9 Cultural Heritage
Introduction
9.1 This Chapter of the ES assesses the likely significant effects of the Development with respect to cultural heritage.
National Planning Policy
9.2 The assessment is written within the following legislative, planning policy and guidance context:
National Heritage Act 1983 (amended 2002) 1; Town and Country Planning Act (1990) 2; Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act (1990) 3; National Planning Policy Framework (2012) 4; and English Heritage Conservation Principles: policies and guidance for the sustainable management of the historic environment (2008) 5.
9.3 The National Planning Policy Framework sets out planning policies relating to ‘conserving and enhancing the historic environment’. It defines the historic environment as ‘all aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through time, including all surviving physical remains of past human activity, whether visible, buried or submerged, and landscaped and planted or managed flora.’ It further classifies a ‘heritage asset’ as ‘a building, monument, site, place, area or landscape indentified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest’.
9.4 Heritage assets include designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing). Policies relate to both the treatment of the assets themselves and their settings, both of which are a material consideration in development management decision making.
1 Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (HMSO) 2002 National Heritage Act 1983 2 Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (HMSO) 1990 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 3 Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (HMSO) 1990 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 4 Communities and Local Government (CLG) 2012 National Planning Policy Framework 5 English Heritage 2008 Heritage Conservation Principles: policies and guidance for the sustainable management of the historic environment
9.5 The NPPF states that “ The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development ” and that there are “t hree dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental ”. The role the environment will play is described as “contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use of natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy ”.
9.6 Within the over-arching roles that the planning system will play, a set of 12 “core land-use planning principles ” have been developed to underpin place- shaping and decision making. The 10th principle is:
“conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations”
9.7 When determining planning applications local planning authorities should take account of:
“the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.”
9.8 Further to this, local planning authorities can request that the applicant should describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail required in the assessment should be proportionate to the assets importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk- based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.
9.9 Local planning authorities should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a Development, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.
9.10 A key policy within the NPPF is that when considering the impact of a Development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.
20281306-1
9.11 Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.
9.12 However, where a Development will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.
9.13 With regard to non-designated heritage assets specific policy is provided in that a balanced judgement will be required having due regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset affected.
Regional Planning Policy
9.14 Regional planning policy is set out in the East of England Plan 2031 (adopted March 2010) 6. Policy relating to archaeology is included within Policy ENV6 (see Appendix 9.2).
Local Planning Policy
9.15 Local policy is contained within the City of Norwich Replacement Local Plan (adopted in November 2004) 7. Following review in November 2007 by the Secretary of State a number of policies were ‘saved’. ‘Saved’ policies relating to archaeology and the historic environment are provided in Appendix 9.3.
Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria
Scope
9.16 The assessment focuses upon the cultural heritage resource of the Site itself, although the heritage resource of a minimum 500m ‘buffer’ around the Site has also been assessed in detail, referred to as the ‘study area’.
9.17 The main objectives of the assessment are:
to identify designated heritage assets within the Site and study area; to gather information on non-designated recorded heritage assets; to assess the above baseline information and offer an analysis of the potential for currently unrecorded heritage assets within the Site; to assess the significance of the heritage assets and, where possible, the impact of the Development upon the significance of these assets
9.18 These objectives are intended to inform an assessment of baseline conditions within the Site. Remaining objectives include:
6 East of England Regional Assembly 2010 East of England Plan 2031: Draft revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England 7 Norwich City Council 2004 City of Norwich Replacement Local Plan
to identify the major potential impacts upon identified heritage assets within the assessment area and assess their magnitude if unmitigated; to identify appropriate mitigation measures for significant adverse impacts; and to identify the residual impact of the Development, taking into account proposed mitigation, and assess the significance of the effects.
Methodology
9.19 The methodology is based on the guidance provided in the Institute for Archaeologists standards and guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment 8; Appendix 9 of the Good Practice Guide for the preparation of Environmental Statements issued by the former Department of the Environment 9; and Environmental Impact Assessment: a Guide to Procedures issued by the former DETR and the National Assembly for Wales 10 . The assessment of effects has followed the guidance given by the Highways Agency in 2007 in The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2: Cultural Heritage (Highways Agency document 208/07) 11 , henceforth referred to as HA 208/07.
9.20 This desk-based assessment has considered a 500m radius study area centred on the Site (Fig. 9.1). The size of the study area ensured that historic mapping and data sources provide sufficient information about the Development Site and its surrounding landscape from which to assess known and potential impacts on the heritage resource. This in turn provided a clearer indication of the Development Site’s history, context and archaeological potential. All known heritage assets identified within this radius, and close to the perimeter of this study area, have been considered in this assessment.
9.21 Known heritage assets within the study area are reported in Section 4. A gazetteer of known and potential heritage assets in the study area has been compiled (Appendix 9.1). All assets are referred to in the text by a unique reference number 01 , etc... The locations of these assets can be seen on Fig. 9.1.
9.22 Historic environment data was requested in September 2012 from Norfolk County Council’s Historic Environment Record (HER) and the English Heritage’s NMR. This comprised data on designated heritage assets such as Scheduled Monuments and Listed buildings, non-designated assets comprising archaeological find-spots, sites, investigations, historic buildings, and cartographic and other documentary records.
9.23 In addition the following resources were consulted and documents studied:
Norfolk Record Office, Norfolk (visited 11 May 2011); The National Monuments Record (NMR), Swindon, aerial photography collections (visited 17 May 2011); and
8 Institute for Archaeologists 2011 Standard And Guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment 9 Department of the Environment 1995 Good Practice Guide for the preparation of Environmental Statements 10 Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions and the National Assembly for Wales 2000 Environmental Impact Assessment: a Guide to Procedures 11 Highhways Agency 2007 The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2: Cultural Heritage 20281306-1
Online sources, including DEFRA MAGIC website, Archaeological Data Service (ADS), the British Geological Survey (BGS) Geology of Britain Viewer and Local Plan information from the City of Norwich District Council website.
9.24 A site visit was undertaken on 27 September 2012 to identify any potential heritage assets not recorded by the baseline sources and to more fully understand the potential constraints, if any, to the Development.
9.25 Consultation with the Senior Historic Environment Officer (Planning), Norfolk County Council established the requirement for a geophysical survey of the site, the methodology of which is set out in section 9.29 below.
Assessment of significance of effects of the Development
9.26 The significance of effects of the Development has been assessed with reference to the value of the cultural heritage resource being impacted upon and the magnitude of the impact. This assessment has addressed the physical effects of the Development upon identified heritage assets. The value of the cultural heritage resource is defined using the criteria in Table 9.1, with reference to the definitions of ‘heritage assets’ and significance contained within NPPF.
9.27 Please note that within the following tables the term ‘value’ should be read as ‘significance’, in accordance with terminology employed in National Planning Policy Framework.
