North Bexhill Access Road, East Sussex EIA Volume 1: Environmental Statement
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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