Bake Farm Environmental Statement

Chapter 8 CULTURAL HERITAGE

INTRODUCTION

8.1. This chapter provides an assessment of the potential archaeological and heritage implications of a proposed solar energy farm at Bake Farm, Coombe Bissett, (Site centre SU 113 277; Fig. 8.1). It has been prepared by Archaedia.

Site context

8.2. Chapter two and three of this ES provide a detailed description of the application site and the proposed development. In summary, the application site is within four agricultural fields to the north east of the village of Coombe Bissett (The Site; Fig. 8.1) and extends over an area of 40.2 hectares. The proposed development comprises a solar farm, access track, cable trench and related development.

8.3. This chapter aims to establish the presence or absence, character and extent, date, integrity, state of preservation and relative value of the known or potential heritage assets within the Site. In order to understand the context of the Site, it aims to establish the history and land-use development of the area and its environs, thereby allowing an assessment and quantification of the relevant impact of the proposed development on this resource. In addition it considers the impact on the settings of designated assets in the wider area. Finally, the effects of the proposed development and the need for and scope of any mitigation required to address such effects are set out.

Planning context

8.4. Chapter five of this Environmental Statement (ES) sets out the full planning policy context at the national and local levels. The paragraphs below identify guidance and planning policy relevant to archaeology and cultural heritage.

National planning policy and guidance 8.5. Chapter 12 of the NPPF1 deals with 'Conserving and enhancing the historic environment' and states that “heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource” (Paragraph 126). Paragraphs 128 and 129, which deal with determining planning applications, state the need to identify and assess the significance of heritage assets and their settings, and take this into account when considering the impact of the proposed development. In the case of designated assets, and non-designated assets of demonstrably equivalent significance, great weight should be given to the asset's conservation (Paragraphs 132–134 and 139).

8.6. Paragraph 141 notes that: “Local planning authorities should … 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

Department for Communities and Local Government (March 2012). 1

Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage July 2014 8 - 1

Bake Farm Environmental Statement

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.”

8.7. Hedgerows of historic importance are afforded protection under The Hedgerow Regulations 1997, section 97 of the Environment Act 1995.2 Any hedgerow which is defined, at that date, as being of historical or ecological importance requires a grant of consent by the local planning authority prior to removal.

Development plan policy

8.8. The application site is located in the administrative area of Wiltshire Council, a unitary authority created in 2009 incorporating District Council. For the purposes of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the statutory development plan currently comprises:

• The South Wiltshire Core Strategy (adopted February 2012); • Policies ‘saved’ from the Salisbury District Local Plan 2003.

8.9. The South Wiltshire Core Strategy (SWCS) was adopted in February 2012. It primarily deals with housing and employment development for which there are specific targets divided across a hierarchy of towns and villages, with visions for individual ‘Community Areas’.

8.10. The 2003 Salisbury District Local Plan (SDLP) remains part of the statutory Development Plan by virtue of some policies having been ‘saved’ by ministerial Direction. Whilst parts of it have since been superseded by the South Wiltshire Core Strategy, the SDLP continues to play a role in determining planning applications, particularly in relation to detailed technical issues. Archaeology and ancient monuments is addressed in sections 6.31 to 6.36 and set out in policies CN21-23.

Inherent mitigation

8.11. The proposed solar farm contains inherent mitigation, i.e. mitigation that is ‘designed in’ and forms a key component of the proposed site layout. The main form of this inherent mitigation is the set back of the solar array modules from the boundary hedgerows by a distance of 8.4 metres.

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

Sources 8.12. This assessment has been undertaken with reference to relevant national and local legislation and policy and guidance listed above, and also to good practice guidance provided in The Institute for Archaeologists Standards and Guidance: desk-based assessment.3

2 Hedgerow regulations act, 1997. 3 Institute for Archaeologists 2012, 7.

Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage July 2014 8 - 2

Bake Farm Environmental Statement

8.13. The following sources were consulted in compiling the baseline information: Wiltshire and Swindon Historic Environment Record (HER), Wiltshire and Swindon Archives (Record Office), Wiltshire Studies Library, English Heritage (EH) National Heritage List for , English Heritage Archives and Archaedia archives.

Study area 8.14. HER records were examined for a study area of 1km from the main application site boundary. All heritage assets within 0.5km of the Site are described in section 8.53 and shown on Fig. 8.2 (note: all figures are presented at the end of this chapter, following the appendices). Selected heritage assets between 0.5km and 1km of the Site are also indicated on Fig. 8.2.

8.15. English Heritage records for statutorily designated sites, including Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Registered Parks and Gardens and Registered Battlefields, were examined for an area up to 5km from the Site. Selected sites are described in sections 8.27–8.31 and are located on Fig. 8.1.

8.16. This assessment also considers the potential impact on the settings of higher level designated heritage assets (Scheduled Monuments, Grade I and II* Listed Buildings, Grade I and II* Registered Parks and Gardens and Registered Battlefields). Selected sites are described in sections 8.32–8.34 and are located on Fig. 8.1.

Surveys 8.17. A field visit was undertaken on 28.8.12 and 23.4.14 by Tim Gent, BA, MPhil, MIFA (sections 8.47-52 below). This comprised a walkover survey of all areas within the application area and visits to designated heritage assets (where possible) to assess potential impacts on settings.

8.18. A geophysical survey of the two westernmost fields of the assessment Site has been undertaken by Stratascan Ltd.4 Additional potential heritage assets identified by the survey are assessed in this chapter. These are identified as assets 8 a-d within the text and tables below, and on Fig. 8.2 at the end of this chapter. Full details of the survey are presented as a separate report (Appendix 8.1).

Assessing impact significance

Valuation of the heritage asset 8.19. According to the English Heritage Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide the term ‘heritage asset’ “embraces all manner of features, including: buildings, parks and gardens, standing, buried and submerged remains, areas, sites and landscapes, whether designated or not and whether or not capable of designation” (section 3.10, Ref 17.2.).