Table 9.1 Methodology for determining value/sensitivity Value/Sensitivity Examples of heritage assets
Heritage assets of high value/sensitivity include designated heritage assets of the highest significance (as defined in NPPF Paragraph 132), including: Scheduled Monuments; Grade I and Grade II* Listed buildings; protected wreck sites; battlefields; Grade I and Grade II* Registered Parks and Gardens. Non-designated heritage assets High which would meet the criteria for these designations, but are not currently designated, are also included. These heritage assets have little ability to absorb change without fundamentally altering their present character. Heritage assets of moderate value include those which, while not of the highest significance, score well against the criteria for measuring heritage importance, including Moderate the Secretary of State’s criteria for Scheduled Monuments. These heritage assets would often be described as of regional importance. Heritage assets of moderate value include those designated as Grade II Listed buildings and Grade II Registered Parks. Heritage assets of low value comprise non-designated assets, which would normally be Low described as of local importance. These heritage assets are tolerant of change without detriment to their character.
9.28 The magnitude of the impact is assessed using the criteria in Table 9.2 below. Effects may be adverse or beneficial, as exemplified in the table.
Table 9.2 Methodology for determining impact magnitude Magnitude of effect Criteria for assessing effect
Total loss or major/substantial alteration to key elements/features of the baseline (pre-development) conditions such that the post development character/composition/attributes will be fundamentally Major changed. A Major Adverse magnitude of effect includes complete removal of an archaeological site or radical transformation of the setting of an archaeological monument. A Major Beneficial magnitude of effect includes arrest of physical damage or decay to
archaeolog ical remains, or e xc eptional enhancement of an archaeological site, its cultural heritage amenity and access or use Loss or alteration to one or more key elements/features of the baseline conditions such that post development character/composition/attributes of the baseline will be materially changed. A Moderate Adverse magnitude of effect includes removal of a major part of an archaeological site and loss of research potential or partial transformation of the setting of an archaeological site e.g. the introduction of significant noise or vibration levels to Moderate an archaeological monument leading to changes to amenity use, accessibility or appreciation of an archaeological site. A Moderate Beneficial magnitude of effect includes land use change resulting in improved conditions for the protection of archaeological remains plus interpretation measures (heritage trails, etc).It may also include significant reduction or removal of visual or noise intrusion on the setting of an archaeological site or monument; and Improvement of the wider landscape setting of an archaeological site or monument Improvement of the cultural heritage amenity, access or use of an archaeological site or monument. A minor shift away from baseline conditions. Change arising from the loss/alteration will be discernable/detectable but not material. The underlying character/composition/attributes of the baseline condition will be similar to the pre-development circumstances/situation. Minor A Minor Adverse magnitude of effect includes removal of an archaeological site where a minor part of its total area is removed but the site retains a significant future research potential. Also minor change to the setting of an archaeological monument. A Moderate Beneficial magnitude of effect includes decreases in visual or noise intrusion on the setting of an archaeological site or monument, or improvement of the wider landscape setting of an archaeological site or monument. Very little change from baseline conditions. Change barely Negligible distinguishable, approximating to a 'no change' situation. It includes no impact from changes in use, amenity or access, or no perceptible change in the setting of an archaeological site or monument.
9.29 Following the evaluation of the value of the cultural heritage resource the magnitude of the impacts are assessed. Mitigation measures, if necessary are then suggested. Following this, the significance of the effect after mitigation are assessed using the matrix shown in Table 9.3 below. Where two alternatives are given in the table, professional judgement is used to decide which best reflects the significance of the effect of the impact identified.
Table 9.3 Impact significance matrix Magnitude Value/Sensitivity
Magnitude of impact High Moderate Low Major Adverse/Beneficial Major-Moderate Moderate-Minor Major Adverse/Beneficial Adverse/Beneficial Major-Moderate Moderate-Minor Minor Adverse/Beneficial Moderate Adverse/Beneficial Adverse/Beneficial Moderate-Minor Minor Adverse/Beneficial Minor-Negligible Minor Adverse/Beneficial Adverse/Beneficial Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
20281306-1
Geophysical survey
9.30 The methodology for the geophysical survey was agreed within a Written Scheme of Investigation 12 approved by the Senior Historic Environment Officer (Planning), Norfolk County Council (26.11.2013). The geophysical survey comprised detailed magnetometry of all areas suitable for survey within the site (areas of concrete runway and taxiway were omitted). The report comprises Appendix 9.5 of this assessment 13 .
The Setting of Heritage Assets
9.31 The potential effect of the Proposed Development upon the significance of designated heritage assets within the wider landscape was assessed. The scoping opinion issued by Norwich City Council and Broadlands District Council (08.02.2013) requested that a 2km study area be utilised for the settings assessment.
9.32 The English Heritage document The Setting of Heritage Assets 14 provides guidance on setting and development management, including assessing the implications of development proposals. A staged approach is recommended for the latter, the first step of which is to identify the heritage assets affected and their settings. Step 2 is to assess whether, how and to what degree these settings make a positive contribution to the significance of the heritage asset(s), i.e. ‘what matters and why’. This includes a consideration of the key attributes of the heritage asset itself, then considers:
the physical surroundings of the asset, including its relationship with other heritage assets; the way the asset is appreciated; and the asset’s associations and patterns of use. 9.33 The third step (where appropriate) is to assess the effect of the proposed development on the significance of assets through the consideration of the key attributes of the proposed development in terms of its:
location and siting; form and appearance; additional effects; and permanence. 9.34 The fourth step is to maximise enhancement and minimise harm, which may be achieved through:
removing or re-modelling an intrusive building or features; replacement of a detrimental feature by a new and more harmonious one;
12 Cotswold Archaeology 2012 Norwich International Airport Northern Extension Norwich Norfolk: Written Scheme of Investigation for a Geophysical Survey 13 Pre-Construct Geophysics 2012 Archaeological Geophysical Survey, Norwich International Airport Northern Extension, Norwich, Norfolk
14 English Heritage 2011 The Setting of Heritage Assets
restoring or revealing a lost historic features; introducing a wholly new feature that adds to the public appreciation of the asset; introducing new views (including glimpses or better framed views) that add to the public experience of the asset; or improving public access to, or interpretation of, the asset including its setting.
9.35 Step five is making and documenting the decision and monitoring outcomes.
Baseline Conditions
Introduction
This section provides an overview of the historical and archaeological background of the study area, in order to provide a better understanding of the context and significance of the cultural heritage resource that may be affected by development.
Designated heritage assets
International designations
9.36 No World Heritage Sites or sites included on the Tentative List of Future Nominations for World Heritage Sites (July 2010) are situated within the Site or study area.
National designations
9.37 There are no Scheduled Monuments situated within the study area. The nearest Scheduled Monument is St Faith Priory (National Heritage List [NHL] No: 1003933) approximately 900m north-west of the Site (beyond the study area). Horsham St Faith Conservation Area is located 480m north-west of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 2). There are no Grade I Listed Buildings recorded within the Site or study area. There are no Grade I, Grade II* or Grade II Registered Parks or Gardens or Registered Battlefields recorded within the Site or the study area. There is a single Grade II Listed Building, The White House (Fig. 9.1, 1), within the study area 440m north-west of the Site.
Summary of non-designated or potential heritage assets
9.38 Geophysical survey within the Site recorded five anomalies that possibly relate to (previously unrecorded) field boundaries or the below ground remains of former airfield features, and four possible pit features. These features are unlikely to be of more than Low value.
9.39 No further heritage assets have been recorded within the Site. The Site is situated on the northern periphery of the World War Two airfield, and the extant taxiway in the southern part of the site was constructed in 1941 (Fig. 9.2). A number of further wartime and post-war taxi-ways (utilised as extant taxiways) extend across the Site. These taxiways are not considered to be heritage assets. The isolated remains of a Cold War blast wall are located 50m to the east of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 39 ). This feature is considered to be a heritage asset of Low value.
