AJA
andrew josephs associates
consultancy | project managem ent | expert witnes s
Five Fords Marchwiel Wrexham
Proposed Gla sshouse Development
9 0 9
1 S O Heritage State ment July 2020
HER reference number E6 55 9
E :mail andy [email protected] ● Telephone 07990 571908 16 South Terrace, Sowerby, Thirsk, YO7 1RH
Andrew Josephs Ltd. Registered Off ice, Antrob us House, 18 College St, Petersfield, GU31 4AD. Registration no. 4547366
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
CONTENTS 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Scope of this Assessment 1.2 Desk - Based Research 1.3 Field - Based Research 1.4 Relevant Legislation , P olicy a n d Guidance 1.5 Assess me nt Met ho dology and Significance Criteria 2 Baseline Conditions 11 2.1 Designated Heritage Assets 2.2 Archaeological and Historical Background 2.3 Geophysical Survey 3. Direct Impacts and Mitiga tion 21 3.1 Direct Imp ac ts 3.2 Mitigation of Direct Impact s 4 . Asses sment of In direct Effects upon Designated Assets 22 4 .1 Scope 4 .2 Assessment 4 .3 Assessment of Setting of Pum - Rhyd 5. Assessment of Effects 24 6 . Summary and Conclusions 27 6 .1 Scope of Work and Results 6 .2 Direct Effects upon Archaeology 6 .3 Indirect Effects 6 .4 Conclusion s Figures (a fter page 29 ) Appe nd ix A Description of the Prop osed Development Appendix B Geophysical Survey Report
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 2
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
1. Introduction
1.1 SCOPE OF THIS ASSESSMEN T
1.1.1 Description of the proposed development This report, commissioned by Low C arbo n Fa rming 2 Ltd , presents the findings of a cultural heritage assessment for a proposed glasshouse development on la nd to the east of Five Fords Se w age Facility, Marchwiel, near Wrexham , LL13 0TF ( Figure 1 ). The centre of the Proposed Development Area (P D A) is at approxima tely NGR SJ 36939 47975 . The PDA comprises 44 ha of land , of whic h the majority is under arable a g ricultur e , Figure 2 . T he p rop osed development is set out in detail elsewhere in the Planning Statement . A descr iption of the key componen ts is included at Appendi x A . The proposed lay out is shown on F igure 3 . 1.1.2 G eology , So ils and L and Use
Soilscapes Classification Slowly permeable seasonally wet slightly acid but base - rich loamy and clayey soils (18) Superficial 1:50000 BGS Till, Dev ensian – Diamicton (TILLD) R iver Terrace Deposits (undifferentiated) - Sand And Gravel (RTD) Alluvium - Clay, Silt, Sand and Gravel (ALV) Bedrock 1:50000 BGS Salop Formation - Mudstone, Sandstone and Conglomerate (SAL) Topography Impeded drainage Hydrol ogy Impeded drainage Curren t Land Use Arable Historic Land Use Mixed agricultural then a sewage farm from late 1800s
1 .1.3 Scop e of cultural heritage Cultural herita ge is represented by a wide range of assets and fea tures that result from past human u se of the la ndscape. These inclu de h i storic structures, many still in use, above gro und and buried a rchaeologi cal monuments and rem ains of all periods, artefacts of anth ropological origin and evidence that can help recon struct past human environments. In its broades t form cultural herit age i s represented by the landscape and townscape it self. The asse ssment cons iders both direct an d indirect effects upon cultural herit age. Indirect effects can occur as a result of chan ges to the setting of a landscape or asset, whe ther permanent o r tem pora ry . This is particularly relevant to designated cultural heritag e assets, s uch as Scheduled Mon uments, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas , Registered Parks and Gardens and R egistered Historic Landscape s . 1.1. 4 Au thorsh ip This Ass essment and He ritage Sta tement has been written by Andrew Josephs and Ian Meadows of Andrew Josephs Associates, a consultancy specialising in archaeology and cult ural heritage founded in 2002.
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 3
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
Andrew Josephs (BA Hons Archaeology and Environme nt al Studies) is Managing D irecto r of Andrew Josephs Associates, a consulta ncy specialising in cultur al heritage founded in 2002. Andre w has extensive experience of all periods and facets of c ultural heritage. He is involved primarily in planning applicati on s, EIA and the design o f mitiga tion strategies on developments with herit age constraints. Andrew is heritage consultant to over 1 50 clients across Europe.
He has und ertaken in e xcess of 1 0 00 cultural heritage assessments since becoming one o f the UK ’ s f ir st archaeological con sult ant s i n 1 9 92. He was p reviously Principal Consultant (Director of Archae ology) at Entec (now Wood) and Wardell Ar mstrong. Prior to 1992, he worked as a f ield - based archaeologist and researcher for universities and units in the UK, Europe and the USA.
H e h as lec ture d widely and was visitin g lecturer in En vi ronmental Impact Ass essment at the University o f Nottingham .
Ian Meadows (BA Archaeology and G eology, Dip.Mus) is an archaeologist with over 30 years ’ experience in a variety of profession al areas. He wa s Seni or P roject Officer with Northamptonshire Archaeology (no w MOLA) from 1992 until 2 0 1 4 when he joined AJA . Ian is highly experi e nced project manager of large landscape projects such as long running quarries. Ian has a particula r interest in the Roman p eriod and is currently Director of the excavations at Ircheste r Roman town. I n addition to his fieldwork he is engaged in regular outreach sessions to both professional and amateur groups as part of his role dealing with both adult s and children. He has be en tea chin g archaeology and landscape history to adults and ch ildren since th e late 1980’s, previously being engaged as a tutor by Cambridge University, Anglia Ruskin University, Bath University and the WEA and feels it is importan t to disseminate the info rmatio n de rived from projects to a wider audience .
1 .2 DESK - BASED RESEARCH In order to assess the effects of the potential scheme, cultural h eritage information within and up to 1 km f rom the PDA was examined. T h e study area w as det ermined after considerati on of topo graphy and the location of nearby development . This radius was agreed in consultations at the s coping s tage. A variety of sources were consulted including the Clwyd - Powys Histor ic Environment Recor d, Cadw’s database for t he locations of designat e d site s , C of lein ( th e online catalogue of ar chaeology, buildin gs, industrial and maritime heritage in Wales ), reports of previous archaeological investigations, maps and readily available local history materials. All work has be en undert aken in accordance with Stan dard and Guidance fo r Archaeologic al Des k - Based Asse ssment ( Chartered In stitut e for Archaeologists 2008, revised 2012).
1.3 FIELD - BASED RESEARCH A field evaluation in the form of a geophysical survey was undertaken by T igergeo in June 2020.
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 4
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
Du e to t he r estrictio ns imposed by COVID19, a s ite visit to the PDA and its environs was not carried out . However , a photographic record of the current state and use of the land w as taken by Tigergeo, w ho also examined the PDA for ea rthworks or other archaeological assets . T he locatio ns of designated assets were examined usin g Google Earth and Google Streetview , and further informed by the LVIA .
1 .4 RE LEVANT LEGISLATION, POLICY AND GUI DANC E 1.4.1 National legislation The importance of cultural heritage is cl e arly recognised at a national level . Certain assets that are deemed to be of particular importan ce are giv en legal protection through the Ancient Monuments and Archa eological Areas Act 1979 and (Sche duled Monuments), the Planning (Listed Building and C on s ervation Areas) Act 1990 and The Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2016 (Scheduled Monuments, hist oric p arks and gardens, Listed Buildings, historic place names, histo ric environment records and the Ad visory Panel for the Welsh Hist oric Environment). Pla nn i ng Policy Wales sets out the Welsh Governments’ land - use planning policies (2018, edition 10). It is su pple mented by a series of Technical Advice Notes, Welsh Governm ent Circulars, policy clarificatio n letters and regulations.
Su stainable development ha s been at the he art of planning policy since the introduction of Planning Policy Wales in 2002 and this is s ecured through a plan - led approach (including the Wales Spa tial Plan 2004 - 2024, the draft National Development Framework 202 0 - 2040, Strategic Deve lo p ment Plans and Local Development Plans) . Legislation secures a presumption in favour of sustainab le dev elop ment in accordance with development plans unless material c onsiderations indicat e otherwise.
