Trumpington Meadows ES Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage TMLC

7 CULTURAL HERITAGE

Introduction

7.1 This chapter deals with the cultural heritage issues arising from the proposed development at Trumpington Meadows. Cultural heritage issues were identified during the scoping process as being of primary importance. The area to the south of Trumpington lies within a much broader zone of archaeological importance, which has been the subject of intensive study over the last few years. The site directly abuts the southern boundary of the conservation area covering the whole of the historic village of Trumpington and the settings of a number of important historic buildings. The chapter considers all categories of cultural heritage, such as historic landscape character and features, extant historic buildings and archaeological sites and monuments.

7.2 The specific objectives were to:

• establish the cultural heritage baseline within and adjacent to the proposed development site • consider the area in terms of its archaeological potential and historic environment • assess the potential impacts of the construction and post-construction phases on the heritage resources identified • define measures to mitigate any predicted significant negative impacts where appropriate.

7.3 The full reports by Cambridge Archaeological Unit can be found in technical appendix C. An archaeological strategy has been produced based on the findings of this chapter and to implement the proposed mitigation measures (technical appendix C).

Legislation and policy

7.4 The importance and intrinsic value of cultural heritage is recognised in legislation at national level. Certain features are protected by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 and the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Further advice on how cultural heritage should be treated is given in Planning and Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) 15 and 16. PPG 15 deals with above ground features and buildings of historic interest and areas including historic landscapes in the broadest sense. Guidance is given on the protection and controls that apply to identified features such as scheduled ancient monuments, listed buildings, conservation areas, registered parks and gardens and battlefields. PPG 16 aims to ensure that the archaeological sensitivity of a site is fully taken into account in relation to development proposals. It also suggests that early consultation should take place to identify the archaeological sensitivity of sites. The underlying principle is that archaeological remains represent a non-renewable resource and that their conservation (preservation in-situ) should be a primary goal.

Terence O’Rourke December 2007 Trumpington Meadows ES Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage TMLC

7.5 The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (adopted 2003) refers to the important role of the county’s historic environment. Historic buildings, landscapes, conservation areas and archaeological sites are all an irreplaceable part of the county’s heritage. Policy P7/6 states the importance of protecting this valuable resource when considering any development proposals.

7.6 The overall aim expressed in the adopted South Cambridgeshire Development Control Policies Development Plan Document (2007) is to preserve the historic interest and special character of the landscape and settlements of South Cambridgeshire, and to achieve new development which respects and reinforces local distinctiveness. Policies CH1-CH5 outline these aspirations with regards to cultural heritage areas and designations.

7.7 The Cambridge Local Plan (adopted 2006) refers in greater detail to how the city’s rich and diverse inheritance of cultural heritage features should be properly dealt with in development proposals. The relevant policies, 4/9- 4/11, deal with the heritage assets of the area including conservation areas, listed buildings, registered parks and gardens and the archaeological heritage. The conservation area appraisal for Trumpington produced by Cambridge City Council gives more detailed policies on control of development within the conservation area.

Methodology

7.8 The data sources consulted are outlined in table 7.1.

Appleby, G. Dickens, A. and Evans, C. 2004, Glebe Farm, Trumpington, Cambridgeshire: An Archaeological Desk Top Assessment, CAU Report 631. Bewley, R. H., 1994. Prehistoric Settlements. Batsford/English Heritage, London. Brudenell, M. and Dickens, A. (Cambridge Archaeological Unit), 2007, Trumpington Meadows, Cambridge: An Archaeological Evaluation of a Bronze Age, Iron Age and Romano-British Riverside Landscape Cambridge Archaeological Unit, 2007, Trumpington Meadows Archaeological Mitigation Strategy Cambridge City Council, 1998, Trumpington Conservation Area Appraisal Cambridgeshire County Sites and Monuments Record Collcutt, S 1999 The Setting of Cultural Heritage Features, JPL Darvill, T. 1996 Prehistoric Britain from the air Cambridge. Davis, M.J. et al.2004 Mitigation of Construction impact on archaeological remains English Heritage DOE 1994 Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment DOE 1990 Planning Policy Guidance Note 16: Archaeology and Planning Evans. C. et al 2005. The Archaeology of Clay Farm, Trumpington, Cambridge. Preliminary Investigations. CAU Report 669. Grove, R. 1976 The Cambridge Coprolite Mining Rush Cambridge,

Terence O’Rourke December 2007 Trumpington Meadows ES Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage TMLC

Oleander Press Halkon, P. & Millett, M. 1999 Rural settlement and industry: Studies in the Iron Age and Roman Archaeology of Lowland East Yorkshire Yorkshire Archaeological Report No.4 IFA 1999 (revised 2001) Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Desk Based Assessments Lambrick, G. and Hind, J. 2005 Planarch 2: Review of Cultural heritage coverage in Environmental Impact Assessments Oxford Archaeology RCHM(E) 1959 An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the City of Cambridge HMSO Taylor, A. 1999, Cambridge: The Hidden History, Stroud, Tempus. Taylor, C. 1987 Fields in the English Landscape Alan Sutton. Trumpington Local History Group, 2003, Trumpington Past and Present, Sutton Publishing VCH, 1967 The Victoria History of the Counties of England: A History of the County of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely, Vol. I, Oxford. VCH, 1982 The Victoria History of the Counties of England: A History of the County of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely, Vol. VIII, Oxford. Williams, A. and Martin, G.H.(eds.) 1992 Domesday Book: A complete translation Penguin. Wilson, D.R. 2000 Air Photo Interpretation for Archaeologists Tempus. www.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex for geological background of the site and area. www.digital-documents.co.uk www.pastscape.org.uk www.imagesofengland.org.uk Table 7.1: Data sources and references

Context

7.9 This report incorporates the findings of seven individual investigations. These were instigated to inform the baseline section, but also feed into the assessment of the likely impact of development upon the identified elements of the cultural heritage resource. The findings of the archaeological evaluation report and mitigation strategy are also incorporated. The search area defined by Cambridge Archaeological Unit (2006) for their desk-top assessment was a 2.5 km radius centred on TL 436539. A full gazetteer of sites and features is at figure 7.4 and illustrated on figures 7.5 and 7.6.

7.10 A map regression exercise reviewed the detailed 19th century maps (figures 7.7 - 7.10) for the study area. A search of the listed buildings database maintained by English Heritage was undertaken independently of the HER search.

7.11 The following studies were carried out by Cambridge Archaeological Unit between January and April 2005; a desktop assessment, a buildings assessment, aerial photographic interpretation, fieldwalking, metal detecting and monitoring of geotechnical testpits. A scheme of magnetic susceptibility and magnetometry was undertaken by Oxford Archaeotechnics.

Terence O’Rourke December 2007 Trumpington Meadows ES Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage TMLC

7.12 The most recent developments within the study area are the Waitrose supermarket (opened 2000), the Trumpington Park and Ride (opened 2001/2), the temporary Magistrate’s Court and the John Lewis warehouse (both opened 2005). All these are located on the eastern edge of the proposals site. Archaeological investigations undertaken prior to these developments offer invaluable information in assessing the possible archaeological resource on the site.

Scope of the study

7.13 The intention of the assessment is to provide a description of the likely value, extent, state of preservation and potential significance of the cultural heritage features in the study area that could potentially be affected by the proposal. It includes consideration of all nationally and locally identified buildings and areas and their settings. The archaeological element of the study was undertaken with reference to the Institute of Field Archaeologists’ (IFA) Code of Conduct and appropriate Standards (1999).

Limitations of study

7.14 The report’s conclusions are limited by the extent and quality of existing information. Its usefulness in predicting the actual archaeological resource must therefore be qualified. The studies commissioned for this impact assessment allow an appreciation of the possible archaeological potential in some sections of the study area, but complete survival of archaeological deposits across all areas of the proposed development cannot be fully quantified.

Assessment of significance

7.15 In order to assess the effects on cultural heritage of the proposed development, the chapter first makes an overall assessment of the level and components of the significance of sites or features within the study area, including above and below ground elements and setting. The setting of any feature is composed of a visual catchment, which can vary from very confined to very extensive depending on the nature of the site, and a range of historical or functional relationships to the surrounding area. This assessment of significance, coupled with reference to national and local legislation, relevant policy statements and best professional practice, allows a judgement to be made of the sensitivity of the site to change.

7.16 The judgement of the magnitude of change likely to occur as a result of development is based on available information on the proposed development; immediate and direct changes such as ground disturbance for construction, the removal of existing structures, any changes to drainage etc. and more long term or indirect changes such as the addition of new structures and transport networks or changes to views of or from heritage features, or perceptions of their priority in the landscape. The potential effects of development on the settings of either buildings or areas can depend very much on issues of detailed design that may not be available for all applications.

Terence O’Rourke December 2007 Trumpington Meadows ES Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage TMLC

7.17 The broad criteria developed for measures of the importance or sensitivity of the resource affected, and the magnitude or scale of the change are shown on figures 7.1 and 7.2 respectively. The generic definitions of the significance of potential effects can then be generated by feeding in the two resultant sets of criteria into the potential significance matrix (figure 7.3).

Baseline

Geology

7.18 Several underlying geologies are encountered across this large site area. The area covered by the central strip from the north to the southern tip of the site is comprised of West Melbury Marly Chalk. The north-west corner of the site is located on 2nd Terrace River Gravels, and the north-east on 3rd Terrace River Gravels. At the confluence of the River Cam with the Rivers Granta and Rhee, is an area of Gault Formation Mudstone. The south- western boundary of the site, alongside the River Cam, is Alluvium.

Historical background of the area

7.19 The proposed development site is part of a dense and complex historic landscape. Archaeological remains have been recovered within the study area ranging in date from the Palaeolithic through to the Second World War. Prehistoric trackways (Icknield Way) and Roman roads (Ermine Street) bisect the landscape. It has been postulated that the Iron Age settlements at Trumpington and Grantchester originated at fordable points on the River Cam.

7.20 The development of Cambridge has been the subject of many historical studies. Early settlement is said to be Roman and centred on the Castle Hill area. Recent fieldwork has shown significant settlement to the south-west and south-east of the presumed centre, along Madingley Road and in the ‘Lower Town’ area.

7.21 Early Saxon evidence around Cambridge comes from material recovered from pagan cemeteries discovered by chance or during developments in the 19th century. The later Saxon period (900 - 1066) sees the emergence of modern Cambridge in the area east of the river. The 12th century Liber Eliensis classed 10th century Cambridge with the trading centres of Norwich, Thetford and Ipswich and emphasises the central role of river trade and markets as causes of its growth. Archaeological evidence tends to support the idea that later Saxon Cambridge was already well established on both sides of the river. This period is poorly understood in the rural hinterland to the south.

7.22 The Domesday Survey for medieval Cambridge is now generally presumed to refer to a settlement on both sides of the river, rather than one concentrated around the old Roman walled town on the hill to the west.

7.23 Trumpington is first mentioned in the late 10th century, c. 991 AD, when a manor was awarded to Ely Abbey. Originally comprising 2,312 acres (935.62 ha), the medieval parish of Trumpington was roughly triangular in shape with

Terence O’Rourke December 2007 Trumpington Meadows ES Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage TMLC

the parish boundary with Great Shelford to the south delineated along field boundaries orientated north-east/south-west, and the eastern and western boundaries defined by the River Cam, Hobson’s Conduit and Hills Road.

7.24 There were two Norman manors at Trumpington, one belonging to the Beaufores family and one to Eustace, Count of Boulogne. The parish church of St. Mary and St. Michael had been founded by the 12th century. The form of the medieval village was based around a large triangular green alongside the main London to Cambridge road with the church, along with several manor houses, at the western apex. A smaller triangular space to the west of the church opened out to a road leading north. The medieval settlement of Trumpington was relatively populous, with c.100 landowners in 1279.

7.25 The two medieval manors were the focus for the development of large estates in the village from the 16th and 17th century. At Trumpington Hall, an existing Tudor house was bought in 1675 by Sir Francis Pemberton (1625 - 1697) the Lord Chief Justice. The present early 18th century house incorporates parts of this earlier structure. Anstey Hall was rebuilt in the 16th century by Edmund Bacchus and was altered again in 1685 by Anthony Thompson. The house was renamed by the Anstey family who owned the estate in the 18th and 19th centuries. It was later bought by a Cambridge banking family and new buildings, including a watertower and a gothic lodge, were added in the 1860s.

