Crofts Developments Ltd 1092848 agent Marrons Planning 988787
From: Ravi Karir Sent: 28 June 2018 15:54 To: Localdevelopment Cc: Jenny Keen Subject: RE: LP2 Representation on behalf of Crofts Developments Limited Attachments: Revised.compressed.pdf
Dear Local Development,
Please ignore the previously attached representation and proceed with the attached one.
Apologies for any inconvenience that may have been caused.
Kind regards,
Ravi
Ravi Karir Planning Technician
Marrons Planning
Planning Consultancy of the Year and Young Planner of the Year (Jenny Keen) – find out more
FRAUD PREVENTION Please do not reply to or act upon any email you might receive purporting to advise you that our bank account details have changed. Please always speak to the lawyer acting for you to check any changes to payment arrangements. We will also require independent verification of changes to any bank account to which we are asked to send money. From: Ravi Karir Sent: 28 June 2018 15:37 To: '[email protected]'
1 Please find attached our representation on behalf of our client, Crofts Developments Limited, in respect of their land interests at land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton Lane, West Bridgford.
We would be grateful for your confirmation of receipt.
Kind regards,
Ravi
Ravi Karir Planning Technician
Marrons Planning
Planning Consultancy of the Year and Young Planner of the Year (Jenny Keen) – find out more
FRAUD PREVENTION Please do not reply to or act upon any email you might receive purporting to advise you that our bank account details have changed. Please always speak to the lawyer acting for you to check any changes to payment arrangements. We will also require independent verification of changes to any bank account to which we are asked to send money.
2 REPRESENTATIONS IN RESPECT OF THE RUSHCLIFFE LOCAL PLAN PART 2: LAND AND PLANNING POLICIES (PUBLICATION VERSION) MAY 2018
On Behalf of Crofts Developments Limited
www.marrons-planning.co.uk Crofts Developments Limited Representations on Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2
CONTENTS Page No
1. Introduction 3
2. Background and Context 4
3. Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton Lane, West Bridgford 6
4. Specific Representations in Respect of the Rushcliffe Local 7 Plan Part 2
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Site Location Plan for land north of Adbolton Lane, West Bridgford
Appendix 2 – Heritage Note by Lanpro Services
Appendix 3 – Archaeological Desk Based Assessment from Lanpro Services and accompanying Geophysical Survey prepared by SUMO Survey
June 2018 2 Crofts Developments Limited Representations on Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 These representations are made in respect of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies (Publication Version) May 2018 consultation, on behalf of our client, Crofts Developments Limited, in respect of their land interests at land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton Lane, West Bridgford. The County Council also owns part of the site and are promoting the land for development alongside Crofts Developments Limited. . The site is identified at Appendix 1.
1.2 Representations have also previously been made by Marrons Planning at earlier stages of the Local Plan preparation process.
1.3 In summary, these representations seek to argue that amendments should be made to the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2 (LP2) moving forward to allow for a level of growth adjacent to the Main Urban Area of West Bridgford, in the form of the reallocation of land at Simkins Farm for the residential development of circa 40 dwellings. The inclusion of land at Simkins Farm will represent development within a sustainable location and will assist the Council in addressing its current 5 year housing land supply shortfall.
1.4 Local Plan Part 2 in its current form fails to identify sufficient housing to meet Rushcliffe’s housing need; it fails to identify a deliverable housing allocation for the Main Urban Area; and a number of changes to the Plan have resulted in the identification of undeliverable draft housing allocations.
June 2018 3 Crofts Developments Limited Representations on Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2
2. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
2.1 For a plan to be adopted it must pass an examination and be found to be ‘sound’.
2.2 Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) refers to the presumption in favour of sustainable development and makes specific reference to plan making stating that:
Local Planning Authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area;
Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change, unless:
– any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or
– specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.
2.3 Paragraphs 154 and 157 of the NPPF identify (amongst other criteria) that Local Plans should be aspirational but realistic and should plan positively for development to meet the objectives, principles and policies of the NPPF.
2.4 The NPPF at paragraph 182 also sets out that the plans will need to be prepared in accordance with the duty to cooperate, legal and procedural requirements and that they must be ‘sound’. There are four tests of ‘soundness’, which are that each plan must be:
Positively prepared – the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development;
June 2018 4 Crofts Developments Limited Representations on Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2
Justified – the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence;
Effective – the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities;
Consistent with national policy – the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework (NPPF).
June 2018 5 Crofts Developments Limited Representations on Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2
3. LAND AT SIMKINS FARM, ADBOLTON LANE, WEST BRIDGFORD
3.1 The site is wholly greenfield land and equates to approximately 1.9 hectares in size. The site has capacity for approximately 40 homes. Whilst the main built up area of West Bridgford is located further to the west, the site directly adjoins built development to both the east and west.
3.2 The site is in a wholly sustainable location with an abundance of facilities and amenities within a reasonable walking distance of the site. The site is also highly accessible by public transport with a frequent bus service accessed by a bus stop located south west of the site on Adbolton Lane.
3.3 Simkins Farm, the farm house (Grade II Listed Building), farm buildings converted to residential use and new build residential dwellings are located to the southeast of the study site, these are bounded by a mix of post and rail fencing and high, solid wooden fencing surrounding the gardens. There is a single extant structure within the study site, a small brick building to the north of the former farm complex. This building is not an original farm building but was constructed as a replacement wildlife habitat following the conversion of the outbuildings at Simkins Farm to residential use.
3.4 Further information and context in relation to the heritage impact of development of the site is included in full commentary prepared by LanPro attached at Appendix 2. Further information with regards to the archaeology onsite is provided in the Archaeological Desk Based Assessment and Geophysical Survey both attached at Appendix 3 and further commentary in respect of archaeological concerns is provided below.
3.5 The site is not located in an area at high risk of flooding and benefits from flood defences to the north of the site boundary. The land within the study site is relatively flat, lying at approximately 24mAOD.
June 2018 6 Crofts Developments Limited Representations on Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2
3.6 The site is designated as Green Belt land and commentary in respect of the site’s suitability to be removed from the Greenbelt has previously been made during the consultation process for Rushcliffe Green Belt Review Part 2 (a) (Detailed Review of the Nottingham-Derby Green Belt within Rushcliffe Adjoining the Main Urban Area of Nottingham). This is also explored in more detail below.
June 2018 7 Crofts Developments Limited Representations on Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2
4. SPECIFIC REPRESENTATIONS IN RESPECT OF THE RUSHCLIFFE LOCAL PLAN PART 2: LAND AND PLANNING POLICIES CONSULTATION (PUBLICATION VERSION)
4.1 This section of the representations contains our detailed responses, prepared on behalf of our client, Crofts Development Ltd, in relation to the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies (Publication Version).
4.2 In principle, we wholly agree that the Council needs to allocate land for further development over and above that originally envisaged for the Local Plan Part 2, including a suitable buffer to guard against the risks of future under-delivery.
4.3 The Council indicates that around 2,000 additional dwellings will need to be provided through the Local Plan Part 2, yet that a further 700 dwellings will be identified to ensure sufficient delivery in the Plan Period, should the Core Strategy’s Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUEs) continue to fail to deliver.
4.4 However, we have serious concerns that the extent of the buffer proposed by the Council will be inadequate and that if adopted in its current form, the Local Plan Part 2 will not adequately guard against further under-delivery in the near future.
4.5 The Core Strategy originally anticipated delivery from the Local Plan Part 2 sites starting in 2018/19, with a steady circa 200 dpa (amounting to a total of around 1,500 dwellings in the Plan Period). Due to ongoing delays with the progression of the Local Plan Part 2, there has been no delivery from any of the identified draft allocations. This is primarily because over 90% of the proposed allocations require Green Belt release in order to come forward for development. As such, there would likely be a fundamental policy objection preventing any early applications on the sites from being determined favorably. Although there has been a
June 2018 8 Crofts Developments Limited Representations on Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2
recently allowed appeal for housing on a Green Belt site in Ruddington, the risk associated with speculative applications in the Green Belt is still high and is likely to cause most developers to wait.
4.6 The revised housing trajectory included within the latest version of the Local Plan Part 2 envisages the bulk of the Plan‘s proposed allocations starting to deliver in year 2020/21, with 9 of the sites each delivering 50 dpa in this period, and a further 9 sites each delivering between 20 – 30 dpa in the same period. The total contribution from Local Plan Part 2 sites in this period is circa 620 dpa.
4.7 The Council’s current timetable for adoption of the Local Plan Part 2 is December 2018; this is based on an examination of the Plan during September 2018. Given that consultation on the Publication Version is due to end on the 28th June 2018, these adoption timescales are considered unrealistic. For the reasons set out above, it follows that if there are further delays to the adoption of the Local Plan Part 2, then there will be a significant shortfall in housing delivery against the proposed trajectory.
4.8 Marrons Planning has provided below (Table 1) what it considers to be a more realistic timeline for the delivery of dwellings from Local Plan Part 2 sites, specifically those being promoted by landowners, agents or specialist land promotors (91% of the draft allocated sites), as opposed to directly by house-builders (just 9% of the draft allocated sites).
Marrons Planning Assessment of Timescales
Action Timescales Comments
Submission of Local End of July 2018 We have suggested end of PlanPart2toSofS July, although this is for examination considered overly optimistic and early August is considered more likely
Examination Hearing November/December Based on experience, it
June 2018 9 Crofts Developments Limited Representations on Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2
Sessions to take 2018 appears to be taking around place 3.5 months to get from submission to examination hearings.
Adoption of Local March 2019 Based on experience, it Plan Part 2 appears to be taking circa 3 months (factoring in Main modifications and re- consultation on mods) to get from examination hearing sessions to Inspector’s Report.
Outline applications April 2019 We have assumed that most submitted landowners, promotors or development would not risk speculating costs for the preparation/submission of an outline application on a Green Belt site until such time as the Inspector’s suggested Main Modifications are available at the earliest. This then factors in circa 2 months to prepare and submit a suitable application.
Outline planning August 2019 We have allowed circa 4 applications approved months to determine these by Council applications. It is important to bear in mind that applications in the villages are often extremely contentious with considerable objection to the principle of development, regardless of whether a site is allocated in a Development
June 2018 10 Crofts Developments Limited Representations on Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2
Plan or not. Therefore, 4 months could be a significant under-estimation.
Sellthesiteonthe March 2020 Selling a site on the open open market market will often represent the best value for a landowner; as such, any sites being promoted by a landowner, agent or specialist land promotor, will almost certainly select this route. From experience, it will typically take around 7 months to sell a site to a suitable house-builder.
Preparation of and September 2020 We have allowed circa 3 approval of Reserved months for the successful Matters applications house-builder to prepare a RM application and around 3 months for the Council to determine.
Start on site November 2020 We have allowed circa 2 months to prepare, submit and secure approval for discharge of condition applications, which again we believe is optimistic.
Table 1
4.9 Based on the timescales envisaged in Table 1 above, it is considered likely that, with a start on site in Autumn/Winter 2020, none of the Green Belt Local Plan Part 2 sites (90% of the identified allocations are Green Belt) that are being promoted by landowners, agents or specialist land promotors will deliver anywhere near 50 dpa in the 2020/21 period. This
June 2018 11 Crofts Developments Limited Representations on Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2
is particularly true as most of the proposed allocations are in semi-rural villages and will thus have slower sales rates; furthermore, all proposed allocations are at the 50-200 dwelling size range and will be under construction by a single house-builder from a single outlet (probably at a rate of around 30/40dpa). It is therefore anticipated that most of the Green Belt Local Plan Part 2 allocations that progress outline planning applications in Spring 2019 following Main Modifications on the Plan, will deliver no more than 10-15 dwellings each in the 2020/21. In some cases, where there are technical issues, viability issues or convoluted legal issues, there could be no delivery in the 2020/21 period.
4.10 The Council has also allowed for the delivery of 50 dpa in the 2020/21 period from the East of Gamston/North of Tollerton SUE. Whilst it is understood that work is underway on an outline application, this is also unlikely to be submitted until the end of the year/early 2019. Allowing for around 8 months for determination of such a large major outline application, it is likely that permission won’t be forthcoming until around August 2019 at the earliest – this could be a lot later if there are complexities or delays in relation to the drafting/signing of the s.106 Agreement. Picking up on the above timescales from Table 1 (which also envisages approval of outline applications in August 2019), there is unlikely to be a start on site until November 2020 at the earliest. Furthermore, Land East of Gamston/North of Tollerton is a large and complex SUE and will no doubt require the provision of infrastructure prior to the delivery of dwellings from the site. It is therefore argued that there will be no delivery at all from this site in the 2020/21 period. Given the complexity of the site alongside the fact that there is currently no planning consent in place or even application submitted, it is considered likely that this site will also fail to deliver any dwellings during the 2021/22 period too (the Council anticipate 200 dpa during the 2021/22 period from this site).
4.11 In light of the above arguments, which are based on extensive experience of planning for residential development, it is considered that the Local Plan Part 2, if adopted in its current form, will not adequately
June 2018 12 Crofts Developments Limited Representations on Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2
address the Council’s current 5 year housing land supply shortfall.
4.12 Rather, the Council should be seeking to allocate more smaller/medium sized sites, especially where developers are on board, so that they can be delivered quickly and can realistically contribute towards the Councils five year housing land supply. The land at Simkins Farm can do this, and considerable investigations have been undertaken to date with regards archaeology to ensure that once allocated, a planning application can be submitted quickly with much of the technical work having already been undertaken (described in more detail below). This, combined with the fact that the site is part owned and is being promoted by Crofts Developments who has recently delivered a site in Nether Broughton demonstrating their commitment to getting schemes built out is a very important material consideration in the context of footnote 11 of the NPPF.
4.13 Paragraph 3.2 of the Local Plan Part 2 states:
In addition to having to meet the housing target by 2028, the ‘Government’s national planning policy requires councils to have a ‘five-year supply’ of ‘deliverable’ housing sites at any point during the Local Plan period. This means that the Government requires that there should always be enough housing land in the pipeline to meet that proportion of the Local Plan’s overall housing target required over the next five years. This is in order to ensure a continuous supply of new housing year by year, rather than housing delivery being concentrated later on in the plan period. The Council has had to take this into account and ensure that the sites allocated by this Local Plan can, as a whole, deliver enough housing quickly enough to satisfy short-term as well as longer term housing requirements.‘
4.14 Based on the arguments set out above, it is considered that if the Local Plan Part 2 is taken forward in its current form, then it will fail to achieve this fundamental aim. As such, the LPP2 will not be found ‘sound’ at examination stage.
June 2018 13 Crofts Developments Limited Representations on Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2
4.15 The SUEs allocated in the Core Strategy will start to deliver in time, as will the Local Plan Part 2 Green Belt sites. However, the housing shortfall in Rushcliffe is now, not in 6-10 years time.
4.16 To reiterate, in order to rectify the issues relating to short-term housing delivery in this Plan, the Council must allocate more small-medium sized sites, with a strong preference towards those being promoted directly by house-builders where a detailed application can be prepared and submitted immediately following adoption of the Local Plan Part 2 or issue of Main Modifications – Simkins Farm is one such site. As noted above, 91% of the LP2 draft allocations are being promoted by landowners, agents or specialist land promotors, or, even more concerning, no detail has been provided to the Council at all. There are very significant concerns that many of these sites will not come forward for development anywhere close to the timescales envisaged in the Council’s housing trajectory.
