PLANNING COMMITTEE Date : 20 February 2018

LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD

Report of Contact Officer: Ward: Assistant Director, Andy Higham Bush Hill Park Regeneration & Planning Sharon Davidson Mrs Jennie Rebairo Tel No: 020 8379 3822

Ref: 17/03256/RE4 Category: LBE - Dev by LA

LOCATION: Church Street Tennis Courts, Great Cambridge Road, London, N9 9HL

PROPOSAL: Extension of existing cemetery involving removal of 14 tennis courts.

Applicant Name & Address: Agent Name & Address: Mr Jonathan Stephenson Mr Callum Whyte Enfield Council 3.25 East London Works Civic Centre 75 Whitechapel Road Silver Street London London E1 1DU UK EN1 3XY

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions

Notes to members: The proposal is council-own development.

Ref: 17/03256/RE4 LOCATION: Church Street Tennis Courts, Great Cambridge Road, London

1. Site and Surroundings

1.1. The subject site comprises an area of land currently occupied by 14 tennis courts adjacent to the A10 Great Cambridge Road.

1.2. The site is bounded by Edmonton Cemetery to west and A10 Great Cambridge Road to the east. Residential dwellings are sited to the south of the site and adjoining Skateboard Park to the north.

1.3. The site is Metropolitan Open Lane and is currently in use as 14 tennis courts with an adjoining skateboard park.

1.4. The site is not in a Conservation Area and is not a Listed Building.

2. Proposal

2.1. The development proposes to extend the Edmonton Cemetery removing 14 existing tennis courts and relocating four new courts within Firs Farm Playing Fields (subject to application ref: 17/04488/RE4) also to be heard at this committee.

2.2. The extension of the Edmonton Cemetery will create 2137 new burial plots to assist in meeting future burial demand.

2.3. Provision in the form of £500,000 will be ring fenced to assist the development of the four new courts on Firs Farm Playing Fields and tennis within the borough.

3. Relevant Planning History

3.1 17/02483/PREAPP - Proposed extension of Edmonton Cemetery involving loss of 10 x tennis courts and the refurbishment of 4 x tennis courts.

3.2 17/04488/RE4 - Construction of four tennis courts involving fencing, floodlighting and surface treatment together with pedestrian access adjacent the western boundary - Pending decision at this committee

4. Consultation

4.1 Public Consultations

The 21 day public consultation period started on the 23rd October and concluded on the 13th November. Five neighbouring properties commented on the application as follows:-

• Loss of existing tennis court facilities; • In the strongest terms the existing tennis courts should not be lost; • No interest in expansion of cemetery; • Unacceptable loss of skateboard park; • Investment should be used in immediate vicinity; • Excessive to loss all the tennis courts; • Loss of facilities for young people; • Other underused sites should be considered; and • Disappointed at loss of all courts, some should be retained.

4.3 Internal

Estate Renewal - No comments Economic Development - No comments Traffic & Transportation - No objection Regeneration - No comments SUDS - No objection Environmental Health - No objection Strategic Planning - No comments

4.4 External

Designing out Crime Services - No objection Enfield Disablement Association - No comments Environment Agency - Comments to be reported at committee Historic England - No objection Thames Water - No comments The Lawn & Tennis Association - Support application Sport England - No objection Transport for London - Comments to be reported at committee

5. Relevant Policy

5.1 Development Management Document

DMD16 - Provision of new community facilities DMD17 - Protection of community facilities DMD59 - Avoiding and reducing flood risk DMD61 - Managing surface water DMD68 - Noise DMD71 – Protection and Enhancement of Open Space DMD78 - Nature conservation DMD79 - Ecological enhancements DMD80 - Trees on Development Sites DMD81 - Landscaping DMD84 - Areas of Special Character

5.2 Core Strategy

CP11 - Recreation, leisure, culture and arts CP10 - Emergency and essential services CP30 - Maintaining and improving the quality of the built and open Environment CP32 - Pollution CP34 - Parks, Playfields and other Open Spaces

5.3 London Plan (2015) (including REMA)

Policy 3.19 - Sports facilities Policy 7.4 - Local character Policy 7.6 - Architecture Policy 7.15 - Reducing Noise and Enhancing Soundscapes Policy 7.17 - Metropolitan Open Land Policy 7.19 - Biodiversity and access to nature

5.4 Other Relevant Policy

National Planning Policy Framework

6. Analysis

6.1 The main issues of consideration are the following:

• Loss of sports facility • Use of MOL • Landscaping • Highway safety • Residential amenity • SUDS • Ground contamination

Principle of development

6.2.1 It is acknowledged that the Councils cemetery service is facing a number of challenges over the next few years with the priority of addressing the issue of growing demand and limited supply for burial space within the borough, in particular within the Edmonton Area. The Council needs to adapt to meet the demands of its diverse communities within Enfield by providing a range of burial options and locations in the borough.

6.2.2 A number of options to address the issue were considered at Cabinet and it was approved that the development of the existing 14 tennis courts on the land next to the cemetery and investing £500,000 into tennis provision within the borough including the relocation of four tennis courts to the Firs Farm Playing Fields was the most feasible option.

6.2.3 The proposed development would allow provision of additional 2137 burial plots, directly extending the existing cemetery.

6.2.4 Extension of the existing cemetery would result in loss of 14 tennis courts, four of which are proposed to be relocated to the adjoining Firs Farm Playing Fields. It is acknowledged that the current proposal is in conjunction with the proposal at Firs Farm Playfields (ref: 17/04488/RE4), providing the required justification for the resulting loss of existing tennis courts.

6.2.5 Adopted policies encourage development proposals that increase or enhance the provision of sports and recreation facilities. It is widely understood that such facilities provide a range of social and health benefits for the local community.

6.2.5 Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities. Planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. The assessments should identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in the local area. Information gained from the assessments should be used to determine what open space, sports and recreational provision is required.

6.2.6 Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless:

• An assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; • The loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; and • The development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss.

6.2.7 An independent survey dated 9th June 2016 showing the recent usage trends of the Tennis Courts demonstrated minimal demand for the existing courts.

“Across the entire 4 week period, 18 games of tennis were observed being played. There was only one incidence of the courts being used for something other than tennis, this was a member of public who spent 1 hour walking his dog. The observations also took place under a variety of weather conditions. It was never observed that there were more than 3 games being played at any one time.”

6.2.8 The existing 14 courts are underused which has been demonstrated by an independent survey and the Council’s own observations of the courts. This is likely to be due to an overprovision of courts, the location alongside the busy A10 and their accessibility. The courts are in need of repair and have become surplus to requirements.

6.2.9 The application is submitted in conjunction with planning application ref: 17/04488/RE4 (recommended approval) for four new tennis courts on Firs Farm Playing fields sited approximately 550 metres from the existing courts.

6.2.10 A provision of £500,000 has been ring fenced for the provision of four new courts on the adjoining Firs Farm Playing Fields and tennis within the borough which is supported by Sport England and the Lawn and Tennis Association. The loss of the existing 14 courts would be mitigated by the provision of four new courts (Planning Application ref: 17/04488/RE4 recommended approval) sited within Firs Farm Playing Fields approximately 550 metres south of the existing site included in the provision of the £500,000 ring fenced for tennis within the borough. The four new courts would provide a better provision of tennis facility in terms of quality in a more suitable location along with funding for the improvement of other sites. The loss of the existing tennis courts is clearly outweighed by this funding resulting in the provision of four new tennis courts and improvements to other sites in the borough.

6.3 Metropolitan Open Land

6.3.1 The application site is designated as Metropolitan Open Land and so is afforded the highest degree of protection from inappropriate development. The strongest protection should be given to London’s Metropolitan Open Land and inappropriate development refused, except in very special circumstances, giving the same level of protection as in the Green Belt. Essential ancillary facilities for appropriate uses will only be acceptable where they maintain the openness of MOL.

6.3.2 The use of the site as a cemetery is consistent with an MOL designation. This is set of in paragraph 89 of the NPPF. A shortfall in burial space within the borough has been identified and the requirements for additional burial space have been set out in Cabinet Report dated 13th September 2017 (Appendix 2). It is also set out in this report other sites and options that have been considered. It was concluded that to meet the future demand the extension of Edmonton Cemetery, is the only feasible and financially viable option available to the Council.

6.3.3 The proposed development is for the extension of the existing cemetery providing an additional 2137 burial spaces including an appropriate mix of earth graves, engineered vaulted graves and mausolew chambers. The proposed additional burial spaces will not have a greater visual harm on the open character, appearance and the openness of the surrounding MOL. The use as a cemetery is not inappropriate development and does not conflict with the purposes set out in Core Policy 34 of the Core Strategy, Policies DMD81 and DMD84 of the Development Management Document, Policy 7.17 of The London Plan, and with guidance contained with the National Planning Policy Framework.

6.3.4 Sport England have been consulted on the project and as part of their consideration have been presented with a letter dated 28th November 2017 from the Chief Executive confirming that Cabinet approved the allocation of £500,000 for tennis investment in the borough. Cabinet agreed that the money would be distributed between the construction of four new tennis courts at Firs Farm Playing Fields, and the upgrading of a number of courts at park sites across the borough.

6.3.5 Sport England has advised that the commitment of the London Borough of Enfield to invest £500,000 in providing four new courts at Firs Farm Playing Fields and the upgrading of up to 15 tennis courts throughout the borough as mitigation is welcomed by both Sport England and the Lawn and Tennis Association and Sport England does not wish to raise an objection to this application as it is considered broadly to meet exception E4 of its Playing Fields Policy.

6.4 Securing funding

6.4.1 Cabinet have approved the allocation of £500,000 for tennis investment in the borough. Cabinet agreed that the money would be distributed between the construction of four new tennis courts at Firs Farm Playing Fields, and the upgrading of a number of courts at park sites across the borough. Chief Executive Ian Davis letter dated 28th November 2017 confirms the Councils commitment in securing the allocation of the funding.

6.5 Impact on Neighbouring Properties

6.5.1 The closest residential properties are sited to the south of the application site on Kipling Terrace. The area of land closest to the residential occupiers of Kipling Terrace is heavily screened with trees and soft landscaping and would act as a buffer between the extended cemetery and the residential neighbours. Given the maintained gap and screening along with the nature of the development extending the existing grave yard it is not considered the proposal would result in any further harm to the existing amenity of the nearby residential occupiers in terms of loss of outlook or additional noise and disturbance, having regard to Core Policies 30 & 32 of the Core Strategy, Policy DMD68 of the Development Management Document, Policy 7.15 of The London Plan.

6.6 Site and Surroundings

6.6.1 Policy CP30 of the Core Strategy requires new development to be of a high quality design and in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. Policy DMD37 requires development to be suitable for its intended function, appropriate to its context and surroundings.

6.6.2 The proposed development is for the expansion of the existing cemetery, where there would be a continuation of burial plots. The proposed plots will not have a greater visual harm on the open character, appearance and the openness of the Metropolitan Open Land and not inappropriate development. The development will not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Metropolitan Open Land, having regard to Core Policy 33 of the Core Strategy, Policies DMD71 & 84 of the Development Management Document.

6.6.3 New boundary fencing consists of standard wire mesh which is a typical example of fencing used on many open developments. The fencing is reasonable in its height, design and colour which given the existing trees on site as well as proposed landscaping will be well screened from the surrounding streets.

6.6.4 The proposed fencing would not have any significant impact on the visual amenity within the surrounding area and is therefore considered acceptable.

6.7 Car Parking, Servicing and Highway Safety

6.7.1 Car Parking

6.7.2 The site has no formal parking and visitors generally use the site circulation to park temporarily adjacent the grave they are visiting. It is estimated that there would be an additional burial per fortnight. For the proposed use ongoing visitor numbers are also likely to be low. Therefore, the change in trips should not have a significant impact on the transport network.

6.7.3 Access

6.7.4 The existing cemetery is accessed via Church Street and this access would remain. The access road into the cemetery is of sufficient length to accommodate a number of vehicles entering the site as part of a funeral cortege. Services will be a minimum of two hours apart and taken together with the length of the access road this should prevent an excessive number of vehicles queuing on the public highway not having an impact on the free flow of traffic including bus services along church Street.

6.7.5 It is also acknowledged that the removal of tennis court provision is likely to reduce the number of trips to this use including lower demand for the vehicular access from the A10 which is positive.

6.7.6 Highway safety

6.7.7 The site is located adjacent to the A10 Great Cambridge Road which forms part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN). TfL is the highway authority for the TLRN, and have been consulted on the proposals.

6.7.8 A Draft Construction Management Plan has been submitted and due to the existing layout of the cemetery site construction vehicles are required to access the Site via Great Cambridge Road.

6.7.9 TfL’s main concern is with the interaction of the bus stop and proposed access point. A Road Safety Report has been undertaken and submitted to TfL. Comments from TfL confirm the Road Safety team are generally satisfied. However, the main point is the role of the banksman that would have to be assured, with a method of understanding to agree how they manage pedestrians and vehicle access/egress. Also discussions with buses and the asset operations team will be needed regarding moving the bus stop/shelter.

6.7.10 The agent is in the process of submitting this information to TfL and a detailed Construction Management Plan will be secured by condition.

6.8 Landscaping

6.8.1 There are a number of very significant trees of high amenity value located within the cemetery and adjacent to the proposed development. It is imperative to ensure that these trees are retained and remain unharmed throughout any of the proposed works.

6.8.2 The works involve the removal of particular trees within the site. Replacements are provided along with hedgerows and soft landscaping where appropriate. The proposed scheme provides good quality landscaping which enhances the local environment.

6.8.3 A Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact assessment, Preliminary Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan in Accordance with BS 5837:2012 have been submitted detailing the loss of low quality trees and the measure to be taken to protect the existing trees.

6.8.4 The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has advised that there are no objections subject to a final detailed Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan in Accordance with BS 5837:2012 being requested by condition.

6.9 SuDS 6.9.1 No objection to the development in principle. However, a detailed Sustainable Drainage Strategy is required and this can be covered by condition.

6.10 Ground contamination

6.10.1 Environment Agency have been consulted and expressed concerns regarding potential Ground Water Pollution, they recommend that a Tier 1 Risk Assessment be undertaken. A Tier 1 Ground Water Risk Assessment has been undertaken and submitted to Environment Agency for further comments which will be reported verbally at committee.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The proposed development would result in the creation of needed additional burial space, whilst securing funding for four new courts at Firs Farm Playing Fields (planning application Ref: 17/04488/RE4 submitted in conjunction with this development) and tennis within the borough, not adversely impacting on the use of Metropolitan Open Land or the character and setting of the surrounding area, not having an adverse impact to the neighbouring amenity or unacceptable impact to highway function and safety.

8. Recommendation

8.1 That planning permission be granted subject to conditions:

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of the decision notice.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of S.51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans;

377-ALA-00-XX-DR-L-0001 S2 P03 377-ALA-00-XX-DR-L-0002 P02 377-ALA-00-XX-DR-L-0003 P03 377-ALA-00-XX-DR-L-0005 P03 377-ALA-00-XX-DR-L-0006 S2 P01 377-ALA-00-XX-DR-L-0007 S2 P01 377-ALA-00-XX-DR-L-0008 S2 P02 377-ALA-00-XX-DR-L-0015 S2 P01 377-ALA-00-XX-DR-L-0016 S2 P01 6171-0 Biodiversity Survey Design & Access Statement Drainage Ground Contamination Assessment Planning Statement Preliminary AMS & TPP Draft Construction Management Plan Road Safety Audit GEO Environment Survey Historic Environment Survey SUDS

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3. Predicted EA conditions to be attached

4. That development shall not commence on site until a construction methodology has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The construction methodology shall contain: (i) photographic condition survey of the roads and footways leading to the site of construction, (ii) details of construction access and vehicle routing to the site, (iii) arrangements for vehicle servicing and turning areas, (iv) arrangements for the parking of contractors vehicles, (v) arrangements for wheel cleaning, (vi) arrangements for the storage of materials, (vii) arrangements for deliveries, (viii) hours of work, and, (ix) any and all works to maintain and make good the existing private access to the site both during and following construction.

The development shall then be undertaken in accordance with the approved construction methodology unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. TfL concerns with regards the location of the Banksman and its role and potential temporary relocation of bus shelter will also need to be agreed before any works commence on site.

Reason: To ensure the implementation of the development does impact on highway or pedestrian safety or lead to damage to the existing roads and to minimise disruption to neighbouring properties.

5. The development shall not commence until details of the siting, number and design of secure/covered cycle parking spaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall thereafter be installed and permanently retained for cycle parking.

Reason: To ensure the provision of cycle parking spaces in line with the Council's adopted standards.

6. The development shall not commence until a Sustainable Drainage Strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall be based on the disposal of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system in accordance with the principles as set out in the Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework and should be in line with our DMD Policy SuDS Requirements:

a) Shall be designed to a 1 in 1 and 1 in 100 year storm event with the allowance for climate change; b) Follow the SuDS management train and London Plan Drainage Hierarchy by providing a number of treatment phases corresponding to their pollution potential; c) Should maximise opportunities for sustainable development, improve water quality , biodiversity, local amenity and recreation value; d) The system must be designed to allow for flows that exceed the design capacity to be stored on site or conveyed off-site with minimum impact; e) Clear ownership, management and maintenance arrangements must be established; and f) The details submitted shall include levels, sizing, cross sections and specifications for all drainage features.