20281306-1
9.40 Cropmarks relating to the below ground remains of a possible prehistoric field system are recorded to the east of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 35). These cropmarks remain undated, although their orientation is different from the historically recorded field system in the vicinity, and they may date to the late prehistoric or Roman period. Although they may represent later features, if they do represent field boundaries of this date it is unlikely that any associated buried remains would comprise heritage assets of greater than low value.
Previous archaeological investigations
9.41 There have been no previous archaeological excavations within the Site. There have been two programmes of intrusive archaeological works within the study area, these comprise;
trial trenching in 2006 associated with the Northern Distributor Route to the north-west of the Site which recorded an undated ditch which is likely to relate to a former field boundary (Fig. 9.1, 1015 ); and a watching brief (preceded by a desk-based assessment) in 1995 prior to gravel extraction to the north-east of the Site which recorded undated pits (Fig. 9.1, 17 16 ), probably relating to modern charcoal production.
9.42 The trial trenching for the Norwich Northern Distributor Route was preceded by several desk-based assessments 17 , and extensive fieldwalking and metal- detecting. A programme of metal detecting and fieldwalking was conducted in 2007 to the northeast of the Site and recorded prehistoric flints, as well as early medieval decorative items and a medieval trading token (Fig. 9.1, 8). Several further metal detecting programmes have been conducted within the study area as part of the Northern Distributor Route assessment, including to the north-west (Fig. 9.1, 9 and 10 18 ), east (Fig. 9.1, 319 ), and west of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 5 and 1220 ).
15 NAU 2008b 16 Tempus Repartatum (TR) 1991 Consultancy Report on the known archaeology and archaeological potential of Grange Farm, Spixworth, Norfolk; Tempvs Repartatvm (TR) 1995 Report on Archaeological Watching Brief, Grange Farm, Spixworth, Norfolk 17 Norfolk Archaeology Unit (NAU) 1994 The Norwich Northern Distributor Road: The Archaeological Implications: A Report: Stage 1 ; Norfolk Archaeology Unit (NAU) 2004 A Desk-based Assessment for a Stage 2 Environmental Assessment Norwich Northern Distributor Road (eastern routes) ; Norfolk Archaeology Unit (NAU) 2005 A Desk-based Assessment for a Stage 2 Environmental Assessment Norwich Northern Distributor Road (western routes) 18 Norfolk Archaeology Unit (NAU) 2008a Norwich Northern Distributor Route: Fieldwalking and metal detector survey - Interim statement; Norfolk Archaeology Unit (NAU) 2008c Norwich Northern Distributor Route: Fieldwalking and Metal-detecting Survey , pp. 28-36. 19 Norfolk Archaeology Unit (NAU) 2008c Norwich Northern Distributor Route: Fieldwalking and Metal-detecting Survey, p. 37 20 Ibid , p. 25
9.43 There have been extensive fieldwalking and metal detecting projects in the study area since the early 1980s, which have recorded prehistoric through to post-medieval material. A high number of these surveys have been conducted to the north and west of the Site, and a particular focus has been the site of the medieval St Faith's Fairstead, where dense concentrations of medieval and post-medieval metalwork have been recorded (Fig. 9.1, 6, 20, 21, and 23 ). Metal detecting to the north-east and east of the Site over several decades has recorded a concentration of prehistoric flints (Fig. 9.1, 7) as well as Roman material and early medieval and medieval metalwork (Fig. 9.1, 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , and 19 ).
Geology, topography and the palaeoenvironment
9.44 The solid geology within the Site comprises sand and gravel of the Wroxham Crag group.The superficial geology within the Site comprises diamicton (sand and gravel) of the Happisburgh Glacigenic formation. These deposits date to the Quaternary and are the result of glacial deposition, and this particular formation can be up to 20m thick 21 .
9.45 The Site is located at c. 30m above ordnance datum (AOD) on relatively flat land within the northern part of Norwich Airport, to the north of Norwich. The nearest watercourse is a tributary of the River Bure which passes 1km to the north of the Site, while the River Wensum passes approximately 2.3km to the south-west of the Site.
Prehistoric (pre AD 43)
9.46 There are no confirmed prehistoric features recorded within the Site or study area, although prehistoric flints have been recorded immediately to the north of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 6 and 8). Flints are indicative of general prehistoric activity, and have been recorded by fieldwalking and during metal detecting to the north-west (Fig. 9.1, 9, 10 and 11 ), east (Fig. 9.1, 3), and north-west (Fig. 9.1, 5) of the Site. The fairly high quantity of burnt flint found north of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 6) may represent the presence of a pot-boiler site nearby 22 . Further worked flints have been recorded 300m north-east of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 13 ), 350m east of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 7) and 300m west of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 12 ), while a Neolithic arrowhead has been recovered 250m to the north-west of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 4).
9.47 An extensive undated field system, possibly of prehistoric or Roman date, has been identified as cropmarks by the National Mapping Programme (NMP) on historic aerial photography to the east (Fig. 9.1, 35) and south-east of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 34). Cropmarks of a further possible prehistoric field system are recorded 400m to the west of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 31 ) and comprise a system of trackways and enclosures.
21 BGS (British Geological Survey) 2012 Geology of Britain Viewer. Online resource at http://maps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyviewer_google/googleviewer.html viewed September 2012 22 (NAU 2008c, 31) 20281306-1
Roman (AD43 – AD 410)
9.48 There are no Roman features recorded within the Site or study area. Recent metal detecting has recovered a Roman steelyard (balancing tool) 70m north- west of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 5) and a steelyard weight and Roman coins immediately to the east of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 16 ). These artefacts may be indicative of Roman trading activity in the Site vicinity.
9.49 Roman coins have frequently been recorded within the study area during metal detecting, including a particularly large coin hoard 400m east of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 15 ), and smaller groups of coins immediately north of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 6) and 300m north-east of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 17 and 18 ). Single coins have also been recorded during metal detecting across the wider study area (Fig. 9.1, 13 , 14 , 18 and 19 ).
9.50 During the late prehistoric and Roman periods the area was under the control of the Iceni tribe, who became a client kingdom under the Romans following the conquest, and were able to maintain a degree of independence 23 . The cropmarks of a possible Roman marching camp, potentially utilised during the conquest, have been recorded 420m south-east of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 33), comprising two parallel ditches with right-angled corners. Subsequent metal detecting in the vicinity has recorded Roman, and later, pottery and coins. The possible camp is located close to the cropmarks of a field system of possible Roman date, comprising linear ditches and a possible enclosure (Fig. 9.1, 34 and 35). A further group of cropmarks 300m west of the Site also possibly relate to a Roman field system (Fig. 9.1, 31 ).
Early medieval (5th century AD - 1066)
9.51 There are no early medieval features recorded within the Site or study area, and activity of this period is generally difficult to detect archaeologically. However, knowledge of early medieval archaeology in East Anglia has been transformed by metal detecting 24 , and this technique has been equally productive within the study area.