4.17 The Department of Communities & Local Government (DCLG) presentation slide from the HBF Planning Conference in September 2015 illustrated a 10 – 20% non-implementation gap together with a 15 – 20% lapse rate. The slide emphasised “the need to plan for permissions on more units than the housing start / completions ambition”. It is therefore clear that additional sites must be allocated by the Council within the LP2.
4.18 Notwithstanding all of the above, Crofts Developments also have strong concerns with the Council’s proposal to allocate land at Bunny Brickworks (BUN01) and Land North of Park Lane, Sutton Bonington (SUT01).
Bunny Brickworks (BUN01)
4.19 Bunny Brickworks was identified in the 1996 Local Plan for employment purposes and has thus far failed to deliver. The brickworks history of this site dates back to the late-1800’s, with the more recognizable Baldwin operation being established in the early 1900’s. More recently, the site
June 2018 14 Crofts Developments Limited Representations on Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2
has also been associated with landfill and recycling.
4.20 After such a long legacy of heavy industry and tipping, the site will almost certainly contain a high degree of contaminated land that will require lengthy and expensive investigation, monitoring and remediation, as well as potential ‘made ground’ that will need to be made stable for foundations. The existing and extensive structures on site will also require demolition, removal and disposal.
4.21 Crofts Developments has significant concerns that this site will not be viable to deliver owing to the relatively small number of dwellings proposed on the site (which is likely to be significantly less than the 100 envisaged by the Council once the employment uses (a policy requirement), structural/mitigation planting and road infrastructure are all allowed for) compared to the costly and unknown extent of development constraints.
4.22 Bunny Brickworks was put forward as a site for development in the Issues and Options consultation; as stated in the Housing Site Selection Report (April 2018), ‘no indication of deliverability’ was provided within the response. With no developer interest whatsoever, the Council can have no confidence that the site is viable or will ever come forward for development.
4.23 The Council anticipates delivery from this site in years 2024/25. Firstly, it is considered that this site will not come forward for development for the reasons identified above, therefore any delivery within the plan period is optimistic. Secondly, as stated above, the purpose of the Local Plan Part 2 at this stage is surely to secure delivery on sites that can address the current housing shortfall, not to allocate sites that will struggle to deliver insignificant amounts of development in the latter stages of the plan period when the SUEs are fully underway.
4.24 Land at Bunny Brickworks is not viable and is therefore not deliverable and should be deleted from the Local Plan Part 2 in favour of sites that can deliver and will deliver during the early stages of the plan period.
June 2018 15 Crofts Developments Limited Representations on Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2
Finally, in addition to this it is also considered that Bunny Brickworks is not in a sustainable location – the site is detached from the main urban area of the village and located some distance away from key services and facilities, to the extent that the development of the site for housing will encourage new residents to make short trips by car.
Land North of Park Lane, Sutton Bonington
4.25 Land North of Park Lane is identified for the development of circa 80 dwellings, which are expected to start delivering in 2020/21 (30dpa during this period).
4.26 It is understood that the landowner has fixed aspirations of a bespoke, exceptional quality and low-density development on this site, and is not content to see the site developed by any of the volume house-builders operating in this area. As confirmed by the Housing Site Selection Report (April 2018), the land is being promoted by an agent only - there is no developer interest and no Option/Promotion Agreement is in place.
4.27 Based on the arguments made above at paras 4.8 - 4.14, it is considered totally unrealistic that this site will start delivering dwellings during the 2020/21 period, and, on the basis that bespoke dwellings are likely to bought off-plan and individually built by a small-scale developer (rather than the more traditional approach adopted by volume house-builders), the site will certainly not deliver at a rate anywhere close to 30 dpa. Development is more likely to be at an optimistic rate of 10 dpa, if that.
4.28 The overall deliverability of Land North of Park Lane should be considered carefully by the Council, with a view to seeking more evidence from the landowners/agent that a deliverable scheme could take place on this site. At the very least, the hugely optimistic delivery timescales will need to be dramatically reduced given the current circumstances. Land North of Park Lane will not deliver in the short- terms and will not assist the Council in addressing its immediate housing land supply shortfall.
June 2018 16 Crofts Developments Limited Representations on Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2
4.29 Consequently, the Council should review their proposed levels of development and should provide a realistic and justifiable level of development on non-strategic sites for the Borough to 2028 which will ultimately have to be a lot higher than that currently proposed in order to provide enough homes to support their Borough. The Secretary of State has made it explicitly clear that local authorities are the most important cog in reviving the housing market and that they should be allocated enough land for development to ensure they can deliver their housing targets.
4.30 In the context of a shortfall in housing land supply, an under delivery of large scale allocations, and the slow progress of the Local Plan Part 2 to date, it is clear that the Council urgently need to be allocating significantly more homes to be built within the plan period to have any realistic prospect of adopting a sound Local Plan Part 2 in the near future, or indeed to ensure the Council do not end up in a situation where the whole Local Plan inclusive of the Core Strategy is under review, which would lead to further delays and a likelihood of a continued shortfall in housing land supply.
4.31 Whilst it is appreciated that the Council are provided a buffer in case SUEs don’t deliver at the expected rates, it is submitted that this buffer is not high enough and will not protect the Council against a scenario whereby the full extent of the SUE’s are not fully delivered and the current deficit housing land supply position is further exacerbated in the coming years.
4.32 The plan also identifies that a preference will usually be given to sites within and around the Main Urban Area of Nottingham (within and around West Bridgford and to the south of Clifton) or areas that can benefit from extra development in order to bring disused sites into use or to help support or provide new services. However, the plan does not seek to allocate any land for development around the Main Urban Area (MUA).
4.33 Crofts Developments wholly contest the strategy of not allocating any sites around the MUA. The MUA is the most sustainable settlement in the
June 2018 17 Crofts Developments Limited Representations on Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2
Borough located at the top of the Boroughs settlement hierarchy, as set out within Policy 3 of the adopted Rushcliffe Core Strategy 2014. Whilst it is acknowledged that there are a number of strategic allocations at the edge of the MUA, as explored above, these are not expected to deliver quickly. Therefore, it is prudent to identify some smaller sites in and around the MUA which can be brought forward for development in a timely manner and can contribute towards the Council’s five year housing land supply.
4.34 Land at Simkins Farm was previously allocated for development in an earlier reiteration of LP2 but has since been deallocated due to concerns that heritage assets present on site are sufficient to render it unsuitable and unviable for development.
4.35 Crofts Developments urge the Council to reallocate land at Simkins Farm for residential development moving forward in the plan process. Crofts Developments are wholly committed to this site and have been undertaking archaeological investigations (at risk given the early stage of the plan process) to ensure that heritage concerns are dissolved and the site can progress to a planning application as soon as the plan is adopted. The frontloading of these site investigations means that the site can progress quickly and the necessary investigations will have already taken place ensuring a smooth planning application process.
4.36 Crofts Developments do not believe that the costs involved with investigating the archaeology on the site will deem the site unviable. Crofts Developments have already undertaken substantial archaeological investigation and have instructed Lanpro to undertake further archaeological investigation by way of trial trenching. It is estimated that this will cost in the region of £15,000 which clearly will not deem the site unviable and crofts Developments are comfortable with funding this work.
4.37 The context of development of this land has been assessed by LanPro Archaeology and Heritage consultants and their commentary in respect of this is attached at Appendix 2. Put simply, the contribution of the site to the significance of the Simkins Farm through forming part of the setting
June 2018 18 Crofts Developments Limited Representations on Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2
to the Listed Building is considered to be slight. The report notes that the site does not provide an authentic representation of the agricultural use of the land during the working life of the farm and the links of the farmhouse to its agricultural past have been eroded by the conversion of the outbuildings to residential use. It is therefore considered that the aspects of the farmhouse’s setting that provide the greatest contribution to its significance are more tightly confined to its relationship with the former agricultural buildings and the views of the house from the south and south-east.
4.38 LanPro conclude that the Grade II listed Simkins Farmhouse is considered to be sensitive to development within the site. Appropriate mitigation in place in the form of the setting back of development from Adbolton Lane and the limiting of building heights in sensitive locations will minimise any impacts upon the significance, character and appearance of the listed building. Therefore, any harm to the significance of Simkins Farmhouse as a Listed Building identified in the report will fall well below the ‘less than substantial’ threshold set out in paragraph 134 of the NPPF.
4.39 An Archaeological Desk Based Assessment (DBA) has been prepared by Lanpro Services and a Geophysical Survey has also been undertaken by SUMO Survey for completeness (Appendix 3). Whilst it is acknowledged that the reports signal to the land having high archaeological potential especially in the north, the full extent of its potential in the south is unknown at this stage. Consequently, Crofts Developments Limited are instructing further archaeological investigations by way of trial trenching ahead of any examination of the plan.
4.40 In addition, whilst it is noted that Lanpro Services have identified potential archaeological interest at the site, they have also concluded at paragraph 8.4 of the DBA that mitigation of the impact of development could be achieved through a process of preservation by record, whereby the archaeological remains are subject to detailed archaeological excavation prior to development. It may also be possible to incorporate some of the
June 2018 19 Crofts Developments Limited Representations on Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2
most significant elements of the former village within areas of open space as part of development proposals in order to ensure their preservation in situ.
4.41 To reiterate, Crofts Developments Limited are fully committed to this site and are willing to do whatever is necessary to provide some development on the site. Their commitment to undertaking this archaeological assessment work at such an early stage in the site allocation process is evident and clearly demonstrates their serious commitment to the site. Crofts Developments Limited purchased the site at auction in 2009 for £75,000 and have since then profited off the sale of the barn conversions. Consequently, they do not envisage any viability issues associated with the archaeological works required to bring the site forward for development. In addition, as the County Council also own some the site, and have done for many years, in a similar fashion to the Crofts Developments Limited, there is no minimum land value to achieve; as such, viability of the site is unlikely to be a concern. Development of the site is therefore not deemed unviable and it is submitted that a sensible scheme with a high level of open space could be achieved which will preserve the archaeology in situ where necessary.
4.42 In light of the extent of Green Belt within the Borough and the fact that delivery from the SUEs is likely to slip further as time goes on, it is clear that the Council are going to have to permit additional Greenfield development within the Borough in order to address the housing land supply shortfall during the early part of the plan period.
4.43 West Bridgford is situated in the Main Urban Area for the Borough of Rushcliffe and acts as the principal centre for the surrounding area. Part 1 of the Local Plan confirms that “sustainable development in Rushcliffe will be concentrated within the main urban area [which comprises West Bridgford] where opportunities exist” (paragraph 3.3.1).
4.44 Whilst the main built up area of West Bridgford is strictly located further west of this site, the site is directly adjoined by built development to both the east and west. As a result, the openness of the Green Belt together
June 2018 20 Crofts Developments Limited Representations on Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2
with the five purposes set out at paragraph 80 of the NPPF would not be compromised by development of the site. The development of this site will not expand the urban edge into more visually sensitive surrounding countryside. Put simply, the overall affect of the proposed development is that in visual terms, it would provide a logical addition of much needed homes without great affect on the wider Green Belt.
4.45 The site is wholly sustainable, not only by virtue of its location on the edge of the Main Urban Area, but also by virtue of its proximity to local facilities and amenities which are situated within a reasonable walking distance of the site. The site is also highly accessible by public transport with a frequent bus service accessed by a bus stop located directly south west of the site on Adbolton Lane. Development of this site would therefore promote sustainable patterns of development which is another consideration for Local Planning Authorities (LPA’s) when reviewing Green Belt boundaries (paragraph 84 of the NPPF). It would also be consistent with the Local Plan Part 1 strategy for meeting identified requirements for sustainable development, and because of the surrounding development, arguably comprises land that is unnecessary to keep open (both considerations at paragraph 85 of the NPPF).
4.46 In accordance with paragraph 83 of the NPPF (which requires LPA’s to review their Green Belt boundaries through the preparation of Local Plans having regard to their intended permanence) it is therefore deemed wholly appropriate to consider the removal of additional sites from the Green Belt, such as Simkins Farm, which is situated adjacent to the Main Urban Area of West Bridgford and thus provides a logical extension to the settlement boundary.
4.47 Consequently, in light of the above points; the overarching aims of the NPPF to adopt a presumption in favour of sustainable development; the LPA’s deficit in housing land supply; the need to meet the future housing requirements in the emerging Local Plan, the removal of this land from the Green Belt for modest residential development is considered to be wholly justified.
June 2018 21 Crofts Developments Limited Representations on Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2
4.48 It is believed that the comprehensive development of this site is wholly appropriate and, in order to assist the LPA in demonstrating a genuinely deliverable supply of housing sites as part of the new Local Plan process, it is the most logical location to remove land from the Green Belt. The development of this land will not compromise the five purposes of the Green Belt as identified in the NPPF and it is considered wholly appropriate to remove land from the Green Belt to facilitate it. Failure to release this Green Belt land will result in a need for the Council to find even more housing land in other potentially more environmentally and politically sensitive locations.
4.49 In addition, initial investigation into other development control matters such as flooding, drainage, ecology and highways has not identified any cause for concern at this stage and the site will be designed at application stage with each discipline in mind and will propose mitigation measures as necessary.
4.50 Put simply, it is considered that it is premature to remove the site as a residential allocation in LP2 without further investigation into its archaeological potential and capacity to accommodate development being undertaken. This is a good site at the edge of the Main Urban Area with no other technical constraints.
4.51 Thus, in the context of the NPPF and the presumption in favour of sustainable development, there are no material considerations which would substantially outweigh the development of these sites. This is especially important when it is noted that land at Simkins Farm is the only potential site around the MUA which is suitable for development. Given that the MUA is the most sustainable location for development, to remove the only potential site is simply not acceptable or justified in the context of the NPPF.
4.52 In addition, Local Plans also need to be effective in order to meet the soundness tests at paragraph 182 of the NPPF. This means that Plans should be deliverable over the plan period, and in accordance with NPPF paragraph 47, need to identify a supply of deliverable and
June 2018 22 Crofts Developments Limited Representations on Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2
developable sites for housing. In the context of paragraph 47 of the NPPF, this site is readily available for development immediately if approved planning permission. Crofts Developments Limited, a company with a good track record of delivering small-medium sized residential developments across Nottinghamshire/Leicestershire, are promoting the site and the site is therefore considered deliverable in the context of footnote 11 to paragraph 49 of the NPPF.
4.53 In light of the extent of Green Belt within the borough and the fact that delivery from the SUEs is likely to slip further as time goes on, it is clear that the Council are going to have to permit additional Greenfield development within the borough in order to address the housing land supply shortfall during the early part of the plan period.
4.54 There are no other sites adjacent to the Main Urban Area that the Council regard as suitable for development at present and therefore it is imperative that, in light of this lack of suitable or available sites adjacent to the Main Urban Area, the allocation of Simkins Farm is progressed through the emerging plan process. In summary, there are no viability issues associated with the sites archaeology and appropriate mitigation/preservation in situ can be achieved as necessary. Consequently, it is considered that the site is deliverable now and we strongly propose the reallocation of the site for residential development in the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2 going forward.
