Desk-Based Assessment Report

Home , Burlescombe, River Culm

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

Western Extension of Hillhead Quarry, Uffculme, Devon

Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

by Richard Tabor

Site Code HQU16/46

(ST 0585 1366) Western Extension of Hillhead Quarry, Uffculme, Devon

Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

for Aggregate Industries UK Ltd

㼎㼥㻌㻾㼕㼏㼔㼍㼞㼐㻌㼀㼍㼎㼛㼞㻌

㼀㼔㼍㼙㼑㼟㻌㼂㼍㼘㼘㼑㼥㻌㻭㼞㼏㼔㼍㼑㼛㼘㼛㼓㼕㼏㼍㼘㻌㻿㼑㼞㼢㼕㼏㼑㼟㻌

㻔㻿㼛㼡㼠㼔㻌㼃㼑㼟㼠㻕㻌㻸㼠㼐

Site Code HQU 16/46

March 2016 Summary

Site name: Western Extension of Hillhead Quarry, Uffculme, Devon

Grid reference: ST 0585 1366

Site activity: Archaeological desk-based assessment

Project manager: Steve Ford

Site supervisor: Richard Tabor

Site code: HQU 16/46

Area of site: c. 15.1ha

Summary of results: The assessment found no known heritage assets within the site but there is some evidence for features visible from aerial photography and Lidar hence it may be judged to be of moderate archaeological potential. Mineral extraction is necessarily destructive, therefore it is recommended that a programme of suitable archaeological work be undertaken in advance of extraction to preserve the site’s archaeological resource by record.

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 All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.

Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford 01.04.16 Steve Preston 01.04.16

TVAS (South West),Unit 21, Apple Business Centre, Taunton TA2 6BB Tel. (01823) 288 284; Fax (01823) 272 462; email [email protected]; website : www.tvas.co.uk Western Extension of Hillhead Quarry, Uffculme, Devon Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

by Richard Tabor

Report 16/46 Introduction

This report is an assessment of the archaeological potential of approximately 15.1ha of land located to the north west of Uffculme in Devon (centred on NGR ST 0585 1366; Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Clive

Tompkins of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd, Stoneycombe Quarry, Bickley Road, Kingskerswell, Newton Abbot,

Devon TQ12 5LL, and comprises the first stage of a process to determine the presence/absence, extent, character, quality and date of any archaeological remains which may be affected by the development.

Permission for the western extension of Hillhead Quarry in the area around Houndaller Farm was granted in 1990 and is restated in Devon County Minerals Local Plan (DCC 2004). Under the provisions of the Review of Old Mineral Permissions (ROMP), the Mineral Planning Authority (Devon County Council) requires an

Environmental Impact Assessment in order to update conditions for these old consents. This report forms a contribution to that assessment relating to the effects of the extraction on archaeological and heritage issues.

Site description, location and geology

The site is located c. 1km north west of Uffculme, on the south west fringe of the Blackdown Hills which straddle the border with Somerset (Fig. 1). The site comprises a polygonal block of four contiguous fields, designated as areas 5, 6, 7 and 8. The fields form part of New Houndaller Farm and are within the civil parish of

Burlescombe, although the core village of that name is 3km to the north-east. The east boundaries of Areas 5 and

6 are immediately west of the limit of former quarrying (Fig. 2). In general, the site undulates with a number of small coombes present. It varies in height from c. 126m above Ordnance Datum (aOD) in the north-east of Area

8 to c. 107m aOD in the south west corner of Area 6. The site is centred on NGR ST 0585 1366.

The site lies on sedimentary deposits of Triassic conglomerate Budleigh Salterton Pebble Beds Formation

(BGS 2012). The soil over the greater part of the site is characterized as free-draining, slightly acid loam of low fertility but with naturally high groundwater on the western fringe (NSRI 2016).

The site was visited on 17th March 2016, when all four fields were being grazed by a small herd of cattle, leaving the grass short (Plates 1-8). A dilapidated brick building stood towards the south end on the boundary between areas 7 and 5 (Pl. 4). A gate through a brick and stone wall in the north west corner of Area 7 provided

1 access to New Houndaller farmyard and house (Pl. 5). All the fields were surrounded by well-developed hedges including several established examples of oak. Several of the hedges had formed over stone walls (Pl. 9) but in most places the hedge was too thick to determine whether or not there was an underlying wall. A kink with a gate in the south west corner of Area 7 was on the course of a track shown on the First and Second Edition

Ordnance Survey maps (Pl. 10; figs. 8 and 9).

Planning background and development proposals

Permission for this westward extension of the quarry which is now being re-activated was granted in 1990 (DCC

2004). An Environmental Impact Assessment has been implemented in response to the Minerals Planning

Guidance 14 in the Environment Act 1995: Review of mineral planning permissions (HMSO 1995). This report forms a contribution to that assessment, in order to permit a scheme to be drawn up to mitigate the effect of extraction on the heritage assets of the area, in this case specifically the archaeological resource.

The Department for Communities and Local Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF

2012) sets out the framework within which local planning authorities should consider the importance of conserving, or enhancing, aspects of the historic environment, within the planning process. It requires an applicant for planning consent to provide, as part of any application, sufficient information to enable the local planning authority to assess the significance of any heritage assets that may be affected by the proposal. The

Historic Environment is defined (NPPF 2012, 52) as:

‘All aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through time, including all surviving physical remains of past human activity, whether visible, buried or submerged, and landscaped and planted or managed flora.’ Paragraphs 128 and 129 state that

‘128. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. ‘129. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.’ A ‘heritage asset’ is defined (NPPF 2012, 52) as

2 ‘A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. Heritage asset includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing).’ ‘Designated heritage asset’ includes (NPPF 2012, 51) any

‘World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument, Listed Building, Protected Wreck Site, Registered Park and Garden, Registered Battlefield or Conservation Area designated under the relevant legislation.’