Chapter 6 of P lanning Policy W ales covers distinctiv e a nd natural plac es , the environmental and cultural components of placemaking. It states the Welsh Govern ment s objectives for the historic environment (page 124) which are to seek to :
protec t the Outstanding Universal Value of the W orld Heritage Sites;
co n serve archaeolo gical remains, both for their own sake and for their role in education, leisure an d the econ omy;
safeguard the character of historic buildings and ma nage change so that thei r special architectural and historic inte rest is preserved;
p re s erve or enhance the character or appearance of conservation areas, whilst the same time helping t hem re main vibrant and prosperous;
preserve the special interest of sites on the register of h istoric parks and gardens; and
protect areas on the register o f historic lands capes in Wales.
It covers planning and the historic environment in detail. Many o f its stat ements are directly relevant to the proposed development in cluding:
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 5
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
Section 6.1.7: It is important that the planning system looks to protect, con se r ve and enhance the significance of historic assets. This will include consideration of the settin g of a n hi storic asset which might extend beyond its curtilage. Any c hange that impacts on an historic asset or its setting should be managed in a sensitive a n d sustainable w ay (page 124).
Section 6.1.10: There should be a general presumption in favour of the p rese rvation or enhancement of a listed building and its setting , which might exten d beyond its curtilage. For any development pr oposal affecting a lis te d building or it s setting, the primary material consideration is the statutory requirement to have speci al r egard to the desirability of preserving the building, its s etting or any featu res of special architectural or historic inter est which it possesses ( p age 124).
Sect ion 6.1.21: Planning authorities should protect those assets included on the regis ter of his toric landscapes in Wales. As above, the sharing and use of evidence and assess ments undertaken for wider reasons, such as G reen Infrastructure As se s sments, should be used to identify and better understand historic landscapes and ensure their qua lities are protected and enhanced. The register should be taken into account in decision making when considering the implications of d evelopments which meet t h e criteria for Environmental Impact Assessment or, if on call in, in the opinion of the Welsh Min isters , th e development is of a sufficient scale to have more than a local impact on the historic landscape. An assessment of developm ent on a historic land sc a pe may be requi red if it is proposed within a registered historic landscape or its setting and th ere is pot ential for conflict with development plan policy (page 126) .
Where archaeologic al remains are known to exist or there is a potential for them to su r vive, an applic ation should be accompanied by sufficient information, through desk - based assessme nt and /or field evaluation, to allow a full understanding of the impa ct of the proposal on the significance of the remains. The needs of archaeology and dev el o pment may be re conciled, and potential conflict very much reduced, through early discussion and a ssessm ent (page 127).
If the planning authority is minded to approve an application and wh ere archaeological remains are affected by proposals that alter o r d estroy them, th e planning authority must be satisfied that the developer has secured appropriate and sa tisf actory provision for their recording and investigation, fol lowed by the analysis and publication of the results and the depo sition of the resultin g a rchive in an ap proved repository. On occasions, unforeseen archaeological remains may still be di scover ed d uring the course of a development. A written scheme of inve stigation should consi der how to react to such circumstances or i t can be covered throu gh an appropriate condition for a watching brief. Where remains discovered are deemed to be of natio nal im port ance, the Welsh Ministers have the power to schedule the si te and in such circums tances scheduled monument consent must be r equired before works c an continue (page 127).
1.4. 2 P olicy an d guidance
Pu blished best practice and guidance on assess ing the impact of development on heritage a ss e ts include: Cadw 2011 Conservation Princ iples for the Sustainable Management of Historic E nvironment in Wal es ; Welsh Government 2017 Planning Policy Wales Technical A dvice Note 24; The Historic Environment Cadw / Welsh Government 2017 Setting of Historic As s ets in Wales ;
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 6
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
C ountryside Council for Wales, Cadw & Welsh Assembly Government 2007 Guide to Good Pract ice on using the Register of Landscapes of Historic Interest in Wales in the Planning and Development Proce ss .
Conservation Principles outlines six k ey p rinciples on wh ich to assess the potential impact of development propos als on the signifi cance of heri tage assets: 1. H istoric assets will be managed to sustain their va lues. 2. Understanding the significance of hi storic assets is vital. 3. The historic envir onm e nt is a shared resource. 4. Everyone will be able to participate in susta ining the historic environment. 5. De cisions about change must be reasonable, transparent and con sistent. 6. Documenting and learning from dec isions is essential . Four heritage values n eed to be understoo d before the significance of a heritage asset can be assessed:
1. Evidential value . 2. Histo rica l value . 3. Aesthetic value . 4. Communal value . Section 7.8 of Te chnical Advice Note 24 provides detailed ad vice on archaeological remains, listed buil din g s, conservation areas, historic parks and gardens and historic landsc apes. In relation to registered h isto ric landscapes its states:
Best practice guidance has been developed to assist local planning authori ties and the Planning Inspectorate in their co n sideration of p lanning proposals affecting areas on the Register of Hi storic Landscapes. Proposed deve lopm ents within a registered historic landscape that require an Environmental Impact Assessment may require an appropriate assessment of the impacts a s p a rt of the Envir onmental Statement. 126 The Welsh Ministers must be cons ulted, through Cadw , on such dev elop ments. 127 ( 1 )
T he b est practice guide Setting of Historic As sets in Wales explains setting, how it cont ributes to the significance of a heritage a ss e t and why it is important . It also outlines the principles and stages used to assess the p otential impa ct o f development proposals on designated heritage assets , how i mpacts can be mitigated and offset and how setting can be enhanced .
1 126 As described in C adw and CCW A Guide to G ood Practice on Using the Registe r of Landscapes of Historic Interest in Wales in th e Planning and Development Pr ocess revised (2nd) ed ition (2007), para 2.8. 127 The Town and Country Planning ( Developme nt Management Procedure) (Wa les) Order 2012, paragra ph (l)(iv) of Schedule 4.
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 7
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
1.4. 3 Scoping and consultations Consultations were held with M ark Walters, Development Contr ol A rchaeologi st , Clwyd - Powys Archaeological Trust to agree the scope of the assessment, including field - based archaeological evaluation , and po tential mitigation. 1.5 ASSE SSMENT METHODO LOGY AND SIGNIFIC ANCE CRITERIA In acco rdance with the best practic e t h e si gnificance o f an impa ct or effect should be identified.
Four criteria have been considered in evaluating the significance of the residual effects of the propose d de velopment, tak ing into account any proposed mitigati on measures.
1.5.1 Type of Impac t Imp acts may be posit ive, be neficial, negative, adverse, neutral (i.e. no discernible effect) or none. They may be permanent or temporary, of long, medium or short d urat ion, direct or indirect. They may also be cumulativ e or combined with other impa cts o ccur ring in the vicin ity.
D irect impacts have a physical effect upon an archaeological site, structure or cultural heritage asset. This may lead to the parti al or t otal destruction o f that asset.
In direct impacts of dev elopment upon scheduled monuments , lis ted buildin g s, pa rks and gardens and other designated assets of the cultural heritage landscape are more difficult to assess. Consideration should include the con text (or setting) of a cultural her itage asset (or place ) and how we should assess its si g nifi cance. Cont e xtual rel ati onships may be visual, but can also be, for example, historical, functional or intellectual.
1.5.2 Likelihood of the impact occurr ing An ass essment is mad e as to the likel ihood of the identifi ed impact occurring. Probability is c onsidered a s cert ain, li kely, unlikely or not known.
1.5.3 Sensitivity Three categories of sensitivity are identified: high, medium and low. These are e xpanded upo n in Table 1 , b elow.
Table 1 D efinitions of sensiti vity
Sensitivity Definition
H i gh Si tes and se tt ings of nati onal importance . Scheduled Monuments. Registered Battlefields. Grade I and Grade II* Listed Buildings and Registered Historic Park s and G arde ns. R egistered Historic Landscapes . Sites may a lso be discovered as a result of new r esearch that are a lso of n ationa l impo rtance and are candidate s for scheduling.
