Archaeological
Desk Based Assessment
______
Chigwell Primary
Academy and Land east of Vicarage Lane, Chigwell, Essex
August 2019 | Project Ref AC01063 Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 1
Project Number: AC01063A
Authored by: Dr Anne Johnson and Charlotte Vallance
Date: August 2019
Document version M:\Archaeology Collective\Projects\Projects 1001-1500\Projects 1001-1100\01063 - Chigwell Project, MMA\01063A DBA\Reports
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 2
Contents
1. Introduction ...... 7 2. Archaeological and Historical Background ...... 14 3. Proposed Development, Assessment of Significance and Potential Effects ...... 25 4. Conclusions ...... 28 5. Methodology ...... 33 6. Legislation and Planning Framework ...... 39 7. Appendix 1 – Site Location ...... 45 8. Appendix 2 –Geology & Topography ...... 47 9. Appendix 3 – Historic Environment Record ...... 49 10. Appendix 4 – Historic Maps & Images ...... 56
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 3
Figures
Fig. 1.1 Site Location
Fig. 1.2 Detailed Site Location
Fig. 2.2 Geology: Superficial Deposits
Fig. 2.3 Topography
Fig 3.1 Designated Heritage Assets within the 1km Study Area
Fig. 3.2 Non-Designated Heritage Assets within the 1km Study Area
Fig. 4.1 Map by Christopher Saxon 1576
Fig. 4.2 Map by George Sangster 1769
Fig. 4.3 Chapman and Andre A Map of the County of Essex 1777
Fig. 4.4 1839 Chigwell Tithe Plan
Fig. 4.5 1872 OS 25-inch
Fig. 4.6 1896 OS 25-inch
Fig. 4.7 1920 OS 25-inch
Fig. 4.8 1966 OS 1:2500
Fig. 4.9 2018 Satellite Image
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 4
Executive Summary
This archaeological desk-based assessment has been prepared by Archaeology Collective, on behalf of Coral Properties Ltd to inform planning proposals for the demolition of existing school buildings associated with Chigwell Primary Academy, the construction of a new school building and sports pitches and the construction of residential development comprising the erection of 59 no. residential dwellings together with associated off-street parking, garden space, new vehicular accesses from High Road (A113) and Vicarage Lane, external landscaping and associated development.
The report has confirmed that the application site does not contain any designated heritage assets, such as World Heritage Sites, scheduled monuments, registered parks and gardens, registered battlefields or listed buildings, where there would be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation in situ and against development.
The application site has been shown to have a moderate potential for encountering Roman activity, particularly close to the line of the former Roman road to the north. As the site formed part of a farm owned by a Cistercian monastery, there is also a moderate potential for encountering un-stratified finds from the medieval period.. There is low potential for activity from other periods to be encountered on the site.
It is considered that if archaeological remains are present within the Site, they will be better preserved outside the footprints of previous and existing buildings where there has been no or limited development. The long-term cultivation of the Site as farmland however may have also disturbed underlying archaeological deposits, the degree to which is currently unknown and would warrant further investigation.
Ground moving activities, associated with the proposed development, have the potential to impact on hitherto unknown below-ground archaeological remains. Construction activities can include but are not limited to ground levelling, the excavation of foundation trenches, topsoil stripping, the removal of existing building foundations and surfaces and the installation of infrastructure items.
It is considered that the Site is unlikely to contain any extensive archaeological deposits of high significance or value which would require preservation in situ.
The conclusions of this assessment and in particular the archaeological recommendations in respect of the determination of the planning application, are in accordance with both local and national planning policy.
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 5
1.0
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 6
1. Introduction
Project Background
1.1 This archaeological desk-based assessment has been prepared by prepared by Dr. Anne Johnson and Charlotte Vallance, Archaeological Consultants at Archaeology Collective on behalf of Coral Properties Ltd.
1.2 The subject of this assessment is Chigwell Primary Academy and Land East of Vicarage Lane, Chigwell, Essex, IG7 6DW , hereafter referred to as the ‘Site’ (Figures 1.1 and 1.2). The area which the Site occupies is approximately 4.5 hectares and is centred at National Grid Reference (NGR) TL 94399 18880. The Site lies at the junction between Vicarage Lane and Chigwell High Road (A113) on the northern outskirts of the historic core of the village of Chigwell, Essex. Administratively, for local government purposes, the Site lies within the boundaries of Epping Forest District Council.
1.3 The purpose of this assessment is to determine and assess the archaeological potential of the Site informed by available historical information and data on designated and non-designated archaeological heritage assets in order to provide sufficient information for the Local Planning Authority to come to an informed understanding of the potential impact of the proposed development proposal on the significance of those assets.
1.4 In addition, the assessment enables stakeholders to assess the archaeological potential of the Site and to consider the need for design, civil engineering and archaeological solutions to the potentials identified where appropriate.
1.5 The report considers only designated and non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest as recorded in statutory or non-statutory repositories of historic environment data. This may include, but is not limited to:
• Finds/findspots of artefactual material (e.g. stone tools);
• Finds/findspots of ecofactual material (e.g. animal bone); • Locations, features or objects referenced from historic documents; • Archaeological or palaeoenvironmental deposits;
• Sub surface archaeological remains of features, buildings or structures;
• Scheduled monuments; and
• Registered Battlefields
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 7
1.6 The report will not address designated or non-designated built heritage. Specifically:
• Listed buildings;
• Conservation areas; • Registered Parks and Gardens; and
• Locally listed buildings.
1.7 Coral Properties Ltd have commissioned Archaeology Collective to establish the archaeological potential of the Site, to identify any particular areas of archaeological potential or significance and to provide guidance on ways to accommodate any relevant constraints identified. This assessment is in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the procedures set out in CIfA’s ‘Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-based Assessment’1.
1.8 This desk-based assessment comprises an examination of digital data held by the Essex Historic Environment Record (EHER) together with a range of archives and libraries, Essex Archives, The National Archives, The British Library and The Bodleian Library. The report incorporates the results of a comprehensive map regression exercise in order to review the impacts of existing and previous development on potential underlying archaeological deposits. Consultation of additional sources has been undertaken where necessary.
1.9 This data has been collected for an area comprising a 1km radius of the Site boundary; the ‘study area’. This radius has been selected on the basis of professional judgement to be appropriate to determining the archaeological potential of the Site given its location and character.
Location, Geology and Topography
1.10 The irregular-shaped land plot comprises three distinct areas; the grounds of Chigwell Primary Academy, a roughly triangular field in the north and a rectangular field in the east. The Site is bounded by Chigwell High Road to the west, agricultural land to the south and east and residential development to the west.
1 CIfA. Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-based Assessment 2017
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 8
1.11 The core of Chigwell village and the land to the north and east, including the northern field of the Site lies on one of series of hills along the east side of the valley of the River Roding.