‘Archaeological interest’ is glossed (NPPF 2012, 50) as follows:

‘There will be archaeological interest in a heritage asset if it holds, or potentially may hold, evidence of past human activity worthy of expert investigation at some point. Heritage assets with archaeological interest are the primary source of evidence about the substance and evolution of places, and of the people and cultures that made them.’ Specific guidance on assessing significance and the impact of the proposal is contained in paragraphs 131 to 135:

‘131. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of: the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. ‘132. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. ‘133. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply: the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. ‘134. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. ‘135. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

Paragraph 139 recognizes that new archaeological discoveries may reveal hitherto unsuspected and hence non- designated heritage assets

3 ‘139. Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets.’ Paragraph 141 requires local planning authorities to ensure that any loss of heritage assets advances understanding, but stresses that advancing understanding is not by itself sufficient reason to permit the loss of significance:

‘141. Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development management publicly accessible. They should also require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.’

In determining the potential heritage impact of development proposals, ‘significance’ of an asset is defined

(NPPF 2012, 56) as:

‘The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.’ while ‘setting’ is defined as:

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

In the case of Scheduled Ancient Monuments, the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological

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

Monument requires the Secretary of State’s Consent.

A new Devon Minerals Plan is being developed but at present policies set out in Devon County Minerals Local

Plan (DCC 2004) offer guidance. Policy MP 4, ‘Archaeological Sites’ (DCC 2004, 44) states that for planning to be a granted an application must demonstrate that:

‘Proposals for mineral development will not be permitted where they would harm nationally important archaeological sites (Scheduled Ancient Monuments and unscheduled ones of national importance) and their settings.’

Concerning ‘Listed Buildings’ MP 5 states:

‘Proposals for mineral development which would conflict with the objective to preserve Listed Buildings and their settings will not be permitted.’

And with respect to ‘Historic Parks and Gardens’ MP 6 states:

‘Proposals for mineral development which would harm Historic Gardens and their settings will not be permitted.’

4 In a response to a request from a planning officer as part of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for a

Periodic Review of Mineral Permission (ROMP) Stephen Reed, County Archaeologist, stated that with respect to Hillhead Quarry the EIA should include:

‘An assessment of the impact of the quarry upon any designated heritage assets in the surrounding landscape; ‘A geophysical survey of any undisturbed Greenfield areas that may be subject to development to enable [sic] the potential for these areas to contain heritage assets with archaeological interest and – if required ‘A programme of intrusive archaeological investigation of any anomalies identified by the geophysical survey’ (email: 16th October 2014).’

Methodology

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

Record, geological maps and relevant publications or reports.

Archaeological background

General background

The site is at the boundary of two topographic zones, the high ground of the Blackdown Hills and the valley of the River Culm which issues from them. The Blackdown Hills are known to have been an important source of iron and there have been multi-period research projects relating to its extraction in recent decades (Griffith and

Weddell 1996) but development-led archaeological investigations in the area have been sparse. A survey of possible hilltop enclosures on the Blackdowns found fourteen such sites on the Devon side of the border, the nearest of which formed a group in the area around Hemyock (Chapman 2016). Research into Palaeolithic river deposits has taken place along the Exe and recently there has been limited work along the Culm. Optical

Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating of terrace deposits in the river at Five Fords, north-east of Uffculme and

2.3km east of the site, has yielded a date of approximately 40,000BC and hand axes have been found at

Halberton and Tiverton (Hosfield et al. 2008, 26, 35). A study has shown that there had been some open grassland on the Blackdowns during the Middle Mesolithic and there is evidence of small scale clearance on the hills from the Late Mesolithic onwards (Hosfield et al. 2008, 47).

In general, prehistoric periods are poorly represented on the Blackdowns although there are notable exceptions, most significantly Hembury Hill Early Neolithic causewayed enclosure 12km south east of the site

5 (Liddell 1932). There is a thin scatter of barrows on the Somerset side of the county border (Hosfield et al. 2008, fig. 4.2) but a broad circular mound visible in an air photograph at Culliford Farm, 2km ENE of the site, may have been a geological feature. Samples from peat deposits at four sites north of Honiton found very limited evidence for clearance of the hills during the Neolithic but more widespread deforestation of the plateau during the Bronze Age, possibly linked to undated nearby enclosures and field systems. There is good evidence for arable expansion during the Iron Age but thereafter, until the Medieval period, woodland management may have been a higher priority (Brown et al. 2014).

The area around the site itself was referred to several times in Medieval documents. By the 18th Uffculme was important producer of serge, exporting it to Holland and by the end of the century to the East and West

Indies (Lysons and Lysons 1822).

As already noted, development-led archaeological investigations in the area have been sparse but 3.5km north-east of the site work in advance of several phases of quarrying at Town Farm, west of Burlescombe, has demonstrated the potential for extensive ‘virgin’ land to produce important new information. Pits dating from the

Early Bronze Age (Farnell and Quinnell 2010) to the Early Iron Age have been found, along with two Bronze

Age burnt mounds, a 7th century AD well head (Gent and Best 2007) and three Saxon iron-smelting furnaces dating within a span from the late 8th to late 10th centuries (Reed et al. 2006). Geophysical survey has found evidence for Medieval field boundaries, ridge and furrow and undated pits (Robinson 2008, 8).

