27 Northstowe archeology and built heritage strategy
december 2007
prepared by on behalf of
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
Contents Page 1 Introduction 1
2 Planning Policy 5
3 Buried Archaeological Rem ains 9
4 Built Heritage – RAF Oakington 27
5 Com m unity Involvem ent 32
6 Conclusions 38
References 41
Appendix 1: Archaeological Site Gazetteer
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Plan and Known Archaeological Sites Figure 2 Extent of Geophysical Survey Figure 3 Extent of Evaluative Trial Trenching and Fieldwalking Figure 4 Site Location Plan Showing Archaeological Zones and Sites within Northstowe Figure 5 Archaeological Sites to be Preserved In-situ Figure 6 Iron Age Sites Indicating Significance Figure 7 Indicative Plan Showing Excavation Sampling Strategy for Typical Iron Age Enclosure Figure 8 Roman Sites Indicating Significance Figure 9 Archaeological Sites Requiring No Further Archaeological Investigation Figure 10 Structures and Buildings within Oakington Barracks and Airfield to be preserved or Requiring Further Work Figure 11 Locations of Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings Figure 12 Location of Archaeological Sites in Relation To Indicative Construction Stage Plan Tables
Table 1 List of Known Archaeological Sites Table 2 Northstowe Archaeological Significance Criteria and Indicators
Northstowe Planning Applications WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
Table 3 Iron Age Excavation Strategy – Site Selection Framework
Northstowe Planning Applications WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
1 Introduction
1.1.1 The proposed Northstowe development is situated within the South Cambridgeshire District located to the north-west of Cambridge, to the east of Longstanton and to the north of Oakington and is bounded by the disused Cambridge to St Ives railway line to the east (Figure 1). The red line development boundary is referred to as Northstowe throughout the strategy. 1.1.2 The development has evolved over a number of years with the vision of creating a sustainable, exemplar scheme which will aim to contribute to meeting the regions housing requirements and the Governments targets for sustainable housing. 1.1.3 Northstowe is situated within the Cambridgeshire Sub Region and will assist in the future growth and success of the area by responding to the need to provide land for development. The national economic importance of the sub region has already been recognised as a consequence of the success and growth of both the education institutions and the research and development activities and their associated industries. Policy is seeking to encourage future growth within the sub region and is emphasising the need to provide more housing closer to the job growth. Northstowe will address a proportion of the housing and employment needed to support the future growth of the sub region. 1.2 THE NORTHSTOW E VISION 1.2.1 The vision for Northstowe is not just one of a town which fulfils all the necessary policy requirements, but one of an exemplar, sustainable town which is both balanced, efficient and adaptive. 1.2.2 In order for the new development to be balanced, it must fit into the existing landscape and surrounding communities in a way in which acknowledges the contexts of its surroundings and integrates, where possible existing characters of the environment within which it is situated. It should evolve in a manner which minimises detriment and should also aim to maximise benefits. It should also recognise that there is a balance between town and country, community and region and should strive to cultivate a community which appreciates the context within which the new town is situated. There will also be a tight connection between the new town and the sub regional area within which it is based, with both providing services and resources upon which the other depends, which will integrate the new town closely into its surroundings. 1.2.3 The aim of this exemplar scheme is to achieve a town which is efficient in all aspects, both during its creation and throughout its lifetime. The physical and special character will predispose itself to sustainable living, working and moving and the emphasis will be on avoiding waste, optimising use and recycling. 1.2.4 In order for the new town to develop in these ways, and to remain an exemplar scheme throughout its lifetime, it must be adaptable to change, have the ability to evolve and adjust within its settings and in a manner suitable to the surrounding character within which it is situated. The intrinsic flexibility of the new towns layout and infrastructure will accommodate any changing uses, patterns of living and surrounding environment. 1.2.5 To achieve the above, a number of objectives have been identified (and agreed with stakeholders), which address particular aspects of Northstowe, the first of which is Environmental Protection and Enhancement. Targets or statements of intent have been set, against which the development will be measured. These objectives have also helped in shaping the design and master planning proposals for Northstowe and have provided a basis for identifying indicators against which the environmental performance can be assessed.
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 1 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
1.3 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPM ENT 1.3.1 This development will contribute to the provision of housing (and associated facilities including retail and employment) to support the increasing population and associated demand for housing within Cambridgeshire, in accordance with principles and polices within national, regional and local guidance. 1.3.2 The proposals for Northstowe are set out in four linked planning applications. 1.3.3 The proposals for the core area, set out in the outline planning application (Application 1), include the following:
¢ approximately 9,500 dwellings
¢ employment uses (approximately 136,000sq.m.)
¢ retail uses (approximately 54,500sq.m.)
¢ hotels and leisure (approximately 22,800sq.m.)
¢ community and health facilities
¢ education facilities (including 6 primary schools and a secondary school)
¢ play, sport and recreation facilities (including outdoor sport, children's play space, informal open space, allotments and burial ground)
¢ a household waste recycling facility and sewage pumping station 1.3.4 The proposals for the off-site infrastructure works comprise of three detailed planning applications:
¢ Application 2 - The highway link from the proposed new town to Hatton's Road and the improvements to Hatton's Road (including landscaping and drainage).
¢ Application 3 - The highway link from the proposed new town to Dry Drayton Road and the improvements to Dry Drayton Road (including landscaping and drainage).
¢ Application 4 - Highways improvements to the A14 corridor between the A14/Hatton's Road junction and A14/Dry Drayton Road junction that can be delivered by the joint applicants in advance of the Highways Agency's proposals for the A14. 1.3.5 A full description of the proposals for Northstowe are set out in Application Document 1: Development Specification. 1.3.6 Surface water and drainage infrastructure will comply with PPS25. The drainage strategy will be designed not to place the development at any unnecessary flood risk itself or to third parties. The existing flooding problems at Longstanton and Oakington will be mitigated by a number of off-site attenuation areas and ponds on both the Longstanton and Oakington Brooks. 1.4 THE NEED FOR AN ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY 1.4.1 This vision for Northstowe will be delivered, from an archaeological perspective, through the development and implementation of the Archaeology and Built Heritage Strategy. The strategy has been developed through consultation with archaeologists, ecologists, landscape architects, drainage engineers and planners to ensure that archaeological and the built heritage at Northstowe has influenced the design of the new town and the proposals. The Masterplan has been developed to accommodate archaeology, and will be further delivered through the elements set out in the strategy. 1.4.2 The strategy has been prepared and developed by WSP with significant expert input and assistance from Cambridge Archaeological Unit at the University of Cambridge (CAU) and Airfield Northstowe Planning Applications Page 2 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
Research Projects (ARP). CAU are specialists in the archaeology of Cambridgeshire and have undertaken a considerable amount of work within this area, ARP are specialists in RAF airfield research. It has been prepared in consultation with the Planning Archaeologist of Cambridgeshire County Council and it is the intention of this document to be adopted for each of the future development stages. 1.4.3 The primary aim of the strategy is that it will form strategic advice and be used as a key reference by future developers to ensure the objectives, principles and mitigation measures within the strategy are adhered to across the whole development and for its entire duration. 1.4.4 The strategy is divided into six sections and the conclusion outlined in Chapter 6. Chapter 3 discusses buried archaeological remains, including the known archaeological sites within and in the vicinity of Northstowe. It also outlines the significance of the sites and the mitigation measures that should be implemented. Chapter 4 discusses the built heritage of Northstowe, including surviving elements of RAF Oakington and Oakington Barracks, as well as elements of the surrounding cultural heritage such as Conservation Areas. Chapter 5 focuses on the opportunities that the archaeology and the built heritage can offer for community involvement, including practical involvement, dissemination of information and education. Chapters 3 to 5 are also each related to the appropriate policy and objectives of the Northstowe Area Action Plan (NAAP) which is discussed in further detail in Chapter 2. 1.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC ENVIRONM ENT W ORKS UNDERTAKEN TO-DATE 1.5.1 Desk based assessment and on site surveys have been ongoing between 2002 and 2007. The results of these studies and surveys have identified a number of archaeological site areas within and in the vicinity of Northstowe (Sites I – XLII) and are shown on Figure 1. Extensive geophysical surveys (using gradiometer/magnetometer) of the Core Area and limited geophysical survey of the Off-Site Infrastructure Area have been completed (Figure 2). Field walking has been undertaken across a number of areas within the Off-Site Infrastructure Area (Figure 3). Trial trenching has been undertaken across all available areas of the site to-date where potential archaeological remains have been indicated, and across almost the entire Off-Site Infrastructure Area (Figure 3). Trial trenching has also been undertaken across a number of areas where the geophysical survey did not indicate the presence of archaeological remains. The following desk- based assessments and surveys have been completed: DESK-BASED ASSESSM ENTS
¢ Evans, C. and Dickens, A., 2002. Longstanton New Settlement, Cambridgeshire: Archaeological Desktop Assessment. Cambridge Archaeological Unit (CAU) report No. 489;
¢ Evans, C. and Dickens, A., 2003. Longstanton New Settlement, Cambridgeshire: Revised Archaeological Desktop Assessment. Cambridge Archaeological Unit (CAU) No. 489 (revised);
¢ Appleby, G., 2007, Longstanton New Settlement, Cambridgeshire Archaeological Desktop Assessment,: Fieldwork Addendum. Cambridge Archaeological Unit (CAU) report No. 782 ; and
¢ Francis, P., 2005. RAF Oakington: An Operational History & Gazetteer of Surviving Structures, ARP Report January 2005. GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY REPORTS
¢ Johnson, A. E., 2004. Longstanton, Cambridgeshire: Magnetometer (Gradiometer) Survey. Oxford Archaeotechnics Survey Ref. 2900404/LOC/CAU. Oxford Archaeotechnics (OA);
¢ Johnson, A. E. 2004. Oakington Airfield, Cambridgeshire: Magnetometer (Gradiometer) Survey. OA Survey Ref. 2920604/OAC/JJG;
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 3 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
¢ Johnson, A. E. 2005. Northstowe, Longstanton, Cambridge: Topsoil Magnetic Susceptibility and Magnetometer (Gradiometer) Survey. OA Survey Ref: 3030905/LOC/CAU;
¢ Johnson, A. E. 2006. Oakington Airfield, Cambridgeshire: Magnetometer (Gradiometer) Survey. OA Survey Ref. 3051205/OAC/JJG & 3060106/OAC/JJG;
¢ Johnson, A. E. 2006. Cambridge Golf Course and Land North of Rampton Road, Longstanton,: Magnetometer (Gradiometer) Survey. OA Survey Ref: 3090406/LGC/JJG; and
¢ Johnson, A. E. 2007. Oakington Airfield, Cambridgeshire Additional Survey Work 2007: Magnetometer (Gradiometer) Survey. OA Survey Ref. 3130507/LGC/WSP. TRIAL TRENCH EVALUATION
¢ Evans, C. and Mackay, D. 2004. Longstanton, Cambridgeshire. A Village Hinterland. CAU Report No. 696;
¢ Evans, C., Mackay, D. and Appleby, G., 2006. Longstanton, Cambridgeshire. A Village Hinterland (II). CAU Report No. 696; and
¢ Evans, C., Mackay, D. and Appleby, G., 2007. Longstanton, Cambridgeshire. A Village Hinterland (III). CAU Report No. 755. ARCHAEOLOGICAL W ATCHING BRIEF
¢ Mackay, D., 2007. Northstowe, Longstanton, Cambridgeshire: An Archaeological Watching Brief. CAU Report No. 781.
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 4 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
2 Planning Policy
2.1 NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY 2.1.1 National planning guidance for archaeology and built heritage comprises the following national guidance:
¢ PPG 15 Planning and the Historic Environment (1994). This advises on procedures for dealing with the historic built environment and the historic landscape; and
¢ Policy Planning Guidance (PPG) 16 Archaeology and Planning (1990). This advises on procedures for dealing with archaeological remains and discoveries. 2.1.2 PPG 15 contains a full statement of the Governments policies for the identification and protection of historic buildings, conservation areas and other elements of the historic environment. PPG 16 contains the policy advice on how archaeological remains on land should be preserved or recorded. It also provides advice on the handling of archaeological remains and discoveries under the development plan and control systems. 2.2 REGIONAL PLANNING POLICY 2.2.1 At the regional level, the guidance for archaeology and built heritage is formed by the Regional Planning Guidance (PPG) Note 6 (2000) and the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS 14) for the East of England (the East of England Plan). This is at a relatively advanced stage, with the Panel’s Report published in June 2006 and Government’s Proposed Changes to the Plan published in December 2006. The Draft Plan is a full revision of Regional Planning Guidance Note 6 for East Anglia (November 2000). REGIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE (RPG) NOTE 6 (2000) 2.2.2 The key policy is:
¢ “Policy 40 ‘Conservation of East Anglia's built and historic environment’. This states that development plans should contain policies to protect the built and historic heritage and manage change in a way that respects local character and distinctiveness, by conserving and maintaining historic and archaeological resources, and by ensuring that new development respects and enhances local character.” REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY (RSS) 14 FOR THE EAST OF ENGLAND (2004) 2.2.3 The key policy in the draft revision of December 2006 is:
¢ “ENV6: ‘The Historic Environment’. Planning authorities and other agencies in their plans, policies and proposals will identify, protect, conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the historic environment of the region, its archaeology, historic buildings and areas and historic landscapes, including those features and sites (and their settings) especially significant in the East of England: – the major concentration of medieval churches; – listed buildings and conservation areas – domestic and industrial buildings, and the settlements and settings which define their character; and – the wider historic landscape that contributes to the distinctiveness of the region, including scheduled ancient monuments and other nationally important archaeological sites and monuments.”
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 5 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
2.3 LOCAL POLICY DEVELOPM ENT CONTROL POLICIES DEVELOPM ENT PLAN DOCUM ENT (2007) 2.3.1 At the local level, the guidance for archaeology and built heritage is formed by the South Cambridgeshire District Council Development Control Policies Development Plan Document (2007), predominately within Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage. Relevant policies from this chapter are:
¢ “Policy CH/1 Historic Landscapes: Planning permission will not be granted for development which would adversely affect or lead to the loss of important areas and features of the historic landscape whether or not they are statutorily protected. The objectives are: – CH/a: to protect historic landscapes and public rights of way; – CH/b: to protect, preserve and enhance the archaeological heritage; – CH/c: to maintain the character of villages including important open areas; – CH/d: to protect and enhance Conservation Areas and their settings; and – CH/e: to protect Listed Buildings and their settings.
¢ .Policy CH/2 Archaeological Sites: Archaeological sites will be protected in accordance with national policy (currently PPG16).
¢ Policy CH/4 Development within the Curtilage or Setting of a Listed Building: Planning permission will not be granted for development which would adversely affect the curtilage or wider setting of a Listed Building. Proposals must provide clear illustrative and technical material to allow that impact to be properly assessed.
¢ Policy CH/5 Conservation Areas: Planning applications for development proposals (including applications for Conservation Area Consent for demolitions) in or affecting Conservation Areas will be determined in accordance with legislative provisions and national policy (currently in PPG15) and guidance contained in specific Conservation Area Appraisals (where they exist) and the District Design Guide.” 2.3.2 Archaeology and built heritage is also referenced in a number of other policies within the Development Control Policies Development Plan including:
¢ “Policy DP/2 Design of New Development: – 1: New development: All new development must be of high quality design and, as appropriate to the scale and nature of the development, should: – a: Preserve or enhance the character of the local area; and – b: Conserve or enhance important environmental assets of the site; – 2: Design and Access Statements: These should be submitted to accompany planning applications and applications for listed building consent should be compatible with the scale and complexity of the proposal and, as appropriate should include: – k: A full site analysis of existing features and designations; – m: The relationship of the site to its surroundings; and – o: Any known historic importance;
¢ Policy DP/3 Development Criteria: Planning permission will not be granted where the proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on ecological, wildlife and archaeological interests;”
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 6 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
¢ Chapter 5 Economy and Tourism: Objectives ET/f outlined the need to support the growth of the tourism industry of South Cambridgeshire, whilst ensuring new facilities and accommodation do not have an adverse impact on the built and natural environment; and
¢ “Policy SF/7 Underground Pipes, Wires, Fibres and Cables: Utility companies will be strongly urged to place all pipes, fibres, wires and cables underground where this would not damage identified areas of ecological or archaeological importance or have other unacceptable environmental impacts (e.g. on the landscape or agricultural land quality). In such circumstances, careful line routing would usually be the most appropriate way to minimise the visual impacts of overhead wires and cables.” NORTHSTOW E AREA ACTION PLAN (JULY 2007) 2.3.3 The Northstowe Area Action Plan (NAAP) was finalised in July 2007. The NAAP includes a number of objectives and policies regarding archaeology and heritage that are addressed within this strategy. In terms of archaeology and the historic environment, the NAAP is consistent with all national, regional and local policies, and the relevant sections of the NAAP are discussed further in the strategy. D9 – Archaeology and Heritage sets out the following objectives:
¢ D9/a: to develop an appropriate Archaeological Strategy which mitigates any adverse effects of the new settlement on the archaeological resource;
¢ D9/b: to minimise any adverse impacts on the setting and character of Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas in the surrounding area;
¢ D9/c: to develop an appropriate strategy which mitigates any effects of the new settlement on unlisted structures of historic interest within the RAF airfield; and
¢ D9/d: To provide an educational resource which can be used to inform the local population and the wider academic environment on the archaeological significance of the area. 2.3.4 The key policy is:
¢ NS/18 Use of Existing Buildings: The developer will be required to prepare a comprehensive strategy for buildings and structures of historic interest to be submitted and approved prior to the granting of planning permission. It will include a site survey to identify which buildings and structures should be retained for their heritage value, and establish the extent of their settings. The strategy should conclude by proposing suitable long-term uses for identified heritage assets. Structures, such as the pillboxes, identified to be retained for their heritage value will be retained and maintained as features or points of interest in the landscape. 2.3.5 The NAAP Archaeology and Heritage section also includes the following statements: D9.1: Whilst there are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments at Northstowe, the site contains a rich buried archaeological resource. Several archaeological sites are identified on the Cambridgeshire County Council Sites and Monuments Record including large cropmark complexes of Iron Age/Roman/Anglo-Saxon date. Other buried archaeological sites may also await detection, in accordance with Policy CH/2 in the Development Control Policies DPD. D9.2: At Oakington Barracks/Airfield there are a number of World War II buildings and structures of historical military interest including The Officers' Mess and a number of pillboxes, for which sustainable uses will be sought. D9.3: The built heritage in areas which will lie close to Northstowe is also significant and consists of a number of Listed Buildings in surrounding villages (some of which provide landmark buildings in the wider landscape) and Conservation Areas at Longstanton (based on All Saints Church and The Manor together with important village setting between Longstanton All Saints and Longstanton
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 7 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
St Michael's); at Longstanton St Michael's (based on its church); in Oakington village and at Westwick (including the parkland setting of Westwick Hall).