1.12 The British Geological Survey identifies the solid geology as London Clay Formation (clay silt and sand), a sedimentary bedrock formed approximately 34 to 56 million years ago in the Palaeogene Period in an environment previously dominated by deep seas . The superficial geology is identified as Lowestoft Formation – Diamicton, superficial deposits (boulder clay and silty clay) formed up to 2 million years ago in the Quaternary Period, in a local environment previously dominated by ice age conditions (Figure 2.1).2
1.13 The soils are mapped as slowly permeable, seasonally wet, slightly acid but base- rich loamy and clayey soils above the parent glacial till3.
1.14 The Site is located between 60m-70m above Ordnance Datum (AOD) (Figure 2.2), on land that naturally slopes from northeast down to the southwest.
Site Visit
1.15 The Site was visited on the 4th June 2019. The field in the north featured a combination of open ground, areas of vegetation and spoil heaps of unknown material. The field in the west was largely impenetrable due to the density of trees and shrubs that filled much of this area.
1.16 The school site featured the original 19th century school building and early 20th century lodge, a 1960’s school building, a portacabin and a modern dwelling. Open spaces included a grass sports pitch, a tarmacked playground and a reinforced concrete surface surrounding the 1960’s school building. Due to a natural slope down from northeast to southwest, the school building has been constructed upon a man-made earth platform measuring approximately 1-2m in height. Previous below-ground disturbances include cuts for drains and foundation trenches for the school buildings, in particular the 19th century building, where the lower levels are cut into the ground.
1.17 The following photographs are a selection of those taken during the visit:
2 British Geological Society Online Viewer 3 UK Soil Observatory soilscape http://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/ukso/home.html
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 9
Plate 1: Looking south across the playground and 1960’s building in the Chigwell Primary Academy site
Plate 2: Looking north across the playground towards the 19th century lodge building and portacabin inside the Chigwell Primary Academy site
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 10
Plate 3: Looking northwest at the raised platform upon which buildings associated with Chigwell Primary Academy are constructed.
Plate 4: The 19th century school building and playground in the Chigwell Primary Academy site.
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 11
Plate 5: Dense vegetation in the west field in the Site
Plate 6:Open spaces, vegetation and spoil heaps in the north field in the Site
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 12
2.0
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 13
2. Archaeological and Historical Background
Introduction
2.1 The Site does not contain any designated heritage assets of archaeological interest, such as scheduled monuments or registered battlefields for which there would be a presumption in favour of preservation in situ and against development proceeding.
2.2 There are five grade II* (Parish Church of St Mary the Virgin, The King’s Head Inn, Grange Court, Chigwell Grammar School and Tailours) and 30 grade II listed buildings located within the study area (Appendix 2.1; EHER 33924-35, 33939-55, 33966-70 & 38212), the majority of which flank the High Road within the historic core of Chigwell, which has been designated as a Conservation Area. There are no scheduled monuments, registered parks & gardens or registered battlefields within the study area.
2.3 Only a limited amount of archaeological work has been carried out in the parish of Chigwell. No archaeological sites or finds have been recorded withthe Site boundary.
Non-Designated Heritage Assets
2.4 The non-designated heritage assets within the 1km study area are presented in tabular form and on mapping in Appendix 3. This chapter considers these archaeological finds and features, together with a map regression exercise charting the history of the Site from the 16th century to the present day.
2.5 Timescales used in this section:
Prehistoric
Palaeolithic 450,000 - 12,000 BC
Mesolithic 12,000 - 4,000 BC
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 14
Neolithic 4,000 - 1,800 BC
Bronze Age 1,800 - 600 BC
Iron Age 600 - AD 43
Historic
Roman AD 43 - 410
Saxon/Early Medieval AD 410 - 1066
Medieval AD 1066 - 1485
Post Medieval AD 1485 - 1800
Modern AD 1800 - Present
Prehistoric
2.6 Lower Palaeolithic finds have been made in the course of quarrying the Pleistocene gravels of the Roding Valley and the Lower Thames south of Chigwell, and palaeo- environmental evidence has been recovered from peat beds in the valley floor.
2.7 Flint flakes of probable Mesolithic date have been found close to the river in the north of the parish, and within Epping Forest
2.8 The only evidence for early prehistoric remains within the study area are (an unspecified number of) Neolithic worked flints found within the kilometre square which includes the southern half of the application site (TQ4493; EHER 4096).
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 15
2.9 Due to the paucity of evidence for activity relating to the earlier prehistoric period, there is considered to be a low potential for encountering archaeological remains from this period within the application site.
2.10 Archaeological evidence indicates that the early – middle Bronze Age saw the onset of widespread woodland clearance in eastern England. There is no evidence for finds of this date from the study area.
2.11 The HER records the discovery of a late prehistoric (Iron Age) Armorican silver coin (from Gaul) within the kilometre square TQ4494 (EHER 4091). A second (gold) coin of the same period was found by metal detecting on the south side of the village; again its findspot is only given broadly within a square kilometre (EHER 51482; TQ4393).
2.12 Two Iron Age univallate hill forts stand upon ridges of higher ground within Epping Forest, on the opposite side of the Roding Valley from the application site: Loughton Camp lies 4.5km northwest of the application area (centred on NGR 541880 197518) and Ambresbury Banks, 6.5km north of the application site (centred on NGR 543789 200302).
2.13 Extensive prehistoric settlements and finds of all periods have been found in the lower Lea and Roding valleys, outside the study area. Within the study area, irregular rectilinear and linear cropmarks visible on aerial photographs on land close to the river, near Chigwell Hall, may possibly represent late prehistoric enclosures (EHER 4071, NGR 543300 193800; EHER 4077, NGR 543600 193500); their location lies within the EHER boundary mapped on Appendix 2.2 as EHER 19794).
2.14 As the lighter soils of the river valley gravels were generally preferred for settlement and communication in the prehistoric period, in contrast with the more heavily wooded clay soils upon which the application site lies, there is considered to be a low potential for encountering archaeological remains from this period within the Site. Roman
2.15 The dominant feature in the Roman landscape of the study area is the course of the Roman road, whose line is still followed by the A 113, Chigwell High Road, running from London towards Abridge and Great Dunmow (EHER 4035). This road forms the northern boundary of the Site.
2.16 The Roman road has been investigated by archaeological excavation at two locations locally: between Chigwell and Abridge, 2km northeast of the application site, and in the grounds of Claybury Hospital (now Repton Park), close to the river crossing at Woodford Bridge, c.3.5km southwest of the application site. The
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 16
excavations showed that the road was typically 7 – 9m in width, with side ditches; the cambered embankment on which it was built (the agger) consisted of puddled clay and river flints, topped with a 0.15 m thick metalled flint surface. The Claybury Hospital trench showed 2 or 3 periods of repair and consolidation. The excavators drew attention to the nearby discovery in the mid 19th century of Roman cremations and an inhumation close to the road.