Devon Historic Environment Record

A search was made of the Devon Historic Environment Record (HER) on 10th March 2016 for a radius of 1.5km around the centre of the proposal site. This revealed 54 entries within the search radius. These are summarized in

Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 1.

Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Roman There are no known findspots or archaeological deposits predating the Bronze Age and circular cropmarks east of junction 27 of the M5 motorway may be of geological origin [Fig. 1: 1]. It has been speculated that various parchmarks east of Higher Houndaller Farm including a possible small square enclosure and an even smaller circular feature amongst other linear marks may be prehistoric or Roman [2].

Saxon, Medieval, Post-medieval, Victorian, Modern There are no recorded Saxon sites in the study area but during the 12th and 13th centuries farmsteads were documented at Bridwell [3] and what is now Higher Houndaller [8]; the reverse ‘S’ curve of strip-fields shown on the tithe map in the area of the motorway [7] suggests they have a Medieval origin. Prior to large scale

6 quarrying a length of the parish boundary between Uffculme and Burlescombe survived as a 1.5m high bank, possibly with a ditch, west of Hillhead Farm [5]. A chapel dedicated to St Bridget is probably close to the site of a well, giving the root of the name ‘Bridwell’ [4]. A possible Medieval bank visible in air photographs from the

1940s appears to survive as a slight earthwork on Lidar (see below) [6]. Late Medieval fabric may survive in a

15th or 16th century house, ‘Old Bridwell’ [4], and in the farmhouse at Higher Houndaller which originates from the 16th or 17th centuries [8]. A farmhouse at Bridwell is thought to be the successor of a Medieval house on the site and barns fronting onto the road are of 17th century or earlier origin.

Post-medieval, Victorian, Modern Much of the evidence for the later Post medieval period derives from maps, in particular a plan of Bridwell Park of 1779, the Uffculme tithe and enclosure maps and the Burlescombe tithe map. Some of the surviving buildings are now listed. The park at Bridwell was created for the Clarke family which had an estate in the area from the early 17th century until 1826. Much of the park’s original plan is still recognisable, including a walled garden close to the house [4], a chapel incorporating a Medieval roof from an earlier building, stables and possibly an earthwork platform and a mound [18, 19]. Further farm buildings survive from the 18th century [4]. Elsewhere, a roughly square, subdivided plot north of Uffculme may also have been an ornamental landscape feature [14].

The limited evidence for agricultural expansion during the early 19th century amounts to the building of

Hillhead Farmhouse in 1807, possibly contemporary with a second building marked on the tithe map [11]; a

133m long cropmark which appears to derive from a pre-tithe boundary ditch [19]; former orchards at Bridwell and New Houndaller [3, 24] and the enclosure of Leonard Moor in around 1810 [20]. Extractive industries are represented directly by gravel pits or quarries at Houndaller Plantation [23], Higher Houndaller Farm [25] and, most recently, Hillhead Farm [26]. Indirect evidence includes a lime kiln north of New Houndaller Farm [9], iron slag incorporated into the porch and external rendering of a pair of cottages built in the early 19th century at

Leonard Moor Cross [17] and possibly a plot named ‘Potter’s Field’ adjacent to ‘Clay Lane’ at Appledore [12].

In the latter area a building shown near a cross roads may have been a toll house [12]. Other features related to movement from the Uffculme enclosure map include a ‘public carriage road’ north east of Hillhead Farm [21] and proposed ‘private occupation roads’ east of New Houndaller Farm [10] and south of Appledore [13, 16]. The tithe map marked a garden and cottages between Appledore and Uffculme Down [15] which appeared on

Ordnance Survey maps until 1969. There are several listed buildings in Uffculme of which only ‘The Mount’

[22] falls within the study radius. It was built in 1865.

Four possible World War 2 bomb craters near Hillhead Farm [21] are the most recent of the ‘monuments’ listed apart from the quarry itself. An archaeological watching brief at Appledore farm proved negative [27].

7 Historic landscape characterisation interprets the site and adjoining land on all but the east side as ‘Medieval enclosures based on strip fields’ which ‘was probably enclosed with hedge-banks during the later Middle Ages’.

The slight curves in the boundaries imply that before enclosure the land had been farmed as open fields (DCC

2016).

Scheduled Monuments

There are no scheduled monuments within the study area or within plain view of the site.

Cartographic and documentary sources

The meaning of the place-name Burlescombe has been given as ‘the valley of a man called Burgweald’ (Mills

1998, 59) based on a reference to Burewoldiscumbe in the charter rolls dated to 1173-5 (Ekwall 1960, 75).

Hooke attempted a reconstruction of the charter boundaries of Ashford, Boehill, Sampford Peverell and

Burlescombe but was unable to trace Burlescombe’s eastern limit (Hooke 1994, 157). The reference to a Saxon personal name and a Brithonic topographic reference to a valley, cumb, is less clear cut as Berlescoma in

Domesday Book (AD 1086) when Burlescombe was divided into two manors, both held by Walter de Claville.