9.52 Metal detecting to the north of the Site recorded an early medieval (Saxon) belt buckle (Fig. 9.1, 8), indicative of early-medieval activity. Further early medieval artefacts include a number of brooches and an ornate button brooch recorded to the west of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 5), a strap end recorded to the north- west of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 6), and a strap mount, pin head and other metal objects identified to the east of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 16 ). Further metal detecting in the wider landscape has recorded early medieval metalwork, comprising a cruciform brooch 400m to the east of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 15 ), a decorative strap 250m north of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 21) and a number of metalwork pieces 500m north-east of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 18 ).
23 Davies, J. A. 1996 ‘The Iron Age and Roman periods’ in S Margeson, B. Ayers and S. Heywood (eds), A Festival of Norfolk Archaeology , pp. 21-29, at p. 25 24 Margeson, S. 1996 ‘Viking settlement in Norfolk: A study of new evidence’, in S Margeson, B. Ayers and S. Heywood (eds), A Festival of Norfolk Archaeology , pp. 47-57, at p. 48
9.53 Norwich was an early medieval settlement 25 , although the Site is likely to have formed part of the wider agricultural hinterland of the town which was situated approximately 4km to the south of the Site. In the early medieval period East Anglia was at the forefront of the conflict between the Saxons and Vikings, and the Danes had effectively conquered the area after the death of the East Anglian King Edmund in AD870 26 , only for the area to be subsequently regained by the Saxons. However, the Viking threat continued into the 11th century, and the town was again sacked in AD1004 27 . It was during this period that Norwich became important as an urban centre, and the establishment of a mint at Norwich in the 10th century suggests it was a borough town 28 .
Medieval (1066 – 1539)
9.54 Both Norwich, 4km to the south of the Site, and Horsham St Faith, 600m north-west of the Site, are recorded in Domesday Book29 , and it is likely that the Site formed part of the agricultural landscape between these two settlements. The site of the medieval St Faith Fair is suggested west of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 11), and the presence of a trading centre in the locality is supported by the artefacts recorded by metal detecting in the Site vicinity, comprising medieval metalwork typical of the assemblage expected from a fair (Fig. 9.1, 6, 9, and 10). To the north of the Site a single medieval coin has been recorded (Fig. 9.1, 8), while in the wider study area, medieval coins, lead tokens, and other (often decorative) metalwork have been commonly recorded (Fig. 9.1, 7, 13 , 14 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 23 and 24 ), and are also indicative of medieval trading activity.
9.55 Evidence from later cartographic sources suggest that in the medieval period the Site may have comprised an area of unenclosed common beyond the open field agricultural landscape in the hinterland of Horsham St Faith village 30 . To the north-east of the Site a surviving earthwork bank is likely to be medieval in origin (Fig. 9.1, 22 ), and probably formed part of parish boundary between Horsham St Faith (including the site) and Spixworth parishes. To the west of the Site there are cropmarks relating to a possible medieval, or post- medieval, roadside enclosure (Fig. 9.1, 38 ).
25 Ayers, B. 1994 English Heritage Book of Norwich , p.21 26 Ibid , p. 25 27 Margeson, S. 1996 ‘Viking settlement in Norfolk: A study of new evidence’, in S Margeson, B. Ayers and S. Heywood (eds), A Festival of Norfolk Archaeology , pp. 47-57, at p. 57 28 Ayers, B. 1994 English Heritage Book of Norwich , p.30 29 Brown, P. 1984 Domesday Book : Norfolk 30 1766 Plan of the Estate belonging to Miss Elizabeth Aylmer (Norfolk Record Office: Aylsham 99) 20281306-1
Post-medieval (1540 – 1800) and modern (1801 – present)
9.56 Post-medieval metalwork has been recorded from a large number of locations in the study area (Fig. 9.1, 5 and 7), and a trader’s token has been recorded from immediately north of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 8). Evidence of post-medieval trading, associated with St Faith Fair (Fig. 9.1, 11), includes coins, jettons, tokens and weights recorded by metal detecting to the north-west of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 6, 9, and 10 ), north-east of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 17 ), and east of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 16 ). These finds are very likely to derive from the Site of St Faith Fair 31 . Further post-medieval metalwork (including lead weights) has been widely recorded across the study area through metal detecting (Fig. 9.1, 12 , 15 , 18 , 19 , 23 , 24 and 25 ).
9.57 The Site is likely to have remained part of the agricultural hinterland of Horsham St Faith during the post-medieval period, and ditches possibly relating to post-medieval field boundaries have been recorded by excavations to the north-west of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 10 32 ). These results broadly confirm the agricultural nature of the study area during the post-medieval period.
9.58 The 1766 Map of Horsham St Faith (not illustrated) 33 records a small number of strip fields in the central western area of the site, which may have formed part of the former open field system to the south of Horsham St Faith. This source also depicts an area of woodland in the central southern part of the Site, which is likely to relate to ‘Wood Farm’ recorded on subsequent sources. This map also recorded a Brick Kiln 50m to the north-west of the Site, the presence of which is recorded in later field names (see Fig. 9.3).
9.59 The 1791 Map of Horsham St Faith parish (Fig. 9.3)34 provides a detailed cartographic record of the Site. It comprised a network of small enclosed fields (over twenty in number), traversed by a forking north-south trackway leading to Norwich in the western part of the Site, and a single trackway orientated south-east/north-west in the eastern part of the Site. The Site was located to the north of Wood Farm and the south of West Farm (both labelled as such on subsequent cartographic sources). There are no structures recorded within the Site on this source, although a fieldname in the central part refers to a ‘brick kiln’. ‘Milestone Piece’ is likely to refer to a field containing a milestone associated with the nearby road, while ‘Golden Hun’ may relate to the agricultural productivity, or soil colour, of the particular field.
31 Norfolk Archaeology Unit (NAU) 2008 Norwich Northern Distributor Route: Fieldwalking and Metal-detecting Survey , p. 28 32 Norfolk Archaeology Unit (NAU) 2008 Norwich Northern Distributor Route: Archaeological Evaluation by Trial Trenching , p. 31 33 1766 Plan of the Estate belonging to Miss Elizabeth Aylmer (Norfolk Record Office: Aylsham 99) 34 1791 Map of the manor of Horsham St Faiths (Norfolk Record Office: Aylsham 790)
9.60 Heath Farm, recorded 600m to the south of the Site on early cartographic sources, suggests the area may have previously formed part of an unenclosed area of heath (probably formed by the light sandy soils of the area), prior to enclosure. Heath Farm, Wood Farm, and West Farm (three farms recorded in the vicinity of the Site) are likely to date to the period of enclosure of the former open field and heath, as is common in this area of Norfolk 35 .
9.61 The 1802 Enclosure map (not illustrated) related to the enclosure of a number of strip fields to the north of the Site, on the outskirts of Horsham St Faith, indicative of the open field system which is likely to have existed on the village periphery until 1802. The land within the Site had already been informally enclosed by this date (as indicated by the 1791 Map; see Fig. 9.3).
9.62 The 1817 Map of Horsham St Faith (not illustrated) 36 records a field system largely unaltered from the previous depiction of 1802 and 1791. The 1818 Map of Horsham St Faith (not illustrated) 37 records the same field layout with only minor ownership alterations. The 1819 Map book of Horsham St Faith (not illustrated) 38 records the same field layout and provides details of the fieldnames within the Site. The Site formed part of a number of field enclosures located to the north of Wood Farm, situated centrally within the lands farmed by Wood Farm (as defined by the 1819 plan). The western part of the Site extended across a number of fields under the ownership of West Farm.