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 8 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
3 Buried Archaeological Remains
3.1 GAZETTEER OF KNOW N SITES 3.1.1 The archaeological sites identified within and in the vicinity of the Northstowe application area have been designated Roman numeric site numbers by CAU during the desk-based and evaluative works are listed in Table 1. The list includes all sites identified within and in the vicinity of the site (Sites I – XLII; Figure 1). There is still the potential for other hitherto unidentified sites to exist within the area. 3.1.2 Due to the large size of the Northstowe application area and the numerous archaeological sites identified within it, the area is subdivided into four smaller archaeological zones to enable easier discussion (Figure 4). The zones have been determined both by existing easily identifiable features and also by the character of the known archaeological resources within. 3.1.3 The four zones used comprise: ¢ North of Rampton Road – the area in the northern part of Northstowe, from Rampton Road northwards, including the Cambridge Golf Course, driving range and market garden area. This zone contains a dense scatter of archaeological sites, of mostly Iron Age and Roman date, the majority located on 2nd terrace gravel geology; ¢ Oakington Barracks – the area to the south of Rampton Road and north of Oakington Airfield, including Oakington Barracks, Oakington Immigration Centre and agricultural land. This zone contains the majority of the buildings associated with RAF Oakington, and also the eastern part of Longstanton Conservation Area. The area also encompasses all of a large Roman settlement with earlier Iron Age elements to the east of the Barracks; ¢ Oakington Airfield – the area of the former RAF Oakington. The zone includes the airfield, associated perimeter track, former runways and previously landscaped areas. The zone also incorporates open land on the southern side of Longstanton. In terms of archaeological remains the zone contains two dispersed Iron Age sites and a low intensity Roman site; and ¢ Off Site Infrastructure Area – the area to the south of the main development zone of the Northstowe New Town, in which access roads, including links to and from the A14, will be constructed. This zone contains a dispersed scatter of Iron Age and Roman sites and earlier prehistoric activity (notably located only on the Greensand geology only present in this zone). The dispersed nature of the known archaeological sites may be as a result of previous survey being restricted to the sinuous layout of the OSIA area, as opposed to the nature of archaeological remains. ¢ Outside Of The Site Boundary – any site which does not fall within the red line application boundary for Northstowe; Table 1: List of Known Archaeological Sites
Site Site Type and Date Location
I (1) Mesolithic Flint Scatter Outside Of The Site Boundary
II (2) Cropmarks of possible Bronze Age date Outside Of The Site Boundary
III (3) Cropmark of Iron Age / Bronze Age enclosure North of Rampton Road
IV (4) Possible Iron Age features North of Rampton Road
V (5) Late Bronze Age – Saxo-Norman activity Outside Of The Site Boundary
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 9 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
VI (6) Iron Age enclosure North of Rampton Road
VII (7) Iron Age enclosure North of Rampton Road
VIII (8) Iron Age Enclosure North of Rampton Road
IX (9) Iron Age enclosure predating Romano-British site XIX (south) North of Rampton Road
X (10) Iron Age enclosure predating Romano-British site XIX (north) North of Rampton Road
XI (11) Iron Age settlement (enclosure) North of Rampton Road
XII (12) Iron Age Double Circuit Banjo Style Enclosure / Romano-British activity Off-Site Infrastructure Area
XIII (13) Iron Age and Romano-British ditches Off-Site Infrastructure Area
XIV (14) Iron Age enclosures Off-Site Infrastructure Area
XV (15) Iron Age enclosure Oakington Barracks
XVI (16) Iron Age enclosures Oakington Airfield
XVII (17) Iron Age enclosure cropmarks Outside Of The Site Boundary
XVIII (18) Romano-British settlement area. Oakington Barracks
XIX (19) Romano-British settlement area North of Rampton Road
XX (20) Romano-British settlement area Outside Of The Site Boundary
XXI (21) Early Anglo-Saxon settlement Outside Of The Site Boundary
XXII (22) Saxo-Norman enclosure features Outside Of The Site Boundary
XXIII (23) Anglo Saxon artefacts Outside Of The Site Boundary
XXIV (24) Medieval and Post-medieval remains Oakington Barracks
XXV (25) Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age activity Off-Site Infrastructure Area
XXVI (26) Romano-British field systems (assoc with XXVII) Off-Site Infrastructure Area
XXVII (27) Romano-British Villa site Off-Site Infrastructure Area
XXVIII (28) Mesolithic flint working site, some Neolithic and Bronze Age material Off-Site Infrastructure Area
XXIX (29) Middle Iron Age enclosures Off-Site Infrastructure Area
XXX (30) Three Bronze Age pits Off-Site Infrastructure Area
XXXI (31) Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age features Off-Site Infrastructure Area
XXXII (32) Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age, and medieval ditches Oakington Barracks
XXXIII (33) Multi-period site, from Late Bronze Age to Romano-British Oakington Airfield
XXXIV (34) Mid to Late Iron Age circular structure. Oakington Airfield
XXXV (35) Site of Late Saxon and medieval activity. Oakington Airfield
XXXVI (36) Iron Age enclosures Oakington Barracks
XXXVII (37) Romano-British settlement activity North of Rampton Road
XXXVIII (38) Mid – Late Iron Age enclosures North of Rampton Road
XXXIX (39) Modern features (of no archaeological significance/deleted site) North of Rampton Road
XL (40) Multi-period site from late Bronze Age to Medieval Outside Of The Site Boundary
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 10 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
XLI (41) Saxon and Medieval features at Green End Outside Of The Site Boundary
XLII (42) Middle Saxon site and cemetery in Oakington Outside Of The Site Boundary
3.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 3.2.1 The archaeological sites are discussed by the location zones outlined above and provide a brief summary of the archaeological sites within each zone. A more detailed and technical description is included in Appendix 1 with full bibliographic references. Copies of the evaluation reports that form the majority of these references are included as appendices to the Environmental Statement and copies are also held by the Cambridgeshire Historic Environment Record. Each of the sites are illustrated within the archaeological zones in Figure 4. NORTH OF RAM PTON ROAD ¢ Site III: Site III is located within the western part of Cambridge Golf Course and Driving Range. It represents a possible Bronze Age round barrow1, or alternatively a later Iron Age compound (TL 4001 6690). The sites was revealed through geophysical survey, but has not been subject to trial trenching. ¢ Site IV: The site is located on the western side of the Cambridge Golf Course and Driving Range. Trial trenching (centred TL 401 667) revealed an undated segmented ditch of a character suggesting it is of Iron Age date. Geophysical survey of the area also indicated a large pit close by. These features may relate to the Iron Age settlement activity at the nearby Site VI. ¢ Site VI: This site is located in the south-western corner of the area, adjacent to Rampton Road. This site is a relatively small Iron Age farmstead (TL 402 667) identified as a square enclosure. The site has been subject to geophysical survey and trial trenching. ¢ Site VII: Site VII is located on the eastern side of the market garden area. Geophysical survey and trial trenching revealed a Middle/Late Iron Age enclosure (TL 405 670), and is considered to be contemporary to Site VIII to the east. ¢ Site VIII: Site VIII is located to the north of Brookfield Farm. This site is a small Middle/later Iron Age enclosure (TL 408 671). It has been subject to geophysical survey and trial trenching. Few archaeological artefacts or finds were recovered from the site. ¢ Site IX: The site is located within the southern part of the market garden, directly to the north of Rampton Road. Settlement features have been identified, including an oval enclosure of probable Iron Age date, identified from aerial photographs and geophysical (TL 404 669). The enclosure lies within the southern part of the larger Roman settlement cropmark, site XIX. ¢ Site X: Site X is located within the Cambridge Golf Course. Settlement features have been identified, including a large rectangular enclosure of probable Iron Age date, clearly identifiable on both geophysical and aerial photographic surveys (TL 404 672). The enclosure lies within the northern part of the larger Roman settlement cropmark, site XIX. ¢ Site XI: Site XI is located in the north-western part of the Cambridge Golf Course and Driving Range. The site had been subject to trial trenching in 1991 (centred TL 408 664) and has been geophysically surveyed more recently. It would appear to represent the site of a medieval windmill mound that overlies an earlier Iron Age settlement, identifiable as a series of interconnecting enclosures or compounds. The windmill mound has had the effect of enhancing the preservation of the Iron Age remains beneath.
1 Round barrow – Bronze Age burial mound, often only surviving as the ring-ditch that circled the monument Northstowe Planning Applications Page 11 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
¢ Site XIX: The southern part of this site lies within the market garden and the northern part extends into the Cambridge Golf Course and Driving Range. The site was first identified as extensive cropmarks on aerial photographs representing a large Roman settlement complex (centred TL 408 664). The Iron Age enclosure sites of IX and X also lie within this area. The site has since been subject to geophysical survey and limited trial trenching. The site covers an area of 8.4ha. An area in the central part of the site has been identified as the location of a possible Roman shrine. ¢ Site XXXVII: The site is located within Cambridge Golf Course and Driving Range (centred TL 397 673) and has been confirmed by geophysical survey and limited trenching in 1991. The site is thought to date to the Romano-British period and consists of a series of sub-rectangular enclosures Probably indicating a settlement area. ¢ Site XXXVIII: Site XXXVIII is located on the eastern part of the Cambridge Golf Course to the northeast of the large Site XIX complex. The site has been subject to geophysical survey, and its layout suggests it is of Middle/Later Iron Age date represented by two enclosures with probable structural features within. ¢ Site XXXIX: This site is located in the extreme north of this area, to the north of Cambridge Golf Club and Driving Range (centred TL 401 677). It was subject to geophysical survey which suggested it may have been of archaeological origin, although subsequent trial trench investigations have shown that it is of modern date. The designation of this site could be removed, but is included here for completeness. OAKINGTON BARRACKS ¢ Site XV: This site lies to the east of Oakington Barracks (centred TL 408 664) and was identified by geophysical survey as a Later Iron Age compound, with later Romano-British features associated with the large adjacent Roman settlement , Site XVIII. ¢ Site XXXII: This site to the east of Rampton Drift (centred TL 407 668) has possible prehistoric (Bronze Age or earlier Iron Age) field boundary ditches and later Medieval and post-Medieval ditches. The site is considered to be of low significance and no further investigative works are proposed. ¢ Site XXXVI: This site is located within the northern end of the large Roman settlement Site XVIII (centred TL 414 666). The site has been subject to geophysical survey which has indicated it consists of a series of interlinked enclosures of Middle/Later Iron Age date. The site has been subject to some trial trenching. ¢ Site XXIV: This site is located within Longstanton Conservation Area, to the west of Oakington Barracks (centred TL 402 663). Geophysical survey has indicated the presence of a former building, which is probably of late medieval or post medieval date. ¢ Site XVIII: This site is located in the area to the east of Oakington Barracks and partially within the northern part of the former airfield (centred TL 408 664). It consists of a large area of archaeological features revealed by geophysical survey representing a large Roman settlement. The settlement area may also extend beneath the barracks. Some trial trenching has also been carried out over the site. The site contains roads, enclosures and also a probable stone building in the southern part which may represent a mansio. Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age material was also recovered from the site. OAKINGTON AIRFIELD ¢ Site XVI: This site is located in the southern part of Oakington Airfield (centred TL 408 664). The site consists of a series of interconnected Iron Age enclosures or compounds which were
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 12 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
identified by geophysical surveys and trial trenching. Artefacts recovered from the site included some Late Bronze Age material. ¢ Site XXXIII: Site XVI lies in the southern part of the airfield, and is represented by an enclosure (centred TL 410 650) revealed by geophysical survey and trial trenching. The finds recovered from the investigations suggest a Late Bronze Age or Early iron Age date. ¢ Site XXXIV: Site XXXIV is located within Oakington Airfield, and to the south of Oakington Barracks (TL 408 656). It was identified by geophysical survey and consisted of possible ring- gullies associated with Middle/Later Iron Age roundhouses. The site is interesting as there is no ditched enclosure surrounding the structures. ¢ Site XXXV: Site XXXV is located to the south of Longstanton within Oakington Airfield (centred TL 405 657). This site was not identified during the geophysical survey of the area, however trial trenching revealed stratified archaeological remains of Late Saxon to post medieval date, though predominantly of 12th-13th century date. The site suggests it was part of the settlement focus for Longstanton St. Michaels. The area corresponds with that of the ‘Bishops Palace’ as recorded on earlier Ordnance Survey maps, although it must be noted that the ‘Bishops Palace’ relates to a documentary reference erroneously attributed to Longstanton. OFF SITE INFRASTRUCTURE AREA ¢ Site XII: Site XII lies in the south eastern part of the Off-Site Infrastructure Area close to Bar Hill junction and was first identified as a series of dense cropmarks on aerial photographs (centred on TL 384 642). The site has been subject to geophysical survey and trial trenching, and been shown to comprise of an Iron Age enclosure (double-circuit ‘banjo style’ enclosure2). This enclosure suggests a high status site. The enclosure was overlain by early Roman activity, perhaps indicating a continuation of occupation after the Roman conquest. ¢ Site XIII: Site XIII is located on the western edge of the Off-Site Infrastructure Area, to the north of Site XII (centred on TL 384 642). The area has been subject to trial trenching which revealed features of Middle to Late Iron Age and Early Roman date. Possible Iron Age livestock or settlement enclosures were also revealed. ¢ Site XIV: Site XIV is located in the north-western tip of the Off-Site Infrastructure Area, originally recorded as cropmarks on aerial photographs. It would appear to represent a series of interlinked enclosures and compounds of Middle to Later Iron Age date. The site has also been subject to trial trenching which confirmed it is of Iron Age date although few finds were recovered. ¢ Site XXV: Site XXV is located to the south-east of Oakington Airfield near the centre of the Off-Site Infrastructure Area (TL 394 647). The site contains post holes and gullies of possibly Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age date identified by trial trenching. ¢ Site XXVI: Site XXVI lies directly to the north of the A14 in the centre of the southern part of the Off-Site Infrastructure Area (centred TL 391 635). The site was revealed by trial trenching and consisted of a series of ditches thought to represent field boundaries. The site may be related to the nearby Site XXVII Roman Villa, or alternatively another, as yet unidentified settlement under Slate Hall Farm. The site is considered to be of low archaeological significance. ¢ Site XXVII: Site XXVII lies on the eastern side of the southern part of the Off-Site Infrastructure Area, identified as a large Roman courtyard building by trial trenching (TL 394 634), which was subsequently confirmed by geophysical survey. The site would appear to represent a high status Roman building, perhaps a villa or estate centre. A dense layout of features and
2 Banjo style enclosure: circular enclosures, usually encompassing an area of less than 0.6ha, with funnel like entrances usually identified from cropmarks. Some examples suggest animal stockades, although recent studies have shown that many are enclosed settlement sites with elaborate entrances perhaps for defensive purposes. Northstowe Planning Applications Page 13 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
numerous finds were revealed In comparison to other known Roman villa sites in the area, this is a notably large structure. ¢ Site XXVIII: Site XXVIII lies on the south-eastern edge of the Off-Site Infrastructure Area identified by fieldwalking as a potential Mesolithic flintworking site (TL 400 637). A second Mesolithic site also lies to the west outside of the Northstowe area. ¢ Site XXIX: Site XXIX lies on the south-eastern edge of the Off-Site Infrastructure Area, directly to the east of Site XXVIII. Settlement features of Middle Iron Age date were recovered during trial trenching (centred TL 402 636). Cropmark evidence to the south-east may suggest this forms part of a larger settlement. ¢ Site XXX: Site XXX lies on the south-eastern edge of the Off-Site Infrastructure Area, to the north of sites XXVIII and XXIX. It was revealed during trial trenching and consisted of three pits of Bronze Age date (TL 401 641). The features appeared to be isolated and no further work is considered to be required. ¢ Site XXXI: Site XXXI is located on the north-western edge of the Off-Site Infrastructure Area and was discovered during trial trenching. The site consists of a series of dispersed settlement features, of either Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age or possibly Middle Iron Age date (TL 390 655). They may represent a series of field boundaries associated with the nearby settlement of site XIV. OUTSIDE OF NORTHSTOW E DEVELOPM ENT AREA 3.2.2 The following sites do not lie within the Northstowe application area. The sites are included within this document to provide further information regarding the archaeological setting of the sites within Northstowe. ¢ Site I: Site I is located to the south-east of Slate Hall Farm and represents a Mesolithic flint scatter identified during fieldwalking in 1989 by Cotswold Archaeological Trust (centred TL 391 636). It’s proximity to site XXVIII to the north is significant, with both sites lying on Greensand geology within the proximity of Oakington Brook. ¢ Site II: Site II is a cropmark site identified to the south-east of Northstowe, consisting of two probable Bronze Age ring-ditches and traces of a probable fieldsystem (TL 417 649). The site has not been subject to further investigation. ¢ Site V: Site V represents the excavation by CAU of archaeological remains dating from the Late Bronze Age to Saxo-Norman periods, located to the north of Longstanton (TL 393 673). The site included Late Bronze Age or early Iron Age pit-well features, with preserved wooden artefacts within them. Saxo-Norman remains included quarry pits and boundary ditches. ¢ Site XVII: Site XVII is another cropmark site located to the south-east of Northstowe (and north of Site II) representing one or two Iron Age enclosures. The site has not been subject to further investigation. ¢ Site XX: Site XX lies to the north of Northstowe and was identified as an extensive series of cropmarks representing Roman settlement activity (TL 408 664). Fieldwalking and trial trenching has indicated some Late Mesolithic/earlier Neolithic activity, Late Bronze Age/Early Iron field boundaries and a possible Iron Age enclosure. ¢ Site XXI: Site XXI represents Saxon features, including a possible Grubenhaus 3 revealed during excavations by CAU at Home Farm (centred TL 408 6640). Pottery recovered from the site included Early to Middle Saxon material.