The manor named as Berlescoma appears to have comprised one hide and one and a half virgates with land for four ploughs. There were six householders and three ploughs with only 2 acres of meadow, 24 of woodland and

85 of pasture. Two ploughs with two slaves were in demesne. It was values at 25s compared with 20s before the conquest, when it had been held by Wulfgeat (Williams and Martin 1992, 320). The manor of Appledore had 19 householders with four ploughs. There were 8 acres of meadow, 50 of pasture and 40 of woodland. Two ploughs with three slaves were in demesne. It was valued at 20s compared to 10s before the conquest, when it had been held by Wulfweard (Williams and Martin 1992, 319). Uffculme was granted a weekly market and two annual fairs in 1266 and Canonsleigh Abbey in the north of Burlescombe parish was granted a weekly market in 1286

(Lysons and Lysons 1822).

Houndaller Farm has a long documentary history, starting as Hundaler in 12th century references in the

Cartulary of Canonsleigh Abbey which was founded in Burlescombe parish in around 1160 (Horn 1965, 12).

There are three more references to it in the 14th century, as Hundalre in the Devon Assize Rolls (1306 and 1345) and as Houndehaller in the Exeter copy of Domesday Book (1374). Two of three uses of ‘Aller’ in Somerset derive from later 9th-century Saxon references to alre, meaning Alder (Ekwall 1960, 6). ‘Hound’ generally

8 refers to ‘dog’ but the tithe map field name ‘Honey Land’ (see below) might suggest a reference to Huna, the

Saxon who gave his name to Honiton, 17km south-east of the site (Ekwall 1960, 248).

During the early 19th century Burlescombe parish comprised four tithings of which three were in the hundred of Bampton but one was in the hundred of Halberton (Lysons and Lysons 1822). Uffculme, entirely within the Bampton hundred, was a ‘decayed market-town’ by that time (Lysons and Lysons 1822).

A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at Devon Heritage Centre in order to ascertain the character of the site’s later history and whether this may have affected any possible archaeological deposits within the proposal area (see Appendix 3).

Both Burlesco’be and Ufcolumbe are shown on Saxton’s 1575 map of the county so that the site location can be gauged approximately (Fig. 3). Speed’s map of 1610 shows Burlescombe to the west of the road linking

Wellington in Somerset and Exeter whilst Ufcolumbe appears to be on the road. Both are shown on the western edge of the Bampton hundred. Den Keere’s map of 1648 omits Burlescombe but both villages are marked on

Morden’s map of 1695. Their places in the Bampton hundred remain unchanged but in this case it is Burlescomb rather than Ufcolumbe which is set close to the Wellington to Exeter road (Fig. 4). Donn’s map of 1765 was at a scale which allowed more detailed marking of the roads and schematic representation of a selection of houses, one of which is Hound Aller, located on the site of the modern Higher Houndaller (Fig. 5). Burlescomb and

Uffculm villages are both shown in Bampton hundred but Hound Aller and the area within which the site lies are shown in Halberton hundred. This is confirmed by the Greenwood map of 1827 which allowed closer identification of the site as a second Hound Aller marked on the site of New Houndaller Farm. However, the map introduced a further complication with respect to the parish as the site is shown within a boundary including exclusively small scale settlements. It is separated from both Burlescombe and Uffculm (Fig. 6). The marking of a group of three buildings as Normans Land may be an error as the Burlescombe tithe map of 1841 places No

Mans Land on the site of three building marked but unnamed on the earlier map. The territorial issue is resolved as New Houndaller and fields within an outline matching that of all four areas are readily identifiable (Fig. 7).

The only differences within the outline are a west to east boundary dividing Area 6; the incursion of a garden in the north-west corner of Area 7 which was described in the apportionment as ‘Lower 7 Acres and Garden’; and the division of Area 8 into two plots, both of which included the term ‘Kiln close’ in the descriptions. Area 5 was described as ‘Middle Seven Acres’ and the north of Area 6 as ‘Bottom Close’. As already noted, the south plot was ‘Honey Land’. The use for all plots was marked as arable apart from 1056 in Area 8 which was plantation. The south range of an L-shaped structure probably survives as part of the fabric of the T-shaped

9 modern farmhouse (Plate 5), first shown as such on the First Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1889 (Fig. 8).

Parts of outbuildings making up the full courtyard conform to the extant footprint.

The only alterations within the site on the map of 1889 were the removal of the garden and the subdividing boundaries of Areas 6 and 8 and the marking of paths along the full extent of the site’s west side, from the north

-west to south-east corners of Area 5 and from the north-west to south-east of Area 8 (Fig. 8). The path in Area 5 was no longer marked by 1904 (Fig. 9). On both maps the site is well to the west of the Uffculme parish boundary and presumably in Burlescombe. Only the footpath in Area 8 remained in 1968, but in other respects the site was unchanged (Fig. 2). The map of 1987 shows only the extreme east side of the site and that of 1994 was not completed, although there is no evidence for change within the site excepting the loss of the last footpath

(fig. 10).

On the evidence of the site visit the only change within the site since the publication of the 1889 map has been the addition some time after 1968 of a brick building towards the southern end of the boundary between

Areas 7 and 5 (Pl. 4).

Listed buildings

There are several listed buildings in the core of Uffculme but their situations, low in the Culm valley, preclude any visual impact upon their settings. ‘The Mount’ is on slightly higher ground but closely-set developed trees in the grounds north-west of the house entirely obscure views of the site. All of the buildings in Bridwell Park, three of which are of National Importance [Fig. 1: 18, 19], have a topographic advantage over the site but they are also set within woodland which would obscure the view of the quarry works. At a distance of over 600m the cottages at Leonard Moor [17] are the listed buildings closest to the site. They are set well below it and are protected from view of it by a plantation to their east. The view from Higher Houndaller Farm would be restricted by the buildings of New Houndaller Farm. Extension of the extraction on the site will therefore have no adverse effect on the significance of any of these heritage assets.

Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields

The site is overlooked from the northern boundary of Grade II-listed Bridwell Park (Fig. 1) at a distance of

600m. The ground within the park slopes away south so that the quarry is only visible from its very northernmost edge. The significant landscape setting of the park is essentially all inward looking or towards the south, down to

10 the river Culm. Screening by trees might offer some mitigation but it is unlikely that it could conceal entirely the quarry workings; however the existing quarry already forms a part of the setting of the park, and it is unlikely that the significance of the asset would suffer appreciable harm from an extension.

Historic Hedgerows

The Hedgerows Regulations 1997, Schedule 1, Part II, includes a definition of an ‘historic’ hedgerow as one which (amongst other criteria) is 'recorded in a document held at the relevant date at a Record Office as an integral part of a field system pre-dating the Inclosure Acts'. The site and the land around it has been characterized as late Medieval enclosure and the morphology of the tithe map boundaries are consistent with this. The hedge-bank manner of boundary construction also supports an early date. However, no records of parliamentary enclosure at Burlescombe have been found, so that the tithe map provides the earliest detailed representation of field boundaries suggesting that the boundaries within and around the site fall outside the definition of ‘important’ for archaeological or historical reasons.

Air photographs and Lidar

All air photographs from runs made by the RAF in April 1946 and July 1947 were viewed at the Devon Historic

Environment Service (Appemdix 3). Lidar digital terrain model data at a resolution of 1m was downloaded from the Environment Agency website (Appendix 4) and uploaded into QGIS. The data was then viewed as pseudo sun plots with four azimuths ranging from 15o to 315o from grid north and angles of light source ranging from

10o to 20o. Sun plots are an effective means for determining the presence of a feature but can be misleading with regard to whether it is negative (depression) or positive (raised). Equally, a lower light source tends to enhance the ‘relief’ of a feature whilst at the same time increasing its spread and displacing it. Two features were identified within the site. Of these one is likely to be the trace of a service trench which passed by the modern building on the boundary of Areas 7 and 5 [Fig. 11: 1]. The others are more noteworthy. The southern of two west to east parallel lines may equate with the boundary on the tithe map which subdivided Area 6 and the northern line may be a continuation of tithe map boundaries on adjoining land on either side [2]. Similar, two linear features in Area 8 [9, 10] are likely to be parts of tithe plots 1057 and 1058 (Fig. 7). A third, slightly curvilinear, feature [11] intersects with the presumed tithe fdeature but does not appeat to relate to it or the extant field boundaries. The Lidar data is complemented by linear parch marks discernible in an air photograph (frame

1285) from April 1947 [6] which appear to form part of a larger field system. They appeared to form a field

11 system which included a linear cropmark [7] and an intermittent rectilinear cropmark [8] which may relate to a long, straight linear Lidar feature to the west of the site extending from north of New Houndaller Farm to slightly east of Leonard Moor Cross [Fig. 1: 30]. The feature appears to have determined the west boundaries of plots 1069, 1228, 1229 and 1232 on the tithe map (Fig. 7) hence predates 1841. Of the remaining evidence from air photographs strong parchmarks showing in areas 7 and 5 (frame 1285) are likely to be related to agriculture of the time [Fig. 11: 3, 4] but a rectilinear parchmark enclosing a circular one with projecting linear parchmarks

[5] seems likely to be older and may have been a component in the pre-tithe field system.

Discussion

The Devon Historic Environment Record holds no data showing heritage assets within extension Areas 5 to 7 but there is a record for the cartographic depiction of a lime kiln in Area 8 in the 19th century. Analysis of air photographs and Lidar data suggests that an earlier field system underlies the modern one which can be traced back to at least 1841. There are no Scheduled Monuments intervisible with the site and listed buildings, including several designated to be of national importance, are all over 500m from its boundaries and obscured from it by a combination of local topography and well developed trees. On the other hand the site is overlooked by the grade II registered park at Bridwell and it forms part of a landscape characterised as ‘Medieval enclosure’, an interpretation for which the hedgebank boundaries around and within the site offer some corroboration.

The new evidence suggests that there is potential for previously unknown heritage assets in the form of below-ground archaeological remains within the extension site. It remains to determine whether or not it survives given previous land-use and disturbance and taking into account the impact upon it of future land-use including the forthcoming development.

Although known monumental remains from the HER search within a 1000m radius around the site have proved sparse and the bulk of those are from the Post-medieval to modern periods a scatter of worked flint and prehistoric and Roman pottery have been found on Uffculme Down, 1.5km east of the site. The site is of an extent which on probabilistic grounds alone suggests that some archaeological remains could be present, as has been amply demonstrated at Town Farm Quarry, also in Burlescombe. The extant modern structure on the boundary between Areas 7 and 5 has impact on only a very limited space and map analysis shows no other evidence for building on the site other than the field-name suggesting a lime kiln in Area 8. The pattern of land division within the site has changed only slightly in the past two centuries. This suggests stable agricultural land- use of arable indicated in the tithe apportionment and grazing in the 20th and 21st centuries visible in air

12 photographs and during the site visit. Such a regime is unlikely to have erased archaeological features. There is at least moderate potential for archaeological remains in addition to those identified to be found within the site and these would be removed entirely by the proposed quarrying.