7.26 The population of the village grew gradually until the mid 19th century when the population size and density increased, as a consequence of Trinity College developing land in the north of the village for housing. The construction of the Cambridge to Bedford railway line in 1857 brought further prosperity to the village.

7.27 From the mid 19th century the Cambridge area was a centre for the extraction and processing of coprolite (calcium phosphate nodules; the trade name for the mineral was 'coprolite', since the fossils were thought to be the fossilised excreta of dinosaurs) as a source of phosphates for use as fertiliser. Part of the Pemberton estate, to the north west of the village between the river and Trumpington Road, was first extensively worked for coprolites during the early 1870s. During the First World War, workings started again in fields to the south of the village. They were known as the Hauxton Road Coprolite Works. This quarrying activity left two large tear- shaped mounds in Edmundsoles Field.

7.28 During the Second World War, Anstey Hall was requisitioned and soldiers were stationed in Nissan huts within the grounds. An aerial photograph taken in April 1944 by the American Air Force shows the camp at the junction of Maris Lane and Hauxton Road. A pillbox (TOR 12) at the junction of Maris Lane and Church Lane is part of the system of anti-invasion defences constructed 1940/41. In 1941 a camp for Italian prisoners of war (POW camp 45) was set up in fields to the west of Hauxton Road. The buildings were single-storey surrounded by high, barbed wire-topped fences. Towards the end of the war the camp was used for German POWs. It was abandoned in 1948.

Terence O’Rourke December 2007 Trumpington Meadows ES Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage TMLC

7.29 In the 1950s the estate at Anstey Hall was acquired by the Ministry of Agriculture for the Plant Breeding Institute. Temporary laboratories were constructed in 1952 and the Institute opened in 1955.

Archaeological sites and features

Prehistoric – Palaeolithic to Roman era

7.30 Twenty one prehistoric sites/find spots are recorded in the study area, including evidence from the Scheduled Ancient Monuments. The earliest evidence for human activity is a Palaeolithic hand axe and some worked flints recovered during gravel working to the east of the site (TOR 41). Stray finds consisting of flint scrapers, and several stone axes have been recorded throughout the surrounding landscape, such as the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age flint tools found at Cantelupe Farm (TOR 44). The scheme of coprolite extraction in the late 19th and early 20th century produced a Bronze Age flat axe, palstave and pestle (TOR 58). Further evidence of flint tools has been recovered from SAM 75 (TOR 1), including two tranchet axe heads (TOR 4), blades and cores within SAM 74 (TOR 15) and a Neolithic axe from Hauxton Mill (TOR 60). Prehistoric pottery has been noted at (TOR 40) and (TOR 56).

7.31 Investigations at Edmundsoles between 1971 and 1978 (TOR 47) recovered evidence such as Mesolithic and Neolithic worked flints, including two tranchet axes, 100 flint cores and over 700 other flint artefacts. Excavation uncovered Iron Age cut features consisting of pits and linears, suggesting settlement. Further Iron Age evidence was uncovered during construction of the M11 at Lingey Fen, where two areas of timber causeway (dated c.1000 – 900 BC) were identified (TOR 9). Iron Age activity has also been recorded in the form of stray finds (TOR 24) and (TOR 27), and observed during soil improvements in 1978 (TOR 25) in the form of pits and ditches (none of which were excavated). Iron Age pottery was recovered during coprolite digging at Hauxton Mill (TOR 59).

7.32 The designated SAMs in the study area have yielded significant prehistoric evidence to allow further understanding of former land-use. A series of cropmarks have been recorded within the area designated as SAM 75 (TOR 1) These represent a settlement complex of rectangular enclosures with pits and linears, and, although undated, they are thought to span the Iron Age and Roman periods. SAM 58 (TOR 64) has provided evidence spanning the Early Neolithic to Roman period, including an Iron Age settlement consisting of large roundhouses and route ways. SAM 74 (TOR 15) consists of another multi-period site with evidence for Iron Age activity recovered in the form of pottery and other artefacts. Excavations on part of this site in 1969 tested a prominent cropmark first observed in the 1950s and dated it to the Iron Age.

7.33 Excavations at the site of the Trumpington Park and Ride in 2001 (TOR 26) provided further evidence for prehistoric activity, including Neolithic and Bronze Age pits. The majority of the features related to the extensive remains of an important, large Iron Age site. Amongst these remains were mortuary enclosures, four post structures, pit clusters and two possible shrines. The evidence does not appear to be that of a typical domestic or farmstead settlement. The intentional and deliberate deposition of a human

Terence O’Rourke December 2007 Trumpington Meadows ES Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage TMLC

skeleton buried with a horse skull, a neonate buried with a dog and cattle skulls, a neonate buried with animal bones and an awl led the excavators to conclude that a significant number of the features were dug specifically for the deposition of these significant/symbolic remains. Examination of the plans indicates that elements of the features discovered at the Park and Ride site can be expected to extend westwards and southwards into the current study area. Of particular interest are the putative ring ditches identified from aerial photography (TOR 18).

Roman (43-410 AD)

7.34 Nineteen sites or find spots attributed to the Roman period are recorded within the study area. Roman artefacts have been recovered as stray finds (TOR 16) and (TOR 46) and from burials within the grounds of Anstey Hall (TOR 21). During the First World War, remains of stone and timber buildings (TOR 12) were recorded to the west of the village with painted plaster suggestive of a possible high status structure. During excavations at Edmundsoles on the bank of the river, further evidence for Roman settlement was uncovered (TOR 47). The excavation identified a complex settlement with its origins datable to the Iron Age period, with two later phases of Roman occupation superimposed.

7.35 A Romano-British settlement (TOR 11) comprising domestic and agricultural buildings of status was exposed during coprolite quarrying in 1917-1918. Bordering the southern extent of the study area is a probable Roman cemetery (TOR 58) of inhumations and cremations recovered during coprolite quarrying in 1879. Further coprolite extraction on the edge of the River Cam identified what was identified as a Roman landing site (TOR 14). The partial excavation of SAM 74 (TOR 15) produced further significant evidence that was datable to the period of Roman conquest. Large quantities of Iron Age and Romano-British pottery were amongst artefacts recovered.

Saxon (411-1065AD)

7.36 Seven sites or find spots of Saxon date have been identified within the wider study area. Fragments of a Saxon bone comb (TOR 11) were recovered during coprolite extraction at the turn of the 20th century. In the vicinity of the 12th century church of St Mary and St Michael, an unidentified iron object of Saxon origin was recorded (TOR 29). Other Saxon finds in the study area include a silver penny (TOR 42), pottery sherds (TOR 46), pagan Saxon brooches, a plate and some pottery, all possibly associated with a burial (TOR 58), and three Saxon strap ends found at Hauxton Mill (TOR 60). During archaeological investigations at the site of the new Waitrose store, four separate phases of activity, in the form of enclosures, were identified (TOR 22).

Medieval (1066-1539)

7.37 Nine sites or find spots are listed for this period within the study area. On the northern margin of the study area is the Scheduled Ancient Monument at the medieval moated site at Manor Farm (TOR 83). The moat surrounding the two adjacent rectangular islands remains on the south and west sides. The

Terence O’Rourke December 2007 Trumpington Meadows ES Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage TMLC

site is associated with the manor of Jaks, which included several estates at Grantchester by 1400. The 15th century house to the north is thought to have succeeded an earlier house at the moated site. The find spots recorded range from pottery sherds (TOR 6 and 8), and a bronze seal (TOR 11) to a coin (TOR 43). The excavation undertaken at the site of the new Waitrose store (TOR 22) uncovered four phases of medieval activity datable to the 14th century. In one corner of the site a large ditch of unknown purpose was identified, which produced a large quantity of animal bone and a bone comb handle.

7.38 Aerial photographic studies (see figure 7.13) have identified ridge and furrow throughout the site and the immediate landscape. These remnants of medieval land use have been recorded in Boatel’s Close, One Tree Field, Spring Field, Cottage Field, Forty Acres and Far Field. Ridge and furrow has also been recorded within SAM 75 (TOR 5). The geophysical survey revealed remnant earthworks, probably datable to the medieval period. Elements of this match very closely to the pattern of ridge and furrow recorded in aerial photographs, but features recorded at (TOR 20) may suggest the presence of settlement-related remains.

Post-medieval (1540-present)

7.39 Of the post-medieval sites or find spots identified, three represent stray finds in the form of pottery sherds (TOR 6 and 7) and a fragment of tile (TOR 8). The major features are buildings and are considered below.

7.40 An extensive area of disturbed ground from late 19th and early 20th century coprolite quarrying is visible in aerial photographs (TOR 49). Several archaeological finds were made in the various workings. Following the cessation of extraction, the area was reinstated, concrete emplacements were blown up and removed and the river banks recut. The earth bank was levelled in the construction of the M11.

7.41 Archaeological evidence of the wartime use of the area, in particular the POW camp, is clear in the aerial photographs.

The historic environment

7.42 The following description should be read in conjunction with the detailed analysis of views in chapter 10, landscape and visual effects. That chapter also considers the wider landscape role of the site as a gateway to the historic city of Cambridge and part of the River Cam corridor.

7.43 County maps of Cambridgeshire published from the 16th century onwards show the settlement at Trumpington on the main road between London and Cambridge. The earliest detailed map of the area is an 1804 version of an enclosure award for the parish originally drawn up in 1802 and enacted in 1809, (figure 7.7). It shows most of the area between the river and the Hauxton Road as a single large field, (the former open field referred to as “Hauxton field” on the 1802 version of the map) belonging to Christopher Anstey Esq., owner of Anstey Hall. The only field boundaries or divisions shown in this area are one to the south and two small rectangular fields in the north-west corner, which are owned by F C J Pemberton Esq. of

Terence O’Rourke December 2007 Trumpington Meadows ES Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage TMLC

Trumpington Hall, as are most of the other land parcels, with the exception of a large field between Hauxton Road and the Shelford Road turnpike, which is the property of the vicar. Except for a shaded rectangle that probably represents a spring, no features or buildings are shown within the proposals site.

7.44 There is a long woodland plantation along the river at the north-western end of the field and two rectangular ponds before the boundary with the road from Grantchester. The shape of Trumpington village is clear, with the regular building plots along the High Street, the large triangular green and the smaller space opposite the church and the open area at the front of Trumpington Hall. Trumpington Hall is shown surrounded by a number of small fields and woodland plantations, with the long avenue from the High Street running to the open area before the entrance court of the house. To the west are three long canal-like fishponds. Anstey Hall is shown within a well defined enclosed garden with an avenue to the south of the house and several outbuildings to the east. Three ranges of buildings are shown at Anstey Hall Farm, one along to the road. To the south, along Hauxton Road, are the regular rectangular fields characteristic of parliamentary enclosure. There are several smaller parcels along the eastern side of Shelford Road.

7.45 A map of the parish of c. 1846, appears to be a based on the Inclosure Map of 1804, with the addition of field divisions within the former single large field (figure 7.8). The map shows the proposed route of two railway lines; the Royston to Hitchin extension shown in red and the proposed Cambridge to St. Neots line in blue. A number of new buildings are shown on Grantchester Road near Trumpington Hall facing the triangular green and off the north front of Anstey Hall on Maris Lane.

7.46 The 1891 1st edition OS map (figure 7.9) shows the Cambridge and Bletchley Branch of the L. & N. W. Railway bisecting the site slightly to the south of the alignment of the proposed Cambridge to St Neots line shown on the 1846 map. This line opened in 1862 and was closed in 1967. The major field boundaries survive from the 1846 map with only a few smaller fields being incorporated into larger ones, for instance at the north-east corner on Grantchester Road. The spring is marked and the long boundary plantation is named as Old Mill Plantation. The map records the first appearance of a cottage, later referred to as Shepherd’s Cottage, in the centre of the site.

