any significant adverse impacts on archaeological remains but there may be the potential for localized disturbance in areas of electricity substation or deeper cable trenches. It is recommended that a watching brief be conducted in those areas but that the remainder of the proposal requires no archaeological mitigation.

This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.

Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford 11.04.13

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47–49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading RG1 5NR Tel. (0118) 926 0552; Fax (0118) 926 0553; email: [email protected]; website: www.tvas.co.uk

The Bryn Yr Odyn Solar Park, Tyn Dryfol, Soar, Anglesey Desk-based Heritage Assessment

by Steve Preston

Report 13/31 Introduction

This report is an assessment of the archaeological potential of a large parcel of land located at Tyn Dryfol, Soar,

Anglesey (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Jeremy Hinton, of New Forest Energy Ltd, Meyrick

Estate Office, Hinton Admiral, Christchurch, Dorset, on behalf of Bodorgan Environmental Management Ltd comprises the first stage of a process to determine the presence/absence, extent, character, quality and date of any archaeological remains which may be affected by redevelopment of the area.

Planning permission has been sought from Ynys Môn (Anglesey) Council (Appln No. 10C114A) to construct a solar farm with associated infrastructure. In order to inform the planning process and to provide sufficient information on which to base a programme of archaeological mitigation, a desk-based assessment and an initial evaluation by means of magnetometer survey have been proposed. This report deals with the desk- based assessment, and a separate report will cover the geophysical survey.

Site description, location and geology

The site is located at the farm of Tyn Dryfol, c.1.5km northeast of the hamlet of Soar and c.6km west of

Llangefni, south of the centre of the Isle of Anglesey (Fig. 1). The eight fields which make up the site have a total area of 29.05ha centred on NGR, SH3950 7380 .They are all located to the north-west of the farm buildings on the south-west-facing slope of a hill that climbs from c.45m above Ordnance Datum in the south-west to c.65m in the north-east. An unnamed stream runs in a southwesterly direction past the site to the west and an unnamed road forms its eastern border (Pls 1–4). A roughly cobbled cart track bisects the site from the southeast to the northwest. All of the fields are under pasture although Fields 3 and 4 (Fig. 2) are marsh with drainage ditches running though them. The underlying geology for the majority of the site is described as boulder clay overlying Gwna Group schist with patches of schist without the boulder clay covering in the centre and eastern edge of the site (BGS 1974).

Planning background and development proposals

Planning permission is to be sought for the development of a solar farm on the site (Fig. 2). This would include an electricity substation, cables and solar panels. Several small rocky outcrops and all of the site’s internal boundaries are excluded from the development proposals.

The Welsh Government’s Planning Policy Wales (PPW2012) aims to protect the historic environment, including archaeology and ancient monuments, listed buildings, conservation areas and historic parks, gardens and landscapes. This national policy provides guidance to local planning authorities and makes it clear that there is no need for local plans to duplicate national policy.

The following paragraphs are the most relevant:

‘6.4.2 Development plans should reflect national policies for the protection and enhancement of sites of archaeological interest and their settings. Archaeological remains scheduled as being of national importance should be identified for preservation. Not all nationally important remains meriting preservation will necessarily be scheduled. Such remains and, in appropriate circumstances, other unscheduled archaeological remains of more local importance, and their settings, may also be identified in development plans as particularly worthy of preservation. ‘6.4.3 Local planning authorities should not include in their development plans policies requiring developers to finance archaeological works in return for the grant of planning permission. Developers should not expect to obtain planning permission for archaeologically damaging development merely because they arrange for the recording of sites whose physical preservation in situ is both desirable (because of their level of importance) and feasible. ‘6.4.4 Development plans should include locally-specific policies for the conservation of the built environment that are relevant to development management decisions and which should be taken into consideration in the determination of applications for both listed building consent and conservation area consent. Archaeology ‘6.5.1 The desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration in determining a planning application, whether that monument is scheduled or unscheduled. Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings are likely to be affected by proposed development, there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation in situ. In cases involving lesser archaeological remains, local planning authorities will need to weigh the relative importance of archaeology against other factors, including the need for the proposed development. ‘6.5.2 The needs of archaeology and development can be reconciled, and potential conflict very much reduced, if developers discuss their proposals for development with the local planning authority at an early stage. Archaeological assessments commissioned by developers (sometimes as part of a wider Environmental Impact Assessment) can help to provide information on the archaeological sensitivity of a site before submitting a planning application. If important remains are thought to exist at a development site, the planning authority should request the prospective developer to arrange for an archaeological field evaluation to be carried out before any decision on the planning application is taken. The results of any assessment and/or field evaluation should be provided as part of a planning application. If this information is not provided, authorities should consider whether it is appropriate to direct the applicant to supply further information, or whether to refuse permission for inadequately documented proposals. ‘6.5.3 Where local planning authorities decide that physical preservation in situ of archaeological remains is not justified in the circumstances of the case, and that development resulting in the destruction of the archaeological remains should proceed, before granting planning permission the authority needs to be satisfied that the developer has made appropriate and satisfactory provision for the archaeological investigation and subsequent recording of the remains and the publication of the results. Archaeological investigations should be carried out before development commences, working to a project brief prepared by the planning authority.

