North Bexhill Access Road, East Sussex EIA Volume 1: Environmental Statement

14.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE

14.1 Introduction

14.1.1 This chapter assesses the effect of the Scheme on the cultural resource within a 500m study radius of the Application Site.

14.1.2 This chapter is not intended to be read as a standalone assessment and reference should be made to Chapters 1 – 4 of the ES, the baseline Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment (DBA) (Appendix 14.1), the Geophysical Survey Report (Appendix 14.2) and the Geo- archaeological Modelling Report (Appendix 14.3).

14.2 Relevant Legislation, Policy and Guidance

14.2.1 This section provides an overview of the relevant legislation, planning policy and guidance at national and local level that are considered relevant to the Scheme.

Relevant Legislation

14.2.2 The relevant legislative framework is contained within:

 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990;

Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework

14.2.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)1 was published on 27th March 2012 and is a key part of the reforms to make the planning system less complex and more accessible, to protect the environment and to promote sustainable growth. There is an overarching presumption in favour of sustainable development that should be the basis of every plan and every decision.

14.2.4 The NPPF consolidates all of the previous Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) and Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) into one document. The following paragraphs are considered relevant to this assessment:

 Section 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment (paragraphs 126 – 141) and paragraphs 169 and 170. The NPPF requires that local planning authorities “should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment”, recognising that “heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource” and should be conserved “in a manner appropriate to their significance”. The NPPF requires that planning applicants should “describe the significance of any heritage assets affected” by their application, “including any contribution made by setting”.

Local Policy

Rother District Local Plan

14.2.5 The Rother District Local Plan (2011-2018) is presently under preparation. When approved, it will be the main planning document used by the Council when considering planning applications.

1 DCMS (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. London: Department for Culture, Media & Sport.

Environmental Statement – Chapter 14: Cultural Heritage 14-1

North Bexhill Access Road, East Sussex EIA Volume 1: Environmental Statement

It replaces the 2006 Local Plan, from which several policies have been ‘saved’ until they are replaced by the pending document.

14.2.6 The previous Local Plan was adopted in 20062 and contains several saved policies relevant to the Application Site and Study Area. These are as follows:

14.2.7 Policy GD1. All development should meet the following criteria:

 (iv) it respects and does not detract from the character and appearance of the locality;

 (vi) it respects the topography, important views to and from the site and retains site features that contribute to the character or amenities of the area; and

 (viii) it does not prejudice the character, appearance or setting of heritage features, notably scheduled ancient monuments and sites of archaeological importance, listed buildings, conservation areas, registered historic parks and gardens, the registered battlefield at Battle, or other buildings and spaces of historic importance.

Guidance

14.2.8 The assessment for this chapter has been carried out in accordance with professional standards and guidance for desk-based assessment issued by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists3.

14.2.9 This ES chapter was prepared in accordance with the Good Practice Advice Notes 1, 2 and 3, prepared by Historic England, March 2015456.

14.3 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria

Statutory Consultation

14.3.1 Two meetings were held with the County Archaeologist to discuss and confirm the scope of the archaeological assessment and further archaeological investigations.

Assessment of Baseline Conditions

Desk Study

14.3.2 The DBA consulted the following sources:

 East Sussex Historic Environment Record (ESHER);

 National Heritage List;

 Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) online database (www.magic.gov.uk);

 Various other sources listed in the desk-based assessment.

Site Visit

14.3.3 A site visit was conducted by CBAS during the preparation of the desk-based assessment.

2 Rother District council (2006) Rother District Local Plan 3 CIfA (2014). Standards and guidance for archaeological desk-based assessment. Reading: Institute for Archaeologists 4 Historic England (2015) Good Practice Advice Note 1: The Historic Environment in Local Plans; 5 Historic England (2015) Good Practice Advice Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking 6 Historic England (2015) Good Practice Advice Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets;

Environmental Statement – Chapter 14: Cultural Heritage 14-2

North Bexhill Access Road, East Sussex EIA Volume 1: Environmental Statement

Geophysical Survey

14.3.4 A Magnetometry survey was carried out by Stratascan on behalf of CBAS along as much of the Application Site as was available for survey. The full results of this survey are contained within the Stratascan Report contained in Appendix 14.2.