7.47 The detail of the buildings in the core of Trumpington village can be seen on the 1886 6-inch map. (figure 7.10) The grounds of Anstey Hall have been extended to the corner of Hauxton Road and Maris Road, although the old boundary is still visible in the lines of trees. The formal avenue to the south has been replaced or remodelled in a more informal parkland style. The group of buildings includes new lodges and other buildings on the Maris Road entrance and a number of glasshouses. At Trumpington Hall the small field boundaries have been removed to unify the park. The groups of buildings and triangular space along Grantchester Road have been incorporated into Grantchester Road Plantation along the new boundary to the park. At Anstey Hall Farm, the large complex of buildings forms four courtyards. Bands of trees define the southern boundaries of Anstey Hall and Anstey Hall Farm.

Terence O’Rourke December 2007 Trumpington Meadows ES Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage TMLC

7.48 There is little change in the village on the 1903 edition of the map. By the 1924 edition, the mounds associated with the First World War coprolite quarrying appear as a number of linear and teardrop-shaped earthworks. Neither of the two linear earthworks could be associated with field boundaries, all of which were unchanged from the 1886 map. Ribbon development is shown along Shelford Road to the south.

7.49 The 1954 edition shows the buildings of the plant breeding institute, marked as ‘School of Agriculture (Plant Breeding Laboratories)’. There is a major group of new buildings to the east of the High Street laid out around King George V playing field. This is the beginning of the strong east/west division of the historic village and 20th century expansion. The former POW camp remains to the south of Shepherd’s Cottage.

The conservation areas

7.50 The conservation area designation at Trumpington covers the historic core of the village focused on the church and two manor houses and along the High Street. The boundaries of the conservation area were extended in 1998 specifically to include the landscape setting on the western and southern side of the village. The southern part of the village around the church contains the most important and coherent groups of historic buildings, including several with extensive grounds and important blocks of trees that give it an inward-looking character. The historic character of this area is least diluted by the large amounts of later 20th century development in the village. The main buildings form several overlapping groups, with a clear distinction in scale between high status buildings such as Anstey Hall, the church and vicarage, and the more domestic scale of the surrounding cottages. Much of the northern section of the conservation area is the large area of the parkland at Trumpington Hall. From the village, the house is secluded within its park and screened by boundary plantations, the only visual link is along the avenue towards the war memorial at the eastern end.

7.51 The identified qualities and character of the conservation area confirm the east/west division of the village. The important view points, tree groups and boundaries (walls, hedges etc) are within the historic core of the village. Particularly important views are from Grantchester looking west towards the church and Anstey Hall Farm and the water tower at Anstey Hall. Areas that detract from qualities of the area are in the south; the complex of buildings, glasshouses and concrete tracks at the Maris Centre and much of the development along Hauxton Road.

7.52 The conservation area at Grantchester extends north beyond the study area. The southern part includes the scatter of buildings along Mill Way, based around the mill on the river, the medieval moated manor house and the church to the north. The main focus of visual links and paths to the river is Grantchester Meadows to the north between the village and Cambridge. The rural character of the south-eastern edge links to the similar rural character of the western side of Trumpington. There is little intervisibility between the village and the proposals site. One of the few views through the trees is from the moated site and manor house to the western side of the existing offices and agricultural buildings, glasshouses and associated hard standing at the Maris Centre.

Terence O’Rourke December 2007 Trumpington Meadows ES Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage TMLC

Buildings assessment

7.53 Of the structures on the proposals site, only Shepherd’s Cottage (TOR 52) is not 20th century in date. Evidence for a building there first appears on the 1886 OS map. The current building is derelict and of no historical interest.

7.54 On the site boundaries are several important groups of listed structures, all of which are grade II unless otherwise stated. From the north-west corner, the boundary of the site is Old Mill Plantation, with, on other side of road, Grantchester Road Plantation, which is the boundary of the park at Trumpington Hall (TOR 19) This is a three-storey brick house of c. 1710. The house incorporates substantial structural elements of an H-plan building of the early 17th century as well as a quantity of reset panelling of that date. It arrived at its present plan in the earlier 18th century. The interior has several 18th-century panelled rooms and fireplace surrounds. The second floor was added early in the 19th century.

7.55 The line of the outer walls of the two wings is carried eastwards as walls, flanking an entrance court. The most formal feature of the park is a non-axial avenue and drive, which links the forecourt to the main road. There are three long canal-like fish ponds to the west near the river. The planting is informal and probably of late-18th or early-19th century origin. At the entrance to the park on High Street, on the site of an earlier cross, is the war memorial (TOR 35) designed by Eric Gill and set up in 1921. It is listed at grade II*.

7.56 On the south side of Grantchester Road, forming the boundary of the development site, is the significant group of farm buildings at Anstey Hall Farm (TOR 28). The farmhouse, at right angles to the road, may be 17th- century in origin but it is much altered. There are extensive farm buildings of the 18th and 19th centuries around two yards. The most visible are the row along the western margin, which includes a large 18th-century weatherboarded aisled barn and an 18th-century dovecote. This was restored by the Cambridge Preservation Society in 1984.

7.57 Immediately next to that is the group based around the grade II*-listed parish church and adjacent vicarage. The church of St Mary and St Michael (TOR 29) is structurally 13th-century in origin but, apart from the chancel, was largely rebuilt in the 14th century. Within the north aisle is the Trumpington Brass, a brass memorial of 1289 (the second oldest in England) thought to be associated with Roger de Trumpington or his son Giles. Medieval gravestones have been recorded in the churchyard. The 19th century restorations from 1849 were directed by William Butterfield, when Bath stone was used. The three-stage west tower rises above the surrounding trees as a landmark in the village and in views from the south.

7.58 The Vicarage (TOR 30) was built of red brick in 1733. A bay was added to the east early in the 19th century and the house was extended southwards early in the 20th century. The original staircase, panelled rooms and fireplaces survive inside. The gardens are largely surrounded by walls, which they share with the churchyard and the gardens of Anstey Hall.

Terence O’Rourke December 2007 Trumpington Meadows ES Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage TMLC

7.59 Opposite the church on Grantchester Road is a group of cottages, 20 and 22 (TOR 31), which is late 17th /early 18th century timber-framed and thatched, 16 and 18 (TOR 32), which is dated 1654 on the front but was remodelled in 1969 and 10 and 12 (TOR 32a) which are early 19th century with a carriage arch between the two houses. On the corner of Grantchester Road and Church Lane is the school house (TOR 33) built in 1857 to designs by William Butterfield. The unlisted estate cottages and the Old School add to the group.

7.60 The second high status house in the village is the grade-I listed Anstey Hall (TOR 36). The plan of the older part of the house may preserve the form of a late-16th century timber-framed building that was cased in brick in the early 17th century. A new north front, with giant pilasters on either side of the central bay, was added in the last years of the 17th century. Some of the rooms retain early-18th century panelling. Large additions were made to the east, service, end in the mid-19th century and early in the 20th century. The complex of outbuildings includes stables and coachhouses, glasshouses, a water tower and a lodge, which is dated 1865.

7.61 The location of the wings on the south side and the placing of the early 17th century porch there suggest that the original principal approach may have been from that direction. There were extensive gardens on the south side by 1695. The new north front signifies a change of approach, associated with a walled court with gates to Maris Lane. By 1830 the formal gardens on the south side, which included a central avenue, had been removed and replaced with informal landscaping. The south side was open to the agricultural landscape. In the 20th century the boundary was marked by iron railings with a central gap at the end of a re-planted avenue.

7.62 Another building with early origins is The Old House (TOR 34) on Church Lane which is listed at grade II*. The house is of late 16th century origin, built of red brick with high crow-stepped gables to the end walls. The lower southern part and the northern gable were rebuilt in 1924.

7.63 Further along Maris Lane is Maris House (TOR 37), which was probably built in the late 18th century as the house for the adjacent farm. At the junction of Maris Lane with the main road is 60 and 62 High Street (TOR 38). It was built in 1811 as a toll house on the turnpike road into Cambridge and was substantially extended in the 20th century. Along the High Street is No. 52 (TOR 73), a timber-framed cottage that is of 18th century origin.

7.64 There is an important group of historic buildings at the northern end of the village around the two pubs. The Coach and Horses (TOR 68) is 17th century timber-framed, was remodelled in the 18th century and a wing was added in the early 19th century. Some 17th century panelling and a staircase survives inside. The row of cottages, 22 - 30 High Street (TOR 69, 70, 71) are 17th and early 18th century red brick and thatch. The Green Man pub (TOR 72) completes the group. It originates in a 15th century open hall house with many later additions.

7.65 In addition to the main groups of historic buildings that form much of the conservation area, there are other more scattered groups and structures of national value in the study area. Two of a series of 16 milestones (TOR 74,

Terence O’Rourke December 2007 Trumpington Meadows ES Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage TMLC

75) set up on the old London road to Cambridge between 1728 and 1732 under the will of Dr William Mowse, Master of Trinity Hall, are within the study area. W G Hoskins describes these as the first true milestones to be set up in Britain since Roman times.

7.66 To the west of the proposals site, across the river, the complex of buildings at Cantelupe Farm (TOR 3) includes the early 17th century Brook Bank and 18th century Old Farm Cottages. The early 19th century farmhouse was built using bricks and timbers from the 17th century Haslingfield Hall. A 16th century barn re-erected at the farm is also probably from Haslingfield Hall.

7.67 At Grantchester a group of buildings at the southern extent of the village grouped around the medieval moated site (TOR 83) fall within the study area. Mill House (TOR 76) is an early 18th century timber framed house and adjoining cottage. The Vicarage (TOR 77) is a brick and timber framed house built c1684 with many later alterations. The associations of Grantchester with the poet Rupert Brooke derive from his residence at the Vicarage from 1910. In the garden is a building originally built c1855 as a theatre, photographic studio and sham ruin. The other cottages along Mill Way include number 43 (TOR 78) built c1840, number 41 (TOR 79) built late 17th century with alterations of the 18th century and c1830, and Dove Cottage (TOR 80), a former dovecote.

7.68 At the southern edge of the proposals site is a group of historic buildings at Hauxton Mill (TOR 81). The watermill was built in 1862 and extended in the late 19th century. Inside much of the original machinery is intact. The Domesday Book records a mill on the site. An early 19th century bridge over the tail race of the mill is to the north. The Old Mill House (TOR 82) to the south dates from c. 1700 with mid 18th century additions.

Assessment of sensitivity

Archaeology

7.69 The proposals site lies within an area of known archaeological importance, reflected in the records of the county HER and national designation. The non-intrusive investigations outlined below have been used to highlight areas likely to still possess hitherto unknown archaeological material, and to develop a working model of the sensitivity of the site (for more detail on the results of these surveys, see technical appendix C).

Geophysical survey

7.70 The initial topsoil magnetic susceptibility survey identified three significant areas of magnetic enhancement. An area within the northernmost fields was demonstrated to have been generated by a number of small enclosures and areas of pitting, which are of potential archaeological significance. The central zone (extending westwards from the research centre greenhouses), produced only one readily identifiable anomaly (a possible large pit). This feature was the exception to the remainder of the field, which was generally littered with iron and other magnetic debris. A relatively strong pattern of topsoil magnetic susceptibility in the southern field relates to a zone of disturbance containing several discrete, possibly burnt features.

Terence O’Rourke December 2007 Trumpington Meadows ES Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage TMLC

7.71 Overall, with the exception of the northern field, features with archaeological potential are likely to be found only sporadically within the remainder of the survey area.

Fieldwalking survey and metal detecting

7.72 Further evidence for low-density prehistoric activity on the site was provided by the 132 flints recovered from the field walking. Unfortunately, the undiagnostic nature of the flint makes it difficult to date beyond generally Neolithic / Bronze Age. The reason for the high density of finds may be the close proximity of the site to the River Cam, which was an important communications route into the southern fenlands and a focus for settlement throughout that period.

7.73 A very small amount of Roman pottery was found. This is probably linked to the nature of the archaeological resource, where the cores of the settlement sites are to the west within the gravel band alongside the River Cam. The study area is likely to lie outside this core and the results probably reflect this. There was very little evidence of medieval activity from the fieldwalking exercise.

7.74 A long-term metal detecting programme (figure 7.12) conducted at the site confirms that the main focus of earlier settlement archaeology runs in a band along the river, on the terrace above the floodplain. The presence of conquest period material through to the late Roman and Saxon periods, suggests the longevity of activity. The Bronze Age presence evidenced by the possible ring ditches is supported by the collection of bronzes from the Cam and the possible hoard of scrap bronze.