Reason: To ensure the sustainable management of water, minimise flood risk, minimise discharge of surface water outside of the curtilage of the property and ensure that the drainage system will remain functional throughout the lifetime of the development in accordance with Policy CP28 of the Core Strategy, DMD Policy 61, and Policies 5.12 & 5.13 of the London Plan and the NPPF and to maximise opportunities for sustainable development, improve water quality, biodiversity, local amenity and recreation value.

7. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including all preparatory work), a scheme for the protection of the retained trees, in accordance with BS5837:2012, including a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) and an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Specific issues to be dealt with in the TPP and AMS:

a) Location and installation of services/ utilities/ drainage; b) Methods of demolition within the root protection area ( RPA as defined in BS5837:2012) of the retained trees; c) Details of construction within the RPA or that may impact on the retained trees; d) Tree protection during construction indicated on a TPP and construction and construction activities clearly identified as prohibited in this area; e) Boundary treatments within the RPA; f) Methodology and detailed assessment of root pruning; g) Arboricultural supervision; and h) The method of protection for the retained trees.

The development thereafter shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the retention of and avoidance of damage to retained trees on and off site in the interest of biodiversity, sustainability, and to ensure that a satisfactory standard of visual amenity is provided and maintained in accordance with Development Management Document Policy DMD80.

Notes 1. Do not scale from this drawing

SUMMARY:

No of standard plots = 1588 (inc. 272 vaults/chambers) No of oversized plots = 13 No of infant plots = 171

TOTAL = 1772

No of Mausolea plots = 127 TOTAL (stacked x 3) = 381

Edmonton Cemetery

Vehicular link to existing circulation. Extent of Existing Root Engineers to confirm build up to Protection Zone bridge existing graves

Plot alignment based on 500mm offset from vehicular access Indicative temporary tree protection fencing

APROXIMATE HEDGEROW LOCATION (TO BE REMOVED)

195 No Standard 218 No Standard 226 No Standard

Tennis 196 No Standard 13 No Oversized

113 No Standard Tennis Courts Courts 171 No 220 No Standard 210 No Standard 210 No Standard Infant

4 Date ID RISK MITIGATION Mitigated 39 No Mausolea 99 No Mausolea 93 No Mausolea 117 No Mausolea 33 No Mausolea RESIDUAL PROJECT RISKS

Footpaths to Mausolea 1.8m wide allowing space for manoevering

CAMBRIDGE ROAD Great Cambridge Road Ward Bdy GREAT CAMBRIDGE ROAD

12.09.17 S2-P04 Revised to planning status CW 22.0m 05.09.17 P08 Minor Revision to Kerb Radii at Accessway JM CW 30.08.17 S2-P03 Minor Revision to Tree Fencing Note JM CW CR 22.08.17 S2-P02 Tennis courts removed CW 07.07.17 S2-P01 Revised to planning status CW 29.06.17 P07 Issued for feasibility with Arborist JPM CW 31.05.17 P06 Revised for issue to LPA CW

25.05.17 P05 Revised layout including plot layout CW

23.05.17 P04 Layout including tennis courts CW

16.05.17 P03 Minor Changes to Road Layout JPM CW

BM 05.05.17 P02 Revised Plot Size and General Layout JPM CW Recn 03.05.17 P03 Initial Concept Design JPM CW

21.9 0 10 20 30 Playg 40 50 M DRAWN APPROVED DATE REV DESCRIPTION OF REVISION BY BY Playground G REVISIONS

SUITABILITY: S2 - PLANNING

Unit 325 East London Works 75 Whitechapel Road London E1 1DU

t: 0207 254 3332 e: [email protected] w: ares.eu.com

CLIENT : Enfield Council

PROJECT TITLE : Edmonton Cemetery

DRAWING TITLE : Illustrative Masterplan

DRAWING SCALE : DRAWN BY : DRAWN DATE : NTS JPM 11/08/2017 PAPER SIZE : APPROVED BY : A1 CW

DRAWING NUMBER : REVISION : 377-ALA-00-XX-DR-L- 0001 S2-P03 ery Notes 1. Do not scale from this drawing

Key

33 32

Chapel

22.881 22.862

22.796

2 2.857

22.859

22.787

22.944 HEADSTONE

HEADSTONE

22.896 HEADSTONE

22.83

21.426

22.678 HEADSTONE 22.935

22.871

Edmonton Cemetery BENCH

HEADSTONE 22.762

22.890

HEADST

ONE 22.952 G CL=22.731

HEADSTONE 22.940

G CL=22.739

22.727 22.941 Chapel HEADST

22.945

22.903

22. ONE

749

HEADSTONE

GRAVE

23.142

21.648

22.780 HEADSTONE

21 GRAVE

.85 22.969

HEADSTONE

22.764

22.763

22.803

21.306 22.832 22.761

21.620

2 8 22.813 22.7

22.807 G CL=22.136 22.832 7 22.8 22.78 22.796 G22.796 18 22.782CL=22.795

22.880

22.963

MH CL=22.935 UT

23.218

.60

0 G CL=22.832 22.887 21.741 22.884 22.859 22.805 22.846 22.818

GRAVE GRAVE

HEADSTONE

21.6 GRAVEGRAVE BENCH GRAVE

23.115 83

GRAVE

21.595

GRAVE

HEADSTONE

23.304

23.3 23.38 GRAVE

54 0

22.824

22.826

.70

1 21 HEADSTONE

.72

22.792

HEADSTONE .74

HEADSTONE

21.793 23.133 0 22.829

21.734

5 HEADSTONE 9

2.8 2 HEADSTONE HEADSTONE

23.342 23.361 .933 22 22.994 22.985 22.972 21.493 23.217

23.433 22.7 23.196 23.49023.479 23.216 23.404 0 21.472 8

23.0 21.776

21.728 21.861 22.420 21.235 2 3 21.933 .547

21.340 21.392 22.304 21.979 23.037 21.377

23.090

.83 23.399 23.477 21.858 6 23.326 21.907 21. 21 21.951 23.425 .87 22.073 23.120 461 22.078 23.462 21 0 22.681 .70 23.484 21.725 22.124 22.198 22.408 6 22.8 21.990 22.351 22.545 22.618 22.9 22.787

89 22.529 22.846 88

22.748 22.806 6 21 22.791 22.770 79 23.064 23.055 22.942 46 21.368 22.021 .73 .4 22.968 3. 23.104 23

2 0 23.124

23.497 8 21.749 2 22.966 3

23.226 9 22.770 22.951 23 3 23.807 23.675 23.127 23.102 4 MH . 7

.7 23.122 22.921 CL=23.276 4 . 23.186 23.240 5 . 23.027 1 23.113 22.961 2 55 582 23

3.0 . 23.084 23 21.357 22.063 23.538 3 22.908 23.160 23.160 23.702 2 23.158 23.65823.6 7 22.745 21.279 2 23.176 23.547 .297 22.878 2 3 21.747 21 . 22.608 13 21.579 P 22.155 23.207 23.125 0 23.148 8 23.126 .54 3 22.768 2 .484 22.644 22.694 23.395 22 2 22.582 22.730 21.608 22.4692.47

22.321 22.552 23 21.336 22.328 22.532 22.530 22.432 22.761 22.199 22.439 23 23.1

23.093 22.874 3 22.768 23.389 22.347 22.308 22.784 22.773 21.349 .200 22.140 22.418 22.663 22.785 22.787 21.906 22.001 23.040 . 21.872 22.771 1 22.299 23.178 23.003 7 23.34 92 1 22.217 22.763 0

014 3

. 21.281 22.347 22. 22.716 .3 22.356 22.273 2 23. 22.773 3 22.281 3

23 23 22.273 22.266 0 .58 2 21.985 22.151 22.255 22.265 22.325 2 22.298 22.304 22.744 22.784 . 22.317 3 2 21.723 22.288 22.748 22.761 22.769 3 2 22.295 93 22.749 22.747 22.739 22.761 23.185 P 21.721 21.676 21.689 21.710 22.307 22.7507 22.762 22.760 23.202 23.190 09 23.199 23.192 . 23 . 01 0 22.34922.288 22.308 .207 .05 0.05 1 0.05 23.229 21.652 21.720 21.709 0.05 0.05 0.05 P P P 0 P 0 P 0 P 21.781 0 23.200 21.814 21.678 21.665 7 0 P P 0 P 0 22 2 2 277 05 7 P P P 23 21.710 23.077 0 3 21.765 . 3.203 0.05

0 .3 0 0 . P 3 21. 22.420 1 2 22.29 22.313 22.760 22.741 23 7 0 22.282 22.321 LP 0.05 LP 3 LP LP 6 21.803 . . 82 22.483 1 2 21.344 FILLET 8 23.091 3 8 6 2 2 .6

3 6 . B 21.776 2 2 IN 11

23 21.680 22.3 21.686 P . 39 2 21.758 7 4 38

21.758 23.204 5 S 2

23. K 23. 3

816 21.268 22.483 . A 23 1 T 2 35 21.680 22. E . 25 P P 2 P 22.53 P P P PAR 5 P BH 4

22.330 22.675 22.4 BH

6 K 2 4 5

21.803 2 3. 21.803 21.669 09 23.222 21 21.765 2 1 21.680 21.275 22.328 3 2 21 22.809 23. .71 . 22.733 22.349 22.808 23.261 1 5

21.34 2

.70 21.755 22.301 57

9 2 Tennis Courts

1 3 22.768 2

69 2 78

21.708 . 6 22.752 2

1 24

. 23

21.740 2 .207 23

2 22.269 22.329 21.874 23

765 23. 22.806 21.33921.337 21. 22.327 22.312 21.730

21.325

21.637 22.305 23.189 P

22.321 1 22.7 1 0 P

.3 . 6 23 2 .168 3 68 23.310 23 . 23.147 23.286 3

23 23.

23.291 2 67 21.713 22.926

00 22.299 0 . 23

6 3 3

299 P

. 5 . 3 3. 351 21.733 1

2 2 23 .156 2 21.734 3 .2 21.683 9 6 8 23.041 23.315 21.636 9 23.315 1

21.745 23.185 P 21.744 Tennis .1 21.6

22.827 23.311 0

2 5

.13 21.270 .5 23

6 P 23.102 3

1 30 2 2

5.255

. . 3

3 4 23.17 23.205 21.317 23.133 23 .351

23 2 5 21 8 23.164

30 23.305 23.312

21.716

. .2 P . .71 23.142 0

23 P

3 23.313 9 87 18 23.299 23

2 0

7 .28 3 23.1 7 23.308 2 . E 23.195

8 0 3.2

21.727 23.

.656 5 23

2 2 23.326 23.34 49

2 7 0

2.3 21 9

79 3 23.202 .2 0

21.691 . 2 2 5 2 3.191

22.33 2

22.345 3 21.410 F 0 . 2 ENC 1

21.797 294 11

2 5 2

21.701 3 3.2 171

3. PCs .

22.360 P 2

21.785 5

2 E 3 9 0ø R 21.540 3 23.289 10 0 2 21.763 23.301 2 ø . 495 1 VP E . .15 RWP T 5 22.357 23.154 23.152 21 2 21.323 100 URN 23

21.729 21.272 23.285 9

0 P 3

22.3 . 3.

6 21.735 0 5 21.44 72 23.359 .2 23.121 23 0 23.237 2

8 22.341 22.372 3 23.108

. 55 3 . 21.756 309 1

67 21.733 21.7 .3 P . 69 3 23 2 21.431 23 2 22.369 3.2 23.0 10 22.316 23.315 . 3 2 150 . 1 21.752 9

2 08 ø 9 21.495 5

3 0 3 08

5 .1 2 . 10

36 22.833 22.844 3. 3 21.756 3

P 2 21.369 2 22.776 21.757 . 2 3 5 3 09 23.359 21.579 22.858 22 2 .

21.329 22.406 224 2

2.8

21.566 7 2 40

21.744 21.738 .88 9 21.760 3 ø .3 23.

6 93 P 23

. 295 00 21.371 22.860 3 1 9 0

21.741 4 3. . 2 21.760 3

2 21.740 22.900 22.890 22.903 23.294 7 0 21.758 22.380 22.382 23.356 6

21.38 21.449 22.335 P 0ø .30 ø 10 22.848 22.900 0 ø

23 0 0 M 22.343 BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH 1 C BENCH 22 D H BENCH BENCH P 10 F00ø L= P P 1 . P P WD O. 21. .386 22.846 P 23. 22.359 B BH ø C

22.878 23.361 476 H 349

. 00 =0. 099

21.732 2 1

3 21.656 23 3 22.8 VP

2 0 2 1 .1 0

3 00ø 7 0 . 23.238 25 1 0 21.745 22.352 P 21.410 4 . 5 1 .428 25

7 0

8 . 0 . 0 2 54 23.231 m

3 1 8 3

054 100

4 ø 23 2 21.705 23 2 .

. 100ø 22.862 1

23 3 3 2 23.361 00ø . 1 ø 0 23.382 . 2 Courts 2 6

21.574 22.356 2 23.365 23.323 1 0 MH 4 280 2 CL= 7 4 ø D 50 . 2 3 21.602 2 22.920 F R 22.870 3 .296 1 0 . W 0 O. BENCH BENCH 23. W 23.245 23. 26 .339 P D P BENCH P C= P 21.887 22. 3.38 3 P 21.725 22.220 22.037 P BH 2 2 09 BH 22.8 31 2 0 BH 23.2 P 3 23 21.775 21.711 3. . 4 51 0

21.449 22.403 2 1 0 .290 . 21.750 66 3 9 0m 1 3

21.714 P .3 1 5

21.586 2 9 22.410 22.870 5 21.602 21.762 22.398 22.888 23.349 7

21. 22.386 22.891

21.752 P 21.742 22.872

22.3

21.710 22.387 6 741 22.390 2

34 22.906

22.375

.327

57 21.679 P 22.9 øRWP 3. 0 22.867 10

2 2

1 3. 23.103 21.431 22.400

23.367 119 21.436 23.351 23.363 23.329

21.768 470 P 23.2 21 0.4 2 2 3. 21

3 2 2 22.393 .75 . 22.344 23.368 P . 78 2 P 1

9 0.5 43 9 23 21.751 9 23.12223.106 21.395 23 23.263 23.258 2

23 3 P .359

.1 21 21.749 23.227 8 . 23.190 09 23.0 30 6 23. .803 0 P P 3 99 23.359 22.874 2 10 21.588 21.846 22.4 3 21.746 .26 0 23 ø

23.237 3 4 21.741 24 2 . P

2 8 22.905 P 3. 14 1 23.020 3 . 2 R 21.9 22.911 6 3 3. 22.841 8 2 W 21.754 1 23 P P 21.752 0 P 12 2 . 22.909 3 22.839 5 S Pavilion 7 22.320 22.373 K 21.977 23.009 A B 22.393 8 T I N E 22.8 22.8 21.742 PA T

2.88 22.4

22.312 2 22.597 8 22.727 46 R EO 22.017 6 22.389 K 43 22.906 22.8

2 P 0. 22.390

2 .0 23.258 0.75 23.0 31 7 M

. 22.893 3 0

22.058 8 0 MH CL= H 42 2 0 3 0. 4 2 22.386 1 10 0 T 1 3.08 2 0ø 3.1 22.876 23 UN 3 2 0.91 2 . 3 EO 5 4 . 2 G . 053 CL= A 03 4 0.72 3. 45 0 BL

0 053 21.505 .50 22.111 22.898 23.059 E

D T 22.39 MH O 2 MH Date CL=23.028 2 3. S CO 3. 1 ILT 22.910 2 7 1 ø 21.439 9 23.210 9 20 9 N 0 5 M 22 E P T 23.144 5 2 22.181 .0 1 06 23.126 C H .

D 1 IT I 100ø 3 23 28 2 NU 3 RISK MITIGATION L= ID 23.222 . 0.3 2 1 22.9 3 2 3 . 0 2 0.65 23 150ø E. 9

23. 23.213 1 22.227 00 150ø . . 22. Fn 070 .RU Mitigated 22.909 23.136 21.737 3 B 6 P 2 5 P B 5 22.348 LE 58 .1

2 22.329 23.311 3 2 22.890 3. 22.293

22.358 23 2 44 23.341 . 1 22.880 21.759 5 23. 21.405 22.3 4 23. 23.318

21.749 22.380 164

49 1 2 3.237 22.3 2 09 3

21.427 2 . 1 2. 23 21.747 48

21.696 22.373 4 21.426 792 0.80 . 4 318 B 22.408 BE

21.748 22.803 E 22.800 22.839 N 23.3 21. 21.741 22.372

2 N 21.771 22.331 22.335 23.263 23 01 22.774 C 2 22.796 22.785 22.873 CH 22.298 1 21.415 23.024 H

21.345 569 .2 21.746 23.171 .313 21.738

8 22.857 23.