9.63 The Site remained largely unaltered on the 1841 Horsham St Faith and Newton St Faith Tithe Map (Fig. 9.4)39 , extending across a number of small fields. Several of the notable fieldnames recorded on previous sources in the wider landscape had been replaced by generic, now descriptive, names.
9.64 The 1892 First Edition Ordnance Survey map (Fig. 9.5)40 recorded the field system as broadly similar to that recorded on the 1841 Tithe Map. The Second Edition and 1938 Ordnance Survey maps (not illustrated) 41 recorded no major alterations to the Site area.
35 Tempvs Repartatvm (TR) 1991 Consultancy Report on the known archaeology and archaeological potential of Grange Farm, Spixworth, Norfolk , p. 8 36 1817 Map of Horsham St Faith (Norfolk Record Office: NRS 4164 [57]) 37 1818 Map of Horsham St Faith (Norfolk Record Office: NRS 4165 [65]) 38 1819 Map Book of Horsham St Faith (Norfolk Record Office: Aylsham 742) 39 1841 Horsham Newton St Faith Tithe Map (Norfolk Record Office: Aylsham PD29/1[H]) 40 1892 Ordnance Survey First Edition 6’’ map (Old-maps.com) 41 1938 Ordnance Survey 6’’ map (Old-maps.com) 20281306-1
Horsham St Faith airfield
9.65 Horsham St Faith airfield (Fig. 9.1, 26 ) was constructed just before World War Two, and formally opened in June 1940 42 . The base was used by RAF bomber and fighter squadrons until 1942, after which the airfield was used by the United States Army Air Force up to 1945. Aerial photography from 1941 records the establishment of the airfield predominantly to the south of the Site and the relatively small-scale of the original airfield (Fig. 9.2). A small runway is recorded extending across the western part of the Site, approximately 900m north-west from the control tower, linked to the hangers and airfield buildings by a taxi way which passed through the southern part of the Site (features from which are transposed onto Fig. 9.2). The field boundaries and former trackways still largely survived within the Site in 1941, although Heath Farm (to the south of the Site) had been removed by this date. Wood Farm, 80 to the south of the Site, and its associated field system remained extant at this date.
9.66 The airfield saw extensive development during World War Two, during which the three current runways were constructed. Wood Farm survived the wartime expansion of the airfield (as recorded by 1952 aerial photography), although a runway passed immediately to the west of the farm, and it is unclear to what extent it still functioned as a farm. The extant runways and taxi-ways within the site (see Fig. 9.2) were established during World War Two.
9.67 Defences associated with the wartime airfield comprise the sites of three Pickett Hamilton forts (Fig. 9.1, 27 , 28 , and 29 ), one of which is extant 400m south of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 27 ). Pickett-Hamilton forts were an innovative idea for airfield defence, and each fort consisted of two concrete cylinders, one inside the other, which were sunk into the ground. The inner cylinder was fitted with a concrete lid which lay level with the ground surface when the ‘fort’ was not in use. When the ‘fort’ was in operation the inner cylinder rose nearly a metre above ground level by means of a hydraulic jack. Once raised three loopholes offered a range of fire for two men armed with heavy machine guns. Access was provided by means of a hatch in the roof. A further Pickett Hamilton fort is recorded by the NMR to the south of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 29 ), but there are no further records of this feature and it is likely to be an incorrect NMR plot. This conclusion is drawn as only three pillboxes were ever recorded historically at Horsham St Faith airfield 43 (a further fort is recorded beyond the study area to the south), and the Pickett Hamilton pillboxes were usually built in threes 44 . The former World War Two control tower also survives, as well as two hangers, approximately 1km to the south of the Site.
9.68 Following World War Two the airfield was returned to the RAF, who further expanded the airfield infrastructure, including the extension of the main runway, and associated taxi-way (both to the south of the site), during which Wood Farm and associated field boundaries was removed. During this period, RAF Horsham St Faith was utilised by jet aircraft (primarily Meteors and Hunters) as part of the Cold War defences of the east coast of England.
42 Delve, K. 2005 The Military airfields of Britain: East Anglia: Norfolk and Suffolk , p. 113 43 Dobinson, C. S. 2000 Twentieth Century Fortifications in England Volume X: Airfield Defences in World War Two , p. 67 44 Bird, C. 1999 Silent Sentinels: The story of Norfolk’s fixed defences during the twentieth century , p. 31
9.69 Blast walls and an associated earth bund are located 50m to the south-east of the eastern boundary of the proposed development site (Fig. 9.1, 39 ). The first source to record part of this earthwork complex is an aerial photo dated to July 1952, which recorded a small earth bank (recorded by the NMP) to the east of an area of hard standing. Aerial photography from October 1955 recorded the extension of the earthwork to its current form, and the addition of the concrete walls to the north and south-west terminals of the earthworks. These blast walls are likely to have been designed to protect jet aircraft (primarily Meteors and Hunters) stationed at RAF Horsham St Faith during the 1950s. Following the closure of the RAF base in the 1960s, the blast walls were used for fire service training throughout the late 20th-century.
9.70 The 1955 aerial photo also recorded a number of further blast walls across the airbase as a whole (Fig. 9.6). None of these features survive intact, although the associated concrete hard standings are recorded at three locations (none of which are within the Site).
9.71 The RAF used the airfield until 1963, after which the base was purchased by the local authority (in 1967) and converted to commercial use as Norwich Airport and additional industrial units 45 . Through post-war redevelopment much of the original World War Two infrastructure was removed. However, the former control tower survives to the south of the study area along with two original aircraft hangers.
9.72 The 1971 Ordnance Survey map (not illustrated) 46 records the airport after its conversion to commercial use. It also records the earthwork in the eastern part of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 39 ), mapped by the National Mapping Programme, which formed part of the fire service training area of Norwich Airport, now used as an aircraft demolition area (Fig. 9. 2, S1; Appendix 9.4). Aside from the construction of a new control tower north of the Site, and further hangers and associated infrastructure around the periphery of the airfield, the airfield infrastructure has remained largely unaltered since 1971. In the central northern part of the site a new fire service training area has been established (after 2005), comprising a concrete compound surrounded by an earth bund (Fig. 9. 2, S2; Appendix 9.5). The Site is predominantly defined by the Norwich Historic Landscape Characterisation as ‘Civilian airport’, aside from the western part of the Site which extends across ‘20th century enclosure’.
Undated
9.73 An undated linear cropmark is recorded 10m to the south of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 32 ). This cropmark does not appear to relate to any documented field boundaries, and is therefore of uncertain origin. It extends for nearly 600m and does not appear to relate to any other features. Further undated features within the Site are discussed in the period sections above, as they may be interpreted to potentially date to specific periods.
45 Osborne, M. 2008 20th century defences in Norfolk , p. 100 46 1971 Ordnance Survey map (Old-maps.com)
20281306-1
9.74 An undated square enclosure has been identified as a cropmark 500m to the north of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 30 ), which could potentially be prehistoric or Roman in date. A possible linear trackway has been recorded as a cropmark 200m north of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 36 ), this feature is undated although the Norfolk HER interpret it as a possible medieval or post-medieval trackway. Several linear ditches are visible as cropmarks approximately 500m north of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 37 ), although these are parallel to boundaries recorded on the 1841 Tithe Map and may represent earlier field boundaries. The cropmarks of a possible roadside enclosure and linear ditch are recorded by the Norfolk HER 200m north-west of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 38 ), although these appear to correlate closely to field boundaries recorded on the 1791 Parish map.