‘6.5.4 Local planning authorities may impose conditions to protect a monument and require that an archaeological watching brief is carried out. In order to secure the provision of an appropriate archaeological investigation and subsequent recording of remains, a negative condition may be imposed prohibiting the carrying out of the development until such time as works or other action (for example, an excavation), have been carried out by a third party. ‘6.5.5 Archaeological remains may only become apparent when development has commenced. Where such remains are deemed by the Welsh Government to be of national importance, the remains may be scheduled. In these circumstances, developers would need to seek separate Scheduled Monument Consent before continuing work. The local planning authority or the Welsh Government may revoke planning consent if deemed necessary. ‘6.5.6 Local planning authorities are required to consult the Welsh Government on any development proposal that is likely to affect the site of a scheduled ancient monument. Scheduled monument consent must be sought from the Welsh Government for any proposed works to a scheduled ancient monument. Consent can only be granted for detailed proposals, and planning permission alone is insufficient to authorise the works. Scheduled Ancient Monuments are exempt from conservation area control; however, where buildings are both scheduled and listed, ancient monument legislation takes precedence and scheduled monument consent, rather than listed building consent, is required for works. In these cases, when considering applications for demolition the Welsh Government will have regard to the need to explore alternative uses. Where alterations are proposed, regard will be had to the retention of important features.

The site is not within a Conservation Area, World Heritage Site nor a historic landscape, park or garden,

and there are no Listed Buildings in the vicinity, so paragraphs relating to these do not apply.

In Anglesey, the Local Plan (adopted 1996) is in the process of being replaced by a joint Anglesey and

Gwynedd Local Development Plan but it is understood that until replaced the 1996 polices remain in effect. In keeping with national advice not to repeat national policy, only three policies deal with the historic environment:

‘Policy 39. The Council will use its planning powers to ensure that Scheduled Ancient Monuments and their settings are retained intact. Unscheduled archaeological sites and their settings of sufficient importance to merit preservation will also be protected. Where proposals affect other unscheduled archaeological remains which do not merit preservation, provision will be made for an appropriate archaeological response. Schemes for the development of visitor and educational facilities on suitable sites will be permitted provided that the archaeological site is not put at risk.’ ‘40. The character and appearance of all designated conservation areas will be protected from unsympathetic development. Enhancement of their characters will be achieved by carrying out improvements and permitting high quality new development. The Council will define and designate additional Conservation Areas within other areas of special architectural or historic interest where it is considered necessary to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of those areas. ‘41. Buildings of special architectural and historic interest and their settings will be protected from unsympathetic development, alterations or demolition. Appropriate uses which help to preserve their character and fabric will be permitted.’

In the case of Scheduled Ancient Monuments (and their settings), the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and

Archaeological Areas Act (1979) also apply. Under this legislation, development of any sort on or affecting a

Scheduled Monument requires the Secretary of State’s Consent. There are two Scheduled Monuments with the vicinity of the proposal area.

Methodology

The assessment of the site was carried out by the examination of pre-existing information from a number of sources recommended by the Institute for Archaeologists paper ‘Standards in British Archaeology’ covering desk-based studies. These sources include historic and modern maps, the Gwynedd Archaeological Trust’s

Regional Historic Environment Record, RCAHMW aerial photographic archive, geological maps and any relevant publications or reports.