7 22.4 2 22.826 22.893 P 3 21.747 . 22.320 P P 3 P P P 78 17 BH 2 BH

21.411 P 2 3

21.756 3 .2 22.528 21.407 .3

7 1

3 2 22.307 7 23 21.407 P 23.2

19 2 RESIDUAL PROJECT RISKS 22.310 . 23.337 3 . 3

LB 3 5 . 4 1 21.404 22.587 1 2 2 0 0 22.329 3. 0 E 0 9 23 22.317 23.3 4 2 . 3 38 .351 1 .2 23.34923.357 3 76 23.120 22.639 2

22.762 22.351 0 0 0 2

.0 1 21.707 22.267 4 3

22.438 23.148 0.05 1 .1

22.074 2 0 5

21.737 22.842 P 0 LP 0 21.377 2 LP .0 LP LP 1

21.365 22.293 0.05 21.905 LP .88 23. 1

23.197 21.286 21.392 5 0 21.531 22.343 0.05 0.050

22.342 21.381 22 23 0.05 0.05 22.6 311 0 1 05 0 0. 0

21.701 21.784 21.648 21.673 21.672 . 99 21.689 21.711 21.702 . 0.05 0.05 22.833 0 0 P 238 .1 P . P 22.737 3 21.390 21.695 22.288 22.294 22.737 22.744 22.756 3 23.187 23.176 8 22.584 22.262 22.289 22.269 22.295 22.301 22.321 22 22.725 22.741 22.743 22.719 22.750 23.13723.176 23.171 23.190 23.178 23.162 23.1233.6154 23.168 21.702 22.275 22.307 22.744 22.776 23.202 2 46 21.695 21.709 22.276 73 1 21.696 21.669 21.700 . 23.377 21.635 21.646 21.670 21.673 22.341 0 22.774 0 22.849 23 3.35123.347 22.7 23.3 2 2 22. 3. BOL 23.2272 23 3 21.534 2 2 23.392

3 22.843 . 51 4 . 3.254209 66 2 .297 0 18 2 23 245 21.611 3. . 21.188 21.22221.227 22.861 2 21.237 21.559 21.591 23 0.3 21.549 22.247 67 21.240 21.610 22.233 22.247 22.683 23 4 21.566 21.634 22.287 23.118 23.129 23.115 23.138 23.316 23.225 BOL 21.652 22.664 21.555 21.635 22.167 22.259 22.275 23.084 23.131 23 . 21.247 21.695 22.689 22.683 23.298 7 22 0.7 22.674 22.871 22.748 23.145 23.124 246 3 22.680 . 22.162 22.66 3 .34 0.62 22.664 6 21.302 0.36 0.30 22.261 22.871 C 23.123 3 63 MH 0.78 COMMS 4 21.400 2 0.70 23 2 23. BT 0.65 0.70 0.81 0.72 0.62 OM 6 .380 2 CL=21.410 0.60 COMMS EOT 3 21.284 0.80 0.81 COMMS 0.70 22.868 COMMS 1.00 0.90 1.1 EOT 21.645 21.589 0.17 0.85 0.60 0.60 EOT . 2 188 23.3 1.00 23.2 2 23. 0.65 0.70 0.90 MS EOT 12 BROOK MH 21.532 1.00 3 23.3 21 CL=21.510 23.189

21.796

9 2 .2 97 D.O.C=0.000m 54

.301 22.5 CULVERT 9 2 23.178 2 23.358 .2T 21.622 8 6 21 22.926 3.1

.893 P 22.006 7 BOL 66

.9 9 21.312 23.290 92 97 923

21.918

2 .62 6 23. 33

0 2 E

UNDER .365 21.681 78 CL=23.3 21.553 1 2 23.262 3

22.817 23.3 3 P 2 943813. 23. R 1 23.455 3.2 21. 4 23.2 3.303

22 0.2 21.603 23.490 23. 425 MH 21.343 .577 0.15 V 22.305 MH

22.558 MH8 P CABINET 76 3. 0.41 ODAPHONE 22.9 C 0.15 2 21 CABINET 6 293 CABINET FO 21.334 21 CABINET 0.30 L= 23.324 23 23.4 SP 020 21.615 23.477 21 0 57 .548 21.662 7 21.542 0.30 21. 23.326 . 59 0.41 0.40 . PIT13 32 0.20 2 8 PIT12 0.40 0.40 6 5 21.676 .565 2 23 21.362 0.17 0.30 21.610 C 1 4 2 T 3. P 0.17 5 0.40 2 23.528 3 0. 0 0.25 ABINET 21.619 3.218 F . .3 21.427 21.514 EUD 4 21.455 .3 IC 21.691 0.40L 3 CL=21.537 IC CABINET 5 78 21.51 21.577 21.369 ELECTRIC CL=21.552 2 21.468 0.4 23.052 1 32 0.15 ELECTRIC LP 23.34223.3 23. 23.487 23.554 21.517 21.548 21.907 21.962 2 414 394 21.400 2.303 22.846 23. 21.601 21.718 21.809 21.825 22.018 22.031 22.434 22.768 22.814 23.088 23.157 2 .467 23.483 23.527 0 2 21.670 22.224 22.370 22.524 22.550 22.588 22.661 22.700 23.036 23.246 23.300 23.361 0.45 23.407 23.509 23.500 4 23.411 21.373 22.011 22.120 22.302 3.436 3. .4

21.393 0.4 22.165 222.9252.925 0.50 0.45 0.45 0.40 5 0.40 0.45 0.45 0.31 40 23 5 4 . 0.3 23. 21.740 0.50 0.45 0.35 0 0 0.3 0.0.4040 0.40 0.35 0.40 0.40 0.45 0.30 0.35 0.35 22.313 0.35 0.40 0.40 0.40 5 585 21 0.40 0.30 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 23 O2 0.35 0.41 BUS .381 0.30 23 .35 0.50 C 0 2 5 23.601 EOT 3 0.45 . 21.386 OMMS 2 23 0 2 .4 STOP 22.310 4 25 3. 7 4 21.438 . 9 21.808 21.818 21.942 22.039 22.553 216 3. 4 4 0.45 21.712 21.749 21.98621.986 22.091 22.135 22.223 22.339 22.493 22.606 22.714 22.866 22.9322.9311 4 377

2 21.475 0.30 21.889 22.294 22.683 22.765 23.256 P . 34 24 21.671 22.816 23.037 23.102 23.166 . 21.420 21.516 21.598 23.315 04 21.409 3 BUS 21.265 23.375 3 23.508 23.506 0.35 23.619 21.271 21.384 0.15 2 .6 2 21.282 21.399 EUD 0.10 23.651 3.6 22.7 23.516 23 23.640 21.380 21.425 23.490 23.513 2 21 23 0.20 FO 0.40 23.527 S 3 . 21.754 23 23.614 .300 23.361 . 463 21.312 MH 23 0 23.335 5 0.15 84 23.2623.26023.265 H PIT15 0.1 67 23.2 17 . 0.5 CL=21.636 22.757 23.261 E 43 MH SP . 0 21.366 2 21.3 0.25 PIT14 LT 21.361 CL=21. 0.1 1 0.1.1 7 0.50 0.41 0 2 .1 0.1 9 LB 0 ER 3.501 21.33937 MH CL=21.608 0.1 D.O.C=0.000m M 21.405 0.41 SW 0.42 0.1 MH SIG C 0.1 MH MH10 UT 21.366 0.500.50 23. H 8 E MH11 CL=22.482 439 L 23.451 0.1 0.1 624 21.754 22.772 2 0.1 CL=21.866 NVP 6 M = XT NVP 3 2 CL=23. 21.474 N L D . 23. .4 3 H 0.1 LP 2 LP E .5 . E 21.441 LP LP LP LP 0 L O. P LP SILTED LP 23.4 23 2 N SILTED 0.41 4 71 54 18 EC 22.7 3. C T 22.299 S T 21.511 SP 7 7 84 575 22.274 0.41 T = SP E 23.22 23.470 2 T 723 300ø MAST .4 3.5 RA 0 O 21.464 NS RI S 57 0.62 MH 21.400 .0 MAST 22.273 MH9 23 CL=23.230 45 C 0.40 0.41 0.5 F 0 E OR 0.20 E FI 0 23.645 22.743 23 21.421 9 m 23.629 21.47 8 .531 C CA 3.187 .4 S 32 2 21.423 22.296 23 0 23.111 23.183 23.494 E

21.619 1.396 21.401 8 21.909 B 6 2 23.518 23.54223.552 3 21.488 23.16 49 N 21.4 7 21.407 LES 23. 21.672 23.179 23.415 23.49 SOR 21.973 0.20 21.4821.4935 21.512 21.581 21.623 21.714 21.814 21.894 22.02022.023 22.049 22.132 22.179 22.233 22.297 22.359 22.423 22.516 22.579 22.614 22.713 22.752 22.819 22.862 222.2965.978 23.022 23.094 23.152 23.173 23.230 23.296 23.352 2 23. 22.277

22.757 S

23 2 22.270 3 . 188 . 6 22.766 9 1 2 2 3

23.250 . 2 7 2 3 22.772 96 3 . .392 23 8 22.778 08 . 22.779 5 E 4 T 23.5m B 0 B E E 23 T . 3 2 0 3 . 22.789 2 0 4 3 88 . 3 17 23

2 23.5 . 320 3 . E 5 46 8 23.19 4

0 23

E . 6 0 3 23

E . E E E E E505 23

-R .238 REAT CAMBRIDGE R ROAD Great Cambridge Road Ward Bdy GREAT CAMBRIDGE ROAD E CR

I N

T 22.0m CR

BM D Recn Gd Fn

21.92m Playground Playground

06.07.17 S2-P01 Revised to planning status CW

DRAWN APPROVED DATE REV DESCRIPTION OF REVISION 38 BY BY 0 10 20 30 40 50 M REVISIONS

Ground

Recreation SUITABILITY: Posts S2 - PLANNING

Unit 325 East London Works 75 Whitechapel Road London E1 1Du

t: 0207 254 3332 e: [email protected] w: ares.eu.com

CLIENT : Enfield Council

PROJECT TITLE : Edmonton Cemetery

DRAWING TITLE :

Dressin Existing site - topo information

DRAWING SCALE : DRAWN BY : DRAWN DATE : 1:500 JPM 22.05.2017 PAPER SIZE : APPROVED BY : A1 CW

DRAWING NUMBER : REVISION : 377-ALA-00-XX-DR-L-0007 S2-P01 Notes: 1. Do not scale from this drawing 2. To be read in conjunction with Project Risk Register REF: XXX 3. To be read in conjunction with: Weld Mesh Gate to match fencing panel 3000mm High Weldmesh Fencing - 377-ALA-00-XX-DR-L-0002/3 General Arrangement (1 and 2) - 377-ALA-00-XX-DR-L-0005 Fencing Arrangement Refer to NBS Q40: 570A Gates Refer to NBS Q40: 125D Open Mesh Panel General Purpose - 377-ALA-00-XX-SP-L-0001 Landscape NBS Specification Fencing 3.0m Weldmesh

100

Pressed 'V' form Crinkle top to fence Single Leaf Pedestrian Gate

KEY

Hisec (358) Posts : 150x150x5 SHS Panel fixed in Q40: 125D Mesh Panel, to match fencing panels Frame : 60x60x3 SHS place via Cup Manufacturer: CLD Fencing (or similar approved) Product Ref.: CLD Dulok Rebound Double Wire Panel System Square Bolts with Dulok 8-SR1 and Shear Nuts Standard: To BS 1722-14, Category 1 Height: 3.0m Colour: Black RAL 9005 Posts: 60 x 40 mm RHS Maximum Centres: 2.52m Method of Setting in Posts: Set posts in holes 300 mm diameter x 1200 mm deep, filled not less than half the depth with concrete.

Q40: 570A Manufacturer: CLD Fencing (or simiarl approved) 3000 Product Ref.: Lockmaster Swing Gates (single leaf pedestrian) Hisec (358) Size: 1200mm clear opening Mesh Panel Posts: As per manufacturer's specification Finish: As delivered, powder coated to BS 13438 Colour: Black RAL Method of Fixing: Posts set in 450mm square x 750 mm deep 9005 concrete. 4200

Continuous Clamp Bar (100mm Wide) Section Section Box Box 40 40 Bottom of fence maximum 50mm from x x 80 80 ground. If ground line varies, bury fence to 16.08.17 S2 P01 Issued for Planning Endorsement JPM CW overcome ground undulations DRAWN APPROVED DATE SUITABILITY REV DESCRIPTION OF REVISION BY BY REVISIONS Foundation design to Engineer's Detail SUITABILITY S2 - PLANNING

Foundation design to Engineer's Unit 325 East London Works Detail 75 Whitechapel Road London E1 1DU

t: 0207 254 3332 e: [email protected] w: ares.eu.com

CLIENT : Enfield Council

PROJECT TITLE : Edmonton Cemetery

DRAWING TITLE : Weldmesh Fence and Gate Detail

Weldmesh Fence and Gate Detail DRAWING SCALE : DRAWN BY : DRAWN DATE : L15-01 As Drawn JPM 11.08.17 Scale: 1:25 PAPER SIZE : APPROVED BY : A3 CW

DRAWING NUMBER : SUITABILITY : REVISION : 377-ALA-00-XX-DR-L-0015 S2 P01 ROADSTEAD HALSTEAD Notes 39 GARDENS 14 69 65 71 1. Do not scale from this drawing CLOSE to 98 25 75 77 to N 83 79 13 AINSLEY

85 to 107 74 ROAD Sub Sta ROAD 101 309

LANE El 81 93 Key HALSTEAD 90 CAMBRIDGE FIRS 91 62 23.5m 109

348 to to GREAT 85 80 119 24.7m 2 102 52 to 89 92 121 87 2 to 151 114 131 42 to 104 93 126 to 73 32 Surgery 116 FIRS PARK AVENUE 8 71 2 Bdy 20 150 CR 63 18 to Depot Ward 101 200 200 1 128 295

53 BM 21.44m 47

50 289 21.3m

91 35 1 13 346 LB 88 25 14

PARK GARDENS

FIRS 265 85

332 269

79 5 34 26

51 CHURCH 78 24 11 HYDEFIELD FIRS 267 PARK 13 CLOSE STREET GARDENS 55 23 Tennis Courts 49 19

44 TCB 37 El Sub Sta 26 Cambridge 33 Green 43 42 100 100 67 AVENUE

PARK Bowling Green 66 Edmonton 31 Def 23.2m HYDE 7 Cemetery Cemetery House

249 Pavilion

57 33 32

245 The Cottages Edmonton Cemetery 2 223

HYDE CHURCH to 1 54 233 14 330 PARK STREET

23.2m 1 Chapel

GARDENS 45 221

PCs 23.5m

33 D Fn 215 31 Chapel 17 42 Pavilion 15 Recreation 209 314 Ground PARK AVENUE HYDE 203 CR 007 532500 Tennis Courts D Fn 194000 194000

308 26 to 28 24

191 14

30 to 40 183 300

BM 22.6m 292 24.01m

286 Tennis Courts 290

284 1a

ROAD 900

Edmonton Cemetery

900 CAMBRIDGE HYDEFIELD Date 1 to ID RISK MITIGATION GREAT Mitigated 23 COURT

RemembranceGarden Cemetery of RESIDUAL PROJECT RISKS

Bdy Road

Ward CR

Edmonton 22.0m

Cambridge Pavilion

Great

800 Recreation Ground

800

14.07.17 S2-P02 Extent of boundary revised CW 06.07.17 S2-P01 Revised to planning status CW

DRAWN APPROVED DATE REV DESCRIPTION OF REVISION BY BY Playground REVISIONS

Playground SUITABILITY:

ROAD Posts S2 - PLANNING

44 Recn Gd

Bdy Firs Farm Playing Fields CAMBRIDGE BM 21.92m Unit 325 East London Works 700 75 Road GREAT Whitechapel

38 London E1 1DU Dressing Rooms 700 0 10 20 30 40 50 M t: 0207 254 3332 e: [email protected]

38 w: ares.eu.com

33 CLIENT : LATYMER 21.0m 68 WAY Enfield Council

32 PROJECT TITLE : 54 55 53 Edmonton Cemetery

DRAWING TITLE : 40 37 Site Location Plan Car Park LATYMER WAY Terrace Terrace DRAWING SCALE : DRAWN BY : DRAWN DATE : Car 26 Park 1:1250 JPM 31.05.2017

28 Lamb's Kipling

25 PAPER SIZE : APPROVED BY :

600 Bdy 19 A1 CW The Oak

CR Ward

23 DRAWING NUMBER : REVISION : 600 16 377-ALA-00-XX-DR-L-0008 S2-P02 Notes 1. Do not scale from this drawing 2. To be read in conjunction with Project Risk Register REF: XXX 3. To be read in conjunction with all other Landscape Architect''s drawings Proposed Planting Schedule Code Botanical Name Common Name Specification Height at Installation (m) Spacing Quantity Trees ACE pse Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore 5x; Semi-mature; clear stem min. 200cm; rootball 6.0-7.0 As Shown 5 Key AES hip Aesculus hippocastanum Common Horse Chestnut 5x; Semi-mature; clear stem min. 200cm; rootball 6.0-7.0 As Shown 6 TIL cor Tilia cordata Small-leaved Lime 5x; Semi-mature; clear stem min. 200cm; rootball 6.0-7.0 As Shown 6 Plot Layouts Ace cam Acer campestre Common Maple 5x; Semi-mature; clear stem min. 200cm; rootball 6.0-7.0 As Shown 4 Extent of burial plots Dimensions provided by Enfield Council Hedgerow TAX bac Taxus baccata Yew Rootball w/ 4x leaders furnished to base 1.5-1.75 2 per lin. m 708 Burial plots prohited within root zone Refer to Arboricultural Impact Assessment

of 2) of Vegetation

2 Refer to Tree Removal Plan (DWG No. L-0014)

Existing Tree to be Retained

Existing Tree Protection Zone

Existing Vegetation to be Removed

Edmonton Cemetery Proposed Tree Boundary Planting 'Yew Hedge' Proposed boundary treatment to drawing (See Page Break

tie in to existing cemetery boundary Surfacing Grass Seed Refer to Planting Plan (DWG No. L-0014) Grass Turf Refer to Planting Plan (DWG No. L-0014) Access Road with Tree Protection Tobermore Hydropave Tegula 200 Concrete Block P1 Colour: Charcoal To Engineer's Specification Vehicular Asphalt P2 To Engineer's Specification

