Aarrrccchhhaaaeeeoool

T H A M E S V A L L E Y AARRCCHHAAEEOOLLOOGGIICCAALL S E R V I C E S Supermarket and Hotel Site, Aylesbury Waterside, Exchange Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire An archaeological desk-based assessment by Heather Hopkins Site Code AWB10/15 (SP 8225 1365) Supermarket and Hotel Site, Aylesbury Waterside, Exchange Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment for Aylesbury Vale District Council By Heather Hopkins Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd Site Code AWB 10/15 June 2010 Summary Site name: Supermarket and Hotel Site, Aylesbury Waterside, Exchange Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire Grid reference: SP 8225 1365 Site activity: Desk-based assessment Project manager: Steve Ford Site supervisor: Heather Hopkins Site code: AWB 10/15 Area of site: c. 1.2ha Summary of results: This document considers the implications of re-development on potential historic and archaeological assets on the proposal site. On this occasion, however, it is the archaeological component which dominates this study. The proposed development area covers a large plot of land and is located in close proximity to areas of high archaeological potential (central Aylesbury and Walton) There is also a possibility of encountering waterlogged deposits suitable for palaeo-environmental reconstruction. The site has been developed in its recent past but it is unclear at this stage how much those developments have impacted upon any below ground archaeology present. It is anticipated that further information from trial trenching (evaluation) will be required to determine the archaeological potential of the site in the first instance and, if necessary, in order to draw up an appropriate mitigation strategy. The boundary of the site is formed by the Aylesbury branch of the Grand Union Canal. It is considered that the development proposal has no negative impact on the heritage asset setting of the canal and canal basin and that continued use (or re-use) the environs of the canalside for commercial purposes is entirely complimentary with the zonation of this area of Aylesbury as that of commercial and industrial usage in later post-medieval times. This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford9 30.06.10 Steve Preston9 8.06.10 1 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 Supermarket and Hotel Site, Aylesbury Waterside, Exchange Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment by Heather Hopkins Report 10/15 Introduction This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of land at Aylesbury Waterside, Exchange Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire (SP 8225 1365) (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Chris Richards of CB Richard Ellis Ltd, Kingsley House, 1a Wimpole Street, London, W1G 0RE on behalf of Aylesbury Vale District Council 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 permission is to be sought to development the Waterside area for leisure and commercial use, including a food retail premises and a hotel. Site description, location and geology The site occupies an irregular parcel of land to the south east of the centre of Aylesbury and covers an area of c. 1.2ha (Fig. 12). It includes areas to either side of a small brook (Bear Brook) linked by two bridges across it. The site is bounded to the north by Exchange Street, to the east by residential housing and an electricity depot, to the south by a canal and canal basin and to the west by a new theatre complex. Former structures on the site have now been demolished and much of the site covered by Tarmac for use as a car-park (Pls 1 and 2). The site is mainly located on recent and Pleistocene alluvium, with Kimmeridge (including Hartwell Clay) to the north- west (BGS 1990). It is at a height of approximately 80m above Ordnance Datum. Planning background and development proposals Planning permission is to be sought for the redevelopment of the Waterside area for leisure and commercial use, with a food retail premises and hotel to be constructed, to form part of a wider waterside regeneration project. The Department for Communities and Local Government’s Planning Policy Statement, Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS5 2010) sets out policies relating to archaeology, and other aspects of the historic environment, within the planning process. It requires an applicant for planning consent, listed building consent, Scheduled Monument Consent, or Conservation Area 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. 1 Policy HE6.1 states that ‘Local planning authorities should require an applicant to provide a description of the significance of the heritage assets affected and the contribution of their setting to that significance. The level of detail should be proportionate 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 heritage asset. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets themselves should have been assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary given the application’s impact. Where an application site includes, or is considered to have the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where desk-based research is insufficient to properly assess the interest, a field evaluation.’ [on which, see below]. PPS5 makes the significance of any ‘heritage asset’ a material consideration in the planning process, regardless of whether that asset is ‘designated’ or not, and places on local planning authorities the responsibility to weigh the benefits of a proposed development against any loss of significance in a heritage asset. Designated assets include World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Protected Wreck Sites, Registered Battlefields, Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and Registered Parks and Gardens. Policy HE9.1: ‘There should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets and the more significant the designated heritage asset, the greater the presumption in favour of its conservation should be. Once lost, heritage assets cannot be replaced and their loss has a cultural, environmental, economic and social impact. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Loss affecting any designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, including scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings and grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.’ Policy HE9.6 ‘There are many heritage assets with archaeological interest that are not currently designated as scheduled monuments, but which are demonstrably of equivalent significance. These include heritage assets: • that have yet to be formally assessed for designation • that have been assessed as being designatable, but which the Secretary of State has decided not to designate; or • that are incapable of being designated by virtue of being outside the scope of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. ‘The absence of designation for such heritage assets does not indicate lower significance and they should be considered subject to the policies in HE9.1 to HE9.4 and HE10.’ Proposals for development which would have an adverse impact on assets not so designated must be weighed against the significance of the asset. Policy HE8 states: ‘The effect of an application on the significance of such a heritage asset or its setting is a material consideration in determining the application. When identifying such heritage assets during the planning process, a local planning authority should be clear that the asset meets the heritage asset criteria set out in Annex 2. Where a development proposal is subject to detailed pre-application discussions (including, where appropriate, archaeological evaluation (see HE6.1)) with the local planning authority, there is a general presumption that identification of any previous unidentified heritage assets will take place during this pre-application stage. Otherwise the local planning authority should assist applicants in identifying such assets at the earliest opportunity’ 2 The accompanying Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide (DCLG 2010) clarifies what is meant by field evaluation: paragraph 62 states: ‘Where a desk-based assessment does not provide sufficient evidence for confident prediction of the impact of the proposal, it may be necessary to establish the extent, nature and importance of the asset’s significance through on-site evaluation. This may be achieved through a number of techniques,

Load more