3 Grubenhaus: derived from the German for ‘pit / cavity’ and ‘house’, a sunken floored building. The term refers to the common form of Saxon building that is recognisable by its characteristic sunken floor, the purpose of which was either to provide a storage space beneath a suspended floor or provide increased roof height to allow the use of tall looms. Northstowe Planning Applications Page 14 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
¢ Site XXII: Site XXII lies to the north of Longstanton and was subject to trial trench evaluation which revealed possible Saxo-Norman enclosure features (TL 408 664). The features are considered to relate to former medieval occupation of Longstanton. ¢ Site XXIII: Site XXIII lies on the north-eastern edge of the cropmark site XX, and represents an area of Anglo-Saxon artefacts recorded during fieldwalking, metal-detecting surveys and trial- trenching (centred TL 408 664). The site may indicate post-Roman usage of the settlement area. two burials were also revealed. ¢ Site XL: Site XL lies directly to the south of Oakington Airfield and was revealed during evaluation and excavation by Wessex Archaeology (TL 412 647). The site contained numerous features spanning the Late Bronze Age to post-Medieval period. The site also contained a sequence of stock enclosures and associated features dating from the Romano-British to Medieval periods. ¢ Site XLI: Site XLI lies to the west of Longstanton and was revealed during trial trenching by Birmingham University Field Archaeological Unit (TL 393 670). The site consists of a number of Saxon and Medieval features, consisting of field boundaries and ridge and furrow, with Late Saxon features found close to Over Road relating to the former Medieval settlement known to have existed at Green End. ¢ Site XLII: Site XLII lies within Oakington to the south of Northstowe (TL 415 648). It consists of a series of archaeological deposits possibly dating from the Roman to medieval period. An abundance of features and finds of Middle Saxon date were revealed including a possible cemetery. . 3.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF SITES 3.3.1 A series of draft significance criteria specifically tailored for Northstowe have been prepared by WSP and are outlined in Table 2, including a number of significance indicators. These also include some references to the built heritage. 3.3.2 The significance has been established through the use of a number of criteria which provide broad indicators on which to justify significance. By using a range of criteria, the overall significance of a site can be assessed using the combined significance rankings. Therefore, a site may be established to be of low significance for one criteria, but its combined significance remains high. The following criteria are used: archaeological period; rarity/incidence of site type, associations, completeness/survival, longevity and potential. 3.3.3 The criteria will be used to aid future decision making in establishing whether an archaeological site is considered to be of high, medium or low significance. 3.3.4 It should be noted that there are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments within the Northstowe application area and no identified sites are considered to be of national significance. ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERIOD 3.3.5 This criterion assesses sites in terms of the period from which they date, with significance attributed in terms of our existing knowledge. The significance will also depend on the number of sites within the region. For example, sites from a period where there are numerous examples in the region are considered to be of lesser significance than those where fewer examples are known. RARITY/INCIDENCE OF SITE TYPE 3.3.6 This criterion assesses sites in terms of the rarity and incidence of site type, with significance attributed in terms of our existing knowledge. Higher significance will be attributed to sites that contain elements that have the fewest comparators within and in the vicinity of the site.
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 15 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
Archaeological features such as field boundaries or other agriculturally related remains would be considered of lesser significance as they are not only fairly common, but also usually provide little archaeological information (such as finds or environmental evidence). ASSOCIATIONS 3.3.7 This criterion assesses sites in terms of their associations based on our existing knowledge. An increased significance will be attributable where it appears that sites have spatial association with others, such that they may have been contemporary and interrelated, forming part of a wider historic landscape. Associations with major historical events would also increase the significance. COM PLETENESS/SURVIVAL 3.3.8 This criterion assesses sites in terms of their completeness (of a feature) and its associations, based on our existing knowledge. A higher significance would be attributable to sites where the archaeological remains have been shown to be in a good state of preservation. Surface finds with no surviving associated features would be of considered of lesser significance4. LONGEVITY 3.3.9 This criterion assesses sites in terms of their activity over time, based on our existing knowledge. A higher significance would be attributed to a site where activity or settlement can be demonstrated to have continued over a long period. This would have particular significance where activity or settlement occurs spanning different time periods, for example demonstrating the occupation from the Iron Age continuing after the Roman conquest. POTENTIAL 3.3.10 This criterion assesses sites in terms of their future potential for additional finds, based on our existing knowledge and experience. A higher significance would be attributable to an archaeological site where there remains the possibility for significant finds, features or other archaeological evidence to be present. Table 2: Northstowe Archaeological Significance Criteria and Indicators
Significance High Medium Low
Criterion
Archaeological Period Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Iron Age, Roman, Late Saxon, Post-medieval, Modern; Neolithic, Bronze Age, Post- Medieval, World War II; Roman – mid Saxon;
Rarity/incidence of Site Mesolithic activity; Iron Age Enclosures; Field boundaries of Iron Age and Type later date; Pre-Iron Age structural evidence; Romano-British settlements Agricultural features of medieval Roman masonry structural date; evidence; Standard type World War II and Roman shrine; later RAF structures and Roman Villa/Major farmstead; infrastructure;
Oakington type Pillboxes;
Associations Inter-relationship between Iron World War II airfield and Isolated sites of different periods; Age enclosure sites; associated features;
4 It should be noted that in terms of earlier prehistoric surface finds such as Mesolithic flint work, the presence of associated buried remains is a rare occurrence and that finds of this date would be considered of high significance in terms of other criteria Northstowe Planning Applications Page 16 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
Romano-British settlements;
Completeness / Surviving earthworks; Plough damaged sites with only Topsoil finds scatters ; survival earth cut archaeological Surviving structures; Heavily truncated sites; features; Stratigraphic survival; Stratigraphic relationships; indicating multi-period activity;
Longevity Multi-period sites indicating a Sites indicating some longevity Isolated sites with few features longevity of settlement activity, of occupation or activity; and apparent short period of such as the major Roman occupation; settlements in the north of the area with apparent Iron Age origins ;
Late Bronze Age – Early Iron Age transitional;
Late Iron Age – Romano-British transitional;
Romano-British – Saxon transitional;
Potential The majority of sites at Small area sites where Small areas or isolated sites Northstowe have a high potential evaluation has indicated some where evaluation has indicated for other hitherto unknown archaeological features survive; few archaeological features archaeological remains to be and survive; present;
3.4 STATEM ENT OF PRINCIPLES 3.4.1 The following section outlines how any adverse effects of the proposed development on buried archaeological remains will be mitigated against. This addresses Objective D9/1a of the NAAP. This section has been prepared jointly with Cambridge Archaeological Unit. PRESERVATION IN-SITU 3.4.2 The premise of preservation in-situ is that the archaeological remains will be protected and preserved for future generations. There is also an assumption that archaeological investigation and analysis techniques will improve so that the buried remains may be excavated to a better standard in the future. 3.4.3 Preserving buried archaeological remains in-situ would ideally entail the area in which the site lies and its environs (which could contain associated remains) to be left as they stand. There should be no landscaping, planting, ploughing or drainage within the designated areas. 3.4.4 Deep intrusive groundworks should be located away from areas where there is the potential for waterlogged archaeological remains to be present, as this can result in localised changes to the water table, which may result in such remains drying out and decaying. It should be noted that the potential for waterlogged remains within the development areas and the highways is not considered significant at this stage, however intrusive groundworks in potentially significant areas will require further discussion with consultants and CCC to minimise any potential impact.
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 17 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
3.4.5 Through involvement with the design teams from the concept stage, a number of sites within Northstowe are being considered to be preserved in-situ (Figure 5). At this stage, these are:
¢ Site XI – A 'Belgic-type' settlement cluster (beneath windmill mound). Recent geophysical survey has revealed a series of linear anomalies, possibly conjoining cells;
¢ Site III – Circular feature, a ‘prehistoric 'ring-ditch', possibly a Bronze Age ritual monument;
¢ Site XXIV – Possible Saxo-Norman features within Longstanton Conservation Area and area of ridge and furrow earthworks. Recent geophysical survey has also demonstrated the location of probable structures;
¢ Site XXXV – late Saxon and Medieval stratified remains in area to south of Longstanton. Associated with the former core of earlier Medieval manor/parish of Longstanton St Michael's;
¢ Site XIV – Middle to later Iron Age 'organic-type' compound, an inter-connecting cluster of enclosures; and
¢ Site XXVII – Roman Villa site – courtyard or winged type. 3.4.6 The sites to be preserved in-situ include a number of representative sites demonstrating the range of the areas general occupation sequence (the Site I Mesolithic scatter falls outside the southern infrastructure corridor and will, thereby, not be affected by Northstowe either by development or changes in levels). 3.4.7 Sites III and XI lay beneath areas currently proposed for informal open space. Both sites would appear to be somewhat atypical to other sites in the area. Further evaluation of these site areas may be necessary to ensure appropriate mitigation and management can be implemented to preserve the sites in-situ. 3.4.8 Sites XXIV lies within Longstanton Conservation Area, and will not be affected by Northstowe as no built development is proposed in this area. 3.4.9 Site XXXV, to the south of Longstanton will partly be utilised as an area of informal children’s play. The area will be designed to ensure that the majority of this area will remain unaffected by development or changes in levels and the design will ensure maintenance regimes will be kept to a minimum (e.g. the area will be maintained as an area of open mown grassland). 3.4.10 Sites XIV and XXVII lay within the Off-Site Infrastructure Area and the highways have been designed to avoid any disturbance or landscaping over these sites and to minimise impacts upon their setting. Both sites will remain as open land on the edges of the roads and associated works. PRESERVATION BY RECORD 3.4.11 Although there are opportunities for some sites to be preserved in-situ (as discussed above), for the majority of sites it is considered that preservation in-situ would not be feasible and as such they should be preserved through record (appropriate archaeological excavation), including sites within the Core Area and Off Site Infrastructure Area. 3.4.12 As noted above, none of the identified archaeological sites are designated as Scheduled Ancient Monuments, nor are any considered to be of national significance. The majority of the sites lie within the area designated for development within Northstowe, either through building or road construction. It is considered that the preservation of sites within the main development area or within the proposed road lines would not be feasible, as it is not possible to guarantee that damage would not be caused to all or parts of the individual underlying archaeological sites, from activities associated with the construction of the town or in its future use and development.
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 18 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
3.4.13 PPG16 states that if ‘the significance of the archaeological remains is not sufficient when weighed against all other material considerations, including the need for development, to justify their physical preservation in situ’ then the local planning authority may consider that the proposed development can proceed with the appropriate implementation of schemes of archaeological recording, analysis, reporting and archiving. It is considered that this is appropriate for the majority of archaeological sites at Northstowe. 3.4.14 A series of detailed written schemes of investigation (WSI) for the archaeological excavation will be prepared and approved by the Cambridgeshire Planning Archaeologist prior to the commencement of archaeological works for each site area or for groups of sites. All on site excavation works will also be monitored by the Cambridgeshire Planning Archaeologist. 3.4.15 The majority of sites identified within the area (aside from Site XXVIII [in the Off Site Infrastructure Area] the Mesolithic flint scatter, which warrants further investigation) are essentially of Iron Age and Roman attribution. It is considered that when the significance criteria above are applied to these sites, it is possible to ascribe a three tier ranking system for Iron Age sites and a two tier ranking system for the Roman sites. 3.4.16 The known Iron Age sites are discussed below with an outline of the proposed archaeological excavation strategy to preserve these sites through appropriate record. This is followed by a discussion of the identified Roman sites and the associated proposed excavation strategy. The identified sites within the Northstowe area that are not considered to warrant any further record are then discussed. Iron Age 3.4.17 There is one major site of Iron Age date within the Northstowe application area (Figure 6). This is Site XII, the Bar Hill cropmark. The site contains an Iron Age settlement with double-circuit ‘banjo style enclosure' enclosure and also an early Roman settlement (demonstrating probable transitional activity). The site lies within the main corridors of existing and proposed roads connecting Northstowe (and Longstanton and Oakington) with the A14. 3.4.18 A number of possible solutions relating to the capping and sealing of the archaeological deposits have been investigated, but are not considered appropriate measures by which to satisfactorily preserve the archaeological remains. If the site is to be sealed beneath some form of capping there will be an initial requirement for topsoil stripping – which could expose or damage buried archaeological remains. Through the capping there could be long term problems with the compaction of the archaeological remains. 3.4.19 It could not be guaranteed that at any time in the future the site area could ever be exposed again to allow a future archaeological record of the site, without causing damage to the underlying remains. Landscaping around the perimeter of the proposed roads will cause disturbance to deposits associated with Site XII, through earthwork activities and planting schemes. Road side ditches and drains would need to be located below the level of the new roads and would also cause a threat to underlying deposits. 3.4.20 It is considered that the site cannot be preserved in-situ and that preservation through record is the most appropriate mitigation as a result of the above constraints, the remains offering the most information (being in the best state of survival) at this time. 3.4.21 There are 15 Iron Age settlements that have been identified at Northstowe in total excluding Site XIV and Site XI, both of which are likely to be preserved in-situ). It is considered that the significance of the Iron Age sites can assign a three-tier ranking, which is illustrated on Figure 6. 3.4.22 Two Iron Age sites fall within the first tier, Site XII (double-circuit ‘banjo style enclosure’) and the Site XXXVIII (‘complex’). Northstowe Planning Applications Page 19 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
3.4.23 The majority of the Iron Age sites fall into the second tier. These are Sites VII, IX, X, XIII, XV, XVI, XXIX and XXXVI. Of these, those four that fall within the area of the main Roman settlements (Sites IX, X, XV and XXXVI) must, by de facto, be accounted as being of greater intrinsic interest as they may well have seen continuity of occupation into Roman times. 3.4.24 Those in the third tier, having the least potential/register, are Sites IV, VI, VIII, XXV and XXXIV. However, in undertaking such an appraisal, it is important to note that seemingly ‘low register’ site-configurations (e.g. Sites IV, XXV and XXXIV) might well relate to different facets of the area’s Iron Age occupation other than that represented by the ‘organic-plan’ ditched enclosures (e.g. these sites may possibly relate to earlier occupation, perhaps on a seasonal basis). Iron Age Excavation Strategy 3.4.25 It is proposed that an attempt to appropriately prioritise the excavation of the Iron Age sites is undertaken instead of a ‘standard5’ 10-15% overall excavation sample of each site being undertaken. The standard intensive excavation sample of the major Iron Age sites XII and XXXVIII is proposed as a minimum. 3.4.26 The aim of the excavation strategy will be to first expose, base-plan and test-excavate all Iron Age sites to the level of an approximate 5-10% sample. Figure 7 illustrates an indicative plan showing the excavation sampling strategy for a typical Iron Age enclosure and internal structure. The 10-15% excavation sample equates to a metre segment dug on each side of an enclosure (up to 40m in length), with two metre-long segments excavated at the terminals on either side of its main circuit’s and house-gully entranceways. Aside from broadly ‘characterising’ the sites, amongst its goals would be to obtain a representative sample of no less than 500 sherds of pottery from each enclosure (this being the number which the period’s pottery specialist agree will allow a reasonable basis to appraise their assemblages/chronology). 3.4.27 Having achieved this basic level of excavation, the sampling intensity will be increased on those sites selected for more intensive excavation (those which demonstrate more interesting or unique characteristics than others). The aim would be to excavate those settlements to a level that they will permit distributional/spatial analyses. This would represent a basic:
¢ 20% excavation sample of an enclosure’s ditches;
¢ 100% excavation of structural features (e.g. eaves-gullies or postholes); and
¢ 50% excavation of all discrete features (typically through half-section of each discrete feature). 3.4.28 In addition, there will be a further 5% judgemental sample6 to further excavate portions of those discrete features (e.g. pits) and portions of ditch lengths that are shown to be particularly finds-rich. Soil samples will be taken from appropriate contexts (e.g. waterlogged or charcoal rich) and will be assessed for molluscan and macro-botanical remains, and if appropriate pollen column7 samples will also be taken. 3.4.29 Those Iron Age enclosures that fall within the interior of the major Roman settlements (Sites IX, X, XII’s ‘circles’, XV & XXXVI) will, be intensively excavated at the same time as those larger sites (i.e. there is no choice in these cases). 3.4.30 In order to appropriately sample-select which sites warrant detailed excavation, this will be most appropriately undertaken using the broad archaeological zones identified in section 3.1.3
5 The standard excavation sample undertaken by CAU is typically an overall 10-15% sample. This level has previously been considered an appropriate sample by planning authorities in the region. 6 It is proposed that, at least in part, this latter, judgemental sample-phase could be undertaken as a Community Excavation Project (see Chapter 5 Community Involvement ), when interested local members of the public can volunteer under full professional supervision. 7 Pollen column – a soil sample taken of archaeological deposits that have the potential to contain pollen evidence that can provide information regarding the earlier environments Northstowe Planning Applications Page 20 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