Pedestrian Asphalt To Engineer's Specification 21.87m P3 TAX bac 22.02m 22.07m 22.2m 22.48m 22.81m Levels 21.65m (22.52) Existing Level

TIL cor TIL cor 22.44m Proposed Level

Boundary treatment Refer Fencing Arrangement (DWG No. L-0005) 21.81m 21.85m Boundary Fencing 21.72m ACE cam ACE pse Structures 21.85m Stand Pipes S1 To Engineer's Specifications S1 21.92m 22.04m 22.19m 22.33m 22.48m 22.65m 21.88m TOK 22.40 S1 P2 P2 Note. Existing soft to be made good and 21.82m TOK 22.28 TOK 22.31 21.66m re-seeded where necessary 21.86m 21.98m 22.13m 22.27m 22.42m 22.59m 21.79m AES hip ACE pse

21.75m 21.79m

AES hip AES hip

Date ID RISK MITIGATION Mitigated TIL cor ACE cam 21.31m 21.42m 21.44m 21.5m 21.62m 21.77m 21.93m 21.98m 22m 22.08m 22.27m RESIDUAL PROJECT RISKS 21.65m 21.42m 21.44m 21.98m 22m

21.65m P3 21.43m 21.45m P3 21.99m 22.1m

21.3m 21.49m 21.61m 21.76m 21.92m 22.07m 22.26m

22.08.17 S2-P02 Tennis courts omitted CW 03.08.17 D2-P01 Prepared for Tender status; and JPM LA Tree Protection Paving added 06.07.17 S2-P01 Revised to planning status CW 30.05.17 P05 Plant schedule and general details added JPM CW (21.67) (21.81) (21.96) (22.17) 23.05.17 P04 Revised layout CW 23.05.17 P03 1:200 scale CW (21.44) (21.52) 17.05.17 P02 Revised following comments JPM CW DRAWN APPROVED DATE REV DESCRIPTION OF REVISION BY BY REVISIONS

TAX bac ACE pse TIL cor SUITABILITY: S2 - PLANNING of 2) of

2 Unit 325 East London Works Great Cambridge Road 75 Whitechapel Road London E1 1Du

t: 0207 254 3332 e: [email protected] w: ares.eu.com

CLIENT : Enfield Council

PROJECT TITLE : Edmonton Cemetery Page Break (See drawing (See Page Break

DRAWING TITLE : General Arrangement (1 of 2) 0 10 20 30 40 50 M DRAWING SCALE : DRAWN BY : DRAWN DATE : 1:200 JPM 16.05.2017 PAPER SIZE : APPROVED BY : A1 CW

DRAWING NUMBER : REVISION : 377-ALA-00-XX-DR-L- 0002 P02 Notes 1. Do not scale from this drawing 2. To be read in conjunction with Project Risk Register REF: XXX 3. To be read in conjunction with all other Landscape Architect''s Proposed Planting Schedule drawings Code Botanical Name Common Name Specification Height at Installation (m) Spacing Quantity Trees ACE pse Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore 5x; Semi-mature; clear stem min. 200cm; rootball 6.0-7.0 As Shown 5 Key AES hip Aesculus hippocastanum Common Horse Chestnut 5x; Semi-mature; clear stem min. 200cm; rootball 6.0-7.0 As Shown 6 TIL cor Tilia cordata Small-leaved Lime 5x; Semi-mature; clear stem min. 200cm; rootball 6.0-7.0 As Shown 6 Plot Layouts Ace cam Acer campestre Common Maple 5x; Semi-mature; clear stem min. 200cm; rootball 6.0-7.0 As Shown 4 Extent of burial plots Dimensions provided by Enfield Council Hedgerow TAX bac Taxus baccata Yew Rootball w/ 4x leaders furnished to base 1.5-1.75 2 per lin. m 708 Burial plots prohited within root zone Refer to Arboricultural Impact Assessment

Vegetation Refer to Tree Removal Plan (DWG No. L-0014) of 2) of

1 Existing Tree to be Retained

Existing Tree Protection Zone

Existing Vegetation to be Removed

Proposed Tree (22.86) (22.85) Edmonton Cemetery Boundary Planting 'Yew Hedge'

Page Break (See drawing (See Page Break Surfacing (22.88) (22.96) Grass Seed Refer to Planting Plan (DWG No. L-0014) Grass Turf Refer to Planting Plan (DWG No. L-0014) (22.90) (23.12) Access Road with Tree Protection Tobermore Hydropave Tegula 200 Concrete Block P1 P1 Colour: Charcoal To Engineer's Specification Vehicular Asphalt P2 To Engineer's Specification

Pedestrian Asphalt (23.40) (23.43) P3 To Engineer's Specification

22.81m 22.92m Levels 22.94m (22.52) Existing Level (22.76) (22.75) 22.44m Proposed Level

Boundary treatment Refer Fencing Arrangement (DWG No. L-0005) Boundary Fencing

(22.81) ACE cam Structures TOK 22.94 TOK 22.98 (23.30) Stand Pipes S1 S1 To Engineer's Specifications 22.65m 22.8m S1 22.94m 23.05 TOK 22.94 TOK 22.98 TOK 22.90 P2 P2

TOK 22.92 TOK 22.94 TOK 22.88 (23.35) 23.10 22.59m 22.74m 22.91m (22.89) ACE cam

TAX bac

AES hip (23.36) 23.11

Date ID RISK MITIGATION Mitigated 22.27m 22.42m 22.6m 22.6mACE pse 22.69m RESIDUAL PROJECT RISKS 22.6m 22.6m 22.79m

P3 22.79m P3 (23.28) 22.93 22.26m 22.41m 22.55m 22.68m (22.80)

12.09.17 S2-P03 Minor Revision to Kerb Radii at Accessway CW 22.08.17 S2-P02 Tennis courts omitted CW 03.08.17 D2-P01 Prepared for Tender status; and JPM LA Tree Protection Paving added (22.52) (22.78) (23.01) 06.07.17 S2-P01 Revised to planning status CW 30.05.17 P03 Plant schedule and general details added JPM CW

of 2) of 23.05.17 P02 Layout including tennis courts CW

1 DRAWN APPROVED DATE REV DESCRIPTION OF REVISION BY BY REVISIONS

TAX bac TIL cor TAX bac SUITABILITY: S2 - PLANNING

Unit 325 East London Works 75 Whitechapel Road London E1 1Du

t: 0207 254 3332 Page Break (See drawing (See Page Break Great Cambridge Road e: [email protected] w: ares.eu.com

CLIENT : Enfield Council

PROJECT TITLE : Edmonton Cemetery

DRAWING TITLE : General Arrangement (2 of 2) 0 10 20 30 40 50 M DRAWING SCALE : DRAWN BY : DRAWN DATE : 1:200 CW 23.05.2017 PAPER SIZE : APPROVED BY : A1 CW

DRAWING NUMBER : REVISION : 377-ALA-00-XX-DR-L- 0003 P03 EDMONTON CEMETERY London N9

London Borough of Enfield

Historic environment assessment

July 2017

© Museum of London Archaeology 2017 Museum of London Archaeology Mortimer Wheeler House 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London N1 7ED tel 020 7410 2200 | fax 020 410 2201 www.museumoflondonarchaeology.org.uk general enquiries: [email protected] EDMONTON CEMETERY Great Cambridge Road London N9 9UH

Historic environment assessment

NGR 532991 193906

Sign-off history issue issue date prepared by reviewed by approved by notes no. 1 07/07/2017 Emily Dennis Rupert Featherby Christina Holloway Baseline issued to client Florence Smith Nicholls Lead Consultant Contract Manager (Archaeology) Archaeology Juan Jose Fuldain (Graphics) 2 13/07/2017 Florence Smith Nicholls Rupert Featherby Christina Holloway Responding to client (Archaeology) Lead Consultant Contract Manager comments, Archaeology and inclusion of impact assessment

MOLA code: P1174

www.mola.org.uk MOLA Mortimer Wheeler House, 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London N1 7ED tel 0207 410 2200 email: [email protected] Museum of London Archaeology is a company limited by guarantee Registered in England and Wales Company registration number 07751831 Charity registration number 1143574 Registered office Mortimer Wheeler House, 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London N1 7ED Contents

Executive 1

1 Introduction 2 1.1 Origin and scope of the report 2 1.2 Designated heritage assets 2 1.3 Aims and objectives 2

2 Methodology and sources consulted 4 2.1 Sources 4 2.2 Methodology 4 2.3 Assumptions and limitations 5

3 The site: topography, geology and modern impacts 6 3.1 Site location 6 3.2 Topography 6 3.3 Geology 6

4 Archaeological and historical background 8 4.1 Overview of past investigations 8 4.2 Chronological summary 8

5 Statement of significance 12 5.1 Introduction 12 5.2 Factors affecting archaeological survival 12 5.3 Archaeological potential and significance 12

6 Impact of proposals 14 6.1 Proposals 14 6.2 Implications 14

7 Conclusion and recommendations 16

8 Gazetteer of known historic environment assets 17

9 Planning framework 21 9.1 Statutory protection 21 9.2 National Planning Policy Framework 21 9.3 Greater London regional policy 23 9.4 Local planning policy 24

10 Determining significance 25

11 Non-archaeological constraints 26

12 Glossary 27

13 Bibliography 29 13.1 Published and documentary sources 29 13.2 Other Sources 29 13.3 Cartographic sources 30 13.4 Available site survey information checklist 30

Cover: south-west-facing view of the site (MOLA Photograph No. 11, 19/06/2017)

Fig 1 Site location Fig 2 Historic environment features map Fig 3 Locations of BGS boreholes, client borehole and client test pit Fig 4 A plan of the parish of Edmonton in the county of Middlesex showing the allotments in the common fields and common marsh as divided by the act of parliament in the years 1801 & 1802 (Enfield Local Studies Library) Fig 5 Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25”: mile map of 1867 Fig 6 Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 25”: mile map of 1896 Fig 7 Ordnance Survey 3rd edition 25”: mile map of 1914 Fig 8 Ordnance Survey 25”: mile map of 1935 Fig 9 Ordnance Survey 1:2,500 scale map of 1991 Fig 10 Image showing south-west-facing side of site (MOLA Photograph No. 11, 19/06/2017) Fig 11 Image showing east-facing section of test pit 3 (MOLA Photograph No. 37, 19/06/2017) Fig 12 Plan of existing levels in the north-east corner of the site (1st Horizon Surveying & Engineering Ltd, Drawing No. PE-EC2090-01) Fig 13 Plan of existing levels in the south-west corner of the site (1st Horizon Surveying & Engineering Ltd, Drawing No. PE-EC2090-05) Fig 14 Plan of existing site (Ares Landscape Architects, Drawing No. XXX-ALA-00-XXDR-L-007) Fig 15 Illustrated Masterplan of proposed extension of Edmonton Cemetery (Ares Landscape Architects, Drawing No.XXX-ALA-00-XX-DR-L-001)

Note: site outlines may appear differently on some figures owing to distortions in historic maps. North is approximate on early maps.

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 ii P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx Executive

Pick Everard on behalf of Enfield Borough Council has commissioned MOLA to carry out a historic environment assessment in advance of the proposed extension of Edmonton Cemetery in the London Borough of Enfield. The scheme comprises the removal of ten out of fourteen of the existing tennis courts, the creation of open areas for burial plots, a mausoleum structure extending along one side of the site, new vehicular access and landscaping. The existing skate park, pavilion and lavatory block will all remain in situ. This desk-based study assesses the impact on buried heritage assets (archaeological remains). Although above ground heritage assets (historic structures) are not discussed in detail, they have been noted where they assist in the archaeological interpretation of the site. Buried heritage assets that may be affected by the proposals comprise: x Roman remains. Evidence of Roman occupation has been found at Churchfield Primary School approximately 700m to the south-east of the site, and isolated finds have been recovered at Church Street, 700m to the north-west of the site and Orpington Gardens, 700m to the south-east. There is low to moderate potential for Roman finds within the site, most likely to be residual in nature (i.e. mixed with later material), and of low to medium significance for their evidential value. There is low potential for remains from other periods, apart from below-ground remains of 20th century structures which are likely to be of negligible archaeological significance. The site was outside the main areas of occupation throughout its history, although evidence of tree clearance and field creation in the late Neolithic and Bronze Age has been identified 280m to the north-east of the site. The excavation of a geotechnical trial pit was observed during the site visit undertaken as part of the preparation of this report. A deposit of crushed red brick or tile and a layer of charcoal were identified in the east-facing side of the pit below the topsoil and above natural brickearth. The most significant modern impact on the site will have been the construction of a narrow rectangular structure which existed on the site at least between 1959 and 1991 and will have likely truncated or completely removed any archaeological remains within its footprint. The development of the tennis courts will have had a very limited impact on any archaeological remains within their footprint. The site is not within an archaeological priority area as designated by the London Borough of Enfield. Although the proposed development – in particular the use of the site for burials – would have a severe below-ground impact, the site is considered to have generally low archaeological potential and any remains present are predicted to be of limited significance. It is therefore unlikely that the Local Authority would require further investigation in connection with the proposals, and no archaeological work is recommended.

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 1 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx 1 Introduction

1.1 Origin and scope of the report

1.1.1 Pick Everard of behalf of Enfield Borough Council has commissioned MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology) to carry out a historic environment assessment in advance of the proposed extension of Edmonton Cemetery; National Grid Reference (NGR) 532991 193906: Fig 1. The scheme comprises the removal of ten out of fourteen of the existing tennis courts, the creation of open areas for burial plots, a mausoleum structure and new vehicular access. The existing skate park, pavilion and lavatory block will all remain in situ. 1.1.2 This desk-based study assesses the impact of the scheme on buried heritage assets (archaeological remains). It forms an initial stage of investigation of the area of proposed development (hereafter referred to as the ‘site’) and may be required in relation to the planning process in order that the local planning authority (LPA) can formulate an appropriate response in the light of the impact upon any known or possible heritage assets. These are parts of the historic environment which are considered to be significant because of their historic, evidential, aesthetic and/or communal interest. 1.1.3 This report deals solely with the archaeological implications of the development and does not cover possible built heritage issues, except where buried parts of historic fabric are likely to be affected. Above ground assets (i.e., designated and undesignated historic structures and conservation areas) on the site or in the vicinity that are relevant to the archaeological interpretation of the site are discussed. Whilst the significance of above ground assets is not assessed in this archaeological report, direct physical impacts upon such assets arising from the development proposals are noted. The report does not assess issues in relation to the setting of above ground assets (e.g., visible changes to historic character and views). 1.1.4 The assessment has been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (DCLG 2012, 2014; see section 10 of this report) and to standards specified by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA Dec 2014a, 2014b), Historic England (EH 2008, HE 2015), and the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS 2015). Under the ‘Copyright, Designs and Patents Act’ 1988 MOLA retains the copyright to this document. 1.1.5 Note: within the limitations imposed by dealing with historical material and maps, the information in this document is, to the best knowledge of the author and MOLA, correct at the time of writing. Further archaeological investigation, more information about the nature of the present buildings, and/or more detailed proposals for redevelopment may require changes to all or parts of the document.

1.2 Designated heritage assets

1.2.1 The site does not contain any nationally designated (protected) heritage assets, such as scheduled monuments, listed buildings or registered parks and gardens. 1.2.2 The site does not lie within an Archaeological Priority Area (APA). The site does not lie within a Conservation Area nor does it contain any locally listed buildings. 1.2.3 The site is within the grounds of Edmonton Cemetery but not within the area currently used for burials. Given the date of the cemetery, it is unlikely that burials took place within the site prior to it being used for tennis courts.

1.3 Aims and objectives

1.3.1 The aim of the assessment is to: x identify the presence of any known or potential buried heritage assets that may be affected by the proposals;

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 2 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx x describe the significance of such assets, as required by national planning policy (see section 9 for planning framework and section 10 for methodology used to determine significance); x assess the likely impacts upon the significance of the assets arising from the proposals; and x provide recommendations for further assessment where necessary of the historic assets affected, and/or mitigation aimed at reducing or removing completely any adverse impacts upon buried heritage assets and/or their setting.