June 2018 23 APPENDIX 1 ______
SITE LOCATION PLAN FOR LAND NORTH OF ADBOLTON LANE, WEST BRIDGFORD
APPENDIX 2 ______
HERITAGE NOTE BY LANPRO SERVICES
HERITAGE APPRAISAL
Land at
Simkins Farm Adbolton Lane, Adbolton
PREPARED BY LANPRO SERVICES
On behalf of Havenwood Construction Ltd
MARCH 2017
Lanpro Services Ltd. Heritage Appraisal Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton
Project Reference: HCL001 / 0768H
Document Prepared by: Paul Gajos MCIfA
Document Reviewed by: Ramona Usher BA (Hons), PgDip, MSc, PhD
Revision Reason for Update Document Updated
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF STUDY ...... 4 2. PLANNING BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FRAMEWORK ...... 5 3. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ...... 8 4. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA AND SUMMARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ...... 9 5. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT ...... 10 6. SUMMARY OF HERITAGE ASSETS AND THEIR SETTING ...... 11 7. ASSESSMENT OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS ...... 14 8. MITIGATION OPTIONS APPRAISAL ...... 15 9. CONCLUSION ...... 16 SOURCES ...... 17 FIGURES
PLATES
HCL001/0768H/1 2
Lanpro Services Ltd. Heritage Appraisal Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton
List of Figures
Figure 1. Site location
Figure 2. 1884 Ordnance Survey
Figure 3. 1901 Ordnance Survey
Figure 4. 1953 – 1993 Ordnance Survey
List of Plates
Plate 1: Simkins Farmhouse from the south
Plate 2: Northern edge of farm complex
Plate 3: Farm complex viewed across southern end of study site
Plate 4: Former farm yard
Plate 5: Simkins Farmhouse from south-east
HCL001/0768H/1 3
Lanpro Services Ltd. Heritage Appraisal Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton
1. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF STUDY
1.1 This heritage appraisal of land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire has been researched and prepared by Lanpro Services Ltd. on behalf of Havenwood Construction Ltd.
1.2 The appraisal considers c.1.8ha of land to the north of Adbolton Lane, on the eastern edge of the village of Adbolton, centred at NGR SK 598 383 (henceforth referred to as the ‘study site’). The site is proposed to be allocated for circa 40 dwellings in Rushcliffe Borough Councils further options report which is currently under consultation.
1.3 Information regarding Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments, Registered Historic Parks or Gardens, Registered Battlefields and World Heritage Sites was obtained from Historic England’s National Heritage List for England. Information on conservation areas was obtained from Rushcliffe Borough Council.
1.4 The assessment incorporates published and unpublished material, and charts historic land- use through a map regression exercise. Given the limited scope of this appraisal only historic Ordnance Survey mapping has been assessed.
1.5 This study has been prepared in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and provides an assessment of the significance of heritage assets on the site and in its vicinity.
HCL001/0768H/1 4
Lanpro Services Ltd. Heritage Appraisal Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton
2. PLANNING BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FRAMEWORK
2.1 In considering any planning application for development, the local planning authority will be guided by current legislation, the policy framework set by government planning policy, by current Local Plan policy and by other material considerations.
2.2 Current Legislation
2.2.1 The applicable legislative framework is summarised as follows: Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (P(LBCA)) Act 1990
2.2.2 The P(LBCA) Act provides for the protection of Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas, and is largely expressed in the planning process through policies in regional and local planning guidance.
2.2.3 The P(LBCA) Act is the primary legislative instrument addressing the treatment of Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas through the planning process.
2.2.4 Section 66 of the 1990 Act states that ‘...in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses’.
2.3 National Planning Policy Framework
2.3.1 In March 2012, the Government published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
2.3.2 Section 12 of the NPPF, entitled Conserving and enhancing the historic environment provides guidance for planning authorities, property owners, developers and others on the conservation and investigation of heritage assets. Overall, the objectives of Section 12 of the NPPF can be summarised as seeking the: Delivery of sustainable development
HCL001/0768H/1 5
Lanpro Services Ltd. Heritage Appraisal Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton
Understanding of the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits brought by the conservation of the historic environment, and
Conservation of England's heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance.
2.3.3 Section 12 of the NPPF recognises that intelligently managed change may sometimes be necessary if heritage assets are to be maintained for the long term. Paragraph 128 states that planning decisions should be based on the significance of the heritage asset, and that the level of detail supplied by an applicant should be proportionate to the importance of the asset and should be no more than sufficient to review the potential impact of the proposal upon the significance of that asset.
2.3.4 Paragraph 134 advises that where a development will cause 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.
2.3.5 Heritage Assets are defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF as: a building, monument, site, place, area or landscape positively identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. They include designated heritage assets (as defined in the NPPF) and assets identified by the local planning authority during the process of decision-making or through the plan-making process.
2.3.6 A Designated Heritage Asset comprises a World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument, Listed Building, Protected Wreck Site, Registered Park and Garden, Registered Battlefield or Conservation Area.
2.3.7 Significance is defined as: The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. This interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.
2.3.8 In short, government policy provides a framework which: Protects nationally important designated Heritage Assets (which include World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Listed Buildings, Protected Wreck Sites, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields or Conservation Areas)
HCL001/0768H/1 6
Lanpro Services Ltd. Heritage Appraisal Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton
Protects the settings of such designations
2.4 Planning Practice Guide
2.4.1 The NPPG is a web-based resource which is to be used in conjunction with the NPPF. It is aimed at planning professionals and prescribes best practice within the planning sector. The relevant section is entitled Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment. The guidance given in this section is effectively a condensed version of the PPS5 Practice Guide and sets out the best practice to applying government policy in the NPPF.
2.5 Local Planning Policy
2.5.1 The Local Plan (Core Strategy) was adopted by Rushcliffe Borough Council in December 2014. The following policy concerns the historic environment.
POLICY 11: HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT 1. Proposals and initiatives will be supported where the historic environment and heritage assets and their settings are conserved and/or enhanced in line with their interest and significance. Planning decisions will have regard to the contribution heritage assets can make to the delivery of wider social, cultural, economic and environmental objectives. 2. The elements of Rushcliffe’s historic environment which contribute towards the unique identity of areas and help create a sense of place will be conserved and, where possible, enhanced with further detail set out in later Local Development Documents. Elements of particular importance include: a) industrial and commercial heritage such as the textile heritage and the Grantham Canal; b) Registered Parks and Gardens including the grounds of Flintham Hall, Holme Pierrepont Hall, Kingston Hall and Stanford Hall; and c) prominent listed buildings. 3. A variety of approaches will be used to assist in the protection and enjoyment of the historic environment including: a) the use of appraisals and management plans of existing and potential conservation areas; b) considering the use of Article 4 directions; c) working with partners, owners and developers to identify ways to manage and make better use of historic assets; d) considering improvements to the public realm and the setting of heritage assets within it; HCL001/0768H/1 7
Lanpro Services Ltd. Heritage Appraisal Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton
e) ensuring that information about the significance of the historic environment is publicly available. Where there is to be a loss in whole or in part to the significance of an identified historic asset then evidence should first be recorded in order to fully understand its importance; and f) considering the need for the preparation of local evidence or plans. 4. Particular attention will be given to heritage assets at risk of harm or loss of significance, or where a number of heritage assets have significance as a group or give context to a wider area.
2.6 Therefore, in considering the heritage implications of any application for planning permission, the local planning authority should be guided by local and national policy, and government guidance as outlined above.
3. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
3.1 The following sources of information have been used to identify the designated heritage assets within the locality: relevant designation records from Historic England’s Heritage List for England;
3.2 A site visit was undertaken on 21st March 2017 to inspect the site and assess its relationship with designated heritage assets in the vicinity.
3.3 The most recent guidance produced by Historic England - Historic Environment Good Practice Advice Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets - published March 2015, recognises that whilst setting is not a heritage asset, 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’ (para. 4).
3.4 This guidance also notes that the contribution of setting to the significance of a heritage asset is often expressed by reference to views (para. 5), although the importance of setting lies in what it contributes to the significance of the heritage asset, and this can be influenced by a number of other factors (para. 9).
HCL001/0768H/1 8
Lanpro Services Ltd. Heritage Appraisal Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton
3.5 In order to assess the contribution made by setting to the significance of a heritage asset, and the implications of new developments, the guidance recommends that a systematic and staged approach to assessment should be adopted, namely: assess whether, how and to what degree these settings make a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset(s); assess the effects of the proposed development, whether beneficial or harmful, on that significance; explore the way to maximise enhancement and avoid or minimise harm; make and document the decision and monitor outcomes.
4. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA AND SUMMARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
4.1 The study site is an irregular shaped parcel of land, circa 1.8 hectares in extent and located to the north of Adbolton Lane, Adbolton (Fig 1). The site lies on the eastern edge of the village, centred on NGR SK 598 383. The land within the study site is relatively flat, lying at approximately 24mAOD.
4.2 The study site itself is currently comprises a single field under long term pasture. It is bounded by a hedgerow to the south, along Adbolton Lane, post and wire fencing along the drive to, and southern boundary of, Adbolton Cottages and a poorly maintained, ‘gappy’ hedgerow along the north-western boundary. The northern boundary of the site is formed by an earthen bank (flood defence) and the eastern boundary by post and rail fencing. Simkins Farm, the farm house (listed Grade II), farm buildings converted to residential use and new build residential dwellings are located to the southeast of the study site, these are bounded by a mix of post and rail fencing and high, solid wooden fencing surrounding the gardens.
4.3 There is a single extant structure within the study site, a small brick building to the north of the former farm complex. This building is not an original farm building but was constructed as a replacement wildlife habitat following the conversion of the outbuildings at Simkins Farm to residential use.
HCL001/0768H/1 9
Lanpro Services Ltd. Heritage Appraisal Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton
4.4 The site is proposed to be allocated for circa 40 dwellings in Rushcliffe Borough Councils further options report which is currently under consultation.
5. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
5.1 Adbolton lies on relatively low ground to the south of the River Trent. The settlement of Adbolton took its name from Eadbald (Saxon personal name) and Tun (farm) and was documented in the Domesday Survey of 1086 as ‘Alboltune’. Whilst the settlement was relatively small at the time of Domesday, it is recorded as possessing a church.
5.2 Adbolton remained as a relatively small settlement throughout the medieval and post- medieval periods, with its church being demolished in 1746, when it was already in a ruinous state. The church, which would have provided the focus for the medieval settlement, is believed to have been located c. 160m to the east of the study site.
5.3 The first edition of the Ordnance Survey in 1885 (Fig 2) shows Adbolton Hall and Simkins Farm to the east and south-east of the study site, and Adbolton cottages to the west. Much of the study site itself forms part of an orchard bounding Simkins Farm to the north and west.
5.4 By 1901 (Fig 3) West Bridgford had expanded considerably with housing along the western side of Adbolton Grove, c.150m to the west of the study site. An additional house had been built at Adbolton cottages to the immediate west of the study site. Much of the study site is still shown as an orchard and a complex of farm buildings is now shown within the north- eastern part of the study site.
5.5 The run of historic mapping from 1901 onwards show the gradual expansion of West Bridgford encroaching upon the study site (Fig 4). Little change is shown within the study site itself until the 1950s, by which time the orchard had been removed and the south- western part of the study site had been divided into smaller forming part of the gardens of Adbolton Cottages. This arrangement of gardens appears to have remained until some point in the 1990s when they were incorporated into the single field that now forms the study site.
5.6 The east and west wings of the farm buildings within the north-eastern part of the study are demolished at some point in the 1950s, with the northern part being demolished at some point after 1967. HCL001/0768H/1 10
Lanpro Services Ltd. Heritage Appraisal Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton
5.7 The point at which Simkins Farm ceased to function as a working farm is unclear, although an application was made to Rushcliffe Borough Council in 1990 to use the farm buildings as a craft workshop (90/01300/F2P) and in 2009 permission was granted for the conversion and extension of outbuildings to create 5 dwellings and erect detached garages.
6. SUMMARY OF HERITAGE ASSETS AND THEIR SETTING
6.1 There are 5 listed buildings and 1 Scheduled Monument within 1km of the study site, however, the majority of these designated heritage assets are not considered sensitive to development on the site as it does not form part of their settings owing to their distance from the site, topography, intervening vegetation and buildings. Full consideration of any potential impacts upon all designated heritage assets in the vicinity of the study site will be given in the heritage statement produced to inform any planning application for development, however, the scope of this appraisal is limited to the assets considered to be most sensitive to development within the study site, the Grade II listed Simkins Farmhouse.
Simkins Farmhouse Grade: II List entry Number: 1249194 Date first listed: 13-Nov-1986 List entry Description: SK 53 NE HOLME PIEREEPONT ADBOLTON LANE (north side) 2/62 Simkins Farmhouse Farmhouse. Early C19. Possibly by William Wilkins. Render over red brick. Hipped slate roof with wide eaves. 2 lateral and single ridge rendered stacks. L-plan. 2 storeys, 4 bays. Porch with hipped roof and single arched entrances to each side. Inner arched doorway with part glazed door. To the left are 2 two light casements and to the right a single similar casement. Above are 4 similar casements. Right/east side of 4 bays. Ground floor has single light casements in the second and far right single bays. Single similar casement in the third right single bay above. Remaining bays with similar blind recessed panels. All casements with Gothick glazing bars, all casements and panels with Tudor style hood moulds.
6.2 Simkins Farmhouse is a Grade II Listed building: it is thus not a designated heritage asset of
HCL001/0768H/1 11
Lanpro Services Ltd. Heritage Appraisal Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton
‘the highest significance’ as defined by Paragraph 132 of the Framework. Its Listed status does, however, reflect its high heritage significance. It is situated within its own grounds to the immediate south of the study site.
6.3 Simkins Farmhouse is a good example of an early 19th century farmhouse and primarily derives its significance from the architectural, historical, aesthetic and evidential values relating to its built fabric (details of internal features are unknown). These values will not be harmed by the proposed development.
6.4 The principle elevation of the house is that facing to the south, onto Adbolton Lane (Plate 1). This elevation, and that to the east, have been afforded greater architectural detail than the remainder of the house, with the windows on these elevations having Gothick glazing bars and hood moulds with dropped and returned ends.
6.5 The immediate setting of the house is defined by its relationship to Adbolton Lane, its gardens to the south and east and the former farmyard to the west, surrounded by former agricultural buildings.
6.6 It seems clear from the differing architectural treatment, that the south and eastern sides of the house were those designed to impress, whilst the northern and western sides had a more functional relationship with the workings of the farm.
6.7 The assessment of historic mapping indicates that for much of its history the farm house and its associated farm buildings were largely screened from any views from the north and west by a sizeable orchard, and further screened from the north by now demolished agricultural buildings.
6.8 Therefore, whilst the study site currently provides a rural backdrop to the former farmstead, in that it is currently used as paddocks, it is not reflective of the agricultural use of the land during much of the farms history (and indeed the south-western part of the study site formed domestic gardens for a significant period).
6.9 The conversion and extension of the former farm buildings immediately surrounding the farmhouse, along with the addition of new garages, whilst undertaken sympathetically, have effectively divorced the buildings from their original function. The rear gardens of the converted farm buildings and their boundary treatment, with close boarded fencing, give a strong sense of separation from the land, particularly to the north (Plate 2). The aspect from HCL001/0768H/1 12
Lanpro Services Ltd. Heritage Appraisal Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton
the west (Plate 3), from within the study site, retains a little more of the impression of a farm complex, although, as stated above, this is not a view that would have been available for much of the farms working life.