Medium Sites and settings of regional importance . Archaeological sites and fea tures that are not considered sufficien tly important or we ll - preserved to b e protected as Schedu led Monuments. G ra de I I Li sted B u ildin gs and Grade II Register ed Historic Parks and Gardens. Conservation Areas.
Low Archaeological sites and structures, and o ther compon ents of the historic environ ment that contribut e to the local la ndscape. Locally des ignated assets.
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 8
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
1 .5 .4 M agnitu d e The magnitude of change to a cultural heritage asset or landscape is considered in terms of its vulnerability, its current co ndition and the nature of the impact up on it. With respec t to sub - surface archaeology, there ma y be a degree of unc er tain ty of t he ma gnitude of change, and w here this is the case it is noted. Magnitude is assessed as high, medium, small or none and the cr iteria used in this assessment are set out in Table 2 , bel ow.
Table 2 Cri teria for Assessing Magnitude of Chan ge
Ma gnit ude of Chan ge Description of Change
High Complete destruction of a well - preserved archaeological site, historic structure or element of the cult ural heritage landscape
Chan ge to the setting o f a cultural heri tage asset such that our ability to u nder st and the re s ourc e and its historical cont ext is permanently changed
Medium Destruction of an archaeological site or other cultural heritag e asset alr eady in degraded condition
C hange to the settin g of a cultural h eritage asset such t hat our ability t o un de rsta nd the reso urce and its historical c ontext is partly or temporarily changed
Small Destruction of an archaeological site or other cult ural herita ge asset already in highly d egraded condition
C hange to the sett ing of a cultural he ritage asset such tha t our abilit y to understand the resource a nd its historical context is slightly or temporarily changed
None No physical effect upon an arch aeological site or other asset of the c ultural heritage la ndscape
No discer nible effect upon th e setting of a cu ltur al her itage a sset , or our ability to under stand the resource and its historical context
1.5.5 Assessing significance The four criteria ar e considere d together to reach a conclu sion upon the signif icance of residua l effects taking int o account any mi tiga ti on m easure s . In accordance with the best practice these are quantified as significant, not significant or neutral (i.e. no change to the e xisting s ituation). They may be benef icial or adverse. In some cases it ma y not be possible to quantify the si gnific ance of an effec t, for example due to a gap in information, and this is noted.
Table 3 presents a matrix of the inter - relationship of sens itivity w ith magnitude.
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 9
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
Table 3 I nter - relationship of sensitivity with magnitude
Magnitu de High Medium Sm all None
Sen s itivi ty High Significant Moderately Not significant Neutral Significant Medium Moderat el y Not significant Not s ignifican t Neutral Significant Low Not significant Not significant Not significant Neutral
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 10
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
2. Baseline Con ditions
2.1 DE SI GNA T ED H ERITAGE ASSETS 2.1.1 Scope A search area of 1 km from the PDA was assessed to identify the potential effects upon setting . Designated As se ts are shown on Fig ure 4 . No desi gnated assets of cultural heritage importance lie within the bo u ndary of the PDA . 2. 1.2 Designate d Assets within 1 km of the PDA
There are no assets other than listed buildings within 1km. Th nearest scheduled monument is a se ction of Wat's Dyke extending from Erddig Park to Middle Sontley , over 3km to the west o f the PDA .
The fo llowing listed buildings s it within 1km of the PDA ( Table 4 ) .
Table 4 Designated Heritage As sets within 1km of the PDA
Name Grade CA DW Ref Description Distance from PDA Church of SS II* 16 14 A church is recorded on the site from 685m W SW Marcella and 1 254. The present building was erected Deiniol by public subscription in 1774 . Georgian style. Ashlar with slate roof, hipped to chancel. Aisleless with W tower, N transept and polygonal chancel. Nave windows are tall with round heads, those to chancel have square heads. Elegant tower is balustraded with urns surmounted by weather vanes in the shape of cockerels at the corners, tall arched louvred bell openings on each face and beneath these a clock face on S and W face. The re is a stone string course a nd on the W f ace a tall arched former door opening stone architrave with console brackets. Nave S door in pedimented surround with C20 joinery. The gabled ends of nave and transept are treated as pediments. Churchya rd walls, II 178 49 Probably erected late C18 contemporary 700m W SW gatepiers, railings with the church and modified perhaps and gat es to S of earlier C20 with replacement of railings Church of SS and gates and introduction of lamps and Marcella and lamp b rackets. Deiniol Bedwell Hall II 18057 T wo storey, plus attic, brick Hall on a H - 600m SE plan of probable late C17/early C18 date
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 11
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
with later single storey stable block attached to the rear. Of three bays, with segmental headed casement windows, gabled cross - wi ngs with brick kneelers. Grey slate roof a nd brick chimneys. Victorian porch with slate roof added to front elevation with margin paned windows. Brick floor bands and aprons to gable end s at attic storey height. Pum - R hyd II 18058 A building of o ne storey and attic, largely 3 2 0m E replacing an earlier building damaged by fire in the 18th century. Re d brick construction with earlier timber framing and brick nogging. Grey slate roof w ith brick axial stack. Three - bay front with off - centre front door set in exposed door frame. Timber frame to dormer s is left exposed behind barge boards. To the rear is a projection from the single pile plan - form with exposed timber framing and small casem ent windows to the rear wall. The interior is largely unaltered, with the former buttery and pantry to the north wi th original shutters to the front elevation. A dog - leg s taircase is supported by large, possibly sub - medieval, chimney stack.
Parkey Farm II 10862 Parkey Farm is assumed to have been 900m E built in the late C18/ early C19 as the h ome farm for Parkey Hall (demolished 1972). Three storeys, of brick construction, with stone quoins, under a grey slate roof, chimney stacks to east and west gable ends. Symmetrical font elevation with central doorway and remains of doo rcase. Six - pane sash windows on stone sill s. Some later additions and alterations to two - storey rear and side elevations. Milestone II 87687 Milestone, rounded stone with attached 960m W cast iron plaque, with a rounded and shouldered head and painted w hite with raised lettering ‘TO, M, WREXHAM 2, ELLESMERE 10’. Largely hidden by raised ground levels but revealed at the time of inspection. Ivydale II 17845 The building has a complex history and 725m SW probably originated as 2 or 3 bay house, perhaps C 16 or early C17, which was substantially m odified probably later C17 with insertion or alteration of a floor. A timber - framed wing was added C17 or early C18. Dormers, a porch and roof envelope introduced late C19/early C20, attached outbuilding converted to kitchen, French windows and fireplaces added later C20.
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 12
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
2 . 2 ARCHAEO LOGIC AL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROU ND
2.2.1 Clwyd - Powys Historic Envi ronment Record HER informati on was provid ed by Gary Duckers, Histo ric Environment Record Officer , Clwyd - P owys Archaeolog ical Trust . We are grateful for h is eff icient an d helpf ul service. The Clwyd - Powys Historic Environme nt Record (CPHER) was consulted (HE R reference number E6 55 9) fo r sites withi n a 1km radius of PDA . Th e data comprised a mixture of find spot s, sites and do cumentary references. The s earch produced 110 records none of which predate the medieval period although the absence of earlier evidence may be a reflection of the landscape and a lack of fieldwork since the area was largely part of the Sewage Farm as sho wn on the Ordnance Survey ma pping for 19 09 ( Figure 5 ) . The results are shown on F igure s 6 and 7 . 2.2.2 Archaeological Records within the PDA The following entries lie within the PDA : an orchard ( 55237 2 ) four ponds ( 55240, 55241, 55242, 55245 ) two sluices ( 86012 , 8601 3 Five Ford s farm stead (55236) and farmhouse (102868) – both dem o lished Remnant ridge and furro w ( 82639 )
These are discussed below within the context of the w i der landscape. 2.2.3 Medieval The evidence for the medieval period i s limited to 15 records. A s ingle hammered si lver penny of one of the Edwards was possibly found to the north of the PDA (118967) but its precise provenance is slightly in doubt . T he remaining entries are all for the medieval open field system that was presumably associated with the settlement of Ma rchwiel. The elements of the field system are only noted in the s outhern half of the search area including an area within Marchwiel Covert (1420470) that was identified during a previous archaeological assessment (Kenny 2009 3 ) surviving as several low ridg es up to 0.1m high and about 7m wide . A s the wood is believed t o have been present since at least 1600 they are likely to be part of the medieval open fields.