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 3 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx 2 Methodology and sources consulted

2.1 Sources

2.1.1 For the purposes of this report the documentary and cartographic sources, including results from any archaeological investigations in the site and a study area around it were examined in order to determine the likely nature, extent, preservation and significance of any buried heritage assets that may be present within the site or its immediate vicinity. This information has been used to determine the potential for previously unrecorded heritage assets of any specific chronological period to be present within the site. 2.1.2 In order to set the site into its full archaeological and historical context, information was collected on the known historic environment features within a 1000m-radius study area around it, as held by the primary repositories of such information within Greater London. These comprise the Greater London Historic Environment Record (GLHER) and the Museum of London Archaeological Archive (MoL Archaeological Archive). The GLHER is managed by Historic England and includes information from past investigations, local knowledge, find spots, and documentary and cartographic sources. The MoL Archaeological Archive includes a public archive of past investigations and is managed by the Museum of London. The study area was considered through professional judgement to be appropriate to characterise the historic environment of the site. Occasionally there may be reference to assets beyond this study area, where appropriate, e.g., where such assets are particularly significant and/or where they contribute to current understanding of the historic environment. 2.1.3 In addition, the following sources were consulted: x MOLA – in-house Geographical Information System (GIS) with statutory designations GIS data, the locations of all ‘key indicators’ of known prehistoric and Roman activity across Greater London, past investigation locations, projected Roman roads; burial grounds from the Holmes burial ground survey of 1896; georeferenced published historic maps; Defence of Britain survey data, in-house archaeological deposit survival archive and archaeological publications; x Historic England – information on statutory designations including scheduled monuments and listed buildings, along with identified Heritage at Risk; x Enfield Local Studies Library and Archive – historic maps and published histories; x Groundsure Landmark – historic Ordnance Survey maps from the first edition (1860– 70s) to the present day, and Goad insurance maps; x British Geological Survey (BGS) – solid and drift geology digital map; online BGS geological borehole record data; x Pick Everard – existing architectural drawings (Ares Landscape Architects, May 2017), existing site survey (1st Horizon, 05/2017); x Internet – web-published material including the LPA local plan, and information on conservation areas and locally listed buildings. 2.1.4 The assessment included a site visit carried out on the 19th of June 2017 in order to determine the topography of the site and existing land use/the nature of the existing buildings on the site, and to provide further information on areas of possible past ground disturbance and general historic environment potential. Observations made on the site visit have been incorporated into this report. Two of the buildings on the site (a lavatory block and a pavilion), were boarded up and thus inaccessible.

2.2 Methodology

2.2.1 Fig 2 shows the location of known historic environment features within the study area. These have been allocated a unique historic environment assessment reference number (HEA 1, 2, etc), which is listed in a gazetteer at the back of this report and is referred to in the text. No listed buildings were within 100m of the site and so none are recorded. Conservation areas

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 4 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx and archaeological priority areas are not shown. All distances quoted in the text are approximate (within 5m). 2.2.2 Section 10 sets out the criteria used to determine the significance of heritage assets. This is based on four values set out in Historic England’s Conservation principles, policies and guidance (EH 2008), and comprise evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal value. The report assesses the likely presence of such assets within (and beyond) the site, factors which may have compromised buried asset survival (i.e. present and previous land use), as well as possible significance. 2.2.3 Section 11 includes non-archaeological constraints. Section 12 contains a glossary of technical terms. A full bibliography and list of sources consulted may be found in section 13 with a list of existing site survey data obtained as part of the assessment.

2.3 Assumptions and limitations

2.3.1 A narrow rectangular building is shown on Ordnance Survey maps from 1959 to 1991 but has not survived till the present day. No further details are known about the nature of this structure but it is assumed that its formation level is no greater than 1m below ground. 2.3.2 The nature and extent of the foundations for the proposed mausolea are not known but they are anticipated to reach no more than the maximum depth of the burial plots, i.e. 2.7m (Enfield Council, 2016). 2.3.3 The extent and nature of groundworks associated with the construction of a vehicular link between the cemetery extension and the existing cemetery is not yet finalised, but it is assumed these would reach no greater depth than 0.5–1m. It is assumed that general groundworks associated with the vehicular access would reach no greater depth than 0.5m. 2.3.4 It has been assumed that landscaping would have an impact to a depth in excess of 0.5m.

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 5 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx 3 The site: topography, geology and modern impacts

3.1 Site location

3.1.1 The site is located on Great Cambridge Road in Edmonton, Enfield N9 (NGR 532991 193906 Fig 1 and Fig 14), 1.4km north-west of Edmonton Green railway station. The site area is 0.1ha and is bounded by woodland to the north, the A10 (Great Cambridge Road) to the east, terraced houses to the south and Edmonton Cemetery to the east. The site falls within the historic parish of Edmonton, and was within the county of Middlesex prior to being absorbed into the administration of the Greater London Borough of Enfield. 3.1.2 The nearest main watercourse to the site is the River Lea, approximately 4km to the east of the site. One of its tributaries, Salmon’s Brook, flows north-west to south-east, 580m to the north-east of the site.

3.2 Topography

3.2.1 Topography can provide an indication of suitability for settlement, and ground levels can indicate whether the ground has been built up or truncated, which can have implications for archaeological survival (see section 5.2). 3.2.2 The ground level within the study area is relatively flat, but slopes down from 30m above Ordnance Datum (OD) on Ridge Avenue, 940m to the north-west, to 20m OD on Sweet Briar Grove, 920m to the south-east, towards the River Lea (Fig 10). 3.2.3 The ground level within the site slopes down from 23.8m OD in the north-west corner to 21.4m OD in the south-east corner (1st Horizon PE-EC2090-01, 2017) Fig 12 and Fig 13). The tennis courts are stepped at three points with a short brick retaining wall, at the point between the northern-most tennis set of courts and those south of them where there is a 0.4m step, between the third and fourth set of courts where there is a 0.5m step, and between the fifth and sixth set of courts which is a 0.6m step.

3.3 Geology

3.3.1 Geology can provide an indication of suitability for early settlement, and potential depth of remains. 3.3.2 According to the British Geological Survey (BGS) data, the site is situated on the Kempton Park Gravel Terrace, and is overlain by fine-grained mixture of sand, clay and silt (‘brickearth’), known locally as the Enfield Silt Member. This was laid down as alluvium and/or wind-blown deposits during the last glaciation around 17,000 BC. This produced fertile soils but was often exploited for the manufacture of bricks and much has been removed by quarrying or by subsequent building development. The sedimentary bedrock is London Clay, formed approximately 34 to 56 million years ago in the Palaeogene Period. 3.3.3 A geotechnical investigation was being undertaken within the site at the time of writing, June 2017, but the results are still forthcoming. However, one borehole adjacent to the site was observed during the site visit and indicates that the top of natural brickearth would be encountered at 0.2m below ground level (mbgl) and the natural gravel at 2.2mbgl as shown in Table 1, below. 3.3.4 A trial pit (TP3 on Fig 3) dug during the geotechnical investigation was also examined during the site visit. However, as no precise measurements of the observed stratigraphy were taken this has not been included in Table 1. In the eastern section of the pit (Fig 11) a layer of ceramic building material and charcoal was observed below the topsoil and above the natural brickearth. 3.3.5 Four boreholes were sunk by Middlesex County Council in the 1950s for sewer shaft purposes immediately to the east of the site. These confirm the presence and the depths of the natural deposits in the area, the data for which can be seen in Table 1.

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 6 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx Table 1: summary of geotechnical data

Borehole Ground Level Top of topsoil/ Top of natural Top of natural made ground (brickearth) (sand/ gravel) BH1 23m OD <0.3mbgl 0.3mbgl 3.5mbgl TQ39SW49 (22.7mOD) (19.5mOD) BH2 23.3m OD <0.5mbgl 0.5mbgl 2.7mbgl TQ39SW50 (22.8mOD) (20.5mOD) BH3 22m OD <0.3mbgl 0.3mbgl 1.5mbgl TQ39SW51 (21.7mOD) (20.5mOD) BH4 21.4m OD <0.5mbgl 0.5mbgl 1.4mbgl TQ39SW52 (20.9mOD) (20mOD) BH5 22.8mOD <0.2mbgl 0.2mbgl 2.2mbgl (Client (22.6mOD) (20.6mOD) borehole 11)

3.3.6 Based on the geotechnical data and previous investigations within the study area, the top of the natural brickearth on the site is likely to be between 20m and 23m OD, i.e. c 0.2mbgl.

3.4 Modern impacts affecting archaeological survival

3.4.1 The most significant modern impact on the site has been the construction of a narrow rectangular building mentioned in 2.3.2 which may have potentially truncated any surviving archaeological remains within its footprint. The development of the ten tennis courts is anticipated to have had a minimal impact on any surviving archaeology.

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 7 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx 4 Archaeological and historical background

4.1 Overview of past investigations

4.1.1 There have been no archaeological investigations carried out within the site. Fifteen past investigations have taken place within the 1km-radius study area, all to the north and east of the site, therefore the site and its immediate vicinity are not well understood archaeologically. Two archaeological investigations have revealed evidence of prehistoric activity in the area (HEA 1 and 19), specifically relating to the later prehistoric period (Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age periods). Roman occupation has been confirmed through multiple excavations at Churchfields, (HEA 9), 700m north-east of the site. The remaining past investigations recorded remains only of the post-medieval period. 4.1.2 The results of these investigations, along with other known sites and finds within the study area, are discussed by period, below. The date ranges below are approximate.

4.2 Chronological summary

Prehistoric period (800,000 BC–AD 43) 4.2.1 The Lower (800,000–250,000 BC) and Middle (250,000–40,000 BC) Palaeolithic saw alternating warm and cold phases and intermittent perhaps seasonal occupation. During the Upper Palaeolithic (40,000–10,000 BC), after the last glacial maximum, and in particular after around 13,000 BC, further climate warming took place and the environment changed from steppe-tundra to birch and pine woodland. It is probably at this time that Britain first saw continuous occupation. Erosion has removed much of the Palaeolithic land surfaces and finds are typically residual. Several isolated Palaeolithic/ Lower Palaeolithic finds are recorded in the GLHER, including two implements found between Lower Edmonton and Winchmore Hill (HEA 18) 280m north west of the northern boundary of the site. In addition a handaxe has been found at Barrowell Green (HEA 26) 720m from the southern boundary of the site. As only three implements from this period have been found within the study area evidence of Palaeolithic activity is sparse. 4.2.2 The Mesolithic hunter-gather communities of the postglacial period (10,000–4000 BC) inhabited a still largely wooded environment. The river valleys would have been favoured in providing a dependable source of food (from hunting and fishing) and water, as well as a means of transport and communication. Evidence of activity is characterised by flint tools rather than structural remains. There are no known finds dated to this period within the study area. 4.2.3 The Neolithic (4000–2000 BC), Bronze Age (2000–600 BC) and Iron Age (600 BC–AD 43) are traditionally seen as the time of technological change, settled communities and the construction of communal monuments. Farming was established and forest cleared for cultivation. An expanding population put pressure on available resources and necessitated the utilisation of previously marginal land. The earliest remains from Plevna Road (HEA 1) 280m north-east of the site reflect this, consisting of tree clearance from the Neolithic or early Bronze Age, as well as ditches and pits dating to the same period. This site also produced evidence of an extensive field system of Late Bronze Age date. Scattered sherds of Middle Iron Age pottery were recovered at the junction between Church Street and Ridge Street (HEA 19) approximately 400m away from the site. 4.2.4 The Gravel ridge on which the site is located, close to the resources of a river valley, would have been ideal for earlier settlement and certainly more suitable than the heavy clay geology of the surrounding area, which is likely to have been woodland. However, the very limited number of archaeological finds from this period within the study area suggests there was little activity across the region during this period. Current understanding of activity dating to the prehistoric period is, however, hampered by the lack of archaeological investigation.

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 8 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx Roman period (AD 43–410) 4.2.5 Within approximately a decade of the arrival of the Romans in AD 43, the town of Londinium had been established on the north bank of the Thames where the City of London now stands, 12.4km to the south of the site. It quickly rose to prominence, becoming a major commercial centre and the hub of the Roman road system in Britain. Small settlements, typically located along the major roads, supplied produce to the urban population, and were markets for Londinium’s traded and manufactured goods (MoLAS, 2000, 150). 4.2.6 The site is located 1.9km west of the major Roman road known as Ermine Street, which ran north out of Londinium towards Lincoln. Archaeological investigations in Enfield have recorded considerable evidence for activity in the area during the Roman period, including a settlement at Bush Hill Park 1.7km to the north-east of the northern boundary of the site. A small Roman settlement first developed there in the 1st century AD, on the west side of Ermine Street. Archaeological evidence from the area suggests that the settlement occupied an area of approximately 5.4 hectares, in the form of a strip of land 450m long by 120m wide. The Bush Hill park site is characteristic of small, undefended roadside settlements in Roman Britain, with strip buildings set at right angles to the road. Little structural evidence of buildings survive but associated features such as backyards and rubbish pits have been identified. The discovery of small amounts of fine ware pottery and almost a complete absence of window glass suggests that the settlement was not particularly prosperous. The settlement reached its apex in the 2nd century AD, shrank in size over the following century but still continued to be occupied well into the 4th century AD (https://new.enfield.gov.uk/services/leisure-and-culture/museums-and- heritage/past-exhibitions/museums-and-heritage-information-exhibition-roman-enfield.pdf). 4.2.7 Investigations over a 50 year period at Churchfield Primary School (HEA 9), approximately 700m north-east of the site have provided, evidence of Roman occupation. Excavations between 1929 and 1938 found evidence of a Roman occupation site, with the later 1951-2 investigations finding further remains; a ditch, gully and a pit with traces of sleeper beams for a small hut. Pottery associated with the hut indicates a 3rd/4th century AD date. Surface finds led to trial trenching by Enfield Archaeological Society in 1973. This revealed two pockets of Roman tile and pottery. Coins and other small finds were found with 2nd to 4th century AD pottery, and three bronze coins of 3rd/4th century AD date. Further excavation in 1974 revealed a Roman ditch, 10 m of which was cleared, with 3rd to 4th century AD pottery and a skull. Excavations by Enfield Archaeological Society between 1972 and 1974 found Roman tile and kiln wasters (dated to 150-250 AD). Excavations also took place at Churchfield, Great Cambridge Road, Edmonton, between 1971 and 1975, also by the Enfield Archaeological Society. These were located on the edge of the Roman site. A drainage ditch of possible early Roman date was found, as well as a pit containing an Ox skull of later date. 4.2.8 At 432-4 Church Street (HEA 12) 690m north-west of the northern boundary of the site a Roman feeding cup was found in 1959. Another isolated find was discovered at 24 Orpington Gardens (HEA 24) 695m to the south-east of the site from the southern boundary. In addition, a Roman cinerary urn (for holding an individual’s ashes after cremation) (HEA 20) was found on Bury West Street 690m north-west of the northern boundary of the site. 4.2.9 On the northern boundary of the study area, 1000m from the centre point of the site and thus not quite within the study area, a Roman coffin containing a female inhumation was recovered in 1908 during excavations for clay on Cornish's Brickfields, now believed to be the site of Raglan School playing fields. A glass bottle is believed to have been found with the coffin and sent to the Guildhall Museum. Two Roman pottery flagons, one of them colour coated, were also found in the same brickfield and are now in the Forty Hall Museum (http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=405615). 4.2.10 As with the prehistoric period, current detailed understanding of the nature and distribution of Roman occupation in the area is limited, largely due to the lack of past archaeological investigation. The topography and geology would have been suitable for settlement and farming and it is likely that this area, within the hinterland of Bush Hill Park, was a rural landscape of occasional scattered farmsteads located a short distance from the main road.

Early medieval (Saxon) period (AD 410–1066) 4.2.11 Following the withdrawal of the Roman army from England in the early 5th century AD, Germanic (‘Saxon’) settlers arrived from mainland Europe, with occupation in the form of small

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 9 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx villages and an economy initially based on agriculture. By the end of the 6th century a number of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms had emerged, and as the ruling families adopted Christianity, endowments of land were made to the church. Landed estates (manors) can be identified from the 7th century onwards; some, as Christianity was widely adopted, with a main ‘minster’ church and other subsidiary churches or chapels. In the 9th and 10th centuries, the Saxon Minster system began to be replaced by local parochial organisation, with formal areas of land centred on settlements served by a parish church. 4.2.12 The name Edmonton derives from the Saxon Eadhelmes tun meaning “Eadhelm’s village” and the settlement existed as early as the 8th Century when it was given to St Alban’s Abbey by King Offa in c. AD 790. The Domesday Book in 1086 records that Adelmetone was worth 40 pounds and the manor assessed for 35 hides. 4.2.13 The site lay within the manor of Edmonton, which was held by Ansgar the Staller in 1066.Manorial jurisdiction over the whole of Edmonton seems to have originated before the Conquest in 1066 (VCH Middlesex v, 175–79). The earliest concentrations of settlements were probably along Fore Street 1.5km south-east of the site, particularly on the fast-draining Gravels west of the road, watered by wells and by the east-flowing streams (VCH Middlesex v, 137–42). There were two main settlements: Lower Edmonton, centred on Edmonton Green, 1.3km to the east of the site, and Upper Edmonton, 1.8km to the south-east of the site. No early medieval remains have been found within the study area. 4.2.14 Throughout the medieval period, Lower Edmonton was located between All Saints Church (HEA 11), first mentioned in the 12th Century and 963m south-east of the site, and the aforementioned Green, which was situated on the junction of the main London to Cambridge road (now Hertford road) and Church Street. Church Street is medieval in origin as is Fore Street/The Broadway which had diverged eastwards from the line of Ermine Street. The surrounding area of the village was predominantly farm land.