8.20. The definition of the value of the identified heritage assets is defined as follows: • unknown – insufficient information is available to allow a reliable assessment to be made;

4 Stratascan Ltd, 2012.

Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage July 2014 8 - 3

Bake Farm Environmental Statement

• low – significant at a local level; • medium – significant at a local or regional level; • high – significant at a national level; or • very high – significant at an international level.

8.21. The definition of the value of known but undesignated heritage assets within the Site, or assets identified during the course of the assessment is determined by professional judgement, supported where required by appropriate consultation.

Impact magnitude 8.22. The magnitude of any impact on a heritage asset (receptor) is based on the following values: • None – No change to the asset; • Negligible – Negligible change to the asset; • Small – A minor change to the asset; • Medium – A fundamental change to the asset; or • Large – Major destruction of an asset.

Impact significance 8.23. The definition of the significance of the impact on the heritage assets will be defined as follows (with criteria indicated in table 8.1 below): • No impact – Where no impact is identified; • Negligible – Where the effects are negligible; • Minor – Where the impact relates to heritage assets of low value, or the effect is on heritage assets of medium value, but the impact is limited; • Moderate – Where the effects relate to heritage assets of low to medium value, or the effect is on heritage assets of high value, but the impact is more limited; • Major – Where the effects are significant and relate to heritage assets of medium to high value, or the effect is on heritage assets of high value, but the impact is more limited; or • Severe – Where the effects are significant and relate to heritage assets of high or very high value. All impacts on assets of very high value are severe.

Table 8.1 – Impact significance matrix MAGNIT- NONE NEGLIGIBLE SMALL MEDIUM LARGE UDE

VALUE / SENSITIVITY VERY HIGH NO IMPACT SEVERE SEVERE SEVERE SEVERE HIGH NO IMPACT MINOR MODERATE MAJOR SEVERE

MEDIUM NO IMPACT MINOR MINOR MODERATE MAJOR

LOW NO IMPACT NEGLIGIBLE MINOR MINOR MODERATE

UNKNOWN NO IMPACT UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN .

Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage July 2014 8 - 4

Bake Farm Environmental Statement

8.24. In all cases of assessment of impact it should be noted that heritage assets are finite, cannot be replaced, and can only very rarely be re-located. Any impact is therefore usually detrimental and will be permanent. Where impacts are beneficial, this will be indicated.

Type of impact 8.25. For the purposes of this chapter, impacts can be either direct or indirect. A direct impact would be a physical impact on archaeological remains within (or usually only within) the Site boundary arising from the development. An indirect impact would be an impact on the setting of a designated heritage asset in the vicinity.

Assessment limitations

8.26. It should be noted that there are problems with the use of prescriptive assessment criteria in respect of archaeological features or deposits. The following are some of the main reasons why the potential effects of construction activities are difficult to predict: • Not all archaeological sites will be recorded on the HER, or be identifiable through documentary, cartographic or photographic sources, or be physically detectable at ground level; • previously unknown and unrecorded sites may therefore be encountered during development; and • in the absence of previous archaeological investigations the nature and extent of known or suspected deposits is often uncertain. In these circumstances, professional judgement has been used to suggest a significance for any asset, and to predict a potential impact. The term ‘suspected’ is used to indicate uncertainty.

BASELINE CONDITIONS

Statutory and other designations

8.27. No statutory or other archaeological designations have been identified within the Site itself, see Fig. 8.1. However, the following assets are within the wider study area.

Scheduled Monuments 8.28. A bowl barrow, situated approximately 250m to the west of the north-west tip of the Site, is a Scheduled Monument (English Heritage list entry no. 1017705; see section 8.53, asset 14). Two further scheduled barrows (1005626) are situated approximately 2km to the west, with another (1004696) located within the grounds to Wilton house, just to the north of these. Three further scheduled barrows, or pairs of barrows (1005612, 1002998, 1017169) are situated approximately 4km to the west of the site.

8.29. Other scheduled barrows, both round barrows and long barrows of probable Neolithic date (1004772, 1015703, 1015704, 1013002, 1012189, 1003003), are present at distances of 4-5km to the south-west, south and south east. Only the

Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage July 2014 8 - 5

Bake Farm Environmental Statement

barrow on Homington Down (1015705) is closer to the site, lying to the south at a distance of just over 2km.

8.30. The Packhorse Bridge in Coombe Bissett village, some 1.2km from the Site, is a Scheduled Monument (1005665) and Grade II Listed Building.

8.31. Other Scheduled Monuments in the area include:

• sections of Grim’s Ditch (1004753, 1003457), situated to the south and south-west of the Site, at the closest, approximately 4km away; • Odstock Copse earthwork (1004775), and Clearbury Rings (1005691), situated approximately 3.5km and over 4.5km respectively to the south- east; and, • Little Woodbury (1005652), a prehistoric enclosure complex, stands between 2.5km and 3.5km to the east.

Listed Buildings 8.32. The nearest Listed Buildings (both Grade II) are Manor Farm farmhouse, c. 0.4km to the west of the Site, and a milestone, some 0.25km to the east of the Site access road (asset 31; section 8.51 below).5 There are many other Grade II Listed Buildings in the wider study area that are not presented here.

8.33. St Michael’s Church (1023802) in Coombe Bissett is Grade I Listed,6 as are the churches at Stratford Tony (1181901) and Throope (1146195). The dovecote at Faulston House, near Croucheston, just over 4km to the south-west is Listed Grade II* (1146460) and also a Scheduled Monument (1003000). The church of St Mary the Virgin at Homington (1023807), less than 2km from the main body of the Site, is listed Grade II*, as are a collection of houses and churches (1023845, 1023844, 1181836, 1181829) at Odstock and Nunton, between 3km and 5km to the ESE.