2 CPHER reference number 3 Kenny, J 2009 Five Fords Waste Water Treatment Works, Marchwiel, Wrexham GAT r epo rt 759
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 13
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
Other areas of ridge and furrow ar e concentrated in the southeast part of the s earch area where they survived as earthworks the full extent of which was largel y plotted from Lidar data. In each instance the ridges were 6 - 7m wide and up to 0.4m high (67701, 82606 - 82608, 82610 - 82612, 82634 - 82635, 82639 and 82641 - 82643). The parish of Marchwiel was par t of the lordship of Bromfield and documentary research has trac ed the place name back as far as thirteenth century although the settlement may be much earlier. The location of the village on the edge of the Cheshire Plain is thought to be the reason why t he fields are more akin to English open field systems than the u neven small fields more typical of the Welsh uplands (Kenny 2009). One further entry is for the grave of Daniel Lloyd (26984) a Dissenter and supporter of Cromwell who refused burial in consec rated ground. His grave , whilst origin ally marked by an inscribed stone , is now under Lloyds warehouses.
2.2.4 Post medieval A further four entries recording post medieval ridge and furrow are also present in the south eastern part of the study area (5525 3, 82633, 82636, 82637) : two of them have been destroyed or built over and one is only known from aerial photographic evidence. The study area is dominated by ponds which are described as possibly originating as clay or marl pits for buil ding materials or fertiliser . These cover 34 separate entr ies for pond s (55240 - 55244, 61442 - 61460 and 61465 - 61472) and one for a marl pit (82615) (presumably so called because it had not subsequently filled with water). The ponds are not shown on the tithe map of 1840 that depicts a myriad of f ields der i ving from enclosure ( Figure 8) . One of the fields containing these ponds is named Marl Field and has a series of ponds alo ng its eastern edge . M arling was particularly common as a method of so i l improvement from the sixteent h to eighteenth centuries ( Kenny 2009) . Several of the ponds are still extant but a number are reco rded only from historic maps. The ponds may have helped water livestock grazing in the fields. Two further records relate to orchards (55237, 67702), both depicted on nineteenth century Ordnance Survey maps. 2.2.5 Bui ldings and infra stru cture A number of buildings are recorded within the CPHER . T hey range from Bedwell Hall (41778) a seventeent h to eighteenth century grade II listed building (18057) and Pum - r hyd (41779) a largely eighteenth century grade II listed farmhouse (18058) to sites of buildings rec orded on early Ordnance Survey maps but now gone. Examples of these vanished structure s include a smithy (104511) recorded on the 1879 mapping but gone by 1 961 and a mill (104512) again present in 1879 but of which no trace survives. Other building groups are a recorded such as Five Ford s farmstead (55236) within which the farmhouse (102868) was demolished in 1972 - 3 and which lies in the north of the PDA, bu t outside the proposed extent of construction. A number of other structures are present within the study area including a footbridge and a ford to the north of the study area (86011 and 55238) . A railway (86017) and associated
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 14
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020 station (7233 4), crossing th e southern part of the study area from northwest to southeast was part of the Wrexham and Ellesmere railway which opened in 1895 and finally closed in 198 1, although effectively it ceased operating in 1962, and now little evidence remains. The largest com plex of activity within the study area is the Marchwiel Five Fords water treatment plant (142046) wh ere development commenced in 1863 . T he fields to its east were used as a n outfall area with sewage being spread across the fields. Other isolated records in clude one for a milestone shown on the Ordnance Survey (86018) and for a standing stone (86014) both of are shown on late nineteenth century maps but no trace now re mains. Three sluices (86012, 86013 and 86016), shown on the Ordnance Survey maps to manage water flow in field ditches are also recorded ‘ but the location of none has been inspected ’ On the very northeast limit of the study area lay the Royal Ordnance Factory Marchwiel, erected in 1940 and originally covering about 1330 acres. The site included railway sidings and various factory buildings of which only a single concrete and bri ck munitions s tore (26979) now remains. 2.2.6 Archaeological events and investigations Within the study area and just beyond only five Events are recorded in the CPHER ( 26978, 110508, 118085, 118718 and 142045). All appear to be predominantly limited assessment exercis es . T wo are associated with the Five Fords Sewage treatment works (118718, 142045), two more with assessment of aspect s of the Wrexham industrial estate to the north (108085, 110508) and one assessment of the Five Fords Industrial estate (26978), which onl y recovered evidence for the former munitions factory. 2.2. 7 Discussion It is possible the absence of evidence for earlier than medieval activity in this a rea is the result of a lack of fieldwork rather than a reflection of a genuine gap. Whilst it is re cognised that evidenc e for prehistoric and Roman activity is sparse to the east of Wrexham, although some sites are known generally in the region, it is unli kely the gap is a true reflection of past activity over su ch a large study area . The evidence for the fragments of medieval fields system prob ably associated with Marchwiel and the subsequent farming into the post medieval period demonstrate that the area was fertile . E xtraction of clay either for marling or brick making reflects another significa nt ac tivity in the area.
2. 3 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY 2. 3 .1 In troduction Detailed g eophysical sur vey of the whole PDA w a s und ertaken by Tigergeo in June 2020 . T he repo rt is appended ( Appendix B ) a nd has been provided to the CPAT Planning Archaeol ogist . 2. 3 .2 Data The data quality is high, free of significant collection artefacts and with reasonable contrast throughout. Confidence is boosted in part by the presence of a correlation between cropmarks
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 15
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020 typical of ditch fills and coincident magnetic anom alies. Overall anomaly st rength is weak with former cultivation contributing 0.5 nT or less to the ambient field although ditch fills, presumably due to depositional remnant magnetisation, tend to contribute more, up to about 2.5 nT although strengths var y widely. The use of non - g radiometric caesium vapour instrumentation at this site in combination with pseudo - gradient modelling has allowed increased confidence in the amplitu de resolution of the data and hence the detectability of features of potential in terest. 2. 3 .3 Geology Ano maly strengths associated with former cultivation tend to be highest on the higher ground near the south - east corner of the site which reinforces the overall impression that hydrology is a factor in magnetic character at this sit e. Much of the site is foun ded on Quaternary Devensian - Diamicton till and this has the characteristic slightly speckled magnetic texture of this area due to magnetic material s brought to here from north - west Wales. The northwards transition to undifferen tiated River Terrace Deposi ts is not evident within the data except perhaps as a tiny decrease in background magnetic susceptibility. In contrast, the smooth background texture in the northernmost field is typical of deep alluvium, seen here to be cut by f ormer river channels with t ill and boulder fills. Overall there seems little reason to suspect changes in the detectability of features of interest on the basis of variations i n the superficial geology. 2. 3 .4 Land use In the northernmost field much of th e area is affected by the ma gnetic field from two steel pipelines that presumably connect with the sewage works and a third was noted crossing the river but not seen within the data. Much of the evidence for land use confirms the long existence of the land for arable purposes with po nds, field boundaries and former cultivation. Whether the ponds are natural or flooded marl pits is conjectural but given the superficial geology is till deposits maybe marl digging is less likely? Known ponds include debris fil led areas [15 4 ], [17] and se veral of the smaller patches of magnetic debris could have a similar origin. There was once a stream, diverted after 1914, flowing south to north acr oss the site and it formed part of the system of field boundaries. It is apparen t as a fill at [16] and the n at [10] but at some point it appears to have been canalised as [11], maybe during use of the area as a sewage farm, before being moved. Other forme r field boundaries include [22] and a group at [23], all being ditch fills. Thes e, with another at [30], se em directly associated with adjacent ridge and furrow cultivation with [30] being perhaps along a headland at the end of [26]. This medieval cultivat ion, so [24] and [26], is only evident on the higher ground, but whether this is due to variable magnetic c ontrast, incidence or survival is not clear. It is possible the lower ground, being likely wetter here, may not have been cultivated at this time.