Geo-archaeological Modelling

14.3.5 A Geo-archaeological model of the Application Site has been prepared by Dr M. Allen on behalf of CBAS. The full results of the modelling exercise are contained within the AEA report within Appendix 14.3.

Significance Criteria

14.3.6 The assessment of likely significant effects as a result of the Scheme has taken into account both the construction and operational phases. The significance level attributed to each effect has been assessed based on the magnitude of change due to the Scheme and the sensitivity of the affected receptor/receiving environment to change. Magnitude of change and the sensitivity of the affected receptor/receiving environment are both assessed on a scale of large, medium, low and negligible (as shown in the Methodology in the desk-based assessment).

Definition of Relative Sensitivity

14.3.7 The sensitivity of heritage assets (Table 14.1) is determined using the following criteria, derived from an original approach developed by the Highways Agency as presented in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 11: Environmental Assessment 7 with modifications by CBAS. This approach is inherently subjective, and relies on the application of effective professional judgement.

Table 14.1: Sensitivity of Heritage Assets Criteria

Sensitivity Description

High World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Grade I/II* Registered Historic Parks and Gardens, all Listed Buildings and non-designated assets that can contribute to national research objectives Medium Grade II Registered Historic Parks and Gardens, Registered Historic Battlefields, Ancient Woodland and non-designated assets that can contribute to regional research objectives

Low Locally listed historic parks and gardens and non-designated assets that can contribute to local research objectives Negligible Negligible: relatively numerous types of assets and unprovenanced or isolated findspots of artefacts

Definition of Magnitude of Impact

14.3.8 The magnitude of impact is determined using the following criteria in Table 14.2:

7 Highways Agency (2007). Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2 (Cultural Heritage). London: Highways Agency.

Environmental Statement – Chapter 14: Cultural Heritage 14-3

North Bexhill Access Road, East Sussex EIA Volume 1: Environmental Statement

Table 14.2: Magnitude of Impact Criteria

Magnitude Description

Large changes to most or all key archaeological elements, such that the asset is completely altered

Medium changes to many key archaeological elements, such that the asset is noticeably altered

Low changes to key archaeological elements, such that the asset is slightly altered

Negligible minor changes to archaeological elements that hardly affect it

Effect Significance

14.3.9 The following terms in Table 14.3 have been used to define the significance of the effects identified:

Table 14.3: Significance Criteria

Magnitude Description

Major where the Proposed Development could be expected to have a very significant effect effect (either positive or negative) on buried archaeological deposits

Moderate where the Proposed Development could be expected to have a noticeable effect (either effect positive or negative) on buried archaeological deposits

Minor where the Proposed Development could be expected to result in a small, barely noticeable effect effect (either positive or negative) on buried archaeological deposits Negligible where no discernible effect is expected as a result of the Proposed Development on buried archaeological deposits.

Limitations and Assumptions

14.3.10 Non-intrusive desk-based assessment can rarely be seen to be a definitive statement on the presence or absence of archaeological remains within a given area, but rather as an indicator of the potential based on existing information. For the purposes of this assessment, which applies to the entire Site, given the sensitivity of the identified receptors, a ‘worst-case scenario’ approach has been taken in the assessment of the significance of effects.

14.3.11 Similarly assessment of potential archaeological remains from geophysical survey and Lidar can also be very imprecise, with geological anomalies, later disturbance and ground conditions all having a potential effect on the results. Only by further assessment of suspected features through evaluation excavation or ground-thruthing can any certainty be determined.

14.4 Baseline Conditions

14.4.1 The existing baseline conditions within the Application Site and surrounding area are discussed in detail in Appendix 14.1 and are summarised below. Selected site numbers relate to Figure 5, in the DBA (Appendix 14.1).

Environmental Statement – Chapter 14: Cultural Heritage 14-4

North Bexhill Access Road, East Sussex EIA Volume 1: Environmental Statement

Extent of the Study Area

14.4.2 The Study Area comprises a 500m radius centred along the route of the proposed road. All designated and non-designated heritage assets, as recorded on the East Sussex Historic Environment Record database, within this area were assessed.