Archaeological background

General background

As a review of the reports published in the journal Archaeologia Cambrensis in the last couple of decades demonstrates, the pace of archaeological research in Anglesey is not rapid, which presumably reflects the scarcity of modern development on the island (Lynch 1991 covers the extent of the previous 20 years’ research in a rather short addendum to her first edition of 1970). Nonetheless, the island does have a rich prehistoric (and later) archaeological record, and a long, if not especially intensive, history of archaeological research

(RCAHMW 1937; Grimes 1938; 1951; cf Lynch et al. 2006). What follows deals in the main with the southern half of the island.

There appears to be no evidence of any Palaeolithic occupation, and the only significant early Mesolithic site is at Trwyn Du, with a very large collection of struck flints including two tranchet axes (Murphy 2002;

Burrow 2003), although the radiocarbon dates from this site are questionable. Paradoxically a site at Capel Eithin has produced late Mesolithic radiocarbon dates but no finds or features of that period. Wales as a whole appears to have no Mesolithic radiocarbon dates later than the 2nd half of the 6th millennium, but the dating of the earliest Neolithic settlement cannot be pushed back beyond the early 4th (around 3800 cal BC). Attempts to have the early Neolithic occupation of the British Isles spread from an initial point of contact in the west (Ireland or

Wales) (Sheridan 2003; Sheridan 2005) have not met with universal support (Whittle et al. 2011). Megalithic tombs form the commonest monument of this period, indeed, ‘Few areas of Britain have a greater density of megalithic tombs than Anglesey’ (Smith and Lynch 1987, v) and one has been partially excavated very close to the present study area (see below) but occupation sites are also known, if rare: e.g., Bryn yr Hen Bobl and Bryn

Celli Wen for the earlier Neolithic, Capel Eithin, Bryn Celli Du (henge and passage grave) for the later, and a possible hengiform monument at Castell Bryn-Gwynn.

There appears to be a tendency for earlier prehistoric occupation to favour the coastline, and the south coast in particular, but this might be a by-product of the nature of previous study rather than a real pattern of past activity (there has for example been a thorough study aimed entirely at coastal archaeology: Davidson 2002).

The Bronze Age and Iron Age see a more even spread of settlements, and certainly more of them in total

(Longley 2006, esp. figs 4.4 to 4.6). Barclodiad y Gawres has a remarkable chambered cairn around 30m in diameter, probably of early bronze Age date (Powell and Daniel 1956). Anglesey is, however, perhaps most noted in the public perception for its association with the Iron Age druids and resistance to the Roman invasion in AD 59, and the massacre of AD 60/61, as recorded in grisly detail by Tacitus, and perhaps also the exquisite workmanship of the Llyn Cerrig Bach hoard or votive deposit (Fox 1946). Holyhead was a Roman port and there were military installations along the north and probably the south coast but there is little other Roman evidence of much significance; known ‘hut groups’ previously unhesitatingly assigned to this period are increasingly being seen as Iron Age in origin and may continue long after the Roman period.

The archaeology of the post-Roman period is also rather scant, but many small settlements are known from place name evidence. The early medieval period has left little trace of the presumed importance of the island, but excavations at Rhosyr have revealed a building that may by the court (llys) and again, numerous small settlements have medieval roots (Roberts 2006).

Work in advance of the construction of the A55, not far to the north of the site, revealed several unsuspected new sites, including prehistoric and Roman settlements, a Bronze Age and early Christian cemetery, and stretches of turnpike road (Maynard et al. 1999).

Regional Historic Environment Record

A search was made on the Regional Historic Environment Record (HER) on 7th March 2013 for a radius of 2km around the proposal site. This revealed 47 entries within the search radius. These are summarized as Appendix 1

(excluding five for desk-based assessments, four for synthetic regional or national surveys, and one for a landscape characterization project) and the locations of those closest to the proposal site are plotted on Figure 1.

