SCOPING OPINION REQUEST
IN SUPPORT OF A PLANNING APPLICATION FOR A 21 HECTARE EXTENSION TO PASSENHAM QUARRY WITH RESTORATION TO AGRICULTURE USING IMPORTED INERT MATERIALS
PREPARED BY: DAVID L WALKER LIMITED
JULY 2014
GRS (Roadstone) Limited Scoping Opinion Request In support of an Extension to Passenham Quarry
CONTENTS
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
SECTION 2 BASELINE SETTING AND PROPOSED OPERATIONS
2.1 General 2.2 Ecology 2.3 Landscape Setting 2.4 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 2.5 Hydrology 2.6 Highways and Traffic
SECTION 3 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS
3.1 General 3.2 Soils and Agricultural Land Quality 3.3 Ecology 3.4 Landscape Setting 3.5 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 3.6 Hydrology and Hydrogeology 3.7 Matters Proposed to be Scoped Out 3.8 Other Considerations
SECTION 4 SUMMARY
2 Prepared by David L Walker Limited July 2014
GRS (Roadstone) Limited Scoping Opinion Request In support of an Extension to Passenham Quarry
LIST OF PLANS
P14/SR14/01 LOCATION PLAN
P14/SR14/02 SITE PLAN
<<<<<<<>>>>>>>
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 Copy of Planning Consent 12/00025/MIN
APPENDIX 2 Archaeology Desk Based Assessment dated April 2013
3 Prepared by David L Walker Limited July 2014
GRS (Roadstone) Limited Scoping Opinion Request In support of an Extension to Passenham Quarry
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 GRS Roadstone Limited (“the applicant”) is the operator of Passenham Quarry (“the site”), an established sand and gravel mineral working located approximately 6 km south-west of Milton Keynes and 400 m south-west of the village of Passenham.
1.2 Mineral extraction operations and progressive restoration are ongoing in a phased manner. However the mineral resources are nearing exhaustion. At current rates of production, there are approximately 14 months of consented reserves remaining.
1.3 In order to ensure the continuity of working at the site, an extension is necessary and the applicant has developed proposals for a 21 hectare extension to the existing workings (refer to Plan P14/SR14/01).
1.4 The 21 hectare extension area is proven to contain approximately 0.6 million tonnes of saleable sand and gravel reserves which will be recovered at a similar rate to current operations at between 80,000 to 120,000 tonnes per annum.
1.5 It is proposed that the extension is to be progressively restored to agriculture to near original ground levels, with agricultural land use and hedgerow enhancement. This is consistent with the ongoing restoration of the existing consented workings.
1.6 By virtue of the size of the application area (which will include the existing plant site), the proposals fall within Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (“the EIA Regulations”), and any planning application would need to be accompanied by an Environmental Statement.
1.7 Central government advice encourages developers proposing projects to engage in full and early consultation with both the planning authority and other bodies which have an interest, and it is recommended that they are invited to participate in defining the terms of reference for the Environmental Assessment.
1.8 In accordance with guidance, a formal Scoping Opinion under Section 13 of the EIA Regulations is being sought from the MPA and the information detailed in this submission is provided to assist the MPA in the formulation of their Opinion.
4 Prepared by David L Walker Limited July 2014
GRS (Roadstone) Limited Scoping Opinion Request In support of an Extension to Passenham Quarry
SECTION 2 BASELINE SETTING AND PROPOSED OPERATIONS
2.1 General
2.1.1 The operations at the site are well established, and comprise the extraction of high quality sand and gravel deposits, with restoration using imported inert materials. The consented area extends across approximately 32 hectares (approximately 13 hectares of which is situated within Northamptonshire), with current landuses within the area comprising the following elements:
plant site and ancillary operations area (including recycling activities); areas undergoing mineral extraction; areas awaiting mineral extraction; water storage and silt lagoons; restored areas of mineral extraction; and areas currently being restored.
The current location of these landuses across the existing site is illustrated on Plan P14/SR14/02.
2.1.2 These consented operations are located east of the A422, in proximity to the village of Passenham, with the plant site to the west and mineral extraction to the east of the River Great Ouse.
2.1.3 The proposed extension is situated in a primarily rural setting, and comprises open fields in agricultural use surrounded by a comprehensive network of drainage ditches. The extension will be directly south of the plant site.
2.1.4 The proposals envisage an extension across two (see plan P14/SR14/02) separate extraction areas. Owing to the distance of the extension to the plant site, it is proposed that the mineral would be worked with dump trucks used to transport as dug sand and gravel to the plant site in the same manner as existing.
2.1.5 All of the processing operations will be concentrated in the existing plant site, which is regulated under the provisions of planning consent 12/00025/MIN issued by the MPA (refer Appendix 1).
2.1.6 It is anticipated that the 0.6 mt reserve would be recovered over a period of 6 years.
5 Prepared by David L Walker Limited July 2014
GRS (Roadstone) Limited Scoping Opinion Request In support of an Extension to Passenham Quarry
2.1.7 The restoration of the site would seek to reinstate agricultural use with woodland planting and hedgerow enhancement in accordance with local planning policy.
2.1.8 This will be achieved with the use of imported inert restoration materials (circa 360,000 m3), to facilitate the return of the land to close to original levels.
2.2 Ecology
2.2.1 There are no ecologically-related statutory designated sites within or immediately adjacent to the site or the proposed extension area. There are however known protected species occurrences in proximity.
2.2.2 The proposed extension comprises arable fields enclosed by an extensive hedgerow network and ditches, both of which may have some ecological value.
2.3 Landscape Setting
2.3.1 The site is located on the urban fringe of Milton Keynes in a landscape controlled by the historic development of the Great River Ouse, and thus characterised by gently undulating topography and broad shallow valleys.
2.3.2 The closest residential development is at Passenham Village, with Deanshanger, Calverton, and Stoney Stratford all in proximity to the site. The proposed extension envelops the Kingfisher Country Club, itself a restored area of historic mineral working.
2.3.3 The site is located in a context of small scale arable field units, delineated by strong hedgerows and meandering drains, with some woodland compartments.
2.3.4 The small village of Passenham to the north-east of the application site contains several attractive traditional stone buildings and is semi-enclosed by mature garden and park-type tree planting. This area forms a pocket of high landscape quality and interest.
2.3.5 The River Ouse, winding past the application area and flowing north- eastwards into Milton Keynes, forms an attractive corridor feature, semi- enclosed by mature willows and other riverside trees, both as individual specimens and small groves. This landscape type is of a high landscape quality and visual interest.
6 Prepared by David L Walker Limited July 2014
GRS (Roadstone) Limited Scoping Opinion Request In support of an Extension to Passenham Quarry
2.3.6 The area around the site is generally of moderate landscape quality, with more open field and a lesser degree of mature hedgerow cover. The land appears as a typical area of mixed pastoral and arable infill between the River Ouse and the A422.
2.3.7 Noise disturbance due to fast-flowing traffic on the A422(T) and the A5(T) can create a busy atmosphere for the general area at times. In visual terms, what has been built along the A422 tends to detract from the overall landscape quality.
2.3.8 Although bisected by two road corridors, the area has not become totally fragmented. The undulating nature of the local landform, the meandering River Ouse corridor and the degree of mature hedgerow and drainline cover create a landscape with a good degree of semi-enclosure and is still best described as rural.
2.4 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
2.4.1 The operations at the existing site have been subject to a number of phases of investigation, including desk-based and intrusive investigations.
2.4.2 These investigations have identified the presence of numerous features of historic significance across a wide range of time (Iron Age to modern), the results of which have been recorded. The archaeological potential of the extension area is known, and a detailed assessment of this will be undertaken.
2.4.3 A desk based assessment of the extension area has already been undertaken and can be found reproduced at Appendix 2. This confirms moderate potential for remains to be found.
2.5 Hydrology
2.5.1 The site is partially located within the functional floodplain of the River Great Ouse. The river forms the eastern edge of the proposed extension. The river is fed by a number of tributary drains which bisect the application site.
2.5.2 The sand and gravel resource is classified as a minor aquifer in direct continuity with the hydrological system of the River Great Ouse.