Air photo interpretation

7.75 Figure 7.13 shows the result of the study of aerial photographs of the site. Four areas of levelled prehistoric and/or Roman period ditched features are recorded plus a small number of possible ditches. This is a much lower density of features than appears to the west of the river. Traces of ridge and furrow were mapped in four locations. All are now plough-levelled and unlikely to survive in much more than bands of compacted soil below former ridges. To the south, a double-fence and the closely-packed group of huts of the POW camp are recorded.

Archaeological potential

7.76 Six areas of particular interest have been identified on the site. (see figure 7.14):

• Zone I is a series of small enclosures on the eastern side of the headland/trackway in the field adjoining Anstey Hall Farm. These could represent an area of early settlement in the village with a subsequent shift or reduction in size. The features lie within 150 m of the church, but in an area not previously indicated as being of interest at this period. They could be much earlier in date, perhaps Roman.

Terence O’Rourke December 2007 Trumpington Meadows ES Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage TMLC

• Zone II is an area of ring ditches that are possibly an extension of the varied prehistoric features at the Park and Ride into the proposals site. • Zone III is the extension along the river of the multi-period features designated as SAM 74 (TOR 15) • Zone IV to the south of the motorway is another area of multi-period settlement features by the river. • Zone V is a finds scatter extending the area of potential interest by the SAM • Zone VI is a series of multi-period features dominated by Roman material.

7.77 These areas were evaluated by the site investigations undertaken between October and November 2006 by Cambridge Archaeological Unit. The findings from the site evaluation scheme are assigned site numbers 1 – 11. In brief, the overlap is as follows:

• Zone I is now site 5 • Zone II is sites 1 and 4 • Zone III refers to sites 7 – 10 • Zone IV was not evaluated • Zone V is site 2 • Zone VI was not evaluated.

7.78 A total of 87 trenches (figure 7.15) were evaluated, revealing 11 areas/sites of archaeological interest spanning from the Early Bronze Age to Medieval period, with the majority dating to the Iron Age and Romano-British period (Brudenell and Dickens, 2007).

7.79 The most significant was the occurrence of the ploughed out remains of a Bronze Age burial mound (ring ditch). The Iron Age sites uncovered were all located on the higher slopes of the development area, with the Romano- British activity and settlement along the River Cam on the western boundary. No Anglo-Saxon evidence was uncovered during the scheme, while the aerial photograph evidence of medieval ridge and furrow cultivation marks was poorly represented below ground level. The evidence has shown how important the geology and topography were for determining site settlement location during the Iron Age and Romano-British periods.

7.80 The evaluation was split into three distinct zones:

a) within the area of extant upstanding buildings on the east b) immediately west of the Maris Centre encompassing One Tree Field, Garden Field and Milestone Field c) along the River Cam encompassing Boutel’s Field, Summerhouse Field and Spring Field, the latter lying adjacent to Old Mills Field and the designated area of SAM 74.

7.81 Of the nine excavated trenches in Zone A, only one (69) contained any archaeological features. A total of eight pits and one linear ditch feature were observed, with only one pit excavated for analysis. Three Early Bronze Age sherds of pottery were recovered from the pit. The Bronze Age date correlates with the identified remains of a Bronze Age ring ditch to the west uncovered in trench 23 (see site 1 below).

Terence O’Rourke December 2007 Trumpington Meadows ES Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage TMLC

Bronze Age activity: sites 1 and 2 on figure 7.16 7.82 The most significant discovery during the evaluation was the Early Bronze Age remains of a ring ditch feature identified through the aerial photograph survey with a central burial inhumation (site 1). This feature appears to be c.27 m in diameter and was intentionally situated on a prominent natural feature on the raised gravel topography. The original internal mound has been levelled by ploughing but would have aided its prominence. Besides the Early Bronze Age pottery sherds uncovered in the ditch to the east, no other contemporary settlement evidence was uncovered from the site evaluation. To the north-west of the ring ditch feature in trench 55, a series of intercutting pits with no clear function were dated due to the large quantities of Late Bronze Age pottery recovered (site 2).

Early Iron Age activity: sites 3 and 4 on figure 7.16 7.83 It would appear that the prominent landscape setting for the identified Early Bronze Age ring ditch played an important role in the alignment of a large boundary ditch c.120 m long and orientated north-east – south-west, which passes within only 5 m of the exterior edge of the ring ditch. It appears that the ring ditch maintained an important focus for later settlement, with Iron Age activity centred on the gravel promontory in the southern half of Garden Field. A total of 18 pits were identified in this locale, with large quantities of dumped Iron Age material such as pottery, flint and bone being recovered. The artefacts recovered indicate activities such as cooking, weaving and food processing occurring in the time period of the 5th to 3rd centuries BC. The clustering of such material is very similar to that identified at the Park and Ride site (Hinman 20041) to the east, which possibly indicated the two areas belong to one extensive Iron Age settlement site.

7.84 The evidence from both the evaluation and cropmarks shown on the aerial photographs indicates that this large boundary ditch delineated two distinct areas on the gravel spur of the site: an area to the west lacking in Iron Age features but containing the Bronze Age ring ditch, and an area to the east containing a large swathe of Iron Age pits set out in clusters. It is suggested that this entire area could be made up of many pit features as it is worth bearing in mind that some 616 Iron Age pits were uncovered at the Park and Ride site to the east (ibid.).

Middle to late Iron Age activity: sites 5 and 6 on figure 7.16 7.85 An enclosure (site 5) of middle to late Iron Age date and sub-circular in form (21 m diameter and 0.04 ha in size) was revealed initially by the geophysical survey in the northern end of the site. Intensive trenching revealed no internal features and few artefacts were recovered. A rectilinear enclosure (site 6) was uncovered on the eastern edge of One Tree Field, which had not been revealed through any previous aerial photo or geophysical survey. The size and function of this enclosure remains undefined at this stage but comparisons have been made with a similar enclosure uncovered at the Park and Ride site to the east (Hinman 2004).

1 Hinman, M. 2004 Neolithic Bronze Age and Iron Age activity on land adjacent to Hauxton Road, Trumpington, Cambridge: Post excavation assessment of evaluation and excavation at Trumpington Park and Ride CCCAFU report 706.

Terence O’Rourke December 2007 Trumpington Meadows ES Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage TMLC

Romano-British settlements and associated field systems: sites 7 to 10 on figure 7.16 7.86 The evaluation results indicate that settlement in the Iron Age favoured the higher ground, but the Romano-British settlement evidence appears to be focused on the edge of the riverbank. This was not unusual as contemporary evidence was well attested from SAM 74 and Edmundsoles south of the M11. A large 2nd to 4th century settlement site (site 7) was uncovered in Boutel’s Close Field extending over an area c.175 m in length. Cropmarks from the aerial photos indicated a series of field boundaries, but a colluvial subsoil, 0.1 m to 0.8 m thick, effectively sealed extensive settlement features, ensuring preservation of surfaces such as a metalled stone yard, structural post hole and beam hole slots – all typical of known contemporary rural settlements in the region.

7.87 Sites 8, 9 and 10 were all characterised by field system ditches, very few of which yielded datable artefacts. The ditches appear to fall into three groups and appear to surround an established settlement, e.g. site 8 is the outer ditch of site 7, site 9 is linked with the Roman settlement at SAM 74 and site 10 is linked to the Romano-British cropmark complex at Edmundsoles to the south of the site. The ditches and field systems identified probably indicate three land holdings of likely contemporary date along the River Cam. Other similarly spaced small farmsteads (all within 500 m of each other) are known further upstream and similarly indicated by a large concentration of cropmarks to the west of Grantchester Meadows.

Medieval and post-medieval activity: site 11 et al. on figure 7.16 7.88 The only sub-surface features of medieval date were the series of inter- cutting pits at site 11, which extended over an area at least 100 m wide. This area was in the north-east corner of Summerhouse Field and the south-east corner of Boutel’s Close Field. Very few datable artefacts (small sherds of 13th – 15th century pottery) were recovered from the excavated pits, suggesting that they were not used for refuse disposal. It has been suggested therefore that the pits were extraction points for the plentiful supply of marl in this area. Marl can be added to improve the agricultural potential of fields. It is worth bearing in mind that this activity may have been taking place before the medieval date suggested by the recovered pottery.

7.89 There were also many features of post-medieval date uncovered during this scheme. The northern end of Boutel’s Close Field contained the 19th/20th century evidence for coprolite mining/quarrying. A series of 13 narrow linear ditches were encountered in the north-east corner of the site. They appear to follow the line of a medieval headland plotted on the aerial photo analysis. All the post-medieval features uncovered relate to agricultural activity and the known coprolite quarrying.

Buildings and historic environment

7.90 The only building on site, Shepherd’s Cottage, is of no historical importance. The length of the Hauxton Road within the planning application boundary includes an early 18th century milestone (TOR 75), one of a group of 16 set up on the road to Cambridge. Others in the series are to the south near Hauxton Mill, and outside the study area to the north of Trumpington (the

Terence O’Rourke December 2007 Trumpington Meadows ES Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage TMLC

three stones mark the points 2 miles, 3 miles and 4 miles from Great St Mary’s Church, Cambridge).

7.91 The southern area of the historic core of Trumpington is central to the character and importance of the conservation area. It is the area of the greatest concentration of historic buildings, several of which are of high grade and are prominent by virtue of their scale and status. The gardens and wooded plantations of Trumpington Hall, Anstey Hall and the church are very important to the character of the conservation area and in screening and framing views. The western edge of the village retains elements of its rural character, and the link to agriculture remains in the large group of buildings at Anstey Hall Farm. The recent boundary extension took in these parkland areas that are important to the setting of the area. The existing development at the proposals site is highlighted as one of the areas that is detrimental to the setting and qualities of the conservation area.

7.92 Along the northern edge of the site are several individual listed structures of greatest sensitivity. The Church of St Mary and St Michael (TOR 29) is of high sensitivity given the importance of the unique status of the church in the historic core of the village. The tower is an important landmark against the foreground of farm buildings in the approach to the village along Grantchester Road and in views from the river. To the east of the church is Anstey Hall (TOR 36). Its listing at grade I highlights its outstanding value. The grounds are relatively enclosed, although views over the agricultural land to the south were important as shown in the replanted axial avenue. This group of important buildings and their overlapping setting includes Anstey Hall Farm and the vicarage, as well as buildings of a more domestic scale that does not imply the same claim to visual prominence and status as the church and Anstey Hall.

7.93 The setting of the village and the important groups of historic buildings is already eroded by existing development, particularly the group of large scale structures and associated hardstanding at the Plant Breeding institute. The remaining open land between the settlements of Trumpington and Grantchester is important to their integrity as separate historic settlements, despite the expansion of Cambridge.

Summary of sensitivity

7.94 Table 7.2 below provides a summary of the overall sensitivity of cultural heritage receptors in the study area derived from the criteria in figure 7.1.

Terence O’Rourke December 2007 Trumpington Meadows ES Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage TMLC

Receptor Sensitivity Archaeology SAM High Site 1 High Sites 2 – 4, 7 – 10 Medium Sites 5 and 6 Medium to high Listed buildings Trumpington Church, Anstey Hall High All other listed buildings Medium to high Conservation areas Medium to high Historic landscape context Medium Table 7.2: Summary of sensitivity

Potential effects

7.95 The proposed development could be a source of impacts on the cultural heritage value or significance of the site and its surrounding area through:

• the removal of the existing buildings, hardstanding, lighting, movement etc. at the site • the construction activities over the phases of the development • the new built form; its extent and character • the new road layout, access and patterns of circulation, including changes to traffic movement in the village • the new landscape planting, habitat creation and management of the community park.

7.96 The assessment of effects that follows considers the effect without mitigation. An appropriate programme of mitigation could reduce the severity of an adverse effect or remove it completely.

Effects during construction

7.97 The main impact upon the archaeological resource during construction will be caused by groundworks for the proposed built form and the intended extensive landscaping for the country park area. This latter area will remain undeveloped as it includes SAM 74 as well as the other Romano-British farmstead (site 7) and the associated ditches and plot divisions (sites 8-10) along the River Cam.