2.17 It has been suggested that the Roman settlement known as Durolitum, named in a Roman road document (known as The Antonine Itinerary ), may have been sited at Chigwell, almost equidistant between London (Londinium) and Chelmsford (Caesaromagus) . No remains of this settlement have been identified within the parish. The Roman place-name elements duro (military post) and litum (ford) have been interpreted as the site of an early (1st century AD) Roman fort close to the river crossing . It is possible, from analogy with Roman sites elsewhere in the region, that a civilian settlement had developed on and around the fort site after the departure of the army . The most likely location in the Chigwell area would have been close to the river crossing either south of Woodford Bridge, in the vicinity of Claybury Hospital (see 2.16 above) where few archaeological deposits are likely to have survived extensive quarrying and building development, or at Abridge to the north.
2.18 Beyond the study area, Roman remains have been found at two locations close to Abridge. A Roman settlement has discovered as a result of gravel quarrying at Little London, close to the Roman road, approximately 2.4km north of the application site (centred on NGR 545400 196000). This site lies on the west side of the road, on a reasonably well drained brickearth over gravel geology, just above the floodplain of the River Roding. A tessellated (mosaic) pavement and cremation urns had been found during gravel digging here in the 18th century, and a wooden lead-lined Roman coffin was unearthed in the 19th century . More recent archaeological excavations, in the period 1972-1981 and 1990, located a Roman bath house with hypocaust (underfloor heating), built in the 2nd century and demolished by the 4th century, together with wells, cremation burials, a corn dryer, evidence for iron working and relatively large quantities of pottery sherds, coins, brooches and animal bones, showing occupation of the site from the 1st – 5th centuries.
2.19 A substantial stone-built Roman villa stood west of the Roman road, on the river bank at Hill Farm, just north of Abridge, in the parish of Theydon Bois, 2.5km to the northeast of the Little London settlement (NGR 547257 197704). The remains of masonry walls, tessellated pavements, underfloor heating and tiled roofs have been identified in small-scale excavations. Pottery sherds indicate occupation throughout the Roman period into the 4th century AD. The extensive nature of the site suggests that it may have been one of the richest villas in this part of Essex.
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 17
2.20 There is scant evidence for Roman activity within the study area apart from the course of the Roman road itself. Roman roads attracted ribbon development outside major towns, and burials (which were prohibited by Roman law within the built-up area) would have flanked the roads in the hinterland of every Roman settlement. Staging posts (mansiones) would also have been provided at regular intervals to provide official travellers and messengers with accommodation and fresh horses.
2.21 Because of its proximity to the Roman road, the potential for archaeological remains dating from this period to be encountered in the Site is considered to be moderate.
Saxon/Early Medieval
2.22 There is very little archaeological evidence for Saxon occupation in the Chigwell area. The Norman taxation document, known as Domesday Book, compiled in 1086, documents the size and prosperity of Chigwell at that time and twenty years previously, at the time of the Norman Conquest. The place-name is recorded as Cingheuuella . Three manors were recorded: Chigwell, held by Ralph of Limésy, which Harold had held from King Edward (the Confessor) in 1066, and two smaller manors, one held in 1086 by Robert Gernon from King William, and the other by Peter the Sheriff, who had retained his pre-Conquest landholding.
2.23 Domesday shows that the three manors supported at least 37 households. The area was well wooded, similar in character to the neighbouring Epping and Hainault Forests, with sufficient wood pasture to support a large number of pigs (900), together with arable land, meadows and pasture. The manorial settlements probably lay within woodland clearings. Whilst there had been 2 mills at the time of the Conquest, only one remained twenty years later.
2.24 The largest manor, held by Ralph of Limésy, has been identified with the holding later known as Chigwell Hall alias Chigwell and West Hatch. Ralph of Limésy’s manor house may have lain within a moat close to the river, c.1.4km west- northwest of the church (NGR 542770 194300). The site had been abandoned by the 17th century. The moat was infilled by contractors in 1937 when building RAF Chigwell.
2.25 The identities of the other two manors were probably Woolston Hall (Ulfelmestunā), which lies close to the northern boundary of the parish, c.2km north of the application site and Barringtons (later known as Rolls or Little Chigwell) situated just beyond the study area to the north (EHER 4033; NGR 544700 194900) . The
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 18
only Saxon period find from Chigwell is a late Saxon (10th century) belt fitting found at Woolston Hall.
2.26 The potential for archaeological deposits of early medieval date in the Site is considered to be low.
Medieval
2.27 The ancient parish of Chigwell was significantly larger than the modern one, including land on both sides of the river, and extending as far as Epping Forest to the north and west. Documentary sources record the successive subdivisions of the three Domesday manors, which by the 14th and 15th centuries had increased to eleven, with the addition of Grange, King’s Place, Luxborough, Barringtons/Rolls, Buckhurst, West Hatch, Appletons and Stocktons; some no doubt were created as a result of division through inheritance and marriage, but others, particularly King’s Place, Buckhurst and Grange were the result of clearance (assarting) of the neighbouring woodland. Buckhurst was documented in 1135 as ‘La Bocherste’, meaning a hill covered with beech trees. This manor was cleared of woodland on the west side of the parish, close to Walthamstow, later Epping Forest. Grange (later known as Grange Hill) was formed largely as a result of woodland clearance from Hainault Forest close to the southern boundary of the parish.
2.28 Medieval documents record the place-name as Chingewell in 1235 and Chyngewellb in 1376. EHER entries 45841 & 45843 represent the historic medieval settlement of Chigwell.
2.29 The Site lay within the medieval manor of Grange (documented as la Graunge in 1274), which was originally part of the manor of Chigwell Hall. In 1258, three messuages (homesteads) and 234½ acres of land were granted to the Cistercian Abbey of Tilty by the lord of Chigwell Manor, William de Goldingham and his wife Aline, and it was farmed as a monastic grange until the Dissolution in 1536. The mother house at Tilty lay northeast of Bishop’s Stortford, c.36km distant from the Site.
2.30 The earliest fabric within the chancel and nave of the Parish Church of St Mary the Virgin dates from the 12th century. A north arcade and north aisle, along with a bell turret at the west end of the nave were added in the 15th century (EHER 33951; NGR 544100 193790).
2.31 The site of the post-medieval vicarage stood on the west side of Vicarage Lane, close to the south western boundary of the Site. It is probable that its medieval predecessor stood on, or close to, the same site. In 1374, the rector Henry
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 19
Marmion endowed a vicarage at Chigwell with a house and glebe land, vicarial tithes, and the tithes of certain watermills; by 1440 the income of the vicarage was valued at 18 marks per annum. Vicarage Lane (Wycaryes Lane) has been documented since 1492. The remains of an irregular moat, thought to have surrounded the original vicarage building, were noted by EHER in the 1960s on the site, although it had been built over and was no longer visible when the site was visited again in 1974 (EHER 4039; 544360 193770, EHER 45861; NGR 544320 193740). Trial trenching in 2012 in advance of a residential development in the southern part of the site (NGR 544350 193790) found no medieval features and no trace of the moat; 11 sherds of unstratified medieval pottery were recovered.