Prehistoric The most significant archaeological site in the study area is the Scheduled Monument of Din Dryfol Neolithic chambered tomb [Fig. 1: 1], which is discussed more fully below; this is located 500m south of the southern tip of the proposal area. A Late Bronze Age founder’s hoard, composed of at least two palstaves, a socketed axe and two sword fragments (and reportedly more objects) was discovered during the burial of a sheep well to the north

of the site, beyond the limits of Figure 1 [Appendix 1: 2]. There is always doubt as to whether these burials of groups of bronze objects are intended for later re-cycling and have been buried for temporary safe-keeping or whether they were never intended to be recovered but are votive offerings. The absence of obvious waste pieces or offcuts might suggest the latter in this case, but as the hoard was evidently only partly recovered, that suggestion must be treated with caution. There is an entry for a mound to the south of the site [3], where the place name Din/Dinas suggests a hillfort, but the mound is thought more likely to represent a Bronze Age barrow; it may even simply be a natural feature. There are several ‘hut groups’ in the area, at least some of which, as noted above, could have prehistoric roots. The HER, however, only assigns a broad prehistoric date to one of these, also in the vicinity of the chambered tomb to the south [4] (although finds reported from here in the

19th century included Roman pottery).

Roman Three of the site type known as ‘hut groups’ are recorded in the 2km search radius, and at least two of them have produced positive Roman evidence. Finds from the one just mentioned [4] included mortaria (Roman food preparation vessels), among other finds that are less period-specific, and the site apparently consisted of several small enclosures, each with two or three huts. This site had already been mostly destroyed when it was reported in the 19th century. considerably more detail is known from a site at Plas bach to the south-east [5], also from

19th-century excavations, which reported on buildings, roads and pavements. Subsequent work nearby revealed a substantial circular stone foundation, and a stone hut floor with Roman pottery, including imported samian ware, quernstones, whetstones and a crucible, which indicates metalworking in the vicinity. The third hut group to the east of the site is a Scheduled Monument [6] which survives as a series of earthworks. A possible Roman road line [7] has been projected through the area, just east of the proposal site, but there appears to be little positive evidence for it at any point, and none in the current study area. If it did exist, its route should cross the proposal area. Finally, the finding of a (?Roman) copper ingot at the bottom of a well at Tyn Dryfol may be further evidence for metalworking of this period in the area [8]. There is also hearsay evidence for the finding of

Roman coins to the south of the site [21].

Medieval Two medieval period entries are for the locations of chapels, presumably from documentary sources [9, 10] while the third is the site of a mill, known both from documentary sources and the remains of its mill pond and two leats [11]. The possible location of one of the chapels [10] is close to the proposal site but this is not likely to be especially accurate.

Post-medieval An 18th or 19th-century folly is depicted on early Ordnance Survey maps (off Figure 1) [12]. Bodwrdin, well to the south, is a 17th-century listed house [13]. There is a record for the old road from Fferam Rhosdyd to Tyn

Dryfol-bach [14] and two gardens are also noted in the HER, at Tyn Dryfol itself [15] and Tre’r-gof (beyond

Figure 1) [16].

Modern, Undated The only modern entry in the HER for the area is for a listed telephone kiosk, well away to the north-west [17].

A number of entries are not assigned to any specific period. Those which also lie beyond the limits of Figure 1 are summarized in Appendix 1 and not discussed here. Of the remainder, just to the north of the site [19] was the location of a standing stone which was removed during building of the A55; it is unclear whether this was an antiquity at all. Of more significance for the current study, two entries relate to observations made during (non- archaeological) excavations at two further hut groups, one at Tyn Dryfol itself [20] and one further south [21], the finds from which have not been assigned to a date but which presumably would be later prehistoric, Roman or possibly early medieval. Details for both of these are necessarily uncertain.

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

Dyn Dryfol megalithic tomb is a Scheduled Monument (AN8) [Fig. 1: 1]. This badly damaged tomb was partially excavated in 1970 and again in 1980 (Smith and Lynch 1987) and like the more fully explored example at Trefignath, revealed a complex development sequence (with some difficulty in interpreting it) which exposes its normal classification as a ‘long grave’ to be a simplification. Its dating remains uncertain but a short period of use around 3000 bc seems likely. The proposal would have no direct impact on the Scheduled Monument but does have the potential to affect its setting, and the impact of the proposal on this setting would be a material consideration in determining the planning application. The context in which the monument is currently appreciated is a thoroughly managed landscape of late medieval and early post-medieval fields. The proposal would not alter the layout of these, but would alter the visual aspect. The proposal would be of minimal vertical height and thus not in any way could it overshadow or interfere with the view of the monument from distance.