6.10 The contribution of the study site to the significance of the Simkins Farm through forming part of its setting is therefore considered to be slight. The study site does not provide an authentic representation of the agricultural use of the land during the working life of the farm and the links of the farmhouse to its agricultural past have been eroded by the conversion of the outbuildings to residential use. It is therefore considered that the aspects of the farmhouse’s setting that provide the greatest contribution to its significance are more tightly confined to its relationship with the former agricultural buildings (Plate 4) and the views of the house from the south and south-east (Plate 5).
HCL001/0768H/1 13
Lanpro Services Ltd. Heritage Appraisal Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton
7. ASSESSMENT OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS
7.1 Currently the study site is being promoted for allocation for residential development and at present no draft masterplan has been prepared.
7.2 There will be no harm to the architectural or aesthetic interest of Simkins Farmhouse. The architectural and aesthetic interest is primarily in the buildings south and east elevations. There will be no impact on this as a result of the new development to the north and west of the building.
7.3 There will be no harm to the evidential value of the building which is confined to its built fabric.
7.4 The historic interest of the farmhouse is primarily vested in its relationship with the former agricultural buildings which immediately surrounding it and the understanding of the operation and use of a 19th century farmstead that can be gained from experiencing the buildings as a group. This aspect of the historic interest has already been eroded by the conversion of the outbuildings to residential use. Development within the study site will not add to that erosion.
7.5 There is potential for a slight effect on the setting of the Simkins Farmhouse by the development of the study site. The study site provides part of the farm complexes wider rural setting; however, the study site no longer has any functional links with Simkins Farmhouse, and as described above, the conversion of the outbuildings, the boundary treatment and the addition of new elements such as the garages, has largely divorced the complex from its agricultural past. Furthermore, cartographic evidence shows that the nature of the study site is no longer an authentic reflection of its use during the Farms working history (formerly comprising orchard and further farm buildings) resulting in no real potential to add to the understanding of the farm complex and as such is not inherently important to the setting of the building.
7.6 Development of the study site will further erode the buildings rural setting and does have potential to impact upon the significance of the house, but that impact is considered to be slight and not upon the elements that make the greatest contribution to that significance.
HCL001/0768H/1 14
Lanpro Services Ltd. Heritage Appraisal Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton
8. MITIGATION OPTIONS APPRAISAL
8.1 Section 66 of the 1990 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act states “...in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses”.
8.2 As described above the study site is considered to make some limited contribution to the significance of the Grade II listed Simkins Farmhouse through forming part of its rural setting, although it is not considered to be inherently important to the setting of the building.
8.3 It is considered that any adverse impact of development of this land upon the significance of the Simkins Farmhouse could be mitigated through careful consideration of building heights within the study site and setting any built development back from Adbolton Lane to retain views from the road of the relationship between the farmhouse and the former farm buildings. Details of the extent and treatment of this area would need to be agreed prior to the submission of any planning application.
8.4 The more detailed Heritage Statement to accompany any application for planning permission for development of the site will assess the contribution of the study site to the significance of designated heritage assets in more detail, providing further information on the extent of any areas of open space / buffering and building heights in sensitive locations.
HCL001/0768H/1 15
Lanpro Services Ltd. Heritage Appraisal Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton
9. CONCLUSION
9.1 The NPPF states that 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.
9.2 Heritage assets considered to be most sensitive to development on the application site have been identified. A full Heritage Statement should be commissioned as part of the proposed development of the site.
9.3 The Grade II listed Simkins Farmhouse is considered to be sensitive to development within the study site. Appropriate mitigation in place in the form of the setting back of development from Adbolton Lane and the limiting of building heights in sensitive locations will minimise any impacts upon the significance, character and appearance of the listed building. Therefore, any harm to the significance of Simkins Farmhouse identified in this report will fall well below the ‘less than substantial’ threshold set out in paragraph 134 of the NPPF.
HCL001/0768H/1 16
Lanpro Services Ltd. Heritage Appraisal Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton
SOURCES General & Interest
Historic England National Heritage List for England (list.historic-england.org.uk)
Bibliographic
DCLG, 2012. National Planning Policy Framework.
ENGLISH HERITAGE, 2011. Designation – Listing Selection Guide: Transport Buildings.
ENGLISH HERITAGE, 2008. Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment.
HISTORIC ENGLAND, 2015. Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: Note 3 – The Setting of Heritage Assets.
HCL001/0768H/1 17
Lanpro Services Ltd. Heritage Appraisal Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton
FIGURES
HCL001/0768H/1 18
Lanpro Services Ltd. Heritage Appraisal Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton
HCL001/0768H/1 19
Lanpro Services Ltd. Heritage Appraisal Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton
HCL001/0768H/1 20
Lanpro Services Ltd. Heritage Appraisal Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton
HCL001/0768H/1 21
Lanpro Services Ltd. Heritage Appraisal Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton
HCL001/0768H/1 22
Lanpro Services Ltd. Heritage Appraisal Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton
PLATES
Plate 1: Simkins Farmhouse from the south
Plate 2: Northern edge of farm complex
HCL001/0768H/1 23
Lanpro Services Ltd. Heritage Appraisal Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton
Plate 3: Farm complex viewed across southern end of study site
Plate 4: Former farm yard
HCL001/0768H/1 24
Lanpro Services Ltd. Heritage Appraisal Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton
Plate 5: Simkins Farmhouse from south-east
HCL001/0768H/1 25
APPENDIX 3 ______
ARCHAEOLOGICAL DESK BASED ASSESSMENT FROM LANPRO SERVICES AND ACCOMPANYING GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY PREPARED BY SUMO SURVEY
ARCHAEOLOGICAL DESK-BASED ASSESSMENT
LAND AT SIMKINS FARM ADBOLTON NOTTINGHAMSHIRE
PREPARED BY LANPRO SERVICES ON BEHALF OF CROFTS DEVELOPMENTS LTD
November 2017
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
Project Reference: CRD001/0875H/01
Document Prepared by: Paul Gajos MCIfA
Document Reviewed by: Mitchell Pollington MCIfA
Revision Reason for Update Document Updated
Contents
List of Figures ...... ii List of Plates ...... ii Non-Technical Summary ...... iii 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2 LEGISLATION, POLICY AND GUIDANCE ...... 1 3 METHODOLOGY ...... 4 4 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ...... 6 5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ...... 7 6 ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE ...... 10 7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT...... 12 8 CONCLUSIONS ...... 13 9 REFERENCES ...... 14 Appendix 1: Gazetteer of heritage assets Figures
CRD001/0875H/01 i
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
List of Figures
Figure 1. The study site and search area showing the location of HER and NHLE records
Figure 2. Plan of Earthworks (S. Malone, TPAU)
Figure 3. Geophysical survey
Figure 4. Previous trench locations
Figure 5. Adbolton c. 1788
Figure 6. Map of 1803
Figure 7. Extract from the Holme Pierrepont Tithe Map of 1840
Figure 8. Extract from the Ordnance Survey 6 inch map of 1885
Figure 9. Extract from the Ordnance Survey 25 inch map of 1901
Figure 10. Extract from the Ordnance Survey 25 inch map of 1914
Figure 11. Extract from the Ordnance Survey 6 inch map of 1938
Figure 12. Extract from the Ordnance Survey 1:2500 scale map of 1954
Figure 13. Extract from the Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 scale map of 1967
List of Plates
Plate 1. Looking east across southern part of site
Plate 2. Looking north-east across site
Plate 3. Looking west across central part of site
Plate 4. Looking south from flood bank
Plate 5. Looking west across northern part of site
Plate 6. Looking south-east across site
CRD001/0875H/01 ii
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
Non-Technical Summary
Lanpro have been commissioned by Crofts Developments Ltd to produce an archaeological desk- based assessment in support of an allocation for residential development at Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire (centred at SK 598 383).
The study site comprises approximately 1.8ha of land to the north of Adbolton Lane, on the eastern edge of West Bridgeford.
The assessment identifies and provides a description of heritage assets potentially affected by the development of the study site and addresses the information requirements of the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework, particularly paragraph 128.
The assessment has established that there are no designated heritage assets within the study site. The only designated heritage asset considered to be sensitive to development within the surrouding area is the Grade II listed Simkins Farmhouse. Detailed consideration of potential impacts upon the significance of the farmhouse is presented within a separate heritage appraisal (Lanpro 2017; HLC001/0768H/1).
Remains relating to the deserted medieval village of Adbolton, known to exist within the northern half of the study site, are considered to be significant in a regional context. Currently it is unclear as to the full southern extent of archaeological remains within the study site and a programme of archaeological trial trenching is likely to be required in support of any planning application for development of the study site, in order to ascertain the extent and significance of the remains to inform archaeological mitigation of the proposals.
Mitigation of the impact of development could be achieved through a process of preservation by record, whereby the archaeological remains are subject to detailed archaeological excavation prior to development. It may also be possible to incorporate some of the most significant elements of the former village within areas of open space as part of development proposals in order to ensure their preservation in situ.
CRD001/0875H/01 iii
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This archaeological desk-based assessment of land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire (henceforth referred to as the study site) has been prepared by Lanpro Services Limited on behalf of Crofts Developments Ltd.
1.2 This assessment has been undertaken to support proposed allocation of the site for residential development.
1.3 This document provides an assessment of the potential for the survival of archaeological remains within the study site and assesses the potential impacts that the proposed development could have on these heritage assets and designated heritage assets in the wider vicinity.
1.4 The assessment has been undertaken to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF; Chapter 12: ‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’, paragraph 128) and is in line with the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) guidelines Standard and guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment (CIfA 2014).
2 LEGISLATION, POLICY AND GUIDANCE
2.1 In considering any planning application for development, the local planning authority will be guided by current legislation, the policy framework set by government planning policy, by current Local Plan policy and by other material considerations.
Current Legislation 2.2 The applicable legislative framework is summarised as follows:
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (AMAAA) 1979; Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (P(LBCA)) Act 1990
2.3 The AMAAA largely relates to Scheduled Monuments (SMs) and designated archaeological areas, detailing in particular what can and cannot be undertaken on archaeological grounds.
2.4 The P(LBCA) Act provides for the protection of Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas, and is largely expressed in the planning process through policies in regional and local planning guidance, as outlined above.
2.5 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act of 1990 is the primary legislative instrument addressing the treatment of listed buildings and conservation areas through the planning process.
2.6 Section 66 of the 1990 Act states that “...in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses”.
CRD001/0875H/01 1
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
National Planning Policy Framework
2.7 Section 12 of the NPPF, entitled Conserving and enhancing the historic environment provides guidance for planning authorities, property owners, developers and others on the conservation and investigation of heritage assets. Overall, the objectives of Section 12 of the NPPF can be summarised as seeking the:
Delivery of sustainable development Understanding the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits brought by the conservation of the historic environment, and Conservation of England's heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance. 2.8 Section 12 of the NPPF recognises that intelligently managed change may sometimes be necessary if heritage assets are to be maintained for the long term. Paragraph 128 states that planning decisions should be based on the significance of the heritage asset, and that the level of detail supplied by an applicant should be proportionate to the importance of the asset and should be no more than sufficient to review the potential impact of the proposal upon the significance of that asset.
2.9 Heritage Assets are defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF as: ‘a building, monument, site, place, area or landscape positively identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. They include designated heritage assets (as defined in the NPPF) and assets identified by the local planning authority during the process of decision-making or through the plan-making process.’.
2.10 Annex 2 also defines ‘Archaeological Interest’ as a heritage asset which holds or potentially could 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.
2.11 A Designated Heritage Asset comprises a World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument, Listed Building, Protected Wreck Site, Registered Park and Garden, Registered Battlefield or Conservation Area.
2.12 Significance is defined as: ‘The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. This interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.’
2.13 In short, government policy provides a framework which:
Protects nationally important designated Heritage Assets (which include World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Listed Buildings, Protected Wreck Sites, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields or Conservation Areas)
Protects the settings of such designations
CRD001/0875H/01 2
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
In appropriate circumstances seeks adequate information (from desk based assessment and field evaluation where necessary) to enable informed decisions
Provides for the excavation and investigation of sites not significant enough to merit in situ preservation.
Planning Practice Guide 2.14 The NPPG is a web-based resource which is to be used in conjunction with the NPPF. It is aimed at planning professionals and prescribes best practice within the planning sector. The relevant section is entitled ‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’. The guidance given in this section is effectively a condensed version of the PPS5 Practice Guide and sets out the best practice to applying government policy in the NPPF.
Local Planning Policy 2.15 The Local Plan (Core Strategy) was adopted by Rushcliffe Borough Council in December 2014. The following policy concerns the historic environment.
POLICY 11: HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT 1. Proposals and initiatives will be supported where the historic environment and heritage assets and their settings are conserved and/or enhanced in line with their interest and significance. Planning decisions will have regard to the contribution heritage assets can make to the delivery of wider social, cultural, economic and environmental objectives. 2. The elements of Rushcliffe’s historic environment which contribute towards the unique identity of areas and help create a sense of place will be conserved and, where possible, enhanced with further detail set out in later Local Development Documents. Elements of particular importance include: a) industrial and commercial heritage such as the textile heritage and the Grantham Canal; b) Registered Parks and Gardens including the grounds of Flintham Hall, Holme Pierrepont Hall, Kingston Hall and Stanford Hall; and c) prominent listed buildings. 3. A variety of approaches will be used to assist in the protection and enjoyment of the historic environment including: a) the use of appraisals and management plans of existing and potential conservation areas; b) considering the use of Article 4 directions; c) working with partners, owners and developers to identify ways to manage and make better use of historic assets; d) considering improvements to the public realm and the setting of heritage assets within it; e) ensuring that information about the significance of the historic environment is publicly available. Where there is to be a loss in whole or in part to the significance of an identified historic asset then evidence should first be recorded in order to fully understand its importance; and f) considering the need for the preparation of local evidence or plans. 4. Particular attention will be given to heritage assets at risk of harm or loss of significance, or where a number of heritage assets have significance as a group or give context to a wider area.
CRD001/0875H/01 3
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
Professional Guidance 2.16 The Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-based Assessment (2014) provides guidelines and recommendations for best practice in undertaking archaeological desk-based research and assessment.
2.17 The Historic England publication Historic Environment Good Practice Advice Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets Setting (2015) details guidance on managing change in the settings of heritage assets, including archaeological remains and historic buildings, sites, areas, and landscapes.
2.18 The English Heritage guidance publication Seeing the History in the View (2011) explains how the heritage significance of views can be assessed in a systematic and consistent way. Understanding Place (Historic England 2017) provides guidelines on undertaking Historical Area Assessments, and includes guidance on defining the character and evaluating the significance of heritage assets.
3METHODOLOGY
Information Sources 3.1 A gazetteer of all records held on the Nottinghamshire and Nottingham City Historic Environment Records (HERs) and the Historic England National Heritage List for England (NHLE) for within the search area is provided in Appendix 1, and their locations marked on a plan in Figure 1.
3.2 The following sources of information have been consulted in order to meet the requirements of the assessment, and are in line with the guidelines laid down by the CIfA (CIfA 2014).
Archaeological records 3.3 Information on heritage assets and archaeological investigations for within the search area was obtained from the Nottinghamshire and Nottingham City HERs and the NHLE. Additional information on the, as yet unpublished, archaeological works undertaken within the northern part of the study site in 2006-2007 have been provided by Trent and Peak Archaeology.