Identified Heritage Assets

14.4.3 The Application Site does not contain any known heritage assets; does not lie within a designated Conservation Area or Archaeological Notification Area, and does not contain any areas of Ancient or Semi Ancient Woodland.

14.4.4 The 500m radial Study Area contains a number of listed buildings and Archaeological Notification Areas, none of which are located within the Application Site. The Study Area also contains several areas of Ancient Woodland, technically an ecological designation but with heritage implications. The Study Area does not contain any Conservation Areas.

14.4.5 Some potential archaeology has been identified by the geophysics survey and in the DBA; these are discussed below.

Archaeological and Historical Baseline

Prehistoric (c.500,000 BC – AD 43)

14.4.6 There have been no discoveries of Palaeolithic artefacts in the immediate area of the Application Site, and there are only a handful of artefacts known to have a provenance in the Weald. Currently no evidence for Palaeolithic activity is recorded within the Study Area on the ESHER database. Such discoveries are normally linked to specific geological conditions, such as tertiary deposits and gravels, which are not normally found in this area.

14.4.7 No evidence for Mesolithic activity is recorded within the Study Area on the ESHER however, the recent work conducted by Oxford Archaeology for the Bexhill to Hastings Link Road has demonstrated clear evidence of Late Mesolithic date activity and temporary settlement evidence near to the Site.

14.4.8 Late Mesolithic to Neolithic in situ flint scatters, some of which were associated with buried land surfaces and peat deposits, were found around the wetland periphery zones of the Watermill and Powdermill Stream Valleys during the Bexhill to Hastings Link Road evaluation works by Oxford Archaeology. The scatters are thought to represent temporary hunting camps and one probable base camp. The camps were identified with particular topographic locations that were seen to potentially provide good vantage points and easy access to the valley bottoms. Flint artefacts from the Mesolithic to early Neolithic were also found as residual finds in many of the later features.

14.4.9 The ESHER currently contains one record attributed to the Neolithic period within the Study Area: a large laurel leaf-shaped arrowhead that was found whilst gardening at Pinetree Farm, located c.240m from the Site (MES21064).

14.4.10 Features of late Neolithic to Bronze Age date were noted as ‘sparse’ during the evaluation works for Oxford Archaeology for the Bexhill to Hastings Link Road, but where found, were generally located on higher slopes believed to be indicative of low-level activity within the area associated with the valley sides and wetland edges.

Environmental Statement – Chapter 14: Cultural Heritage 14-5

North Bexhill Access Road, East Sussex EIA Volume 1: Environmental Statement

14.4.11 The ESHER does not currently contain any records attributing to the Bronze Age within the Study Area, although evidence of Bronze Age date activity has been discovered as discussed above, during the nearby evaluation of the Bexhill to Link Road.

14.4.12 The geophysics survey has identified a possible ring ditch to the south-east of Kiteye Wood. This resembles a Bronze Age burial mound, and on the Lidar two possible mounds can be seen at this location. Although this site is on the edge of the development area, it may indicate Bronze Age activity which could extend into the site.

14.4.13 There are no records specifically attributed to the Iron Age recorded on the ESHER database within the Study Area. However, areas of Late Iron Age to Roman activity were recorded during the Bexhill to Link Road evaluation and were seemingly focused on two main areas in close proximity to previously known bloomery sites (Little Heniker Wood - MES63). The evidence is thought to indicate occupation at these two sites, as well as metal working activity. Signs of woodland clearance in the form of colluvial deposits, supported by pollen evidence and potential dumps of bloomery and metalworking waste, were also identified in these locations. Little Heniker Wood forms an Archaeological Notification Area (DES9985) and is located c.300m from the Application Site.

14.4.14 In the Field Collection Survey Report for the Bexhill to Hastings Proposed Link Road, conducted by Oxford Archaeology in 2007, it was noted that there is ample opportunity for the extraction and working of ironstone in the area of the Site, and that a large proportion of the land on the valley headlands running around the Combe Haven Valley has the necessary geological makeup to allow this, including land from the north of Preston Hall around to St. Leonards.