4 [ n ] refer s to the catalogue number
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 16
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
Of the sewage farm little seems to have survived below ground, however, with the e xception of pipes of unknow n material and brick built free - standing sluice structures, maybe there was little to find. At [13] there appears to be an intact pipe run and more m ust survive below the hedges where some sluice structures still survive, however , of the sluices known to h ave existed out in the fields nothing magnetic appears to have survived. There is the occasional scatter of debris that might be the ploughed out rem ains of some of these structures.
2 .3 .5 Archaeology There is little of obvious archaeological interest wit hin the magnetic data and much that is possible could be of almost any date and origin, comprising in the main a number of non - diagnostic possible d itch fills, e.g. [7] – [9]. Some, e.g. [15] and [22], seem to be elements of a f ormer field system and indee d [22] appears to be plotted as such on the Tithe Map. It is also evident as a cropmark which likely confirms the existence of a ditch. A probable f ill at [14] is less easily explained in this manner and does not appear on the T ithe Map and is not aligned with any of the ridge and furrow so remains undated but potentially pre - dates the Tithe Map. Other small linear anomalies, e.g. [25] and [29], may b e land drains. There is no evidence for settlement or other focused activity.
2. 3 .6 Anomali es identified
Table 5 Geophysical Survey Catalogue
Data Anomaly Feature Feature ID Form Class Comments Clas s Class Class Sub - Class Strong Linear - 1 TMI Utility enhanced continuous Strong Linear - 2 TMI Utility enhanced continuous Strong Linear - 3 TMI Utility enhanced continuous Strong Linear - 4 TMI Utility enhanced continuous Strong May be associated with 5 TMI Area Debris variable adjacent manure storage. Linear - Probable ditch fill, not a 6 TMI Enhanced Fill Ditch continuous known field boundary. A small group of linear Linear - anomalies like ditch fills but 7 TMI Enhanced Fill? ? continuous otherwise undiagnostic and potentially cultivation - related. Linear - Within a small group 8 TMI Enhanced continuous Fill Ditch comprising [7], [8] and [9] (group) and of uncertain nature. Line ar - Within a small group 9 TMI Enhanced continuous Fill Ditch comprising [7], [8] and [9] (group) and of uncerta in nature.
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 17
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
Data Anomaly Feature Feature ID Form Class Comments Clas s Class Class Sub - Class Former stream channel, maybe partly canalised, once Linear - 10 TMI Enhanced Fill also a field boundary. This continuous channel is the downstrea m continuation of [16]. Possible canalised version of Linear - 11 TMI Enhanced Fill [ 10], also partly extant as a continuous cropmark. Probable former field Linear - boundary, also evident as a 12 TMI Variable Debris continuous cropmark and therefore l ikely a ditch fill. See also [13]. Possible sewerage distribution pipe remaining Strong Linear - 13 TMI Ferrous? ? from the sewerage farm, enhanced continuous maybe ceramic rather than steel, but uncertain. Probable ditch fill, uncertain Linear - relationship with former pond 14 TMI Enhanced Fill Ditch continuous [15], maybe a relict of a former fiel d system? Strong 15 TMI Area Fill Pond enhanced Former stream course and also field boundary, this stream being m oved Linear - 16 TMI Enhanced Fill westwards after 1914 to a continuous location east of and parallel to the track dividing the two fields. 17 TMI Variable Area Fill Pond Old OS map editions seem to indicate a small close here, although what is enclosed is uncertain and is now marked 18 TMI Variable Area Debris? Structure? by a rectangular area of debris, as if a fill within something or m aterial spread from something. Linear - This appears to be an area of Strong 19 TMI continuous Utility Drain land drains, probably enhanced (group) ceramic. Linear - 20 TMI Enhanced Fill? Ditch? Ditch fill or drain, uncertain continuous Linear - 21 TMI Enhanced Fill? Ditch? See also [20] continuous
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 18
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
Data Anomaly Feature Feature ID Form Class Comments Clas s Class Class Sub - Class The northern of these two probable fills is also appare nt as a cropmark which likely confirms the identification. Linear - Neither are known former 22 TMI Enhanced continuous Fill Ditch field boundari es but seem (group) likely to be part of a former field system pre - dating that in use at the time of the sewerage farm. These are all elements of a field system that existed prior to the first OS map edition but were removed prior to Linear - use of the land as a sewage 23 TMI Enhanced continuous F ill Ditch farm. They are presumably (group) post - medieval enclosure of medieval arable land given their apparent relations hip to adjacent possible ridge and fur row [24]. Linear - Possible ridge and furrow 24 TMI Enhanced continuous Fill Cultivation cultivation. (group) Linear - 25 TMI Enhanced continuous Fill? ? Maybe land drains. (group) Linear - Probable ridge and furrow 26 TMI Enhanced continuou s Fill Cultivation cultivation on the higher (group) ground. Linear - 27 TMI Enh anced continuous Fill May be land drains. (group) The southern part of this field has something massively magn etic buried beneath it with no surface traces. The Strong 28 TMI Area Ferrous narrowness of the survey enhanced means that it is not p ossible to be sure whether this is steel service crossing it or a discrete structure or fill. Linear - 29 TMI Enhanced Fill? Ditch? Possible ditch or drain. continuous Linear - Probable former field 30 TMI Enhanced Fill Ditch continuous boundary.
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 19
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
2.4.7 Conclusions There is little of archaeological interest within the magnetic data except slight evidence for former field systems that predate the earliest OS map editions and which are hinted at on the Tithe Map of the 1840s . They seem more complex than depicted. The pre sence of ridge and furrow cultivation confirms the nearby presence of medieval settlement and the en tr ies in the CPHER . While there is potenti al for the small number of minor ditch fills to be ancient, none form a coherent layout and given the previously wet nature of the land there c ould be many generations worth of drainage features.
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 20
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
3 . Direct Impa cts and Mitigation
3 . 1 DI REC T IMPACTS
Built development can result in the loss of the archaeological resource wherever ground disturba nc e tak es place, and the potential l oss or damage in other areas associated wit h infrast ruc ture and landsca ping .
The PDA lies withi n an ar ea very modest in pre - medie val archaeolog y, although this could b e a r eflection of a lack of develo pment within the rur al lands cape and therefore a lack of arch aeological inve stigation . T he geophysical s urvey equally point s to a low potential for archa eology wi thin the PDA . P lough ing will also have truncated the a r chaeology .
3 .2 M ITIGATION OF DIREC T IMPACTS I n accordanc e wit h planning policy, loss of archae ology needs to be offset b y a programme of mitigation. Although the geo phys ical s ur vey located o nly a h andful of possible anom alies that could be representative of archaeology , a precautionary approach should be adopte d. Pl anning Policy Wales propose s that an appropri ate approach to mitigation is t o ensure pre se rvation by rec ord through archaeologica l excav ation, recording, analy sis and publicatio n appropriate to significance of t he arc haeological resource. The nature o f the development is howe ve r different from the typical large - scale project . Impacts would be lim ited to areas of cut , reservoirs and pipe - trenches. Prior to green house construction the sit e is levelled to create a platform. Some of the site is therefore surcharged and the other part cut. The foundations are very minimal and consist of a peripheral concrete plinth at ground level set on piles . Within th e greenhouse piling is necessary to support metal poles but these are lightweight being drilled on a grid of 8 x 5m by a tractor mounted with a screw auger comprising a 700mm diameter drill piece. The continuous flight auger technique employed r esults in minimal disturbance outside the 700mm drilled core. It has been calculated that piling causes disturbance to a pproximately 0 .5 % of the sub - surface. It wa s agreed with the Development Control Archaeologi st , Clwyd - Powys Archaeo logical Trust (CPAT), a s adv isor to Wrexham County Borough Council , that f urther discussions would take place pre - development (subject to planning cons ent ) to agree a scope of low - level mitigation (such as targeted trenching) w here areas of disturbance coincided with possible archaeological anomalies identified by the geophysical survey. T hes e works would be undertaken by suitably qualified arch a eologist s. t renches may need to be expanded to record any archaeolog y found. D eta ils of met hodologies , in the form of a Written Scheme of Investigati o n , would be agre ed wi th Wrexham County Borough Council . The work woul d be secured via a planning co ndi tion.