Historical documentary and cartographic sources 3.4 The holdings of the Nottinghamshire archives and other on-line repositories were consulted for historical maps and plans, and relevant documentary sources.
Designated heritage assets 3.5 Information on designated heritage assets was obtained from the Nottinghamshire and Nottingham City HER, Rushcliffe Borough Council and the NHLE.
Published and unpublished documentary sources
CRD001/0875H/01 4
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
3.6 A range of published and unpublished material has been consulted, including the regional archaeological research framework, East Midlands Heritage: An Updated Research Agenda and Strategy for the Historic Environment of the East Midlands (Knight et al. 2012) and sources on the wider archaeological and historical background.
Site visit 3.7 A site visit was undertaken of the study site on 1st November 2017 to provide a further assessment of the character of the site and to appraise the potential impact of the proposed development on any heritage assets (see Plates 1 to 6).
3.8 At the time of the site visit the study site comprised an area of pasture used for the grazing of horses (Plate 1). A number of potential archaeological earthworks were noted within the site although it was not possible to properly trace outlines of these features on the ground to make any informed interpretation.
Assessment Criteria
Setting 3.9 The NPPF defines the setting of a heritage asset 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’
3.10 The most recent guidance produced by Historic England - Historic Environment Good Practice Advice Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets - published March 2015, recognises that whilst setting is not a heritage asset, 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’ (para. 4).
3.11 This guidance also notes that the contribution of setting to the significance of a heritage asset is often expressed by reference to views (para. 5), although the importance of setting lies in what it contributes to the significance of the heritage asset, and this can be influenced by a number of other factors (para. 9).
3.12 In order to assess the contribution made by setting to the significance of a heritage asset, and the implications of new developments, the guidance recommends that a systematic and staged approach to assessment should be adopted, namely:
assess whether, how and to what degree these settings make a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset(s); assess the effects of the proposed development, whether beneficial or harmful, on that significance; explore the way to maximise enhancement and avoid or minimise harm;
CRD001/0875H/01 5
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
make and document the decision and monitor outcomes.
Significance 3.13 Paragraph 128 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should be based on the significance of the heritage asset, and that the level of detail supplied by an applicant should be proportionate to the importance of the asset and should be no more than sufficient to review the potential impact of the proposal upon the significance of that asset.
3.14 It is recognised that not all parts of a heritage asset will necessarily be of equal significance. In some cases, certain elements could accommodate change without affecting the significance of the asset. Change is only considered harmful if it erodes an asset’s significance. Understanding the significance of any heritage assets affected and any contribution made by their setting (paragraph 128, NPPF 2012) is therefore fundamental to understanding the scope for and acceptability of change.
4 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
4.1 The study site is an irregular shaped parcel of land, circa 1.8 hectares in extent and located to the north of Adbolton Lane, Adbolton (Figure 1). The site lies on the eastern edge of West Bridgeford, centred on NGR SK 598 383. The land within the study site is relatively flat, lying at approximately 24m AOD.
4.2 The study site itself currently comprises a single field under long term pasture. It is bounded by a hedgerow to the south, along Adbolton Lane, post and wire fencing along the drive to, and southern boundary of, Adbolton Cottages and a poorly maintained, ‘gappy’ hedgerow along the north-western boundary. The northern boundary of the site is formed by an earthen bank (flood defence) and the eastern boundary by post and rail fencing. Simkins Farm, the farm house (listed Grade II), farm buildings converted to residential use and new build residential dwellings are located to the south-east of the study site, these are bounded by a mix of post and rail fencing and high, solid wooden fencing surrounding the gardens.
4.3 There is a single extant structure within the study site, a small brick building to the north of the former farm complex. This building is not an original farm building but was constructed as a replacement wildlife habitat following the conversion of the outbuildings at Simkins Farm to residential use.
4.4 The British Geological Survey (BGS) 1:50,000 records the geology within the study site as siltstone, mudstone and sandstone of the Tarporley Siltstone Formation overlain by Holme Pierrepont sand and gravel (BGS 2017).
CRD001/0875H/01 6
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Introduction 5.1 This chapter reviews existing archaeological evidence for the study site and the archaeological and historical background of the general area, based on a consideration of evidence in the Nottinghamshire and Nottingham City HERs, the NHLE and the Nottinghamshire Archives. The most relevant information has come from the archaeological works undertaken in connection with the construction of the flood bank which borders the northern boundary of the study site. These works have not yet been published but a summary of the results has been provided by Lee Elliott of Trent and Peak Archaeology. It is not the purpose of this document to create a detailed archaeological or historical narrative of the area, but to provide an assessment of the study site’s historical development and archaeological potential in accordance with the NPPF.
Designated Heritage Assets 5.2 The study site contains no designated heritage assets.
5.3 There are five listed buildings and one Scheduled Monument within 1km of the study site. Two of these listed buildings, the Grade II Lady Bay Junior School and Boundary Wall Railing and Gate at Lady Bay Junior School, are located within dense urban development c.700m west of the site and as such are not considered sensitive to development within the study site. The Grade II* Colwich Hall, Grade II Ruins of Church of St John The Baptist and the Scheduled Monument of St John Baptist's Church and graveyard are located c.700m to the north-east of the study site on the opposite side of the River Trent. Distance, topography and the presence of woodland on both sides of the Trent mean that there is no intervisibility between Colwick Hall and the study site, nor are there any historic links of ownership.
5.4 The only designated heritage asset considered to be sensitive to development proposals is the Grade II listed Simkins Farmhouse. A detailed consideration of the potential impacts of development upon Simkins Farmhouse is provided in a separate report (Lanpro 2017. HLC001/0768H/1).
5.5 The locations of all designated heritage assets within the search area are shown on Figure 1.
Non-designated heritage assets 5.6 The Nottinghamshire and Nottingham City HERs contains 64 records of heritage assets, archaeological find spots or archaeological investigations within the 1km search area. Details of all HER records are listed in a gazetteer in Appendix 1 and their positions marked on Figure 1.
5.7 The HER records relating to archaeological remains or finds within the search area breakdown as follows. Some individual HER records cover more than one period: -
CRD001/0875H/01 7
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
Period Within Study Site Within Search Area
Prehistoric 1 15
Roman 0 7
Early medieval 0 4
Medieval 7 14
Post-medieval/modern 5 18
Undated 0 5
Earlier Prehistoric (c. 30000 BC – c.700 BC) 5.8 Field walking on the gravel terraces to the south of Adbolton have revealed a background scatter of Palaeolithic to Bronze Age lithics with some concentrations suggesting more intensive utilisation of the landscape (MNT12078, 12079, 12080, 12081, 12082). Archaeological trial trenching and excavation undertaken in 2006 and 2007 within the study site and its immediate environs have also recovered small amounts of lithic material but no firmly dated early prehistoric features.
Iron Age and Roman Period (c.700 BC – c. AD 410) 5.9 In 2006-2007 a c.180m x c.14.5m wide area was stripped and excavated, c.200m to the east of the study site, as part of the works associated with construction of the flood defence barrier. This revealed a dense spread of ditches, gulleys, pits and postholes many of these stretching in all directions and possibly further along the raised gravel area to the west of Simkin’s Farm as indicated by the large east west ditch found within the northern part of the study site in the 2006 evaluation. The bulk of the features related to Mid to Late Iron Age settlement activity, and whilst it is considered unlikely that this density of settlement would extend as far as the study site there remains potential for associated stock enclosures and/or field systems to be present.
5.10 There are a reasonable number of finds of Roman material from within the search area, including a potential villa site identified in 1955 from finds made during gravel quarrying at an unspecified location c.500m to the east of the study site (MNT17288).
5.11 Roman finds were recovered from the excavation east of the study site in 2006-7 (MNT11941) and evaluation trenches located to the immediate north of the study site excavated in 1996 (MNT12076) and 2006, however, much of the pottery was noted as being residual in later contexts and none of the excavated features could be firmly assigned to the Roman period.
CRD001/0875H/01 8
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
Medieval Period – Post-Medieval (c.AD 410 – AD 1799) 5.12 The settlement of Adbolton took its name from Eadbald (Saxon personal name) and Tun (farm) and is first documented in the Domesday Survey of 1086 as ‘Alboltune’. Whilst the settlement was relatively small at the time of Domesday, it is recorded as possessing a church. The early origins of the village remain uncertain, although a coin of c.710-740 AD, recovered from a trial trench excavated to the north of the study site suggests that the village may date back as far as the Middle Saxon period (MNT1207). No confirmed Saxon features were revealed in any of the archaeological investigations undertaken within and immediately surrounding the study site between 1996 and 2007. In many cases, however, these investigations did not expose the full depth of the archaeological stratigraphy and residual Saxo-Norman pottery (including Torksey Ware and Stamford Ware) was found in later deposits.
5.13 The village continued to prosper throughout the medieval period but appears to have gone into decline in the first half of the 17th century with the process of desertion being complete by the middle of the 18th century. The church at Adbolton (which was located beyond the northern boundary of the study site) is known to have been in a state of disrepair in 1727 and was dismantled in 1746.
5.14 A variety of earthworks associated with the medieval and post-medieval village are present within the study site and extend beyond the flood bank to the north (Figure 2). A geophysical survey, covering the northern part of the study site and the area to the north of the flood bank was undertaken in 1993 (Figure 3). The results of that survey were clearest to the north and immediate south of the flood bank where numerous ditches and walls were detected. Further to the south of the flood bank, within the study site, large east-west ditches or a trackway were detected along with a large band of disturbance (this was found in later evaluation to be redeposited demolition material covering medieval/early post-medieval remains).
5.15 In 2006 a number of trial trenches were excavated along the line of the flood bank, two of which fall within the study site, south of the flood bank (Figure 4; Trenches 04 and 06). These confirmed the presence of a large east-west ditch, thought to be an Iron age/RB enclosure or boundary ditch demarcating raised land to south of flood bank from the lower ground level of the floodplain to the north off it. Also present within Trench 06 was an early-post medieval stone foundation with a medieval gulley running below it on the same alignment, both extending southwards. These were covered by redeposited material including possible demolition deposits (together totalling 0.15m at the north end and 0.54m at the south end) preserving medieval/early post-medieval.
5.16 Following the evaluation two continuous trenches were excavated either side of the flood bank each ranging from c.3m to 5m in width (at the request of Trent and Peak Archaeology the plans of the excavation areas have not been reproduced). Within the area of the flood bank numerous stratified deposits/features were present including medieval to early post-medieval building platforms with surrounding hollows between c.7m to c.10m wide, ditches with surviving adjacent banks, cobbled surfaces, stone, brick and possible timber beam structural foundations and walls, gulleys, post holes, post-pads, pits and at least two wells. These
CRD001/0875H/01 9
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
remains extend southward from the flood bank. To the north-east of the flood bank the remains of a medieval stone dovecote were also present. The excavations on the whole were limited by the depth of impact of c.0.5m to 0.6m with the exception of investigation of individual features exposed above that depth. In many areas redeposited material containing finds (e.g medieval pottery) was present masking earlier medieval features.
5.17 The full extent of the village is uncertain, although the core of the settlement would appear to be within the northern half of the study site, extending to the north of the flood bank. Earthwork evidence suggests that some settlement activity may have extended as far south as Adbolton Lane, although this has yet to be proved.
5.18 The earliest detailed cartographic evidence for the site comes from an estate plan of c.1788 (Figure 5). By this time the village has all but disappeared with the buildings at Simkins Farm and Adbolton Hall being the only extant structures. The study site falls across three fields with the northern part within ‘Chapel Yard’ (11) and ‘House and Homestead’ (12) and the western part being within ‘Near Ellison Close’ (10).
Modern Period (1800 – Present) 5.19 By the early 19th century the arrangement of fields within and surrounding the study site had seen some slight alteration with Chapel Yard expanding to encompass a number of former smaller fields and further small fields created around Simkins Farm (Figure 6). The 1840 tithe map shows a similar picture with a little more subdivision of the fields (Figure 7).
5.20 The first edition of the Ordnance Survey of 1885 (Figure 8) shows Adbolton Hall and Simkins Farm to the east and south-east of the study site, and Adbolton cottages to the west. Much of the study site itself forms part of an orchard bounding Simkins Farm to the north and west. A flood bank is shown crossing the site a little to the south of the current flood bank.
5.21 By 1901 (Figure 9) West Bridgford had expanded considerably with housing along the western side of Adbolton Grove, c.150m to the west of the study site. An additional house had been built at Adbolton cottages to the immediate west of the study site. Much of the study site is still shown as an orchard and a complex of farm buildings is now shown within the north- eastern part of the study site.
5.22 The run of Ordnance Survey historical mapping from 1901 onwards show the gradual expansion of West Bridgford encroaching upon the study site (Figures 10 - 13). Little change is shown within the study site itself until the 1950s, by which time the orchard had been removed and the south-western part of the study site had been divided into smaller plots forming part of the gardens of Adbolton Cottages. This arrangement of gardens appears to have remained until some point in the 1990s when they were incorporated into the single field that now forms the south-western side of the study site.
5.23 The east and west wings of the farm buildings within the north-eastern part of the study site were demolished at some point in the 1950s, with the northern part being demolished at some point after 1967.
CRD001/0875H/01 10
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
6 ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
6.1 Paragraph 128 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should be based on the significance of the heritage asset, and that the level of detail supplied by an applicant should be proportionate to the importance of the asset and should be no more than sufficient to review the potential impact of the proposal upon the significance of that asset.
6.2 It is recognised that not all parts of a heritage asset will necessarily be of equal significance. In some cases, certain elements could accommodate change without affecting the significance of the asset. Change is only considered harmful if it erodes an asset’s significance. Understanding the significance of any heritage assets affected and any contribution made by their setting (paragraph 128, NPPF 2012) is therefore fundamental to understanding the scope for and acceptability of change.
Designated heritage assets 6.3 The study site contains no designated heritage assets.
6.4 Assessment of potential impacts upon the Grade II listed Simkins Farmhouse is presented in a separate heritage appraisal (Lanpro 2017; HLC001/0768H/1).
Potential sub-surface archaeological remains 6.5 The northern part of the study site is known to contain remains of the deserted medieval village of Adbolton. These remains have been subject to some previous disturbance from the construction of both the current and former flood banks, the former barns associated with Simkins Farm (now demolished) and by the poorly documented archaeological excavations undertaken in the 1940s. Currently it is unclear whether the settlement remains extend across the entire study site, although the presence of earthworks adjacent to Adbolton Lane suggest that at least some outlying part of the village was located along Adbolton Lane. Whilst unconfirmed, there is evidence to suggest there was settlement in the vicinity of Adbolton in the Middle Saxon period. The potential long period of continuity in settlement and unusually late demise of this village makes it a rarity within Nottinghamshire and along the Trent Valley as well as being the only clear identifiable surviving such example in the Nottingham area.
6.6 The cultural remains from Adbolton potentially provide evidence for economic and demographic decline of a rural site during the post-medieval period that would be of significance due to its rarity. A wide range of artefacts have been discovered on the site ranging from prehistoric flint to early 18th century material. The 17th to early 18th century well preserved pottery and clay tobacco pipe, including wares produced in Nottingham have a high potential to add to regional research objectives.
6.7 The study site also has potential to contain remains relating to the mid-Iron Age settlement identified c.200m to the east. Any such remains within the study site are, however, likely to be peripheral to the main settlement and of a more limited potential to add to regional
CRD001/0875H/01 11
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
research frameworks. As such it is considered that they are likely to be of little more than local significance.