14.4.15 The Lidar has identified a possible hilltop enclosure to the southwest of Cole Wood occupying the eastern end of the hill, following a contour around the hill, and with its western curving boundary marked by an extant bank, shown as a field boundary on the Tithe map. Such enclosures are typical of the later Iron Age, and in the Weald are associated with ironworking sites. The geophysics did not identify a ditch along the southern edge of this possible enclosure, although it did suggest that there was later ridge and furrow ploughing in this field running on the same alignment. The geophysics survey did not pick up any evidence for ironworking in or around this enclosure, so any link with ironworking is unlikely. The assessment therefore that this is an enclosure is provisional, and can only be confirmed by further investigation through an evaluation excavation.

Romano-British (AD 43 – AD 410)

14.4.16 Ironworking is known to have become a major industry during the Romano-British period, with large numbers of iron working sites across the Weald.

14.4.17 Although the ESHER does not currently record any known Roman date activity within the Study Area, significant evidence for Late Iron Age/Roman date activity has been discovered during the evaluation of the Bexhill to Link Road Evaluation c.300m from the Application Site near to the Little Heniker Wood Archaeological Notification Area (DES9985), as discussed above.

Anglo-Saxon & Medieval (410 – 1066)

14.4.18 The wider region is thought to have been occupied by ‘the Haestingas’ a group of Saxons that remained isolated from the rest of Sussex. They mainly settled the coastal margins, particularly the heads of the then several river valleys, which were great inlets of the sea south of the upland known as the Battle Ridge.

Environmental Statement – Chapter 14: Cultural Heritage 14-6

North Bexhill Access Road, East Sussex EIA Volume 1: Environmental Statement

14.4.19 There are no records attributed to the Saxon period recorded on the ESHER within the Study Area. However, the Bexhill to Hastings Link Road notes that low level Saxon to Medieval date activity was recorded at Upper Wilting Farm in the form of several undated features, mostly comprising ditches.

Medieval (1066– 1536)

14.4.20 During the medieval period, the main administration unit of late Saxon Sussex, ‘the rape’, was extensively reorganised and divided into ‘hundreds’ (with Bexhill continuing as the meeting place of the Bexhill hundred). Each rape formed an individual taxation and administration district and had a main town, which was close to the coast, with its own castle and port. The Study Area lay within the Hastings Rape, with its castle and port at Hastings. These urban areas offered an opportunity for goods to be bought and sold, allowing markets to develop.

14.4.21 In addition to the agricultural economy, the iron industry in the Weald continued to grow and by the 15th century the Weald was the main iron production area of England. This industry led to the removal of large blocks of woodland that had possibly survived since the postglacial period to supply the industry with the fuel and timber it required. Within the Study Area, five records are attributed to the medieval period:

 These are Cockerel's Farmhouse (MES19468/DES2704) - A small medieval farmstead known from documentary sources. The extant farmhouse is believed to date to the 18th century and is a Grade II Listed Building, located c.200m from the Site. The building is located within the Cockerels Farm Archaeological Notification Area - 1855 (DES11274);

 Freezland Farm (MES19681) - A large medieval farmstead known from documentary sources. The site is located within the Freezland Farm Archaeological Notification Area - 1856 (DES11275), located c.150m from the Site;

 Woods Farm (MES19685) - A large medieval farmstead known from documentary sources. The site is located within the Woods Farm Archaeological Notification Area - 1884 (DES11423), located c.500m from the Site;

 Medieval pottery found at Sidley Wood (MES126), located c.240m from the Site, which included the handles of a light, smooth fabric, part glazed vessel and is dated to the late medieval/Tudor period; and

 Windmill mound (MES17113) Earthworks labelled as ‘Mill Banks’ are recorded on the 1st edition Ordnance Survey mapping. The site is now occupied by 15 Beacon Hill, located c.500m from the Site. The site forms the Mill Banks Archaeological Notification Area (DES9941).