Geophysical survey (Fig. 9.7)
9.75 A fluxgate gradiometer survey was undertaken on land within the Site that was suitable for survey (the concrete runways and taxiways were omitted). The full report is included as Appendix 9.5, and interpretative results are provided as Fig. 9.7.
9.76 The survey recorded widespread magnetic variation that clearly, or in some cases probably, relates to the current and former use of the site as an airport. These include buried services, airfield/airport installations (e.g. landing lights), possible land drains and probable in situ remains of earlier dispersal areas. It is also likely that the majority of moderate and strong anomalies elsewhere signify miscellaneous materials associated with the construction and later redevelopment of the airfield. These results indicate that disturbance within the Site by the construction and operation use of the airfield since World War Two has been quite extensive.
9.77 Only five discrete magnetic anomalies indicative of potential ditches were identified and four anomalies possibly related to pits (Fig, 9.7); these anomalies were located in the central and northern part of the Site. The short stretches of potential ditches do not appear to correlate with known or likely post-medieval or modern field boundaries. They are on differing orientations and do not form a clear pattern. They do not display characteristics generally associated with early settlement enclosures, and may represent early (pre post-medieval) field enclosure boundaries. It is also possible, however, that they relate to the later history of the airfield. The four discrete groups of magnetically weak anomalies in the northernmost part of the site (Area 4, Fig. 9.7) may relate to pits, but may also be of a different origin such as tree- throws. Several higher concentrations of magnetic disturbance in the south- eastern part of the Site probably corresponds to a former airfield feature, such as a dispersal area or construction activity. However, the post-medieval field name Brick-Kiln Close is recorded in the vicinity and it is conceivable that these relate to such activity.
9.78 The survey has found limited evidence for archaeological remains within the Site. A small number of potential archaeological features identified are likely to relate to agricultural boundaries and are likely to be of limited heritage significance. It is therefore concluded that the proposed development area has a limited archaeological potential.
9.79 The survey methodology was not specifically tailored to the identification of unexploded ordnance. Some of the higher reading discrete magnetic anomalies would not be inconsistent with such an origin, but greater clarity on this point is not possible.
Recorded heritage assets and their value
9.80 The four geophysical survey anomalies recorded within the Site (see Fig. 9.7) are likely to relate to former agricultural boundaries (of pre post-medieval date) or the below ground remains of former elements of airfield infrastructure. These isolated anomalies are not indicative of significant archaeological remains and are unlikely to be of no more than Low value.
9.81 There are no further recorded heritage assets within the site although a number of heritage assets are recorded in the immediate vicinity. Cropmarks possibly relating to a late prehistoric or Roman field system are recorded to the east of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 35 ). If these remains do relate to a prehistoric and/or Roman field system they are considered to comprise heritage assets of archaeological interest of Low value.
9.82 A further area of cropmarks (Fig. 9.1, 34 ) is recorded to the south-east of the Site. These features are likely to be medieval or post-medieval field boundaries, as they correlates closely to boundaries recorded on the 1817 Map of Horsham Faith and the 1841 Horsham St Faith and Newton St Faith Tithe Map. As such, these features are not considered to be heritage assets .
9.83 Hedgerows within the site that survive along boundaries depicted on sources pre-dating the Enclosure Map (1802) may be considered heritage assets of historic interest (see Fig. 9.5). The Hedgerow Regulations 1997 states that if such hedgerows form an integral part of a field system pre-dating the Enclosure Act they may have Statutory Protection. However, the hedgerows surviving within the site are generally isolated and fragmentary in nature. As such they do not form part of an integral part of a pre-Enclosure field system and are unlikely to have Statutory Protection. Where hedgerows survive along boundaries depicted on or before the 1840 Tithe Map they may be considered as being of some cultural heritage value, but are without statutory protection. The historic hedgerows which survive within the Site are considered to be heritage assets of historic interest of Low importance.
9.84 Norwich airfield was established just before World War Two (Fig. 9.1, 26 ), and the current airport utilises parts of the original airbase (including hangers, and until recently the original control tower) and runways. No heritage assets relating to the historic airfield are recorded within the Site. The taxi-ways and runway that extend through the Site formed part of the wartime expansion of Norwich airfield. These features are not considered to comprise heritage assets .
20281306-1
9.85 Blast walls and an associated earth bund dating to the Cold War period are recorded 50m to the east of the site (Fig. 9.1, 39 ; Fig. 9.2, S1; Appendix 9.4). Following the closure of the RAF base, this feature was used as a fire service training area and aircraft deconstruction area. This single surviving example of a blast wall at Norwich airport is relatively poorly-preserved (in comparison to the Scheduled blast walls at RAF Coltishall), primarily due to later 20th-century use. Furthermore, the original layout of both the blast walls themselves, and the wider layout of the Cold War airbase at Norwich, has largely been lost or modified (see Fig. 9.6). It is not considered that the blast walls at Norwich Airport are of a value commensurate with a Scheduled Monument under the Secretary of State’s criteria. The blast walls are considered to comprise a heritage asset of Low value.
9.86 In recent years, the Fire Service training area has been moved to the north- western part of the airport. The current fire service training area in the central northern part of the Site is also not considered to be a heritage asset (Fig. 9. 2, S2; Appendix 9.4).
Potential for currently unrecorded archaeological remains
9.87 Evidence of prehistoric activity within the study area is predominantly derived from metal detecting, field walking and cropmarks. Fairly high concentrations of flints have been recorded in the Site vicinity (Fig. 9.1, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 10 ), while cropmarks recorded in the northern part of the Site possibly relate to a wider prehistoric and/or Romano-British field system (see Fig. 1 35 ). As such, there is some potential for currently unrecorded archaeological remains of these periods to occur within Site, although nearby excavations found no significant archaeological remains (Fig. 9.1, 10 ), including no remains relating to the possible medieval fair site.
9.88 Roman metalwork, predominantly coins and coin hoards, have been recorded widely across the study area (Fig. 9.1, 5, 6, 14 , 16 , and 19 ), attesting to activity of this period within the site. Evidence for Roman field enclosures within the site has been discussed above.
9.89 Early medieval (Saxon) metalwork has been recorded by metal detecting across the study area (Fig. 9.1, 5, 6, 8, 15 , 16 , 18 and 21 ). Below-ground archaeological remains of this date outside of a known urban context are very rare, and there is little potential for such features within the site.
9.90 Evidence indicates that in the medieval period the Site may have comprised an area of unenclosed common beyond the open field agricultural landscape in the hinterland of Horsham St Faith village. There is thus limited potential for medieval archaeological remains within the site. If any such features do occur, they are likely to relate to agricultural use.
9.91 A former field, named ‘Brick Kiln Close’, is recorded in the western part of the Site on the 1791 Map of Horsham St Faith (see Fig. 9.3). This field name possibly relates to a nearby brick kiln, and raises the potential for post- medieval archaeological remains associated with this industrial activity to occur within this part of the Site. There are no surface indications to suggest the site of a Brick kiln in this area of the Site.