7 Prepared by David L Walker Limited July 2014
GRS (Roadstone) Limited Scoping Opinion Request In support of an Extension to Passenham Quarry
2.6 Highways and Traffic
2.6.1 The existing site has the benefit of an established access off Deanshanger Road via a roundabout on to the A422.
2.6.2 There are no current limitations on HGV movements at the site; however the typical historic output rate is of the order of 80,000 tpa, which is equivalent to a daily average of 30 movements per day (15 in and 15 out). This will be increased via the recent grant of planning consent for a 40,000 tpa inert recycling operation within the plant site area.
2.6.3 The A422 is a primary distributor in the County’s road hierarchy and is therefore able to accommodate additional HGV traffic.
2.6.4 A network of footpaths extends across the undulating landform between Beachampton and Calverton, to the south-west of the application area. In addition, a short footpath links Passenham to the A422 and the path crosses the A422 by a footbridge that arcs over the main road.
2.6.5 However, there are currently no formal public rights of way within the site or the proposed extension, although it is noted that Bridleway RH/001 is in close proximity to the southern boundary.
8 Prepared by David L Walker Limited July 2014
GRS (Roadstone) Limited Scoping Opinion Request In support of an Extension to Passenham Quarry
SECTION 3 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS
3.1 General
3.1.1 It is proposed that the Environmental Statement will identify the existing baseline setting, the potential impact of extending the mineral extraction operations at the site and propose any mitigation and/or management measures to overcome or reduce the potential impact.
3.1.2 The applicant has developed a good understanding of the impact associated with operating Passenham Quarry. Based on this prior knowledge of site conditions, it is considered that the following issues will need to be addressed in detail:
(i) soils and agricultural land quality; (ii) ecology; (iii) landscape and visual impact; (iv) archaeology and cultural heritage; and (v) hydrology/hydrogeology and flood risk.
3.2 Soils and Agricultural Land Quality
3.2.1 An independent soils consultant will carry out a detailed soils survey within the proposed extension area to determine soils and agricultural land quality. The baseline information will comprise:
physical characteristics, including climate; existing land use; existing soil resources (topsoil, subsoil and soil making material); description of soil unit types; and assessment of agricultural land classification (ALC).
3.2.2 As part of the working proposals, a soil handling strategy will be proposed in line with the already approved strategy for soils in the existing quarry and soils will be stripped, stored and reinstated according to soil type and ALC grade. The soil handling strategy will be designed to reinstate soils in accordance with current MAFF (now Defra) Good Practice Guide for Handling Soils published in April 2000.
3.2.3 An assessment will be made of likely impacts of the proposals on land quality, soil resources and agricultural usage and holdings, with mitigation measures being implemented into the proposals to offset or minimise any impact.
9 Prepared by David L Walker Limited July 2014
GRS (Roadstone) Limited Scoping Opinion Request In support of an Extension to Passenham Quarry
3.3 Ecology
3.3.1 An independent consultant has been commissioned to undertake an ecological assessment of the site, and its environs. The brief included the following baseline data:
a Phase 1 Survey (JNCC 1993 Methodology) to include identification of all recognised statutory and non-statutory sites of nature conservation interest within a 1 km radius of the application site; observations of any protected species, including the following surveys; bat activity, reptiles, water voles, habitat assessment for white-clawed crayfish, great crested newts and breeding birds; an analysis of the importance of the recorded habitats in both a local and national context; full species list of vegetation; and detailed species list and description of the application site.
3.3.2 Following an analysis of the above findings, the site will be designed to minimise impact on those habitats of greatest value, whilst the proposed restoration scheme will seek to enhance existing habitats, and improve upon species diversity wherever possible. The Company will seek to accommodate the aspirations of the Mineral Planning Authority and County Wildlife Trust within the restoration scheme, consistent with local and national bio-diversity action plans for this area. It is intended that the opportunity will be taken to consider improvements to biodiversity where possible.
3.3.3 The Environmental Statement will set out the impact of the proposals on ecological interests as identified in the various ecological reports, including:
an assessment of likely impacts on the various habitats identified in the ecological surveys directly/indirectly disturbed and discussion of the significance of such impacts; description of the mitigation measures introduced in the site design to reduce ecological impact; details of the ecological enhancement measures being introduced during the operations; and description of how the restoration phases will result in longer-term ecological enhancement through the creation of new habitats where appropriate
10 Prepared by David L Walker Limited July 2014
GRS (Roadstone) Limited Scoping Opinion Request In support of an Extension to Passenham Quarry
3.4 Landscape Setting
3.4.1 An independent landscape consultant has been commissioned to undertake a landscape and visual impact assessment of the proposed development (during working and post-restoration). The assessment takes account of Government advice, and the latest available guidance on methodology. (Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment – 2013.) The survey involves a landscape and visual assessment of the site and the surrounding landscape that contributes to its setting. The final assessment will characterise the landscape in the context of existing landscape character assessment and identify visually sensitive receptors within the zone of visibility of the site to assess the extent and nature of views.
3.4.2 The landscape impacts will initially be assessed in relation to the impact of the proposed development on the identified landscape resources (quantified where possible) of the site and its character. In addition, the effects of the scheme on local landscape character, within the area surrounding the site, will be assessed. Viewpoints have been used to indicate the degree of visual impact during site operations, and following restoration. The extent of site visibility from public vantage points will be graded (no view, glimpse, partial view, open view) and the character of the view described.
3.4.3 The information gained from the landscape and visual assessment will contribute to influencing the scheme design and the baseline data will be ultimately used to visually assess each stage of site operations. The restoration proposals will be designed with the landscape and nature conservation interests of the area in mind.
3.5 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
3.5.1 An archaeological desk based assessment (DBA) has already been carried out in line with the standards and guidance published by the Institute of Field Archaeologists. The methodology will conform to requirements of National Planning Policy and guidance set out in the Code of Conduct Institute of Field Archaeologists (Standards and Guidance for Archaeological Desk Based Assessment).
3.5.2 The DBA (reproduced at Appendix 2) has an area of 500 m in the vicinity of the application site and comprises an analysis of relevant information contained in and provided by the County Sites and Monuments Record. Documentary and cartographic searches of relevant material in published and unpublished sources has also been undertaken.
11 Prepared by David L Walker Limited July 2014
GRS (Roadstone) Limited Scoping Opinion Request In support of an Extension to Passenham Quarry
3.5.3 A site visit and walkover survey has been undertaken to examine the topography and current landuse of the application site and to identify any previously unrecorded above ground archaeological features. Consideration has also been given to listed assets in the vicinity of the site, both in terms of their primary and secondary setting.
3.5.4 The assessment has indicated a moderate level of potential for archaeological remains. It is therefore considered that an element of further investigation will be necessary in liaison with the County’s Curatorial Unit.
3.6 Hydrology and Hydrogeology and Flood Risk
3.6.1 An assessment of baseline conditions for both hydrology and hydrogeology of the application site and surrounding area will be made. This will include information on:
the geology; condition of waterbodies on or in the vicinity of the application site; analysis of water quality in watercourses receiving site discharges; information regarding existing users, local abstraction and discharge consents; extent of any catchment to be affected; and assessment of aquifers in the locality.
3.6.2 This information will be used to build a conceptual model. Once the model is established, the assessment will describe the impact of the proposed operations on the local surface water network as well as groundwater, including an assessment of the impacts on the water quality and catchment balance during operations and any proposed mitigation measures designed to combat these effects, ie overall drainage management regime.
3.6.3 Specifically, it is envisaged that the assessment will also include consideration of the following:
assessment and mitigation of the impacts associated with dewatering upon the surrounding water environment. consideration of potential impact on water flows in the River Great Ouse; water management measures in the site; potential impacts of placement of low permeability inert fill upon the current groundwater regime; and potential risk of flooding on the more southern elements of the site.
12 Prepared by David L Walker Limited July 2014
GRS (Roadstone) Limited Scoping Opinion Request In support of an Extension to Passenham Quarry
3.6.4 The assessments will make use of the network of ground water monitoring installations that are already in place across the application site.
3.6.5 The application site is partly within the indicative flood plain and any water encountered during the mineral extraction operations will be discharged in a controlled manner. Consistent with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”), a flood risk assessment will be undertaken.