Later medieval period (AD 1066–1485) 4.2.15 The manor of Edmonton was held by Geoffrey de Mandeville in 1086 and descended with Enfield until the death of William de Mandeville in 1189 (VCH Middlesex v, 149–54). As recorded in Domesday 1086, the manor was part of the Edmonton Hundred, and it contained some arable land, of which part was held by the Lord of the Manor rather than leased out. 4.2.16 Bury Lodge Gardens (HEA 15) is built on the site of the grounds of Bury Lodge which was established in the medieval period, located 442m north of the northern boundary of the site. It is thought to have originally been a timber-framed house dating from late medieval or early Tudor times (http://www.parksandgardens.org/places-and-people/site/6834). 4.2.17 The parish church of Edmonton was All Saints, which is still situated on Church Street (HEA 11), west of Fore Street in Lower Edmonton, 926m to the south east of the site, where it has existed since at least the early 12th century. HEA 22 refers to the location of the moated rectory of the church, 900m east of the eastern boundary of the site. Geoffrey de Mandeville, the Lord of the Manor, gave the church as an endowment to the Abbey which he founded at Walden in Essex (allsaintsedmonton.org.uk/church-history). This suggests that Lower and Upper Edmonton continued to be the main settlements from the Saxon to the later medieval period, during which they were served by open-field systems mostly west of Fore Street. Thus the site is expected to have been located in an open field on the outskirts of the settlement during the medieval period.

Post-medieval period (AD 1485–present) 4.2.18 From the 16th century as communications improved more Londoners acquired houses in Edmonton. New houses were normally erected on old sites, bordering the roads and greens, and frequently several dwellings were built where there had once been only one. 4.2.19 At this time the main centres of population were still Lower and Upper Edmonton, with smaller hamlets at Winchmore Hill, 1.4km to the north-west and Southgate, 2.4km to the south-west. During the 16th century more woodland was cleared for farming and houses probably erected at the same time. 4.2.20 An evaluation undertaken at the Parks Department Depot (HEA 4), 470m to the north-east of the site produced a gravel-filled foundation trench dated to the 16th or 17th century, which is broadly contemporaneous with Salisbury House (HEA 16), 525m north of the site, an early

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 10 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx 17th century timbered manor house. In addition a network of cattle horn-core filled drains were recorded dating to the 17th or 18th century. 4.2.21 The earliest map consulted which provides any detail of the site was ‘A plan of the parish of Edmonton in the county of Middlesex showing the allotments in the common fields and common marsh as divided by the act of parliament in the years 1801 & 1802’ (Fig 4). This shows that the site lay within an area of open field. The enclosures map as found in 'The History of Edmonton' by William Robinson, dating to 1819 (not reproduced) is not discernibly different from the earlier enclosure map. In both enclosure maps, the area associated with the existing ‘Cemetery House’ to the north of the site but is clearly delineated as a separate enclosure. 4.2.22 Edmonton Cemetery (HEA 14) was established in 1884. Acts of Parliament in the 1850s had largely closed the overcrowded churchyards in the most built-up parts of London, leading to the establishment of large cemeteries on the outskirts of the city (https://blog.nhm.ac.uk/2017/05/31/dealing-with-londons-dead-the-aftermath-of-the-burial-acts- human-anthropology/). Edmonton Cemetery was set up by Edmonton Burial Board and laid out on land belonging to the Church Commissioners that was (according to sources included in the GLHER entry, ref. MLO68988) once used as an airfield. This seems unlikely and no further details are provided about this earlier use. Two mortuary chapels (one nonconformist, one Church of England) were constructed in the vicinity around the same time, as well as a number of Nurseries along Church Street. 4.2.23 The Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25”: mile scale map of 1867 shows how the site continued to be undeveloped into the mid-19th century (Fig 5).By the time of the Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 25”: mile scale map of 1896 Edmonton cemetery is clearly established to the west of the site (Fig 6).The earliest potential disturbance to the site as shown on the Ordnance Survey 3rd edition 25”: mile scale map of 1914 (Fig 7) is the planting of trees along the northern and eastern boundary of the site. The site became incorporated into a recreation ground but experiences no other ground disturbance. 4.2.24 By the Ordnance Survey 1:2,500 scale map of 1935 (Fig 8), tennis courts had been constructed on the site, which have remained there since. At the same time, a pavilion and public lavatories were constructed in the north of the site, which also remain today. 4.2.25 A former heavy anti-aircraft artillery site (HEA 25) was located 411m south-west of the southern extent of the site. This was used between 1940 and 1946. 4.2.26 As can be seen from the 1:1,250 scale map of 1991 (Fig 9), the site has changed little from the earlier 20th century to the present day. The main difference is that this map shows the existence of a narrow rectangular structure near the southern boundary of the site beyond the tennis courts which is no longer present, first appearing on the 1:1,250 scale map of 1959 (not reproduced).

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 11 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx 5 Statement of significance

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 The following section discusses historic impacts on the site which may have compromised archaeological survival from earlier periods, identified primarily from historic maps, and information on the likely depth of deposits. 5.1.2 In accordance with the NPPF, this is followed by a statement on the likely potential and significance of buried heritage assets within the site, derived from current understanding of the baseline conditions, past impacts, and professional judgement.

5.2 Factors affecting archaeological survival

Natural geology 5.2.1 Although a geotechnical investigation was underway during the site visit, a final set of results has not been made available. Based on BGS boreholes and the information from archaeological investigations in the vicinity, the predicted level of natural geology within the site is as follows: x Current ground level is at 21.4–23.8m OD and slows down from the north-east to the south-west (1st Horizon Surveying & Engineering, PE-EC2090-01, May 2017) x The top of untruncated brickearth varies from 20.9m OD to 22.8m OD (0.2–0.5mbgl) x The top of untruncated Gravel would varies from 19.5m OD to 20.6m OD (3.5– 1.4mbgl) 5.2.2 Between the top of the natural and the current ground level is topsoil and made ground potentially comprising demolition refuse or other material, as observed in test pit 3 (Fig 11).

Historic impacts 5.2.3 There has been little activity across the site before the development that exists there now; therefore, the potential for archaeological survival is relatively high. 5.2.4 The most significant historic impacts on the site are a narrow rectangular structure which existed on the site at least between 1959 and 1991 and will have also likely truncated or completely removed any archaeological remains within its footprint, and the existing tennis courts and associated terracing, This is expected to have removed underlying topsoil on the site and potentially disturbed or truncated any shallow archaeological remains. 5.2.5 Areas of vegetation at the north, south and along the western extent of the site which have not been surfaced for the use of tennis courts are anticipated to have been disturbed the least and so may have more archaeological potential.

Likely depth/thickness of archaeological remains 5.2.6 Any archaeological remains are likely to be at a relatively shallow depth, either associated with the topsoil which is anticipated to be 0.2–0.5m in thickness, or potentially disturbing or cutting into the natural brickearth. In test pit 3, observed during the site visit, a ceramic building material-rich deposit and a layer of charcoal were seen in the east-facing section, between the topsoil and natural brickearth. This was at a depth of approximately 0.2mbgl and has an overall thickness of approximately 0.2m. This test pit was situated at the south-western extent of the site outside of the tennis courts, so best reflects the archaeological potential of similar areas within the site footprint.

5.3 Archaeological potential and significance

5.3.1 The nature of possible archaeological survival in the area of the proposed development is summarised here, taking into account the levels of natural geology and the level and nature of

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 12 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx later disturbance and truncation discussed above. 5.3.2 The site has a low potential to contain prehistoric remains. The site is located on a Gravel ridge in an area that is otherwise extensive heavy London Clay geology, relatively close to the predictable resources of the River Lea tributaries and would be favoured for early settlement and farming. However evidence for prehistoric occupation within the study area is limited to an area of tree clearance and ditches and a few finds of isolated prehistoric material, but this may be a reflection of the limited amount of past archaeological investigation. The full nature and extent of prehistoric activity in this part of London is currently little understood. 5.3.3 The site has a low to moderate potential to contain Roman remains. The site is 1.9km west of Ermine Street. Although much of the heavy Clay geology would have been densely wooded, the Gravel ridge on which the site is located would have been a suitable location for settlement and farming. As with the prehistoric period, current understanding of this period is limited by the lack of archaeological investigation. Roman remains have been found within the study area at Cornish’s Brickfields and Churchfield Primary School, but these sites are 1km and 700m away respectively, though some isolated finds were found closer at 432-4 Church Street and 24 Orpington Gardens. If any Roman remains were found they would likely be chance isolated finds of a similar nature of low to medium significance due to their contribution to the understanding of Roman activity in the area. 5.3.4 The site has a low potential to contain early or later medieval remains. The site was 1.3km to the east of the settlement at Lower Edmonton and 1.8km to the north-west of the settlement at Upper Edmonton. No Saxon remains have been found within the study area. The site is situated 930m from the 12th century parish church of Edmonton, All Saints, and 450m away from Bury Lodge Gardens which are thought to originally date from the late medieval to early Tudor times. There is no evidence to suggest that the site was anything other than open fields during this time so it is not expected that any medieval remains would be encountered. 5.3.5 The site has moderate potential to contain post-medieval remains. The site remained undeveloped until the early 20th century prior to the creation of Edmonton Cemetery. The construction of two structures in the north of the site will have truncated any archaeological remains. It is most likely that any surviving archaeological finds or deposits will relate to the rectangular building which existed at the southern extent, or other 20th century buildings. Any such remains would be of negligible significance, derived from limited evidential and historical value.

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 13 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx 6 Impact of proposals

6.1 Proposals

6.1.1 The scheme comprises the removal of ten of the fourteen existing tennis courts in order to accommodate new burial plots for Edmonton Cemetery with vehicular access from the existing burial ground to the north-west of the site (Ares Landscape Architects 2017; Fig 15). In total, 1446 burial plots, situated on either side of the vehicular access road, and 276 mausolea, situated on the eastern side of the site, are proposed for the site. 6.1.2 Of the burial plots, 1310 are intended to be standard, fourteen oversized and 122 will be infant plots. The impact of these burials is predictable due to their standardised nature. The London Borough of Enfield Internment Notice (Enfield Council, 2016) states that burial plots containing three people are dug to a depth of nine feet (2.7m), those for two people are excavated to a depth of six feet six inches to seven feet (2-2.1m) and those for one person will reach a depth of 5 inches (1.5m). Cremated remains will be buried to a depth of eighteen inches (0.5m). This entails that the burial plots are expected to have a maximum depth of 2.7mbgl. 6.1.3 Mausolea would be installed along the eastern side of the site, with each unit made out of reinforced concrete. As stated in 2.3.2 above, it is assumed that the foundations for the mausolea would reach no more than 2.7mbgl. 6.1.4 New vehicular access, including a link road to the existing circulation within Edmonton Cemetery, would be created. It is expected that the laying out of the new vehicular access (including the link road) would involve groundworks to no greater depth than 0.5-1mbgl. The nature and extent of groundworks associated with the construction of the vehicular access have not yet been finalised. 6.1.5 Landscaping, including the installation of a new hedgerow along the southern and eastern boundary of the site, is anticipated to not reach a greater depth than 0.5mbgl.

6.2 Implications

6.2.1 The identification of physical impacts on buried heritage assets within a site takes into account any activity which would entail ground disturbance, for example site set up works, remediation, landscaping and the construction of new foundations. 6.2.2 It is outside the scope of this archaeological report to consider the impact of the proposed development on upstanding structures of historic interest, in the form of physical impacts which would remove, alter, or otherwise change the building fabric, or predicted changes to the historic character and setting of historic buildings and structures within the site or outside it. 6.2.3 The site has a low to moderate potential for Roman remains of low or medium significance and a low potential for all other periods apart from the post-medieval period which has potential for remains of negligible significance.

Excavation of burial plots 6.2.4 The depth of burials plots is likely to vary from 0.5-2.7mbgl. Given that untruncated natural brickearth is expected to be present from at least 0.2mbgl, the excavation of the burial plots would remove any archaeological remains within their footprint.

Mausolea 6.2.5 As stated in 2.3.2 above it has been assumed that the mausolea foundations would reach no greater depth than 2.7mbgl. Therefore, the excavation of the mausolea foundations would remove any archaeological remains within their footprint.

Vehicular access 6.2.6 The plans for the vehicular link are not yet finalised, but associated groundworks are likely to be of no greater depth than 0.5mbgl. This would truncate or remove entirely any

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 14 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx archaeological remains within the area affected.

Landscaping and new hedgerow 6.2.7 Landscaping, including the planting of a new hedgerow along the eastern and southern side of the site, is expected to reach no greater depth than 0.5mbgl, which would truncate or remove entirely any archaeological remains within the area affected.

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 15 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx 7 Conclusion and recommendations

7.1.1 The site does not include any nationally designated (protected) heritage assets, and does not lie within either an archaeological priority area or a conservation area. 7.1.2 The site was outside the main areas of occupation throughout its history, although evidence of tree clearance and field creation in the late Neolithic and Bronze Age has been identified 280m to the north-east of the site. Evidence of Roman occupation has been found in the study area, although at some distance from the site. There is therefore considered to be low to moderate potential for Roman finds within the site, most likely to be residual in nature (i.e. mixed with later material), and of low to medium significance for their evidential value. There is low potential for remains from other periods, apart from localised below-ground remains of 20th century structures which are likely to be of negligible archaeological significance. 7.1.3 The excavation of burial plots across the site would truncate or remove entirely any archaeological remains within their footprint. Similarly, the foundations of the proposed line of mausolea along the eastern side of the site would also truncate or remove entirely any archaeological remains within their footprint. Although the construction of the road and landscaping would only have a shallow impact, given the height of natural brickearth, it would still truncate, and possibly remove entirely any archaeological remains. 7.1.4 Table 2 summarises the known or likely buried assets within the site, their significance, and the impact of the proposed scheme on asset significance.

Table 2: Impact upon heritage assets (prior to mitigation) Asset Asset Significance Impact of proposed scheme Roman remains Low to medium Excavation of burial plots and mausolea (Low to moderate foundations, potential) Significance of asset reduced to negligible within footprint of works.

New vehicular access

Significance of asset reduced to negligible within footprint of works

Landscaping

Significance of asset reduced to negligible within footprint of works

7.1.5 Although the proposed development – in particular the use of the site for burials – would have a severe below-ground impact, the site is considered to have generally low archaeological potential and any remains present are predicted to be of limited significance. It is therefore unlikely that the Local Authority would require further investigation in connection with the proposals, and no archaeological work is recommended..

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 16 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx 8 Gazetteer of known historic environment assets

8.1.1 The gazetteer lists known historic environment sites and finds within the 1000m-radius study area around the site. The gazetteer should be read in conjunction with Fig 2. 8.1.2 The GLHER data contained within this gazetteer was obtained on 19/06/2017 and is the copyright of Historic England 2017. 8.1.3 Historic England statutory designations data © Historic England 2017. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2017. The Historic England GIS Data contained in this material was obtained in April 2017. The most publicly available up to date Historic England GIS Data can be obtained from http://www.historicengland.org.uk.

Abbreviations AS – Archaeological Solutions ASE – Archaeology South East BGS – British Geological Survey CA – Compass Archaeology DGLA – Department of Greater London Archaeology (Museum of London) EA – Environment Agency EAS – Enfield Archaeological Society EHHS – Edmonton Hundred Historical Society ELO – Greater London Historic Environment Record unique Event reference GDA – Gun Defended Areas HAT – Hertfordshire Archaeological Trust HER – Historic Environment Record IAZ – Inner Artillery Zone MLO – Greater London Historic Environment Record unique Monument reference MoLAS – Museum of London Archaeology Service (now MOLA) NHL – National Heritage List for England (Historic England) WA – Wessex Archaeology

HEA Description Site code/ No. GLHER/NHL No. 1 Plevna Road, Edmonton, Enfield ELO460 The earliest remains at Plevna Road consisted of tree clearance from the Neolithic or MLO75949 early Bronze Age and ditches and pits of the same date. This was followed by further MLO76765 limited tree clearance and the establishment of an extensive field system of late Bronze MLO76766 Age date over the site. 2 Church Street, Enfield, N9 ENP06 Work was carried out in advance of development work by the Heritage Network at the ELO6815 Edmonton Sports and Social Club, Church Street, Edmonton. The ground level of the general area of development work was reduced, with the deeper foundation trenches and soakaway pits also examined. No finds of archaeological features, deposits or finds of any significance were recovered short of Modern dates. Natural stratigraphy was recorded at about 20m OD. 3 New Primary School Site, Church Street, N9 CDC03 Evaluation undertaken by MoLAS. Four trial trenches were excavated within the ELO878 footprint of a proposed school. All four trenches showed no definite archaeological MLO76350 activity prior to the 19th century, with trench 4 exhibiting no features at all.