7.98 The recent evaluation scheme has shown the area to have been densely occupied throughout the Iron Age period, with the identified site lying within a 500-600 m radius of the known contemporary, and multi-period, settlement at SAM 74 on the eastern bank of the River Cam. One Iron Age enclosure at the north of the site boundary (site 5) will be directly impacted upon by the proposed residential development.

7.99 The Bronze Age ring ditch/barrow cemetery (site 1) and the series of pits identified at site 4 will both be directly impacted upon by residential

Terence O’Rourke December 2007 Trumpington Meadows ES Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage TMLC

development. The occurrence and magnitude of pitting uncovered here and at the Park and Ride site is unparalleled in this region. It has been suggested (Hinman 2004, 82) that this area played a specific role in the organised and communal activity of Iron Age mortuary practice, but as mentioned earlier the artefacts recovered represent domestic activities such as cooking, weaving and food processing. It may have functioned as an area of communal storage from many nearby settlements and was possibly used during communal gatherings or in times of crop failure or famine. Little is known of such large communal, open plan areas from the Early Iron Age and this may be a unique site type to the Cambridgeshire region.

7.100 The identified presence of delineated areas during the Romano-British period at the site, characterised by the distribution of ditches, shows a highly organised system of paddocks arranged along the river edge and closely associated with an established small farmstead. The farmsteads or settlement core at SAM 74, site 7 and Edmundsoles to the south appear to be regularly spaced at 500 m intervals, perhaps indicating a standardised land holding during this period. The Romano-British occupation at the site appears to be short-lived, beginning at the mid 2nd century and ending before the 4th century AD. The artefacts recovered are typical of a domestic assemblage. The quantity of tile recovered certainly hints at a building(s) being present, but its exact size and function remain unknown and unquantifiable at this stage.

7.101 This area of the site is scheduled for inclusion in the proposed country park and extensive open space. Limited below ground impact will be caused by these works and where possible, especially in relation to SAM 74, preservation in situ must be adhered to. The ground levels will not be impacted upon to ensure below ground archaeological deposits are not disturbed. The works in this area will be clearly stated in the management plan, with due consideration for this nationally protected site throughout all associated landscaping schemes.

7.102 The visual and other intrusion from construction activities will have a temporary moderate effect on the general setting of the buildings along the north edge of the site. This is likely to reduce over the phases of development as the first buildings along the north-eastern edge shield the village from the ongoing construction.

Effects post-construction

7.103 Once construction has been completed, the impact upon the archaeological resource will be minimal. The only continuing impact will be agricultural activity, particularly ploughing, which will continue to gradually erode the resource, but that is in common to most agriculture.

7.104 The proposals involve the removal of the existing built development at the site, with the exception of the adjacent Robert Sayle building, and its replacement with housing and the associated landscape structure. The additional areas of built development will change the physical use of some of the land that forms the southern setting of the historic core of Trumpington, and potentially views that may be significant to the legibility of the main historic buildings. Given the discordant scale and poor appearance of many

Terence O’Rourke December 2007 Trumpington Meadows ES Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage TMLC

of the existing buildings at the site, their removal during the demolition phase is assumed to be beneficial.

7.105 The proposals extend the area of built development and result in a change in its character and the character of the remaining land to be part of the riverside park and to remain in agricultural use. The development will create a new southern boundary to Trumpington, breaking the historical limit of the extent of the village. It is a feature of the historic core that it is separated from most of the 20th century development east of the road; under the proposals it will be more centrally placed within the expanded settlement, although the main access points are off Hauxton Road to the east so the existing east/west division remains. As the application is only in outline no details of architectural treatment or layout are available, and the masterplan assessed is set out in figures 3.1a-3.1f. The traffic assessment concluded that the effects of the development on traffic in the village are negligible; therefore, no indirect effects on the qualities or character of historic buildings or areas through changes to traffic are predicted.

7.106 The development site directly abuts the southern boundary of the conservation area, which at this point is the extended wooded and grassed areas of the grounds of Anstey Hall, the church and Anstey Hall Farm. To the west are the woodland plantations surrounding the parkland of Trumpington Hall that forms much of the northern and western part of the conservation area. Development along this boundary will be two storeys or three storeys in height and the route along the site boundary is designed for cycles and pedestrians only. The extended developed area and new riverside park on the southern edge do not materially change the character of the conservation area as a small compact area of historic core within the mainly recent development of the former village as part of the wider city of Cambridge. At this stage, no assessment is possible of any potential contribution to the area the proposals may make through the quality of the environment created or the detail of the buildings and spaces.

7.107 The extended area of built development will be present in the important views of the approach to the conservation area from the west along Grantchester Road. The views of the church with the foreground of the range of the buildings at Anstey Hall Farm will remain unchanged, although to the south the western edge of the built development will change to residential buildings with the adjacent allotments and open space. The open views along the river are retained, although the character will change as the landscape and new habitats of the proposed riverside park replace the current regime of intensive agriculture. Overall a small to medium change to the qualities of the conservation area is predicted, causing a moderate effect.

7.108 From Grantchester conservation area, the single view through to the site will experience a change as the current complex of buildings at the plant breeding institute is replaced by housing. The effect on the conservation area as a whole is negligible.

7.109 The immediate setting of St Mary and St Michael’s church is currently unaffected by the development at the site; the buildings, glasshouses and activity there do not affect appreciation of its significance within the historic

Terence O’Rourke December 2007 Trumpington Meadows ES Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage TMLC

core of the village. From further afield, the buildings of the site are a presence in views of the church tower from the south and west of the site and the river corridor. The immediate setting of the church is the surrounding churchyard and group formed with the Rectory within gardens and other enclosures, surrounded by groups of trees. The church has a weaker relationship to the transition to farmland to the south, although longer range views are important given the landmark role of the church tower. The proposed primary road layout creates a new deliberate axis through the development aligned on the church tower above the trees of the northern site boundary. The expansion of built development into the agricultural land on the proposed western edge narrows the river corridor, although the view of the church tower is retained and is an important element of the proposed riverside park. Overall the proposals are predicted to result in a small change to the setting of the church, leading to a moderate effect.

7.110 The clearest views of the site are from the south front and grounds of Anstey Hall. The setting and perceptions of the grade-I listed house currently suffer from the presence and poor appearance of the buildings at the site, their dominant scale and the intrusion of the activity at the site so close to the house. The proposed replacement of the existing built development will result in a change in the appearance, character and scale rather than in the extent of development, retaining the built up character of the setting to the south of the house. The masterplan proposes development up to three storeys high along that boundary, with cycle and pedestrian access only.

7.111 The formal axis south from the house is a deliberate composed view related to the geometry of the original late 16th early 17th century house. Extensive gardens are recorded to the south by 1695, and it is probable that before the later remodelling of the house that the entrance was from the south. Under the proposals, the line of the avenue in the gardens of Anstey Hall is continued south into the proposed development to an area of open space and children’s play area. The vista is terminated by a four storey building to screen the retained Robert Sayle building. The proposals also introduce built development on the western boundary of Anstey Hall, where it is separated from the grounds by a strong tree belt. Overall, the medium change to the setting of Anstey Hall results in a moderate/substantial effect. Provided the priority and distinction of the status of the house is respected in the detailed architectural treatment of the development, that change is predicted to be broadly beneficial.

7.112 The western edge of the existing buildings and the intensively cultivated land up to the river are visible from Anstey Hall Farm and in view through the farm courtyards from Grantchester Road. Despite the poor appearance and large scale of the buildings, their clearly agricultural function means the current effect on the setting of the farm complex is minimal. The proposals extend the developed area into the currently cultivated land immediately to the south of the farm. This part of the site is proposed for two storey buildings, the allotments and an area of formal open space. Access along that edge is for pedestrians and cyclists only, except for emergency access. The long range of farm buildings, including the aisled barn and dovecote, becomes part of the new western extent of the village, although the farm remains the focus of the western approach to the village as the foreground to the church. The new landscaping of the community park and change of

Terence O’Rourke December 2007 Trumpington Meadows ES Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage TMLC

management reinforces the loss of links to agriculture. The proposals are predicted to result in a small/medium change in the setting of the farm complex, an effect of moderate significance.

7.113 None of the other listed structures in the village will be affected in their setting as a result of the intervisibility of the development; those to the south of the village are separated from the development site by the major groups to the south, Trumpington Hall is secluded within its park and the group of buildings at the northern extent of the village is too distant.

Summary of effects

Receptor Sensitivity Magnitude of Impact change Archaeology SAM High None Negligible Identified sites Site 1 High Large Very substantial Sites 2-4, 7-10 Medium Small to medium Substantial Sites 5 and 6 Medium to high Large Very substantial Remaining site Medium to low Small Slight area Listed buildings Trumpington High Small Moderate Church Anstey Hall High Medium Moderate to substantial Anstey Hall Farm Medium to high Small to medium Moderate All other listed Medium to high Negligible None buildings Trumpington Medium to high Small to medium Moderate to conservation area substantial Table 7.3: Summary of predicted effects

Mitigation

7.114 Mitigation for the archaeology will adhere to the principles outlined in PPG 16 and reiterated in local legislation, which favours the preservation in situ of significant archaeological remains where they have been identified and, where preservation is not practicable, an appropriate level of recording of archaeology. All archaeological fieldwork would be conducted in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation drawn up in consultation with the County Council Development Control Archaeology Office. Prior to any construction, all areas of development will be subject to thorough fieldwork evaluation e.g. fieldwalking and geophysical survey where that has not taken place, and trial trenching across the area as appropriate. All “sites” subsequently discovered, and those known beforehand, will either be preserved in situ or ‘preserved by record’ (i.e. fully excavated). Unless deemed necessary by the local authority no work will take place within SAM 74. A mitigation strategy has been agreed in principle, which is set out in

Terence O’Rourke December 2007 Trumpington Meadows ES Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage TMLC

technical appendix C and illustrated in figure 7.17.

7.115 Much of the area proposed for built development is already developed, so the potential for effects on the settings of neighbouring historic areas and buildings derives from the change in the appearance, character and scale of development rather than its simple presence or extent. The existing buildings and activities at the site have a detrimental effect on the setting of the conservation area and the adjacent historic buildings, in particular the grade-I listed Anstey Hall. Their removal and replacement is therefore a beneficial change. Mitigation of any potential effects of the replacement development has concentrated on the design of the development and how it integrates within the historic context through patterns of access and the response to the main historic buildings.

Residual effects

7.116 Any adverse impacts on the archaeological resource can be fully mitigated through the programme of archaeological investigation and recording detailed above. The necessary archaeological evaluation and excavation is in itself a destructive process, but the information gained and potential additions to knowledge of the archaeology of the area is a beneficial residual effect.

7.117 The substantial change in the character and quality of development on site and the ways the design of the development integrates with village results in a positive residual effect on the conservation area and on the settings of the listed buildings. This prediction of impact is made on the basis of the elements of the masterplan currently fixed; as the detailed architectural treatment of the development, particularly where it abuts the southern edge of the conservation area and the grounds of the listed buildings, is not available the level of certainty is classified as ‘reasonable’.

7.118 The residual effects are summarised in table 7.4.

Topic Significant Sensitivity Magnitude Nature Duration Significance Certainty residual effect of receptor of change Potential High Medium Beneficial Long- Substantial Reasonable improvements in term knowledge of the archaeology of the site gained

e from g a

t investigations i r

e Change to setting Medium to Small to Subjective Long Moderate to Reasonable h

l of the high medium term substantial a r conservation area u t l

u Change to setting High Medium Subjective Long Moderate to Reasonable C of Anstey Hall /beneficial term substantial Table 7.4: Residual effects

Terence O’Rourke December 2007 Trumpington Meadows ES Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage TMLC

Cumulative effects

7.119 Potential effects of the development on archaeology in combination with other proposed development on the South Fringe differ from those predicted for the site alone. The effect of the series of investigations and excavations likely to be required for each proposal, as preservation in situ may not be possible, will be to erode the overall archaeological resource of the area. Although the information gained could be of value to the understanding of the area, the excavation of a sizable amount of the local archaeological resource is an impact of substantial significance.