3.6.6 The FRA will therefore specifically consider the following:
alteration in run-off volumes from the site; displacement of flood water resultant of the development; and any potential possibility of residual and off-site impacts.
3.7 Matters Proposed to be Scoped Out
3.7.1 The proposed extension is remote from residential premises with the nearest, Kingfisher Cottage, located some 130 m from the closest proposed point of extraction, which is in excess of the traditional 100 m stand-off normally used by sand and gravel operations to comply with Technical Guidance appended to the NPPF.
3.7.2 Similarly, whilst it is acknowledged that the extension wraps around the Kingfisher Country Park, it is considered that the use of the best practice noise and dust mitigation plans on site will ensure no impact on this feature, and therefore no further assessment work is proposed in either discipline.
3.7.3 In respect of traffic, the site benefits from an existing well-established access and there are no proposals to increase rates of output. It is therefore proposed that the impacts are known and no further assessment work is required in this instance.
3.8 Other Considerations
3.8.1 It is envisaged that the Environmental Statement will also provide definitive descriptions of the geological conditions, detail on the working of the deposit, and the proposed restoration and aftercare measures.
3.8.2 After addressing all the environmental assessment criteria identified above, and the various potential interaction effects, it is proposed that the Environmental Statement will make reference to the Development Plan with the provision of a Planning Statement, which will itself include details on the need for the development and the potential socio-economic impacts.
13 Prepared by David L Walker Limited July 2014
GRS (Roadstone) Limited Scoping Opinion Request In support of an Extension to Passenham Quarry
3.8.3 The Environmental Statement will examine the proposals in relation to current government advice documents (including the Planning Practice Guidance) that deal with the relevant issues identified through the Environmental Assessment process.
3.8.4 It is not considered that an assessment of alternatives is necessary in this instance as minerals can only be worked where they occur and as this process is being fully examined in the emerging replacement Minerals and Waste Local Plans. In any event, the extension is within an area already identified as a preferred location by the MPA.
3.8.5 Finally, the County Council’s planning application validation criteria will be reviewed in full in order to identify the requirement for supplementary assessments.
14 Prepared by David L Walker Limited July 2014
GRS (Roadstone) Limited Scoping Opinion Request In support of an Extension to Passenham Quarry
SECTION 4 SUMMARY
4.1 GRS Roadstone Limited (“the applicant”) is the operator of Passenham Quarry (“the site”), an established sand and gravel mineral working located approximately 6 km south-west of Milton Keynes and 400 m south-west of the village of Passenham.
4.2 Mineral extraction operations are ongoing in a phased manner. However the mineral resources are nearing exhaustion. At current rates of extraction, the existing permitted reserves will be exhausted in approximately 14 months.
4.3 In order to ensure the continuity of working at the site, an extension is necessary and the applicant has developed proposals for a 21 hectare extension to the existing workings.
4.4 It is considered that the proposals fall within Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 by virtue of the nature of the development and the size of the application site.
4.5 Central government advice encourages developers proposing projects to engage in full and early consultation with both the planning authority and other bodies which have an interest, and it is recommended that they are invited to participate in defining the terms of reference for the Environmental Assessment.
4.6 In accordance with guidance, a formal Scoping Opinion under Section 13 of the EIA Regulations is being sought from the MPA and the information detailed in this submission is provided to assist the Council in the formulation of their Opinion.
15 Prepared by David L Walker Limited July 2014
GRS (Roadstone) Limited Scoping Opinion Request In support of an Extension to Passenham Quarry
P14/SR14/01
LOCATION PLAN
July 2014
GRS (Roadstone) Limited Scoping Opinion Request In support of an Extension to Passenham Quarry
P14/SR14/02
SITE PLAN
July 2014
GRS (Roadstone) Limited Scoping Opinion Request In support of an Extension to Passenham Quarry
APPENDIX 1
COPY OF PLANNING CONSENT
12/00025/MIN
July 2014
GRS (Roadstone) Limited Scoping Opinion Request In support of an Extension to Passenham Quarry
APPENDIX 2
ARCHAEOLOGY DESK BASED ASSESSMENT
DATED APRIL 2013
July 2014
P H O E N I X C O N S U L T I N G A r c h a e o l o g i c a l C o n s u l t a n c y
DESK BASED ASSESSMENT
PASSENHAM QUARRY SOUTHERN EXTENSION (REES LAND) NORTHAMPTONSHIRE
On behalf of:
GRS Roadstone Ltd
Doc Ref: PC378
Prepared by:
A Walsh BA & A Richmond BA PhD MIfA FSA
14th March 2013
1| P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The commission 1.2 In connection with the commission 1.3 Methodology
2.0 LOCATION, TOPOGRAPHY AND LANDUSE
2.1 Location and current land-use 2.2 Geology and soils
3.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL FEATURES
3.1 Introduction 3.2 The proposed development site 3.3 The regional context and the surrounds of the proposed development
4.0 ASSESSMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL
4.1 Archaeological and historical potential
5.0 SUMMARY
5.1 Concluding statement
References
Appendix A
2 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Site location.
Figure 2 HER data around the site.
Figure 3 Part of the map of Whittlewood Forest, c 1608.
Figure 4 Ordnance Survey First Edition 1885-1900.
Figure 5 Ordnance Survey 1989.
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 1 View across the meadow occupying the east part of the development area, looking north.
Plate 2 View across the western arable field, looking west.
Plate 3 View across surviving ridge and furrow, at south part of East Meadow, looking south.
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Selected Historic Environment Record data in and around the proposed development area.
3 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
1997 2013
Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd
Phoenix Consulting is an independent consultancy offering a range of archaeological services including advice, document preparation, planning negotiation and archaeological fieldwork survey and analysis.
Phoenix Consulting is committed to ensuring that the client receives a proficient and professional service, whilst maintaining the highest standards. All projects are carried out in accordance with NPPF (2012), and the guidelines and recommendations issued by the Institute for Archaeologists and English Heritage. Phoenix Consulting is a Registered Organisation (RO 44) with the Institute for Archaeologists, the discipline’s professional body dedicated to setting, promoting and maintaining standards and ethics in archaeology.
4 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The commission
1.1.1 GRS Roadstone Ltd are considering a site known as Rees Land, Mill Farm, Beachampton, for mineral extraction. The site represents a southern extension to their permitted workings at Passenham Quarry, Milton Keynes. The proposed extension is centred on NGR SP 760391 and covers c. 50ha, being entirely within the bordering County of Northamptonshire (see Figure 1). The client has requested a desk-based appraisal, which considers the archaeology of the site, its surrounds and the historical elements of the landscape.
1.1.2 This document assesses the extent of known archaeology and historic landscape development in and around the proposed development area and discusses the likelihood for further archaeological finds as existing within the site. It forms the information required by the curatorial authority in order to allow for an informed assessment of the proposed development on archaeological grounds.
1.2 In connection with the commission
1.2.1 All records of archaeological and historic sites and finds that relate to the proposed development area and its immediate vicinity were collected from the Historic Environment Record (HER) maintained by Northamptonshire County Council. The HER’s of Milton Keynes City Council and Buckinghamshire County Council were also consulted. Reports on previous archaeological work in the area contained in the HER files were assessed where appropriate
1.2.2 A search was made for all readily accessible manuscript and printed maps and plans and other relevant documents in the Northamptonshire County Record Office. In addition, maps and plans were obtained from the local studies library Milton Keynes Central Library.
1.2.3 Further research of published material has been undertaken to an extent appropriate to this desk-based assessment. A list of all sources is provided in the Reference section at the end of this report.
1.2.4 A site visit was undertaken on the 1st March 2013, during which observations were made and notes taken on topography, current landuse and any visible archaeological or historical features surviving in the immediate landscape.
5 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
Figure 1 Rees Land, Mill Farm, Beachampton: Site Location. Reproduced with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office: Licence AL 100030371
6 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
1.3 Methodology
1.3.1 The desk-based assessment has been carried out in such a way as to allow the report to be structured as follows:
Introduction:
1.3.2 An introduction provides a summary of the physical characteristics of the area. The proposed development site is placed in its topographical and landuse context.