above. All Iron Age sites in each zone (where it is feasible, and where the sites require further archaeological recording) will be stripped, planned and test-excavated prior to a decision being made on the excavation strategy. 3.4.31 This will provide the following site-selection framework outlined in Table 3 below: Table 3: Iron Age Excavation Strategy – Site Selection Framework
Northstowe Zone Sites for Intensive Excavation Choice Sites
Cambridge Golf Course and IX, X and XXXVIII IV, VI, VII and VIII – two of which will be Driving Range and land north of intensively excavated Rampton Road
Oakington Airfield/Barracks XV and XXXVI XVI and XXXIV – one of which will be intensively excavated
Off Site Infrastructure Area XII XIII, XXV and XXIX – one of which will be intensively excavated
3.4.32 During the archaeological fieldwork, the excavations will need to be monitored to ensure that the work is being undertaken to the appropriate standards and levels of detail, or agree any changes due to site conditions. Liaison with the Planning Archaeologist will also be required to ensure that the works are being carried out to their satisfaction. 3.4.33 Following the completion of the excavation and recording of each site to the required level, a post-excavation assessment report will be completed. This report will also need to be submitted to the Cambridgeshire Planning Archaeologist for approval, to ensure that the archaeological data recovered from the site and the proposed post-excavation programme will be able to provide an appropriate record of the archaeological remains. This approval will be needed prior to any further groundworks (including enabling works and construction) commencing on those site areas. 3.4.34 Following the production of the post-excavation assessment reports for each site, further post-excavation analysis, reportage and archiving of all information is necessary. 3.4.35 The preparation of the archive of material from the excavations will need to be completed to the accepted standards of and submitted to the Cambridgeshire Archaeological Store for permanent storage. The Archaeological Store is maintained by Cambridgeshire County Council as a repository for all archives resulting from excavations in the county. Roman Sites 3.4.36 There are two major Roman sites within the Core Area. These are Sites XIX and XVIII (Figure 8). Due to the size and location of these larger Roman settlement sites XIX (located to the north of Rampton Road) and XVIII (located in the northern part of the Oakington Airfield and Barracks) preservation in-situ for these sites is not feasible. The sites are not considered to be of national significance and preservation through record is considered the most appropriate mitigation. 3.4.37 The preservation in-situ of small elements of these sites is considered archaeologically inappropriate, including the area of the possible Roman shrine within site XIX, as this would leave these preserved elements in isolation, whilst the surrounding remains are excavated. This would have the affect of leaving the preserved elements of the sites very much out of their archaeological context and associations and relationships with surrounding features could be lost or missed. 3.4.38 Site XII within the Off-Site Infrastructure Area also includes a substantial Roman element (as discussed above) and it is considered that preservation through record is the most appropriate mitigation for the site. Northstowe Planning Applications Page 21 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
3.4.39 It is considered that the significance of the Roman sites can be assigned a two-tier ranking, which is illustrated on Figure 8. Sites XII, XIX and XVIII are clearly settlement complexes of the first order and warrant comprehensive excavation, as discussed further below. In relationship to these, there are three low-intensity sites that only deserve more summary investigation. These are Sites XXVI, XXXIII and the Site XXXVII fieldsystem. Roman Excavation Strategy 3.4.40 For Roman sites, the following standard excavation procedures will be adhered to throughout:
¢ 10% of all linear features will be excavated (metre segments dug on a 10m interval with potential to increase to 25% when associated with contemporary settlement);
¢ 100% excavation of all structural features;
¢ 50% excavation of all discrete features; and
¢ Additional provision for 100% excavation of deposits yielding important finds assemblages (according to bulk-number and/or ‘type’). 3.4.41 Soil samples will be taken from appropriate contexts (e.g. waterlogged or charcoal rich) and will be assessed for molluscan and macro-botanical remains. In addition, if appropriate feature-contexts are encountered, pollen columns will be taken. 3.4.42 For the major Roman settlements (Sites XVIII, XIX and XII) there is provision for full gridded metal-detector survey of their topsoil horizons prior to and following machine-stripping. It is expected that the excavation-intensity of the other, less dense Roman sites (XXVI, XXVIII & XXXIII) could be less than the level stipulated above (an approximate 5-10% sample). This is to be agreed upon the results of the machine-stripping. 3.4.43 The excavation stage will also require monitoring during fieldwork, followed by a stage of post-excavation assessment, analysis, reportage and archiving, as discussed above for Iron Age sites in sections 3.4.31 – 3.4.34. Sites Requiring No further Investigation 3.4.44 Of the identified sites within Northstowe, four are considered to be of such low intensity and significance that they represent no more than ‘presence’ and do not warrant any further detailed fieldwork. These sites are indicated on Figure 9. 3.4.45 These include Site XXX (three Bronze Age pits with no other associated activity), Site XXXI (a series of small undated features possibly of Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age or possibly Middle Iron Age date) and Site XXXII (a set of possible prehistoric [Bronze Age or earlier Iron Age] field boundary ditches and later Medieval and post-Medieval ditches). 3.4.46 Site XXXIX was originally identified through geophysical survey as a possible Bronze Age pit well, similar to those excavated at Striplands Farm to the north, but further investigations have demonstrated it to be an area of modern disturbance that requires no further archaeological investigation. 3.4.47 It is considered appropriate that an archaeological watching brief is implemented during initial groundworks in the areas of these sites, in order that any further archaeological remains can be afforded appropriate record. Hitherto Unidentified Archaeological Sites 3.4.48 Due to a number of factors (including potential ordnance issues within Oakington Airfield and the ongoing business activities of the Cambridge Golf Course and Driving Range, and Larksfield Farm) it has not been possible to archaeologically evaluate the entire Northstowe Core
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 22 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
Area using intrusive trial trenches. The areas have been evaluated using non-intrusive methods of aerial photographic analysis, cartographic analysis and geophysical survey. 3.4.49 Through discussion with the Cambridge Planning Archaeologist it has been agreed that a archaeological strip, map and record strategy should be implemented along the lines of haulage roads through these areas, with appropriate levels of further archaeological recording implemented in the event that hitherto unidentified archaeological remains are revealed. 3.5 RESEARCH DIRECTIVES 3.5.1 The development of research directives for the archaeological excavations at Northstowe will provide a framework on which the fieldwork, post-excavation analysis and reporting can be based. The directives are not fixed and will be reviewed throughout the archaeological fieldwork and post-excavation stages. They will be informed by the results of the fieldwork and inputs and comments from academic advisors (section 3.6). A research focus for archaeological works is necessary to enhance our understanding of the past and provide reasoned justification for the nature and level of archaeological investigation required. The directives should assist with the ongoing process of assessing the value and importance of archaeological sites at Northstowe throughout the fieldwork stage. IRON AGE 3.5.2 The only evidence of significant pre-mid/later 2nd millennium BC usage within the study/development area are Sites I and XXVIII where Mesolithic scatters were identified in the south alongside the course of Oakington Brook. With the line of that brook bordered by lighter Greensand deposits (amid, otherwise, the landscape’s heavy soils), this raises the question of to what degree this ‘small valley’ acted as a communication corridor through what would have then, presumably, been forested landscape. 3.5.3 The number of Iron Age settlements identified during the course of the evaluation programme (15) is remarkable. Aside from the compounded/conjoined Site XXXVIII enclosures in the Golf Course and Driving Range, the settlements are quite small, with most being less than a hectare. The density of these sites is equally noteworthy. Up on the main, ridgeway terrace gravels, that run along the western side of Northstowe and beneath Longstanton south-eastwards to Oakington, at least locally, they lie only approximately 300m apart, whereas in the south (throughout the area of the Off-Site Infrastructure Area and on clay and greensand geology) their interval is somewhat greater, approximately 600 to 800m. 3.5.4 In general, these sites are of Middle/later Iron Age attribution and date to after c. 400-300 BC. However, later Bronze/Early Iron Age flint-tempered wares were recovered at the northern end of Site XVIII (adjacent to Site XXXVI). Site XXXIII also seems to include activity of that date and it is possible that the Site XXV ditch-line is of similar attribution. It is relevant to consider whether this area actually saw any significant pre-Middle Iron Age settlement, or if it was only seasonally utilised before that time. This should be considered within the context of a substantial and obviously permanent/year-round later Bronze Age settlement identified and excavated on the slightly higher terrace lands, north of Northstowe, at Striplands Farm. 3.5.5 A number of major research themes and questions arise in relationship to the many Middle/later Iron Age settlements found. These are outlined below: Colonisation 3.5.6 To what extent do these Iron Age enclosure sites mark an ‘arrival horizon’ in the local landscape during the Middle Iron Age or were they the direct off-spring of the later Bronze/Early Iron Age groups in the area? Were the areas heavy claylands soils actively sought out for the purposes of arable production during the Middle Iron Age?
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 23 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
Economy 3.5.7 What was the basis of the Iron Age economy? Was it mixed farming regimes or were some groups/households predominantly pastoral? Were all of its enclosures permanently inhabited or were some only seasonally utilised? Fortunately, in this regard, the area’s heavy soils will ensure good environmental preservation, both of macro-plant remains and pollen. This will enable the excavation programme to achieve a sound basis to address these issues. Social Structure and Hierarchy 3.5.8 How do we consider the social relationships between these sites? Were they all broadly equivalent individual household-type enclosure-compounds or were some ‘distinguished’, suggesting a degree of social hierarchy? While, thus far, none seem particularly elevated on the basis of their finds assemblages, the plan-form of Sites XXXVIII and XII’s ‘double-circle’ (and possibly also Site XV’s) could hint of some ‘difference’. Chronology 3.5.9 Apart from the above-discussed occurrence of flint-tempered later Bronze/Early Iron Age wares on some of these sites, were they all otherwise directly contemporary or were some occupied longer than others? Equally, does the occurrence of Iron Age enclosures within the axes of the subsequent, main Roman settlements (Sites XII & XV’s ‘circle’s and Sites IX, X and XXXVI) imply direct continuity of settlement until Roman times, or was their situation simply fortuitous/accidental? In order to adequately address these issues it will be imperative that substantial pottery assemblages are achieved from all of the sites as it is likely that the index/ratio of hand- to wheel-turned pottery will be the best gauge of their chronology/duration. ROM AN 3.5.10 As was outlined in the final evaluation report (Evans et al, 2006), given the number of Roman sites that have been identified and their range of archaeology/settlement functions, it is crucial that this landscape is not just approached as some sort of hinterland adjunct of the fen-land edge, but a swathe of fully Romanised countryside (i.e. non-marginal lands). What is of particular interest is the network of major sites of the period, XVIII and XIX within Northstowe and Site XX to the north, as well as at subsidiary sites XXXVII (within Northstowe) and XXIII to the north, that were evidently strung-out along the ridge of the gravel terrace and set at only an interval of approximately 300 to 400m apart. 3.5.11 However, while certainly substantial sites, there is no reason to consider Sites XII within the Off-Site Infrastructure Area and site XX, to the north of the Core area, as representing anything other than major farmsteads of the period. Falling within the north-western corner of Cambridge Golf Course and Driving Range, Site XXXVII (probably part of the same Roman site excavated at the southern end of Striplands Farm) may represent an equivalent settlement-type. Against this, the status of the relatively low settlement density-component associated with the Sites XXVII, XXXIII and XXVI paddock systems is more ambiguous, and they might all simply be outlying/marginal portions of more major off-site/development complexes. Interestingly though, in the case of the latter (Site XXVI), it would seem to also include Late Iron Age material. 3.5.12 Though difficult to adequately characterise, the larger Site XIX Roman complex would seem to differ from the ‘major farm’ settlements, its settlement per se being denser and it appears to be enclosed by a multiple-ditch system (possibly an embankment) along its western and part of its northern sides. The impression is that this site reflects some manner of quasi-nucleated, more ‘hamlet-/village’ configuration. Certainly, the determination of just what characterises its settlement must be among the main research aims of the project’s Roman landscape studies. 3.5.13 Sites XVIII and XXVII both appear to include stone-footed buildings and seem to be settlements of quite a different order again, and could attest to a degree of state administration. Northstowe Planning Applications Page 24 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
Having what seems to be a bathhouse, Site XXVII, located south by Oakington Brook, was possibly a villa or some manner of ‘posting station’. Probably continuous with Site XV, the Site XVIII complex extends over some 24ha and, thereby, is more than twice the size of Roman Cambridge. Organised around what seems to be a crossroads in its southern half, with a stone- footed building (mansio8) fronting onto its north-west to south-eastern route (with high quality building materials, tiles and stone column fragment, found nearby), this really is an extraordinary site and clearly included an ‘official’ component. However, it is not clear at this stage if the possible mansio structure formed part of the main settlement area to the north, or if it was a separate building, pre- or post –dating the settlement. 3.5.14 Many major research issues and questions arise in relationship to the area’s Roman sites, amongst these are: Chronology/Continuity 3.5.15 To what degree are we seeing direct continuity of settlement between the Late Iron Age and Early Roman times on these sites? The most obvious example in which to investigate this is Site XII, with its ‘distinguished’ double-circuit ‘banjo style enclosure’’ Iron Age enclosure. Did its potentially ‘elevated’ family go onto to reside in and even run its major farmstead in Romans times? Communication/Transportation Routes 3.5.16 What was the layout of the track/roadway system within this landscape? If, as it appears, a north-west to south-eastern route passed through Site III (possibly the off-set line of the Cambridge/Godmanchester Road), did it continue southeast to the Site XXVII complex? Equally, was it in turn met by the road running north-east up through Site XVIII, with a crossroads continuing north-west and possibly joining the central Site XIX ‘way’ (it running north-west towards Site XX)? Economy and Land-use 3.5.17 Which of the area’s settlements were food producers (e.g. Sites XII, XX & XXXVII) and which consumers (XIX & XVII)? Equally, given the area of the terrace-ridge taken up with settlement as such, and in the light of what must have been the size of the local population at that time, to what extent did their attendant field systems continue off of the terrace gravels and onto the surroundings claylands? 3.5.18 Remarkably, little post-Roman archaeology, Saxon/Early Medieval, has been recovered. Aside from the excavations at Striplands Farm and Site XX/XXIII that lie to the north of Northstowe, only one/two sherds of Saxon pottery were identified in the southern end of Roman Site XIX. However, Saxo-Norman features may still extend east into the area of Site XXXVII and into the eastern margins of Cambridge Golf Course and Driving Range). Given the extent of trial trenching, this does not preclude the possibility that some degree of Saxon occupation still may be identified within the axes of the main Roman complex upon the terrace-ridge (Sites XVIII and XIX). 3.5.19 Otherwise, the Site XXXV Early Medieval settlement must attest to the original village core of Longstanton’s southern Church End hamlet. However, as outlined above, as this site will be preserved in situ, it does not feature in the project’s main research directives. 3.6 ACADEM IC ADVISORS 3.6.1 An Academic Advisory Committee (AAC) will be established with a number of members invited to join to provide their recognised academic knowledge and expertise in a number of
8 Mansio - an official stopping place on a Roman road, maintained by the central government for the use of officials and those on official business whilst travelling, an inn and administrative centre Northstowe Planning Applications Page 25 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
relevant fields of research to the Northstowe archaeological works programme. The following members have been invited to join the committee:
¢ Prof. Colin Hazelgrove: Research interests focus on Iron Age societies in Britain and western Europe and their relations with the expanding Roman world (School of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester);
¢ Dr. J D Hill: Research interests include how Iron Age societies in East England were organised and changed and how this can be achieved through pottery analysis (c.300 BC to AD 50) (Curator of the Iron Age Collections, Department of Prehistory and Europe, British Museum);
¢ Dr. Catherine Hills: Research interests focus on the Saxon and early medieval period in Europe, and also an interest in the public presentation of archaeology (Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge);
¢ Prof. Martin Millet: Research interests are in the social and economic archaeology of the Roman world, and its interactions with indigenous societies (The Faculty of Classics and the Museum of Classical Archaeology, University of Cambridge); and
¢ Dr. Jeremy Taylor: Research interests centre on rural settlement and social change in Iron Age Britain and the Roman provinces (School of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester). 3.6.2 The AAC will provide academic input to the programme of archaeological work, including on-site fieldwork and post-excavation analysis and reporting. The role of the Committee will be one of an advisory group, providing ad hoc input when requested, with occasional site visits and meetings pre-arranged through appropriate land owners/agents. 3.6.3 It is intended that the ACC will be asked to provide comment and critique of the archaeological project’s research directives and methodologies (as outlined above). The Committee will be invited to meet to review the results of periods of recent fieldwork and agree any updates to the fieldwork strategies and potentially indicate new research directives. The outcome of this will be to provide credibility to the archaeological programme of works. 3.6.4 The ACC will provide comments in reading and commenting on drafts of the publications for the project. One of the main tasks members of the committee will have will be in providing comment and critique of reports prepared for publication. 3.6.5 The Cambridgeshire County Council Planning Archaeologist has indicated full support for the use of the ACC and the proposed members. 3.6.6 The development of the Academic Advisory Committee will also go part way to addressing Objective D9/d of the NAAP also.