Registered Parks and Gardens 8.34. At 1km distance to the north-west of the Site is Wilton Park and Garden (1000440), which is Listed Grade I, 363ha in area, and contains many Listed Buildings, including a number at Grade I and II* (not shown on Fig.ure. 8.1, as there is no intervisibility with the Site from land to the north of Old Shaftsbury Drove). 7 The Park and Garden (1000424) to Longford Castle is situated approximately 4km to the east of the Site.

Hedgerows 8.35. Two hedges within the Site follow existing parish boundaries (section 8.39, assets 5 and 6 on figure 8.2). These are the northern Site boundary (boundary between Britford and West Harnham) and the western Site boundary (boundary between Britford and Coombe Bissett). These hedges are considered as ‘important’ hedgerows under the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. 8

Background

5 EH List entry No. 1355759/UID 319407. 6 EH List entry No. 1005665/UID WI277 & No. 1023802/UID 319433. 7 EH List entry No. 1000440/UID 1408. 8 www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1160/contents/made.

Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage July 2014 8 - 6

Bake Farm Environmental Statement

Archaeological investigations 8.36. A geophysical survey was undertaken in the western part of the Site in 2012 (see full report in Appendix 8.1, and identified features detailed in table 8.2 below).

8.37. No recent archaeological investigations are recorded in the Historic Environment Record (HER) within the Site or the immediate vicinity. Approximately 250m to the west of the Site two barrows were excavated in the 19th century, one of which produced material of Saxon date (see assets 17 and 18).

8.38. Approximately 600m to the north-east, near Down Barn, investigations in 1985 of the proposed Netherhampton Drill Site included magnetometry, fieldwalking and a watching brief. Features identified included cropmarks of a circular enclosure; excavated features included an alignment of Bronze Age pits containing pottery sherds, flint tools and cremated bone;9 and early Neolithic flints were recovered during fieldwalking.10 In 1995 a watching brief at the Livestock Market, situated just over 1km to the north of the Site, identified further significant archaeological features including pits dating from the early Neolithic to the late Bronze Age or early Iron Age.11 Just under 1km to the north-east of the Site, during works related to the Harnham Relief Road in 2001- 2003, features identified of prehistoric date included barrows, an enclosure, a burnt mound and a palaeochannel, and finds included 44 hand-axes.12

Historical and cartographic background 8.39. The Site is situated in Britford, at a junction with other ancient parishes. The parishes of Coombe Bissett and former Homington (amalgamated with Coombe Bissett) lie to the west, and West Harnham (now part of Netherhampton) lies to the north.

8.40. The parishes lie within the hundred (administrative district) of Cawden. Britford was held by King Edward in 1086 (Domesday Book)13, but was also mentioned, as ‘Brytfordingea landscaere’, in a charter of c. 670. The name probably refers to a ford used by Britons.14 Homington was held by Osbern the Priest in 1086,15 and is also documented, as ‘Humming tun’, in 956; the name means Humma’s farm.16 Coombe Bissett was ‘Cumbe’ in the Domesday Book, in the sense of ‘valley’.17 Both Coombe Bissett and Homington are mentioned in a 10th-century charter. 18

9 HER SU12NW152; Events 16922 & 16930. 10 Bartlett 1985. 11 HER EW13929. 12 HER EW15903 & 15909. 13 Thorn and Thorn 1979, 1.6. 14 Gover et al, 1939, 221. 15 Thorn and Thorn 1979, 57.1. 16 Gover et al, 1939, 223. 17 Thorn and Thorn 1979, 1.13. 18 J. Acornley, 'The History of Coombe Bissett', www.coombebissett.com.

Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage July 2014 8 - 7

Bake Farm Environmental Statement

8.41. The land is now part of Bake Farm, which appears to be of relatively recent origin and associated with late enclosure and cultivation of former downland. The name ‘bake’ or ‘beak’ has been described as a Wiltshire term meaning to chop the rough surface of land to be reclaimed, and burn the pairings, and is similarly used of ploughland reclaimed in this manner. It is sometimes found in the corrupt form ‘burnbrake’. 19A map of the manor of Britford in 1703 (Fig. 8.3) shows the fields in the Site area but no buildings on the site of Bake Farm. ‘The New Burne Brake’, is written across the fields (indistinct) suggesting recent enclosure. The Tithe Map for Britford (1840, Fig. 8.6) shows the same arrangement of fields, but also two cottages and a barn and yard on the site of bake farm. The fields within the Site were called Picked Beak and Middle Beak (281 and 282), respectively, and were under arable cultivation. The land was owned by George Purefoy Jervoise Esq and occupied by Thomas Floyd Newton. The buildings are also indicated on the OS surveyors’ Drawing of 1807 (Fig. 8.5)

8.42. Andrews’ and Dury’s Map of 1773 (Fig. 8.4) is at too small a scale to show any detail of the Site. The roads to the north, west and south of the Site are depicted, as are a milestone and a gibbet (asset 28) to the south-east.

8.43. The OS map of 1886 depicts the Site in detail (Fig. 8.7), and marks the parish boundaries (as dashed lines). A triangulation station and a small chalk pit (see assets 13 and 16) are depicted outside the north-western tip of the Site. To the east of the Site the farm is marked as Down Barn.

8.44. No changes to the Site itself are evident on the OS map of 1901 (Fig. 8.8), but the former Down Barn has been renamed Bake Farm. Coombe Bissett Steam Plough Works (asset 29) is shown to the south of the Site. The OS map of 1927 (Fig. 8.9) shows an enclosed area and two small buildings to the south of the Site. (asset 11), but these no longer exists. Allotments are indicated to the west.

8.45. The extraction of chalk is known in the area, with numerous pits shown on historic mapping. The nearest recorded pit (asset 16) is shown on OS maps of the 1880s, only some 200m from the Site. Aerial photographs of the wider area show the infilled remains of what appear to be numerous pits of regular size, distributed in patterns with an apparent respect of existing field boundaries. These are considered to be relatively modern mineral extraction pits, a view supported by staff from the County Historic Environment Team.