Known and Potential Archaeology:
1.3.3 The known archaeological and historic landscape interest of the proposed development area and its surrounds is presented and interpreted. An assessment is thereafter made of the archaeological potential of the site, taking into account features of the physical environment and other factors that may enhance or reduce the opportunities for the survival of archaeological remains.
Impact of the Development:
1.3.4 An assessment is made of the likely effect that proposed development would have on surviving archaeological and historical remains.
2.0 LOCATION, TOPOGRAPHY AND LANDUSE
2.1 Location and current landuse (see Figure 1)
2.1.1 The site occupies an area of pasture and arable on the northern bank of the River Great Ouse. The meandering river forms the eastern extent to the site, whilst the A422 Buckingham road forms the western boundary. The current Passenham Quarry lies immediately to the north, and to the south are hedged fields. The site surrounds the Kingfisher Country Club, an area of former quarrying, which has been restored to a golf course and leisure facilities. The village of Passenham lies 630m to the north; Deanshanger is located beyond the A422, c.400m to the NW and the small village of Calverton lies c. 700m to the NE. The site is generally flat, between 67-69m OD, rising slightly from the river towards the A422.
2.1.2 The field visit undertaken did not identify any unexpected aspects of historical or archaeological interest on, or in the immediate vicinity of the site. The site is under a combination of arable and meadow (Plate 1). The meadow is located to the east and NE, adjacent to the River Ouse (Plate 2). The arable lies to the south and west, with a small field of cultivation at the NW corner.
7 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
Plate 1 View across the meadow occupying the east part of the development area, looking north.
Plate 2 View across the western arable field, looking west.
8 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
2.2 Geology and soils
2.2.1 The geological mapping of the region shows the site to be alluvium and first-terrace river gravels (BGS ‘Milton Keynes’ (1:25,000) SP83). Soils along the Ouse Valley are typically of the Bishampton 2 Association, that form narrow strips on the low terraces.
3.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL FEATURES
3.1 Introduction (numbers in bold text refer to entries on Figure 2 and Appendix A)
3.1.1 Any assessment of the archaeological potential of a site depends not only on an understanding of known archaeological features within it, but also an awareness of the deficiencies in the archaeological record, the archaeological and historical context of the locality in which the proposed development is situated, and also an understanding of the site's landuse history, geology, soils and topography.
3.1.2 This section describes the known archaeological remains and historical features within the proposed development area and its surrounds. This information is from the Historic Environment Records (HERs) of Northamptonshire County Council, Milton Keynes Council, and Buckinghamshire County Council; information held by the Northampton Records Office and Milton Keynes Local Studies Library and the field visit undertaken. Information from the investigations across the existing Passenham Quarry has also been taken into account. Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of known sites and features.
3.2 The proposed development area (see Figure 2)
3.2.1 There are 6 recorded entries within, or partially entering the site. These encompass records from Northamptonshire HER and records of metal detecting finds reported under the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS).
3.2.2 In the western field, adjacent to the A422, are a series of cropmarks, which were defined during the National Mapping Programme [1]. They have been interpreted as ‘two prehistoric enclosures and ditches of uncertain function’. The HER suggests this is a possible prehistoric settlement. The majority of the plotted cropmarks lie outside of the proposed development boundary, and hence will not be affected. Only a couple of potential ditch features enter the site.
3.2.3 In the southern field are further cropmarks of uncertain date and function [2]. It has been suggested that they represent a prehistoric funerary site, including at least one ring-ditch or barrow.
9 | P a g e
23 30 32 27 22 31 15 21 37 29 10 18 26 28 25 19 16 11 1
20 17 24
9 6 5 13 2 3 14 4 7 08 12
36 35
Figure 2 Passenham Quarry: Known archaeology on and around the site. Rees Land Produced with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office Sites 33 & 34 beyond confines of map. Other Rees Land Licence No. AL 100030371 Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
3.2.4 The Portable Antiquities Scheme records 33 metal-detector finds in and around the site’s southern field. Ten of these are low denomination Roman copper coins [3], whilst one item is a Saxon copper brooch [4]. Ten further items are of Medieval date, including four silver coins and two Medieval finger rings [5]. The remainder of the items are post- Medieval in date and include copper coins, a buckle and various copper pins.
3.2.5 In the SE part of the site, in the meadow fields adjacent to the River Ouse, is an area of surviving ridge and furrow [6]. The plotted extent of these remains is based upon aerial photographs taken c. 1946 (Hall 2001), and defines an area of c. 5.8ha. However, during the site visit it was noted that the surviving earthworks were very slight and covered a much smaller area (Plate 1). The most visible remains were either side of the track leading from Mill Farm (Plate 3).
Plate 3 View across surviving ridge and furrow, at south part of East Meadow, looking south.
3.2.6 Areas of ridge and furrow are one of the most recognisable features of the English historic landscape. It gives pasture fields an undulating, corrugated appearance, and in most cases marks the remains of Medieval strip fields that were once under the plough. Ridge and furrow are the earthwork remains of the typical pre-enclosure farming system, in which small-holdings and villages were surrounded by large, hedgeless open fields that were farmed in strips.
10 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
3.2.7 Some details of ridge and furrow are not widely understood, such as the date of when they were formed. Ridge and furrow is generally regarded as ‘Medieval’ but the age of surviving remnants is strictly the date when they were last ploughed, that is when a township was enclosed. For most areas this was in the period 1730 - 1840, with examples known as late as 1895 and 1901. Hall (2001) records that Passenham had some enclosure as early as c. 1640. This was probably around the village, being associated with the consolidation of the Manor by Sir Robert Banastre, who acquired it in c. 1624 (Brown and Roberts 1973, 83; VCH). Whilst the study of ridge and furrow is not of primary archaeological importance, it can contribute to the reconstruction of past landscapes. 3.2.8 On the boundary of the proposed extension, two further sites are recorded. The Buckinghamshire HER notes that one of the two Medieval watermills recorded for Beachampton in 1285, was probably at Mill Farm [7]. Its precise location, however, is unknown. Further to the west, the disused route of the Buckingham branch of the Grand Junction Canal bounds the site [8]. The canal was opened in 1801 and closed in the early 20th century.
3.3 The regional context & the surrounds of the proposed development area1
Designated Sites
3.3.1 No Registered Historic Parks or Gardens, Scheduled Monuments, Conservation Areas or Historic Battlefields are recorded within, or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development area. The nearest Registered Park and Garden is at Stowe School, (UID2 1105), c. 6km to the west. The nearest Scheduled Monument is Grove Close Moat, Wicken (UID 13617), which lies 1.7 km to the SW. The Scheduled Church and Churchyard of St Mary Magdalen, Stony Stratford (UID35357) lies 1.8 km to the NE. The Passenham Conservation Area encompasses the historic core of the village, and its southern edge lays c. 600m to the north of the site. The Calverton Conservation Area lies beyond the Beachampton Road, at c. 700m to the NE. No part of the proposed development site lies within the primary setting or curtilage of any of these heritage assets.
Non-designated Sites
3.3.2 The earliest archaeology in the wider landscape is of Palaeolithic date (c. 500,000 to 8,500 BC), but it is very slight and, as with most of early Prehistoric Britain, is not represented by domestic settlement sites or burial structures, but only by isolated flint and stone tools. Generally Palaeolithic finds are not recovered in situ, and are rather found in their
1 Numbers in bold text refer to entries on Figure 2 and as detailed under Appendix A. 2 English Heritage Unique Identification Number.
11 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
final resting places, having been removed from their original places of deposition through past episodes of fluvial action. An in situ scatter of upper Palaeolithic material was recovered during recent work at the existing Manor Farm Quarry, Wolverton c. 4km to the NE (Richmond 2012, 12). The finds perhaps represent a temporary stop by a Palaeolithic group at a floodplain location. The isolated find of a mammoth tusk [9], now in Northampton Museum, is recorded from within the quarried, now reinstated part of the current Kingfisher Country Club.
3.3.3 The Mesolithic period (c. 8,500 to 3,500 BC) marks the end of the last Ice Age with a period of climatic amelioration. As the climate improved new areas became attractive for colonisation and groups spread along the river valleys searching out attractive zones for hunting, fishing and gathering.