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 26 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
4 Built Heritage – RAF Oakington
4.1 SUM M ARY OF THE ARP RAF OAKINGTON REPORT (FRANCIS, 2004) M ETHODOLOGY 4.1.1 A survey of the surviving features of Oakington Airfield, including information regarding its chronological development and operational history was prepared in 2004 by ARP on behalf of WSP. The survey area was limited to the existing boundary of RAF Oakington at that time, the area then in the ownership of Defence Estates, although outlying stations and structures outside of this boundary were referenced (such as areas of Rampton Drift). It provided information on all buildings and structures erected on the site between 1938 and 1974. 4.1.2 The report and information regarding the buildings drew on information held at the National Archives at Kew, the RAF Museum at Hendon, Waterbeach Barracks, through external and some internal field surveys and notable Air Force historians (John Hamlin and Aldon Ferguson). SUM M ARY HISTORY 4.1.3 The site for RAF Oakington was chosen during the 1930’s, during military preparations associated with the perceived threat of Nazi Germany. The site chosen was located on this land five miles north-west of Cambridge (centred on grid reference TL 412 659), located on the northern edge of the village of Oakington, with Longstanton directly to the west. The former line of the London and North Eastern Railway (presently being converted to the CGB) formed the eastern edge of the airfield. 4.1.4 Construction at the site commenced in mid 1939. The original plans for the station were changed following the outbreak of World War II, with a number of proposed permanent buildings being replaced with less substantial utility types in the area to the west of Longstanton. 4.1.5 The majority of buildings were of standard design incorporating reinforced concrete flat roofs (providing bomb protection) and most had steel framed windows. Underground basement refuges were not constructed here, but the site has numerous above ground air raid shelters. Perimeter defences to the airfield included anti-aircraft gun emplacements and a number of strategically placed pillboxes, including the circular ‘Oakington’ type which provided a 360 degree firing line. 4.1.6 The Bomber Command station first came into use in July 1940, with the first bombing offensives starting in August of that year (No. 218 squadron). In September 1940, No. 7 squadron was established at the airfield, using Stirling Bombers. The airfield was originally surfaced with grass, although problems caused by soft ground during wet weather for the bombers were such that areas of hard standing and hard runways were constructed between the springs of 1941 and 1942. No. 7 squadron remained stationed at RAF Oakington throughout the Second World War, with the Stirlings later replaced by Lancaster bombers. Other squadrons also shared the airfield during the Second World War, as did a photographic reconnaissance and a meteorological unit. At the end of this War, No. 7 squadron was moved to another RAF station at Mepal near Ely. 4.1.7 Following the Second World War, the airfield was used by transport squadrons from 1945 to 1950, and most notably by No. 27 squadron, who were one of the main transport squadrons involved in the Berlin Airlift between 1948 and 1949 carrying supplies into Berlin during the Soviet Blockade of the City. After 1950, the airfield was used by training schools, until the army took over the site in 1975 and it was renamed Oakington Barracks. The army left the site in 1999.
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 27 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
4.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF SURVIVING STRUCTURES 4.2.1 The ARP report concludes that the surviving buildings at RAF Oakington are not unique, and were part ‘of a large UK-wide RAF expansion programme which included buildings of standard designs.’ Numerous examples of similar structures survive within the UK. RAF archives also hold copies of original plans and designs for the structures. 4.2.2 It is stated that many of the buildings had been subject to modernisation and the majority of original features, equipment and fittings had been removed. It was also noted that the majority of original steel framed windows had been replaced with UPVc windows which were detrimental to the elevations of the buildings. 4.2.3 The report states that ‘No buildings within the former RAF station are of listable quality’. 4.2.4 The report does indicate a number of the structures and arrangements of buildings are of historical significance and worthy of record and/or should be considered for retention. 4.2.5 Structures and arrangements highlighted to be of interest include:
¢ The Officers’ Mess and Quarters arrangement within the Oakington Barracks area;
¢ Stanton type air-raid shelters (of which there are no surviving drawings or examples held within RAF or Defence Estate archives);
¢ Airfield defences, including ‘Oakington’ type pillbox structures (see below);
¢ Camp Street arrangement of tree lined avenues; and
¢ The aerodrome planning, its general arrangement and situation within the landscape. PILLBOXES 4.2.6 There are two types of pillboxes present associated with the defences of RAF Oakington, the hexagonal Type FW3/22 and also the ‘Oakington’ type (or cantilevered pillbox) (Figure 10). A number of pillboxes have been previously demolished at the site, although the former locations are known (and also the type of pillbox in a number of the cases). The arrangement of both types of pillboxes around the defensive perimeter of Oakington Airfield is significant, as is the grouping of some of these in triangular arrangements of three forming smaller defensive units. 4.2.7 The pillboxes on the eastern side of the airfield along the former line of the London and North Western Railway are also a significant defensive group, being located to defend the airfield from an attack originating from a German-occupied train (there were also low-level anti-tank positions on the railway side of the pillboxes to deal with the train) or paratroopers attacking from the surrounding area. 4.2.8 The FW3/22 type is the most common form of pillbox and numerous examples survive throughout the UK. 4.2.9 The ‘Oakington’ type (cantilevered) pillboxes (commonly known as Mushrooms) are a less common form only used on or close to RAF station airfields, and far fewer examples survive than the FW3/22 type. Although examples are known throughout the United Kingdom, there does seem to be a concentration of them in the East of England (Cambridgeshire, Essex, Norfolk and Northamptonshire). Oakington was the first airfield where these were constructed (2 March 1941), and hence why they are often referred to as ‘Oakington’ type pillboxes. The pillboxes provided a 360o line of fire and could thus defend against attacks from outside and inside the airfield perimeter. These are considered to be of the highest significance.
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 28 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
4.3 BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY – RAF OAKINGTON 4.3.1 The ARP report provided details of further building recording work that was identified at the site area. It is also intended that a number of structures at the site will either be retained in-situ or elements of pre-fabricated structures retained following careful demolition (in the case of one or more examples of the Stanton type air raid shelters of which numerous examples exist across the barracks area) and offered to a relevant aviation museum such as RAF Duxford for display. FURTHER STRUCTURAL SURVEY 4.3.2 Some buildings required further work to be undertaken, including internal photographic survey and note taking. These are shown on Figure 10.
¢ The Articulated Trailer Shed;
¢ Central Heating Station;
¢ Link Trainer;
¢ Armoury;
¢ Parachute Store; and
¢ Varsity Line Crew Building. PILLBOXES 4.3.3 A measured survey of one of the ‘Oakington’ type pillboxes will be undertaken, supplemented by a detailed photographic survey. 4.3.4 The significance of the ‘Oakington’ pillboxes has been highlighted throughout the design process and it is proposed that a number of these are retained in situ at the site. These will include a number of the ‘Oakington’ type along the eastern edge of the airfield, including a defensive unit of three. 4.3.5 Where pillboxes are to be retained, the final detail of how they will be reused will be developed during the detailed design phases. A number of options are likely to be explored, including the creation of wildlife habitats (e.g. adapted for bat or butterfly occupation) and bird hides associated with the proposed reservoirs along the eastern boundary. They may also be retained as visible features to visually stimulate the local landscape. Opportunities will be explored where pillboxes, with lesser typological or setting significance that cannot be retained in-situ may be relocated to suitable locations (such as within a new public square) and made as features providing information regarding their historic significance. All options will address relevant health and safety issues, ensuring the structures are safe, whilst ensuring minimum alteration to the structures to preserve their external appearance. The information that will be generated by the proposed measured survey of one of the pillboxes will be used to help determine the future reuses of the structures. 4.3.6 The recording, retention and reuse of some of the pillboxes will address the reference to pillboxes within Policy NS/18. LOCAL SETTING OF THE AIRFIELD 4.3.7 Some additional surveys of the local topography will be carried out with the aim of obtaining a better understanding of the local defence layout within and around the airfield, Longstanton and Oakington. It is possible that other defensive features are present, and may include further pillboxes, road blocks and slit trenches covering roads and tracks into the villages. Such features may not be easily visible in the landscape today having become overgrown or partially demolished, but remnant evidence may exist.
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 29 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
OFFICER’S M ESS 4.3.8 The Officers' Mess is a type F style, with the rare use of a flat reinforced concrete roof. It is intended that the building will be photographically recorded and information regarding its form and layout recorded. The record will also note its relationship with adjacent features. The Officers’ Mess currently has a number of directly associated surviving structures within its vicinity, including squash/racquets court, garages, tennis courts and two original air raid shelters (all facilities presumably reserved for the Officer’s themselves). The Officers’ Mess building is being considered for retention, although the associated structures will not. Temporary use of The Officers’ Mess is considered likely during the construction stages of Northstowe. SUM M ARY OF OPERATIONS 4.3.9 The Summary of Operations prepared as part of the 2004 report by ARP, included brief details of all sorties and other relevant operational information for RAF Oakington that was completed until 1st January 1942. It is intended that the Summary of Operations will be completed to include all relevant sorties and operations of the airfield until the end of the Second World War. 4.3.10 The majority of the historic building recording work and research has been completed as part of the original ARP report of 2004, with the remainder to be completed in the latter part of 2007/early 2008. The ARP report has already identified that there are no structures at the site that are of listable quality, although identifies structures considered to be of higher significance. Policy NS/21 of the NAAP will be addressed through the completion of the remaining building recording and history of the site, and the retention of a number of the Oakington type pillboxes and The Officers’ Mess. GUIDED TOURS 4.3.11 It is possible that a guided tour of the former RAF Oakington buildings will be provided by ARP to members of the site enabling and construction teams and any relevant members of SCDC to provide information on the extant of buildings and to discuss the conclusions of the RAF Oakington report regarding the significance of the structures. It is considered that such an action would provide validation for the Built Heritage Strategy from a well respected RAF Airfield expert. 4.3.12 The site tour should be documented on video to provide a record of the layout of the Barracks area, buildings therein, supplemented with spoken description and discussion. Such information could be made available to relevant people who are not able to visit the site, as well as forming part of the archive for the historic buildings at the site. 4.4 CULTURAL HERITAGE IN THE SURROUNDING AREA CONSERVATION AREAS 4.4.1 Both Longstanton and Oakington have designated Conservation Areas, which lie in close proximity to the Northstowe application area. There is also a Conservation Area at Westwick to the south-east. Conservation Area Appraisals have been completed for each of these, which highlight that the character and appearance of these areas includes not only the built heritage, but also includes the agricultural character of the area, historic character, building materials used, building heights and scale, and settlement layout, providing information on these for each of the areas. The agricultural character includes field layouts, hedge-boundaries and also historic features such as ridge and furrow and the earthwork remnants of former medieval strip farming. 4.4.2 Oakington Conservation Area lies to the south-west of Northstowe, focussed around the main part of the village. At Longstanton, the Conservation Area covers a wide area incorporating the older village focuses in the central and southern parts of the village (surrounding both of the churches and formally split into two Conservation Areas). Westwick Conservation Area lies to the south-east of Northstowe.
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 30 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
4.4.3 The Conservation Area at Longstanton includes fields within which are the remnants of medieval ridge and furrow, which survive as prominent earthworks on the eastern side of the village. The Conservation Area (including the ridge and furrow) has been identified as part of the agricultural character of the Conservation Area as well as an archaeological feature, and will consequently remain undeveloped and retain its current form. 4.4.4 Impacts to the settings of the conservation area will be minimised and this will address section D9/b of the NAAP. LISTED BUILDINGS 4.4.5 There are no listed buildings within Northstowe, although a number are present within the villages of Longstanton, Oakington and Westwick. The listed buildings are illustrated on Figure 11 and include (letters refer to label on plan): a) Village Water Pump, High Street, Longstanton (Grade II); b) Village Water Pump, Mills Lane, Longstanton (Grade II); c) Church of All Saints, Rampton Road, Longstanton (Grade I); d) Churchyard Cross, Rampton Road, Longstanton (Grade II); e) 46 St. Michaels (The Grange), Longstanton (Grade II); f) 1 St Michaels Lane, Longstanton (Grade II); g) Well and well-head, St Michaels Lane, Longstanton (Grade II); h) Church of St. Michael, St. Michaels Lane, Longstanton (Grade II*); i) Manor Farmhouse (Longstanton House), Woodside, Longstanton (Grade II); j) Westwick Hall Farmhouse, Oakington Road, Oakington and Westwick (Grade II); k) Westwick Hall Farm Barn, Oakington Road, Oakington and Westwick (Grade II); l) Westwick Hall, Oakington Road, Oakington and Westwick (Grade II); m) 13 Longstanton Road, Oakington and Westwick (Grade II); n) Milestone at Huntingdon Road, Oakington and Westwick (Grade II); o) Church of St. Andrew, High Street, Oakington and Westwick (Grade II*); p) 25 and 27 High Street, Oakington and Westwick (Grade II); q) 56 High Street, Oakington and Westwick (Grade II); r) 68 High Street, Oakington and Westwick (Grade II); and s) 69 High Street, Oakington and Westwick (Grade II). 4.4.6 None of these Listed Buildings will be physically impacted upon by the development of Northstowe. Direct impacts to the setting of some of these structures will arise both temporarily during the construction process, and permanently following completion of Northstowe. The location of archaeological sites in relation to the indicative construction stage plan are illustrated in Figure 12. 4.4.7 This Strategy has identified the elements of the Built Heritage within the area surrounding Northstowe, and highlighted that part of Longstanton Conservation Area lies within the western side of Northstowe and is further discussed within the Landscape Strategy document. 4.4.8 Impacts to the settings of the listed buildings will be minimised and this will address section D9/b of the NAAP. Northstowe Planning Applications Page 31 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
5 Community Involvement
5.1 INTRODUCTION 5.1.1 The importance of engagement with the local community to the development is outlined within the Northstowe Development Specification. The Community and Stakeholder Involvement and Engagement Process section outlines how English Partnerships and Gallagher have sought to involve the communities and stakeholders from the earliest stages of the project. This has included engagement with topic groups, stakeholder workshops, public exhibitions (June 2007), technical consultation with key stakeholders and statutory consultees (including CCC). 5.1.2 From the earliest stages of the project English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd have sought to involve the communities and stakeholders in the design process. As Northstowe progresses to the archaeological fieldwork programme, prior to the enabling and construction programme, opportunities will arise to directly engage the local communities (both old and new) and stakeholders, with the archaeology and history of the site. This will promote a sense of place for Northstowe, and highlight the existing history of the new town. It is also considered that this will be seen as a positive move for the development, providing good publicity. 5.1.3 There are a number of stakeholder groups who may have an interest in the archaeology and historic environment of Northstowe. These include:
¢ The existing Historical Societies of Longstanton and Oakington;
¢ Existing residents of Longstanton and Oakington;
¢ Future residents of Northstowe;
¢ People with family links to the villages and area;
¢ Former service personnel associated with RAF Oakington and Oakington Barracks;
¢ People who work, go to school, or visit the area;
¢ Military Historians;
¢ The wider community of the region/Cambridgeshire; and
¢ The archaeological community (professional and amateur). 5.1.4 In a sense, archaeology and the historic environment should be seen as belonging to everyone, as it forms part of our collective past. The identified archaeology of the site already demonstrates links with mainland Europe through the Roman Empire, Saxon migrants and Norman invaders. Wider (global) links could be shown as the site area contains RAF Oakington, an airbase originally constructed in World War II. Heritage links can be seen at a local, regional, national and international level. 5.1.5 This chapter identifies the potential opportunities for community engagement. It is important to recognise the extent and level to which this will be possible due to health and safety considerations, insurance liability and safety procedures for any public access to Northstowe during the archaeological fieldwork programme. Community engagement would not be possible where significant risks are identified and cannot be adequately mitigated. 5.1.6 Although there is currently no firm commitment to undertake the tasks, they have been acknowledged as possibilities and a number of the opportunities will be taken. 5.1.7 The section outlines how the archaeological and historic environment of Northstowe might be used to provide an educational resource. A number of strategies for the dissemination of this
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 32 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
information to the local population and academic environment are put forward in order that the archaeological and historical significance of the site will reach as wide an audience as possible. This addresses objective D9/d of the NAAP. 5.2 BENEFITS OF COM M UNITY INVOLVEM ENT 5.2.1 A number of studies have been prepared regarding the importance of the historic environment to local communities, including ‘The Power of Place’ (English Heritage, 2000) and ‘Recharging the Power of Place’ (Campaign to Protect Rural England/Heritage Link/The National Trust, 2004). 5.2.2 ‘Recharging the Power of Place’ states that ‘the historic environment provides the basis for a personal sense of place and belonging’ and that ‘understanding the local significance of the historic environment should underpin wider agendas such as creating and maintaining a high quality environment, economic stability, localism and social inclusion.’ 5.2.3 The reports highlight that the historic environment can provide opportunities for strengthening integration of communities. This would be very relevant to the development of Northstowe, with the aim of providing opportunities for integration between the existing and future communities. 5.2.4 ‘Power of Place’ (2000) states that the ‘strength and depth of community involvement in England is envied throughout the world. It is unique.’ Northstowe has the potential to provide opportunities for involvement with the local historical societies at Longstanton and Oakington. 5.3 POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES 5.3.1 The following outlined opportunities are means by which the archaeology and historic environment of Northstowe could be utilised to create links with the existing and future communities. These potential opportunities will have no impact on the development programme, being tasks that would be undertaken either during archaeological site works, or during the post- excavation programme. Potential opportunities include dissemination of information, practical involvement with archaeological work and community projects. DISSEM INATION OF INFORM ATION 5.3.2 The investigations of the archaeology and historic environment of Northstowe will generate an abundance of information. It is often the case that such information is only ever seen by professional archaeologists and academics. It is the intention that at Northstowe the information is disseminated to as wide an audience as possible both during and after the archaeological fieldwork programme. 5.3.3 Dissemination of results could be achieved through a number of means, including:
¢ Archaeological Excavation Open Days: To be carried out during designated times, such as weekends, where archaeologists can provide site tours of archaeological sites currently being excavated to members of the public. All relevant health and safety procedures and protocol would need to be established and followed;
¢ Temporary Museum: It is likely that archaeologists will utilise buildings within the Oakington Barracks area for storage/accommodation during the archaeological fieldwork programme. This provides the opportunity to create a display area within one of the structures for archaeological information and a display of artefacts which could be accessible to members of the public during designated times;
¢ Temporary Displays: Temporary displays of archaeological information could be created within the community centres of Longstanton and Oakington, providing information on the results and progress of the archaeological excavations. These could be updated as and when necessary.