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 21
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
4. Assessment of Ind irect Effects up on Designated Assets
4.1 S COPE Indirect impacts are those that do not ph ysica l ly affect a cultural heritage asset or landscape, but t hat alter the context or setting. Such impac ts can be difficult to define and should take into account a numbe r of facto rs including: The type and sign ificance of asset or landsca pe The nature and scale of the develo pment Working methodo l ogy Temporality Topography Visibility, screening and ph ysical separation Proximity The critic al views of, and from the a sset o r landscap e Acces si bility, interpretat ion and public appreciati on
4.2 ASSESSMENT A s it e vi sit could not be carried out due to Co vid - 19 restrictions , but sufficient information could be obtained from the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 5 and as sessment of Go ogle E arth and Streetview to be confident in the conclusion that no adverse effects of any magnitude would be experienced by any designated assets.
The PDA is situated in a ru r al la ndscape , with , local ly, strong influences of large - scale com mercial development to the west (the water treatment works) and to the east (Wrexham Industrial R e state) . Woodland and topography, as well as residential development also serve to scre en the PDA from most directions.
The rationale is set out in Table 6 be low .
A single asset was examined in more detail due to it being closer to the PDA than the o ther asset: Pum - Rh y d – see S ection 4. 3 .
5 LVIA: Five Fords Glasshouse, land west of Sesswick Way, Marchwiel, LL13 0TF Greenlight Environmental C onsulta ncy
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 22
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
Table 6 Assets scoped out of assessment due to existing factors
Name Grade Distance from C urrent setting in relatio n to PDA PDA Church of SS II* 685m W SW Withi n M archwiel village. No views at ground level Marcella and due to intervening development. Lo n g - distance Deiniol v iews may be pos sible from to wer, although existing water treatment works and 1970s development lie b e tween church and PDA Churchya rd walls II 700m W SW Withi n M archwiel village. No views at ground level etc due to intervening development. Bedwell Hall II 600m SE Orientated south. Set within a m odern development built in the Hall ’ s g a rdens and grounds. No views at ground level due to intervening development. Pum - R hyd II 3 2 0m E See below, section 4.3
Parkey Farm II 900m E Topog raphy. No views of PDA
Milestone II 960m W Withi n M archwiel village. No views at ground level due to intervening development. Ivydale II 725m SW Topog raphy. No views of PDA
4.3 ASSESSMENT OF SETTING OF PUM - RHYD A single asset was examined in more detail due to it being closer to the PDA than the o ther assets a nd in a more rural environment. Pum - Rh y d is situated 320 east of the PDA and 365m east of the greenhouse development ( the nearest up standing part of the development )
It is separated from it by trees and hedging, bu ilt devel opment (n otably within its own farmyard) and the Bedwell Road and Sess ic k Way .
F igure 9 shows its c ontext and relationship to the PA. Figu res 10 and 1 1 show views to and from the house at a mi d - point between .
It is concluded that in winter views may be possible through trees devoid of leaves , but that these would be from first floor windows. At ground level, intervening farmbuildings and vegetation would b lock views .
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 23
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
5 . Asse ssment of Eff ects
I n accordance with the best practice the s ig nifican ce o f an effec t shoul d be iden tified taking into account implem entation of the propo sed m itigation (i.e. the r esid ual effects) . This is achieved using policy, guidance and metho dology set out in S ection s 1 . 4 and 1 .5 , above. The results of the evaluation of s ignificanc e are drawn together in Table 7 , below, together wi th the rationale be hind the evaluation.
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 24
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
T hi s pag e is blank to al low bac k - to - back printing and save pap er
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 25
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
Table 7 Effects and Eval u ation of Significance
Type of Probability S ensit ivity Magnitude Effect o f Effe ct of Effect Significance Ra tionale O ccurring Adverse d i rect effec ts upon statu to r ily None Certain High No ne Neutral There are designated assets within the PDA . designated asset s of th e histori c environment
D irect e ff e cts upon buried arc haeol o gy Negative Likely Low Medium No t signif icant The PDA li es within an area very mo dest i n pre - within PDA medieval archaeology (although that could partly be from a lack of investigation) and the geophysical survey points to a continuation o f this . Pl oughi ng will have truncated any archaeology. Mitigation c o uld includ e ta rgeted tre nching .
In direct effec ts upon setting of designated None Certain Medium (4 assets) None Neutral A com bination of topography, intervening built development, woodland and distance will co m bine to heritage assets (except Pum - Rhyd ) High (Grade II* prevent any adv erse effects . c hurch)
Indirect effec ts upon setting of Pum - Rhyd, Negat ive Likely Medium None Neutral Although filtered views may be possible in winte r from Grade II upsta irs windows, this would have n o discer nible effect upon th e setting of the a sset , or our abi lity to under stand the resource and its historical context .
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 26
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
6 . Summa ry and Conclusions
6 .1 SC OPE OF WO RK AND RESULTS This report presents the findings of a cultural heritage assessment for a proposed glasshouse development on 44ha of la nd to the east of Five Fords Se w age Facility, Marchwiel, near Wrexham . The majority of the PD A is under arable agriculture Cultural h eritage i s represe nte d by a wide range of a ssets that result from past human use of the landscap e. These inclu de histori c structures, m an y s till in use, above ground and buried archaeolo gical monuments and r emains of all periods, artefacts of anthropologi cal orig i n and evi den ce that can help recon struc t past human envi ronments. In its broadest form cultural herit age is rep resented by the l and scape and townscape itself. This assessment c onsiders both direc t and indirect effects upon cultur al heritage. Dir ect effe c ts are th ose that physically affec t a c ultura l heritage asset. Indirect effects can occ ur as a result of signifi cant changes to t he setting of a cultural heritage landscape or as set, whether perman en t or temporar y. This is particul arly relevant to designa t ed assets su ch as Scheduled Monume nts, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas , Registered Parks and Gard ens and R e gistered Histor ic La ndscapes . Desk - based research a nd a geophys ical su rvey was u ndertaken of the whole PD A .
6 .2 DIRECT EFFECTS UPON ARCHAEOLOGY AND MIT IGATI ON The PDA lies withi n an ar ea very modest in pre - medie val archaeolog y, although this could b e a r eflection of a lack of develo pment within the rural lands cape and therefore a lack of arch aeological inve stigation . T he geophysical s urvey equally point s to a low potential for archa eology wi thin the PDA . P lough ing will also have truncated the a r chaeology . I n accorda nce w ith planni ng policy, loss of archae ology needs to be offset b y a programme of mitigation. Although the ge ophysical s ur ve y located only a handful of possible anomal ies that c ould be representative of arch aeology , a precautionary approach should be adop ted. Planning P olicy Wale s (PPW) propose s that an appropri ate approach to mitigation is to ensure pre se rvation by record through ar chaeological excavation, recording, a nalysis an d publicatio n appropriate to signifi cance of t he arc haeological resource. Pre - devel opment trenching would be targeted at geophysical anomalies within areas to be disturbed by the development (notably a reas of cut , the reservoirs and pipelines ) . This approach has b een ag reed with the Devel opment Control Archaeologi st , Clwyd - Powys Archaeol ogical Trust (CPAT), a s advisor to Wrexham County Borough Council . Thes e works would b e undertak en by suitably qualified archaeologi sts. D eta ils of methodologies , in the for m of a Written Scheme of Invest igation , would be agre ed wi th Wrexham County Borough Council . The work would be se cured via a planning co ndi tion.
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 27
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
The direct effects upon archae ology are assessed as of low sens it ivi ty and m edium magnitude . Taking into accou nt the p roposed mitigat ion th e effects are not s i gnificant .
6 .3 INDIRECT EFFECTS
Indirect impacts are those that do not ph ysica l ly affect a cultural heritage asset or landscape, but t hat alter the context or setting.