The solar farm would however cover a large area and alter views of the post-medieval landscape from the monument. On balance this impact is not likely to be considered significantly detrimental to public appreciation of the setting of the chambered tomb. As the proposal is for a time-limited development, followed by reinstatement, any impact would also be temporary in any case.

The second Scheduled Monument (AN122) close to the site is a hut circle at Tyddyn Sadler on the banks of the Afon Gwna to the east [Fig. 1: 6] This comprises the substantial (18.5m by 15.5m) earthwork remains of a group of two or three sub-rectangular huts and at least one round hut, within a complex of terraced enclosures

(Going and Marsh, 1979). This monument is over 1km from the closest part of the proposal site and the nature of the development would seem unlikely to have much, if any, adverse impact on its appreciation.

Cartographic and documentary sources

For the immediate post-Roman period, place name evidence provides most of the picture, and indicates unbroken

British (Welsh) survival. Historical sources are silent for most of the early part of the period, but Christianity had early taken a strong hold (RCAHMW 1937). Anglesey always seems to have been held as a single lordship, although divided into three cantraeffs each with its own court: Aberffraw (possibly the most important at least in the beginning), Rhosyr and Cemais (Johnstone 1997). The island’s location exposed it to frequent Viking attacks, especially in the second half of the 10th century, but there does not appear to be any evidence of their settling here. The importance of sea power to holding the island may, paradoxically, have been one reason that early Norman attempts at conquest were not pressed home (RCAHMW 1937), the English crown at times recognizing the independence of Aberffraw. It is even possible that some (chronologically) Norman churches were built by Welsh lords. Not until Edward I was Ynys Mon taken under Norman rule.

A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at Anglesey Record

Office and online in order to ascertain what activity had been taking place throughout the site’s later history and whether this may have affected any possible archaeological deposits within the proposal area (see Appendix 2).

The earliest map available of the area is Christopher Saxton’s map of Mone Insula modo Anglesey et

Carnarvaria (Anglesey and Caernarfon) of 1578 (Fig. 3) which shows Aberffawr and Llyn Corran but no detail for the area. Speed's map of Wales of 1810 (Fig. 4) shows divisions into hundreds but otherwise appears likely to be a copy of Saxton; no further detail is supplied.

The Aberffraw tithe map of c. 1840 shows the area of the site in some detail (Fig. 5). Sufficient of the roads and boundaries on this map survive for the area of the site to be identified accurately, although it is notable that almost none of the site's internal boundaries are present at this date, and few of the external boundaries are in quite the same configuration. The site consists of the western ends of just two fields which are markedly larger than they would ever subsequently be; even the road/track down the eastern side of the site does not split these

fields. No buildings are marked on the map, but comparison with other areas shows that this cannot be taken to indicate that none exist. However, an absence of small enclosures or land parcels suggests that no buildings are yet present, without necessarily being conclusive.

Ordnance Survey coverage held in the record office was unfortunately patchy for this area, with complete coverage available for none of the earlier editions. By the time of the Ordnance Survey First Edition of 1887

(Fig. 6, covering the north-eastern part of the site only), and the 1900 Second Edition (for the north-western portion) the previously large fields have been subdivided into more than two dozen, more regular, smaller fields; most of these boundaries remain today. There are now buildings at Bryn-yr-odyn, just beyond the edge of the site. There is nothing to indicate that any part of the site is other than farmland, with marked rocky outcrops, ponds and furze/heath symbols. Compiling available maps for 1920 and 1922 (Fig. 7) still omits the southern part of the site. In the northern part, the site is in general similar except that some of the smaller fields have been combined. A couple of fields previously shown as furze no longer are, so some improvement seems to have taken place, but this appears limited. There is still no development within the area.

Later maps were consulted online, mostly with only the 6-inch or 1:10,000 scale versions available. The map of 1926 shows no change. By 1953 (Fig. 8) there has still been no change and the site is in its present form, with the possible exception of a couple of boundaries in the southern portion, although this may be a fault in reproduction; there is still no development within the area. The 1963 map is identical and the 1975 revision shows the current configuration (Fig. 1 shows the 2010 map).