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 17 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx HEA Description Site code/ No. GLHER/NHL No. 4 Parks Department Depot, Bury West Street, E9 BYS96 Evaluation undertaken by WA, in 1996. In trench 1 a gravel filled foundation trench ELO2926 dated to the 16th century or 17th century was recorded, forming the north west corner MLO71650 of a subrectangular structure, possibly with an associated eaves-drip gully immediately MLO71651 to the west. This is broadly contemporaneous with Salisbury House a late 16th century MLO71652 building situated immediately to the west of the site. MLO71653 A network of cattle horn-core filled land drains were recorded. Although undated at Bury St West, similar examples within the area have been identified as broadly 17th century to 18th century in date. At the west end of trench 10, a substantial deposit of gravelly clay was recorded which resembled the east side of a north-south aligned bank. This had been located immediately to the west of, and therefore possibly augmenting, a natural terrace in the surface of the underlying gravel. Although undated, this may represent a ha-ha or similar landscape feature associated with Salisbury House. In trench 9, an undated shallow ditch was recorded which cut through the earliest alluvial deposits in the area and was sealed by subsequent alluvial deposits. This stratigraphic relationship may suggest that the feature is potentially of Romano-British or even prehistoric date. 5 Little Bury Street, Edmonton Lower School, Enfield, N9 ELO3220 Above the natural gravels were a brick wall, of late 19th or 20th century date, and EDS96 modern services and made ground. 6 Edmonton Lower School, Little Bury Street, Edmonton, Enfield, London LBY13 A geoarchaeological evaluation was undertaken at Edmonton Lower School in May ELO14072 2014 by ASE. The site comprised four test pits. No artefacts or ecofacts were discovered during the evaluation, despite the potential for Palaeolithic remains. 7 8A Kent Road, Enfield, N21 KRE99 An Archaeological Evaluation was carried out by HAT at 8A Kent Road, London ELO1199 Borough of Enfield, in March 1999. This was commissioned by Avalon Homes in MLO75582 advance of the residential development of the site with associated access and landscaping. Three trial trenches were excavated, measuring 20m x 2.5m, 10m x 2.4m and 9m x 2m. Topsoil overlay a shallow brickearth above pebble gravel. A single pit containing 19th/ 20th century material (bottles, ceramics and iron fragments) was found to cut the brickearth. The natural was Kempton Park Gravels (25m AOD). 8 Bury Lodge Depot, Bury West, Edmonton, Enfield BUD15 A strip, map and sample excavation was undertaken at Bury Lodge Depot, Edmonton, ELO15586 between the 5th-14th of October 2015 by EAS. The investigations recorded 18th century land drains, and 19th-20th century greenhouse and late 20th century planting features. 9 Churchfields, Edmonton ELO8909 Excavations by the EHHS at Churchfields in 1951-52. This found further evidence of ELO8912 the Roman occupation site excavated between 1929-38. The 1951-52 excavations ELO12809 found evidence of a ditch, gully and pit with traces of sleeper beams for a small hut. Pottery associated with the hut indicates a 3rd/4th century AD date. Surface finds led to trial trenching by EAS in 1973. This revealed two pockets of Roman tile & pottery. Coins and other small finds were found with 2nd to 4th century pottery, and three bronze coins of 3rd/4th century date. Further excavation in 1974 revealed a Roman ditch, 10 metres of which was cleared, with 3rd to 4th century AD pottery and a skull. Excavation by EAS in 1972-74 found Roman tile and kiln wasters (dated to 150-250 AD). Excavations took place at Churchfield, Great Cambridge Road, Edmonton between 1971-1975 by the EAS. The excavations were located on the edge of a known Roman site. They located a drainage ditch of possible early Roman date. It is thought there was then a period of inactivity followed by the creation of a pit, which contained part of an Ox skull. There was also a later Roman concentration of tile.

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 18 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx HEA Description Site code/ No. GLHER/NHL No. 10 69 Church Street, Edmonton CHS13 Monitoring of ground-works was undertaken, revealing natural silts overlain by an undated layer of dirty brickearth, observed across the entire site where not truncated by the demolition works. Cutting this was a probable ditch in the south-west corner of the site and a posthole, neither of which could be dated though they could date from the Roman to medieval periods. Two post-medieval features related to horticulture, perhaps part of a fence line, were observed. The latest deposit was a garden soil still in cultivation. The site seems to have been used for horticulture or, earlier, for agriculture, until its development in the very late 19th century or 20th centuries. 11 All Saints Church, Edmonton ASC14 No details of archaeological investigation on GLHER or LAARC. MLO107757 All Saints' Church was founded in the 12th century. The churchyard has numerous interesting tombs including a grave of 1667, and was the burial place of poet/essayist Charles Lamb and his sister Mary. There is a garden of remembrance. 12 432-4 Church Street, Edmonton, Enfield, N9 9HT CGU06 Archaeological watching brief by CA in advance of a new housing development within ELO712 an archaeological priority area, including that recorded earlier upon the first MLO2843 development of the site. However no significant remains were found. The ground had MLO2844 been heavily disturbed by previous development, although natural brickearth was exposed across the site. At no. 432 Roman a tettine (feeding cup) was found in 1959 at depth of 10 feet (2.5m), in digging foundations for house. First thought to have come from a burial, but site examination showed that it came from infill. Between culverted brook and original stream bank. At no.434, a skeleton is said to have been found in building house, but there was no dating evidence. 13 Churchfield Primary School, Latymer Road, Edmonton CPS11 A watching brief was undertaken at Churchfield Primary School, Edmonton between ELO12810 the 18th August and the 16th September 2011 by AS. The site had the potential for Roman remains, but only a modern pit was located. 14 Edmonton Cemetery, Church Street, N9 MLO68988 This cemetery was founded in 1884 and contains a mortuary, a linked pair of chapels and cemetery office. It also contains memorials for the Blitz and the 1938 Dunholme Road air disaster. Edmonton Cemetery was set up by Edmonton Burial Board and laid out on land belonging to the Church Commissioners that was once used as an airfield. It is included in the Local Register of Historic Parks and Gardens. 15 Bury Lodge Gardens, Bury Street West, N9 9JN MLO107758 Bury Lodge Gardens, originally Bury Lodge Recreation Ground, was laid out on the grounds of Bury Lodge, a house dating from medieval times and also took part of the grounds of the adjacent Salisbury House. Original layout including rose garden is largely intact, although paddling pool has become a sandpit. 16 Salisbury House Arts Centre, Bury Street West, N9 MLO107867 Salisbury House is an early 17th century timbered manor house, now used as an Arts Centre. The small garden in which it stands and the adjacent Bury Lodge Gardens are all that remain of its former grounds and the countryside that surrounded it, now largely built over by suburban housing. 17 Hyde Estate, Enfield, N9 MLO107822 Hyde Estate was the first major example of Homes for Heroes housing development undertaken by Edmonton Urban District Council post World War I. A series of small greens were provided among the housing, the principal being Hazelbury Green. 18 Lower Edmonton MLO12922 Two Lower Palaeolithic/ Palaeolithic implements found between lower Edmonton and Winchmore Hill. 19 Former Edmonton Allotments, Church Street MLO6539 Excavation of trial trenches by EAS in 1986 on old allotment land, prior to construction of houses. Scattered sherds of pottery were found on the western edge of the site, dated to Middle Iron Age, 400-450BC. 20 Bury Street West MLO2845 Roman cinerary urn was found when a hole was dug in front of the shop at the end of a terrace on the south side.

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 19 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx HEA Description Site code/ No. GLHER/NHL No. 21 Latymer Road MLO72530 Site of landfill taken from BGS data supplied to the EA. It is not known whether this site was made or worked land, and the exact date of infill is unknown, although generally 19th/20th century in date. A digitised map showing the extent of each landfill site is also held. 22 Church Street, Lower Edmonton MLO2811 Site of the moated rectory of All Saints. 23 Former Education Offices, Church Street MLO20769 Excavation for EAS at the old education offices (precise address unknown) which found post medieval rubbish pit and pottery. 24 24 Orpington Gardens MLO6556 Coin of Galerius (293-311) found in garden in 1962. 25 Edmonton MLO68260 The site was an HAA (heavy anti-aircraft) artillery site in the London IAZ GDA. The earliest date upon which the site is listed as present within the sources is 22nd of January 1940 and the latest 15th of January 1946. 26 Barrowell Green MLO22924 Possible Palaeolithic/ Lower Palaeolithic hand axe findspot. 27 The Larches MLO2496 An earthwork, possibly a barrow, is marked on the first OS one inch survey. 28 Winchmore hill MLO20520 A fragmentary homestead moat on the north side of Offords Grove

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 20 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx 9 Planning framework

9.1 Statutory protection

Human remains 9.1.1 Development affecting any former burial ground is regulated by statute, principally the Burial Act 1857, the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884 and 1981, and the Pastoral Measure 1983. 9.1.2 The exhumation of any human remains requires approval from either the Secretary of State or the Church of England, depending on the current location of the remains. Exhumations from land which is subject to the Church of England’s jurisdiction will need the Church’s authorisation (a Faculty or the approval of a proposal under the Care of Cathedrals Measure 2011). This includes consecrated ground in cemeteries. 9.1.3 Exhumations from land which is not subject to the Church of England’s jurisdiction will need a licence from the Secretary of State, under Section 25 of the Burial Act 1857 as amended by the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 2014. A licence is required from the Secretary of State if the remains are not intended for reburial in consecrated ground (or if this is to be delayed, for example where archaeological or scientific analysis takes place first). 9.1.4 Under the Town and Country Planning (Churches, Places of Religious Worship and Burial Grounds) Regulations 1930, the removal and re-interment of human remains should be in accordance with the direction of the local Environmental Health Officer.

9.2 National Planning Policy Framework

9.2.1 The Government issued the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in March 2012 (DCLG 2012) and supporting Planning Practice Guidance in 2014 (DCLG 2014). One of the 12 core principles that underpin both plan-making and decision-taking within the framework is to ‘conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations’ (DCLG 2012 para 17). It recognises that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource (para 126), and requires the significance of heritage assets to be considered in the planning process, whether designated or not. The contribution of setting to asset significance needs to be taken into account (para 128). The NPPF encourages early engagement (i.e. pre-application) as this has significant potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of a planning application and can lead to better outcomes for the local community (para 188). 9.2.2 NPPF Section 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment, is produced in full below: Para 126. Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance. In developing this strategy, local planning authorities should take into account: x the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; x the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring; x the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and x opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place. Para 127. When considering the designation of conservation areas, local planning authorities should ensure that an area justifies such status because of its special architectural or historic interest, and that the concept of conservation is not devalued through the designation of areas that lack special interest.

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 21 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx Para 128. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. Para 129. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal. Para 130. Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of or damage to a heritage asset the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision. Para 131. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of: x the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; x the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and x the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Para 132: When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. Para 133. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply: x the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and x no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and x conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and x the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. Para 134. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. Para 135. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. Para 136. Local planning authorities should not permit loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred. Para 137. 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 or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably.

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 22 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx Para 138. Not all elements of a World Heritage Site or Conservation Area will necessarily contribute to its significance. Loss of a building (or other element) which makes a positive contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site should be treated either as substantial harm under paragraph 133 or less than substantial harm under paragraph 134, as appropriate, taking into account the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site as a whole. Para 139. Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets. Para 140. Local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from those policies. Para 141. Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development management publicly accessible. They should also require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.

9.3 Greater London regional policy

The London Plan 9.3.1 The overarching strategies and policies for the whole of the Greater London area are contained within the London Plan of the Greater London Authority (GLA March 2016). Policy 7.8 relates to Heritage Assets and Archaeology: A. London’s heritage assets and historic environment, including listed buildings, registered historic parks and gardens and other natural and historic landscapes, conservation areas, World Heritage Sites, registered battlefields, scheduled monuments, archaeological remains and memorials should be identified, so that the desirability of sustaining and enhancing their significance and of utilising their positive role in place shaping can be taken into account. B. Development should incorporate measures that identify, record, interpret, protect and, where appropriate, present the site’s archaeology. C. Development should identify, value, conserve, restore, re-use and incorporate heritage assets, where appropriate. D. Development affecting heritage assets and their settings should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail. E. New development should make provision for the protection of archaeological resources, landscapes and significant memorials. The physical assets should, where possible, be made available to the public on-site. Where the archaeological asset or memorial cannot be preserved or managed on-site, provision must be made for the investigation, understanding, recording, dissemination and archiving of that asset. F. Boroughs should, in LDF policies, seek to maintain and enhance the contribution of built, landscaped and buried heritage to London’s environmental quality, cultural identity and economy as part of managing London’s ability to accommodate change and regeneration. G. Boroughs, in consultation with English Heritage [now named Historic England], Natural England and other relevant statutory organisations, should include appropriate policies in their LDFs for identifying, protecting, enhancing and improving access to the historic environment and heritage assets and their settings where appropriate, and to archaeological assets, memorials and historic and natural landscape character within their area. 9.3.2 Para. 7.31A supporting Policy 7.8 notes that ‘Substantial harm to or loss of a designated heritage asset should be exceptional, with substantial harm to or loss of those assets designated of the highest significance being wholly exceptional. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimal viable use. Enabling development that would otherwise not comply with planning policies, but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset should be assessed to see of the benefits of departing from those policies outweigh the disbenefits.’

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 23 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx 9.3.3 It further adds (para. 7.31B) ‘Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of and/or damage to a heritage asset the deteriorated state of that asset should not be taken into account when making a decision on a development proposal’. 9.3.4 Para. 7.32 recognises the value of London’s heritage: ‘…where new development uncovers an archaeological site or memorial, these should be preserved and managed on-site. Where this is not possible provision should be made for the investigation, understanding, dissemination and archiving of that asset’.

9.4 Local planning policy

9.4.1 Following the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Planning Authorities have replaced their Unitary Development Plans, Local Plans and Supplementary Planning Guidance with a new system of Local Development Frameworks (LDFs). UDP policies have been either ‘saved’ or ‘deleted’. In most cases archaeology policies are likely to be ‘saved’ because there have been no significant changes in legislation or advice at a national level. 9.4.2 The London Borough of Enfield’s Core Strategy was adopted in November 2010. 9.4.3 Core Policy 31 covers the borough’s historic environment and heritage assets: Core Policy 31: Built and Landscape Heritage The Council will implement national and regional policies and work with partners (including landowners, agencies, public organisations and the community) to pro-actively preserve and enhance all of the Borough's heritage assets. Actions will include: x Reviewing heritage designations and their boundaries where appropriate, and continuing to maintain non-statutory, local lists and designations based on formally adopted criteria; x Ensuring that built development and interventions in the public realm that impact on heritage assets have regard to their special character and are based on an understanding of their context. Proposals within or affecting the setting of heritage assets will be required to include a thorough site analysis and character appraisal which explicitly demonstrates how the proposal will respect and enhance the asset; x Identifying opportunities for the repair and restoration of heritage assets and working with owners of heritage assets on English Heritage’s Heritage at Risk Register to find viable solutions to secure the asset’s long-term future. Where necessary, the Council will make full use of its legislative powers to ensure their preservation; x Ensuring developments in areas of archaeological importance take into account the potential for new finds by requiring consultation with English Heritage and on-site investigations, including the appropriate recording and dissemination of archaeological evidence; x Supporting appropriate initiatives which increase access to historic assets, provide learning opportunities and maximise their potential as heritage attractions, particularly at Forty Hall and the Area of Special Character in the north west of the Borough; and x Finding new ways to record and recognise Enfield’s intangible heritage resources and, where possible, open up wider public access to them. 9.4.4 This policy is supported in the Development 9.3.3 Management Document, adopted in November 2014, by DMD 44, which states: Conserving and Enhancing Heritage Assets 1. Applications for development which fail to conserve and enhance the special interest, significance or setting of a heritage asset will be refused. 2. The design, materials and detailing of development affecting heritage assets or their setting should preserve the asset in a manner appropriate to its significance. 3. All applications affecting heritage assets or their setting should include a Heritage Statement. The applicant will also be required to record and disseminate detailed information about the asset gained from desk-based and on-site investigations. Information should be provided to the Local Planning Authority, Historic Environment Record and English Heritage. In some circumstances, a Written Scheme of Investigation will be required.

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 24 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx 10 Determining significance

10.1.1 ‘Significance’ lies in the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest, which may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Archaeological interest includes an interest in carrying out an expert investigation at some point in the future into the evidence a heritage asset may hold of past human activity, and may apply to standing buildings or structures as well as buried remains. Known and potential heritage assets within the site and its vicinity have been identified from national and local designations, HER data and expert opinion. The determination of the significance of these assets is based on statutory designation and/or professional judgement against four values (EH 2008): x Evidential value: the potential of the physical remains to yield evidence of past human activity. This might take into account date; rarity; state of preservation; diversity/complexity; contribution to published priorities; supporting documentation; collective value and comparative potential. x Aesthetic value: this derives from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from the heritage asset, taking into account what other people have said or written; x Historical value: the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through heritage asset to the present, such a connection often being illustrative or associative; x Communal value: this derives from the meanings of a heritage asset for the people who know about it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory; communal values are closely bound up with historical, particularly associative, and aesthetic values, along with and educational, social or economic values. 10.1.2 Table 3 gives examples of the significance of designated and non-designated heritage assets.