3.3.4 The Mesolithic period is poorly represented in the region. Indeed, only fifty or so sites of this date are recorded for the whole of Northamptonshire. Much of this evidence is artefactual; information on actual settlement and land use is less well understood. A small number of residual flint artefacts of probable Mesolithic date were recovered from the fills of the Bronze Age barrows excavated in phases 3 and 4 of the current Passenham Quarry [10].
3.3.5 The Neolithic period (3,500 to 2,000 BC), is a time generally associated with the introduction of agriculture to the British Isles. The beginnings of agriculture led to a more sedentary existence, being evidenced by domestic crops and animals and the clearing of tracts of woodland for farming activities. The Neolithic period also saw the construction of large communal monuments, such as henges, cursuses and barrows for ritual activities and the burial of the dead. Actual settlement sites are far less well understood, but concentrations of artefacts, including flint and stone tools and pottery sherds, are generally assumed to indicate areas where Neolithic groups settled.
3.3.6 The HER contains information on several Neolithic finds. These are all artefactual and relate to flint tools recovered from later residual contexts. The nearest of these to the site are from evaluation and excavations at the current Passenham Quarry. Flints recovered were later Neolithic in date and characterized by tanged and barbed arrow heads and squat flakes. However an early Neolithic leaf-shaped arrowhead, soft hammer struck blades and an end scrapper have also been recovered [10], [11]. One of the more significant Neolithic discoveries in the region has been the recent identification of a monumental and ceremonial landscape at Manor Farm Quarry, Wolverton. Here, three Middle Neolithic cursus monuments have been uncovered, together with a pit circle and several cremations (Beadsmoore pers. comm.).
12 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
3.3.7 The river valley of the Great Ouse is well known for its extensive remains of Bronze Age (2,000 to 1,000 BC) date, and there is information for this period in the immediate landscape. It is likely that by the early Bronze Age the wider Ouse valley and its associated tributaries were being utilised by small groups of farmers for pasture, with the higher ground being wooded and interspersed with the occasional scattered settlement.
3.3.8 At the current Passenham Quarry archaeological excavations prior to quarrying identified several Bronze Age round barrows and a late Bronze Age pit alignment. The information comprised:
a group of four barrows [10] investigated by geophysical survey, evaluation trenching and open area excavation. A possible 5th round barrow is believed to be present in quarry phase 7. Upon excavation the monuments proved to be heavily truncated and there were no internal features or burial deposits.
a pit alignment [11] suggested by geophysical survey during evaluation, and confirmed by 2 seasons of excavations, which recorded 97 circular pits. The alignment was orientated west to east, from the river Ouse towards the current Beachampton Road and is thought to date from the later Bronze Age into the earlier Iron Age (Walker 2009 and 2011).
3.3.9 A number of ploughed-out round barrows are known from the wider area, representing the remains of Bronze Age burial mounds. Cropmarks recorded on aerial photographs suggest the presence of an enclosure, a ring-ditch of a burial mound and a linear feature in the field just south of the site [12]. Cropmarks of three possible Bronze Age ring-ditches are recorded in fields to the north of Mill Farm [13]; two more ring-ditches are recorded in the field east of the farm [14]. To the north of the main channel of the River Ouse in ‘Ham Meadow’, are a group of at least three barrows [15] (Brown and Roberts 1973, plate 2). Barrows are the most common form of prehistoric monument.
3.3.10 Throughout Britain the Iron Age period (1,000 BC to AD 43) represents a time when farming settlements became more widely established and human groups created a substantial reduction in the level of woodland cover with the creation of fields for pasture and arable. In the wider landscape such activity is well represented, suggesting a transition from a monument dominated landscape of the Neolithic and Bronze Age to a settlement dominated landscape of the Iron Age.
3.3.11 Whilst there are no recorded sites of Iron Age date within the proposed development area, relatively large amounts of Iron Age pottery have been recovered nearby. At Passenham Quarry a number of features were
13 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
dated to this period, but no clear settlement focus was identified. The information comprised of the following:
The upper fills of the pits in the pit alignment contained large numbers of sherds of Iron Age pottery: 2,750 sherds, weighing 14.2kg [16]. Pottery was recovered from a small number of features during evaluation in 2006 and residual sherds of Iron Age pottery were recovered from later Romano-British contexts [17]. It is believed that there may be an Iron Age precursor to the Romano-British settlement. A multi-phase circular ditched enclosure is thought to be of Iron Age date [18]. To the east of the enclosure were two groups of postholes which formed at least two ‘four-post’ structures, which are commonly interpreted as Iron Age granaries. A ditched enclosure with series of postholes which contained a small amount of later Iron age pottery [19].
3.3.12 Further Iron Age activities are recorded for the search area. Dense cropmarks NW of Mount Mill Cottages [20] suggest a settlement comprising of hut circles and ditches, whilst cropmarks of an enclosure and ditches to the north of the A422 could be contemporary [21]. At Kingsbrook School, Deanshanger an Iron Age settlement site has been investigated [22], whilst Iron Age ditches have been found during works at Passenham Manor Nurseries [23]. In 2012 significant Iron Age finds were recovered during excavations in Calverton Parish, Milton Keynes, adjacent to Watling Street, (N Crank, pers. comm).
3.3.13 The coming of Roman Britain (43 to 410 AD) equates with a massive increase in the material record. Settlements expanded in size and number to cope with the increased demands for produce, and new areas of land were exploited as population levels increased. Throughout the wider region this period of expansion is reflected in an increase in the quantity and diversity of finds and settlements.
3.3.14 Within the search area several sites and finds of Roman date are recorded. Within the existing Passenham Quarry several significant finds of Roman date have been made:
Evaluation in 2006 found foundations of Roman buildings marked by limestone footings. Nearby were small and large pits and enclosing boundary ditches [24]. Roman features extended over an area of nearly 2ha. Excavations in 2006 and 2007 found a cluster of postholes interpreted as a Roman granary [25]. Excavations in 2009 found a circular stone-built Roman mortuary [26], which contained a central cremation burial in a large pot.
14 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
Within and around the cremation were 1,472 nails. A coin of Antoninus Pius (AD138-61) was at the base of the pot.
3.3.15 To the north of the site, on the far side of the A422, is the location of a Roman villa [27]. This was discovered during the construction of Deanshanger School in 1957 (now Kingsbrook School). Further excavations of the site have taken place in more recent years (Brown 2006). The suggested route of a Roman road [28] (Viatores 171) lies close to the villa site, running almost parallel to the modern road.
3.3.16 Four unstratified Roman finds are recorded on the Northamptonshire HER for the wider search area; these were collated under the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) and were given a very general location, for registration purposes [29]. They comprise three copper, low denomination coins, and a fragment of copper alloy bracelet.
3.3.17 Our understanding of the Anglo-Saxon period (410 to 1066 AD) is far from clear. It is recorded that Passenham was a Royal Manor within Whittlewood Forest; perhaps the administrative centre of Cleveley Hundred, with subsidiary settlements at Wicken, Puxley and Cosgrove (Jones and Page 2006, 63). In AD 921 the Anglo Saxon Chronicle records that Edward the Elder encamped his army at Passenham whilst the fortifications at Towcester were reinforced (VCH 2002; Brown and Roberts 1973 19-20).
3.3.18 Despite these associations, there little archaeology of Saxon date within the search area. In Passenham village a possible Anglo Saxon Cemetery [30] has been suggested close to the Rectory. Skeletons are recorded as having been found here in 1873, 1947 and 1965. The parish church of Passenham [31] is dedicated to St Guthlac, an 8th century Mercian Saint, although the fabric of the current church dates from the 13th century.
3.3.19 In contrast to the earlier periods, there is much more evidence that the area was settled and exploited in the Medieval period (AD 1066 - 1560). Passenham is mentioned three times in Domesday as Bassonham, Paseham and Passeham. In the first entry the holder is the King, with one hide, 12 ploughs and a mill, meadow and woodland. The second entry records half a hide held by ‘Reginald’, and the third entry details land belonging to Passenham held in ‘soke’ at Cosgrove (Williams and Martin, 2002, 592, 601-2).