Archaeological survival
9.92 The construction of the airfield just before World War Two, and its subsequent expansion during and after the conflict, is likely to have impacted upon any potential archaeological remains in the vicinity of the runways and associated infrastructure (see Fig. 9.2). The taxi-ways extending across the Site were constructed during World War Two, although are likely to have been subsequently resurfaced and/or expanded in the post-war period. The extent of landscaping associated with these taxi-ways is not known and also may have been quite extensive, although the extent to which this may have impacted upon areas beyond the runways and infrastructure is not fully known.
9.93 The construction of the former fire training ground (Fig. 9.2, S1) in the eastern part of the Site is likely to have impacted upon any potential archaeological remains, while the construction of the current fire service training area (Fig. 9.2, S2) in the central northern part of the Site is also likely to have impacted upon any potential archaeological remains. In the eastern part of the Site, adjacent to S1, an area approximately 4ha in size has recently been cleared of vegetation and landscaped prior to reseeding (see Fig. 9.2). It is likely that any potential archaeological remains in this vicinity, including any potential remains relating to the cropmarks recorded at 35 , have been adversely affected by this activity.
9.94 Away from the areas of previous impacts the survival of any currently unrecorded archaeological remains is more likely. It is possible that areas on the periphery of the taxi-ways have remained largely unaltered since their pre- World War Two agricultural use.
Identification & the Evaluation of Key Impacts
Potential construction impacts
9.95 The construction of the Development has the potential to impact upon the anomalies identified during the geophysical survey that are likely to relate to former field boundaries or 20th-century features related to the airfield. These anomalies display no characteristics of heritage assets of greater than Low heritage value. As these features would be completely removed, the magnitude of impact would be considered to be Major . The resultant significance of effect, prior to mitigation, would be Minor-Moderate Adverse according to the matrix set out in Table 9.3. In cases of split result professional judgement is used to assign the significance of effect. It is considered that the lower, Minor Adverse , significance of effect is appropriate in this case, due to the fact that the anomalies identified by the survey do not display characteristics generally associated with significant archaeological remains.
20281306-1
Potential operational impacts
9.96 The impact of the Development upon the significance of designated heritage assets within a 2km study area through the alteration of their setting was assessed in accordance with English Heritage guidance 47 , as requested by the scoping opinion issued by Norwich City Council and Broadlands District Council. Designated heritage assets within the 2km study area comprise one Conservation Area, two Scheduled Monuments, three Grade I Listed Buildings, two Grade II* Listed Buildings, and 36 Grade II Listed Buildings.
9.97 The Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) produced by Chris Burnett Associates (Fig. 8.2) indicates that the only designated heritage assets from which the Proposed Development will be visible are the Grade II Listed White House (Fig. 9.1, 1) and parts of the Horsham St Faith Conservation Area (Fig. 9.1, 2), primarily the Grade II Listed Old Post House (NHL: 1152528) and Grade II Listed Methodist Church (NHL: 1152499). The remaining designated heritage assets within the 2km study area, including the Grade I Listed Church of St Peter at Spixworth, are located outside the ZVI of the Proposed Development (see Fig. 8.2). As such, their setting will not be altered and their overall significance will remain unaltered.
9.98 As mitigation for reducing non-physical (visual) impacts upon the historic resource has been embedded in the design of the Development, pre-mitigation impacts cannot be quantified. Residual impacts upon the setting of designated heritage assets within the study area, following mitigation, are discussed below.
Mitigation Measures
9.99 Scoping Opinion has confirmed that the programmes of archaeological desk- based assessment and geophysical survey carried out to date provide sufficient information to determine the application (in accordance with NPPF Paragraph 128). Scoping Opinion (Broadland District Council 2013 48 , page 6, ‘Heritage Assets’) stated that ‘The Consultation Bodies are of the opinion that it is unlikely that the site contains heritage assets of an importance that would preclude development on this site. On that basis, while there will be further intrusive archaeological works, these can be secured via a set of appropriately worded planning conditions’. An appropriate programme of archaeological mitigation will be implemented in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which will be agreed with the Senior Historic Environment Officer (Planning), Norfolk County Council. Appropriate mitigation works would include a programme of archaeological monitoring and recording during the topsoil strip in advance of construction. This would provide further information on the character and significance of the anomalies detected by the geophysical survey of possible archaeological origin. It would also ensure that any further currently unrecorded below-ground archaeological remains not detected by the geophysical survey would be appropriately managed.
47 English Heritage 2011 The Setting of Heritage Assets 48 Broadland District Council 2013 Screening and Scoping Opinions Application No. 20121742
9.100 Non-physical (visual) impacts upon the setting of designated heritage assets in the vicinity of the Site have been minimised by sympathetic design. Noise and vibration assessment comprises chapter 7 of this ES. Assessment found that there would be no significant vibration emission or impacts as a result of the proposed Development. Thus heritage assets within the site vicinity, including the blast walls, would not be adversely affected by increased vibration levels.
Cumulative Effects
9.101 No cumulative effects as a result of the Development and the proposed engine testing facility (Norwich City Council reference 12/01172/F) have been identified. Both of the proposals are in the vicinity of the former blast walls 50m east of the Site (Fig. 9.1, 39 ), although neither proposal is considered to fundamentally alter the historic associations of the blast walls with the airport, and thus no significant effect upon the setting (and thus overall value) of the walls is anticipated.
9.102 In relation to the Northern Distributor Road (NDR), which is proposed immediately north of the Development, there may potentially be a cumulative effect upon the value of the Grade II Listed White House (Fig. 9.1, 1) and the Horsham St Faith Conservation Area (Fig. 9.1, 2). Although this assessment considered the residual effect of the Development upon the value of the Conservation Area and Grade II Listed Building to be Negligible, the cumulative effect of the Development in conjunction within the NDR may be greater.
9.103 The NDR will remove part of the agricultural hinterland to the south and east of the Conservation Area and Grade II Listed Building, altering the wider landscape character from predominantly agricultural to one dominated by the distributor road. The Development will be visible beyond the NDR to the south- east of these assets, in the vicinity of existing industrial buildings within the airport (enhancing its industrial character). As such, elements of the setting of these assets are likely to be substantially altered. In conjunction with the NDR, the Development is likely to result in an adverse cumulative effect upon the value of these assets.
9.104 This cumulative effect is unlikely to be of more than Minor Adverse significance, as the key elements of the Conservation Area’s and Grade II Listed Building’s setting (discussed below 9.107-9.110) will remain unaltered. Furthermore, this adverse significance of effect is considered to be primarily derived from the NDR, which will fundamentally alter the character of part of the agricultural hinterland of Horsham St Faith and the White House. The Development, visible beyond the existing industrial buildings within the airport, will only contribute to this cumulative adverse effect to a very limited degree.
9.105 No cumulative effects upon the significance of designated heritage assets have been identified as a result of the Development and Beyond Green development at Sprowston and Old Catton (Broadland District Council reference 2012/1516).
20281306-1
Residual Effects
9.106 The four geophysical anomalies recorded within the Site have been identified as unlikely to be of more than Low archaeological value, and the significance of the effect of development (prior to mitigation) would not be greater than Minor Adverse. Following the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, the residual significance of effect is considered to remain no more than Minor Adverse .