Listed buildings

There are no listed buildings in the immediate area around the site.

Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields

There are no registered parks and gardens or registered battlefields within close proximity of the site. The garden at Tyn Dryfol is noted in the HER.

Historic Hedgerows

The site is bounded and divided by numerous banks bearing hedges, along with the stone walls (cloddiau) characteristic of the Anglesey landscape. Some of these may qualify as 'important' as defined by Schedule 1 of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. The proposal area excludes all of these and leaves a buffer zone around them.

The proposal does not seek to remove any of these boundaries although it is likely to require additional entrances through some. As the map evidence shows, within the site, only the slightly irregular boundary forming the northern limit of the site predates the tithe map, but several of the external boundaries may be this old.

Aerial Photographs

The catalogue of the aerial photograph collection of the Royal Commission on the Ancient and historical

Monuments of Wales (RCAHMW) was consulted on 28 February 2013 for a radius of 1km around the site centre. This revealed just ten sorties having been flown and 45 photographs taken. These are listed in Appendix

3. The available photographs were examined on 21st March 2013. Other than various features (field boundaries) already noted above, and modern drains, no cropmarks representing features of archaeological interest were visible within the site.

Discussion

There are no known heritage assets on the site. There are, however, two Scheduled Monuments close enough to be in a position where their settings could be affected by its development. On balance it is not considered that the nature of the proposal would adversely affect the appreciation of these monuments.

It remains therefore to establish if there may be potential for previously unknown heritage assets, that is, below-ground archaeological remains.

In considering the archaeological potential of the study area, various factors must be taken into account, including previously recorded archaeological sites, previous land-use and disturbance and future land-use including the proposed development.

The area around the proposal site, particularly to the south and east, is comparatively rich in known archaeological sites, with several small Roman settlements besides the two Scheduled Monuments, and the speculative line of a Roman road. All of these known sites, however, are of types which would be visible on the ground and on aerial photographs, and none is known from within the site’s boundaries. This absence of visible

monuments can never be conclusive evidence that no archaeological remains survive below ground, however, and the size of the area by itself increases the probability of archaeological remains being present by chance.

Cartographic review shows that the site has never been developed, although it is likely that some drainage work has taken place. There is therefore a strong chance that any archaeological deposits that might be present will have survived largely intact.

Solar farms are in general minimally intrusive in archaeological terms, the panels being fixed on small- diameter tubes at relatively wide spacing. However there may be individual cases where more potential for damage to the archaeological relevant horizon exists, for example where topsoil is unusually shallow or where for whatever reason deeper or more substantial footings are required; and there will normally be greater impact in the area of the accompanying electricity substation.

In this case it is suggested that most of the proposal requires no archaeological mitigation but that a

Watching Brief should be undertaken during the groundworks associated with the substation and any deeper cable trenches. This would need to be carried out by a competent archaeological contractor and would need to conform to a scheme approved by the archaeological adviser to the Council. It would involve the monitoring of groundwork activities such as topsoil/overburden removal and trenches dug for cables or other services, and foundations for the substation or any intrusive landscaping for access.