3.3.20 During the Medieval period Passenham was the administrative and religious ‘head’ of the Parish, and site of the Manor Court. However tight manorial control meant Passenham was a ‘closed’ settlement, which did not grow in size. Increasingly therefore, the centre of population in the Parish became Deanshanger. Until at least the 18th century both Deanshanger and Passenham farmed most of their land in common open fields, with common meadow stretching along the Ouse. The map of
15 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
Whittlewood, probably drawn up c. 1608, shows Deanshanger and Passenham, each surrounded by their Medieval plots (see Figure 3). The proposed development site lay within the area of ‘south field’, Deanshanger. This was the largest of the common fields covering c. 400 acres.
3.3.21 In many of the fields surrounding Passenham and Deanshanger are the eroded remains of ridge and furrow earthworks (Hall 2001). Ridge and furrow is generally regarded as ‘Medieval’ but the age of surviving remnants is strictly the date when they were last ploughed, that is when a township was enclosed.
3.3.22 A total of 13 unstratified Medieval finds are recorded on the Northamptonshire HER for the wider search area. The majority have been collated under the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS), and have only been given a very general location for registration. They are represented by small copper alloy objects such as coins, pins and buckles. They are likely to represent personal losses of individuals working the Medieval strip fields.
3.3.23 Post-Medieval (1561 – present) activity is well recorded within the search area and predominantly relates to historic structures within the cores of Passenham, Beachampton and Calverton. Indeed, aside from a former quarry pit [9] and 4 metal-detector finds, the majority of HER entries relate to Listed Buildings. In Passenham there are 9 Listed Buildings, of which the Church of St Guthlac and two barns at Manor House are Listed Grade I; the rest are of Grade II status. In Calverton, just beyond the search area, there are 24 Listed Buildings, with two being Grade II*.
Passenham
● Church of St Guthlac, Passenham. Medieval Parish Church, 13th century with later additions. Constructed of coursed squared limestone with limestone dressings and lead roofs. The building is an example of a well- preserved Medieval Parish Church, noted for its fine 17th Chancel and wall paintings. Listed Grade I. [31].
● Two Barns at the Manor House, A pair of barns, each of eight bays, although of differing lengths dated to the early 17th; with a date stone ‘1626’. Constructed of course squared limestone, with old plain-tile roofs. Listed at Grade I [32].
● The Manor House and attached walls and gates, Early 17th and 18th century country house, possibly with older origins, which was extended in the mid- 19th century; with an attic nursery created by Sir Edwin Lutyens 1935. Constructed of coursed squared limestone with old plain-tile roofs. Listed Grade II. The house is noted for its gardens, which are also thought to be essentially a 17th century layout.
16 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
● Manor Farmhouse, An 18th and 19th century farmhouse, constructed of rendered brick and stone. Listed Grade II.
● Dovecote to south of Manor House, A 17th century dovecote with 19th century alterations, constructed of coursed squared limestone, with an old plain-tile pyramidal roof. Listed Grade II.
Calverton
● Church of All Saints, mainly two phases of 19th century rebuilding, 1817-18, and 1850’s. Some Medieval structure survives in the south S arcade, tower and chancel arches. Listed Grade II* [33].
● Manor Farm House, Late 15th century house with 16th century and 17th century additions. Generally constructed of stone with a tiled roof. Listed Grade II* [34].
3.3.24 Other Listed Buildings within the search area include Beachampton Hall [35], Listed Grade II* and a bridge on the Buckingham Arm of the Grand Union Canal [36] which is Listed Grade II.
Cartographic Evidence
3.3.25 A useful source of information regarding the development of the area around and including the site during the post-Medieval period is from historic maps. The following presents a brief map regression of the site and its surrounds allowing for an evolution of the area to be traced from the 18th century onwards.
3.3.26 A number of early maps exist that show the settlements of Passenham, Deanshanger and Calverton and the surrounding landscape, including those of Saxton (1610), Speed (1612) and Bryant (1825), but due to their small scale they provide little in the way of cartographic detail to be of use in this assessment.
3.3.27 The earliest detailed mapping for the site is the map of ‘Whittlewood Forest’ which is believed to have been surveyed in c. 1608. The original is lost but a good copy c. 1725 survives (Figure 3). It shows the site to be within the area of the ‘open field’ of Deanshanger Village, named South Field. It artistically details the relative sizes of Passenham and Deanshanger at this time, with the Church at Passenham and houses standing in closes, clearly shown. A post-mill is depicted to the NE of the village. The only cartographic depiction within the proposed development site, is at the SE corner, where a trackway is shown to lead up to, and potentially cross the river. The field at this point is detailed as ‘Kingsham Moor’.
17 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
Figure 3 Part of the Map of Whittlewood Forest, c1608 (Source: Brown and Roberts 1973)
3.3.28 The Ordnance Survey First Edition 1885-1900 (Fig. 4) shows the proposed development site to be occupied by enclosed, hedged fields. Several fields are partially bisected by a track, which leads SE off the Buckingham Road and leads down to the River Ouse. There are two general arrangements of field plots. To the north of the track the fields are rectangular, whose long axis are aligned NW to SE. The exception to this is the large field at the east, which is aligned parallel to the river. To the south of the track the fields are larger, and squarer in shape; again with the exception of those fields adjacent to the river, which mirror the general curve of the channel. Two barns are depicted on the map; the one nearest the Buckingham Road being named New Barn, but the second, close to the river is not labelled. The SW side of the proposed
18 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
development area is coincident with the Towing Path of the Grand Junction Canal, which opened in 1801.
Figure 4 Ordnance Survey First Edition mapping of 1885-1900
3.3.29 Subsequent editions of the Ordnance Survey (1926, 1938, 1950, 1958 and 1966) show the layout of fields and communication routes largely unchanged from that given on the Ordnance Survey First Edition.
3.3.30 The OS mapping of 1989 shows the site to be occupied by broadly the same arrangement of hedged fields as on earlier mapping. There are however, several small variations. The southern-most fields are now shown as a single unit, following the removal of a field boundary to
19 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
create a larger plot. The track leading from the Buckingham Road, north of Bridledean Cottage (now named) is represented as a clear trackway all the way to the river. New Barn is still named, and the second, unnamed barn is also still present. The Grand Union Canal is noted as ‘disused’.
Figure 5 Ordnance Survey 1989
3.3.31 In the central part of the site are two fields that contain the remains of a former quarry, labelled Pit, (disused). The pit now lies within the north part of the current Kingfisher Golf Club, mostly beneath woodland. The Buckingham Road is shown as a slightly more regular curve, with verges. To the north, Deanshanger remains essentially unchanged, bounded by Manor Farm and Dove House Farm, but the new School is shown, and a cross marks the position of the Roman Villa discovered during its construction.
20 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
4.0 ASSESSMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL
4.1 Archaeological and historical potential
4.1.1 No Registered Historic Parks or Gardens, Scheduled Monuments, Conservation Areas or Historic Battlefields are recorded within, or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development area. The nearest Registered Park and Garden is at Stowe School, c. 6km to the west. The nearest Scheduled Monument is Grove Close Moat, Wicken, which lies 1.7 km to the SW. The Passenham Conservation Area encompasses the historic core of the village, and its southern edge lays c. 600m to the north of the site. The Calverton Conservation Area lies beyond the Beachampton Road, at c. 700m to the NE. No part of the proposed development site lies within the primary setting or curtilage of any of these heritage assets.
4.1.2 Within the search area there are 36 Listed Buildings, the majority of Grade II status. These are predominantly within the historic cores of the surrounding settlements of Passenham and Calverton. The only Listed Grade I buildings are the Church of St Guthlac, Passenham and the two barns at Passenham Manor. Their settings do not extend to the proposed development site. Of the remaining Listed Grade II and II* buildings and structures, none are in close proximity to the site and their settings will not be affected.