9.107 The residual effects of the Development upon the significance of designated heritage assets (through alteration of their setting) within the 2km study area are discussed below, in accordance with English Heritage guidance. The Zone of Visual Influence produced by Chris Burnett Associates (Fig. 8.2) indicates that the Proposed Development will only be visible from the Grade II Listed White House and parts of Horsham St Faith Conservation Area. As such, the proposed development will not alter the setting of any further designated heritage assets within the 2km study area. The potential effects of the proposed development upon designated heritage assets within the ZVI, namely the White House (Fig. 9.1, 1) and Horsham St Faith Conservation Area (Fig. 9.2, 2), has been assessed below.
9.108 The value of the White House (Fig. 9.1, 1) is predominantly derived from its historic fabric although its setting also makes a contribution. The 17th-century, two-storey brick and flint structure is located immediately adjacent to Old Norwich Road, which extends southwards from the village centre of Horsham St Faith, within the southern part of the Conservation Area. The building has a strong east-west axis with its main elevations facing to the north and south. Its eastern gable end faces onto Old Norwich Road. Surrounding vegetation largely limits the setting of the asset, except to the east, where there are wider views across agricultural land towards the industrial buildings on the outskirts of Norwich airport (Chapter 8, Photo 15 Existing). The relationship with the village to the north and the agricultural land to the east positively contributes to its significance.
9.109 The Development, located to the east of the industrial buildings on the western boundary of the airport, will be partially screened from The White House. Elements of the development will be visible beyond the existing buildings (Chapter 8, Photo 15 Proposed), but will not appreciably alter the views to the east from the gable of The White House. The Proposed Development is considered to be ‘wholly consistent’ with the existing airport and the character of the airport will not be altered (see paragraph 8.90). An appreciation of the agricultural land to the east of The White House will remain unaltered, and its relationship with adjacent buildings and the village to the north will not be changed. Furthermore, the strong north-south aspect of The White House, across its associated grounds and gardens, will not be altered. As such, the residual significance of effect is considered to be Negligible .
9.110 Horsham St Faith Conservation Area (Fig. 9.1, 2) is located 480m north-west of the Site. There is currently no appraisal document, and the following assessment of its value is derived from secondary sources including the National Heritage List and Ordnance Survey mapping. The Conservation Area derives its value from the historic buildings (two Grade I Listed and ten Grade II Listed buildings) and features it contains as well as its setting. The two Grade I Listed Buildings, comprising the Church of St Andrew and St Faith’s Priory, act as prominent focal points within the Conservation Area. Views towards and including these assets, especially along the main thoroughfares of the village (Church Street, Back Street and Norwich Road) make a significant contribution to the value of the asset. Views beyond the Conservation Area are generally constrained by surrounding modern development, with wider views only possible to the north from the scheduled remains of St Faith Priory and very partial views south and east from Crown Road and the aforementioned White House.
9.111 The Development will be screened from the vast majority of the Conservation Area by built form within the asset (see Fig. 8.2), as well as surrounding modern residential development. The key focal points within the Conservation Area will not be challenged, and the setting of the two Grade II Listed Buildings within the Conservation Area (the Old Post House and Methodist Church) within the ZVI will remain unaltered. Partial views towards the airport are possible from the periphery of the Conservation Area, primarily Crown Road (Chapter 8, Photo 16 Proposed) and the White House, but existing industrial buildings on the periphery of the airport and the poplars on the airport boundary will partially filter the proposed development (see 9.96). Furthermore, it is considered that the Proposed Development is ‘wholly consistent’ with the existing airport buildings and the character of the airport will not be altered (see paragraph 8.90). Therefore, partial views of the Development from a very limited number of vantage points on the periphery of the Conservation Area will not appreciably alter its setting, and will not adversely affect its overall significance. As such, the residual significance of effect is considered to be Negligible.
9.112 The Zone of Visual Influence produced by Chris Burnett Associates (Fig. 8.2) indicates that the Proposed Development will not be visible from any further designated heritage assets in the 2km study area. A summary table of the residual impacts is provided below (Table 9.4).
Table 9.4 Residual Impacts Table Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation Description significance significance
Removal of four anomalies identified during geophysical survey considered to be of no Moderate-Minor Adverse Minor Adverse more than Low value. Alteration of the setting of the Grade II Negligible Negligible Listed The White House. Alteration of the setting of the Horsham St Negligible Negligible Faith Conservation Area.
20281306-1
Summary
9.113 The baseline survey works carried out to inform the Environmental Statement have been structured in a staged manner, comprising initial desk-based assessment and subsequent geophysical survey. The scope of these works has been agreed in consultation with the Senior Historic Environment Officer (Planning), Norfolk County Council. Scoping Opinion has confirmed that sufficient survey work has been carried to inform determination of the application (in accordance with NPPF Paragraph 128).
9.114 The desk-based assessment identified no recorded heritage assets within the Site. The geophysical survey identified four anomalies that may relate to previously unrecorded field boundaries, or are related to the airport construction/usage. These anomalies are considered to represent heritage assets of more than Low value. Following appropriate mitigation measures, which are likely to comprise an archaeological watching brief during the topsoil strip prior to construction, the significance of effect upon these features is considered to be no more than Minor Adverse . The programme of archaeological mitigation will be set out in a Written Scheme of Investigation to be approved by the Senior Historic Environment Officer (Planning), Norfolk County Council.
9.115 The assessment has considered the potential impact of the Development upon the significance of designated heritage assets through the alteration of their setting. The assessment considered the impact of the Development upon the Grade II Listed White House and Horsham St Faith Conservation Area to be Negligible .
9.116 The baseline survey works carried out to inform the Environmental Statement have been structured in a staged manner, comprising desk-based assessment and geophysical survey. The scope of these works has been agreed in consultation with Norwich County Council Archaeological Officer. The impact upon the recorded archaeological resource is considered to result in no greater than Minor Adverse significance of effect, and will be mitigated through an appropriate scheme of archaeological works. There are not considered to be any non-physical adverse effects upon the cultural heritage resource.
20281306-1
Figure: 9.1 Title: Recorded heritage assets Project: Norwich International Airport, Norwich, Norfolk Date: 26th October 2012 Scale: 1:12,500
Figure: 9.2 Title: Historic buildings and previous impacts Project: Norwich International Airport, Norwich, Norfolk Date: 26th October 2012 Scale: 1:12,500
Extract from the 1791 map of Horsham Figure: 9.3 St Faith Parish showing field names Title: Historic mapping Project: Norwich International Airport, Norwich Date: 26th October 2012 Scale: 1:15,000
Extract from the 1841 Tithe Map Figure: 9.4 Title: Historic mapping Project: Norwich International Airport, Norwich Date: 26th October 2012 Scale: 1:15,000
Extract from the 1892 First Edition Figure: 9.5 Ordnance Survey map Title: Historic mapping Project: Norwich International Airport, Norwich Date: 26th October 2012 Scale: 1:15,000
Figure: 9.6 Title: Cold War features in site vicinity Project: Norwich International Airport, Norwich, Norfolk Date: 1st January 2013 Scale: 1:12,500
Figure: 9.7 Title: Geophysical Survey Results Project: Norwich International Airport, Norwich, Norfolk Date: 14th February 2013 Scale: 1:4000