14.4.22 Evidence of medieval date activity recorded within the Study Area generally relates to farmsteads known from documentary sources. The recent work on the Bexhill to Hastings Link Road revealed similar activity, in the form of occupation evidence, located around a farmstead suggesting that evidence of this date will generally be representative of the agricultural practises and related occupation in the area at this time.

14.4.23 The Lidar and geophysics survey picked up evidence for ridge and furrow ploughing. This appears extensive on the Lidar survey, but it is possible that some of this may relate to more recent ploughing activity, especially as the aerial photographs show many of the fields to be

Environmental Statement – Chapter 14: Cultural Heritage 14-7

North Bexhill Access Road, East Sussex EIA Volume 1: Environmental Statement

under cultivation in the 20th century. It is possible that some hedges may originate in the medieval period but further study of the hedges would be required to confirm this.

The Post-Medieval Period (1500AD) to the Present Day

14.4.24 The ESHER data records two buildings surviving from this time, namely ‘Old Mill House’ (MES127/ MES24916/EES1637), a wayside cottage dating to c. 1600, now greatly enlarged, located c.500m from the Application Site, and ‘The High House’ (DES2624), a late 18th century to early 19th century Grade II Listed building, located c.200m from the Application Site.

14.4.25 Sidley is denoted on the historic map sources from 1595 (John Nordens Map), although it isn’t until 1778-83 (Map of Sussex by Yeakell & Gardiner) that detail is sufficient enough to provide information about the Site and its environs. The 1795 Map of Sussex by Yeakell, Gardiner and Gream illustrates the increasing complexity of the road system within the wider area of the Application Site and indicates large concentrations of post-medieval activity focused around the road systems in a linear settlement pattern. The field system pattern is also clearly shown on the map indicating that the Study Area is under agriculture at this time, and it is possible that the ridge and furrow has developed concurrently with these fields.

14.4.26 The old series Ordnance Survey map of 1813 indicates that the road system in the wider area of the Site had continued to expand, connecting the small concentrated pockets of settlement nearby to the Study Area to the main road network, connecting the larger areas of settlement. The larger roads, such as between Bexhill and Hastings, continued to support a linear roadside settlement pattern.

14.4.27 The Bexhill Tithe Map from 1839 shows the Study Area in detail, and clearly indicates that the area of the Application Site, at this time, generally consisted of arable land, in ownership of several farmsteads. The road cuts through a number of historic farm holdings, and many of the field boundaries and hedges probably date back beyond the earliest mapping available. The Lidar and geophysics survey has picked up possible earlier field boundaries, largely in the central part of the Application Site.

14.4.28 The ESHER data records two buildings attributed to the 19th century, namely Preston Hall (DES2629) and a cottage (DES2630) located within its grounds, both Grade II Listed Buildings, located c.275m from the Application Site.

14.4.29 The Ordnance Survey mapping from 1873, and the earlier Tithe Map of 1839, indicates very little change within the Study Area during this time to the present day. The land forming the Application Site and wider Study Area still comprising agricultural/pasture land and areas of woodland.

14.4.30 The early 20th century brickworks southeast of Kiteye Wood has been identified on historic mapping and Lidar, and although situated on the edge of the Application Site, it may extend into the site.

14.4.31 The presence of a series of possible pits showing on the geophysics at the southeastern end of the route may indicate quarrying, and with the adjacent ponds (water-filled quarry pits) and the underlying Wadhurst Clay geology may suggest either clay or iron ore extraction of unknown date.

Environmental Statement – Chapter 14: Cultural Heritage 14-8

North Bexhill Access Road, East Sussex EIA Volume 1: Environmental Statement

Summary of Archaeological and Historical Baseline

14.4.32 The ESHER data provides very little information pertaining to the archaeology of the Application Site. This is considered representative of the lack of modern development at the Application Site which would provide the opportunity to yield such information. However, the extensive archaeological works at the nearby Bexhill to Hastings Link Road provides a useful insight into the archaeological potential at the Application Site. The Lidar image suggests some archaeology may be present along the route, although this needs to be tested by ground trothing and evaluation excavation.