2.32 The Site lay within the fields of the medieval manor of Grange, a farm (grange) belonging to a Cistercian Abbey. A field name recorded on a mid-18th century map (see 4.34 below), suggests a possible link to the medieval steward of this grange, but on present evidence there is considered to be a moderate potential for encountering archaeological deposits relating to this period within the Site
Post-Medieval and Modern
2.33 In December 1522 Roger Beverley and the Convent of the Monastery of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Tilty leased the manor of Chigwell Grange to William Baker of Epping, carpenter for the term of 31 years. Following the dissolution of Tilty Abbey in 1536, the manor was purchased from the Crown (in 1538) by Thomas Addington of London, skinner, for the sum of £60 , and then passed through the hands of his son Thomas and James Altham of London, clothworker, before being bought by Anthony Brown, ‘Serjeant at Law’ of South Weald, near Brentwood, in 1554. In 1558 it was granted as an endowment to Brentford Grammar School by Anthony Brown; the land remained in the ownership of the school until c.1900. The 1554-5 conveyances describe the manor as:
2.34 ‘Capital messuage called Grange Hyll, 4 messuages, 60 acres of [arable] land, 20 acres of meadow, 40 acres of pasture and 10 acres of wood in Chigwell’, and named the fields as follows: ‘closes of pasture called Brache, Stuards, Rosebridge, meadow called Shaddesmeade, Shadd Felde, Dodds Croft, closes of pasture called Upper and Lower Middle Field, a great and little field beneath Grange Hill, meadow commonly called ‘the common meade’, messuage and 10 acres called Huetts in Chigwell’, a total acreage of 130 acres.
2.35 The mid-16th century holding was less than half the size of the original 13th century grange. The location of the remainder of the medieval grange lands is unknown, although the difference in character between the fields mapped two hundred years later (Figure 4.1) fronting the east side of Vicarage Lane, and the
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 20
more compact group further south on the west side of the lane suggests that the former may represent the remnants of a once more extensive land holding to the east of Vicarage Lane.
2.36 The earliest large scale map showing details of the Site is an estate map of the Brentwood School holding at Chigwell Grange (Figure 4.2), surveyed in 1769 , which shows a total acreage of 128 acres, 3 roods, 17 perches, including 16 acres 2 roods 32 perches of woodland. The holding extended southwards from Chigwell High Road as far as what is now Manor Road, Grange Hill. Beyond the southern boundary of this manor lay the remnants of Hainault Forest, which was finally deforested and enclosed by Act of Parliament in 1851. The current Froghall Lane leading to Chigwell Cemetery was Brown’s Lane in 1769. The map shows a group of buildings (presumably standing on the same site as the 4 messuages recorded in 1555) within the southwest angle of the holding fronting the track bounding Hainault Forest.
2.37 The map shows the Site straddling two fields with a small wood on the northeast side. These fields can be identified with the ‘closes of pasture called Stuards’ documented in 1555. The fieldname may simply refer to a former tenant: there is a documentary reference to the court appearance in Chigwell of Christopher Stourd [Stuarde] of Grange Hill in 1572, in which he was charged ‘not to use unlawful games in his alehouse and to observe all the fish days’. Alternatively, there is a possibility that the fieldnames preserve an element of the medieval landscape, in which a lay steward was responsible for the management of the monastic grange, in return for the income from these fields, an occupation from which Christopher Stuard’s family may have derived their surname.
2.38 Although the map clearly shows the farmhouse and farm buildings clustered close to the south western boundary of Grange Hill, the site occupied by Grange Farm until the mid 20th century , it is not inconceivable that a steward may have had a separate dwelling/croft close to the village and High Road in the medieval period.
2.39 Chapman and Andrés county map, published in 1777 (Appendix 3.3), shows a short stretch of lane extending down the eastern side of the application site; terminating at the south eastern angle of the small wood which was mapped on the 1769 estate map. This lane has provided access to the County Primary School since 1886, but at the end of the 18th century did not lead anywhere south of the wood. It is possible that this lane originally led to dwelling or homestead.
2.40 The Tithe Map of 1839 (Figure 4.4), surveyed 70 years after the Brentwood School estate map, shows the Site still as two fields featuring a small wood. A pond lay in the northwest angle of the northern field. The landowner was Brentwood School, and the tenant was William Willcocks.
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 21
2.41 Map regression has demonstrated ongoing clearance of woodland and enclosure for agriculture throughout the 18th and 19th centuries (Figures 4.1 to 4.8). A series of 18th century estate maps in the Essex Record Office show the extent of woodland still surviving in the 18th century, which had largely disappeared before 1839, when the tithe map was drawn up. Epping Forest was purchased in 1882 and opened to public; Hainault Forest had largely disappeared by the middle of the 19th century, to be replaced with fields and later housing estates. In 1671 there were 168 houses in parish, and the 17th and 18th centuries increasingly saw houses added to the village High Road, Chigwell Row, and along Gravel Lane, Pudding Lane and Manor Road. The population in the first census of 1801 was 1351, by 1861 it had doubled, largely due to the construction of the Great Eastern Railway line providing links with London. The 19th and 20th century maps show increasingly extensive and dense housing developments particularly to the south and west of Chigwell.
2.42 In contrast, the landscape of much of the northern and central parts of the parish appear unchanged from the early post-medieval period, almost certainly retaining elements of the medieval landscape. It is probable that the Site has been open farmland since the medieval period.
2.43 Further post-medieval EHER entries within the study area are mainly buildings, the majority of which, flanking the historic village street, are listed. In addition, Coulson’s Almshouse bears an inscription of 1557, which is believed to have been added during a substantial rebuild in 1858 (EHER 45869; NGR 544110 193830). St. Mary’s Girls and Infants Church of England School was built in 1836 on the Vicarage Field on the south side of the High Road (EHER 45864; NGR 544200 193850). Neither the almshouse nor the school are listed buildings. The site of what is believed to have been the mid 17th century Chigwell Hall lies west of the village at NGR 543820 194090 (EHER 19794). Belmont Hall and its gate lodge were built in 1810. The Belmont Hall estate originally covered an area of c.19 ha (EHER 45862; NGR 543720 193560); part of the estate was sold in the 1870s to Alfred Savill, for the site of his new house, Chigwell Hall, which was completed in 1876, and is now a sports club (EHER 33967; NGR 543810 193810). Belmont Hall was destroyed by fire in 1973, and the surviving lodge is now listed (EHER 33953; NGR 543920 193540) and forms part of Chigwell Hall Sports Club.
2.44 The Chigwell Primary Academy whose grounds are in Site, was built as a boys’ school in 1886. The school was reorganised for mixed juniors and infants in 1950, when St. Mary’s Girls and Infants Church of England School in the village closed.
2.45 The 1st Edition 25-inch Ordnance Survey map of 1872 (Figure 4.5) shows the Site unchanged from the 1839 tithe map. By the time the 2nd edition was published, in 1896 (Figure 4.6), the primary school had been built, the lane extended and the
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 22
small wood within the Site had disappeared. By 1920 (Figure 4.7), a lodge building had been constructed adjacent to the school building.