Site visit 8.46. Site visits were completed in August 2012 and April 2014, and photographs are provided at appendix 8.2. During the first visit the two western fields (Photos 8.1 and 8.2) contained a standing wheat crop, and the ground surface and the general topography of the Site were largely obscured as a result. All fields other then the small eastern field, which was under grass, contained a mature rape crop (Photos 8.3 and 8.4) during the second visit, with the same result.

8.47. Hedges formed the boundary divisions between the fields within the Site and those adjoining it, while post and wire fences separated the Site from the narrow strips of woodland to north and formed the eastern and south-eastern

19 Gover et al, 1939, 450-451.

Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage July 2014 8 - 8

Bake Farm Environmental Statement

boundaries. In places along the western boundary (which marks a parish boundary) the hedge was over 4m wide. Where the western hedge separated fields on sloping land, ground levels on either side differed by up to 1m, presumably as the result of prolonged cultivation promoting soil creep. This lynchet suggests that the land division is of some antiquity. The eastern boundary hedge was narrower than those to the west and lacked any obvious lynchet.

8.48. A large circular depression (asset 2, section 8.53 below; Fig. 8.2; Photo. 8.5) is located close to the northern boundary in the central field. This hollow has been partially filled with soil and building waste. No other archaeological features were identified.

8.49. Due to the mature crop, it was not possible to determine whether any surface indication of the circular feature (asset 3) recorded in the larger north-eastern field is present.

8.50. A circular depression was observed in the field immediately to the west of the site boundary (asset 12; Fig. 8.2). This may be of geological origin, but where excavated, some features of this type have been shown to represent the weathered remains of prehistoric shafts.

8.51. Although the ground surface was largely obscured by the standing crop, limited areas were visible, including field edges, tractor wheel lines (or tramlines), and an area of fallow ground on the west side of the south-west field. Examples of worked prehistoric flintwork, mostly waste flakes, were identified in most parts of the Site. Pottery sherds and tile fragments were also seen, but only one sherd was thought to predate the post-medieval period. This undecorated piece of prehistoric pot was seen close to asset 3.

8.52. No sign of the barrow (asset 17), Scheduled Monument 1017705, was visible in the field to the west of the Site, presumably due to continued ploughing.

List of heritage assets 8.53. Table 8.2 provides details of heritage assets within the Site (numbered on Fig. 8.2 in yellow circles). Table 8.3 describes assets outside the Site, and up to 0.5km from the Site boundary (numbered on Fig. 8.2 in blue circles)

Table 8.2: Details of heritage assets within the Site (numbered on Fig. 8.2 in yellow circles)

Asset Type/date Brief description NGR HER no. (SU) No. 1 Mound/ The HER record a large mound, seen in 1121 SU12NW Unknown a field of barley, which had the 2780 605 appearance of a barrow. The feature was not visible during the site visit when the field was under crop. Features have been identified at this position through recent geophysical survey, but do not have the appearance of a barrow. This feature closely resembles suspected mineral extraction pits seen on aerial photographs of the wider area. The

Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage July 2014 8 - 9

Bake Farm Environmental Statement

mound reported here may be the result of spoil from this activity. 2 Ring ditch/ The HER record that a ring ditch is visible 1126 SU12NW Unknown on an aerial photographs (in the north- 2803 637 eastern corner of the field.) The feature was not identified during the site visit (field under crop). It is suspected however, that this feature is a circular hollow feature, with the appearance of a shallow quarry, and partially filled with soil and building waste, was noted at this location. during the field visit. The feature is visible on all available aerial photographs, although not obviously as a hollow.20 On an aerial photograph of 1981, it appears to be encircled by a ditch, with the interior sub-divided into quarters.21 The feature appears to be heavily disturbed, and it is suspected that the remains of any former ring ditch, if one existed, may have been subject to quarrying and subsequent infilling. 3 Ring ditch/ A ring ditch is visible on an aerial 11480 SU12NW Unknown photograph as two semi-circles and with 28001 638 ?prehistoric a dark central area (HER). As this field was under crop at the time of the Site visit, it is not known if there is any surface evidence of the feature. 4a and Cropmarks/ Two cropmarks or hollows, visible as 1099 ______4b Unknown elongated north-to-south aligned dark 2793 & marks, are visible on an aerial 1086 photograph of 1981 (in particular), and 2799 evident on other aerial photographs.22 Also identified in the recent geophysical survey (part of Stratascan anomaly no. 2), this may be an archaeological cut feature, but the Stratascan report suggests that a natural origin, such as localised geology, cannot be ruled out. The anomaly identified in the geophysical survey does not conform to the morphology usually associated with a barrow. These features closely resemble suspected mineral extraction pits seen on aerial photographs of the wider area. 5 Parish The parish boundary between Britford 11159 ______Boundary/ and Coombe Bissett forms the western 27812 Unknown boundary of the Site. The southern ?medieval or section was formerly the boundary earlier between Britford and Homington. It is marked by a hedge. 6 Parish The land to the north of the Site (now 10927 ______Boundary/ Netherhampton) was formerly within 28073

20 HER aerial photograph 25.8.71. 21 HER aerial photographs 2.8.81 22 HER aerial photographs 2.8.81, 25.8.71, 29.8.91 & 24.6.01.

Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage July 2014 8 - 10

Bake Farm Environmental Statement

Unknown West Harnham, which was a chapelry of ?medieval or Coombe Bisset parish.23 The parish earlier boundary follows the hedgeline.