The minerals local plan as set out in 2004 does not specify particular measures for mitigation but the only practical option is preservation by record. The county archaeologist has set out a clear programme of archaeological work which might be undertaken, commencing with assessment and moving onto to geophysical survey and followed by sample excavation of any identified archaeological geophysical anomalies. A comprehensive alternative would be to move straight to ‘strip, map and sample’ excavation and recording to professional standards. This would be regardless of the significance of any finds, except in the case where compensation was offered to secure preservation in situ.

It is therefore recommended that a programme for archaeological work should be drawn up and approved by the archaeological advisers to the County Council and implemented by a competent archaeological contractor.

As it is anticipated that extraction would take place in phases over several years, the overall approach should be flexible enough to permit variation in methods and objectives drawing upon the results of previous phases. Such a programme could be implemented by an appropriately worded condition applied by the Mineral planning

Authority.

References

BGS, 2012, British Geological Survey, 1:50,000, sheet E310, Keyworth Brown, A, Hawkins, C, Ryder, L, Hawken, S, Griffith, F and Hatton, J, 2014, ‘Paleoecological, archaeological and historical data and the making of Devon landscapes. I. The Blackdown Hills’, Boreas, 43, 834-55 DCC, 2004, Devon County Minerals Local Plan, Devon County Council DCC, 2016, Historic Land Characterisation’, http://gis.devon.gov.uk/basedata/viewer.asp?DCCService=hlc (accessed: 22nd March 2016) Ekwall, E, 1960, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-names, 4th edn, Oxford Farnell, A and Quinnell, H, 2010, Archaeological recording at Town Farm Quarry, Burlescombe, Devon, phase 5/6, Exeter Gent, T and Best, J, 2007, ‘Bronze Age Burnt Mounds and Early Timber Structures at Town Farm Quarry, Burlescombe, Devon’, Archaeol J 164, 1–79 Griffith, F and Weddell, P, 1996, ‘Ironworking in the Blackdown Hills: Results of recent survey’, Bulletin of the Peak District Mines Society, 13, 27–34 HMSO, 1995, Minerals Planning Guidance 14: Environment Act 1995: review of mineral planning permissions, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7738/155844.pdf (accessed: 18th March 2016) Hooke, D, 1994, Pre-conquest Charter-bounds of Devon and Cornwall, Woodbridge Horn, V, 1965, The Cartulary of Canonsleigh Abbey, Torquay Hosfield, R, Straker, V and Gardiner, P, 2008, ‘Palaeolithic and Mesolithic’, in C Webster (ed), The Archaeology of South West Britain: South West Archaeological Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda, Taunton, 23–62

13 Liddell, D, 1932, ‘Report of the Excavations at Hembury Fort, Devon’, Proc Devon Archaeol Exploration Soc 1, 90–120 Lysons, D and Lysons, S, 1822, Magna Britannia: Vol 6, Devonshire, London Mills, A, 1998, Dictionary of English place-Names, 2nd edn, Oxford NPPF, 2012, National Planning Policy Framework, Dept Communities and Local Govt, Norwich NSRI, 2016, Soilscapes, https://www.landis.org.uk/soilscapes/ (accessed: 21st March 2016) Pollard, J and Healy, F (eds), 2008, ‘Neolithic and Early Bronze Age’, in C Webster (ed), The Archaeology of South West Britain: South West Archaeological Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda, Taunton, 75–102 Reed, S, Juleff, G and Bayer, O, 2006, ‘Saxon iron-smelting at Burlescombe, Devon’, Proc Devon Archaeol Exploration Soc 61, 71–122 Robinson, L, 2008, Hanson Town Farm, Burlescombe, Devon: geophysical surveys, Durham Webster, C (ed), 2008, The Archaeology of South West Britain: South West Archaeological Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda, Taunton Williams, A and Martin, G, 1992, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London