14.4.33 The geoarchaeological model suggests that Geoarchaeological potential along the route of the proposed road is Low, with localised deposits of Low-Medium interest. Although Coombe Haven was anticipated to be of High interest, initial investigations encountered no waterlogging or peat. There is however a wide subtle bench with shallow colluvium on the north side, which could be a focus for Late Upper Palaeolithic or Mesolithic activity.

14.4.34 The results of the geophysical survey has also revealed little of significance, apart from the possible Bronze Age burial mound. Most of what has been revealed relates to medieval and Post medieval agricultural (field boundaries, ploughing and drainage) or industrial activity (clay or iron ore pits).

14.4.35 Based upon the above, the review of the known heritage resource within the Application Site and Study Area has identified the following potential for the presence of previously unrecorded archaeological remains at the Application Site:

 Prehistoric – Unknown / Low - High

 Romano-British – Medium - High

 Anglo-Saxon –Low

 Medieval – Low - Medium

 Post-medieval – Low

14.4.36 Based on the designation of sites as outlined in the methodology (as outlined in the DBA, Appendix 14.1), the sensitivity of these potential features is generally likely to be Low - Medium, if present. However, if remains are found in association with organic remains/worked wood, then the anticipated sensitivity is likely to be assessed as High - Very High.

14.4.37 It must be noted that the cultural value of each archaeological component can only be predicted at this stage and it is always a possibility that finds or features of higher (National) significance may be located within the Application Site associated with any period.

14.5 Assessment of Effects

Construction Effects

Design Solutions

14.5.1 This assessment has been made with the assumption that all mitigation measures will take place prior to construction works taking place. In practice, however, the predicted effects pertaining to buried archaeological deposits will remain the same regardless of whether the mitigation is carried out in one operation or by phased development.

Environmental Statement – Chapter 14: Cultural Heritage 14-9

North Bexhill Access Road, East Sussex EIA Volume 1: Environmental Statement

Disturbance to Buried Archaeological Deposits

14.5.2 Potential for buried archaeological deposits has been identified across the Application Site based on the results of the DBA and the geophysical survey. These may be of any date from the prehistoric to the post-medieval periods. As such, they have been assessed as being of low to medium sensitivity as they represent undesignated assets that may contribute to local or possibly regional research objectives in relation to contemporary settlement patterns and land use. However, if remains are found in association with organic remains/worked wood, then the anticipated sensitivity is likely to be assessed as high to very high. Similarly if the possible enclosure identified is an Iron Age enclosure then its sensitivity may also be assessed as high.

14.5.3 Potential impacts are likely to arise from groundwork activities associated with the construction phase of the Scheme, and will comprise complete destruction or severe truncation within areas of ground levelling and excavation. Consequently, the magnitude of impact across the Application Site has been assessed on a worst case scenario basis as large.

14.5.4 In conclusion, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term effect on buried archaeological deposits resulting in a range of adverse effects depending on the sensitivity of the remains:

 Where the sensitivity of buried archaeological deposits is low - medium, reflecting the potential cultural value of the remains to be Undesignated to Local, it is considered likely that the potential overall effect on the archaeological resource will be Negligible - Minor Adverse prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.

 Where the sensitivity of buried archaeological deposits is medium – high, reflecting the potential cultural value of the remains to be Local - Regional, it is considered likely that the potential overall effect on the archaeological resource will be Minor – Moderate Adverse prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.

 Where the sensitivity of buried archaeological deposits is high – very high, reflecting the potential cultural value of the remains to be Regional to National, it is considered likely that the potential overall effect on the archaeological resource will be Major Adverse prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.

14.5.5 In-line with EIA guidance, effects resulting in an overall effect of Negligible - Minor Adverse and Minor – Moderate Adverse constitute a finding of ‘not significant’. Effects resulting in an overall effect of Major Adverse constitute a finding of ‘significant’.

Post-Construction Effects

14.5.6 Four Listed Buildings, deemed to be of high sensitivity, were identified whereby their setting may be affected by the operational phase of the Scheme:

 Cockerel's Farmhouse – Grade II – (DES2704) – Located circa 100m from the Application Site;

 The High House - Grade II – (DES2624) – Located circa 200m from the Application Site;

 Preston Hall - Grade II - DES2629) – Located circa 300m from the Application Site;

 Cottage in the Grounds and to the East of Preston Hall - Grade II – (DES2630) – Located circa 350m from the Application Site.