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 33 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
However, it is very unlikely that artefacts from the excavations would be able to be presented within these unmanned displays;
¢ Talks/Lectures: Providing opportunities for local communities to attend talks or lectures to learn about the works being undertaken at the site, with opportunities for questions and answers;
¢ Web-based Information: Establishing a web-based excavation diary, or a regularly updated ‘blog’ site;
¢ Information Leaflets, Pamphlets or Newsletters: Providing information and updates on the progress of the excavations and results (providing similar information to that on the website) to members of the public who cannot access the internet. These could be made available in local community centres, at local libraries and local churches;
¢ Publication: The information gathered from the archaeological excavations will eventually be provided within one or more published reports, which will be targeted at professional archaeologists and academics. The provision of publications accessible to a wider audience on the results will also be considered, with information aimed at those with a more general interest, and younger/school aged audiences; and
¢ Media Coverage: It is very likely that there will be local, regional and national media interest in the archaeological works being undertaken. As part of this, specific press releases regarding the archaeology could be prepared at intervals throughout the investigations. Television coverage with local news teams could also be arranged to cover significant finds or commencement of new phases of excavations. The abundance of archaeological remains and the scale of Northstowe may be of interest to the archaeological Channel 4 programme ‘Time Team’, which has produced a number of programmes detailing the progress of large archaeological excavations undertaken by archaeological units as opposed to the Time Team themselves (e.g. at Coventry, Canterbury and Durrington Walls). One of the members of the Time Team, Carenza Lewis, is a lecturer at Cambridge University, and has links with CAU. PRACTICAL INVOLVEM ENT W ITH ARCHAEOLOGICAL W ORK
¢ Archaeological Excavation: A number of the archaeological sites at Northstowe are of a size where it could be possible to provide supervision and training opportunities for members of the public (such as members of local history societies) to assist with the archaeological excavations. The level of assistance with the excavations would be agreed with CCC and it will be over and above the level of excavation required as part of any condition placed on planning permission. Health and Safety considerations and responsibilities would need to be established prior to any such involvement in the archaeological excavations to ensure that such involvement is feasible. Carenza Lewis of the University of Cambridge is well known for her involvement with the Channel 4 programme Time Team (see above), but has also been very much involved with a number of community archaeological projects within the region, and through her links with CAU it is hoped that she might be able to provide advice and information regarding how such works could be set up and organised effectively. This may also provide the opportunity for publicity through television coverage; and
¢ Finds Processing: The archaeological excavations will generate large quantities of ceramic material and fragments of bone, all of which will need to be washed, dried and marked prior to analysis of them being undertaken. Such work can provide an interesting opportunity for members of the public to engage in the archaeological process, without the need for the more physical on-site work to be undertaken. This also avoids health and safety implications of on- site work. Such work is an essential archaeological process, but is one where volunteer labour to is often used, providing an opportunity to see the material culture of an excavation area fresh from its retrieval from the site. Such work would be adequately supervised to ensure finds are Northstowe Planning Applications Page 34 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
being treated appropriately, washed, marked and recorded correctly, with information on the finds being provided by the supervisor. EDUCATION National Curriculum 5.3.4 A number of studies have been undertaken that demonstrate how archaeology and the historic environment can play a part within the National Curriculum, even though archaeology is not a specific taught subject. Information from the archaeological sites could be used as a teaching aid in the following specific taught subject areas, with indications of how this might be achieved:
¢ Geography: As part of archaeological investigation, reporting maps are used, both to indicate the locations of archaeological sites and finds. The historical geographical development of the region has been influenced by numerous factors including topography, underlying geology and the location of water courses. More recent examples of geographical interest include drainage schemes and the airfield;
¢ History: Archaeology has the most obvious relevance to history within the National Curriculum. Northstowe contains archaeological sites of most periods from Mesolithic through to the Second World War and later, providing the basic understanding of the concept of chronology, the past and the present. The National Curriculum includes the study of the Romans and Saxons of which Northstowe contains extensive evidence for settlement and land use. The Medieval origins of the villages, the older surviving buildings, documentary and cartograohic sources could all be used. There are opportunities for learning associated with World War II and the part RAF Oakington played. The National Curriculum teaches children through the study of history to acquire and apply knowledge, skills and understanding in five main areas, for each of which the archaeological and historic environment of Northstowe will provide the following applicable examples: – chronological understanding; – knowledge and understanding of events, people and changes in the past; – historical interpretation; – historical enquiry; and – organisation and communication;
¢ Literacy: The archaeological and historical remains at Northstowe could be used to inspire creative thinking, storytelling, writing or poetry;
¢ Numeracy: Quantities and measurements are an integral part of archaeological investigations and recording and data could be used to provide practical examples for questions and problem solving;
¢ PSHE/Citizenship: There are opportunities regarding how the historical development of Northstowe has influenced the existing local communities, or how past societies have had had influences on modern society;
¢ RE: The possible Roman Shrine at Site XIX may offer opportunities for investigating the religions and beliefs of the Romans; and
¢ Science: Artefacts recovered from the investigations could be used to demonstrate the difference in materials used, and how technological advances have influenced the materials being used over time. Information could also be used regarding the chemical processes that
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 35 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
affect the survival of artefacts of different materials and how science plays a part in their conservation. 5.3.5 The above provides a few examples of how the archaeology of Northstowe could be practically applied to assist in the teaching of the above subjects. Numerous other applicable examples exist. Teaching materials could be prepared for local schools (both the existing and proposed) to fit in with the National Curriculum teaching, which provide practical examples from the archaeological investigations. Such information could be made available through the creation of a web site on the archaeological works or the preparation of specific publications on the results of the works directed at school children, through site visits during fieldwork and school visits. Higher Education 5.3.6 The archaeological investigations at Northstowe are likely to be undertaken by Cambridge Archaeological Unit, which is part of the University of Cambridge. 5.3.7 Dependant upon correct permissions and health and safety procedures being in place it is possible that the archaeological excavations could provide an opportunity for a training excavation for archaeological students, undertaken as part of their undergraduate degree. This would most easily be provided for students of the University of Cambridge, although opportunities for students from other University courses may also be available, for example the University of Leicester, to whom two members of the Academic Advisory Committee belong. 5.3.8 The results of the fieldwork would provide material that could be used for dissertation material or practical projects as parts of course modules (both for undergraduate and post- graduate study). 5.3.9 Artefactual, environmental and other information generated by the archaeological investigations will provide opportunities for PhD research, which are likely to be identified by members of the Academic Advisory Committee. Such research would be over and above the level of analysis that will be undertaken as part of the post-excavation programme for the Northstowe archaeological investigations, and would be funded from external sources. 5.3.10 The final publications on the archaeological results will provide a permanent source of information on the investigations that will be available to students. During the fieldwork and analysis stage there will also be opportunities for lectures and talks to be given to various Universities (including Cambridge and Leicester). COM M UNITY PROJECTS 5.3.11 Northstowe has the opportunity to facilitate community run projects that are outside of the scope of the development programme, but would add to the archaeological and historical knowledge of the area. Field Walking 5.3.12 Northstowe, and the highways network are surrounded by a number of arable fields that would be suitable for fieldwalking at certain times of the year, following ploughing and a short period of weathering. Fieldwalking involves the systematic walking across grids laid out across fields and archaeological artefacts picked up and the locations logged from the ploughed surface. The plotting of the finds locations can indicate the location of archaeological sites through concentrations of finds types. A number of earlier prehistoric sites in the Off-Site Infrastructure Area were discovered through fieldwalking programmes, and in such cases concentrations of surface finds are often the only evidence surviving of activity in the area. 5.3.13 By encouraging local groups (such as the extant Longstanton and Oakington Historical Societies) to carry out fieldwalking, with initial training, supervision and finds identification, it should increase our knowledge of the distribution of archaeological sites beyond Northstowe, adding to
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 36 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
the already significant area that has been subject to fieldwork. Local fieldwalking groups have been successfully set up in a number of areas across the UK. 5.3.14 Northstowe would be able to facilitate such a project by small investments in equipment for fieldwalking (markers, tapes, plastic finds bags) and a budget for initial training and supervision. Oral History Project 5.3.15 As an addition to the Built Heritage Strategy outlined above, the development of an Oral History project documenting people’s memories of RAF Oakington and Oakington Barracks should be considered. This could be a project undertaken by the Longstanton and Oakington Local History Societies drawing on their existing knowledge of the former military base from its first development through to its closure in 1999. Such a project would be particularly interesting and worthwhile in terms of RAF Oakington in the Second World War and during the Berlin Airlift, as there are fewer and fewer people alive who can remember this time. This would provide the opportunity to document their memories. Northstowe would be able to facilitate such a project by small investments in equipment for recording and a publication budget. Support of the Local History Groups 5.3.16 Both of the above projects are likely to involve the Longstanton and Oakington History Societies. Northstowe has the opportunity to assist these local groups both in terms of providing opportunities to be involved with or learn about the archaeological and historical works being undertaken as part of the development programme, but also in the longer term, perhaps through assisting in the size/membership of the existing societies, or enabling the creation of a new society encompassing both villages and Northstowe. 5.3.17 The development should assist with small investments in developing local society websites or production of newsletters or other publications. There will be opportunities for providing talks and lectures on the sites and findings of the archaeological works. The inclusion of the local societies within the archaeological programme at Northstowe is seen as a major objective of the archaeological works. The preservation of any archaeological site by record has the aim that the results should be available to anyone who has an interest.
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 37 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
6 Conclusions
6.1.1 The Archaeology and Built Heritage Strategy has outlined a number of aims in terms of the future archaeological programme at Northstowe. 6.1.2 The Strategy illustrates how this programme will address national, regional and local planning policy, in particular how the Strategy meets the objectives of the NAAP. 6.1.3 For the investigation of buried archaeological remains the Strategy outlines which sites are being considered appropriate for preservation and how this will be achieved, including an indication of what works can and cannot be undertaken. 6.1.4 The Strategy demonstrates how the significance of archaeological sites is determined and how this will inform the excavation methodology that will be assigned to each site to provide the most appropriate level of preservation by record. 6.1.5 The methodology of excavation for the buried archaeological remains will also be based on an overall set of archaeological research objectives that will provide a framework for both on-site excavation and post-excavation analysis. The research objectives are likely to alter and adapt over the course of archaeological excavations at Northstowe, being informed by the results of previous stages of excavation, to avoid repetition of information and ensure that time and resources are focussed on the most appropriate areas of research. The research strategy has been prepared by CAU, one of the most respected archaeological bodies of the region. 6.1.6 The Strategy states that an Academic Advisory Committee will be established containing a number of noted academics that can each provide comments and guidance in terms of the archaeological excavation methodology and advise on the development of the research objectives. Their input will provide archaeological credibility for the strategy. The Committee will proof read and provide comment on publications documenting the results of the archaeological investigations. 6.1.7 The Built Heritage Strategy outlined will be delivered to ensure that the built heritage of the area is dealt with appropriately. In terms of the adjacent Conservation Areas and surrounding Listed Buildings, this is further discussed in the Landscape Strategy. 6.1.8 For RAF Oakington/Oakington Barracks, much of the required historic building recording has been completed, with the remaining works programmed in the near future. There are considered to be no structures of Listable quality within Northstowe, although The Officers’ Mess and the ‘Oakington’ type pillboxes are highlighted as being of the most significance. At this stage The Officers’ Mess and a number of the pillboxes are being considered for retention in situ. 6.1.9 The Strategy also provides a number of ways in which the on-going archaeological and historical investigations can involve the community, both those of the existing villages and future residents of the new town. The Strategy stresses that the dissemination of results to as wide an audience as possible should be carried out, through publications, displays, web-based material and talks/lectures. Where possible the involvement of the community in the on-site archaeological investigations should also be considered through site tours and open days, excavation opportunities and with finds processing. 6.1.10 The results of the archaeological works will also provide considerable opportunities in terms of education, both for school children and also Higher Education students. The Strategy outlines a number of ways in which the archaeology and history of the Northstowe area can be used to provide local examples for National Curriculum subjects.
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 38 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
6.1.11 The Community Involvement section also proposes a number of ways in which the development could be used to facilitate archaeological and historical projects that would be complimentary to the investigations being undertaken as part of Northstowe. 6.1.12 The overall aim of all of the archaeological and historical investigations at Northstowe is to provide detailed information regarding all aspects of the historic environment across Northstowe. This information should be made available to as wide an audience as possible, and not be aimed only at academics or other archaeologists, but should target interested parties of all ages. 6.1.13 An archive of all information, finds and data collected from the archaeological and historical excavations will be collated and prepared to an acceptable standard and deposited in the Cambridgeshire Archaeological Store (maintained as a repository for archaeological archives by Cambridgeshire County Council) for permanent storage. The Cambridgeshire Archaeological Store is a publicly accessible facility, such that the archive can be consulted by researchers whilst being maintained for future generations.
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 39 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 40 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
References
Appleby, G., 2007, Longstanton New Settlement, Cambridgeshire Archaeological Desktop Assessment,: Fieldwork Addendum. Cambridge Archaeological Unit (CAU) report No. 782 Barton, C. and Thorpe, R. 2005. Land at Coles Lane, Oakington, Cambridgeshire. Post Excavation Assessment & Updated Project Design for Analysis & Publication. Wessex Archaeology Report 58720.03 Barton, C. and Thorpe, R. 2006. Excavation at Coles Lane, Oakington, Cambridgeshire. Wessex Archaeology Report 58720.04 Batt, A., 2003. Land at Coles Lane, Oakington, Cambridgeshire. Archaeological Evaluation Report. Wessex Archaeology Report 53735 Culter, R. and Duncan, M. 2003. Land west of Longstanton: Residential Development, Phase 2 and Bypass route (southern extent). Archaeological evaluation 2003. Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit Report Evans, C. and Dickens, A., 2002. Longstanton New Settlement, Cambridgeshire: Archaeological Desktop Assessment. Cambridge Archaeological Unit (CAU) report No. 489 Evans, C. and Dickens, A., 2003. Longstanton New Settlement, Cambridgeshire: Revised Archaeological Desktop Assessment. Cambridge Archaeological Unit (CAU) No. 489 (revised) Evans, C. and Mackay, D. 2004. Longstanton, Cambridgeshire. A Village Hinterland. CAU Report No. 696 Evans, C., Mackay, D. and Appleby, G., 2006. Longstanton, Cambridgeshire. A Village Hinterland (II). CAU Report No. 696 Evans, C., Mackay, D. and Appleby, G., 2007. Longstanton, Cambridgeshire. A Village Hinterland (III). CAU Report No. 755 Francis, P., 2005. RAF Oakington: An Operational History & Gazetteer of Surviving Structures, ARP Report January 2005 Johnson, A. E., 2004. Longstanton, Cambridgeshire: Magnetometer (Gradiometer) Survey. Oxford Archaeotechnics Survey Ref. 2900404/LOC/CAU. Oxford Archaeotechnics (OA) Johnson, A. E. 2004. Oakington Airfield, Cambridgeshire: Magnetometer (Gradiometer) Survey. OA Survey Ref. 2920604/OAC/JJG Johnson, A. E. 2005. Northstowe, Longstanton, Cambridge: Topsoil Magnetic Susceptibility and Magnetometer (Gradiometer) Survey. OA Survey Ref: 3030905/LOC/CAU Johnson, A. E. 2006. Oakington Airfield, Cambridgeshire: Magnetometer (Gradiometer) Survey. OA Survey Ref. 3051205/OAC/JJG & 3060106/OAC/JJG Johnson, A. E. 2006. Cambridge Golf Course and Land North of Rampton Road, Longstanton,: Magnetometer (Gradiometer) Survey. OA Survey Ref: 3090406/LGC/JJG Johnson, A. E. 2007. Oakington Airfield, Cambridgeshire Additional Survey Work 2007: Magnetometer (Gradiometer) Survey. OA Survey Ref. 3130507/LGC/WSP Mackay, D., 2007. Northstowe, Longstanton, Cambridgeshire: An Archaeological Watching Brief. CAU Report No. 781 Taylor, A., Duhig, C. and Hines, J. 1998. ‘An Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Oakington, Cambridgeshire’ in Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society 86: 57-90 Northstowe Planning Applications Page 41 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
Northstowe Planning Applications Page 42 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
Appendix A Archaeological Site Gazetteer
NORTH OF RAM PTON ROAD
¢ Site III: Site III is located within the western part of Cambridge Golf Course and Driving Range. It is an ambiguous prehistoric 'ring-ditch', possibly a Bronze Age ritual monument or later Iron Age compound (TL 4001 6690). The outline of the ‘circle’ can just be distinguished on a geophysical plot, although, its register cannot be said to be definite. The area is extensively disturbed by golf course features. The adjacent, putative ‘early’ cropmark fieldsystem setting at this point9 is probably only the by-product of ridge-and-furrow agriculture10.