A s it e vi sit could not be carried out due to Co vid - 19 restrictions , but sufficient information could be obtained from the Landscape and Visual Impac t Assessment and assessment of Go ogle E arth and Streetview to be confident in the conclusion that no adverse effects of any magnitude would be experienced by any designated assets.
The PDA is situated in a ru r al la ndscape , with , local ly, strong influences of large - scale commercial development to the west (the water treatment works) and to the east (Wrexham Industrial R e state) . Woodland and topography, as well as residential development also serve to scre en the PDA from most directions.
There would be no e ffect upon assets within 1km, including the Grade II* of Church of Saint Marcella and Deiniol due to a combination of intervening development, topography , distance and woodland.
A single asset was examined in more detail due to it being closer to the PDA than the o ther assets a nd in a more rural environment. Pum - Rh y d is situated 320 east of the PDA and 365m east of the greenhouse development ( the nearest up standing part of the development ) . It is separated from it by trees and hedging, bu ilt devel opment (n otably within its own farmyard) the Bedwell Road and Sess ic k Way .
It is concluded that in winter views may be possible through trees devoid of leaves , but that these would be from first floor windows. At ground level, intervening farmbuildings would pro ba bly b lock views . The effect is so negligible in magnitude and there would n o discernible effect upon setting.
6 .4 CO NCLUSION Having regard to the baseline cond itions and th e nature of the propo sed de velopment , th ere would be no residual effec ts upon known cu ltural heritage assets. T he proposed development the refore fully accords with both l ocal and national c ultural heritage pol icy .
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 28
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
Figures
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 29
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
Figure 1 Location of the PDA © Crown cop yright. All rights reserved. Licence number 100043831
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 30
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
Figure 2 Application boundary © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Licence number 100043831
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 31
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
Figure 3 Layout of the proposed development
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 32
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
Figure 4 Designated Heritage Assets within 1km of PDA © Go ogle earth base photo
Figure 5 Ordn ance Survey 1909
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 33
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
Figure 6 CPAT HER Sites and Monuments within 1km of PDA ( note: the application boundary has changed since the HER search was commissioned) © as show n
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 34
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
Figure 7 CPAT HER Events and Investigations within 1km of PDA ( note: the application boundary has changed since the HER search was commissioned) © as show n
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 35
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
Figure 8 T ithe Map of Marchwiel parish, 1840
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 36
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
Figure 9 Context of Pum - R hy d © Google earth base photo
Figure 10 View east to Pum - R hy d from B edwell Road © Google earth
Figure 1 1 View we st from B edwell Road t owards PDA (red line ) © Google earth
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 37
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
Appendix A
Description of the proposed developmen t
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 38
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
The proposed project in volves the installation of the following components:
Glasshouse buildings
The development will cons ist of 2no. 7.6 ha glasshouses, comprised of structural steelwork and high specification glass designed for maximum light transmission and covering a total of 1 5.2 ha of land, each having a maximum gutter height of 7 m and gable apex height of 8 m, inclusi ve of the 30 cm high concrete perimeter foundations. Internally, the buildings will contain a steel support post mounted o n pre - cast concrete pile and a 5 m wide reinforced concrete path running centrally along the length of the glasshouse. With the except ion of the concrete path and foundation posts, the internal glasshouse floor remains soil. Other features of the glasshous e buildings include matte aluminiu m growing gutters hung from the roof , installed at approximately 4 m intervals across the width of t he buildings and elevated from the soil floor. Around the outside perimeter of the glasshouse a 4 m wide stone access road is used for construction purposes and is retained during operations for maintenance
Packing and welfare building
The packing and welf are building, located to the north of the glasshouse building, will cover an area of approximately 0.6 ha and comprise ele ments including the packing area, canteen/toilets, irrigation, storage rooms and site offices. The building will be 8 m high and clad externally with a mix of profiled and flat panel coated steel cladding, with an architectural grey finish to blend into th e existing skyline when viewed fro m distance. The floor will be concrete slab and the packing area will include 10 loading docks .
Ener gy centre / heating system
Ground source heat pumps will be located in the energy centre, connected to the nearby WwTW thr ough underground closed - loop high - density polyethylene (HDPE) pipes. In addition to the heat pumps, gas combined heat and power (CHP) units will be installed to provide supplementary high temperature water for heating, carbon dioxide and electricity, with air inlet and outlets located on t he roof to provide air flow for the CHP. Conventional gas boilers will be installed purely for redun dancy purposes. For maintenance and safety purposes, 6 no. electrical transformers surrounded by palisade fencing and 8 no. dry air coolers will be located o utside the energy centre building. Two insulated vertical heat store tanks will be located adjacent to the energy centre building, mounted on reinforced concrete base. These tanks will have an above ground side height of 10 m, a 12.5 m apex height and a 2 5 m diameter. Five water silos will also be installed adjacent to the energy centre and be mounted on concrete tiles. The silos will have an 11 m diameter and be 6 m high with a flat roof.
CO 2 storage tanks
Currently th e adjacent WwTW is venting CO 2 int o the atmosphere as a waste product. This CO 2 will be captured , cleaned and transferred via an HDPE pipe buried underground to the glasshouse. It is estimated this captured CO 2 will amount to approximately 5,000 tonnes pe r annum.
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 39
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
Three stainless steel va cuum CO 2 tank s , 14 m length and 2.5 m diameter, will be installed externally near the energy centre building, with buried mains pipes supplying CO 2 to growing gutters within the glasshouses.
Customer substation
An on - site substation for the supply of elec tricity to the project, approximately 3 m in height, 10 m in length and 3 m in width, will be instal led externally near the energy centre building.
DNO substation
The Distribution Network Operator (DNO) will install an on - site substation for the supply of electricity to the project. The substation design will be dependent on the specific requirements of the DNO, but will typically be dark green GRP construction, approximately 3.5 m in height, 7.5 m in length and 3 m in wid th. It should be noted that final equipment suppliers and contractors for the project have yet to be selected. Whilst some variation in the equipment may be necessary we do not envisage significant variation in the presented elevations and footprints.
Acc ess and parking
All areas on sit e to be used by HGVs will be concrete, including the access road, turning area and 10no. HGV loading bays adjacent to the packhouse. A staff and visitor parking area will be surfaced with compacted stone hardstanding. Access to the site will be required fo r project vehicles during the proposed daily operational hours of 0600 to 1800 on weekdays and occas ional weekend work 0600 to 1500. Approximately 150 members of staff will be employed at the facility, of which around 125 will be employed in the glasshous e and 25 in the packhouse and offices; all staff will travel to and from work daily from the local a rea and no on - site living accommodation will be required in relation to the development.
Closed irrigation system
Irri gation of crops in the glasshouse will comprise a closed system, requiring external supply of mains water only as emergency back - up when t he normal working system is off - line. The system comprises two main elements, described as follows:
Rainwater Reservoi r : Fall pipes will be attached to the gutters at each gable end (north and south), channelling rainwater from the glasshouse roof to buri ed drainage pipes. This water will supply lined storage reservoirs adjacent to the glasshouse and is then pumped back t o the irrigation room upon demand. Th e reservoirs will be sized to meet not only the glasshouse irrigation requirements but also have ade quate spare attenuation capacity at all times to meet a 1 in 100 storm event. Depending on the local water table, the r eservoirs may be raised up to approxi mately 1 m in height.
Recycled irrigation water : Internal condensation will be captured via interna l gutters on the roof and side walls. In addition, water not absorbed by the plant will be collected at either end of th e growing gutters and pumped to “bro wn” water silos, before being fed to the irrigation room for filtration and UV treatment. The treate d water will be blended with
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 40
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020 reservoir water and stored in clean water silos. Upon irrigation demand the plant nutrients are added in the irrigation room be fore being gifted back to the plants via the growing gutters; the process is repeated in a loop. A m aximum of 5no. water storage silos with approximately 6 m height and 11 m diameter will be installed adjacent to the ene rgy centre buildings.
A small amoun t of external mains water supply is used for the washing of produce prior to packing.