7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Proposed development 7.1 The study site is being promoted for residential development. Details of the proposed layout are no currently available.
Designated heritage assets 7.2 The proposed development will have no direct impact upon any designated heritage assets.
7.3 As discussed above, the only designated heritage asset considered to be sensitive to development within the study site is the Grade II listed Simkins Farmhouse. Detailed consideration of potential impacts upon the significance of the farmhouse is presented within a separate heritage appraisal (Lanpro 2017; HLC001/0768H/1).
Non-designated heritage assets 7.4 The constructional techniques employed in modern development are such that it is improbable that any archaeological remains now present on the study site would survive the development process, unless they coincide with areas of public open space.
7.5 The remains relating to the deserted medieval village of Adbolton, known to exist within the northern half of the study site, are considered to be of regional significance and it is clear that should planning permission be granted for development of the study site extensive mitigation in the form of open area excavation is likely to be required. Currently it is unclear as to the full southern extent of archaeological remains within the study site and a programme of archaeological trial trenching is likely to be required in support of any planning application for development of the study site, in order to ascertain the extent of any archaeological mitigation.
CRD001/0875H/01 12
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
8CONCLUSIONS
8.1 This archaeological desk-based assessment draws together the available archaeological, historical, topographic and land-use information in order to clarify the significance and archaeological potential of land being promoted for residential development at Simkins Farm, Abolton. It addresses the information requirements set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and provides the proportionate response sought by the NPPF.
8.2 The assessment has established that there are no designated heritage assets within the study site. The only designated heritage asset considered to be sensitive to development within the study site is the Grade II listed Simkins Farmhouse. Detailed consideration of potential impacts upon the significance of the farmhouse is presented within a separate heritage appraisal (Lanpro 2017; HLC001/0768H/1).
8.3 Remains relating to the deserted medieval village of Adbolton, known to exist within the northern half of the study site, are considered to be significant in a regional context. Currently it is unclear as to the full southern extent of archaeological remains within the study site and a programme of archaeological trial trenching is likely to be required in support of any planning application for development of the study site, in order to ascertain the extent and significance of the remains to inform archaeological mitigation of the proposals.
8.4 Mitigation of the impact of development could be achieved through a process of preservation by record, whereby the archaeological remains are subject to detailed archaeological excavation prior to development. It may also be possible to incorporate some of the most significant elements of the former village within areas of open space as part of development proposals in order to ensure their preservation in situ.
CRD001/0875H/01 13
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
9 REFERENCES
BGS 2017, British Geological Survey website, www.bgs.ac.uk/data/mapViewers/home.html (last accessed April 2017)
CIfA 2014, Standard and guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment
DCLG 2012, National Planning Policy Framework DCMS 2010, Scheduled Monuments. Identifying, protecting, conserving and investigating nationally important archaeological sites under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. March 2010 English Heritage,2011, Seeing the History in the View Elliott, L. 2017 Adbolton: Summary of work done in area and its significance GeoQuest Associates 1993 Geophysical Surveys on Axis of 4th Trent Crossing at Adbolton, Notts
Historic England 2015, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: Note 3 – The Setting of Heritage Assets Historic England 2017, Understanding Place
Mills, A. D., 2003 A Dictionary of British Place-Names. Oxford University Press. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. TPAU 1993 Adbolton: A Cartographic Survey 1836-1993
TPAU 2005 Desk based assessment of areas affected by proposed flood alleviation scheme between Wilford Bridge and Adbolton
TPAU 2006 Archaeological Field Investigation at Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
Historical Mapping
Copy plant of Adbolton and Gamston 'before 1797' made by E Fitzpatrick NRO DD/581/2 Copy tithe award plan for Adbolton and part of Gamston, 1803 NRO DD/581/3 Sanderson’s map ‘Twenty Miles round Mansfield’ 1835 Holme Pierrepoint Tithe map 1840
Ordnance Survey 1885, County Series 6 inch map, sheet XLII NE Ordnance Survey 1906, County Series 25 inch map, sheet XLII 7 Ordnance Survey 1914, County Series 25 inch map, sheet XLII 7
Ordnance Survey 1920, County Series 6 inch map, sheet XLII NE Ordnance Survey 1938, County Series 6 inch map, sheet XLII NE Ordnance Survey 1954, County Series 25 inch map, sheet XLII 7 Ordnance Survey 1967, 1-10,000, sheet XLII NE
CRD001/0875H/01 14
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
Figures
CRD001/0875H/01
! "
# $% & '( )
Figure 2. Plan of Earthworks (S. Malone, TPAU)
Study Site 0 30m N Figure 3. Geophysical survey
Study Site 0 30m N Figure 4. Previous trench locations
Study Site 0 50m N Figure 5. Adbolton c.1788
Study Site 0 200m N Figure 6. Map of 1803
Study Site 0 200m N Figure . Extract from the Holme Pierrepont Tithe Map of 1840
Study Site 0 200m N Figure . Extract from the Ordnance Survey 6 inch map of 1885
Study Site 0 100m N Figure . Extract from the Ordnance Survey 25 inch map of 1901
Study Site 0 100m N Figure . Extract from the Ordnance Survey 25 inch map of 1914
Study Site 0 100m N Figure . Extract from the Ordnance Survey 6 inch map of 1938
Study Site 0 100m N Figure 1 . Extract from the Ordnance Survey 1:2500 scale map of 1954
Study Site 0 100m N
Figure 1 . Extract from the Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 scale map of 1967
Study Site 0 100m N Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
Plates
Plate 1. Looking east across southern part of site
Plate 2. Looking north-east across site
CRD001/0875H/01
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
Plate 3. Looking west across central part of site
Plate 4. Looking south from flood bank
CRD001/0875H/01
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
Plate 5. Looking west across northern part of site
Plate 6. Looking south-east across site
CRD001/0875H/01
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottnighamshire
Appendix 1: Gazetteer of heritage assets
The following table provides details of heritage assets recorded on the Nottinghamshire and Nottingham City HER and on the Historic England National Heritage List for England within 1km of the study site. These have been listed in order of their HER and NHLE references, and their locations are marked on Figure 1.
Name Description NGR Designation Period Ref.
HER Monument Record:
At the E end of West Bridgford on the W bound carriageway of the A52. This bridge MNT454 Gamston Bridge has been widened on both sides and the original part can only be seen on the SK 5985 3744 Post-medieval underside of the bridge.
MNT764 Works, West Bridgford Works. Brick and cast iron, substantial remains. SK 594 380 Modern
Lady Bay Cleaners, West MNT765 Works. Built of brick and cast iron, operational. Lady Bay Cleaners. SK 591 381 Modern Bridgford
Medieval village merged or migrated. Excavated by Canon RF Wilkinson in Medieval remains from 1945. Church demolished in 1746. Excavations before gravel working were MNT773 SK 5994 3847 Medieval Adbolton, Holme Pierrepont made by G Richardson, 1945-60. 3 Med buildings and an industrial site were found; no report has been published. The Domesday Survey records a church at Adbolton. Many coins, including a James II (1693) and an Elizabeth I (1598), were found during removal of church tower foundations in 1834. A pear tree marks the site, now level. Adbolton (All Church tower foundations and Hallows) - vanished church of which the site is known. Green glazed sherds and Medieval / Post- MNT774 SK 5995 3836 finds from Adbolton pieces of tooled masonry, probably from church demolished c 1741 (Part of finds medieval in E Fitzpatrick's garden, Holme Road). The probable church site was indicated by the farmer at above grid ref, where stands a very old pear tree. Here, years ago, occasional services were held by the local incumbent.
Roman finds, Holme 2nd century Roman pottery, roof tiles, fragments of mosaic, and a quern found MNT863 SK 605 385 Roman Pierrepont during gravel extraction.
Saxon quern, Holme MNT1116 Possible Saxon quern. SK 6000 3851 Early medieval Pierrepont
CRD001/0875H/01
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottnighamshire
Neolithic flint axe, 13 Davies Neolithic flint axe with polished edge. Found by owner in garden, whilst digging MNT7277 SK 5968 3742 Prehistoric Road, West Bridgford out soil for a deck, at 13 Davies Road, West Bridgford.
MNT7918 Ridge and furrow, Gamston Ridge and furrow, Gamston SK 6015 3736 Medieval
Earthworks at Adbolton, To the N, between church and old course of Trent, lies an area of amorphous MNT8948 SK 5994 3847 Medieval Holme Pierrepont disturbance, probably marking the site of the former village.
Gravestones found at Medieval / Post- MNT8949 Gravestones used as paving in adjoining farmstead. SK 5995 3836 Adbolton, Holme Pierrepont medieval
Linear banks marking croft boundaries (0.5m high), south of Adbolton Cottages. Poorly preserved linear banks west of Simkins Farm. Flood bank running WNW- ESE, to the north of Adbolton Cottages, ending in a terraced mound at the ESE MNT10086 Linear Banks at Adbolton end. Ridge and furrow in the playing field. Hollow way running WNW-ESE across SK 5984 3847 Medieval / Modern the north side of this with a branch cutting into it southward. Highly undulating surface north of the flood bank. Terracing south of the flood bank, known to be an antiaircraft gun emplacement. The detailed (geophysical) survey revealed a series of anomalies, some of which Linear Features in area A, MNT11094 may be related. It is possible that the linearity of some of the anomalies may be SK 6015 3760 Undated Gamston due either to a former field division or a bed of magnetic gravel. If there was some context for these anomalies, that is ditch type anomalies or surface collection evidence, then it would be usual to suggest that the anomalies in this area were also archaeological. As no such context apparently exists, it is MNT11095 Features in area B, Gamston SK 6010 3755 Undated perhaps important to stress the possible geological variation that could cause such anomalies. In other words, in the absence of any known archaeology in the vicinity, these features might be geological rather than man made in origin.
The broader anomalies (seen during magetometer scanning) are possibly MNT11096 Features in area C, Gamson SK 6025 3755 Undated archaeological. They could(also be the result of geological variation.
MNT11309 Worked flint from Gamston One worked flint flake was recovered. SK 602 377 Prehistoric
Medieval pottery from MNT11310 Five small abraded sherds of medieval pottery were found. SK 602 377 Medieval Gamston
CRD001/0875H/01
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottnighamshire
The material retrieved from the site mainly comprised sherds of pottery dating to C17 - C20. In addition there were numerous clay pipe stems and pieces of bottle Post-medieval to modern MNT11311 glass of a similar date range. There was a concentration of bricks on the S side of SK 602 377 Post-medieval artefacts from Gamston the field which may have been part of a small demolished building. There was also a spread of clay roof tiles on the N side of this field.
Prehistoric flint from trench 01, MNT11926 Artefacts included a prehistoric flint core. SK 598 385 Prehistoric Adbolton, Holme Pierrepont
Trench 01, disturbed layers, artefacts included medieval pottery, daub, an ashlar block. Trench 02, linear E-W band of gravel (0010) 3.6m wide within the top of Medieval finds and features in (0011), appears to resemble a trackway with a metalled surface. A single sherd of MNT11927 trenches 01 and 02 at SK 598 385 Medieval unglazed pottery within the stone spread thought to be medieval. At the S end of Adbolton the spread, possible pit or ditch contemporary with the metalling. In (0011), small quantity of abraded medieval pottery. Fire cracked pebbles from MNT11928 trench 2, Adbolton, Holme Clay layer containing heat affected stone / pebbles. SK 598 385 Prehistoric ? Pierrepont Several features and spreads with fills containing concentrations of charcoal. Post-medieval features in Pits. These features contain black and brown slipped earthenwares in MNT11929 trench 03 at Adbolton, Holme conjunction with Midland Yellow, which together suggest C17 date. Further finds SK 599 385 Post-medieval Pierrepont comprised animal bone, vessel glass, clay pipe and structural finds including brick fragments, iron nails, window glass and lead window came.
Medieval pottery in trench 03, MNT11930 Further finds comprised medieval pottery. SK 599 385 Medieval at Adbolton, Holme Pierrepont
Post-medieval pottery from MNT11931 trench 04, Adbolton, Holme Topsoil, containing C17 - C18 pottery. SK 5987 3845 Post-medieval Pierrepont Medieval pottery from trench MNT11932 04, Adbolton, Holme Sandy silt loam, artefacts present included medieval pottery. SK 5987 3845 Medieval Pierrepont Sandy silt loam, artefacts present included flint, heat affected pebbles. Ditch Prehistoric finds and features 3.4m wide x 1m deep, roughly E-W. Asymmetrical profile. Artefacts recovered Prehistoric / MNT11933 in trench 04, Adbolton, Holme SK 5987 3845 included a flint flake and heat affected pebbles. These finds and the Roman Pierrepont characteristics suggest the ditch may relate to IA/RB settlement. Post-medieval pottery from MNT11934 trench 05, Adbolton, Holme Topsoil containing C17 - C18 pottery. SK 5998 3844 Post-medieval Pierrepont
CRD001/0875H/01
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottnighamshire
Possible ditch or pit with a V shaped profile, at least 1.2m wide and 0.8m deep. Medieval ditch in trench 05, MNT11935 Fill containing fragments of sandstone. Finds included medieval pottery and SK 5998 3844 Medieval Adbolton, Holme Pierrepont several fragments of poorly preserved bone. Topsoil containing C17 - C18 pottery. Redeposited layers with lime washed plaster, mortar, tile, brick, sandstone and charcoal fragments. Finds from these layers (including Black slipped earthenware) suggested C17 - C18 date. Post-medieval wall, demolition Features cut through the redeposited material, a steep sided flat bottomed linear rubble and finds from trench gulley. Finds included Black slipped earthenware and C17 / early C18 clay pipe. MNT11936 SK 5995 3843 Post-medieval 06, Adbolton, Holme May be robbed out foundation trench for wall. Second feature, apparent circular Pierrepont pit. Also possibly at this level, a ceramic horse shoe drain on NW-SE alignment. Below the redeposited material and a possible cobbled surface was a stone wall foundation. Facing angular sandstone with a rubble core. 0.5m wide. Stratigrapically, C17 – early C18. Coin of William III of 1697 on the surface. Directly below wall 0071 on the same alignment was a 0.5m wide gulley, this Medieval gully and post hole in comprised a V shaped profile c.0.25m deep at the S end but a shallow flat MNT11937 trench 06, Adbolton, Holme bottomed profile c.0.12m deep at the N. Either a post in trench or beam slot SK 5995 3843 Medieval Pierrepont feature. Artefacts consisted solely of a small number of green glazed pottery. A possible stakehole or small post hole immediately to the E. E-W aligned ditch, 0.9m wide and 0.62m deep. Steep sides narrowing to a flat to Iron Age ditch in trench 07, rounded base. A range of finds including large quantities of heat affected pebbles, MNT11938 SK 601 384 Prehistoric Adbolton, Holme Pierrepont bone (poorly preserved), burnt bone, flint, twenty sherds of IA pottery and complete sections of charred wood. A length of curvilinear gulley, variable width (from 0.2m - 0.5m) with shallow Iron Age gully and pit in trench (0.05 - 0.1m deep) profile and flattish base. Finds included a fragment of IA MNT11939 08, Adbolton, Holme pottery, heat affected pebbles and a large lump of slag (possibly from smithing). SK 602 383 Prehistoric Pierrepont Lying 0.1m from the possible internal edge was a sub round pit c.0.38m in diameter, 0.06m deep, flat bottomed profile.