References

BGS, 1974, British Geological Survey, 1:50,000 Anglesey Special Sheet, Solid and Drift Edition, Keyworth Burrow, S, 2003, Catalogue of the Mesolithic and Neolithic Collections in the National Museum and Galleries of Wales, Cardiff Davidson, A, 2002, The Coastal Archaeology of Wales, CBA Res Rep 31, York Edwards, N (ed), 1997, Landscape and Settlement in Medieval Wales, Oxbow Monogr 81, Oxford Emmett, J, 2013, ‘Design brief for archaeological assessment and evaluation’, Gwynedd Archaeological Planning Service Fox, Sir C, 1946, A Find of the early Iron Age from Llyn Cerrig Bach, Anglesey, Cardiff Going, C and Marsh, G, 1979, ‘A hut group at Tyddyn-Sadler, Cerrigceiwen, Anglesey’, Bull Board Celtic Stud, 28.2, 349–51 Grimes, W F, 1951 The Prehistory of Wales (2nd edn), Cardiff Johnstone, N, 1997, ‘An investigation into the Locations of Royal Courts of Thirteenth Century Gwynedd’, in (ed) N Edwards Landscape and Settlement in Medieval Wales, Oxbow Monogr 81, Oxford, 55–70 Longley, D, 2006, ‘Deserted rural settlements in north-west wales’, in (ed) K Roberts, Lost Farmsteads: deserted rural settlement in Wales, CBA Res Rep 148, York, 61–82 Lynch, F, 1970, Prehistoric Anglesey, Llangefni Lynch, F, 1991, Prehistoric Anglesey (2nd edn), Llangefni Lynch, F, Aldhouse-Green, S and Davies, J L, 2006, Prehistoric Wales, Stroud Maynard, D, Hughes, G and Davidson, A, 1999, 'Archaeological operations on the new A55 Llandegai to Holyhead route', Archaeol in Wales 39, 51–6 Murphy, K, 2002, ‘The archaeological resource: chronological overview to 1500 AD’, in (ed) A Davidson, The Coastal Archaeology of Wales, CBA Res Rep 31, York, 45–64 Powell, T G E and Daniel, G E, 1956, Barclodiad y Gawres, Liverpool

PPW, 2012, Planning Policy Wales, Edition 5, Llywodraeth Cymru Welsh Government, Cardiff RCAHMW, 1937, An Inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Anglesey, Cardiff Roberts, K (ed), 2006, Lost Farmsteads: deserted rural settlement in Wales, CBA Res Rep 148, York Sheridan, A, 2003, ‘French Connections I: spreading the marmites thinly’, in (eds) I Armit, E M E Nelis and D Simpson, Neolithic Settlement in Ireland and western Britain, Oxford, 3–17 Sheridan, A, 2005, ‘Les éléments d’origine bretonne autour de 4000 av. J.C. en Ecosse: témoignages d’alliance, d’influence, de déplacement, ou quoi d’autre?’ in (eds) G Marchand and A Tresset, Unité et diversité des processes de néolithisation de la façade atlantique de l’Europe, Mémoire 36 Société Préhistorique Française, Paris, 25–37 Smith, C A and Lynch, F M, 1987, Trefignath and Din Dyrfol: the excacvation of two Megalithic Tombs in Anglesey, Cambrian Archaeol Monogr 3, Cardiff Whittle, A, Healy, F and Bayliss, A, 2011, Gathering Time: Dating the early Neolithic enclosures of southern Britain and Ireland, 2 voll, Oxford

APPENDIX 1: Historic Environment Records within a 2km search radius of the development site