7.120 The construction of the Addenbrooke’s Access Road as part of the sequence of developments on the South Fringe is predicted to result in some improvement in the current levels of traffic on the High Street, which may have a beneficial effect on the conservation area and the listed buildings along that road.

7.121 The residual cumulative effects are summarised in table 7.5.

Topic Significant Sensitivity Magnitude Nature Duration Significance Certainty residual effect of receptor of change Erosion of overall High Medium Adverse Long- Substantial Reasonable archaeological term resource of the South Fringe Effects on the High/ Small Beneficial Long- Moderate Reasonable

conservation area medium term e

g and listed a t

i buildings in the r

e High Street of h

l potential a r

u improvements in t l

u traffic as a result C of the AAR Table 7.5: Residual cumulative effects

Terence O’Rourke December 2007 ÌÑΠл®·±¼ Ü»•½®·°¬·±² Ò±ò

ï Û×ß ó Í»¬¬´»³»²¬ ½±³°´»¨ ±º ®»½¬¿²¹«´¿® ¼·¬½¸»¼ »²½´±•«®»•ô ´·²»¿® ¼·¬½¸»•ô °·¬ ´·²»• ¿²¼ °·¬• ®»½±®¼»¼ º®±³ ß»®·¿´ α³¿² 豬±¹®¿°¸•ò Þ·•»½¬»¼ ¾§ Óïïò ˲¼¿¬»¼ ¾«¬ °®±¾¿¾´§ ×ßñα³¿²ò ͽ¸»¼«´»¼ Ó±²«³»²¬ Ý¿³¾•ò éë

α³¿² Þ®¿•• •»•¬»®¬·«• ±º Ó¿®½«• ß«®»´·«• øßÜ ïêïóïèð÷ º±«²¼ ©·¬¸·² ÍßÓ éë

α³¿² ݱ·²• ±º Ì®¿¶¿² ¿²¼ Ê¿´»²¬·²·¿² øí®¼ó쬸 ½»²¬«®§÷ô α³¿² •¸»®¼ô ¬·´»• ¿²¼ ¬»••»®¿»

î ˲¼¿¬»¼ ˲¼¿¬»¼ »²½´±•«®» •§•¬»³ ®»½±®¼»¼ º®±³ ¿»®·¿´ °¸±¬±¹®¿°¸•

˲¼¿¬»¼ ˲¼¿¬»¼ »²½´±•«®» •§•¬»³ ®»½±®¼»¼ º®±³ ¿»®·¿´ °¸±¬±¹®¿°¸•

í б•¬ó³»¼

¼» ´¿ É¿®®ò Ñ´¼ Ú¿®³ ݱ¬¬¿¹»• ¿²¼ Þ®±±µ Þ¿²µô ï鬸 ¿²¼ ï謸 ½»²¬«®§ô ´·•¬»¼ ¹®¿¼» ××

ì Ó»•±´·¬¸·½ Ì®¿²½¸»¬ ¿¨»¸»¿¼

Ó»•±´·¬¸·½ Ì®¿²½¸»¬ ¿¨»¸»¿¼

ë Ó»¼·»ª¿´ η¼¹» ¿²¼ º«®®±©

ê Ó»¼·»ª¿´ Ú®¿¹³»²¬ ±º Ó»¼·»ª¿´ °±¬¬»®§ ±º ´·¹¸¬ ¹®»§ º¿¾®·½ ®»½±ª»®»¼ ¼«®·²¹ ¬¸» ´¿§·²¹ ±º ¿ ¹¿• °·°» ´·²» ·² ïçèë

б•¬ó³»¼ η³ •¸»®¼ ±º ᕬóÓ»¼·»ª¿´ °±¬¬»®§ ·² ½±¿®•» ®»¼ º¿¾®·½ ®»½±ª»®»¼ ¼«®·²¹ ¬¸» ´¿§·²¹ ±º ¿ ¹¿• °·°» ´·²» ·² ïçèë

é б•¬ó³»¼ Ì©± •¸»®¼• ±º б•¬ó³»¼·»ª¿´ °±¬¬»®§ ®»½±ª»®»¼ ¼«®·²¹ ¬¸» ´¿§·²¹ ±º ¿ ¹¿• °·°» ´·²» ·² ïçèë

è α³¿² ̸®»» α³¿² °±¬•¸»®¼• ®»½±ª»®»¼ ¼«®·²¹ ¬¸» ´¿§·²¹ ±º ¿ ¹¿• °·°» ´·²» ·² ïçèë

Ó»¼·»ª¿´ 糕¸»®¼ ±º °®±¾¿¾´» Ó»¼·»ª¿´ °±¬¬»®§ ®»½±ª»®»¼ ¼«®·²¹ ¬¸» ´¿§·²¹ ±º ¿ ¹¿• °·°» ´·²» ·² ïçèë

б•¬ó³»¼ Ì©± •¸»®¼• ±º б•¬ó³»¼·»ª¿´ °±¬¬»®§ ®»½±ª»®»¼ ¼«®·²¹ ¬¸» ´¿§·²¹ ±º ¿ ¹¿• °·°» ´·²» ·² ïçèë

α³¿² Ѳ» α³¿² °±¬•¸»®¼ ¿²¼ ¬©± ¾®·½µ ±® ¬·´» •¸»®¼• ®»½±ª»®»¼ ¼«®·²¹ ¬¸» ´¿§·²¹ ±º ¿ ¹¿• °·°» ´·²» ·² ïçèë

б•¬ó³»¼ Ѳ» б•¬ó³»¼·»ª¿´ ¬·´» •¸»®¼ ®»½±ª»®»¼ ¼«®·²¹ ¬¸» ´¿§·²¹ ±º ¿ ¹¿• °·°» ´·²» ·² ïçèë

ç Ю»¸·•¬±®·½ Ì©± Ю»¸·•¬±®·½ ¬·³¾»® ¬®¿½µ©¿§•ô ¿²¼ ¿••±½·¿¬»¼ ª»®§ ´¿®¹» ¿²¬´»®• º±«²¼ «²¼»® íóì³ ±º °»¿¬ ¼«®·²¹ ½±²•¬®«½¬·±² ±º Óïï

ïð ÛÞßóÔ×ß Ì©± ®»¼ ¼»»® ¿²¬´»® ¾®·¼´» ¾·¬ •·¼»°·»½»• ±º ÞßñÛ×ß °¿¬¬»®²ò λ½±ª»®»¼ º®±³ ³±¬±®©¿§ •°±·´ ¸»¿°

ïï Ó»¼·»ª¿´ ï문 ½»²¬«®§ ¾®±²¦» •»¿´ ±º Ö±¸² Í¿´´»ò Ú±«²¼ ·² Ù®¿²¬½¸»•¬»® ½ò ïèìé

ïî α³¿² ̸» ®»³¿·²• ±º •¬±²» ¿²¼ ¬·³¾»® ¾«·´¼·²¹•ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ •¬±²»ô ®±±º ¬·´»•ô °¿·²¬»¼ °´¿•¬»® ¿²¼ ±°«• •·¹²·²«³ ©»®» ²±¬»¼ ¼«®·²¹ ÉÉï

ïí α³¿² α³¿² •»¬¬´»³»²¬ ·²½´«¼·²¹ »¨¬»²•·ª» ¼±³»•¬·½ ¿²¼ ¿¹®·½«´¬«®¿´ ¾«·´¼·²¹• ®»½±ª»®»¼ ¼«®·²¹ ½±°®±´·¬» ¯«¿®®§·²¹ ·² ïçïéóïèò ß •«¾•¬¿²¬·¿´ «²´·²»¼ ©»´´ ©¿• »¨½¿ª¿¬»¼ º®±³ ©¸·½¸ α³¿² °±¬¬»®§ ¿²¼ ¼»½±®¿¬»¼

±¿µ ¾»¿³•ò

б•¬ó³»¼ Ì©± б•¬ó³»¼·»ª¿´ ¼·¬½¸»• ±¾•»®ª»¼ ¼«®·²¹ ¿••»••³»²¬ ±º •»©»®¿¹» °·°»

Í¿¨±² Ú®¿¹³»²¬• ±º ¿² ß²¹´±óÍ¿¨±² ¾±²» ½±³¾ ®»½±ª»®»¼ ¼«®·²¹ ½±°®±´·¬» ¯«¿®®§·²¹ ·² ïçïéóïè

ïì α³¿² α³¿² ɸ¿®ºå ´¿®¹» ¯«¿²¬·¬§ ±º α³¿² °±¬ •¸»®¼• ¿²¼ ¬»² α³¿² ½±°°»® ½±·²• ®»½±ª»®»¼ ¼«®·²¹ ½±°®±´·¬» ¯«¿®®§·²¹

ïë Û×ßóα³¿² Ó«´¬·ó°¸¿•» •»¬¬´»³»²¬ ·²½´«¼·²¹ ´¿®¹» •¯«¿®» ¿²¼ ½·®½«´¿® »²½´±•«®»• ¿• ©»´´ ¿• °·¬• ¿²¼ ´·²»¿® ¼·¬½¸»•ò Ý·®½«´¿® »²½´±•«®» »¨½¿ª¿¬»¼ ·² ïçêç •°¿²• °»®·±¼ ±º α³¿² ½±²¯«»•¬ò ×®±² ß¹» ¿²¼ α³¿²±óÞ®·¬·•¸ °±¬¬»®§ ¿³±²¹•¬ ¿®¬»º¿½¬• ®»½±ª»®»¼ò ÍßÓ ó Ý¿³¾•ò éì

Ì®«³°·²¹¬±² Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ Ú·¹«®» æ éòì Ó»¿¼±©• •¬¿¬»³»²¬ Ù¿¦»¬¬»»® ±º ¿´´ µ²±©² ½«´¬«®¿´ ¸»®·¬¿¹» º»¿¬«®»• ÌÑΠл®·±¼ Ü»•½®·°¬·±² Ò±ò

α³¿² Ì©± •¸»®¼• ±º α³¿² °±¬¬»®§ô ±²» ¼»½±®¿¬»¼ ¾«ºº ½±´±«®»¼ ©¿®» ¿²¼ ±²»  ½»²¬«®§ Í¿³·¿²ô ®»½±ª»®»¼ ¼«®·²¹ »¨½¿ª¿¬·±²• ·² ïçêç

Ю»¸·•¬±®·½ Ú´·²¬ ¾´¿¼»• ¿²¼ ½±®»• ®»½±ª»®»¼ ¼«®·²¹ »¨½¿ª¿¬·±²• ·² ïçêç

ïê α³¿² Ú·²¼•°±¬ ±º α³¿² °±¬¬»®§ øî²¼ó쬸 ½»²¬«®§ô ¬»••»®¿»ô ¬·´»•ô ¾®±²¦» ®·²¹ ¿²¼ ½±·² ±º Ó¿¹²»²¬·«• ±® Ü»½»²¬·«•

ïé ˲¼¿¬»¼ Ý®±°³¿®µ• º±«²¼ ·² •«®ª»§ º±® ¬¸·• °®±¶»½¬ò Ю±¾¿¾´§ ¿••±½·¿¬»¼ ©·¬¸ ïëò

ïè ˲¼¿¬»¼ Ý®±°³¿®µ• •¸±©·²¹ ¿ •»®·»• ±º ½·®½«´¿® »²½´±•«®»•

ïç б•¬ó³»¼ Ì®«³°·²¹¬±² Ø¿´´ò ر«•» ½ïéïð ·² °¿®µò Ô·•¬»¼ ¹®¿¼» ××ò ß´•± º±®»½±«®¬ •½®»»²ô ¹¿¬»°·»®• ¿²¼ ¹¿¬»•ò

Ú»¿¬«®»• º±«²¼ ·² ¹»±°¸§•·½¿´ •«®ª»§ º±® ¬¸·• °®±¶»½¬ò Ü¿¬» «²µ²±©² ¾«¬ ³¿§ ¾» ³»¼·»ª¿´ ±® °±••·¾´§ îð ˲¼¿¬»¼ α³¿²ò