Lithics from trench 08, MNT11940 A solitary flint flake from the surface of 0093. SK 6020 3835 Prehistoric Adbolton, Holme Pierrepont
Romano-British pottery from MNT11941 trench 07 or 08, Adbolton, Some residual sherds of Romano-British pottery (colour coat and grey ware). SK 602 384 Roman Holme Pierrepont Trial trench at position of geophysical anomalies. 0.1m into the fill of a round- Early Medieval coin from MNT12073 bottomed gully, a coin, a 'porcupine' sceat was discovered. Probably redeposited SK 5997 3846 Early medieval Adbolton, Holme Pierrepont given the presence of later medieval pottery in the feature. Trial trench at position of geophysical anomalies. Beneath P Med features Saxo - Norman and medieval Roman to MNT12074 (L12202), a heavy yellow clay that contained clasts of charcoal. At the base of this SK 5997 3846 features at Adbolton medieval clay were traces of a small gully. All material from this layer was of Medieval date.
CRD001/0875H/01
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottnighamshire
Beneath this material lay a thick deposit of further yellow clay. From this deposit came Medieval and Roman finds (L12203) and a porcupine sceatta of early C8 (L12200). This material overlay a shallow ditch which produced Stamford Ware sherds and was cut into the underlying alluvium. The trench revealed the presence of two sandy silt layers. These contained a number of Roman and Medieval pottery sherds, including a rim sherd of Saxo-Norman Torksey ware. Fragments of daub were also recovered. Post-medieval industrial Trial trench at position of geophysical anomalies. Beneath developed pastureland MNT12075 activity at Adbolton, Holme late Post-medieval features were encountered that appear to have been SK 5997 3846 Post-medieval Pierrepont associated with some sort of industrial process. Trial trench at position of geophysical anomalies. A thick deposit of heavy yellow Romano-British pottery from Roman to MNT12076 clay - from this deposit came Medieval (L12201) and Roman finds and an early SK 5997 3846 Adbolton, Holme Pierrepont medieval medieval coin (L12200). Ditch beneath contained Stamford ware. Medieval material has been recoverd from fields immediately S of Simkins Farm. The higher concentration in the fields immediately S of the farm could indicate Medieval pottery from that settlement existed in these areas. Distribution map of medieval pottery found MNT12077 Adbolton, Gamston and Holme by fieldwalking shows a general scatter of sherds, increasing in concentration SK 60 38 Medieval Pierrepont from S to N, with the highest densities in the fields to the S of Adbolton Lane, closest to Adbolton DMV. No discreet clusters, the distribution appears to be a product of manuring of the fields of the village.
Neolithic flints from Gamston Fieldwalking recovered a wide range of worked flint material from the fields S of MNT12078 SK 602 382 Prehistoric and Holme Pierrepont Adbolton, mainly late Neolithic, possibly a domestic site.
Lower palaeolithic flint from Fieldwalking recovered a wide range of worked flint material from the fields S of MNT12079 SK 602 382 Prehistoric Holme Pierrepont/Gamston Adbolton, possibly lower Palaeolithic piece.
Neolithic flints from West Fieldwalking recovered a wide range of worked flint material from the fields S of MNT12080 SK 600 380 Prehistoric Bridgford Adbolton, mainly Neolithic.
Late Upper Palaeolithic and Fieldwalking recovered a wide range of worked flint material from the fields S of MNT12081 Mesolithic flints from West SK 600 380 Prehistoric Adbolton, including some possible Mesolithic and Late Upper Palaeolithic pieces. Bridgford
Mesolithic and Neolithic flints Fieldwalking recovered a wide range of worked flint material from the fields S of MNT12082 SK 602 377 Prehistoric from Gamston Adbolton including Mesolithic and Neolithic.
In the road corridor, geophysical mapping provides evidence for archaeolgoical Geophysical anomalies at structures (buildings?) N of the flood barrier and an area of disturbance and MNT12083 SK 599 384 Undated Adbolton, Holme Pierrepont possible trackways immediately N of Simkins Farm. Structural remains were also detected in the study area adjoining Adbolton Hall Annexe. These include a
CRD001/0875H/01
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottnighamshire
small stone building, possible enclosure walls and a 20x30m stoney area possibly marking the site of a major, demolished building that may warrant further investigation.
Roman finds from Adbolton, Four pieces of Roman material have been recovered from fields to the SW of MNT12163 SK 602 381 Roman Gamston/Holme Pierrepont Simkins Farm, which in themselves may not have any significance.
At the E end of West Bridgford on the W bound carriageway of the A52. This MNT12770 Gamston Bridge bridge has been widened on both sides and the original part can only be seen on SK 5985 3744 Post-medieval the underside of the bridge.
MNT13012 Works, West Bridgford (Repeat of MNT 764) SK 594 380 Modern
Lady Bay Cleaners, West MNT13013 (Repeat of MNT 765) SK 591 381 Modern Bridgford
Excavations before gravel working were made by G Richardson, 1945-60. 3 Med buildings and an industrial site were found; no report has been published (letters about finds in DMVRG files). (2) To the N, between church and an old course of the Trent, lies an area of amorphous disturbance, probably marking the site of the former village. Field 1, a background scatter of finds indicate medieval (pottery, daub, ashlar) activity within the area. The possible trackway is potentially medieval MNT13017 Adbolton deserted village to Post-medieval in date, possibly once forming a W route out of the village. Field SK 5984 3841 Medieval 2, most features related to the former village of Adbolton, this included features of medieval date. In 06, gulley 0073 was masked by Post-medieval wall 0071 on the same alignment, indicating possible continuity between periods. The greatest density of features were exposed in 03 and 06, which largely comprised those associated with the final phase of village occupation and destruction in C17 / early C18. (see MNT 773) The Domesday Survey records a church at Adbolton. (1) Many coins, including a James II (1693) and an Elizabeth I (1598), were found during removal of church tower foundations in 1834. A pear tree marks the site, now level. Gravestones used as paving in adjoining farmstead. (Adbolton (All Hallows) - vanished church Adbolton Church, Holme of which the site is known. Green glazed sherds and pieces of tooled masonry, MNT13018 SK 5995 3836 Medieval Pierrepont probably from church demolished c.1741 (Part of finds in E Fitzpatrick's garden, Holme Road). The probable church site was indicated by the farmer at above grid ref, where stands a very old pear tree. Here, years ago, occasional services were held by the local incumbent. All Saints, Adbolton … was pulled down in 1746. The church plate and other articles were brought [to St.
CRD001/0875H/01
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottnighamshire
Edmunds]. Ashlar block, possibly deriving from a substantial building such as the church. (see MNT774)
2nd century Roman pottery, roof tiles, fragments of mosaic, and a quern found during gravel extraction. Roman pottery sherds of grey, 2nd century and Samian Roman Villa, Holme MNT17288 types, roof tiles, small fragments of mosaic (lost) found in Adbolton Gravel SK 605 385 Roman Pierrepont Workings by H Shipman in September 1955. The finds appear to suggest the possibility that this is the site of a villa.
LB II MNT18513 Simkins Farmhouse An early 19th century farmhouse. SK 59946 38297 Modern 1249194
LB II MNT19601 Lady Bay Junior School A school built in 1899. SK 59109 38219 Modern 1370139
Wall, railing & gate at Lady Boundary wall. 1899. Scrolled railings with struts. Two pairs of scrolled wrought LB II MNT19602 SK 59156 38248 Modern Bay Junior School iron gates. 1045641
A concentration of bricks on the S side of field 2 which may have been part of a MNT25957 Brick building at Gamston SK 6036 3754 Modern ? small demolished building.
Iron Age ditch in (trench) 07 and IA gulley and possible post hole in 08 appear to indicate settlement likely to stretch the 90m distance between these trenches. Iron Age occupation at MNT26040 Excavation revealed a range of finds including flintwork, IA pottery, bone, burnt SK 602 384 Prehistoric Adbolton, Holme Pierrepont bone, charcoal, large quantities of FCP and slag, suggesting several significant aspects of cultural evidence.
Grounds at Bridgford House, Bridgford House shown on Sanderson 1835, grounds unclear. House of 1768, Post-medieval / MNT26811 SK 58877 37522 West Bridgford listed grade II, is now offices, park is now mostly public park and car park. 19th century
The River Trent is an historic navigation running for approximately 100 miles from MNU767 The River Trent SK 67386 77116 N/A the Midlands to the Humber ports and the North Sea.
St John the Baptist Church, The ruins of St John the Baptist Church. Only the church and hall remain of the MNU933 SK 60125 39046 SM 1006383 Medieval Colwick village known as Over Colwick.
Heavy anti-aircraft battery, MNU1008 The site of a Second World War heavy anti-aircraft battery at Colwick Wood. SK 601 394 Modern Colwick Wood
CRD001/0875H/01
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottnighamshire
Originally a country house, now a restaurant and hotel. It was built during the early LB II* MNU1012 Colwick Hall (the extant Hall) 18th century but was remodelled in 1776. Modifications occurred in the 20th SK 60176 39027 Post-medieval 1254981 century. Many of the original internal features survive. A medieval village mentioned in Domesday. All that remains of the village are the MNU1014 Over Colwick ruins of St John the Baptist Church. Colwick Hall, built in 1780, is believed to have SK 6015 3904 Medieval been built on the site of an earlier house. A mill, with weir, first mentioned in 1299 when William de Collwyk affirmed that MNU1083 Colwick mill and weir Robert, son of Nicholas de Newark and others had broken a mill pond and weir. SK 600 389 Medieval
A house and land enclosed with a ditch and hedge, first mentioned in Domesday. MNU1133 Colwick Hall (medieval) It was later the home of the Colwick and Byron families. It is believed to have SK 6017 3902 Medieval been locatedon the site of the extant Colwick Hall.
Events:
Excavation at Adbolton, Holme ENT58 Pierrepont by Richardson
Field observations at Adbolton ENT364 Ordnance Survey visit 1975. SK 5994 3847 N/A by Seaman
Excavation at Adbolton by ENT366 Excavated by Canon RF Wilkinson in 1945. SK 5994 3847 Medieval ? Wilkinson
Field observations near site of ENT367 Adbolton church, Holme Field observations near site of Adbolton church. SK 5995 3836 Undated Pierrepont
Casual finds at site of ENT369 Casual finds at site of Adbolton. SK 5995 3836 Undated Adbolton, Holme Pierrepont
Field observations at Adbolton ENT370 Field observations at Adbolton. Undated by Seaman
Non-archaeological excavation ENT1124 of church tower foundations, Removal of church tower foundations in 1834. SK 5995 3836 Medieval Adbolton
CRD001/0875H/01
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottnighamshire
Casual finds in Holme ENT1160 (Roman?) finds found during gravel extraction. SK 605 385 Roman? Pierrepont parish
Casual find in Holme ENT1234 Saxon quern. SK 6000 3851 Early medieval Pierrepont parish
Casual find from West ENT3183 Neolithic flint axe. SK 5968 3742 Prehistoric Bridgford
The whole of the area (c.8ha) was rapidly scanned (by magnetometer). The traverses were surveyed both E-W and N-S. The scanning revealed few Geophysical survey at ENT3502 anomalies. Those that were indicated are in the S part of the area of interest. The SK 6011 3758 Undated Gamston three areas of anomalous readings (were) investigated in detail, two in the main field (above grid ref) and the third in the field to the E.
Each field was systematically walked over and searched for artefacts on the Fieldwalking at Gamston by ploughed surface. Traverses were spaced only 10m apart. Individual findspots of ENT3588 SK 602 377 Medieval Lindsey Archaeogical Services artefacts dating to medieval and earlier periods were plotted using a theodolite. There were no such finds in field 2.
Field investigation comprising the excavation of eight trial trenches varying from Trial trenching at Adbolton, Prehistoric to ENT3855 20m x 3m to 10m x 3m. These were located across earthworks, geophysical SK 60 38 Holme Pierrepont, by TPAU Post-medieval anomalies or topographically attractive areas for settlement.
A strip map and record exercise was maintained during soil stripping, following the demolition of existing buildings and the removal of hard standings. The whole of Watching brief at Gamston by the site was then subjected to an archaeological watching brief. The watching brief ENT3862 SK 5999 3731 None CGMS was conducted over a long time frame. No significant archaeological features or finds were recorded during the archaeological strip map and record exercise, nor the subsequent watching brief.
Excavation at Adbolton, Holme An archaeological evaluation included the excavation of a 10 x 3m trench placed Roman to Post- ENT3911 Pierrepont, by TPAT over an anomaly detected by prior geophysical survey of the site. medieval
Fieldwalking at Holme All non-pasture fields were walked at 10m transects with all finds plotted in three Prehistoric to ENT3912 Pierrepont, Gamston and dimensions using an EDM. Post-medieval West Bridgford
CRD001/0875H/01
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottnighamshire
Geophysical surveys at It was decided to carry out a geomagnetic survey of both areas with an additional ENT3913 Undated Adbolton, Holme Pierrepont resistivity survey of the conjectured church site.
Designated Heritage Assets:
St John Baptist's Church and The ruins of St John the Baptist Church. Only the church and hall remain of the 1006383 SK 60125 39046 SM Medieval graveyard, Colwick village known as Over Colwick.
Boundary wall, railing & gate Boundary wall. 1899. Scrolled railings with struts. Two pairs of scrolled wrought 1045641 SK 59156 38248 LB II 19th century at Lady Bay Junior School iron gates.
1249194 Simkins Farmhouse An early 19th century farmhouse. SK 59946 38297 LB II 19th century
Originally a country house, now a restaurant and hotel. It was built during the early 1254981 Colwick Hall 18th century but was remodelled in 1776. Modifications occurred in the 20th SK 60176 39027 LB II* Post-medieval century. Many of the original internal features survive.
Ruins of Church of St John the Church, now roofless ruin. C14 and C15, chancel and tower 1684. Mid C19 1255058 SK 60125 39054 LB II Medieval Baptist alterations.
1370139 Lady Bay Junior School A school built in 1899. SK 59109 38219 LB II 19th century
CRD001/0875H/01
Lanpro Services Ltd. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottnighamshire
CRD001/0875H/01
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY REPORT
Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
Client Lanpro Services For Crofts Development Ltd
Survey Report 13025
Date June 2018
SUMO Geophysics Ltd SUMO Geophysics Ltd www.sumoservices.com
Project Name: Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire Job ref: 13025 Client: Lanpro Services Date: June 2018
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY REPORT
Project name: SUMO Job reference: Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton, 13025 Nottinghamshire
Client: Lanpro Services For: Crofts Development Ltd
Survey date: Report date: 1 April 2018 21 April 2018
Field co-ordinator: Field Team: Tom Cockcroft MSc Haydn Evans BA Cassandra Hall BA MSc Joe Perry BA
Report written by: CAD illustrations by: Tom Cockcroft MSc Tom Cockcroft MSc
Project Manager: Report approved by: Jon Tanner BSc MSc PCIfA Dr John Gater BSc DSc(Hon) MCIfA FSA
______© SUMO Geophysics: for Archaeology and Engineering
Project Name: Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire Job ref: 13025 Client: Lanpro Services Date: June 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 1
2 INTRODUCTION 1
3 METHODS, PROCESSING & PRESENTATION 2
4 RESULTS 3
5 DATA APPRAISAL & CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT 3
6 CONCLUSION 4
7 REFERENCES 4
Appendix A Technical Information: Magnetometer Survey Method
Appendix B Technical Information: Magnetic Theory
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 01 1:25 000 Site Location Diagram
Figure 02 1:1000 Location of Survey Area
Figure 03 1:1000 Magnetometer Survey - Greyscale Plot
Figure 04 1:1000 Magnetometer Survey - Interpretation
Figure 05 1:1000 Minimally Processed Data Greyscale Plot
Figure 06 1:1000 1954 OS Mapping
______© SUMO Geophysics: for Archaeology and Engineering
Project Name: Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire Job ref: 13025 Client: Lanpro Services Date: June 2018
1 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
A number of anomalies of possible archaeological interest were detected in the survey area and may relate to the deserted medieval village noted in the DBA. Magnetic responses within the dataset correspond to a number of former field boundaries seen on historic mapping. A curvilinear uncertain trend was also recorded.