No HER Ref Grid Ref (SH) Type Period Comment 1 PRN2528 3957 7249 Scheduled Neolithic Din Dryfol chambered tomb; see main text. PRN2529 Monument Roman NPRN93831 2 PRN5056 4023 7527 Findspot Bronze Age Late Bronze Age metal-worker’s hoard: palstaves, socketed axe, sword fragments, reportedly more finds dispersed. 3 PRN2531 3944 7235 Place name Bronze Age? Dinas placename suggests hillfort but mound is NPRN302350 ?earthwork more likely a tumulus (barrow) and more likely still a natural feature 4 PRN2535 3961 7238 Documentary Prehistoric 19th century report of hut group, almost destroyed NPRN300848 Roman then; several enclosures each with two or three huts. Finds included mill stones (querns?), pottery including mortaria (ie Roman) mostly from ditches. 5 PRN2161 4010 7259 Earthworks Roman Plas Bach, earthworks of ‘early’ buildings, roads and Excavation pavements’ recorded in 1855. Excavation in 1871 found no antiquities, but a substantial circular stone foundation was nearby, and a small tumulus. other excavations recorded a stone hut floor with charcoal, Roman pottery including samian, mullers (querns), whetstone and crucible. 6 PRN1548 4112 7373 Earthwork Roman Hut group, 18.5m by 15.5m; two or three sub- NPRN309532 4111 7369 Scheduled rectangular huts, at least one round one, in large NPRN275605 4111 7371 Monument enclosure and surrounded by field system 7 PRN17843 4038 7341 Cartographic Roman Roman road (suggested line; disputed). Very slight Photographic cropmark support from aerial photographs, no physical evidence. 8 PRN2151 4003 7305 Findspot Roman Find of copper ingot at bottom of well; details unclear. 9 PRN2149 4010 7190 Documentary Early Medieval Site of Capel Mair NPRN43575 10 PRN6639 3970 7290 Documentary Medieval Chapel, a documentary reference 11 PRN30697 3970 7240 Documentary Medieval Mill site, pond and leats still visible in 2002. Earthwork documentary evidence back to at least 16th century 12 PRN29430 4144 7425 Cartographic Post-medieval Castellated red sandstone tower ‘folly’, shown on Ordnance Survey maps. 13 NPRN15584 3922 7183 Building Post-medieval Bodwrdin, 17th century 14 NPRN23478 39565 72490 Road Post-medieval Old road Fferam Rhosdyd to Tyn Dryfol-bach 15 NPRN265445 40010 73120 Garden Post-medieval Garden at Tyn Dryfol 16 NPRN265441 41240 74230 Garden Post-medieval Garden at Tre’r-gof 17 NPRN408540 3760 7410 Listed building Modern Telephone box 18 PRN17160 3885 7288 Landscape n/a Inland rural area with fields, scattered settlement and road network 19 PRN5753 4127 7438 Documentary Undated Standing stone, or cattle rubbing stone, removed when A55 was built. 20 PRN2152 4000 7300 Findspot Unknown During digging up of a hut in the 19th century, various finds included a large perforated stone slab, a stone mortar, shells, and beads. 21 PRN2532 3995 7195 Hillfort? Unknown Remains of hillfort, with hut floors and walls, enclosing wall, and finds of Roman coins recorded in 1871 but details sketchy. 22 PRN8021 4046 7454 Photographic Unknown Circular feature, visible on aerial photograph 23 PRN40256 Not given Watching brief Unknown A5 test pits. Results not stated. 24 PRN40347 Not given Evaluation Unknown A55 project. Results not stated. 25 PRN40466 Not given Photographic Unknown Mapping of aerial photographs. Results not stated. 26 PRN42271 Not given Excavation Unknown Excavation published in 1871; results not stated 27 PRN42446 Not given Observation Unknown Field observation; Results not stated. 28 PRN40782 Not given Observation Unknown Field observation; Results not stated. 29 NPRN43558 39 72 Documentary Unknown Site of Capel Dindryfal 30 NPRN309673 40 75 Building Undated House at Glyn

Listed Buildings Grade II unless stated.

APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1578 Saxton Mona Insule (Fig. 3) 1610 Speed, Wales (Fig. 4) 1840's Aberffraw tithe map (Fig. 5) 1887 Ordnance Survey First Edition (Fig. 6) 25 inch (1:2,500 approx) 1900 Ordnance Survey Second Edition (Fig. 6) 25 inch 1915 Ordnance Survey Third Edition 25 inch 1920/22 Ordnance Survey Revision (Fig. 7) 25 inch 1926 Ordnance Survey 6 inch (1:10,560) 1953 Ordnance Survey1:10,560 (Fig. 8) 1963 Ordnance Survey 1:10,560 1972 Ordnance Survey 1:2,500 1975 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 2010 Ordnance Survey Explorer 262 (Fig. 1) 2012 Ordnance Survey digital mapping (Fig. 2)

APPENDIX 3: Aerial Photographs consulted

Year taken Sortie number Frame number Source Comment 1945 106G/UK655 3155–6, 4156–9 RAF 1946 3G/TUD/UK142 5112, 5117–18, 5141 RAF 1972 72107 289 Ordnance Survey 1993 Ordnance Survey 1995 Ordnance Survey 1996 RCAHMW 2001 Ordnance Survey 2004 Ordnance Survey 2005 RCAHMW

15 Holyhead

Llangefni 19 Beaumaris Menai Bridge

6 SITE

74000

SITE

15 8 73000 20

5 14 1

4 11 3

29 72000 21 9 13 SH39000 40000 TDA 13/31 The Bryn Yr Odyn Solar Park, Tyn Dryfol, Soar, Anglesey, 2013 Desk-based Heritage Assessment

Figure 1. Location of site within Tyn Dryfol and Anglesey, showing locations of HER entries closest to the site. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Explorer 263 at 1:12500 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 SITE