¢ Site IV: The site is located on the western side of the Cambridge Golf Course and Driving Range. Trial trenching (centred TL 401 667) revealed an undated segmented ditch, with a relatively pale fill, dissimilar to an adjacent Roman feature, but comparable to other segmented ditches dated to the Iron Age. Environmental evidence from this feature indicates seasonal waterlogging, and possibly indicating an earlier date for the ditch11. Other geophysical survey data revealed the presence of a large pit12. These features may relate to the Iron Age settlement activity at the nearby Site VI.
¢ Site VI: This site is located in the south-western corner of the area, adjacent to Rampton Road. This site is a relatively small Iron Age farmstead (TL 402 667) with 'square' enclosure and a pair of parallel, northwest-southeast oriented ditches associated along the settlement’s south- eastern edge. Settlement activity appeared to be discreet, neither extending beyond the parallel ditches, towards Site IV, or towards the area of intense settlement related activity located to the north (Site XIX). A possible relic Saxo-Norman ditch, later ridge-and-furrow and undated quarry pits were also identified during investigations of the site13.
¢ Site VII: Site VII is located on the eastern side of the market garden area. Geophysical survey and trial trenching revealed a Middle/Late Iron Age enclosure (TL 405 670), contemporary to Site VIII. Located on a distinct change in the local geology, this may indicate an intention to exploit the lighter, easily tilled gravel soils to the west for crops, and the heavier, nutrient- holding clays to the east for pasture14. A possible Saxo-Norman fieldsystem was also identified during excavation.
¢ Site VIII: Site VIII is located to the north of Brookfield Farm. This site is a small Middle/later Iron Age enclosure (TL 408 671) investigated at the same time as Site VII. Possibly stock- related and contemporary (but subsidiary to Site VII), laying on clay geology, few archaeological artefacts or finds were recovered suggesting a paucity of direct settlement activity15.
¢ Site IX: The site is located within the southern part of the market garden, directly to the north of Rampton Road. Settlement features have been identified, including an ovoid enclosure, identifiable on both geophysical and aerial photographic surveys (TL 404 669), assigned to the Iron Age on the basis of their morphology16. This site is within and investigated as part of the Site XIX investigations.
¢ Site X: Site X is located within the Cambridge Golf Course. Settlement features have been identified, including a large rectangular enclosure, clearly identifiable on both geophysical and
9 Evans & Mackay 2004 10 Oxford Archaeotechnics 2006b 11 Evans & Mackay 2004: 147 12 Oxford Archaeotechnics 2006b 13 Evans & Mackay 2004: 131-148 14 Evans & Mackay 2004: 128 15 Evans & Mackay 2004: 129 16 Evans & Mackay 2004: 185 Northstowe Planning Applications Page 43 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
aerial photographic surveys (TL 404 672), assigned to the Iron Age on the basis of their morphology17. This site is within and investigated as part of the Site XIX investigations.
¢ Site XI: Site XI is located in the north-western part of the Cambridge Golf Course and Driving Range. A series of linear anomalies registered within the area of the windmill mound-sealed Iron Age settlement were first identified along the western side of the archaeological zone in 199118 (centred TL 408 664) and subsequently assigned as Site XI. Originally, only distinguished south of the trackway, geophysical survey showed that it extended upwards of 60m north of this boundary. Although certainty is not possible, the indications are that a sub- rectangular ‘enclosure’, c. 35 x 100m is identifiable. As attested to by the irregularity of its perimeter, this probably consists of a series of conjoining ‘cells’ and it is possible that another such ‘unit’ conjoins with its eastern side19. The surveys also detected two sub-square/- trapezoidal settings immediately south of the main site. Thought possibly to be some manner of ‘regularisation’ of a ‘palaeochannel-type’ feature, these can only be considered of ambiguous status.
¢ Site XIX: The southern part of this site lies within the market garden and the northern part extends into the Cambridge Golf Course and Driving Range. The site includes what are probably two Iron Age enclosures within its bounds (Sites IX and X discussed above). This large Roman settlement complex (centred TL 408 664) had been distinguished through aerial photography and was first tested through limited trial trenching in 199120. A Luftwaffe aerial photograph of the area details cropmarks within the southern section of this site. A single trench was excavated in 2004 along the western edge of the golf course to investigate the site’s archaeology21. In 2005, further trial trenching was undertaken to further test this complex22 and in 2006 a geophysical survey confirmed and extended the extent of the settlement, detailing the arrangement of the interconnecting paddocks along the settlement’s western side and further defining the site’s eastern half, effectively, doubling the size of the settlement to over 8.4ha. The fact that the main bulk of the site extended much further east than was apparent from its aerial photographic register was evident in the original 1991 trial trenching. Nevertheless, at that time the main focus of its layout then seemed to be the very regular, straight, multiple-ditch boundary that framed its western edge (and returned eastward along its northern side). However, the geophysical plot entirely recasts its arrangement. It is clear that the large approximately 20m wide, ditch-flanked drove road was evident on aerial photographic plots, actually continues northward through the settlement. Essentially, it was symmetrically arranged on either side of this route. Continuing for approximately 100m beyond this road. The eastern edge of the settlement appears to quite tightly follow the edge of the clay/gravel divide and the edge of the terrace. The layout of the site is fan-like, with the arrangement of its paddocks only being ‘straight’ (vs. quasi-radial) across its central portion. The settlement’s main axis suggests that in the western half, there is a central, ditch-defined, rectangular ‘block’, on either side of which the boundaries appear to splay. In the south, the main area of settlement within the western half appears to end in a double-ditch boundary as in the north, with features continuing beyond the investigated area. This western rectangular ‘core’ would seem to be mirrored in the arrangement of the eastern half, at which point the central roadway is also double-ditched. No paddocks appear to extend north of the eastern ‘core-zone’, whereas, to the south, they continue in a more quasi-radial fashion. This outlines only the most basic principles of the settlement’s complex layout, for which an element of phased development/expansion is suggested by a north-south ditch which runs through the central and northern swathe of its western half, possibly indicating the settlement’s original linear organisation. While the
17 Evans & Mackay 2004: 185 18 Evans 1991 19 Oxford Archaeotechnics 2006b 20 Evans 1991 21 Evans & Mackay 2004: 115-129 22 Evans et al. 2006: 178-87 Northstowe Planning Applications Page 44 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
settlement was clearly very dense and may have had relatively high population levels, it has not thus far produced any indicators of particularly high status. It was probably a quasi-nucleated farming ‘village’, but which also likely to have included both industrial and ritual activity (the location of a possible small shrine in its southern end being suggested by metal-detector finds23. Finally, though the double-/triple-ditch boundary that appears to border the western side of this complex does appear to extend southwards, based on geophysical survey, the settlement does not continue much beyond its known western extent.
¢ Site XXXVII: The site is located within Cambridge Golf Course and Driving Range (centred TL 397 673) and has been confirmed by geophysical survey and limited trenching in 1991 (and also archaeological watching brief monitoring in 1992). This indicated that the site consisted of a relatively dense series of sub-rectangular enclosures, two of which show evidence of having distinctly round corners24. These appear to fall on two separate orientations, which is suggestive of degree of phased-realignment. However, given their layout as a whole, and also what is known of the archaeology in this area, these are all probably of Romano-British attribution. The density and ‘character’ of this system would seem indicative of settlement per se. It is noted that features probably relating to this same settlement also occurred within the southern end of the Striplands Farm excavations25.
¢ Site XXXVIII: Site XXXVIII is located on the eastern part of the Cambridge Golf Course and is located on the Ampthill clay plain (centred TL 405 674), 150m northeast of the main Site XIX complex. The site was discovered during the 2006 geophysical survey programme. Its plan morphology suggests this to be of Middle/later Iron Age date and essentially consists of two components: – A ‘keyhole-shaped’ enclosure (20-25 x 40m, with the line of a double-ditch droveway/’corridor’ running off of its north-eastern perimeter) that conjoins with a large and more irregular field/enclosure system on its north-western side with what is probably an approximately 12m diameter roundhouse within the latter; – Approximately 80m southwest of the ‘keyhole-shaped’ enclosure, a roughly parallel pair of boundary ditches running sinuously, 20-30m apart. Continuing for at least 120m (and possibly a further 50m north-westward), at it eastern end, this crosses over what appears to be a ‘banjo-type’ setting. The latter consisting of an approximately 7-8m wide ‘corridor’ linked to an approximately 14m diameter ‘circle’. This may represent a large/‘elaborated’ roundhouse. At the north-western end of this larger setting, a further ditch-defined ‘corridor’ of similar size also crosses the main boundary ditches. However, at that point the main ditch-line is wider and more ‘square’ in its arrangement. This may also represent a settlement enclosure26.
¢ Site XXXIX: This site is located in the extreme north of this area, to the north of Cambridge Golf Club and Driving Range (centred TL 401 677). Geophysical surveys distinguished an area of strong anomalies that possibly includes substantial burnt features27. Although localised, these anomalies display remarkable similarity to the recovery of a large, late Bronze Age pit, possibly a pit-well, during the course of the 2004 trenching programme nearby28. Equally, these may interrelate with the recovery of a very large pit cluster, also seemingly of this same attribution, during the course of the Cambridge Guided Busway (CGB) fieldwork and occurring immediately to the northeast29;30. However, in this case, trial trenching over the main geophysical anomaly
23 Evans & Mackay 2004: fig. 42, 123 & 129 24 Evans 1991 25 Patten & Evans 2005 26 Evans et al. 2007: 15 27 Oxford Archaeotechnics 2006b 28 Evans & Mackay 2004: 94 29 Cessford & Mackay 2004: 19, 23 30 Mackay et al. forthcoming Northstowe Planning Applications Page 45 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
failed to reveal any ‘early’ archaeology. The designation of this site can be removed, but is included for completeness. OAKINGTON BARRACKS ¢ Site XV: This site to the east of Oakington Barracks (centred TL 408 664) was identified during magnetometer surveys as a Later Iron Age compound with bi-vallate enclosure, overlain by settlement related features probably associated with Site XVIII. Lying partially under the compound of Oakington Immigration Reception Centre, the geophysical survey suggested that more than one ditch was defining the main enclosure and that possible faint parallels lay further out, both of which excavation demonstrated. The curved nature of the enclosure initially suggested an Iron Age date and both Late Iron Age and Early Roman pottery within it may point towards an Iron Age origin, with its re-cut containing only Roman pot. However, many other features were also exposed within this trench and all but one seemed to be of Roman date (2nd-3rd centuries). It would therefore, seem to mark a dense settlement of that period and which was probably continuous with Site XVIII to the east31. ¢ Site XVIII: This site is located in the northern half of Oakington Airfield, (centred TL 408 664). The south-eastern paddock system of this site complex (trench-investigated in 200532), appears to have a major/straight northeast-southwest oriented ditch boundary ‘framing’ its western side, 20- 30m inside the former airfield’s perimeter track (Zone A33). West of this, there is an approximately 20m wide linear ‘clear zone’ that may define a northeast-southwest roadway. Superficially, the rectilinear paddock-system that flanks the western side of this route (and which continues across beyond the perimeter track) seems somewhat more geometrically regular and ‘sharp’. This system appears to continue for some 290m northward. The rectangular paddocks which defines its northern side and which the surveys suggest included a masonry building34 (this correlating with the Roman building materials recovered nearby in the 2005 evaluation35): seem themselves to border approximately 10m wide, northwest-southeast oriented road. It is important to note that the evidence of this route (i.e. ditch-flanking) stops along the western side of this enclosure system. This straight-ditched ‘system-side’ corresponds both north and south of this road and suggests a real ‘end’ to the enclosure complex/settlement on that side. Based on the evidence, this settlement could be seen as having a crossroads pattern which is the meeting of the northeast-southwest road separating zones crossing the northwest-southeast route progressing through the northern end of Zone B36. Yet, before ‘stamping’ this interpretation, we first need to outline the northern component of the larger settlement, Zone C (ibid.). The geophysical plots show a distinct ‘ladder- like’ arrangement of paddocks cutting the Iron Age enclosure of Site XXXVI. This was confirmed by evaluation trenching, with results indicating that this (Romano-British) system extends further westward than is indicated on the geophysical plots, representing one large settlement. Although the geophysical plots only definitely show a curvilinear length of ditch within the intervening swathe37, this area is much disturbed. Close inspection of the plots reveal what appears to be discontinuous, rectilinear ditch lengths on the appropriate orientation in that area, with the evidence suggesting this may represent a single settlement complex, covering more than 24ha, (possibly with distinct components/’quarters’). It measures more than three times the area of Site XIX. Its unusual shape, given its great size, may relate to the fact that its form may not have been ‘uniform’, but may have involved multiple foci/functions. Nevertheless, attesting to the overall density of its settlement, more than 950 2nd-4th century Roman sherds (with a tendency towards the 3rd-4th century38) were recovered during the evaluation. Given the scale of this Roman site, it is
31 Evans et al. 2006: 130 32 Evans et al. 2006: fig. 50 33 Evans et al. 2007 34 Oxford Archaeotechnics 2006a 35 Evans et al. 2006: 143-44 36 Evans et al. 2007 37 Oxford Archaeotechnics 2006a 38 Evans et al. 2006: 131 Northstowe Planning Applications Page 46 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
not surprising that the site also encompasses areas of earlier, prehistoric settlement (aside from Iron Age Site XXXVI). Possibly generally correlating with the slightly higher numbers of worked flint found in the fieldwalking39. The recovery of some twenty sherds of later Bronze/Early Iron Age pottery, north of the later main complex, could attest to a locale of activity of that date. ¢ Site XXXII: This site to the east of Rampton Drift (centred TL 407 668) has possible prehistoric (Bronze Age or earlier Iron Age) field boundary ditches and later Medieval and post-Medieval ditches. Investigation of this area was cut short due to discovery of unexploded ordnance during trial trenching40. However, the site is considered to be of low significance and no further investigative works are proposed. ¢ Site XXXVI: This site is located within the northern end of the main Site XVIII complex extending from the very northern end of Oakington Airfield into the area east of the Oakington Barracks area (centred TL 414 666). It is a distinct series of interlinked sub-circular compounds, the largest of these being almost of more sub-square form, 30 x 30m across. This was identified during geophysical surveys of the area41. Of Middle/later Iron Age attribution, this would directly coincide with the material and features of that date recovered during the 2005 evaluation42. The plots also show a distinct/discrete sub-square enclosure (also 30 x 30m in area) lying 20m west of the main site cluster. This could be of Iron Age attribution. ¢ Site XXIV: This site is located within Longstanton Conservation Area, to the west of Oakington Barracks (centred TL 402 663). Magnetometer surveys revealed traces of Medieval and or post- Medieval ridge-and-furrow. A building and associated burning was also identified during the survey. However, this settlement and or ‘activity’ would appear to complement and be contemporary with the ridge-and-furrow and was probably of later Medieval/early post-Medieval attribution43. OAKINGTON AIRFIELD ¢ Site XVI: This site is located to the south of Oakington Airfield (centred TL 408 664). The site features Iron Age 'organic-type'/compound enclosures which were identified during geophysical surveys and a single trench which was excavated across the site in 2005. The trench was sited to investigate a small cluster of adjoining enclosures and thought to be of Iron Age date44. Although located on pasture, there was some restriction on the placing of trenches due to the presence of trees. However, it was possible to test one of the main enclosure ditches, as well as the interior and exterior of the enclosure. At least one ditch of archaeological origin was revealed within the enclosure (although not located by the geophysical survey. A large area of modern disturbance was encountered on the exterior of the enclosure45. During 2006, further trenching south of Site XVI focused on a large, round-corner ditch setting visible on the geophysical surveys (and which seemed to have a ‘ghosted’ parallel boundary on the west of it). Based on its plan-morphology, it was suspected that this would be of Roman attribution. While features of that date were recovered, this main (round-corner) ditch system and most of the discrete features tested, seemed to be of later Bronze/Early Iron Age attribution. ¢ Site XXXIII: Lying immediately south of the Site XVI Iron Age enclosure46 and more generally within an area where wartime photographs suggest the occurrence of possible cropmarks (centred TL 410 650), geophysical survey revealed a large round-corner enclosure with associated linear features and possible pits. The former appear to be of Romano-British ‘type’ (Oxford
39 Evans & Mackay 2004: Part 14 40 Evans et al. 2006: 192 41 Oxford Archaeotechnics 2006a 42 Evans et al. 2006: 137-9,154 43 Evans & Mackay 2004: 89 44 Evans & Mackay 2004: 178 45 Evans et al. 2006: 157 46 Evans et al. 2006: 157-9 Northstowe Planning Applications Page 47 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