2.46 By 1966, mapping shows that a second school building had been constructed to the south of the 19th century school, a pavilion building and sports ground had been constructed in the north field and a tennis court in the west field (Figure 4.8). By the late 20th century, the pavilion had been demolished and the sports grounds in north and east fields have been abandoned.
2.47 Modern military sites recorded by the EHER within the study area include the site of a WW2 anti-aircraft gun emplacement on Buckhurst Hill (ZE4 Buckhurst Hill; EHER 10376; NGR 543350 193830) and the former RAF Chigwell airbase. The airfield was originally opened in 1938 as a Balloon Centre, equipped with 135 barrage balloons and responsible for nearly 100 launch sites. From 1943 the site became RAF Chigwell, and trained mobile signal units providing ground control for allied aircraft (EHER 10377; NGR 543130 194580). It became a satellite station after the war and in the period 1951 – 8, operated a Cold War Nuclear Monitoring Post on the north side of the airfield (EHER 46700; NGR 543540 194780). The base closed in 1962.
2.48 The potential for archaeological deposits of post-medieval or modern date in the Site is considered to be low.
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 23
3.0
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 24
3. Proposed Development, Assessment of Significance and Potential Effects
Proposed Development
3.1 The proposed development will comprise the demolition of existing school buildings and the construction of new sports pitches and buildings associated with Chigwell Primary Academy. Land outside the school site will comprise a residential development comprising the construction of 59 no. detached two-storey residential properties together with associated off-street parking, dedicated parking court for existing residents, garden space, attenuation ponds, new vehicular accesses from High Road (A113) and Vicarage Lane, external landscaping and associated development.
Assessment of Significance
3.2 The statement of cultural heritage significance is applied where it is considered that the proposed development will cause harm to the cultural heritage significance of a heritage asset. As there are no known heritage assets within the Site, the assessment of significance has not been applied to this assessment.
Potential Effects Designated Heritage Assets
3.3 There are no designated heritage assets of archaeological interest recorded within the Site or study area which will be impacted by the proposed development. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development will not affect the significance of such monuments, or the ability to appreciate their significance.
3.4 This report does not consider built heritage assets.
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 25
Non-Designated Heritage Assets
3.5 There are no known non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest recorded within the Site or study area which will be impacted by the proposed development. There is however potential for hitherto unknown archaeological remains dating from the prehistoric period to be present across the Site.
3.6 Previous impacts on potential archaeological remains in the Site derive principally from the utilisation of the land for sports pitches, a sports pavilion, playgrounds and school buildings. The excavation of trenches for below-ground services and foundations as well as ground levelling and topsoil stripping have potentially disturbed below-ground archaeological remains, however disturbance is likely to be considerably more inside the footprints of previous and existing buildings whose foundations are likely to have truncated any archaeology that may have been present. The grubbing out of the woodland in the southeast corner of the northern field is also likely to have caused disturbance to any below ground archaeology present.
3.7 Works associated with the proposed development that have the potential to impact upon any hitherto unknown below-ground archaeological remains include ground levelling, the excavation of foundation trenches, topsoil stripping, the removal of existing building foundations and surfaces, the construction of temporary compounds and the installation of infrastructure items such as lighting columns, manholes, culverts or chambers, utilities cables, drainage pipes, and so forth. Any form of landscaping, including the planting of trees, also has the potential to disturb buried archaeological remains.
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 26
3.8 proposed development has the potential to have effects on archaeological deposits which may survive within the Site, particularly in the parts of the Site where ground disturbance has been less extensive.
4.0
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 27
4. Conclusions
4.1 Development proposals for the Site known as the Chigwell Primary Academy and Land east of Vicarage Lane, comprise the construction of residential development, the demolition of existing school buildings associated with Chigwell Primary Academy and the construction of new sports pitches and school buildings associated with Chigwell Primary Academy.
4.2 In line with the policies of the local planning authority and national government guidance as set out in the NPPF, an archaeological desk-based assessment has been undertaken to clarify the archaeological potential of the Site.
4.3 This assessment concludes that the Site does not contain any World Heritage Sites, scheduled monuments, registered parks and gardens, or registered battlefields where there would be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation in situ and against development.
4.4 There are no known non-designated heritage assets inside the Site, however there is a moderate potential for encountering remains associated with Roman activity as the Site is located close to the Roman road which defines its northern boundary.
4.5 The distribution of prehistoric activity in the region shows that the more easily worked gravels and resources of the river valley were preferred to the heavier clay soils and wooded areas of the valley sides, in which the Site lies, and so the potential for encountering archaeological remains of this period is considered to be low.
4.6 The Site formed part of a farm (grange) owned by a Cistercian monastery in the medieval period. Therefore there maybe the possibility of unstratified ceramics and CBM from night soiling and plough scattered inclusions. There is considered to be a moderate potential for encountering finds and deposits relating to this period.
4.7 Previous disturbance and possible removal of below-ground archaeological remains is more likely to have occurred within the footprint of previous and existing buildings on the Site, which include the former pavilion in the northernmost field and the school buildings. It is considered that if archaeological remains are present within the Site, they will be better preserved where there has been no recorded development or where ground disturbance has been limited, for example within the footprint of former and existing sports pitches and playgrounds.
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 28
4.8 On the basis of available evidence, it is considered that the proposed development accords with current legislation, the planning policies contained within the NPPF and the policies of the Epping Forest District Council.
Sources Consulted
Essex Historic Environment Record Essex Record Office Epping Forest District Council Historic England Archive The National Archives The British Library Bodleian Library
Primary Sources
1576 Christopher Saxton. Essexiae Comitat (British Library Royal MS. 18. D.III f.36).
1595 John Norden. A CHOROGRAPHICALL discription of the seuerall Shires and Islands of Middlesex, Essex, Surrey, Sussex, Hamshire, Weighte, Garnesey and Jersey, performed by the traueyle and uiew of John Norden. (British Library Add MS 31853 f.10).
1678 John Ogilby & William Morgan. Essex, actually surveyed, with the several Roads from London. (British Library Maps 2345 (1)). 1769 George Sangster. A True and Accurate Map of a Farm call’d Chigwell Grange in the Parish of Chigwell in the County of Essex belonging to the Grammar Schol of Anthony Brown Serjt at Law in Brentwood, Essex. 20-inches to 1 mile (Essex Record Office D/DBg 70/2). 1777 John Chapman and Peter André. A Map of the County of Essex (facsimile published by Harry Margary, Kent and Phillimore and Co. Ltd., Chichester, Sussex), sheet XV.