Environmental Statement – Chapter 14: Cultural Heritage 14-10

North Bexhill Access Road, East Sussex EIA Volume 1: Environmental Statement

14.5.7 The DBA concluded that in the case of Cockerel's Farmhouse and The High House, the significance of the potentially affected attribute, i.e. the contribution that the setting makes to the understanding of the identified Heritage Assets ranged from Negligible to Minor.

14.5.8 In line with the assessment criteria, it was considered that the Scheme would constituent only a ‘Very Low to Medium’ magnitude of change to the setting of the identified heritage assets, resulting in a potential ‘Negligible to Minor’ adverse overall effect.

14.5.9 In line with EIA guidance, these effects constitute a finding of ‘not significant’.

14.5.10 The DBA concluded that in the case of Preston Hall and the Cottage in the Grounds and to the East of Preston Hall, the significance of the potentially affected attribute, i.e. the contribution that the setting makes to the understanding of the identified Heritage Asset was ‘Moderate’.

14.5.11 In line with the assessment criteria, it was considered that the Scheme would constituent a ‘Medium – High/High’ magnitude of change to the setting of the identified heritage assets, resulting in a potential ‘Moderate’ adverse overall effect.

14.5.12 In line with EIA guidance, these effects constitute a finding of ‘significant’.

14.6 Mitigation Measures

Construction Phase

14.6.1 In line with the recommendations made by the County Archaeologist the assessment recommends that the following work is undertaken at the Application Site ahead of groundworks.

14.6.2 A geo-archaeological model has been prepared (Appendix 14.3). It is recommended that a geo-archaeological evaluation is conducted to fully understand the geological deposits and sequences along the proposed route of the road. The geo-archaeological evaluation work proposed is addressed in Table 2 of Appendix 14.3.

14.6.3 A Geophysical survey (magnetometer survey) of the areas where development has been carried out and is contained within Appendix 14.2.

14.6.4 Surface artefact collection (field walking) where conditions allow – At present none of the fields along the route of the road are under cultivation, so surface artefact collection is unlikely to be carried out.

14.6.5 ‘Important’ historic hedgerows have been identified bordering the fields of the proposed route of the road. It is recommended that these hedgerows are dated and where possible, the hedgerows are retained in the development. If a breach in the hedgerow is unavoidable, appropriate mitigation under supervision may be necessary (i.e. minimising the area of the breach and excavating under archaeological supervision, with recording of all exposed deposits)

14.6.6 Further mitigation measures, such as excavation/watching brief, can be programmed into the development design to fully mitigate development impacts, should they be deemed necessary.

14.6.7 The exact scope of archaeological mitigation works will be agreed with the East Sussex County Archaeological Officer in the form of a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI).

Environmental Statement – Chapter 14: Cultural Heritage 14-11

North Bexhill Access Road, East Sussex EIA Volume 1: Environmental Statement

Post-Construction Phase

14.6.8 It is recommended that the final design of the proposed road considers mitigations options, such as the use of screening, in order to reduce the magnitude of impact to these heritage assets (four Listed Buildings, para. 14.5.6) therefore no further mitigation has been proposed during post-construction.

14.7 Cumulative and In-Combination Effects

14.7.1 No cumulative or in-combination effects have been identified concerning the heritage resource from the Scheme.

14.8 Residual Effects

14.8.1 The residual impacts of the Scheme are shown in Table 14.4.

14.8.2 In the case of the below ground remains, the primary advantage of the proposed integrated mitigation strategy is an improved understanding of the local historic environment, which can provide a range of benefits in terms of advancing academic research and supporting more sensitive historic environment site management practices, which in the case of the Scheme is considered to lead to a residual ‘moderate beneficial effect’.