4.1.3 There are three sites recorded in the Historic Environment Record within, or partially entering the confines of the proposed development area. In addition, a number of diverse metal detector finds are recorded for the site under the Portable Antiquities Scheme. The HER entries relate to a suggested prehistoric settlement enclosure just outside, though partially entering the site’s westernmost field and a suggested burial mound in the site’s southernmost field. Both these sites have only been identified as cropmarks on aerial photographs. In addition, Medieval/post-Medieval ridge and furrow is recorded for several meadows bordering the river. The general condition of the ridge and furrow earthworks at ground level is considered to be poor, having been degraded by later agricultural activities and episodes of river channel flooding (Hall 2001). The clearest surviving areas are near to Mill Farm, but are quite low in height and limited in their extent.
4.1.4 Within the surrounding landscape the earliest records of significant activity date to the Neolithic period onwards. During investigations across the neighbouring Passenham Quarry, a monumental Bronze Age landscape has been identified on the floodplain. To date, four barrow monuments have been uncovered, together with a pit alignment.
4.1.5 The location of the various prehistoric monuments was almost certainly influenced by the river. The majority of the identified features are on the
21 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
lower floodplain, often parallel to the watercourse. The burial mounds appear to have been located on gravel islands within the braided channel of the meandering river. The paucity of flint and contemporary pottery suggests that the monuments were away from areas of contemporary settlement.
4.1.6 The ‘funereal’ association of the locality appears to have continued through into the Roman period, with the construction, within the confines of Passenham Quarry, of a mausoleum of 2nd century AD date. Contemporary settlement appears to have been on the higher, dryer ground, close to the Beachampton Road to the east, and Stratford Road, Deanshanger to the west.
4.1.7 The identified archaeology on the existing quarry has not always been in a good state of preservation, and this is likely to be the case within the proposed development area. Due to past high-energy river channel migrations, resulting in a wide ‘braided’ system of channels across the floodplain landscape, much scouring has taken place that has resulted in the past erosion of the identified features. The definition of the monuments has also been affected by subsequent flooding, leaching of soils and more recent agricultural activity, including ploughing. Indeed, the various barrows at Passenham Quarry proved to be heavily truncated, with no survival of internal features.
4.1.8 The map regression indicates that the proposed extension area has largely been open agricultural fields since at least the 18th century. The larger fields that we see in the landscape today are a result of the removal of field boundaries from earlier smaller fields that are likely to have had their origins in the pre-enclosure field system.
4.1.9 This preliminary assessment considers the archaeological potential of the southern extension area to be ‘moderate’. As with the existing quarry, any perceived adverse effects upon the area’s archaeological and historical record could be adequately mitigated through a considered programme of archaeological investigation during development.
5.0 SUMMARY
5.1 Concluding Statement
5.1.1 A wide range of sources were consulted for this assessment, including the local Historic Environment Record, published articles and books and manuscript documents. In addition the site was visited for a visual assessment.
5.1.2 There are 3 recorded sites within, or partially entering the proposed extension area. Two sites are represented by cropmarks, suggestive of a
22 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
prehistoric settlement just outside of the western extent and a burial ring- ditch towards the south. In addition are the remains of ridge and furrow, being the earthwork remains of the pre-enclosure farming system. The Portable Antiquities Scheme records 33 metal-detector finds in and around the site’s southern field, which date to the Roman, Saxon, Medieval and post-Medieval periods. The majority appear to relate to objects discarded or distributed through the action of manuring, and are unlikely to be related to areas of past occupation or associated activities.
5.1.3 It is to the neighbouring Passenham Quarry that one should perhaps look to, in order to best understand the archaeological potential for the present site, as this occupies a similar topographic position in the landscape. Here, a Bronze Age burial ground has been discovered together with a ‘territorial’ pit alignment. There is evidence that funerary activities continued through into the Iron Age and Roman periods, with the construction of a mausoleum.
5.1.4 On the basis of current evidence the proposed extension area can be assumed to have a ‘moderate’ potential for the recovery of archaeological remains. Further evaluation may be required to substantiate this view.
23 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
REFERENCES
Brown, J 2006 The Roman Villa at Deanshanger, Northamptonshire, Excavations 2004- 2005,Northamptonshire Archaeology Report, 05/085
Brown, OF and Roberts GJ 1973 Passenham. The History of a Forest Village, Phillmore
CAU Report 2011 Manor Farm, Old Wolverton – 2008-2010 Interim Statement, Report No 1009.
Cooper, N J (ed.) 2006 The Archaeology of the East Midlands. An Archaeological Resource Assessment and Research Agenda University of Leicester monograph.
Dawson, M (ed) 2000 Prehistoric, Roman and post-Roman landscapes of the Great Ouse Valley, CBA Research Report 119.
Guildhouse, 2001 A desk-based assessment; Archaeology and Historic Features. Land at Passenham, Stony Stratford near Milton Keynes. The Guildhouse Consultancy, unpub. report, Feb. 2001
Hall, D 2001 Turning the Plough. Midland open fields: landscape character and proposals for management, Northamptonshire County Council and English Heritage.
Hey G and Lacey M 2001Evaluation of Archaeological Decision-making Processes and sampling strategies, Planarch Project, Oxford
Jones, R and Page, M 2006 Medieval Villages in an English Landscape, Windgather Press
MK Council, 2009 Calverton Conservation Area Review, Milton Keynes Council
NA, 2002 Proposed Passenham Quarry Extension, Milton Keynes. Geophysical, Metal Detecting and Topographic Surveys, Northamptonshire Archaeology
NA, 2003 Proposed Extension to Passenham Quarry, Milton Keynes. Archaeological Evaluation. Northamptonshire Archaeology
Tingle, M 2004 The Archaeology of Northamptonshire, Northamptonshire Archaeological Society
Morris, S, 2006 Archaeological Evaluation Phase II, Passenham, Calverton Quarry, Northamptonshire Archaeology Report, 06/60
Victoria History of the Counties of England –Northamptonshire, Volume 5
Walker, C 2009 An assessment of archaeological excavation of Areas 3 and 4, Passenham Quarry, Calverton, Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire Archaeology Report, 09/140
24 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
Walker, C 2011 An assessment of archaeological excavation of Areas 5,6 and 7, Passenham Quarry, Calverton, Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire Archaeology Report, 11/136
Victoria History of the Counties of England –Northamptonshire, Volume 5
Williams, A and Martin, G H 2002 Domesday Book: A Complete Translation, Alecto Historical Editions, Penguin Books
Woodfield, P 1986 A guide to the Historic Buildings of Milton Keynes, Milton Keynes Development Corporation.
Wright, J 2010. Land at The Beeches, Deanshanger, Northamptonshire: Archaeological Evaluation. Cotswold Archaeological Trust Report.
Maps and Plans Consulted
British Geological Survey, Solid and Drift Geology, 1:25,000 mapping, SP83
Saxton Map of Buckinghamshire 1610 (Milton Keynes Central Library)
Speed, Map of Buckinghamshire 1612(Milton Keynes Central Library)
Rectory Estate Rev. Dr Forester 1772, NRO 1180
Plan of Grafton Estate at Passenham and Cosgrove 1773, NRO 441
Bryant’s Map of Buckinghamshire 1825(Milton Keynes Central Library)
Passenham Tithe Map 1844, NROT204
Plan of certain Parts of Passenham showing allotment of commons under the Whittlewood Disafforesting Act 1853. Dated 1857, NRO 2907
Ordnance Survey c. 1815 2 inch to 1 mile, Newport, Fenny Stratford and Stony Stratford, Ref: OSD 229a SER 188
Ordnance Survey 6” to 1 mile 1st edition Sheet LXI:SW1881-4 Ordnance Survey 6” to 1 mile 1st edition Sheet LXI: SW 1900
Ordnance Survey 6” to 1 mile Sheet IX: SW 1926 Ordnance Survey 6” to 1 mile Sheet IX: SW1938 Ordnance Survey 6” to 1 mile Sheet IX: SW 1950 Ordnance Survey 6” to 1 mile Sheet 73: NE 1958 Ordnance Survey 6” to 1 mile Sheet 73: NE 1966 Ordnance Survey 6” to 1 mile Sheet 73: NE 1974 Ordnance Survey 6” to 1 mile Sheet 73: NE 1988/89
25 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
All Ordnance Survey Maps in this document are from the Landmark Information Group and are reproduced under Licence: Phoenix Consulting Licence: AL 100030371.