îï α³¿² α³¿² ®»³¿·²• º±«²¼ ·² ¬¸» ¹®±«²¼• ±º ß²•¬»§ Ø¿´´

ó ˲¼¿¬»¼ ¸«³¿² ®»³¿·²• º±«²¼ ¿¬ ß²•¬»§ Ø¿´´

îî Í¿¨±² Ü·¬½¸»•ô °±•¬ó¿´·¹²³»²¬• ¿²¼ »²½´±•«®»• ©·¬¸ ®»•·¼«¿´ α³¿² °±¬¬»®§ ¿²¼ Ò·»¼»®³»²¼·¹ ´¿ª¿ ¯«»®² º®¿¹³»²¬•ò

Ó»¼·»ª¿´ Ô¿®¹» ³»¼·»ª¿´ ¼·¬½¸ º®±³ ©¸·½¸ ¬¸» ¸¿²¼´» ±º ¿ ï쬸 ½»²¬«®§ ¾±²» ½±³¾ ©¿• ®»½±ª»®»¼

îí ó Ø«³¿² ®»³¿·²• º±«²¼ ·² Ó¿®·• Ô¿²»

îì ×®±² ß¹» Û¿®´§ ×®±² ß¹» °±¬¬»®§ ®»½±ª»®»¼ º®±³ ¿ ¹®¿ª»´ °·¬ ±°°±•·¬» Ì®«³°·²¹¬±² ½»³»¬»®§ò ̸±«¹¸¬ ¬± ¾» ¿••±½·¿¬»¼ ©·¬¸ ¿ Ø¿´•¬¿¬¬ ×× ¬§°» ¾®±±½¸ º®±³ Ì®«³°·²¹¬±²ò

îë Û×ßóα³¿²

îê Ò»±´·¬¸·½ Û¨½¿ª¿¬·±² ·² îððï ®»ª»¿´»¼ ®»³¿·²• º®±³ ¬¸» Ò»±´·¬¸·½ ¬± ¬¸» ×®±² ß¹»ò ͱ³» êðð °·¬• ¼¿¬»¼ ¬± ¬¸» Û¿®´§ Þ®±²¦» ß¹» ¿²¼ Ó·¼¼´» ×®±² ß¹» ©·¬¸ ¿ ²«³¾»® ±º ±¬¸»® º»¿¬«®»• ·²¬»®°®»¬»¼ ¿• ³±®¬«¿®§ »²½´±•«®»• ¿²¼ î °±••·¾´» •¸®·²»•ò ̸» »ª·¼»²½» º±® •¬®«½¬«®»¼ ¼»°±•·¬·±² ·• ª»®§ •¬®±²¹ò

îé ×®±² ß¹» ×®±² ß¹» °±¬¬»®§ •¸»®¼• ¿²¼ ¾±²»• º±«²¼ ·² ¿ °·¬ ¿¬ ¬¸» д¿²¬ Þ®»»¼·²¹ ײ•¬·¬«¬»

îè б•¬ó³»¼ ß²•¬»§ Ø¿´´ Ú¿®³å ï鬸óï謸 ½»²¬«®§ º¿®³ ©·¬¸ ¸±«•»ô ¾¿®²•ô ¼±ª»½±¬ô ©¿´´• ¿²¼ ´¿¬»® ¿¼¼·¬·±²•ò Ô·•¬»¼ ¹®¿¼» ××

îç Ó»¼·»ª¿´ ̸» Ì®«³°·²¹¬±² Þ®¿••å 꺬 ì·² ´±²¹ •»¬ ·² ¹®»§ °«®¾»½µ ±® ß´©¿´¬±² ³¿®¾´»ò Ю±¾¿¾´§ ³¿¼» º±® Ù·´»• ±º Ì®«³°·²¹¬±² ·² »¿®´§ ï쬸 ½»²¬«®§

Ó»¼·»ª¿´ ᕬ ½±²¯«»•¬ ¹®¿ª» •´¿¾ ©·¬¸ ³±¬·º ±º ¿ ½®±•• °¿¬»» ·² ¿ ½·®½´» ¿¬ ¾±¬¸ »²¼• ±º ¬¸» •¸¿º¬ò

Ó»¼·»ª¿´ ï Ý»²¬«®§ °¿®·•¸ ½¸«®½¸ ±º ͬò Ó¿®§ ¿²¼ ͬò Ó·½¸¿»´ò Ô·•¬»¼ ¹®¿¼» ××ö

Í¿¨±²

íð б•¬ó³»¼ Ê·½¿®¿¹»ô ®»¼ ¾®·½µ ½òïéííò Ô·•¬»¼ ¹®¿¼» ××

íï б•¬ó³»¼ îð ú îî Ù®¿²¬½¸»•¬»® α¿¼ò Ô¿¬» ï鬸 ½»²¬«®§ ½±¬¬¿¹»• ±°°±•·¬» ½¸«®½¸ò Ô·•¬»¼ ¹®¿¼» ××

íî б•¬ó³»¼ ïê ú ïè Ù®¿²¬½¸»•¬»® α¿¼ò ݱ¬¬¿¹»• ¼¿¬»• ïêëìò Ó«½¸ ¿´¬»®»¼ò Ô·•¬»¼ ¹®¿¼» ××

íî¿ Ð±•¬ó³»¼ ïð ú ïî Ù®¿²¬½¸»•¬»® α¿¼ò Û¿®´§ ï笸 ½»²¬«®§ ½±¬¬¿¹»• ©·¬¸ ½¿®®·¿¹» ¿®½¸ò Ô·•¬»¼ ¹®¿¼» ××

íí б•¬ó³»¼

íì б•¬ó³»¼ ̸» Ñ´¼ ر«•»åïꬸ ½»²¬«®§ ¬©± •¬±®»§ ¸±«•»ô »²´¿®¹»¼ ·² ï鬸 ½»²¬«®§ ¿²¼ ®»•¬±®»¼ ·² ïçîìò Ô±½¿´ ¾«·´¼·²¹ •¬§´»òò Ô·•¬»¼ ¹®¿¼» ××ö

íë б•¬ó³»¼ É¿® ³»³±®·¿´ ïçîï ¾§ Û®·½ Ù·´´ò Ѳ •·¬» ±º ±´¼»® ½®±••ò Ô·•¬»¼ ¹®¿¼» ××ö

íê б•¬ó³»¼ ß²•¬»§ Ø¿´´ô ´¿¬» ï鬸 ½»²¬«®§ ¾®·½µ ¸±«•»ò Ô·•¬»¼ ¹®¿¼» ×ò

íé б•¬ó³»¼ Ó¿®·• ر«•»å »¿®´§ ï笸 ½»²¬«®§ ¾®·½µ ¾«·´¬ ¬©± •¬±®»§ ¾«·´¼·²¹ò Ô·•¬»¼ ¹®¿¼» ××

íè б•¬ó³»¼ Ó¿®·• Ô¿²» ¬±´´ ¸±«•» ½ïèïïò Ô·•¬»¼ ¹®¿¼» ××

íç ÉÉ×× Ð·´´¾±¨ ½±²•¬®«½¬»¼ ¿¬ ¶«²½¬·±² ±º Ó¿®·• Ô¿²» ¿²¼ Ø·¹¸ ͬ®»»¬

Ì®«³°·²¹¬±² Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ Ú·¹«®» æ éòì Ó»¿¼±©• •¬¿¬»³»²¬ Ù¿¦»¬¬»»® ±º ¿´´ µ²±©² ½«´¬«®¿´ ¸»®·¬¿¹» º»¿¬«®»• ø½±²¬·²«»¼÷ ÌÑΠл®·±¼ Ü»•½®·°¬·±² Ò±ò

ìð Ю»¸·•¬±®·½ Ю»¸·•¬±®·½ °±¬¬»®§ ±º «²»•¬¿¾´·•¸»¼ ¼¿¬» ®»½±ª»®»¼ º®±³ ᧕¬±² α¿¼

ìï п´¿»±´·¬¸·½

ìî Í¿¨±² Í·´ª»® °»²²§ ±º Û¼©¿®¼ ¬¸» ݱ²º»••±® ®»½±ª»®»¼ ·² ïçîíò Ю±¾¿¾´§ •¬®«½µ ·² Ý¿³¾®·¼¹»

ìí Ó»¼·»ª¿´ Ó»¼·»ª¿´ ½±·² ®»½±ª»®»¼ ·² ïçîí

ìì Ó»•±´·¬¸·½ Ó»•±´·¬¸·½ •½®¿°»®•ô ¾«®·²•ô ¿¨»• ¿²¼ ½±®» º±«²¼ ¬± •±«¬¸ ±º Ý¿²¬»´«°» Ú¿®³

ìì Ò»±´·¬¸·½ Ò»±´·¬¸·½ ´»¿ºó•¸¿°»¼ ¿®®±©¸»¿¼ º±«²¼ ¬± •±«¬¸ ±º Ý¿²¬»´«°» Ú¿®³

ìì Þ®±²¦» ß¹» Þ®±²¦» ß¹» ¾¿®¾»¼ ¿²¼ ¬¿²¹»¼ ¿®®±©¸»¿¼ º±«²¼ ¬± •±«¬¸ ±º Ý¿²¬»´«°» º¿®³

ìë ˲¼¿¬»¼ Ý´«•¬»® ±º «²¼¿¬»¼ »²½´±•«®»•ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ®·²¹ ¼·¬½¸ô ¼·•¬«®¾»¼ ¾§ ½±°®±´·¬» ¼·¹¹·²¹ ¿²¼ ¾±«²¼¿®§ ½¸¿²¹»•

ìê α³¿² Ú·²¼•°±¬ ±º α³¿² °±¬¬»®§

Í¿¨±² Ú·²¼•°±¬ ±º •¸»®¼• ±º ͬò Ò»±¬• ©¿®»

ìé α³¿² Û¨½¿ª¿¬·±²• ¾»¬©»»² ïçéïóéè ®»½±ª»®»¼ α³¿² ¾«·´¼·²¹•ô °·¬•ô °±•¬¸±´»•ô »²½´±•«®»• ¿²¼ ¼·¬½¸»•ò ß

Ю»¸·•¬±®·½

×®±² ß¹» ×®±² ß¹» º»¿¬«®»• ¿²¼ °±¬¬»®§ ®»½±ª»®»¼ ¼«®·²¹ »¨½¿ª¿¬·±²• ¿¬ Û¼³«²¼•±´»• ïçéïóéè

ìè ˲¼¿¬»¼ Ú®¿¹³»²¬ ±º »²½´±•«®» •§•¬»³ ø•±³» ¼«¾·±«•÷ ®»½±®¼»¼ º®±³ ¿»®·¿´ °¸±¬±¹®¿°¸•

ìç б•¬ó³»¼ ݱ°®±´·¬» ¯«¿®®§

ëð Ю»¸·•¬±®·½ ͽ¿¬¬»® ±º °±¬ ¾±·´»®•

ëï Ю»¸·•¬±®·½ ͽ¿¬¬»® ±º °±¬ ¾±·´»®•

ëî б•¬ó³»¼ ͸»°¸»®¼• ݱ¬¬¿¹»

ëí ÉÉ×× Í·¬» ±º Ì®«³°·²¹¬±² ׬¿´·¿² ÐÑÉ Ý¿³° ìëô ®»½±®¼»¼ ±² ³¿°• ¿• ر•¬»´

ëì ˲¼¿¬»¼ Ø»¨¿¹±²¿´ ®·²¹ ¼·¬½¸

ëë ˲¼¿¬»¼ Ý®±°³¿®µ• •¸±©·²¹ ¿ ¼±«¾´» ®·²¹ ¼·¬½¸ô °¿®¬• ±º ¿ ®»½¬¿²¹«´¿® »²½´±•«®» ¿²¼ ´·²»¿® ¼·¬½¸»•

ëê Þ®±²¦» ß¹»

ëé ˲¼¿¬»¼

ëè Þ®±²¦» ß¹»

α³¿² Ý®»³¿¬·±²• ¿²¼ ·²¸«³¿¬·±²• ±º ¿°°¿®»²¬ α³¿² ¼¿¬» ®»½±ª»®»¼ ¼«®·²¹ ½±°®±´·¬» ¯«¿®®§·²¹ º®±³ ïèéçò

Í¿¨±² п¹¿² ß²¹´±óÍ¿¨±² •³¿´´ó´±²¹ ¾®±±½¸»•ô °´¿¬» ¿²¼ °±¬¬»®§ °±••·¾´§ ¿••±½·¿¬»¼ ©·¬¸ ¿ ¾«®·¿´ ø«²½»®¬¿·²÷