1799 Charles Budgen, Ordnance Surveyor’s Drawing. 2-inch map. (British Library OSD 138 pt.1, Enfield).
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 29
1800 Fairburn’s Map of the Country twelve miles round London (British Library Maps 3479 (25)). 1805 OS 1st Edition 1-inch, Sheet 1. 1839 Chigwell Tithe Map (Essex Record Office D/P 166/21/1). 1863 Chigwell Enclosure Map (Essex Record Office Q/RDC 66). 1868 OS 6-inch, surveyed 1866. Middlesex Sheet VIII. 1872 OS 25-inch, 1st Edition. Essex Sheet LXVI.1. 1881 OS 6-inch, surveyed 1862-71. Essex Sheet LXVI. 1896 OS 25-inch, 2nd Edition. Essex Sheet LXVI.1. 1898 OS 6-inch 2nd Edition, revised 1895. Essex Sheet LXVI.NW. 1920 OS 25-inch. Essex Sheet LXIX.12. 1921 OS 6-inch, revised 1914-5. London Sheet D. 1940 OS 25-inch. Essex Sheet LXIX.12. 1946 OS 6-inch, revised 1938. London Sheet D. 1951 OS 1:10,000. TQ49SW. 1953 OS 6-inch, revised 1938-40. Essex Sheet LXIX.SE. 1959 OS 1:25,000 Sheet TQ49. 1965 OS 1:2500. Sheet TQ4493NW. 1966 OS 1:2500. Sheets TQ4493 & 4494. 1969 OS 1:10,000. TQ49SW. 1973 OS 1:10,000. TQ49SW. 1983 OS 1:10,000. TQ49SW. 2006 OS 1:10,000. TQ49SW. 2014 OS 1:10,000. TQ49SW.
Secondary Sources
Anonymous 1923. Brentwood School Documents. The Brentwoodian 8 (99): 16-18.
Bedwin, O. 1996 The Archaeology of Essex: Proceedings of the Writtle Conference ECC Planning Department.
Brown, N. & Glazebrook, J. 2000. Research and Archaeology: a Framework for the Eastern Counties, 2. research agenda and strategy East Anglian Archaeology Occasional Paper No.8. Scole Archaeological Committee: Norwich.
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 30
CiFA, 2014. Standards and Guidance for historic desk-based assessment.
Clark, F.R. 1998. The Romano-British Settlement at Little London, Chigwell West Essex Archaeological Group.
Ennis, T. 2012. Lingmere, Vicarage Lane, Chigwell, Essex. Archaeological Trial Trenching. Essex County Council Field Archaeology Unit Reference: 2551 Rep., July 2012.
Field, J. 1993. A History of English Field Names Routledge: London.
Gould, I.C. 1893 Remarks upon an ancient cemetery in Chigwell Parish. Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society 4: 196-201.
HMSO 1921. An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in Essex Volume 2. The Royal Commission on Historical Monuments of England. HMSO: London.
Kemble, J. 2001 Prehistoric and Roman Essex Tempus: Stroud, Gloucestershire.
Lysons, D. 1796. The Environs of London. Volume 4: Counties of Herts, Essex and Kent T. Cadell & W. Davies: London.
Martin, G.H. (ed). 1978. The History and Antiquities of the County of Essex by Rev. Philip Morant. Republished by EP Publishing in collaboration with Essex County Library.
Morant, P. 1768 The History and Antiquities of the County of Essex 2 volumes. London.
Powell, W.R. (ed) 1956. A History of the County of Essex: Volume 4, Ongar Hundred Victoria County History Volume 4 [Chigwell: 18-22] Published for the Institute of Historical Research by Oxford University Press.
Powell, W.R. (ed) 1963. A History of the County of Essex: Volume 3: Roman Essex Published for the Institute of Historical Research by Oxford University Press.
Reaney, P.H. 1935. The Place-Names of Essex English Place-Name Society Volume 12. Cambridge University Press.
Rivet, A.L.F. & Smith, C. 1979. The Place-names of Roman Britain B.T. Batsford Ltd: London.
Rodwell, W. 1972. Roman Essex Archaeological Society: Colchester.
Rumble, A 1983 Domesday Book: Essex Phillimore: Chichester
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 31
O’Connor, T. 2005. Chigwell. Historic Assessment Report. Report by the Heritage Conservation Branch of Essex County Council
British History Online: https://www.british-
5.0
history.ac.uk/vch/essex/vol10/pp38-44
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 32
5. Methodology
Archaeological Assessment Methodology
5.1 This report has been produced in accordance with the Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment issued by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA, 2017). These guidelines provide a national standard for the completion of desk-based assessments.
5.2 The assessment principally involved consultation of readily available archaeological and historical information from documentary and cartographic sources. The major repositories of information comprised:
• Information held by the Essex Historic Environment Record on known archaeological sites, monuments and findspots within 1km of the Site;
• The National Heritage List for England curated by Historic England; and • Records made during a site visit in June 2019.
5.3 This report provides a synthesis of relevant information for the site derived from a search area extending up to 1km from its boundary, hereafter known as the ‘study area’, to allow for additional contextual information regarding its archaeological interest or potential to be gathered.
5.4 The information gathered from the repositories and sources identified above was checked and augmented through the completion of a site visit and walkover. This walkover considered the nature and significance of known and/or potential archaeological assets within the Site, identified visible historic features and assessed possible factors which may affect the survival or condition of known or potential assets.
5.5 In addition, the report also considers the nature and significance of any effects arising beyond the boundary of the application Site; i.e. through potential changes to the settings of designated heritage assets, as defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF (see below).
5.6 In that regard, the Site walkover also considered, where appropriate, the contribution (if any) made by the land within the Site to the settings of designated archaeological assets situated within its wider zone of influence.
5.7 The report concludes with (1) an assessment of the Site’s likely archaeological potential, made with regard to current best practice guidelines, and (2) an
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 33
assessment of the likely effects of the proposed development upon designated and undesignated archaeological assets, whether direct or indirect. Assessment of Heritage Significance and Importance
5.8 Heritage assets are assessed in terms of their significance and importance, following the requirement in NPPF paragraph 189, and taking account of Historic England’s guidance in Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment (GPA2). Significance, in relation to heritage policy, is defined by the NPPF as
“the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.”
5.9 As noted above, setting is defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF as:
“the surroundings in which an asset is experienced. All heritage assets have a setting, irrespective of the form in which they survive and whether they are designated or not. 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.”
5.10 Where potential impacts on the settings of a heritage assets are identified, the assessment of significance includes ‘assessing whether, how and to what degree these settings make a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset(s)’, following Step 2 of the staged approach to setting recommended in Historic England’s guidance in The Setting of Heritage Assets (GPA3). Attributes of an asset’s setting which can contribute to its significance are listed on page 9 of GPA3. The methodology for assessing setting is described within the Setting Assessment Methodology below.