Websites Consulted
Buckinghamshire Unlocking Buckinghamshire’s Past https://ubp.buckscc.gov.uk/Map.aspx?selection=y imagesofengland.co.uk www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional
HERITAGE GATEWAY: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/
Listed buildings: http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk
Northamptonshire County Council Interactive Mapping http://maps.northamptonshire.gov.uk/#x=479000,y=269000,zoom=0,base=NCC,layers=,sear ch=,fade=false,mX=0,mY=0
MAGIC: http://magic.defra.gov.uk/default.htm
Milton Keynes Council, interactive mapping, including heritage: http://www.mkiobservatory.org.uk
Medieval Settlement Research Group Publications: http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/msrg_2012/index.cfm?CFID=13993&CF TOKEN=D6DA4E41-1C66-4A13-934F09ED71D5AF70
Passenham Manor Gardens: http://www.parksandgardens.org/places-and- people/site/5828/summary
VCH 'Passenham', A History of the County of Northampton: Volume 5: The Hundred of Cleley (2002), pp. 208-245. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=22787
Whitlewood Project: http://www.le.ac.uk/el/whittlewood/index.htm
26 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
APPENDIX A: SELECTED HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT RECORD DATA IN AND AROUND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA.
Abbreviations used in listing below:
NGR National Grid reference HER Sites & Monuments Record (reference) N Northamptonshire MK Milton Keynes B Buckinghamshire
Unk of unknown date Palaeo Palaeolithic c 500,000-10,000 BC Meso Mesolithic c 10,000-3,500 BC Neo Neolithic c 3500-2000 BC BA Bronze Age c 2000-800 BC IA Iron Age c 800 BC - AD 43 RB Romano-British AD 43-410 Sx Saxon 410-1066 Med Medieval c 1066-1500 PMed post-Medieval c 1500-present
Known archaeology in the vicinity of the proposed development area
No on Period Description HER Grid Reference Fig 2 Number N, MK, B 1 Neo/BA Cropmarks. Interpreted as N5330 SP7655938624 two prehistoric enclosures and ditches of uncertain function 2 Neo/BA Cropmarks. Interpreted as N390/0/5 SP7709 3815 possible prehistoric funerary N390/0/6 SP7712 3814 site, including at least one ring ditch. 3 RB Spot finds reported under Bucks – Portable Antiquities Scheme. MBC31537- SP76 37 Total of ten copper coins MBC31543 SP76 38 generally located in the MBC31558- SP77 37 southern field, Bucks HER. MBC31560 SP77 38 4 Sx Copper Brooch of Saxon date Bucks – 5th-11th century, reported MBC31567 SP77 37 from southern field under the Portable Antiquities Scheme, Bucks HER. 5 Med Spot finds reported under the Bucks – SP76 37 Portable Antiquities Scheme; MBC31544 SP76 38 of medieval date, including 4 MBC31561 SP77 37
27 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
silver coins (Bucks HER) and MBC31562 SP77 38 two finger rings (NHER). MBC31562 6 Med Area of Ridge and Furrow N9890/0/1 SP7730538193 identified from aerial photography. 7 Med Mill at Mill Farm. Water B2843 SP775380 mill, recorded in 1285, 1597 and 1609, 1788. Not on later mapping, but possible mill leat etc. visible in AP 1975. 8 PMed The former route of the N7807 SP 7655 3941 Buckingham Arm of Grand Union Canal. Bounds south east side of development area. 9 Unk Mammoth tusk, found in N1186 SP 7720 3840 quarry workings at the present Kingfisher Golf Club, Pre 1973. 10 BA Passenham Quarry, MK745 SP777889 Passenham. Group of four MK6776 SP776391 barrows, identified by aerial MK6777 SP776390 photography, confirmed in MK6778 SP776389 evaluation and subsequent MK6779 excavation. 11 BA Passenham Quarry, MK6768 SP776389 Passenham. Pit alignment suggested by geophysical survey during evaluation, and confirmed by 2 seasons of excavations; 97 pits excavated. Aligned west-east, from river to the current Beachampton Road. 12 Cropmark in field to south N390/0/1 SP 7706 3774 west of Mill Farm. Undated N390/0/2 Enclosure, possible ring ditch N390/0/3 and linear feature; on both N390/0/4 Northants and Bucks HER. 13 Neo/BA Three possible Neolithic to B5305 SP 7763 3816 Bronze Age ring-ditches seen on aerial photography in field to north of Mill Farm. Neo/BA Probable Neolithic to Bronze B6210 SP7756538000 14 Age ring-ditch, possibly two, recorded on aerial photograph, in field east of Mill Farm
28 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
15 Neo/BA ‘Ham Meadow’. Group of at N1179 SP 7776 3935 least three ring ditches visible on aerial photographs. One was recorded and partially excavated in 1991. 16 IA Pit alignment, later infilling MK6768 SP776389 contains large numbers of sherds of iron age pottery 17 IA Suggested IA activity in MK6771 SP778387 evaluation at Passenham Quarry 2006; pits, gullies and residual material in later RB features. 18 IA Multiphase ditched MK745 SP778391 enclosure. Passenham Quarry. 5 phases, 500+ sherds of later IA pottery from ditch fills. 19 IA Interrupted ditched enclosure. MK745 SP778389 Passenham Quarry. Undated ditches, enclosure contained postholes that had small amount of IA pottery in their fills. 20 IA Cropmarks northwest of N5287 SP7608 3858 Manor Mill Cottages, N5287/01- suggesting an Iron Age 08 settlement comprising hut circles and ditches. 21 IA Cropmark of undated N9884 SP7680639206 enclosure and two ditches N9884/0/01- 04 22 IA Kingsbrook School, N1170 SP 7692 3955 Deanshanger, Iron Age settlement. 23 IA Passenham Manor Nurseries N6955 SP 7790 3955 Evaluation, small number of features, incl. truncated ditches suggested IA occupation. 24 RB Roman Settlement, extending MK6767 SP7789238699 c2ha revealed by evaluation MK6773 at Passenham Quarry MK6769 Passenham 2006 25 RB Roman Granary. Cluster of MK745 SP777390 postholes interpreted as Roman Granary
29 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
26 RB Roman Mortuary: Circular MK745 SP77823904 Stone structure containing cremation burial in a large pot. Dated by coin to late 2nd century 27 RB Roman Villa, discovered N1170 SP 7692 3955 during construction of Deanshanger, now Kingsbrook School, Deanshanger 28 RB Roman Road, (Viatores 171), N1166 SP7561938811 from Olney to Water Stratford, the suggested route SW-NE passing Deanshanger Villa to Cosgrove? HER note 3, G Foard ‘ dubious’ 29 RB Roman field ditch and metal N7983 SP 7650 3930 detected finds including parts N798/0/1 of a bracelet. ‘The Beeches’ CAT (2010) 30 Sx Suggested Saxon cemetery N1174/2 SP 7803 3937 near site of Passenham Rectory. Skeletons revealed in 1873, 1947 and 1965 31 Med Parish Church of St Guthlac, N1174/1 SP7803139438 Passenham. Grade 1 Listed. Current fabric dates from 13th, with 17th century rebuilding, chancel and recusant wall paintings. Grade 1 32 PMed Two Barns at Passenham N1174 - SP7798539514 Manor List at Grade I DNN3546 33 Med/PMed Parish Church of All Saints, MK4208 SP790390 Calverton. Grade II* Listed. 34 Med/PMed Manor Farm House, MK4191 SP790390 Calverton. Grade II* Listed. 35 Med/PMed Beachampton Hall, Bucks Buckinghamshire. Grade II* DBC2822 SP7705237356 Listed. DBC3017 SP7707137352 36 PMed Bridge Over Former 7807/1/2 SP7653737523 Buckingham Arm of Grand Union Canal c.200m South East of Mount Mill Farm 37 PMed Bank and silted ditch parallel MK745 SP776389- to south side of River Ouse, SP779392 present through areas 3,4, and 5 of current quarry.
30 | P a g e
Passenham Quarry: Southern Extension PC 378
31 | P a g e