ëç ×®±² ß¹» ᬬ»®§ ¿²¼ ¾±²» ½±³¾ º±«²¼ ·² ¿••±½·¿¬·±² ©·¬¸ ×®±² ß¹» ¼·¬½¸ ¿²¼ •»¬¬´»³»²¬

êð Í¿¨±² ̸®»» Í¿¨±² •¬®¿° »²¼• º±«²¼ ¿¬ Ø¿«¨¬±² Ó·´´ô ±²» º»¿¬«®»• ¿²·³¿´ ¼»½±®¿¬·±²

êï Ò»±´·¬¸·½ ß²¼»•·¬» ¿¨» º®±³ Ø¿«¨¬±² Ó·´´

êî α³¿² Ú±«® °¸¿•»• ±º α³¿² ±½½«°¿¬·±² »¨½¿ª¿¬»¼ò Ú·²¿´ °¸¿•» ·²½´«¼»¼ ¿ °¿½µ»¼ ¹®¿ª»´ •«®º¿½» ·² ©¸·½¸ ©»®» º±«²¼ •»ª»®¿´ ´¿¬» α³¿² ½±·²•

êí Ю»¸·•¬±®·½ ݱ³°´»¨ •»¬¬´»³»²¬ ¿®»¿ ¾»´±© ½«®®»²¬ ®·ª»® ´»ª»´ò ײ½´«¼»¼ ¼®¿·²¿¹» ¿²¼ »²½´±•«®» ¼·¬½¸»•

êì ˲¼¿¬»¼ Û²½´±•«®» ¿²¼ ´·²»¿® º»¿¬«®»• ®»½±®¼»¼ ¿• ½®±°³¿®µ•ô °¿®¬·¿´´§ ¼»•¬®±§»¼ ¾§ ¯«¿®®§·²¹

êë Û¿®´§ Ó«´¬·ó°¸¿•» •»¬¬´»³»²¬ ·²½´«¼·²¹ •«¾ó®»½¬¿²¹«´¿® »²½´±•«®»•ô ¿ ®±«²¼¸±«•»ô ´·²»¼ •¬±®¿¹» °·¬• ¿²¼ ¬®¿½µ•·¼» Ò»±óα³¿² ¼·¬½¸»•ò Û¨½¿ª¿¬»¼ ¾»¬©»»² ïçéë ¿²¼ ïçéèò ÍßÓ ëè

Ì®«³°·²¹¬±² Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ Ú·¹«®» æ éòì Ó»¿¼±©• •¬¿¬»³»²¬ Ù¿¦»¬¬»»® ±º ¿´´ µ²±©² ½«´¬«®¿´ ¸»®·¬¿¹» º»¿¬«®»• ø½±²¬·²«»¼÷ ÌÑΠл®·±¼ Ü»•½®·°¬·±² Ò±ò

êê ×®±² ß¹» ×®±² ß¹» •»¬¬´»³»²¬ ·²½´«¼·²¹ ±ª¿´ »²½´±•«®»ô •·²¹´» ´¿®¹» ½·®½«´¿® ¸«¬ô °·¬•ô ¹®¿ª»´ •«®º¿½»•ô ¸»¿®¬¸•ô ±ª»® ê𠕬±®¿¹» °·¬• ¿²¼ ¬®¿½µ•·¼» ¼·¬½¸»•ò ÍßÓ ëè

êé α³¿² Ѳ» •¸»®¼ ±º α³¿² °±¬¬»®§

êè б•¬ó³»¼ ݱ¿½¸ ¿²¼ ر®•»•ô ïè ú îð Ø·¹¸ ͬ®»»¬ô ï鬸 ½»²¬«®§ô ®»³±¼»´´»¼ ï謸 ½»²¬«®§ò Ô·•¬»¼ ¹®¿¼»» ××

êç б•¬ó³»¼ îî Ø·¹¸ ͬ®»»¬ô ï謸 ½»²¬«®§ ®»¼ ¾®·½µô ¬¸¿¬½¸»¼ô Ô·•¬»¼ ¹®¿¼» ××

éð б•¬ó³»¼ îì ú îê Ø·¹¸ ͬ®»»¬ô ½ò ïéðð ®»¼ ¾®·½µ ¬¸¿¬½¸»¼ò Ô·•¬»¼ ¹®¿¼» ××

éï б•¬ó³»¼ îè ú íð Ø·¹¸ ͬ®»»¬ô ï鬸 ½»²¬«®§ô ®»¼ ¾®·½µò Ô·•¬»¼ ¹®¿¼» ××

éî б•¬ó³»¼ ̸» Ù®»»² Ó¿²ô ëë Ø·¹¸ ͬ®»»¬ô ï문 ½»²¬«®§ ±°»² ¸¿´´ ©·¬¸ ´¿¬¬»® ¿¼¼·¬·±²• ¿²¼ ¿´¬»®¿¬·±²•ò Ô·•¬»¼ ¹®¿¼» ××

éí б•¬ó³»¼ ëî Ø·¹¸ ͬ®»»¬ô ï謸 ½»²¬«®§ô ´·•¬»¼ ¹®¿¼» ××

éì б•¬ó³»¼ Ó·´»•¬±²» •±«¬¸ ±º ¶«²½¬·±² ±º Ø¿«¨¬±² α¿¼ ¿²¼ ͸»´º±®¼ α¿¼ô ïéîçô Ô·•¬»¼ ¹®¿¼» ××

éë б•¬ó³»¼ Ó·´»•¬±²» ²±®¬¸ ±º Ø¿«¨¬±² Ó·´´ Þ®·¼¹» ïéîçò Ô·•¬»¼ ¹®¿¼» ××

éê ᕬ ó³»¼ Ó·´´ ر«•»ô éç Ó·´´ É¿§ò Ô·•¬»¼ ¹®¿¼» ××

éé б•¬ó³»¼ Ê·½¿®¿¹»ô Ó·´´ É¿§ ¿²¼ ¹¿®¼»² ¾«·´¼·²¹ò Ô·•¬»¼ ¹®¿¼» ××

éè б•¬ó³»¼ ìí Ó·´´ É¿§

éç б•¬ó³»¼ ìï Ó·´´ É¿§

èð ᕬ ³»¼ ܱª» ݱ¬¬¿¹» Ó·´´ ©¿§

èï б•¬ó³»¼ Ø¿«¨¬±² Ó·´´ Š ©¿¬»®³·´´ ½òïèêí ¿²¼ ¾®·¼¹» ±ª»® ³·´´ ®¿½» ò Ô·•¬»¼ ¹®¿¼» ××

èî б•¬ó³»¼ Ñ´¼ Ó·´´ ر«•»ô ½òïéðð ©·¬¸ ³·¼ ï謸 ¿¼¼·¬·±²•ò Ô·•¬»¼ ¹®¿¼» ××

èí Ó»¼·»ª¿´ ÍßÓ ²±ò ííîèí

Ì®«³°·²¹¬±² Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ Ú·¹«®» æ éòì Ó»¿¼±©• •¬¿¬»³»²¬ Ù¿¦»¬¬»»® ±º ¿´´ µ²±©² ½«´¬«®¿´ ¸»®·¬¿¹» º»¿¬«®»• ø½±²¬·²«»¼÷ ÍßÓ ííîèí èð êè éè éç éð ú éï êç éî éé

éê ïç íë

ïí ïï íï íî íí îç íì ïî íð îè íé

ê íê îí íç îð ïé íè ë îï îî îì é ì ïê è

î ï îë ìî ç ïë ïè ìí ïð ìð ìï

ï îé îê

í

ëî éì ìé ëð

ìè ëí ëì

ìì ëï ìë ìê

ìç

ëê éë ëè ëç

èï êð êï ëé èî êì êë

êí ëë êî ï

î

Í·¬» Þ±«²¼¿®§

ݱ²•»®ª¿¬·±² ß®»¿

ͽ¸»¼«´»¼ ß²½·»²¬ Ó±²«³»²¬

Û¨½¿ª¿¬·±² ñ Ûª¿´«¿¬·±²

ͬ®¿§ Ú·²¼

Ø·•¬±®·½ Þ«·´¼·²¹

Ì®«³°·²¹¬±² Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ Ú·¹«®» æ éòë Ó»¿¼±©• •¬¿¬»³»²¬ Ô±½¿¬·±² ³¿° •¸±©·²¹ ¿´´ µ²±©² ½«´¬«®¿´ ¸»®·¬¿¹» •·¬»• ·² ¬¸» ª·½·²·¬§ ±º ¬¸» •·¬» êè

êç éî éð éï ïç íë

íî íí íï íî¿ îè íì îç éí íð íé íê

íè

Ì®«³°·²¹¬±² Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ Ú·¹«®» æ éòê Ó»¿¼±©• •¬¿¬»³»²¬ Ü»¬¿·´ ±º ¸·•¬±®·½ ¾«·´¼·²¹• ¿²¼ Ì®«³°·²¹¬±² ½±²•»®ª¿¬·±² ¿®»¿

Ì®«³°·²¹¬±² Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ Ú·¹«®» æ éòç Ó»¿¼±©• •¬¿¬»³»²¬ Ñ®¼²¿²½» Í«®ª»§ ³¿° ¼¿¬»¼ ïèçï Ì®«³°·²¹¬±² Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ Ú·¹«®» æ éòïð Ó»¿¼±©• •¬¿¬»³»²¬ Ñ®¼²¿²½» Í«®ª»§ êŽ •½¿´» ³¿° ¼¿¬»¼ ïèèê Ì®«³°·²¹¬±² Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ Ú·¹«®» æ éòïï Ó»¿¼±©• •¬¿¬»³»²¬ Ó¿¹²»¬±³»¬»® •«®ª»§ α³¿²Þ®¿½»´»¬• ¿²¼Û¿®·²¹•×

ß Ù®±«°±ºëðóêð Þ®±²¦»ß¹» í®¼½»²¬«®§½±·²• Þ®±²¦»ß¹»Ý¸·•»´ ß©´ Ö

α³¿²Þ®±±½¸»• Ù ×½»²·Ý±·²•

Õ Ø Ô ÍßÓéì

ݱ´½¸»•¬»®¬§°»¾®±±½¸

Ó Ü Þ Ý

Û

Û¼³«²¼•±´»•

Þ®±²¦»ß¹»©»¿°±²•

Ú

ð ëðð Ô¿Ì»²»Þ®±±½¸ ³»¬®»•

α³¿²Ó¿¬»®·¿´ Í·¬» Þ±«²¼¿®§

Ó«´¬·ó°»®·±¼ Ú·²¼• ͽ¿¬¬»®

Ì®«³°·²¹¬±² Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ Ú·¹«®» æ éòïî Ó»¿¼±©• •¬¿¬»³»²¬ Ó»¬¿´ ¼»¬»½¬·²¹ ®»•«´¬• Í·¬» Þ±«²¼¿®§

ß®½¸¿»±´±¹·½¿´ Ú»¿¬«®»•

б••·¾´» ß®½¸¿»±´±¹·½¿´ Ú»¿¬«®»•

η¼¹» ¿²¼ Ú«®®±©

Þ¿²µ

Ü»»°»® ͱ·´

שּׁ»®²»¼ ͱ·´

Ï«¿®®·»•

Ì®«³°·²¹¬±² Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ Ú·¹«®» æ éòïí Ó»¿¼±©• •¬¿¬»³»²¬ ¿»®·¿´ °¸±¬±¹®¿°¸• ±º ¬¸» •·¬» ×

×××

ÍßÓéì Ê ××

îëì ×Ê

Ê×

Í·¬» Þ±«²¼¿®§ îëí Í»¬¬´»³»²¬ Ú»¿¬«®»• ø³«´¬· °»®·±¼÷

Ú·²¼• ͽ¿¬¬»® ø³«´¬· °»®·±¼÷

ëìí ëìì

ð ëðð

³»¬®»•

Ì®«³°·²¹¬±² Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ Ú·¹«®» æ éòïì Ó»¿¼±©• •¬¿¬»³»²¬ ß®½¸¿»±´±¹·½¿´ •»²•·¬·ª» ¦±²»•