5.11 The importance of a heritage asset is the overall value assigned to it based on its heritage significance, reflecting its statutory designation or, in the case of undesignated assets, the professional judgement of the assessor (Table 1). Historic England guidance also refers to an asset’s ‘level of significance’ (GPA2, paragraph 10), which in this usage has the same meaning as importance. Nationally and internationally designated assets are assigned to the highest two levels of importance. Grade II Listed Buildings and Grade II Registered Parks & Gardens are considered of medium importance, reflecting the lower level of policy protection provided by the NPPF (paragraph 194). Conservation Areas are not assigned to either level of importance by the NPPF but their status as local designations and their omission from the National Heritage List justifies their classification here as
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 34
assets of medium importance. Other non-designated assets which are considered of local importance only are assigned to a low level of importance. Following the NPPF (Annex 2), a historic feature which lacks ‘a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest’ is not considered to be a heritage asset; it may also be said to have negligible heritage importance. Table 1: Criteria for Assessing the Importance of Heritage Assets
Importance Criteria of the asset
Very high World Heritage Sites and other assets of equal international importance
High Grade I and II* Registered Parks and Gardens, Scheduled Monuments, Protected Wreck Sites, Registered Battlefields, Grade I and II* Listed Buildings, and undesignated heritage assets of equal importance
Medium Conservation Areas, Grade II Registered Parks and Gardens, Grade II Listed Buildings, heritage assets on local lists and undesignated assets of equal importance
Low Undesignated heritage assets of lesser importance
Potential for unknown heritage assets
5.12 Archaeological features are often impossible to identify through desk-based assessment. The likelihood that significant undiscovered heritage assets may be present within the application Site is referred to as archaeological potential. Overall levels of potential can be assigned to different landscape zones, following the criteria in Table 2, while recognising that the archaeological potential of any zone
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 35
will relate to particular historical periods and types of evidence. The following factors are considered in assessing archaeological potential:
• The distribution and character of known archaeological remains in the vicinity, based principally on an appraisal of data in the [HER];
• The history of archaeological fieldwork and research in the surrounding area, which may give an indication of the reliability and completeness of existing records;
• Environmental factors such as geology, topography and soil quality, which would have influenced land-use in the past and can therefore be used to predict the distribution of archaeological remains;
• Land-use factors affecting the survival of archaeological remains, such as ploughing or commercial forestry planting; and
• Factors affecting the visibility of archaeological remains, which may relate to both environment and land-use, such as soils and geology (which may be more or less conducive to formation of cropmarks), arable cultivation (which has potential to show cropmarks and create surface artefact scatters), vegetation, which can conceal upstanding features, and superficial deposits such as peat and alluvium which can mask archaeological features.
5.13 In light of the above, the assessment of heritage significant heritage within Sections 2 and 3 of this report has been prepared in a robust manner, employing current best practice professional guidance and giving due regard to the methodology detailed above.
Table 2: Archaeological potential
Potential Definition
High Undiscovered heritage assets of high or medium importance are likely to be present.
Medium Undiscovered heritage assets of low importance are likely to be present; and it is possible, though unlikely, that assets of high or medium importance may also be present.
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 36
Low The study area may contain undiscovered heritage assets, but these are unlikely to be numerous and are highly unlikely to include assets of high or medium importance.
Negligible The study area is highly unlikely to contain undiscovered heritage assets of any level of importance.
Nil There is no possibility of undiscovered heritage assets existing within the study area.
5.14 In light of the above, the setting assessment within Sections 2 and 3 of this report has been prepared in a robust manner, employing current best practice professional guidance and giving due regard to the methodology detailed above.
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 37
6.0
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 38
6. Legislation and Planning Framework
Introduction
6.1 This section sets out existing legislation and planning policy, governing the conservation and management of the historic environment, of relevance to this application.
6.2 In terms of “effects on the historic environment”, the following paragraphs summarise the principal legislative instruments and planning policy framework. Current Legislation
6.3 The relevant legislation concerning the treatment of scheduled monuments is the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (HMSO 1979).
6.4 This act details the designation, care and management of scheduled monuments, as well as detailing the procedures needed to obtain permission for works which would directly impact upon their preservation. The Act does not confer any statutory protection on the setting of scheduled monuments, with this considered as a policy matter in Paragraph 194 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
6.5 The balancing exercise to be performed – between the harm arising from a proposal and the benefits which would accrue from its implementation – is then subsequently presented in Paragraphs 195 and 196 of the NPPF. National Planning Policy
6.6 The NPPF sets out the government’s approach to the conservation and management of the historic environment, through the planning process, with paragraph 185 of Section 16 emphasising the need for local authorities to set out a clear strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, where heritage assets are recognised as a finite and irreplaceable resource, to be preserved in a manner appropriate to their significance.
6.7 Paragraph 184 states that:
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 39
“Heritage assets range from Sites and buildings of local historic value to those of the highest significance, such as World Heritage Sits which are internationally recognised to be of Outstanding Universal Value. These assets are an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance…”
6.8 Paragraph 189 concerns planning applications, stating 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. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a Site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.”
6.9 Designated assets are addressed in Paragraphs 193 and 194. Paragraph 193 states that:
“When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less then substantial harm to its significance.”
6.10 Paragraph 194 states that:
“Any harm to or loss of significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of:
a) grade II listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens, should be exceptional;
b) assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, registered battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.”
6.11 Footnote 63 then goes on to state that:
“Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest, which are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets.”
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 40
6.12 With regard to the decision making process, paragraphs 195 and 196 are of relevance. Paragraph 195 states that:
“Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:
• the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and
• no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and
• conservation by grant-funding or some form of non for profit, charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and
• the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.”
6.13 Paragraph 196 states that:
“Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.”
6.14 The threshold between substantial and less than substantial harm has been clarified in the courts. Whilst the judgement cited relates specifically to the impact of development proposals on a listed building, Paragraphs 24 and 25 of Bedford BC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 2847 4 remain of relevance here in the way they outline the assessment of ‘harm’ for heritage assets:
“What the inspector was saying was that for harm to be substantial, the impact on significance was required to be serious such that very much, if not all, of the significance was drained away.
6.15 Plainly in the context of physical harm, this would apply in the case of demolition or destruction, being a case of total loss. It would also apply to a case of serious damage to the structure of the building. In the context of non-physical or indirect harm, the yardstick was effectively the same. One was looking for an impact which would have such a serious impact on the significance of the asset that its significance was either “vitiated altogether [i.e. destroyed] or very much reduced”.
4 Paragraphs 24 and 25 of Bedford BC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 2847
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 41
6.16 In other words, for the ‘harm’ to be ‘substantial’ – and therefore require consideration against the more stringent requirements of Paragraph 195 of the NPPF compared with Paragraph 196; the proposal would need to result in the asset’s significance either being:
“vitiated altogether or very much reduced”.5 Quite evidently, this represents a very high threshold to be reached.
6.17 Paragraph 200 advises that:
“Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites, and within the setting of heritage assets, to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to the asset (or which better reveal its significance) should be treated favourably.”
6.18 With regard to non-designated heritage assets, Paragraph 197 states that:
“The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgment will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.”
6.19 Finally, paragraph 199 states that:
“Local planning authorities should require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage asset to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publically accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.”
6.20 Footnote 64 then states:
“Copies of evidence should be deposited with the relevant historic environment record, and any archives with a local museum or other public depository.”
5 Paragraphs 24 and 25 of Bedford BC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 2847
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 42
Local Policies
Epping Forest District Council Combined Local Plan (1998) & Local Plan Alterations (2006)
6.21 The following policies that are relevant to this assessment are contained within the current Epping Forest District Council Combined Local Plan (1998) & Local Plan Alterations (2006), published in February 2008.