14 APPENDIX 1: Historic Environment Records within a 1500m search radius of the site

No HER Ref Grid Ref (ST) Type Period Comment 1 MDV103554 0510 1421 Photographic Undated Circular cropmarks might be geological, or prehistoric enclosures 2 MDV20542 0598 1434 Photographic Bronze Age to Parch mark of 10-15m square enclosure with 3-4m diameter Roman circular mark to south and other linear marks 3 MDV20801 055 124 Documentary Medieval Farmstead documented from 1280 to 1499 MDV107936 0542 1239 Photographic, Post medieval Orchards on late 19th century maps and in air photographs from cartographic 1946 to 1966 4 MDV11479 0562 1247 Documentary Medieval Site of chapel dedicated to St Bridget. MDV88801 0558 1242 Listed building Medieval, Old Bridwell. 15th or early 16th century house with later MDV20802 post-medieval alterations LB 1168981 MDV20803 0558 1246 Building Post medieval Farmhouse, thought to have succeeded Medieval house MDV20805 0555 1246 Extant Post medieval Farm buildings, 18th century. Formerly Grade II listed MDV20809 0561 1241 Cartographic Post medieval Walled garden shown in plan of 1779 RP 1000688 MDV20804 0554 1243 Listed building Post medieval Range of barns fronting onto road. 17th century or earlier LB 1326167 5 MDV21567 0620 1365 Documentary, Medieval, Parish boundary between surviving as earthen bank with MDV21568 cartographic post-medieval possible traces of ditch on Uffculme side 6 MDV107691 0555 1383 Photographic Medieval, Curvilinear cropmark interpreted as overlying possibly post-medieval Medieval bank 7 MDV73524 0455 1376 Cartographic Medieval, Strip fields with ‘reverse S’ curves on Burlescombe tithe map post-medieval over area of 400m by 200m MDV108967 0449 1353 Photographic Post medieval to Earthworks and banks north of Mountstephen Farm on air modern photographs from 1946 to 1966 8 MDV79760 0564 1445 Documentary, Medieval, Name Hundaler recorded in 12th and Hundalre in 14th MDV16227 cartographic listed post-medieval, centuries. Present farmhouse built in 16th/17th century. MDV79762 building Victorian Associated farm buildings, including a horse engine house LB 1106461 marked on late 19th century maps 9 MDV16397 059 139 Cartographic Post-medieval Lime kiln shown on tithe map 10 MDV62173 063 138 Cartographic Post-medieval Proposed ‘private occupation road’ on enclosure map 1838 11 MDV88792 0634 1349 Listed building Post medieval Hill Head Farmhouse, built 1807 LB 1325872 MDV62181 0635 1347 Cartographic Post medieval Building on site of Hill Head Farm on enclosure map 1838 12 MDV62182 0655 1430 Cartographic Post medieval Building (?toll-house) near cross roads on map of 1838. MDV20541 0662 1423 Cartographic Post medieval ‘Potter’s Field’ and ‘Clay Lane’ on enclosure map of 1838 13 MDV62175 067 138 Cartographic Post-medieval ‘Private occupation road’ on enclosure map of 1838 14 MDV11484 068 136 Earthwork, Post medieval Roughly square parterre-like feature subdivided in four and documentary with hedge. Noted by Lyson (1822) and Hutchinson (1862). 15 MDV21569 0699 1387 Cartographic Post-medieval ‘Garden and cottages’ on tithe map of 1839 (but not enclosure map) and on OS map in 1969 16 MDV62174 070 137 Cartographic Post-medieval ‘Private occupation road’ shown on enclosure map of 1838 17 MDV16229 0519 1316 Listed building Post medieval Pair of cottages built c. 1810. Iron tap slag was incorporated MDV58407 into the porch and external rendering of the cottages. MDV83466 LB 1147447 18 MDV107891 0594 1269 Photographic, Post medieval Earthwork platform c. 30 x 40m on APs from 1946 onwards. MDV83426 0591 1269 cartographic Possible part of landscaping for Bridwell Park. Chapel serving MDV20806 058 127 Listed building, Bridwell Park built 1792 but with 14th-15th century roof from LB 1105882 Registered Park or another building (Grade II*). Landscaped park (Grade II) MDV20807 Garden changed little from as shown in plan of 1779 RP 1000688 19 MDV20800 0585 1261 Listed building Post medieval Bridwell Park built 1776-80, grade I. Stable, 1779 retaining LB 1000688 0584 1258 Survey original internal fittings, Grade II*. Mound of c. 5m diameter MDV88807 0582 1253 Photographic possibly 18th century landscaping. Linear cropmark, 133m MDV20799 0573 1254 long. Interpreted as possibly pre-tithe map boundary ditch LB 1326159 MDV15134 MDV32458 RP 1000688 MDV107924 20 MDV21048 0510 1380 Cartographic, Post medieval, Field system at Leonard Moor enclosed circa 1810 but with documentary Victorian award dated 1864 21 MDV62167 066 139 Cartographic Post medieval ‘Public carriage road’ marked on enclosure map of 1838 MDV107637 0654 1389 Photographic World War 2 Group of four possible bomb craters MDV88790 0662 1292 Listed building Victorian The Mount, built c. 1865. 22 LB 1306105 23 MDV21571 0618 1415 Cartographic Victorian Gravel pit shown on OS map of 1891 24 MDV107690 0575 1383 Photographic, Victorian, modern Orchards shown on late 19th century maps and in air cartographic photographs of 1946

15 No HER Ref Grid Ref (ST) Type Period Comment 25 MDV107616 0539 1450 Photographic, Modern Quarry pit not shown on maps but visible in air photographs LIDAR from 1946 onwards 26 MDV1508 066 134 Quarry Modern Hill Head Quarry 27 EDV5887 0645 1469 Watching brief 2011-2 Undertaken during building work at Appledore Farm. No archaeological evidence identified 28 EDV6589 0757 1368 Watching brief 2014 Undertaken during building work at Lucas Farm. No MDV108217 archaeological deposits identified but residual prehistoric and Roman pottery found. A flint scatter had been found in the area previously 29 EDV4199 SS70SW Assessment 2007 An assessment of 18 county farms from across Devon included a group 1.5km north of Uffculme All listed buildings are Grade II unless stated.

16 APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1575 Saxton, Devon (Fig. 3) 1610 Speed, Devon 1648 Den Keere, Devon 1695 Morden, Devon (Fig. 4) 1763 Bowen, Devon 1765 Donn, Devon (Fig. 5) 1827 Greenwood, Devon (Fig. 6) 1841 Tithe map of Burlescombe (Fig .7) 1889 Ordnance Survey, 25” (Fig .8) 1904 Ordnance Survey, Second Edition (Fig. 9) 1968 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 2) 1987 Ordnance Survey 1994 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 10)

17 APPENDIX 3: Aerial photographic consulted

All Vertical (non-specialist)

Sortie Frame Date flown NGR (ST) RAF/CPE/UK/227 5386 11 Jul 1946 648 143 RAF/CPE/UK/227 5387 11 Jul 1946 056 141 RAF/CPE/UK/1947 1285 11 Apr 1947 061 141 RAF/CPE/UK/1947 1288 11 Apr 1947 069 138