Utilities tre nch The utilities trench will run underground for approximately 465 m from the glasshouse development to the Five Fords WwTW. The underground closed - loop HD PE pipes will connect the ground source heat pumps located in the energy centre to the proposed heat exc hanger building (see below). The utilities trench will incorporate the following elements:
Trench 2 m depth, 4.2 m width
2no. 630 mm HDPE pipes with 50 0 mm between them to prevent thermal transfer
1no. 33 kV 300 mm private electricity cable from energ y ce ntre to heat exchanger building transformer
1no. 150 mm ducted private fibre communications cable Branching off to the north, the trench includes:
1 no . 33 kV 300 mm ducted mains electricity connection from the electricity network to the DNO substatio n.
1 no. 300 mm steel gas pipe from intermediate gas pipeline to site. Manholes will be installed along the route (subject to detailed design) to enable acc ess to the pipeline should maintenance be required. Small (knee height) concrete markers will be ins tall ed at the side of fields to show the route once installed. The National Joint Utilities Group (NJUG) code of practice will be employed throughout the en tirety of the route, ensuring farming practices can continue, including deep ploughing over the pipe line once installed.
Heat exchanger building The proposed heat exchanger building will be located within the Five Fords WwTW site . The mono pitch steel fra med building will be 19.4 m in length, 14.4 m in width, with eaves height 6 m on the low side and 8 m on the high side, with a mono pitch of 7.5°. The eaves will have galvanised steel box gutters with PVC downpipes. A roller shutter door will be located on the long side, with an adjacent steel personnel door.
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 41
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
Adjacent to the heat exchanger building wil l be a small outdoor electrical transformer and an underground septic tank to collect any water used in cleaning the heat exchangers. The building would al low for the extraction of heat only from final effluent; the final effluent is not altered or transp orted from site but passes through the heat exchangers and out the other side. Heat transfer fluid, which is food safe and approved by the Environment Agenc y , is hydraulically separated from the final effluent by the heat exchanger. The heat transfer fluid is circulated between the heat exchanger and the glasshouse site, where it will be used to heat the glasshouses.
Within the WwTW site, a concrete chamber w ill be constructed to facilitate the extraction of water from the final effluent pipe. Water will flow from the final water effluent pipe via an underground 700 mm pipe and into the new circular concrete offtake chamber. It will then be pumped out of the c hamber via 5no. overground 500 mm steel pipes before entering the heat exchangers housed within th e heat exchanger building. Once the heat has been transferred via the heat exchangers into the closed - loop heat water circuit (going back to the glasshouse) t he same final effluent water (now colder in temperature) will then flow through 1no. steel 700 mm underground return pipe and back into the final water effluent pipe, downstream from where it was originally extracted. Isolation valves will be installed o n both the underground offtake pipe leading to the offtake chamber and underground return pipe.
Th ese isolation valves enable Welsh Water to turn off/bypass the heat exchanger system should it be required.
The offtake connection to the final water efflu ent p ipe will occur within one circular concrete chamber of approximately 6500 mm diameter that will be raised to approximately 1500 mm above ground level. The return connection will be an underground pipe connected to the existing final effluent pipe.
C O 2 Rec overy plant Situated to the southeast of the Welsh Water WwTW facility will be:
A CO 2 recovery plant measuring 6 m x 12 m and 6.35 m in height.
2no. air coolers situated at ground level either side of the recovery plant measuring 8.8m in length, 1.47 m in w idth and 1.32m in height.
A small gas booster of 1.4 x 2 x 1.6 m in height
The CO 2 recovery plant harvests all waste CO 2 emissions from the Five Fords WwTW anaerobic digester facility. The cleaning process inside the recovery plant upgrades the CO 2 to fo od grade standard. This clean CO 2 is then transported via an underground pipe to the glasshous e for enhancing the growing environment.
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 42
Five Fords, Marchwiel, Wrexham : Heritage Statement. July 2020
Appendix B : Geophysical Survey
andrew josephs as sociates A rchaeologi cal and Cult ural Herit age Consultancy P a g e | 43
!
!
! "
" ! " # $ % & '%( % & )&% *+
#$% &'&'
( ) * ,&- - - . # /010 2 !
+, - 3 ! " 4 "
" . " * / + * " # 5 # 4 "
* * ! " 0 /+ . / " 0 5 # $ " # + , 5 # , " # + 4 " .
1,
, & 6 . 7 8489: 1 . 3.2.;.% . <. # ' ? @$ 5 $ ( + $ ( + ( / <'% 25 A// 848 /<< !!! . B, & 25 6@ * 7 )C @ ! " #$%#$&'
, D# + , & 6 +
, & ,&- - - . # /010 2 !
1 , & ! C ! " @ # + + + + ! C+ + 6 ! C ) ! + E ! ! @ C D + + D ::: + ! # + # $ &;%% @ ! C , . + + ! # ! & ! # ! C F C ! 6 + ! ! E + C ! @ ! $ + + C + + ! #
* 2" , ! , & ! " ! ++ + ! C ! 6 ! C ) ! + + ! ! G ! + ! ! ++ G ! ++ + $ H + C G ! ::: + + ! !$ ! G &;%% G , + !G ! +! ! ! ! + + ! I +! ! I + I ! C ! . + ! C + . ! J C +! $ +!+ I H C$ ++ !
, & ,&- - - . # /010 2 !
12 * * D # ( : 3 : 7 ? : * : 3 :: & :/ 6 :9 : : : :: 9 :/ #9 / 1 / ? 1 / ? 1 / * 1 / % #< / , K < / 7 K < /: 3 ? < /: ? < // * 4 // * 4 // , C + 4 //: 4 /// ) + 4 /9 & 8 /1 % + /< # 9 % + 9 % K 9 5 :
+ , 1 3 & % 6 3 & $ . , * 3 & :$ . ? 3 & /$ . *
# , & ,&- - - . # /010 2 !
# - , & ! C ! " @ # + + + + ! C+ + 6 ! C ) ! + E ! ! @ C D + , # ! + %!@ C C + ! ! # ! + D ::: + ! # $ + + $ + )# ) ) $ ! C ! + + + #C + # % # ! @ + # $ &;%% @ ! C , # ! @ ! + # * * D ! * * ::1884$ :/4
& *
&3# ( * % ! C ! C C. 4 #!4''''5 ,$ 3# 3 ,*663 # , 3 ++ . % & # ,3 5 /#!4''''5 % ) . $ % %6 1, * 6 , * * 7 C 6 7 D ! + + 4 . , * F C
, 8L ' & % # 9@ &.' C ! # C C ++ + + + ! C + ! + ! # # C ++ #C + + + + ( # # @ !@ $ !# $ + C C + ! ! @
&3& 6 , , # # . # $ ! ! ! .? ! ( # ( ! + + )# ) ) .! + # , ( ! ! + $ ! , $ C + = % #$ # + ! + 2 C + # #$ ! ! # $ + $ C + # + $ # + ! # ! # +
, & ,&- - - . # /010 2 !
8 +
83# * 9
83#3# - , + ! # + # , C K C @ + # C C ! ! 3 & /
83#3& + , K $ + + + + ! C + C C + C! @ + + =# !@ ! + # C 9 , C + +$ C $ C $ C 9 , # ! , + . # C ! . ! + + C + + +
83#38 , ! + # C . + ! + # + + + M 3# . 3 @ D + C + .! , ! ++ # , 3 # ! D C@ C * $ C@ D + + #$ C C + # ! C + =# C + + + C + # +
83#3: * + + ++ C + + ! C ! ! ! @ ! # C ! + # + + D + + C ! $ + C + # + E C # + C @N 5 ! C + O9P$ O
, & ,&- - - . # /010 2 !
=+ ! + # ## C ! $ !# $ ! D + + @ ! C @ C + . $ C ! + O:P C ## C ! ! ##$ !# $ + @ ! # D + # ## , + C C + +
83#34 " , , + C# ! C C + $ C + . C +$ O
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consultancy | proje ct management | expert witness Sp ec ialists in Archaeology an d Cultural Herita ge ~ T e lephone 07990 571908 - Visit our website at www.andyjo sephs.co. uk