POLICY HC1- SCHEDULED MONUMENTS AND OTHER ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
6.22 On sites of known or potential archaeological interest, planning permission will only be granted for development which would not adversely affect nationally important remains, whether scheduled or not, or their settings. The Council will also require:
(i) the results of an archaeological evaluation to be submitted as part of any application;
(ii) the preservation in situ, and provision for appropriate management, of those remains and their settings considered to be of particular importance;
(iii) provision for recording and/or excavation by a competent archaeological organisation prior to the commencement of development, where in situ preservation is not justified.
POLICY HC2- ANCIENT LANDSCAPES
6.23 The Council will not grant planning permission for development which could adversely affect the nature and physical appearance of ancient landscapes (identified as such on the Proposals Map).
6.24 The application site is not mapped as an ancient landscape on either the original Local Plan Map (Inset Map 2) (1998) or the updated Local Plan Proposals Map (2006).
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 43
7.0
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 44
7. Appendix 1 – Site Location
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 45
8.0
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 46
8. Appendix 2 –Geology & Topography
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 47
9.0
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 48
9. Appendix 3 – Historic Environment Record
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 49
Entries on the Essex HER within 1 km radius
Archaeology
EHCR No. NAME TYPE
PREHISTORIC
4071 LINEAR CROPMARKS, UNDATED, POSSIBLE CROPMARK PREHISTORIC 4091 IRON AGE ARMORICAN SILVER COIN FINDSPOT
4096 NEOLITHIC FLINT FLAKES FINDSPOT
51482 IRON AGE COIN FINDSPOT
ROMAN
4035 HIGH ROAD, CHIGWELL ROMAN ROAD
4037 HIGH ROAD, CHIGWELL ROMAN ROAD
55241 ROMAN COIN FINDSPOT
MEDIEVAL
4033 BARRINGTONS, SITE OF MEDIEVAL MANOR SITE OF
4039 CHIGWELL VICARAGE. POSSIBLE MOAT SITE OF
4077 CROPMARK OF POSSIBLE MOAT CROPMARK
45841 HISTORIC SETTLEMENT OF CHIGWELL DOCUMENTARY
45843 HISTORIC MANOR OF APPLETONS DOCUMENTARY
45861 CHIGWELL VICARAGE, EXISTED SINCE C.1250 DOCUMENTARY
POST MEDIEVAL 19794 CHIGWELL HALL, POSSIBLY MID 17TH CENTURY FORMER SITE
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 50
45863 ROLLS PARK ESTATE SOLD TO WILLIAM ROLTE IN STANDING 1626 BUILDING
45869 COULSON’S ALMSHOUSE POSSIBLY 16TH STANDING CENTURY, REBUILD 1858 BUILDING
51484 SILVER COIN OF UNKNOWN DATE FINDSPOT
53908 FINGER RING FINDSPOT
54883 SILVER COIN FINDSPOT
54884 BUTTON FINDSPOT
MODERN
10376 WW2 HAA GUN SITE, ZE4 BUCKHURST HILL WARTIME GUN EMPLACEMENT
10377 RAF CHIGWELL FORMER SITE
45862 BELMONT PARK ESTATE DEMOLISHED HOUSE
45864 ST MARYS GIRLS & INFANTS CHURCH OF STANDING ENGLAND SCHOOL BUILDING CLOSED 1950
46700 COLD WAR NUCLEAR MONITORING POST MONUMENT
UNDATED
4063 S. SIDE OF LOUGHTON, ENCLOSURE CROPMARK
4078 W. SIDE OF CHIGWELL, DITCH, TRACKWAY CROPMARK
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 51
LISTED BUILDINGS
HISTORIC NAME GRADE DESCRIPTION EASTING NORTHING ENGLAND LIST ENTRY NO. 118558 ELCES II 17TH CENTURY 543910 193090 TIMBER FRAMED LOBBY ENTRANCE HOUSE
18561 THE STABLES II STABLE 544502 194897
118562 HARSNETTS II LATE 16TH – 544160 193800 EARLY 17TH CENTURY LOBBY ENTRY HOUSE
118563 KINGS HEAD II* 17TH CENTURY 544130 193770 INN
118564 1 & 2 KINGS II 18TH CENTURY 544130 193760 HEAD TIMBER FRAMED COTTAGES HOUSE
118565 GRANGE II* 17TH CENTURY 544120 193670 COURT HOUSE
118566 BROOK II 18TH CENTURY 544020 193570 HOUSE AND LATER BRICK HOUSE
118567 WALL & II 18TH CENTURY 544000 193590 RAILINGS E. OF BROOK HOUSE
118568 FORMER KING II EARLY 19TH 543820 193250 WILLIAM IV CENTURY PUBLIC PUBLIC HOUSE HOUSE
118573 TAILOURS II* 18TH CENTURY 544340 194480 HOUSE
118574 FORECOURT II 18TH CENTURY 544350 194450 GATEWAY, RAILINGS &
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 52
WALL OF TAILOURS
118575 CHRISTIES II 18TH CENTURY 544250 194080 PAIR OF ATTACHED TIMBER FRAMED HOUSES
118576 PROCTORS & II 18TH CENTURY 544250 194040 DICKENS PAIR OF COTTAGE ATTACHED TIMBER FRAMED HOUSES
118577 HAINAULT II 19TH CENTURY 544230 194010 HOUSE HOUSE
118578 THE II 19TH CENTURY 544230 195950 HAYLANDS HOUSE
118579 CHIGWELL II 18TH CENTURY 544220 193930 VILLAGE TIMBER FRAMED STORES, HOUSE LATER GORGYS & DIVIDED INTO HILLTOP THREE
118581 HAYDENS II 18TH CENTURY 544210 193910 RESTAURANT HOUSE DIVIDED & NOS. 1 & 2 INTO THREE HAYDENS PARTS COTTAGES
118582 RADLEY II 18TH CENTURY 544200 193890 COTTAGE OR EARLIER TIMBER FRAMED HOUSE
118583 LINDEN II 18TH CENTURY 544190 1938803394 COTTAGE & PAIR OF TIMBER 9 DAWKINS FRAMED HOUSES
118584 CHIGWELL II* FOUNDED 1629 544150 193860 GRAMMAR SCHOOL
118585 CHURCH II 17TH CENTURY 544130 193810 HOUSE TIMBER FRAMED HOUSE WITH
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 53
18TH CENTURY ALTERATIONS
118586 PARISH II* 12TH CENTURY 544100 193790 CHURCH OF ST MARY THE VIRGIN
118587 TABLE TOMB II 17TH CENTURY 944090 193770 S OF CHURCH OF ST MARY THE VIRGIN
118588 BELMONT II 19TH CENTURY 543920 193540 LODGE LODGE
118604 CHIGWELL II LARGE HOUSE 543810 193810 HALL BUILT 1876
118580 SAVILE II 17TH – 18TH 544210 193910 COTTAGE CENTURY TIMBER FRAMED HOUSE
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment | 54