APPENDIX 4: LIDAR

Environment Agency tile data DTM-1m-ST01 http://environment.data.gov.uk/ds/survey/index.jsp#/survey Accessed: 22 March 2016

18 APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

APPENDIX 3: Aerial photographic consulted

All Vertical (non-specialist)

Sortie Frame Date flown NGR (ST) RAF/CPE/UK/227 5386 11 Jul 1946 648 143 RAF/CPE/UK/227 5387 11 Jul 1946 056 141 RAF/CPE/UK/1947 1285 11 Apr 1947 061 141 RAF/CPE/UK/1947 1288 11 Apr 1947 069 138

APPENDIX 4: LIDAR

Environment Agency tile data DTM-1m-ST01 http://environment.data.gov.uk/ds/survey/index.jsp#/survey Accessed: 22 March 2016

19 SITE

Barnstable

EXETER

Dartmoor 15000 Plymouth Torquay

27 29 25 8 2 12 1 23

14000 6 9 21 15 20 24 13 10 16 28 7 14 5 SITE 30 11 26

13000 22

18 19 3 4

Bridwell Park 12000

11000

ST05000 06000 07000 08000 HQU 16/46 Western Extension of Hillhead Quarry, Uffculme, Devon 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 1. Location of site in relation to Uffculme and within Devon showing locations of HER entries. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Explorer 128 at 1:125000 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 ST05700 05800 05900 06000 06100

SITE

Area 8

13900

13800 8

9 7 5 Area 5

13700 Area 7 6 10 Quarried area 4

3 13600

Quarried

13500 area 2 Area 6

13400 1

HQU 16/46 N Western Extension of Hillhead Quarry, Uffculme, Devon 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 2. Detailed view of site showing locations of known archaeology and site visit photographic viewpoints (From Ordnance Survey 1968, 1:2500; not to scale)

Approximate location of site

HQU 16/46 N Western Extension of Hillhead Quarry, Uffculme, Devon 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 3. Saxton's map of Devon, 1575

Approximate location of site

HQU 16/46 N Western Extension of Hillhead Quarry, Uffculme, Devon 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 4. Morden's map of Devon, 1695

Approximate location of site

HQU 16/46 N Western Extension of Hillhead Quarry, Uffculme, Devon 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 5. Donn's map of Devon, 1765

Approximate location of site

HQU 16/46 N Western Extension of Hillhead Quarry, Uffculme, Devon 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 6. Greenwood's map of Devon, 1827

SITE

HQU 16/46 N Western Extension of Hillhead Quarry, Uffculme, Devon 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 7. Tithe map of Burlescombe, 1841

Area 8

Area 7 SITE Area 5

Area 6

HQU 16/46 N Western Extension of Hillhead Quarry, Uffculme, Devon 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 8. Ordnance Survey 1889

Area 8

Area 7 Area 5 SITE

Area 6

HQU 16/46 N Western Extension of Hillhead Quarry, Uffculme, Devon 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 9. Ordnance Survey 1904 (no scale)

SITE

Area 8

Area 7 Area 5

Area 6

HQU 16/46 N Western Extension of Hillhead Quarry, Uffculme, Devon 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 10. Ordnance Survey 1993-4 ST05700 05800 05900 06000 Lidar

Parch mark Cropmark

Area 8

13900 10

9 11

13800

Area 7 4 SITE Area 5

5 13700 Quarried area 3

13600 Quarried area

7 6

13500 2

Area 6 8

13400

HQU 16/46 N Western Extension of Hillhead Quarry, Uffculme, Devon 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 11. Transcriptions of air photographs and Lidar data

(From Ordnance Survey 1968, 1:2500; not to scale) Plate 1. Area 6 west boundary, looking northwards

Plate 2. Area 6 coombe, looking north-eastwards HQU 16/46

Western Extension of Hillhead Quarry, Uffculme Uffculme, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Plates 1 and 2. Plate 3. Area 6 north boundary, looking eastwards

Plate 4. Area 7 south boundary, looking eastwards HQU 16/46

Western Extension of Hillhead Quarry, Uffculme Uffculme, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Plates 3 and 4. Plate 5. Area 7, New Houndaller Farm, looking north-westwards

Plate 6. Area 5 from mid east boundary, looking south-westwards HQU 16/46

Western Extension of Hillhead Quarry, Uffculme Uffculme, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Plates 5 and 6. Plate 7. Old quarry works east of Area 5, looking eastwards

Plate 8. Area 8 from mid south boundary, looking north-eastwards HQU 16/46

Western Extension of Hillhead Quarry, Uffculme Uffculme, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Plates 7 and 8. Plate 9. Walls in Area 5 north west corner, looking westwards

Plate 10. Area 7 south west corner, looking southwards HQU 16/46

Western Extension of Hillhead Quarry, Uffculme Uffculme, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Plates 9 and 10. TIME CHART

Calendar Years

Modern AD 1901

Victorian AD 1837

Post Medieval AD 1500

Medieval AD 1066

Saxon AD 410

Roman AD 43 BC/AD Iron Age 750 BC

Bronze Age: Late 1300 BC

Bronze Age: Middle 1700 BC

Bronze Age: Early 2100 BC

Neolithic: Late 3300 BC

Neolithic: Early 4300 BC

Mesolithic: Late 6000 BC

Mesolithic: Early 10000 BC

Palaeolithic: Upper 30000 BC

Palaeolithic: Middle 70000 BC

Palaeolithic: Lower 2,000,000 BC