Archaeotechnics 2006a: fig. 45). Trial trenching revealed a large, round-corner ditch setting, confirming the geophysical survey results. Based on its plan-morphology, a Roman attribution was suspected. While Roman features were recovered, this main (round-corner) ditch system and most of the discrete features tested appeared to be of later Bronze/Early Iron Age attribution. ¢ Site XXXIV: Site XXXIV located within Oakington Airfield, to the south of Oakington Barracks (TL 408 656) was identified by geophysical survey and shown to consist of approximately 12m diameter ‘ring-ditch’/eaves gully and associated features (some potentially structural). All of these were considered to be of Middle/later Iron Age date. The trenches suggested that this ‘site’ was small and defined within the area trenched. What is particularly noteworthy, given the date of this settlement is that in contrast to those others identified in the course of the larger project, this was apparently ‘open’ and not ditch-enclosed47. ¢ Site XXXV: Site XXXV is located to the south of Longstanton within Oakington Airfield (centred TL 405 657). This site was not identified during the geophysical survey of the area, having shown much disturbed-ground and potentially large amounts of metal scrap. However, during the 2006 evaluation, settlement features, predominantly of the 12th-13th centuries, were encountered in four trenches. These indicated activity from the Saxo-Norman period onwards, including stratified archaeological remains. In addition, the footing of a stone building was identified just below the surface of the topsoil in one which could potentially correspond with the location of the ‘Bishops Palace’ as recorded on earlier Ordnance Survey maps, although it must be noted that the ‘Bishops Palace’ relates to a documentary reference erroneously attributed to Longstanton. It is more probable the stone footing suggests it probably relates to a possible enclosure recorded as standing here during the 19th century48. Adjacent trenches, to the southwest, south, east and northeast, yielded almost no archaeology. OFF SITE INFRASTRUCTURE AREA ¢ Site XII: Clearly identifiable as a number of dense cropmarks (centred on TL 384 642), initial evaluation across Romano-British field boundaries and through the middle of an Iron Age enclosure revealed a moderately expansive Iron Age presence. This was overlain by a rectilinear Romano-British field pattern dating from the Middle to Late Iron Age to the Early Romano-British period, c. 400 BC–120 AD49, bearing characteristics of an Iron Age ‘defended farmstead’50. Crucial to this interpretation is the identification of an earlier ringwork, with an additional exterior circuit with a possible entranceway situated to the northwest. Its inner ditch was substantial, measuring approximately 5.3m in width and 1.7m in depth. It produced pottery from the Middle to Late Iron Age, as well as some 1st century AD Roman sherds, suggesting it was still open at the time of the Roman Conquest. This prime focal point (i.e. the ringwork ‘core’/’circle’) seems to have been appended with later Iron Age enclosures. Evidence of internal occupation is apparent from the identification of probable ‘eaves gullies’ from geophysical survey. Also apparent are ‘organic-plan’ ditched enclosures spreading north and northeast, possibly containing further eaves gullies. The settlement appears ‘unbalanced’, with the focal point offset from the main settlement axis, possibly due to a second possible focus to the north of the site where a pair of enclosure ditches is tentatively postulated. The cropmark and geophysical results indicate a western extension of settlement enclosures beneath the modern roadway, so perhaps an original ‘balanced’ enclosure system was ‘corrupted’ by an additional enclosure to the north, thus creating a north-south settlement axis rather than the original northeast to southwest axis. Preliminary dating of the eastern ditches to the Late Iron Age and lack of further occupation evidence provides a ‘hard- edge’. Excavation in the adjacent field in 2006 confirmed the eastern limit of the site51. A major
47 Evans et al. 2007. 72 48 Evans et al. 2007: 87 49 Evans & Mackay 2004 50 Evans 2003 51 Evans et al. 2007 Northstowe Planning Applications Page 48 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
settlement re-structuring immediately after the Roman Conquest is unlikely as the large boundary ditches appear not to have been deliberately backfilled. Good stratification of finds possibly highlights continuity between the Late Iron Age and early Romano-British periods, albeit at a somewhat impoverished level, which was abruptly brought to a close when a system of ditches forming a rectilinear pattern was superimposed over the Iron Age settlement. This seems to have occurred by the early 2nd century AD, with any settlement per se in the immediate vicinity being modest. There is little evidence for activity after the 3rd century AD as the majority of pottery assemblages from features date from the 2nd to 3rd centuries AD and a general settlement redundancy by the end of the 3rd century can be assumed. However, evidence of the establishment of a late farmstead upon the earlier system is inferred from a large assemblage of later Romano-British pottery, of the 3rd to 4th centuries AD, and two parallel ditches on a slightly different alignment to earlier Romano-British boundaries. ¢ Site XIII: Evaluation trenching revealed a moderate concentration of features (centred on TL 384 642). The majority of these belong to the Middle to Late Iron Age and Early Roman periods, with the remainder Medieval and post-Medieval ridge-and-furrow. The Iron Age features consisted of a series of linear features, possibly forming settlement or livestock enclosures52. Further excavation immediately to the east of the site revealed no further archaeological features53. ¢ Site XIV: Initially this site was identified from aerial photographic as a Middle to later Iron Age 'organic-type' compound (TL 384 642). This was based on comparable forms known from elsewhere54. Excavation revealed several features containing material attributable to the Iron Age. Although the site assemblages were by no means prolific, and nor can its function yet be ascribed with certainty, sufficient finds were recovered to suggest permanent occupation. The investigation of the site also established the absence of archaeological features to the east of a clear headland, which bisected the site on a northeast-to-southwest alignment and marked a clear transition between the gravels to the west and heavier clay soils immediately to the east55. ¢ Site XXV: Prehistoric field boundary and postholes (TL 394 647) possibly Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age were identified during the 2005 evaluation (geophysical survey did not identify this site56. The boundary is on the same alignment as the headland that bisects both here in a northeast-southwest direction. The boundary ditch may denote a re-organisation and division of the landscape, but the absence of any clearly associated settlement evidence or activity could suggest areas of higher ground (dominated by clay soils) were principally used for pasture, with possible seasonal occupation. Other trenches were located nearby to try and find continuations of these field boundaries, although no such features were revealed, possibly due to truncation from later airfield activity, or else it is possible they may represent a dispersed boundary system, with discontinuous boundaries57. ¢ Site XXVI: A field- or paddock system was discovered during the 2005 evaluation (centred TL 391 635) and straddling the line of the Slate Farm trackway. The size of the site is not remarkable. The ditches are laid-out on a northwest-southeast orientation, similar to the layout of the ‘villa’ at Site XXVII, although due to the quantity of predominantly Roman pottery recovered from one of the field boundaries, it may suggest another settlement lies closer, although outside of Northstowe, and probably located immediately northeast of the roadside corridor on the slope below/beneath Slate Hall Farm58. The site is considered to be of low archaeological significance. ¢ Site XXVII: Initially identified as a probable building during trial trenching, a large courtyard building (TL 394 634) was confirmed by a subsequent geophysical survey. The site was not
52 Evans & Mackay 2004 53 Evans et al. 2006: 35 54 Evans & Mackay 2004: 128 55 Evans et al. 2006: 34 56 Evans et al. 2006 57 Evans et al. 2006: 34 58 Evans et al. 2006: 86 Northstowe Planning Applications Page 49 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
visible on aerial photographs of the area. Localised to the northwest corner of the field, its complex of features proved prolific in the finds. These included: – In excess of 1,160 sherds of Roman pottery; – 115 identifiable animal bones; – building material (tegulae [roof-]; – floor-, tubulae- [box-flue]; and pedilis [pier-] tiles; – 16 coins; – two bronze bracelets (with another in shale); – a probable iron stylus; – a fragment of a copper alloy vessel; – a decorative mount fitting (possible horse harness); – a complete hipposandal; The building material and floor attested to a hypocaust heating system. The latter two are extraordinary finds, with the ‘sandal’ being a temporary iron shoe for horses. The site’s assemblages include a great quantity of ‘special’ material. In all likelihood, based on its plan, the site probably relates to a major villa, civic or mansio complex. This association is based on the courtyard-like setting of the probable building(s) in its south-western corner. The sheer size of the structures is important, as each of its ‘wings’ would be comparable to the entire area of other recorded Roman villas in the region, such as that of King’s Hedges Arbury villa. However, the wings of the building would be atypically ‘long’ and are rounded, suggesting apsidal ends. This may be an associated bathhouse, although the lack of sunken floor structures could argue against this, with the main residential quarters possessing a series of connecting corridors and possibly a staircase. The complex dates from the 2nd-4th centuries AD. Whilst a minor 1st century presence is attested to by one vessel alone and the recovery of both Colchester Derivative and dolphin-style brooches, no Iron Age pottery was recovered from this area. Given its tentative villa and/or ‘official’ status, this site appears to have been a ‘new’ Roman foundation. ¢ Site XXVIII: Identified as a potential Mesolithic flintworking site (TL 400 637) and possible later Iron Age and Romano-British 'outfields' associated with Site XXIX, fieldwalking and ‘targeted’ excavation demonstrated the archaeological remains fell into two distinct categories: a flint scatter occurring in both the topsoil and subsoil and sub-surface features. Both categories proved to be relatively sparse. Bucket-sampling and targeted hand-excavation demonstrated that the numbers of worked flint were low, although two Mesolithic bifaces and an axe and probable pick were identified. No particular concentrations of flint were identified, although the north-western part of the site yielded more than the south-eastern half. In contrast to this, all but one archaeological feature occurred in the south-western area. The one exception may have been of post-Medieval date. The recovery of a relatively large quantity of flint reinforces the earlier interpretation that an important Mesolithic activity zone is located here. As such, the relationship and distribution of Mesolithic activity attests to the importance of the slightly higher ground (with lighter greensand geology), beside minor rivers and watercourse, in this area of ‘heavy landscape’59, and links Site XXVIII to Site I, just to the north of Slate Hall Farm. Similarly, the recovery of Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age flints during fieldwalking and excavation, possibly associated with the Bronze Age pits at Site XXX, further highlights the transitory nature of these sites, with peripatetic populations moving through the landscape making expedient use of local resources.
59 Evans et al. 2006: 86 Northstowe Planning Applications Page 50 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
¢ Site XXIX: Four trial trenches (centred TL 402 636) revealed several settlement-related features, including six large enclosure ditches, dated to the Middle Iron Age. Examination of aerial photographs suggest the presence of a network of curvilinear cropmarks in the field immediately south of Dry Drayton Road and which suggest that the core of a larger settlement complex extends in a southerly direction. Excavation at Site XXIX also demonstrated the site did not extend either to the north, up to and beyond Oakington Brook, or towards the southwest60. ¢ Site XXX: Trial trenches excavated as part of the 2005 fieldwork programme revealed three Bronze Age pits (TL 401 641). Although of small size, the date and nature of this evidence and activity is considered sufficiently important for this area to be designated a separate site61, however it is likely that all features associated with the site have already been investigated and no further investigative work is considered to be required. ¢ Site XXXI: Dispersed settlement features, either Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age or possibly Middle Iron Age in date were identified during the 2005 fieldwork programme (TL 390 655). Five trenches revealed seven archaeological features, none yielded datable artefacts. The nature of the fills and orientation of the ditches suggest these are prehistoric, possibly dating to the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age. Designated as relating to Site XXXI, they actually should be considered as being associated with the ‘open settlement-type’ features to the northeast, towards Site XIV; however, this interrelationship is yet to be proven62. OUTSIDE OF NORTHSTOW E DEVELOPM ENT AREA 6.1.14 The following sites do not lie within the Northstowe application area. The sites are included within this document to provide further information regarding the archaeological setting of the sites within Northstowe. ¢ Site I: Mesolithic flint scatter was identified during fieldwalking in 1989 by Cotswold Archaeology (centred TL 391 636) in the area of Slate Hall Farm across the Greensand and clays south of the Core area and bordering (and including portions of) the A14 and B1050 road corridor 63;64. ¢ Site II: This is a site of two probable Bronze Age ring-ditches and traces of a probable fieldsystem (TL 417 649) on the terrace gravels on the north side of Oakington65. ¢ Site V: Excavation (TL 393 673) revealed remains dating from the Late Bronze Age to Saxo- Norman periods. Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age pits and wells were investigated, the latter containing worked and unworked wood, including two axe hafts, the remains of five log ladders and timber wattling. Posthole clusters were recorded, amongst which were identified a four-poster structure and a roundhouse. A few short linear features were also dated to this period, suggested to be part of a Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age fieldsystem. Lithics also provided evidence for a Neolithic/Early Bronze Age presence. Narrow Roman enclosures were recorded, with evidence for internal linear divisions and there was localised clay extraction in the corner of one enclosure. The southern area was dominated by Saxo-Norman remains, consisting of quarry pits and successive boundary ditches (containing large quantities of pottery and animal bone) suggestive of settlement ‘back-plot activity’. A large Saxo-Norman pit-well contained three animal skulls and wattle revetments. Archaeological finds recovered from the backfilled well during excavation included wooden objects, variously a wheel felloe, a card-side rail top and an animal yoke, were discarded into it66. A further small excavation focused upon a Bronze Age pit-well discovered during
60 Evans et al. 2006: 77 61 Evans et al. 2006: 54 62 Evans et al. 2006: 34 63 COT 1990 64 Gerrard 1989 65 Evans & Mackay 2004: 184 66 Patten & Evans 2005 Northstowe Planning Applications Page 51 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
previous excavation work67. This programme of excavation revealed a large well containing large quantities of preserved wood, log ladders, animal bone and a substantial number of Late Bronze Age pottery sherds (2244)68. A further nineteen features were also uncovered, comprising fourteen smaller pits and postholes, and five linear features. The linear features were on the same alignment of the known Romano-British field-system previously investigated in this area and yielded only small amounts of pot, bone, flint and burnt stone, most of which was probably residual. The pits and postholes may have been broadly contemporary with the well, many yielding similar finds and a small assemblage of comparable pottery. Although the postholes were not obviously structural, two separate pairs of postholes may have indicated small four-post structures, with the remaining posts no longer existing or obscured69. ¢ Site XVII: Identified from a cropmark east of the former railway line (TL 408 664), this site shows one, possibly two, enclosures of probable Iron Age date. This attribution is, essentially, based on morphological similarities with other known sites within the Longstanton area, such as Site XIV, and others known from elsewhere70. In the absence of further data or excavation, this inference remains tentative. ¢ Site XX: First observed as a series of dense cropmarks on aerial photographs (TL 408 664), fieldwalking and trial trenching identified residual Late Mesolithic/earlier Neolithic activity, Late Bronze Age/Early Iron field boundaries and a possible Iron Age compound. Romano-British settlement activity spanned at least three phases, from the 2nd to 4th centuries AD, and included two distinct groups of paddocks and enclosures, structural evidence and a corn-dryer. Finds included 476 sherds of Roman pottery (and included Samian, Nene Valley, Oxford and Hadham wares) and a 1st-2nd century trumpet brooch. Anglo-Saxon activity was also recorded during fieldwalking and metal-detecting surveys, although no settlement evidence was recovered71. Later Medieval and post-Medieval ridge-and-furrow were also identified at this site. ¢ Site XXI: Excavation at Home Farm across a series of dense cropmarks (centred TL 408 6640) revealed Saxon features and a possible Grubenhaus72. Pottery recovered from these features included Early to Middle Saxon Maxey and Ipswich wares73. Later Medieval and post- Medieval ridge-and-furrow were also identified at this site. ¢ Site XXII: Evaluation of the southern crop of cropmarks (TL 408 664) revealed possible Saxo- Norman enclosure features representing two phases of activity. Their scale suggests significant boundaries during the early development of Medieval Longstanton74. ¢ Site XXIII: Anglo-Saxon artefacts recorded during fieldwalking, metal-detecting surveys and trial-trenching of discreet group of cropmarks (centred TL 408 664) revealed no settlement evidence, although a number of ditches and gullies producing Saxon (St Neots ware) and Saxo- Norman pottery were recovered. Finds (from metal-detecting) also included a fragment of a 5th century Anglo-Saxon cruciform brooch and an early 8th century Sceatta (penny). Two inhumations were also identified during the evaluation (not excavated)75. Activity at this site may relate to that at Site XX. ¢ Site XL: Evaluation and excavation of site directly to the south of Oakington Airfield by Wessex Archaeology ahead of development revealed numerous features spanning the Late
67 Patten & Evans 2005 68 Bluebell in Mackay & Knight 2007 69 Mackay & Knight 2007 70 Evans et al. 2006: 34 71 Evans & Mackay 2004: 40 72 Grubenhaus: derived from the German for ‘pit / cavity’ and ‘house’, a sunken floored building. The term refers to the common form of Saxon building that is recognisable by its characteristic sunken floor, the purpose of which was either to provide a storage space beneath a suspended floor or provide increased roof height to allow the use of tall looms. 73 Evans & Mackay 2004: 73 74 Evans & Mackay 2004: 84 75 Evans & Mackay 2004: 37 Northstowe Planning Applications Page 52 WSP Environmental December 2007
English Partnerships and Gallagher Longstanton Ltd ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY
Bronze Age to post-Medieval period76. The site revealed a sequence of stock enclosures and associated features dating from the Romano-British to Medieval periods, comprising a sequence of enclosures and associated features, possibly used for woodland and stock management77. ¢ Site XLI: Trial trenching by Birmingham University Field Archaeological Unit (BUFAU) on agricultural land west of Longstanton (and the Northstowe application area) and the site of the proposed southern bypass, revealed a number of Saxon and Medieval features, consisting of field boundaries and ridge and furrow, with Late Saxon features found close to Over Road relating to the former Medieval settlement known to have existed at Green End78. Further fieldwork was undertaken by BUFAU immediately east, beside Over Road. The results of this fieldwork are currently being prepared. ¢ Site XLII: Four evaluation trenches were excavated in advance of the proposed construction of a sports pavilion within Oakington. Archaeological features were identified in all trenches consisting of ditches, postholes, burial soils and burials, primarily dating to the Middle Saxon period. Possible Roman/Early Saxon ditches and 12th century deposits were also identified. An unploughed buried soil or land surface containing Middle Saxon pottery in good condition was also recorded, possibly indicating Middle Saxon settlement in the vicinity. The human remains identified are almost certainly part of the 6th century AD Anglo-Saxon cemetery lying adjacent to the evaluation area, and part excavated in 199479.
76 Batt, 2003 77 Barton & Thorpe 2005, 2006 78 Cutler & Duncan 2003 79 Taylor et al, 1998 Northstowe Planning Applications Page 53 WSP Environmental December 2007