Table 3: Significance of heritage assets Heritage asset description Significance World heritage sites Very high Scheduled monuments (International/ Grade I and II* listed buildings national) Historic England Grade I and II* registered parks and gardens Protected Wrecks Heritage assets of national importance Historic England Grade II registered parks and gardens High Conservation areas (national/ Designated historic battlefields regional/ Grade II listed buildings county) Burial grounds Protected heritage landscapes (e.g. ancient woodland or historic hedgerows) Heritage assets of regional or county importance Heritage assets with a district value or interest for education or cultural appreciation Medium Locally listed buildings (District) Heritage assets with a local (i.e. parish) value or interest for education or cultural Low appreciation (Local) Historic environment resource with no significant value or interest Negligible Heritage assets that have a clear potential, but for which current knowledge is Uncertain insufficient to allow significance to be determined

10.1.3 Unless the nature and exact extent of buried archaeological remains within any given area has been determined through prior investigation, significance is often uncertain.

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 25 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx 11 Non-archaeological constraints

11.1.1 The exhumation of any human remains from land which is consecrated by the Church of England will need a will need the Church’s authorisation in the form of a Faculty or the approval of a proposal under the Care of Cathedrals Measure 2011. This includes consecrated ground in cemeteries. 11.1.2 Note: the purpose of this section is to highlight to decision makers any relevant non- archaeological constraints identified during the study, that might affect future archaeological field investigation on the site (should this be recommended). The information has been assembled using only those sources as identified in section 2 and section 13.4, in order to assist forward planning for the project designs, working schemes of investigation and risk assessments that would be needed prior to any such field work. MOLA has used its best endeavours to ensure that the sources used are appropriate for this task but has not independently verified any details. Under the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 and subsequent regulations, all organisations are required to protect their employees as far as is reasonably practicable by addressing health and safety risks. The contents of this section are intended only to support organisations operating on this site in fulfilling this obligation and do not comprise a comprehensive risk assessment.

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 26 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx 12 Glossary

Alluvium Sediment laid down by a river. Can range from sands and gravels deposited by fast flowing water and clays that settle out of suspension during overbank flooding. Other deposits found on a valley floor are usually included in the term alluvium (e.g. peat). Archaeological Areas of archaeological priority, significance, potential or other title, often designated by Priority Area/Zone the local authority. Brickearth A fine-grained silt believed to have accumulated by a mixture of processes (e.g. wind, slope and freeze-thaw) mostly since the Last Glacial Maximum around 17,000BP. B.P. Before Present, conventionally taken to be 1950 Bronze Age 2,000–600 BC Building recording Recording of historic buildings (by a competent archaeological organisation) is undertaken ‘to document buildings, or parts of buildings, which may be lost as a result of demolition, alteration or neglect’, amongst other reasons. Four levels of recording are defined by Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (RCHME) and Historic England. Level 1 (basic visual record); Level 2 (descriptive record), Level 3 (analytical record), and Level 4 (comprehensive analytical record) Built heritage Upstanding structure of historic interest. Colluvium A natural deposit accumulated through the action of rainwash or gravity at the base of a slope. Conservation area An area of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. Designation by the local authority often includes controls over the demolition of buildings; strengthened controls over minor development; and special provision for the protection of trees. Cropmarks Marks visible from the air in growing crops, caused by moisture variation due to subsurface features of possible archaeological origin (i.e. ditches or buried walls). Cut-and-cover Method of construction in which a trench is excavated down from existing ground level [trench] and which is subsequently covered over and/or backfilled. Cut feature Archaeological feature such as a pit, ditch or well, which has been cut into the then- existing ground surface. Devensian The most recent cold stage (glacial) of the Pleistocene. Spanning the period from c 70,000 years ago until the start of the Holocene (10,000 years ago). Climate fluctuated within the Devensian, as it did in other glacials and interglacials. It is associated with the demise of the Neanderthals and the expansion of modern humans. Early medieval AD 410–1066. Also referred to as the Saxon period. Evaluation A limited programme of non–intrusive and/or intrusive fieldwork which determines the (archaeological) presence or absence of archaeological features, structures, deposits, artefacts or ecofacts within a specified area. Excavation A programme of controlled, intrusive fieldwork with defined research objectives which (archaeological) examines, records and interprets archaeological remains, retrieves artefacts, ecofacts and other remains within a specified area. The records made and objects gathered are studied and the results published in detail appropriate to the project design. Findspot Chance find/antiquarian discovery of artefact. The artefact has no known context, is either residual or indicates an area of archaeological activity. Geotechnical Ground investigation, typically in the form of boreholes and/or trial/test pits, carried out for engineering purposes to determine the nature of the subsurface deposits. Head Weathered/soliflucted periglacial deposit (i.e. moved downslope through natural processes). Heritage asset A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape positively identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions. Heritage assets are the valued components of the historic environment. They include designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing). Historic environment A written document whose purpose is to determine, as far as is reasonably possible from assessment existing records, the nature of the historic environment resource/heritage assets within a specified area. Historic Environment Archaeological and built heritage database held and maintained by the County authority. Record (HER) Previously known as the Sites and Monuments Record Holocene The most recent epoch (part) of the Quaternary, covering the past 10,000 years during which time a warm interglacial climate has existed. Also referred to as the ‘Postglacial’ and (in Britain) as the ‘Flandrian’. Iron Age 600 BC–AD 43

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 27 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx Later medieval AD 1066 – 1500 Last Glacial Characterised by the expansion of the last ice sheet to affect the British Isles (around Maximum 18,000 years ago), which at its maximum extent covered over two-thirds of the present land area of the country. Locally listed A structure of local architectural and/or historical interest. These are structures that are not building included in the Secretary of State’s Listing but are considered by the local authority to have architectural and/or historical merit Listed building A structure of architectural and/or historical interest. These are included on the Secretary of State's list, which affords statutory protection. These are subdivided into Grades I, II* and II (in descending importance). Made Ground Artificial deposit. An archaeologist would differentiate between modern made ground, containing identifiably modern inclusion such as concrete (but not brick or tile), and undated made ground, which may potentially contain deposits of archaeological interest. Mesolithic 12,000 – 4,000 BC National Record for National database of archaeological sites, finds and events as maintained by Historic the Historic England in Swindon. Generally not as comprehensive as the country HER. Environment (NRHE) Neolithic 4,000 – 2,000 BC Ordnance Datum A vertical datum used by Ordnance Survey as the basis for deriving altitudes on maps. (OD) Palaeo- Related to past environments, i.e. during the prehistoric and later periods. Such remains environmental can be of archaeological interest, and often consist of organic remains such as pollen and plant macro fossils which can be used to reconstruct the past environment. Palaeolithic 700,000–12,000 BC Palaeochannel A former/ancient watercourse Peat A build-up of organic material in waterlogged areas, producing marshes, fens, mires, blanket and raised bogs. Accumulation is due to inhibited decay in anaerobic conditions. Pleistocene Geological period pre-dating the Holocene. Post-medieval AD 1500–present Preservation by Archaeological mitigation strategy where archaeological remains are fully excavated and record recorded archaeologically and the results published. For remains of lesser significance, preservation by record might comprise an archaeological watching brief. Preservation in situ Archaeological mitigation strategy where nationally important (whether Scheduled or not) archaeological remains are preserved in situ for future generations, typically through modifications to design proposals to avoid damage or destruction of such remains. Registered Historic A site may lie within or contain a registered historic park or garden. The register of these Parks and Gardens in England is compiled and maintained by Historic England. Residual When used to describe archaeological artefacts, this means not in situ, i.e. Found outside the context in which it was originally deposited. Roman AD 43–410 Scheduled An ancient monument or archaeological deposits designated by the Secretary of State as Monument a ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’ and protected under the Ancient Monuments Act. Site The area of proposed development Site codes Unique identifying codes allocated to archaeological fieldwork sites, e.g. evaluation, excavation, or watching brief sites. Study area Defined area surrounding the proposed development in which archaeological data is collected and analysed in order to set the site into its archaeological and historical context. Solifluction, Creeping of soil down a slope during periods of freeze and thaw in periglacial Soliflucted environments. Such material can seal and protect earlier landsurfaces and archaeological deposits which might otherwise not survive later erosion. Stratigraphy A term used to define a sequence of visually distinct horizontal layers (strata), one above another, which form the material remains of past cultures. Truncate Partially or wholly remove. In archaeological terms remains may have been truncated by previous construction activity. Watching brief A formal programme of observation and investigation conducted during any operation (archaeological) carried out for non-archaeological reasons.

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 28 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx 13 Bibliography

13.1 Published and documentary sources

Cherry B and Pevsner N, 2002 The Buildings of England. London 4: North. Penguin. CIfA [Chartered Institute for Archaeologists] Dec 2014a, Standards and guidance for commissioning work or providing consultancy advice on archaeology and the historic environment, Reading. CIfA [Chartered Institute for Archaeologists] Dec 2014b, Standards and guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment, Reading DCLG [Department of Communities and Local Government], March 2012 National Planning Policy Framework DCLG [Department of Communities and Local Government], March 2014 Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment: Planning Practice Guide EH [English Heritage], 2008 Conservation principles, policies and guidance. Swindon EH [English Heritage], 2015, The setting of heritage assets. Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3. Gillam G, 1973 Prehistoric and Roman Enfield: A Summary of the Prehistoric and Roman Archaeology of the London Borough of Enfield, Research Report No. 3, Enfield Archaeological Society, London. GLA [Greater London Authority], March 2015 The London Plan. Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. Consolidated with Alterations Since 2011 GLAAS, 2015 Guidelines for Archaeological Projects in Greater London. Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service; Historic England, April 2015. 1st Horizon Surveying and Engineering, Edmonton Cemetery Topographic & Utility Survey, No PE- EC2090-01 (25/05/217) MoLAS [Museum of London Archaeology Service], 2000. The archaeology of Greater London: an assessment of archaeological evidence for human presence in the area covered by modern Greater London. London Robinson W, 1819 The History and Antiquities of the Parish of Edmonton, In the County of Middlesex; Comprising an Account of The Manors, The Church, and Southgate Chapel, London Weinreb B Hibbert C, Keay J, Keay J (eds), 2008 The London encyclopaedia. Macmillan. London

13.2 Other Sources

British Geological Survey online historic geology borehole data and digital drift and solid geology data Greater London Historic Environment Record Historic England designation data Internet – web-published sources:

Development Management Document, Borough of Enfield, https://new.enfield.gov.uk/services/planning/planning-policy/development- managementdocument/planning-policy-map-policies-map-for-the-draft-dmd-may-2012.pdf, accessed on 29.06.2017

The Enfield Plan Core Strategy, Borough of Enfield, https://new.enfield.gov.uk/services/planning/planning-policy/local-plan/planning-policy- information-enfield-core-strategy.pdf accessed on 29.06.2017

London Borough of Enfield Internment Notice, Enfield Council, https://new.enfield.gov.uk/services/births-deaths-and- marriages/cemeteries/cemeteries/registration-and-nationality-form-interment.pdf accessed 11.07.2017

Roman Enfield From Settlement to London Suburb, Enfield Council

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 29 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx https://new.enfield.gov.uk/services/leisure-and-culture/museums-and-heritage/past- exhibitions/museums-and-heritage-information-exhibition-roman-enfield.pdf accessed on 07.07.2017

Dealing with London’s dead, the aftermath of the burial acts, Natural History Museum, https://blog.nhm.ac.uk/2017/05/31/dealing-with-londons-dead-the-aftermath-of-the-burial-acts- human-anthropology/ accessed on 29.06.2017

Edmonton Cemetery, Parks & Gardens UK, http://www.parksandgardens.org/places-and-people/site/7203 accessed on 29.06.2017

Monument No. 405615, Pastscape, http://www.pastscape.org/hob.aspx?hob_id=405615&sort=4&search=all&criteria=cornish%20bri ckfield&rational=q&recordsperpage=10 accessed on 29.06.2017

Landmark/Groundsure historic Ordnance Survey mapping Enfield Local Studies Library and Archive

13.3 Cartographic sources

A Plan of the parish of Edmonton in the county of Middlesex showing the allotments in the common fields and common marsh as divided by the act of parliament in the years 1801 & 1802 Ordnance Survey maps Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25”:mile map (1867) Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 25”:mile map (1896) Ordnance Survey 3rd edition 25”: mile map (1914) Ordnance Survey 1:2500 scale maps (1935) Ordnance Survey 1:2500 scale maps (1991)

Engineering/Architects drawings Plan of existing site elevations NE corner (1st Horizon Surveying & Engineering Ltd, Drawing No. PE- EC2090-01, rev 25/05/17) Plan of existing site elevations SW corner (1st Horizon Surveying & Engineering Ltd, Drawing No. PE- EC2090-05, rev 25/05/17) Existing site plan (Ares landscape Architects, Drawing No. XXX-ALA-00-XXDR-L-007, rev 22/05/17) Illustrated Masterplan of proposed extension of Edmonton Cemetery (Ares Landscape Architects, Drawing No.XXX-ALA-00-XX-DR-L-001)

13.4 Available site survey information checklist

Information from client Available Format Obtained Plan of existing site services (overhead/buried) Y pdf Y Levelled site survey as existing (ground and Ypdf/CADY buildings) Contamination survey data ground and buildings (inc. N asbestos) Geotechnical report N Envirocheck report N Information obtained from non-client source Carried out Internal inspection of buildings Site inspection Y N

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2017 30 P:\ENFI\1133\na\Assessments\HEA_Edmonton_Cemetery_13-07-2017.docx Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2017

the site

010km Borough of Enfield 0500m

532900 533000 533100

31 23.2m Cemetery House 249

24 5 32b 330 CHURCH

Chapel STRE

E PCs T 23.5m

Pavilion 31 4

194000 Skatepark the site

Tennis Courts

RIDGE R B

CAM

GRE 193900

22.0m

s t

Cour

Te nn i 193800

Playground RIDGE ROA

CAMB T

44 GREA

38 193700

Fig 1 Site location

532000 532500 533000 533500 534000 195000

)"7 (!20 )"5 15 16 194500 6 (!28 )"4 8 8 )"19 9 (!18 (!21 9

9 13

11 2 )"3 194000 14 )"1

37 (!22)"10 (!25 )"23

(!26 )"11 193500

(!27

(!24 193000

KEY

past archaeological investigations (area known)

)" past archaeological investigations (area unknown)

archaeological features/findspots (area known)

192500 (! archaeological features/findspots (area unknown)

photograph location

study area

site outline

Archaeological Priority and Conservation Areas not shown

Fig 2 Historic environment features map

532900 533000 533100

330

Chapel

PCs 23.5m

Pavilion

194000 Skatepark

! BH 1 ! BH 2 Tennis Courts

AMBRIDGE ROAD

C T

R 193900 ! BH 5 G

22.0m

s t r u

Te nn i 193800

TP3 ! BH 3

Playground E ROAD !BH 4 IDG KEY AMBR C

EAT ! Client borehole

44 GR ! BGS boreholes

Client trial pit

193700 38 site outline

Fig 3 Locations of BGS boreholes, client borehole and client trial pit

ENFI1133HEA17#03 D O

Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2017 m 1 divided by the act of the site Fig 4 A plan of the parish Edmonton in county Middlesex showing allotments common fields and marsh as parliament in the years 1801 & 1802 (Enfield Local Studies Library)

the site

Fig 5 Ordnance Survey 25":mile map of 1867 (not to scale)

the site

Fig 6 Ordnance Survey 25":mile map of 1896 (not to scale)

ENFI1133HEA17#05&06

the site

Fig 7 Ordnance Survey 25":mile map of 1914 (not to scale)

the site

Fig 8 Ordnance Survey 25":mile map of 1935 (not to scale)

ENFI1133HEA17#07&08

the site

Fig 9 Ordnance Survey 1:2,500 scale map of 1991 (not to scale)

ENFI1133HEA17#09

Fig 10 Image showing south-west-facing side of site (MOLA Photograph No. 11, 19/06/2017)

Fig 11 Image showing east-facing section of trial pit 3 (MOLA Photograph No. 37, 19/06/2017)

ENFI1133HEA17#10&11

1m OD 23.8m OD

overgrown area

toilet block

vegetation

23.1m OD

pavilion

itrcevrnetassmn OA2017 Historic environment assessment MOLA

vegetation

23.3m OD

ENFI1133HEA17#12

the site

Fig 12 Plan of existing site levels in the south-west corner of the site (1st Horizon Surveying & Engineering Ltd, Drawing No. PE-EC2090-01)

1m OD tennis court vegetation

21.7m OD

the site

itrcevrnetassmn OA2017 Historic environment assessment MOLA

vegetation

221.4m1.4m OODD

ENFI1133HEA17#13

Fig 13 Plan of existing site levels in the north-east corner of the site (1st Horizon Surveying & Engineering Ltd, Drawing No. PE-EC2090-01)

1m OD D O

Historic environment assessment MOLA 2017 m 1 the site Fig 14 Existing site plan (Ares landscape Architects, Drawing No. XXX-ALA-00-XXDR-L-007)

ENFI1133HEA17#14 vehicular access to existing circulation

the site burial plots burial plots burial plots

itrcevrnetassmn OA2017 Historic environment assessment MOLA

burial plots retained existing tennis courts mausolea infant burial plots

ENFI1133HEA17#15

Fig 15 Illustrative Masterplan of proposed extension of Edmonton Cemetery (Ares Landscape Architects, Drawing No.XXX-ALA-00-XX-DR-L-001)

1m OD