7 Field boundaries Boundaries within the Site, such as the 1145 ______/17th-century one dividing the central field from the two 2754 to the east, are represented on a map of 1703 (Fig. 8.3). The straight form of these boundaries and others in the area (excepting the parish boundaries) suggests that they relate to late enclosure of the downs, perhaps, in this case, in the later 17th century. 8a Probable former Geophysical survey anomaly (part of ______field boundary/ Stratascan no. 1). Probable former field Unknown boundary. ?Prehistoric 8b Probable former Geophysical survey anomaly (part of ______field boundary/ Stratascan no. 1). Probable former field Unknown boundary. ?Prehistoric 8c Probable former Geophysical survey anomaly (Stratascan 113 ______field boundary/ no. 3). Possible ploughed out bank from 277 Unknown a former field boundary. ?Prehistoric 8d Possible Geophysical survey anomaly (part of ______archaeological Stratascan no. 2). May be an cut feature/ archaeological cut feature (and it closely Unknown resembles suspected mineral extraction pits seen on aerial photographs of the wider area), but the Stratascan report suggests that the amorphous character may indicate a natural origin, such as localised changes in geology.

Table 8.3: Details of Heritage Assets outside the Site, and up to 0.5km from the Site boundary (numbered on Fig. 8.2 in blue circles) Asset Type/date Brief description NGR HER no. (SU) No. 8e A collection of Geophysical survey anomalies (part of 113 ______possible Stratascan no. 2). May be a collection of 277 archaeological archaeological cut features, but the cut features/ Stratascan report suggests that the Unknown amorphous character may indicate a ?Modern natural origin, such as localised changes in geology. Those at the southern end of the Site may be modern cultivation marks. 9 Cropmarks/ A circular feature, originally thought to 1137 ______Unknown represent a possible barrow, is visible as 2752 a cropmark on aerial photographs of 1981 and 2001.24 Also identified in the

23 Youngs 1979, p. 539-540. 24 HER aerial photographs 2.8.81 & 24.6.01.

Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage July 2014 8 - 11

Bake Farm Environmental Statement

recent geophysical survey (part of Stratascan anomaly no. 2), this may be an archaeological cut feature, but the Stratascan report suggests that a natural origin, such as localised geology, cannot be ruled out. The anomaly identified in the geophysical survey does not conform to the morphology usually associated with a barrow. It more closely resembles the remains of mineral extraction. 10 Cropmarks/ A circular feature, originally thought to 1127 ______Unknown represent a possible barrow, is visible as 2777 a cropmark on aerial photographs of 1981 and 2001.25 Also identified in the recent geophysical survey (part of Stratascan anomaly no. 2), this may be an archaeological cut feature, but the Stratascan report suggests that a natural origin, such as localised geology, cannot be ruled out. The anomaly identified in the geophysical survey does not conform to the morphology usually associated with a barrow. It more closely resembles the remains of mineral extraction. 11 Buildings/ The OS map of 1927 (Fig. 8.9) depicts 1154 ______Modern two small buildings in the south-eastern 2724 corner of the Site, and a large enclosed area to the west. Neither the buildings or enclosure were shown on the OS map of 1901. 12 Hollow feature/ A hollow feature was noted to the west of 1113 ______Unknown the Site during the Site visit. It is visible 2779 ?prehistoric on an aerial photograph of 2001.26

13 Triangulation An Ordnance Survey Triangulation 10499 ______Station/ Station is marked (as a triangle) on OS 28097 Modern maps of 1886 and 1927 (Figs 8.7 and 8.9). It is not known if the feature survives. 14 Drove/ To the north of the Site, ‘Old Shaftsbury 10856 ______Unknown Drove’ is probably of Saxon, if not 28129 ?medieval or Prehistoric origin. The route follows a earlier ridgeway known as the ‘Herepath’, and became a turnpike road under an Act of 1762 (Salisbury-Shaftsbury road). The road was superseded when the present Salisbury to Shaftsbury road from Barford St Martin to Whitesheet Hill was turnpiked in 1787-8 (i.e. the A30).27

25 HER aerial photographs 2.8.81 & 24.6.01. 26 HER aerial photograph 24.6.01. 27 Victoria County History Vol. 4, 254-271 (Turnpike roads section), and vol. 11, 3-19 (Bishopstone) in British History Online, www.british-history.ac.uk.

Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage July 2014 8 - 12

Bake Farm Environmental Statement

The road is shown as a broad track on a map of 1703 (Fig. 8.3), on which it is marked ‘The way from Shaftsbury to Sarum’. 15 Road/ On a map of 1703 (Fig. 8.3) the road to 11469 ______Unknown the south of the Site is shown passing 27147 some distance to the south of the field boundaries, rather than lying immediately adjacent. It is unclear whether the field boundaries have been extended to meet the road, or the route of the road has been altered. Between 1754 and 1756 a turnpike trust was set up to manage this road (the Salisbury to Blandford road). 28 16 Chalk Pit/ An ‘Old Chalk Pit’ is marked on the OS 10479 ______Modern 1:2500 map of 1887. It is shown, but not 28092 marked, on the 1:10,560 map of 1886 (Fig. 8.7). 17 Bowl barrow/ A barrow, excavated by Cunnington 1034 SU12NW Bronze Age contained two fragmentary skeletons, 2812 656 possibly representing intrusive burials. Scheduled The barrow mound is recorded on the Monument29 HER as surviving to a maximum height of 0.4m, surrounded by a 3m wide quarry ditch from which material was quarried during construction of the monument. No indication of the feature was seen during the Site visit, possibly due to continued ploughing of this area. 18 Round barrow/ A barrow excavated by Cunnington in 1040 SU12NW Saxon 1803 contained a pit with a sword, three 2818 601 spearheads, knives, buckles etc., but no & Event evidence of human remains. The barrow 11922 appears to be of Saxon origin. 19 Bowl barrow/ A bowl barrow was recorded by Sir R.C. 1040 SU12NW ?Bronze Age Hoare in 1821. 2800 657

20 Bowl barrow/ A very small bowl barrow was recorded in 1020 SU12NW ?Bronze Age 1821. 2820 600

21 Findspot/ A post-medieval iron door key was found 1030 SU12NW Post-medieval at this location. 2810 528

22 Road/ represents a Roman road 1014 SU12NW Roman from Old Sarum to Badbury Rings (and 2793 301 Dorchester). It is visible on aerial photographs as a bank with ditches. 23 Racecourse/ ‘Salisbury Races’ is marked on Andrews’ 10496 ______18th-century or and Dury’s Map of 1773 (Fig. 8.4). There 28285 earlier is still a racecourse at this location. 24 Field system/ A field system is visible on aerial 109 SU12NW Unknown photographs. 283 614

28 Victoria County History Vol. 4, 254-271 (Turnpike roads section), in British History Online, www.british-history.ac.uk. 29 EH List Entry No. 1017705/UID 26835.

Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage July 2014 8 - 13

Bake Farm Environmental Statement

?prehistoric 25 Enclosure/ A possible rectangular enclosure is 109 SU12NW Unknown visible on aerial photographs. 286 612 ?prehistoric 26 Enclosure / An extremely irregular curvilinear ditch 1183 SU12NW Unknown forming an enclosure is visible on aerial 2812 660 ?prehistoric photographs. 27 Bake Farm/18th No buildings representing Bake Farm are 11766 ______or 19th century depicted on a map of Britford Manor 27773 dated 1703 (Fig. 8.3). Buildings within an enclosure are shown on the surveyors’ Drawing of 1807 (Fig. 8.5). The Britford Tithe Map (1840; Fig. 8.6) shows two cottages, and buildings surrounding a yard to the south. The larger southern building is coloured pink on the OS 1:2,500 map of 1887, as are the cottages, suggesting that it was also a dwelling. The site is named as ‘Down Barn’; a circular pond is shown to the east. The site is renamed ‘Bake Farm’ on the OS map of 1901 (Fig. 8.8). The name ‘Bake’ is associated with reclaimed land30 and seems to confirm that the farm relates to late enclosure of the downland. 28 Gibbet/ Andrews’ and Dury’s Map of 1773 121 ______18th century or depicts a gibbet on high ground to the 276 earlier north of the road (Fig. 8.4). The gibbet is shown to the east of the 2 mile milestone (which still exists), although its position in relation to the lines of the surrounding roads suggests that it may have lain further to the west (i.e. nearer to Bake Farm). 29 Steam Plough OS maps of 1901 and 1927 show 11306 ______Works/ ‘Coombe Bissett Steam Plough Works’ to 27102 Modern the south of the Site (Figs 8.8 and 8.9). It was not shown on the OS map of 1886. 30 Field system/ A field system is visible as soilmarks on 1023 SU12NW Unknown aerial photographs. 2740 696 ?prehistoric 31 Milestone/18th- A milestone is situated on the south side 12069 ______century of the A354 road. It is listed Grade II.31 27498 The Salisbury-Blandford toll road was finished by c. 1775.

Value of heritage assets 8.54. The heritage assets identified within the Assessment Site have been allocated the values show in table 8.4 below.

30 Gover et al, 1939, 450-451. 31 EH List Entry No. 1355759/UID 319407.

Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage July 2014 8 - 14

Bake Farm Environmental Statement

Table 8.4 Asset number Type Value: 1 Mound Unknown, but suspected low 2 Ring ditch Low, due to apparent disturbance 3 Ring ditch Unknown, but suspected medium 4a Cropmarks Unknown, but suspected low 4b Cropmarks Unknown, but suspected low 5 Parish Boundary Medium 6 Parish Boundary Medium 7 Field boundaries Low 8a Field boundary Unknown, but possibly medium 8b Field boundary Unknown, but possibly medium 8c Field boundary Unknown, but possibly medium 8d Cut feature Unknown, but suspected low

8.55. In addition to the identified heritage assets listed above there is the potential for as yet unidentified, assets to exist within the Site. The significance of these cannot be assessed.

POTENTIAL EFFECTS

8.56. The following assessment is presented in two parts, the first to consider effects (impacts) on the Site during the construction and operational phases, the second to consider impacts on settings of designated assets in the vicinity.

Direct (physical) Impacts

Impact during the construction phase 8.57. Most effects on the archaeological resource will occur during the construction stage. All types of construction activity, whether deep excavation or less intrusive intervention, have the potential to impact on any surviving archaeology. The depths of any surviving archaeological deposits are not known at present, although plough soils on chalk downland are not usually deep. Only the impact on assets within the proposed development area has been determined. There would be no physical impact on those within the wider area.

8.58. The following potential impacts have been identified during the construction phase: • disturbance from the installation of the steel piles required to secure the solar panel mounting framework. This impact has the potential to be severe at the position of the individual driven pile, but relatively limited over the wider panel area; • disturbance from the excavation of electricity cable trenches, which has the potential to be severe at the position of the trench; and • disturbance from groundworks during the installation of site compounds, access roads, and ancillary structures, which has the potential to be severe.

8.59. The following impacts on heritage assets, in advance of any mitigation, are identified:

Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage July 2014 8 - 15

Bake Farm Environmental Statement

Table 8.5 Asset Type Impact Significance of Discussion number magnitude impact 1 Mound Small to Unknown, but Uncertainty over the identity of medium (solar suspected the feature, which may be the panel minor. result of mineral extraction, with mounting possibility that it might be piles) natural. 2 Ring ditch Negligible to Negligible The impact magnitude is small, (solar considered low as the result of panel considerable apparent mounting disturbance to the feature. piles) 3 Ring ditch Small to Moderate medium (solar panel mounting piles) 4a Cropmarks Small to Unknown, but Uncertainty over the identity of medium (solar suspected the feature, which may be the panel minor. result of mineral extraction, with mounting possibility that it might be piles) natural. 4b Cropmarks Small to Unknown, but Uncertainty over the identity of medium (solar suspected the feature, which may be the panel minor. result of mineral extraction, with mounting possibility that it might be piles) natural. 5 Parish None No impact Boundary banks and any Boundary subsurface remains will not be disturbed. 6 Parish None No impact Boundary banks and any Boundary subsurface remains will not be disturbed. 7 Field None No impact Boundary banks and any boundaries subsurface remains will not be disturbed 8a Field Small to Minor boundary medium (solar panel mounting piles) 8b Field Small to Minor boundary medium (solar panel mounting piles) 8c Field Small to Minor boundary medium (solar panel mounting piles) 8d Cut feature Small to Unknown, but Uncertainty over the identity of medium (solar suspected the feature, which may be the panel minor. result of mineral extraction, with mounting possibility that it might be piles) natural.

Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage July 2014 8 - 16

Bake Farm Environmental Statement

8.60. Most effects on archaeology and cultural heritage will occur during the construction phase. No detrimental impacts within the Site are identified during the operational phase. It is expected that the depth of the existing ploughsoil would protect any surviving deposits or features from potential damage resulting from associated vehicle movement within the area. There are no known cumulative effects associated with the proposed development.

8.61. It is noted that during the operational phase existing cultivation regimes would cease within the Site. Any continuing and detrimental impacts from ploughing would therefore be removed during the lifetime of the solar farm.

Indirect impacts on designated asset settings

8.62. It is recognised that there may be a continuing indirect impact on the settings of designated heritage assets, and this is considered with regard to higher level designations (Scheduled Monuments, Grade I and II* Listed Buildings, Grade I and II* Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields and World Heritage Centres). The temporary impacts of the construction process and decommissioning phase will be of a lesser magnitude than the operational impacts. For this reason the assessment turns directly to operational phase below.

8.63. Impacts would potentially occur where there are views of the solar farm, in conjunction with views of any designated heritage asset. This can include views from the solar farm towards an asset, from the asset towards the solar farm and views at any point within the landscape from which both can be seen.

8.64. There is considered to be no intervisibility between the Site and the following designated assets:

• barrow 1005612 • barrows 1002998 • barrows 1017169 • dovecote 1146160, 1003000 • Throope church 1146195 • barrow 1004772 • Grim's Ditch 1003457 • long barrow 1015703 • long barrow 1015704 • long barrow 1013002 • long barrow 1012189 • Grim's Ditch 1004753 • Barrow 1003003 • Clearbury Ring 1005691 • Odstock Copse earthwork 1004775 • Odstock Old Manor 1023845 • Odstock church 1023844 • Nunton church 1181836 • Nunton House 1181829 • Longford Castle Park and Garden 1000424

Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage July 2014 8 - 17

Bake Farm Environmental Statement

• Wilton Park and Garden 1000440

8.65. It is also apparent that barring a small area of land to the north-east of the Site, which contains no designated assets, there is no visibility of the Site from north of the Old Shaftsbury Drove. No realistic view is available from Old Sarum (1015675) for example. For this reason assets in the area of Salisbury and Wilton have not been considered further, or shown on lists or figures.

8.66. Visits to the parish churches of Stratford Tony (English Heritage list entry 1181901), Coombe Bissett (1023802) and Homington (1023807), each listed either Grade I or II*, indicate that no view of the Site is available from Homington or Coombe Bissett, and it is thought unlikely that a view is possible from Stratford Tony.

8.67. Bronze Age burial mounds (1005626) on former downland near Portfield Road to the west of the Site are situated on slightly higher ground than the Site. A limited view of the proposed array may therefore be available, although intervening hedges probably preclude this, and at the distance involved, any potential for a visual impact is thought to be limited.

8.68. Views of the Site, predominantly the eastern fields, exist from the large Scheduled Monument at Little Woodbury (1005652), although only from the western edge, and at a very shallow angle (Photo. 8.7). At the distance involved, and with views of the proposed solar panels being along the line of the rows, reducing the visible area, and presumably negating problems with reflected sunlight, and with these views only available from a limited part of the asset, any impact is likely to be minor.

8.69. A view of the upper part of the Site would be possible from the area of the Scheduled Bronze Age barrow (1015705) on Homington Down, although the monument is located on private land and was not visited (Photo. 8.6 provides a view from a public road to the east). The original setting of this monument is likely to have been mixed woodland and cleared agricultural land, a landscape that remains similar today. Any view of the solar panels may result in a minor to moderate adverse impact on the setting of the monument.

8.70. The closest Scheduled Monument to the site is the Bronze Age barrow (1017705; asset 17) situated immediately to the west of the upper end of Drove Lane. Due to past and continued ploughing, the monument would not be identified without prior knowledge of its existence. Although this former burial mound is little more than 250m from the Site, two substantial hedges alongside the intervening road provide cover, and the land also falls away very slightly from either side of this thoroughfare. No view of the Site is therefore available, and no impact on the setting would result.

MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT

8.71. Designed mitigation should be employed wherever possible to remove or reduce the impact on an asset through avoidance or limitation of the development of the asset area.

Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage July 2014 8 - 18

Bake Farm Environmental Statement

8.72. In the case of assets 1, 2, 4a, 4b and 8d, although a natural origin has been suggested, and remains possible, it is suspected that these features are the result of historic mineral extraction. When considering solar panel piles, any resultant impact is therefore deemed to be minor, and it is suggested that no specific mitigation is required.

8.73. In the case of assets 8a-c any impact from solar panel piles is also considered minor and no specific mitigation is suggested. Furthermore, with the removal of the existing cultivation regime, any associated detrimental impact from ploughing would also be removed.

8.74. In the case of asset 3, if necessary, surface mounting of the solar panels could be employed to avoid any disturbance to the feature.

8.75. Ancillary features such as cable trenches should be routed to avoid these features wherever possible. However, this measure should be reconsidered if particularly long winding routes would result in a commensurate increase in the potential for the disturbance of unrecognised remains or deposits.

8.76. Where cable trenches or any groundworks cross any of these assets, the scope and detail of any required physical mitigation would be agreed in consultation with the LPA Archaeological Officer, and be undertaken in the form of structured archaeological recording, watching brief and/or prior excavation of impacted areas. This may also be deemed necessary for other areas of the Site.