Environmental Statement – Chapter 14: Cultural Heritage 14-12

North Bexhill Access Road, East Sussex EIA Volume 1: Environmental Statement

Table 14.4: Summary of Construction and Post-const

Project Receptor / Sensitivity Effect Magnitude / Likelihood of Significance Mitigation measure Significance Additional Significance component / Affected group of receptor spatial extent occurrence of Effect of effect mitigation (if of Residual Effect types / Duration (post- required) Effect mitigation) ruction residual effects on Cultural Heritage Construction Phase

Groundwork Buried High - Complete Large / High Major Adverse Programme of Moderate None Moderate activities Archaeological Very High destruction Regional - archaeological work, beneficial required beneficial and or severe National / to include Geoarchaeological truncation Permanent excavation/watching

Deposits of High brief if required sensitivity

Groundwork Buried Medium - Complete Large / Local High Minor - Programme of Moderate None Moderate activities Archaeological High destruction - Regional / Moderate archaeological work, beneficial required beneficial and or severe Permanent Adverse to include Geoarchaeological truncation excavation/watching Deposits of brief if required Medium - High sensitivity

Groundwork Buried Low - Complete Large / High Negligible - Programme of Moderate None Moderate activities Archaeological Medium destruction Undesignated Minor Adverse archaeological work, beneficial required beneficial and or severe to Local / to include Geoarchaeological truncation Permanent excavation/watching Deposits of Low – brief if required Medium sensitivity

Groundwork Historic Low Removal of Low / Local / High Minor Adverse Programme of Minor None Minor activities hedgerows and elements of Permanent survey and beneficial required beneficial farm holdings historic recording landscape

Post-Construction Phase

Visual Listed Buildings - High Impact on Very Low – High Negligible - None required in Negligible - None Negligible - presence of Cockerel’s setting Medium / Minor Adverse addition to Minor required Minor Farmhouse and Regional / screening and

Environmental Statement – Chapter 14: Cultural Heritage 14-13

North Bexhill Access Road, East Sussex EIA Volume 1: Environmental Statement

Project Receptor / Sensitivity Effect Magnitude / Likelihood of Significance Mitigation measure Significance Additional Significance component / Affected group of receptor spatial extent occurrence of Effect of effect mitigation (if of Residual Effect types / Duration (post- required) Effect mitigation)

road The High House Permanent other mitigation Adverse Adverse options to be considered in the design

Visual Listed Buildings - High Impact on Medium – High Moderate None required in Negligible - None Negligible - presence of Preston Hall and setting High/High / Adverse addition to Minor required Minor road Cottage in the Regional / screening and Adverse Adverse Grounds and to Permanent other mitigation the East of options to be Preston Hall considered in the design

Cumulative and In-Combination Effects

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Environmental Statement – Chapter 14: Cultural Heritage 14-14

North Bexhill Access Road, East Sussex EIA Volume 1: Environmental Statement

14.9 Summary

14.9.1 This chapter assesses the potential effects of the Proposed Development on the potential heritage resource at the Site. A review of all designated and non-designated heritage assets within a defined Study Area of 500m radius identified an unknown - low to high potential for buried archaeological deposits of prehistoric to post-medieval date to exist within the Site.

14.9.2 The assessment concluded that there is likely to be a ‘Minor to High negative’ effect on buried archaeological deposits during the construction phase of the Proposed Development depending on the level of significance the deposits. These effects are permanent, direct and long-term. These effects will be reduced by the implementation of appropriate mitigation comprising a programme of archaeological fieldwork, to be agreed with the County Archaeologist through a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI).

14.9.3 The mitigation measures are compliant with the NPPF and the relevant planning policies. They allow the identified heritage assets to be preserved in situ or by record, as appropriate, and allow for dissemination of the results of the archaeological work to the local and wider community, thereby increasing public knowledge and enjoyment of the historic environment of the area.

14.9.4 The assessment concluded that the proposed development would constituent a ‘Medium – High/High’ magnitude of change to the setting of two identified heritage assets, comprising two Grade II Listed Buildings, resulting in a potential ‘Moderate’ adverse overall effect and recommends that appropriate mitigation measures, in the form of screening, are utilised in order to lower the change to the setting of these heritage assets.

Environmental Statement – Chapter 14: Cultural Heritage 14-15