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Background synopsis
SUMO Geophysics Ltd were commissioned to undertake a geophysical survey of an area outlined for residential development. This survey forms part of an archaeological investigation being undertaken by Lanpro Services on behalf of Crofts Development Ltd.
2.2 Site details
NGR / Postcode SK 598 383 / NG2 5AZ Location The site is located 3km south east of Nottingham. The survey area is bounded to the south by Adbolton Lane, to the west by Adbolton Lane playing fields and to the east by Simkins Barns and Adbolton Hall. HER/SMR Nottingham City Council District Gamston North Parish Holme Pierrepont Civil Parish Topography Flat Current Land Use Rough pasture Geology Solid: Tarporley Siltstone Formation - siltstone, mudstone and sandstone. Superficial: Holme Pierrepont sand and gravel member - sand and gravel (BGS 2018). Soils Wharfe Association (561a) deep stoneless permeable fine loamy soils. Some similar soils variably affected by groundwater (SSEW 1983). Archaeology Remains relating to the deserted medieval village of Adbolton, known to exist within the northern half of the study site, are considered to be significant in a regional context (LS 2017). Survey Methods Magnetometer survey (fluxgate gradiometer) Study Area 1.8 ha
2.3 Aims and Objectives To locate and characterise any anomalies of possible archaeological interest within the study area.
______© SUMO Geophysics: for Archaeology and Engineering 1
Project Name: Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire Job ref: 13025 Client: Lanpro Services Date: June 2018
3 METHODS, PROCESSING & PRESENTATION
3.1 Standards & Guidance This report and all fieldwork have been conducted in accordance with the latest guidance documents issued by Historic England (EH 2008) (then English Heritage), the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA 2014) and the European Archaeological Council (EAC 2016).
3.2 Survey methods Detailed magnetic survey was chosen as an efficient and effective method of locating archaeological anomalies.
Technique Instrument Traverse Interval Sample Interval Magnetometer Bartington Grad 601-2 1.0m 0.25m
More information regarding this technique is included in Appendices A and B.
3.3 Data Processing
The following basic processing steps have been carried out on the data used in this report: De-stripe; de-stagger; interpolate.
3.4 Presentation of results and interpretation
The presentation of the results includes a minimally processed and a processed greyscale plot. Magnetic anomalies are identified, interpreted and plotted onto the !"
When interpreting the results, several factors are taken into consideration, including the nature of archaeological features being investigated and the local conditions at the site (geology, pedology, topography etc.). Anomalies are categorised by their potential origin. Where responses can be related to other existing evidence, the anomalies will be given specific categories, such as: Abbey Wall or Roman Road. Where the interpretation is based largely on the geophysical data, levels of confidence are implied, for example: Probable, or Possible Archaeology. The former is used for a confident interpretation, based on anomaly definition and/or other corroborative data such as cropmarks. Poor anomaly definition, a lack of clear patterns to the responses and an absence of other supporting data reduces confidence, hence the classification Possible.
______© SUMO Geophysics: for Archaeology and Engineering 2
Project Name: Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire Job ref: 13025 Client: Lanpro Services Date: June 2018
4 RESULTS
The results for the survey area are below and specific anomalies have been given numerical labels [1] - [4] which appear in the text below, as well as on the Interpretation Figure.
4.1 Probable Archaeology
4.1.1 No magnetic responses have been recorded that could be interpreted as being of archaeological interest.
4.2 Possible Archaeology
4.2.1 In the northern extent of the survey area a number of linear responses [1] were detected which could relate to the deserted medieval village cited in the DBA. The responses are classified as possible archaeology due to their ephemeral nature and the amount of disturbance and background noise within the data set. Although the anomalies may indicate banks and ditches they do not appear to relate to a sketch plan of earthworks in the DBA (LS 2017).
4.3 Uncertain
4.3.1 A curvilinear response can be seen in the dataset; the response is fairly weak and ill-defined and could relate to later agricultural practices.
4.4 Former Field Boundary
4.4.1 A number of magnetic responses within the survey area correspond to former field boundaries that can be seen on historic mapping. Three former boundaries are visible in the southern extent of the survey area [2] and three in the centre [3].
4.5 Ferrous / Magnetic Disturbance
4.5.1 A large ferrous response in the centre of the survey area [4] relates to former buildings and a gun emplacement seen on historic mapping and plans (LS 2017).
4.5.2 Ferrous responses close to boundaries are due to adjacent fences and gates. Smaller scale # $! + < ! =O ! @ !PX ! $ $ a and are characteristic of small pieces of ferrous debris (or brick / tile) in the topsoil; they are commonly assigned a modern origin. Only the most prominent of these are highlighted on the interpretation diagram.
5 DATA APPRAISAL & CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT
5.1 Historic England guidelines (EH 2008) Table 4 states that the average magnetic response on sandstone and mudstone is poor. The results from this survey indicate the presence of possible archaeological features in the form of linear responses; however, there is extensive magnetic disturbance across the site which could be masking other remains.
______© SUMO Geophysics: for Archaeology and Engineering 3
Project Name: Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire Job ref: 13025 Client: Lanpro Services Date: June 2018
6 CONCLUSION
6.1 In the northern area of the dataset a number of linear responses possibly related to the deserted medieval village have been detected. Six former field boundaries typified by strong magnetic response traverse the survey area. A small and relatively weak curvilinear response has been characterized as an uncertain trend.
7 REFERENCES
BGS 2018 British Geological Survey, Geology of Britain viewer [accessed 21/06/2018] website: (http://www.bgs.ac.uk/opengeoscience/home.html?Accordion1=1#maps)
CifA 2014 Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Geophysical Survey. Amended 2016. CifA Guidance note. Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, Reading http://www.archaeologists.net/sites/default/files/CIfAS%26GGeophysics_2.pdf
EAC 2016 EAC Guidelines for the Use of Geophysics in Archaeology, European Archaeological Council, Guidelines 2.
EH 2008 Geophysical Survey in Archaeological Field Evaluation. English Heritage, Swindon https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/geophysical- survey-in-archaeological-field-evaluation/geophysics-guidelines.pdf/
LS 2017 Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire, Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment. Lanpro Services, York
SSEW 1983 Soils of England and Wales. Sheet 4, Eastern England. Soil Survey of England and Wales, Harpenden.
______© SUMO Geophysics: for Archaeology and Engineering 4
N
Site Location
Reproduced from Ordnance Survey's 1:25 000 map of 1998 with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown Copyright reserved. Licence No: 100018665
Title: Site Location Diagram
Client: Lanpro Services
Project: 13025 Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire.
Scale: 0 metres 1250 Fig No: 01 1:25000 @ A3 N
4
Adbolton
ED & Ward Bdy
Magnetometer Survey Area
Wainwrights Cottage showing 30m grids
The Coach House
The Forge
Millers Cott
Simkins Farm
Title: Location of Survey Area
ADBOLTON LANE Client: Lanpro Services
Project: 13025 Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
Scale: 05metres 0Fig No: 02 1:1000 @ A3 N
4
2
AdboltonAdboAAdAdbdboddbboltonltolltttonoonn
EDE & Ward BdyB nT
-1
Wainwrights Cottage
The CoachCoach HouseHouse
The Forge
MillersMMilleMi ersrrss CoCottotottottt
SimkinsSimkins FarmFarm
Title: Magnetometer Survey Greyscale Plot
ADBOLTONO LANELANE Client: Lanpro Services
Project: 13025 Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
Scale: 05metres 0Fig No: 03 1:1000 @ A3 N
1 1
3 3 4
3 4 KEY
Possible Archaeology (discrete / trend)
Adbolton Uncertain Origin (trend) ED & Ward Bdy
Former Field Boundary (corroborated)
Ferrous / Magnetic Disturbance Wainwrights Cottage
The Coach House
2 The Forge 2 2
Millers Cott
Simkins Farm
Title: Magnetometer Survey Interpretation
ADBOLTON LANE Client: Lanpro Services
Project: 13025 Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
Scale: 05metres 0Fig No: 04 1:1000 @ A3 N
4
5
Adbolton
EDE & Ward BdyB nT
-5
Wainwrights Cottage
The CoachCoach HouseHouse
The Forge
Millers Cott
SimkinsSimkins FarmFarm
Title: Magnetometer Survey Greyscale Plot - Minimally Processed
ADBOLTONO LANELANE Client: Lanpro Services
Project: 13025 Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
Scale: 05metres 0Fig No: 05 1:1000 @ A3 N
4
AdboltonAdboAdbAAdddb ltontonon
ddyy EDE &&Wa&W WarWaWardWWrara dBd BdyBBdBdyBy
WainwrightsWWainwrigWainWaWainwinwrnwwrigwwr hhtts CoCottCottageage
TheThThe CoachC c HouseHouseuuss
The Forge
Millers CCotCotttt
SimkinsSimkinSimki s FarmFa
Title: 1954 OS Mapping
ADBOLTONADBOLTADDDBOLTBOL ONO LANELANLAL NE Client: Lanpro Services
Project: 13025 Land at Simkins Farm, Adbolton, Nottinghamshire
Scale: 05metres 0Fig No: 06 1:1000 @ A3
Appendix A - Technical Information: Magnetometer Survey Method
Grid Positioning For hand held gradiometers the location of the survey grids has been plotted together with the referencing information. Grids were set out using a Trimble R8 Real Time Kinematic (RTK) VRS Now GNSS GPS system.
An RTK GPS (Real-time Kinematic Global Positioning System) can locate a point on the ground to a far greater accuracy than a standard GPS unit. A standard GPS suffers from errors created by satellite orbit errors, clock errors and atmospheric interference, resulting in an accuracy of 5m-10m. An RTK system uses a single base station receiver and a number of mobile units. The base station re- broadcasts the phase of the carrier it measured, and the mobile units compare their own phase measurements with those they received from the base station. This results in an accuracy of around 0.01m.
Technique Instrument Traverse Interval Sample Interval Magnetometer Bartington Grad 601-2 1m 0.25m
Instrumentation: Bartington Grad 601-2 Bartington instruments operate in a gradiometer configuration which comprises fluxgate sensors mounted vertically, set 1.0m apart. The fluxgate gradiometer suppresses any diurnal or regional effects. The instruments are carried, or cart mounted, with the bottom sensor approximately 0.1-0.3m from the ground surface. At each survey station, the difference in the magnetic field between the two fluxgates is measured in nanoTesla (nT). The sensitivity of the instrument can be adjusted; for most archaeological surveys the most sensitive range (0.1nT) is used. Generally, features up to 1m deep may be detected by this method, though strongly magnetic objects may be visible at greater depths. The Bartington instrument can collect two lines of data per traverse with gradiometer units mounted laterally with a separation of 1.0m. The readings are logged consecutively into the data logger which in turn is daily down-loaded into a portable computer whilst on site. At the end of each site survey, data is transferred to the office for processing and presentation.
Data Processing Zero Mean This process sets the background mean of each traverse within each grid to zero. Traverse The operation removes striping effects and edge discontinuities over the whole of the data set. Step Correction When gradiometer data are collected in 'zig-zag' fashion, stepping errors can (De-stagger) sometimes arise. These occur because of a slight difference in the speed of walking on the forward and reverse traverses. The result is a staggered effect in the data, which is particularly noticeable on linear anomalies. This process corrects these errors.
Display Greyscale/ This format divides a given range of readings into a set number of classes. Each Colourscale Plot class is represented by a specific shade of grey, the intensity increasing with value. All values above the given range are allocated the same shade (maximum intensity); similarly, all values below the given range are represented by the minimum intensity shade. Similar plots can be produced in colour, either using a wide range of colours or by selecting two or three colours to represent positive and negative values. The assigned range (plotting levels) can be adjusted to emphasise different anomalies in the data-set.
______
© SUMO Survey: Geophysics for Archaeology and Engineering
Interpretation Categories
In certain circumstances (usually when there is corroborative evidence from desk-based or excavation data) very specific interpretations can be assigned to magnetic anomalies (for example, Roman Road, Wall, etc.) and where appropriate, such interpretations will be applied. The list below outlines the generic categories commonly used in the interpretation of the results.
{ ! + ! $! # +| $ # ! ! ! < < } ~ ~< < < # ~ } } ! } < ~< " { ! + < !|
Where appropriate some anomalies will be further classified according to their form (positive or negative) and relative strength and coherence (trend: weak and poorly defined).
______
© SUMO Survey: Geophysics for Archaeology and Engineering Appendix B - Technical Information: Magnetic Theory
Detailed magnetic survey can be used to effectively define areas of past human activity by mapping spatial variation and contrast in the magnetic properties of soil, subsoil and bedrock. Although the changes in the magnetic field resulting from differing features in the soil are usually weak, changes as small as 0.1 nanoTeslas (nT) in an overall field strength of 48,000 (nT), can be accurately detected.
Weakly magnetic iron minerals are always present within the soil and areas of enhancement relate to increases in magnetic susceptibility and permanently magnetised thermoremanent material.
Magnetic susceptibility relates to the induced magnetism of a material when in the presence of a magnetic field. This magnetism can be considered as effectively permanent as it exists within the ! + # < " !$! ~ < ~ + $ ~$ + < biological or fermentation processes.
Thermoremanence is a permanent magnetism acquired by iron minerals that, after heating to a specific temperature known as the Curie Point, are effectively demagnetised followed by re-magnetisation by ! + # < < " { + + < < # $ s can include hearths and kilns; material such as brick and tile may be magnetised through the same process.
Silting and deliberate infilling of ditches and pits with magnetically enhanced soil creates a relative contrast against the much lower levels of magnetism within the subsoil into which the feature is cut. Systematic mapping of magnetic anomalies will produce linear and discrete areas of enhancement allowing assessment and characterisation of subsurface features. Material such as subsoil and non- magnetic bedrock used to create former earthworks and walls may be mapped as areas of lower enhancement compared to surrounding soils.
Magnetic survey is carried out using a fluxgate gradiometer which is a passive instrument consisting of two sensors mounted vertically 1m apart. The instrument is carried about 30cm above the ground !$ # ! ! + !$ ! ! + # <
Factors affecting the magnetic survey may include soil type, local geology, previous human activity and disturbance from modern services.
______
© SUMO Survey: Geophysics for Archaeology and Engineering
# Archaeological # Measured Building # Geophysical # Topographic # Laser Scanning # Utility Mapping
SUMO Services Ltd, incorporated under the laws of England and Wales, Company Registration No.4275993.