RESIDUAL EFFECTS

8.77. A minor adverse impact on the setting of the western edge of the large Scheduled Monument at Little Woodbury (1005652) and a minor to moderate adverse impact on the Scheduled Bronze Age barrow (1015705) on Homington Down may exist during the life of the solar farm.

Table 8.6: Summary of potential impacts and mitigation Asset (No.) Significance of potential Mitigation summary construction phase impact Mound/ Cropmark (1) Unknown. No mitigation suggested, unless Suspected minor crossed by cable-trench Ring ditch/ Hollow (2) Minor No mitigation suggested, Ring ditch (3) Moderate If required, surface mounting of overlying solar panels Cropmarks (4a-b) Unknown. No mitigation suggested, unless Suspected minor crossed by cable-trench Parish Boundary (5) No impact Ensure that no disturbance takes place Parish Boundary (6) No impact Ensure that no disturbance takes place Field boundaries (7) No impact Ensure that no disturbance takes place Field boundary (8a-c) Minor No mitigation suggested, unless crossed by cable-trench Cut feature (8d) Unknown. Suspected No mitigation suggested, unless Minor crossed by cable-trench

Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage July 2014 8 - 19

Bake Farm Environmental Statement

Asset (No.) Significance of potential Mitigation summary operation phase impact Mound/ Cropmark (1) No impact Ring ditch/ Hollow (2) No impact Ring ditch (3) No impact Cropmarks (4a-b) No impact Parish Boundary (5) No impact Parish Boundary (6) No impact Field boundaries (7) No impact Field boundary (8a-c ) No impact Cut feature (8d) No impact Asset (No.) Significance of potential Mitigation summary decommissioning phase impact Mound/ Cropmark (1) Unknown Avoid additional ground Suspected minor disturbance during decommissioning Ring ditch/ Hollow (2) Minor Avoid additional ground disturbance during decommissioning Ring ditch (3) No impact Avoid surface disturbance during decommissioning Cropmarks (4a-b) Unknown Avoid additional ground Suspected minor disturbance during decommissioning Parish Boundary (5) No impact Avoid disturbance during decommissioning Parish Boundary (6) No impact Avoid disturbance during decommissioning Field boundaries (7) No impact Avoid disturbance during decommissioning Field boundary (8a-c) Minor Avoid additional ground disturbance during decommissioning Cut feature (8d) Minor Avoid additional ground disturbance during decommissioning

REFERENCES

Unpublished sources

Historic Environment Record (HER) Records within 1km of the Site area. Aerial photographs: No. 211182 (run No. 19) dated 25.8.1971; No. 4081 179, dated 2.8.1981; No. 101 91 00 9, dated 29.8.1991; Film 347-22, Frame 331, dated 24.6.01.

Wiltshire Record Office (Wiltshire and Swindon Archives - WSA) Andrews' and Dury's Map of Wiltshire, 1773. Britford Tithe Award, 1840. Homington Tithe Award, 1846. Coombe Bissett Tithe Award, 1840. Britford Enclosure Award1847, Ref. EA/66. 'A Map of the Parish of Hommington and of certain lands called The East-End

Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage July 2014 8 - 20

Bake Farm Environmental Statement

Lands... 1787. By Francis Webb, Salisbury', Ref. EA/26 (Homington Enclosure Award). Map of Britford Manor 1703, Ref. X6/9 ('The Mannor of Britford Survey'd by Thomas Naish 1703'). 'A Map of the Parish of Humington ...' 1782, Ref. 1946/L44.

Printed sources Bartlett, A.D.H. 1985. Netherhampton Magnetometer Survey of a proposed Oil Drilling Site. Gover, J.E.B., Mawer, A., & Stenton, F.M. 1939. The Place-Names of Wiltshire. Ordnance Survey (OS) surveyors' Two-inch Drawing No. 64, 1807. 1:10,560 map Wiltshire Sheet 71, surveyed 1886, published 1886 & 1888. 1:10,560 map Wiltshire Sheet 66, surveyed 1877-9, published 1887. 1:2,500 map Sheet 71.2.5, c. 1887. 1:10560 map Sheet 71NW, 1901 & 1927. 1:10560 map Sheet 66SW, 1901. 1:25,000 Explorer map 130, Salisbury and Stonehenge, 1998. Department for Communities and Local Government (March 2012). The National Planning Policy Framework. Available at: www.gov.uk [Date accessed 26.2.2013]. Department of Environment. 1997. The Hedgerow Regulations 1997, section 97 of the Environment Act 1995. English Heritage. 2008. Conservation Principles; policies and guidance. Institute for Archaeologists. November 2012. Standards and guidance: desk-based assessment. Pamment Salvatore, J. 1994. A31 (T) Winterbourne Zelston Improvement Desk Top Assessment, Cotswold Archaeological Trust ,CAT Job 0429, CAT Report 94211. Richards, J. 1985. Netherhampton Drill Site, Survey and Watching Brief. Wessex Archaeology. Salisbury District Council. 2003. Salisbury District Local Plan 2011. Soil Survey of England and Wales 1983. Legend for the 1:250,000 Soil Map of England and Wales. The Stationery Office. 2010 'Planning for the Historic Environment, 2010. Stratascan Ltd. 2012. Geophysical Survey Report: Bake Farm. Salisbury. J3188. Thorn, C., & Thorn, F. 1979. (eds) Domesday Book, vol. 6 Wiltshire. Wiltshire County Council and Swindon Borough Council. 2006. Wiltshire and Swindon Structure Plan 2016. Youngs, F. 1979. Local Administrative Units: Southern England.

Websites Aerial mapping: maps.google.co.uk Acornley, J. 'The History of Coombe Bissett': www.coombebissett.com Hedgerow Regulations. 1997: www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1160/contents/made Heritage Gateway (archaeological sites): heritagegateway.org.uk National Archives: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk The National Heritage List for England (Listed Buildings and Scheduled Monuments): list.english-heritage.org.uk Victoria County History: Wiltshire, British History Online, www.british-history.ac.uk

Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage July 2014 8 - 21