Archaeological S E R V I C E S
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
T H A M E S V A L L E Y ARCHAEOLOGICAL S E R V I C E S Land at Pelican Road, Pamber Heath, Hampshire Archaeological Desk-based Assessment by Gordana Baljkas Site Code: PPH16/69 (SU 6116 6274) Land at Pelican Road, Pamber Heath, Hampshire Archaeological Desk-based Assessment for Mr and Mrs John Hill by Gordana Baljkas Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd Site Code PPH 16/69 June 2016 Summary Site name: Land at Pelican Road, Pamber Heath, Hampshire Grid reference: SU 6116 6274 Site activity: Archaeological desk-based assessment Project manager: Steve Ford Site supervisor: Gordana Baljkas Site code: PPH 16/69 Area of site: c. 2.6ha Summary of results: There are no known heritage assets on the proposal site or in position to be affected by its development. The search of Hampshire AHBR and West Berkshire HER revealed only limited evidence for prehistoric, Roman, medieval and post-medieval occupation within a radius of 750m around the proposal site. However, the site lies close to the Roman town of Silchester and the Scheduled Monument of Grim’s Bank; the route of a Roman road is known to pass close by. As no archaeological fieldwork has been recorded in the area, the absence of archaeological records may reflect this lack of research rather than the genuine absence of past human activity. The proposal site has been only partially developed in the mid-20th century and used as a pig farm and any below-ground archaeological deposits, had they been present, would be likely to have survived. It is considered that further information from field observation could be required to establish the archaeological potential of the site. This could be achieved by an appropriately worded condition to any consent gained. 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 All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.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 30.06.16 Steve Preston 23.05.16 i 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 Land at Pelican Road, Pamber Heath, Hampshire Archaeological Desk-based Assessment by Gordana Baljkas Report 16/69 Introduction This report is an assessment of the archaeological potential of land at Pelican Road, Pamber Heath, Hampshire RG26 3ER (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr John Cornwell, Chartered Town Planner, Tanners Meadow, School Lane, Burghfield Common, Reading, Berkshire RG7 3ES on behalf of Mr and Mrs John Hill and 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 consent is to be sought from Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council for residential development of land at Pelican Road, Pamber Heath, Hampshire. This assessment will accompany the application in order to inform the planning process with regard to potential archaeological and heritage implications. This is in accordance with the Department for Communities and Local Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2012) and the Council’s heritage policies. Site description, location and geology The proposal site is located on the border between the counties of Hampshire and Berkshire on the northern edge of the village of Pamber Heath. The proposal site comprises an irregular parcel of land covering an area of approximately 2.6ha and is centred on NGR SU 6116 6274 (Fig. 1). The proposal site comprises the land associated with Soke Pig Farm to the north and an access road combining parts of Silchester Road to the south and Pelican Road aligned south to north. The part of the proposal site comprising the access roads is bounded by properties along Silchester and Pelican Roads while the northern section of the proposal site is bounded by open fields to the north and east with wooded areas beyond, Mitchel Close to the south and the farm’s main building and associated grounds with a track beyond to the west. A site visit conducted on 15th April 2016 showed that it currently comprises a field used for grazing of animals to the west and a wooded field with different agricultural buildings towards the east. The western field is mostly grassed with an irregular line of pine trees towards the western boundary and an overhanging cable and a drain in the northernmost corner of the field. The eastern field is mostly wooded with oak and pine with occasional grassed clearings amongst the trees. A drain runs along a part of the proposal site’s northern boundary. Two smaller sheds are close to the boundary with the western field 1 which is defined by a post and wire mash fence, while another is located towards the northern boundary of the proposal site. In the eastern corner of the proposal site are three large barns, a dilapidated shed, two further outbuildings and four silos. The proposal site is bounded mainly by a post and wire mash fence with brick wall to the north and close boarded fence to the south-east (Fig. 2, Pls 1-6). The underlying bedrock geology is recorded as London Clay Formation – sand. Superficial deposits have been recorded everywhere apart towards the northern and eastern edges of the proposal site as Silchester Gravel Member - sand and gravel (BGS 2016). The proposal site lies at a height of approximately 102m above Ordnance Datum along Silchester Road in the south sloping slightly down towards the north where it lies at approximately 100m above Ordnance Datum. Planning background and development proposals Planning permission is to be sought from Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council for residential development (up to 60 dwellings) of land at Pelican Road, Pamber Heath. Provisional plans of the proposed development are presented as figure 2. The Department for Communities and Local Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2012) sets out the framework within which local planning authorities should consider the importance of conserving, or enhancing, aspects of the historic environment, within the planning process. It requires an applicant for planning consent to provide, as part of any application, sufficient information to enable the local planning authority to assess the significance of any heritage assets that may be affected by the proposal. The Historic Environment is defined (NPPF 2012, 52) as: ‘All aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through time, including all surviving physical remains of past human activity, whether visible, buried or submerged, and landscaped and planted or managed flora.’ Paragraphs 128 and 129 state that ‘128. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. ‘129. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.’ 2 A ‘heritage asset’ is defined (NPPF 2012, 52) as ‘A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. Heritage asset includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing).’ ‘Designated heritage asset’ includes (NPPF 2012, 51) any ‘World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument, Listed Building, Protected Wreck Site, Registered Park and Garden, Registered Battlefield or Conservation Area designated under the relevant legislation.’ ‘Archaeological interest’ is glossed (NPPF 2012, 50) as follows: ‘There will be archaeological interest in a heritage asset if it holds, or potentially may hold, evidence of past human activity worthy of expert investigation at some point. Heritage assets with archaeological interest are the primary source of evidence about the substance and evolution of places, and of the people and cultures that made them.’ Specific guidance on assessing significance and the impact of the proposal is contained in paragraphs 131 to 135: ‘131. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of: the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. ‘132. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting.