AECOM Island Gas Ltd – Springs Road Exploratory Wellsite 1
1 Introduction
1.1 Context
This Appendix comprises a Cultural Heritage Assessment which considers heritage issues associated with the Proposed Development at Springs Road, Misson, Nottinghamshire.
Please note, this Appendix must be read in conjunction with the Main Text of the Environmental Statement (ES) which contains:
a detailed description of the Proposed Development; Figures showing the development; and a summary of other assessments undertaken in relation to the Proposed Development which may be relevant. A full description of the Proposed Development is given in Chapter 4 of the ES.
1.2 Scope and Methodology
1.2.1 Study Area For the designated assets (listed buildings, scheduled monuments, world heritage sites, conservation areas, registered parks and gardens, registered battlefields), a search area of 5 km was used. A search area of 5 km ensures that designated assets are identified to a sufficient distance to anticipate or identify any likely setting impacts. For non- designated assets (archaeological sites, findspots, locally listed buildings), an initial search area of 1 km was used to obtain data from the Nottinghamshire Historic Environment Record (HER) and the Historic England Archive (HEA). The reference numbers are stated in the text in bold and shown on Figures K1 and K2.
1.2.2 Sources The designated heritage assets within this assessment are identified with their National Heritage List number. The non- designated heritage assets are identified with their Nottinghamshire Historic Environment Record number. All heritage assets are referenced in bold and tabulated in Annex K1.
1.2.3 Consultation AECOM has consulted with both Historic England and Nottinghamshire County Council’s archaeologist in preparing this assessment.
1.2.4 Assessment Criteria The significance (heritage value) of a heritage asset is derived from its heritage interest which may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic (NPPF Annex 2, Glossary). The significance of a place is defined by the sum of its heritage values. English Heritage identify these as being evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal (Conservation principles, English Heritage 2008, 27-32). The setting of an asset can also contribute to significance.
Taking these criteria into account, each identified heritage asset can be assigned a level of significance (heritage value) in accordance with a four-point scale as set in Table 1.1.
Appendix K: Cultural Heritage Assessment July 2015
AECOM Island Gas Ltd – Springs Road Exploratory Wellsite 2
Table 1.1: Criteria for determining the significance (heritage value) of heritage assets
Significance (Heritage Value) Criteria High Assets of inscribed international importance, such as World Heritage Sites, Grade I and II* listed buildings, Grade I and II* Registered Historic Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields, Scheduled Monuments, Non-designated archaeological assets of schedulable quality and importance. Medium Grade II listed buildings, Grade II listed Registered Historic Parks and Gardens, Conservation Areas, Locally listed buildings included on an approved local list Non-designated heritage assets of a regional resource value as identified through consultation. Low Non-designated heritage assets of a local resource value as identified through consultation, Non-designated heritage assets whose heritage values are compromised by poor preservation or damaged so that too little remains to justify inclusion into a higher grade
Having identified the significance of the heritage asset, the next stage in the assessment is to identify the level and degree of impact to an asset arising from the development. Impacts may arise during construction or operation and can be temporary or permanent. Impacts can occur to the physical fabric of the asset or affect its setting.
The level and degree of impact (impact rating) is assigned with reference to a five-point scale as set out in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2: Criteria for determining level and degree of impact (impact rating) on heritage assets
Impact Rating Description of Impact High Change such that the significance of the asset is totally altered or destroyed. Comprehensive change to setting affecting significance, resulting in a serious loss in our ability to understand and appreciate the resource and its historical context and setting. Medium Change such that the significance of the asset is affected. Noticeably different change to setting affecting significance, resulting in erosion in our ability to understand and appreciate the resource and its historical context and setting. Low Change such that the significance of the asset is slightly affected. Slight change to setting affecting significance resulting in a change in our ability to understand and appreciate the resource and its historical context and setting. Minimal Changes to the asset that hardly affect significance. Minimal change to the setting of an asset that have little effect on significance resulting in no real change in our ability to understand and appreciate the resource and its historical context and setting. In respect of cultural heritage an assessment of the level and degree of impact is made in consideration of any scheme design mitigation (embedded mitigation) or additional mitigation proposed during design development, for example landscaping, which themselves can be a source of impact.
An assessment of the level of significant residual effects, having taken into consideration mitigation, is determined by cross-referencing between the significance (heritage value) of the asset (Table 1.1) and the impact rating (Table 1.2). The resultant level of significant effect of the scheme on each heritage asset (Table 1.3) can be negligible, adverse or beneficial.
Appendix K: Cultural Heritage Assessment July 2015
AECOM Island Gas Ltd – Springs Road Exploratory Wellsite 3
Table 1.3: Criteria for determining the level of significant effect
Impact Rating Significance High Medium Low Minimal High Major Major/ Moderate Moderate Minor Medium Major Moderate Minor Minor Low Moderate/ Minor Minor Minor Negligible
Effects of major or moderate significance are considered to be significant and are therefore reported within the ES. In instances within the matrix where there is a transition between levels of significant effect, the actual reported level of significant effect is a matter of professional judgement. This has considered the heritage value of the asset and the degree to which the level of impact will affect heritage significance.
Within the NPPF, impacts affecting the significance of heritage assets are considered in terms of harm and there is a requirement to determine whether the level of harm amounts to ‘substantial harm’ or ‘less than substantial harm’ [Paragraph 132 -135 NPPF, 2012]. The on-line Planning Practice Guidance assists in determining whether works constitute substantial harm, and the guidance is that for harm to be substantial the impact needs to go ‘to the heart of why the place is worthy of designation’.
The ES reports on the significance of effect and there is no direct correlation between the significance of effect and the level of harm caused to heritage significance. A major significant effect on a heritage asset would, however, more often be the basis by which to determine that the level of harm to the significance of the asset would be substantial. A moderate significant effect is unlikely to meet the test of substantial harm and would therefore more often be the basis by which to determine that the level of harm to the significance of the asset would be less than substantial. In all cases determining the level of harm to the significance of the asset arising from development impact is one of professional judgement.
Appendix K: Cultural Heritage Assessment July 2015
AECOM Island Gas Ltd – Springs Road Exploratory Wellsite 4
2 Legislation and Planning Policy
2.1 Legislation
The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to compile lists of buildings of special architectural or historic interest. In consideration of proposals within the setting of Listed Buildings, the 1990 Act establishes a requirement to have special regard to the desirability of preserving that setting (Section 66 (1)):
“In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses”.
Section 72 of the 1990 Act establishes a desirability to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of a conservation area. A conservation area is an area of local interest designated principally by the Local Planning Authority.
The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 is the central piece of legislation which protects the archaeological resource. The first section of the Act requires the Secretary of State for National Heritage to maintain a schedule of nationally important sites. For the purposes of the Act, a monument is defined as:
“a) any building, structure or work, whether above or below the surface of the land, and any cave or excavation; b) any site comprising the remains of any such building, structure or work or of any cave or excavation; and c) any site comprising, or comprising the remains of, any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or other moveable structure or part thereof which neither constitutes nor forms part of any work which is a monument as defined within paragraph a) above; d) and any machinery attached to a monument shall be regarded as part of the monument if it could not be detached without being dismantled’ (Section 61 (7)).”
The Act further defines an ancient monument as:
“any Scheduled Monument; and any other monument which in the opinion of the Secretary of State is of public interest by reason of the historic, architectural, traditional, artistic or archaeological interest attaching to it’ (Section 61 (12)).”
A set of criteria, defined as survival/condition, period, rarity, fragility/vulnerability, diversity, documentation, group value and potential, assist in the decision making process as to whether an asset is deemed of national importance and best managed by scheduling.
English Heritage is enabled by Section 8C of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 (introduced by paragraph 10 of Schedule 4, of the National Heritage Act 1983) to compile a Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in England. Though designated of national interest, a park or garden on the register is not otherwise statutorily protected although Local Planning Authorities are required to include policies for their protection in their Local Plan.
2.2 National Planning Policy
2.2.1 National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) sets out the Governments planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. The preservation and enhancement of heritage assets forms an important part of the NPPF and is one of the 12 Core planning principles which should be used to underpin plan-making and decision-taking. The core principle states that planning should:
“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.”
Appendix K: Cultural Heritage Assessment July 2015
AECOM Island Gas Ltd – Springs Road Exploratory Wellsite 5
Conservation of the historic environment forms part of the environmental dimension of sustainable development. The presumption in favour of sustainable development is a golden thread which should run through plan-making and decision- taking.
Section 12 of the NPPF sets out the importance of being able to assess the significance of heritage assets that may be affected by a development. Significance is defined in Annex 2 as being the, “value of an asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. This interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic interest”.
The definition of significance provided in Annex 2 also clearly states that significance is not only derived from an asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting. The setting of a heritage asset is defined in Annex 2 as, “the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve.”
Paragraphs 128 and 129 of the NPPF state that when determining applications, local authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of assets that may be affected by a development, to a level of detail that is proportionate to their importance and that is no more than sufficient to understand the potential impact on their significance; this should also include assets where their setting may be affected by a proposal.
Paragraph 132 recognises that heritage assets are irreplaceable and that where proposed development may impact on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be placed on its conservation; the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Substantial harm to or loss of assets of the highest significance (scheduled monuments, registered battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings and registered parks and gardens and World Heritage Sites) should be wholly exceptional. The NPPF notes that alteration or destruction of a heritage asset or development within its setting can harm its significance. Where substantial harm is found, substantial public benefits must be achieved to outweigh this loss.
The NPPF states that the effect of a planning application on non-designated heritage assets should be taken into account when considering the application. Paragraph 135 sets out the need for a balanced judgement between the significance of the heritage assets and the scale of any harm or loss, when considering assets directly or indirectly affected by proposed development.
At paragraph 139 the NPPF recognises that non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to a scheduled monument should be considered subject to the policies for designated assets.
For developments which involve the removal of the significance of heritage assets, or the physical removal of assets, paragraph 141 provides policy guidance to LPA regarding the requirements upon developers to mitigate this. It states that developers should be required to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets that will be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publically accessible.
Section 13 of the NPPF is concerned with facilitating the sustainable use of minerals. The same principles of sustainable development apply here and therefore the conservation of the historic environment is a core principle of any minerals development. Paragraph 144 states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ‘ensure, in granting planning permission for mineral development, that there are no unacceptable adverse impact on the natural and historic environment” (NPPF 2012, paragraph 144).
2.3 Planning Practice Guidance (2014)
2.3.1 Heritage The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) provides up to date advice for the application of the policies within the NPPF. Guidance related to heritage issues is provided in the Conserving and enhancing the historic environment section of the guide. The PPG starts by reiterating the importance of conserving the historic environment as stated in the NPPF: “Protecting and enhancing the historic environment is an important component of the National Planning Policy Framework’s drive to achieve sustainable development.”
The PPG provides useful guidance on the assessment of substantial harm. As the primary test of the effect of development upon the significance of heritage assets, guidance is given in the PPG as to how to assess if the harm is substantial or not. The PPG starts out by stating that “in general terms, substantial harm is a high test, so it may not arise in many cases.” It further states that ‘it is the degree of harm to the asset’s significance rather than the scale of the development that is to be assessed. The harm may arise from works to the assets of from development within its setting.”
Appendix K: Cultural Heritage Assessment July 2015
AECOM Island Gas Ltd – Springs Road Exploratory Wellsite 6
When establishing the parameters of what constitutes substantial harm, the PPG points to total destruction being the most ‘obvious’ cause of substantial harm. Anything less than this needs to be judged on its own merits. Partial destruction may remove elements of an asset which were detrimental to its significance and therefore may not be harmful at all. When discussing works that are moderate or minor in scale, the NPPG advises that these are ‘likely to cause less than substantial harm or no harm at all’. The importance of considering each development on its own merits is reinforced by the statements that even minor works have the potential to cause substantial harm to an asset’s significance.
Minerals (Hydrocarbon Extraction)
The publication of the PPG in 2014 also replaced the 2013 Planning Guidance for Onshore Gas and Oil Developments. The guidance is now contained within the PPG.
2.3.2 Local Planning Policy The Core Strategy and Development Management Policies that form part of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework were formally adopted by Bassetlaw District Council in December 2011. The document provides the overarching strategy guiding new development and allocation of land in the Bassetlaw region.
Policy DM8: The Historic Environment of the Development Management Policies within the Core Strategy is concerned with the protection of the historic environment. The policy states:
“Support will be given to development proposals or regeneration schemes…that protect and enhance the historic environment and secure its long-term future, especially the District’s Heritage at Risk. Such proposals must recognize the significance of heritage assets as a central part of the development. They will be expected to be in line with characterisation studies, village appraisals, conservation area appraisals, archaeological reports and other relevant studies.”
B. Development Affecting Heritage Assets.
There will be a presumption against development, alterations, advertising or demolition that will be detrimental to the significance of a heritage asset. The setting of an asset is an important aspect of its special architectural of historic interest and proposals that fail to preserve or enhance the setting of a heritage asset will not be supported”.
The Nottingham Minerals Development Plan was adopted in 2005 and contains the policies guiding planning for mineral extraction and the balance required in the protection of the local environment. There are policies within this document relating specifically to the historic environment. Policy M3.24 deals with the archaeological resource and states:
“Planning permission will not be granted for minerals development which would destroy or degrade nationally important archaeological remains and their settings, whether scheduled or not. Planning permission will only be granted for development which would affect archaeological remains of less than national importance where it can be demonstrated that the importance of the development outweighs the regional or local significance of the remains and where appropriate provision is made for the excavation and recording of the remains.”
Policy M3.25 deals with potential impacts to listed buildings, conservation areas, historic battlefield and historic parks and gardens. It states:
“Planning permission will not be granted for minerals development which would cause an unacceptable level of harm to the character, appearance, condition or setting of conservation areas, listed buildings, historic battlefield and historic parks and gardens.”
2.3.3 Historic England Guidance Historic England (formerly English Heritage) has produced a number of guidance papers in respect of a variety of conservation issues. These guidance papers are intended to establish broad frameworks and guidance in order to assist in the making of decisions about England’s historic environment.
Historic England produced a small number of good practice advice (GPA) guides which have replaced the Planning Policy Statement 5; Planning Practice Guide. To date only three notes have been produced; GPA1: The Historic Environment in Local Plans, GPA2: Managing Significance in Decision Taking and GPA3: The Setting of Heritage Assets. Of relevance to this assessment are GPA2 and GPA3.
Appendix K: Cultural Heritage Assessment July 2015
AECOM Island Gas Ltd – Springs Road Exploratory Wellsite 7
GPA2 provides guidance on decision making within the historic environment. The document makes clear the need to establish the significance of the heritage resource to enable informed decision making. It sets out the principles for identifying heritage significance, in line with the NPPF, reinforcing the contribution that setting can make to this significance. The document sets out a staged approach to establishing significance and assessing impacts on that significance; progressing from understanding significance, through processes for avoiding or mitigating impacts and seeking opportunities for enhancement, to the justification and/ or offsetting any residual harm. The document reinforces the requirement of the NPPF that the information provided should be proportionate to the significance of the asset and sufficient to make an informed decision.
GPA3 replaces the 2011 Setting of Heritage Assets document and has been specifically written to address the complexities associated with making decisions associated with the setting of heritage assets. The document describes the key terms of curtilage, character and context and explains the extent of setting and that it is not fixed and changes depending on the asset. The document also highlights the importance of views to the understanding of setting and states which views could contribute to understanding the significance of a heritage asset. It then offers a staged approach to proportional decision-taking.
In 2008, Historic England published ‘Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment’. The aim of this guidance is to ensure consistency of approach in English Heritage’s role as the Government’s statutory advisor on the historic environment in England. It aims to set out a logical approach to decision making and offers guidance about all aspects of the historic environment and reconciling its protection with the economic and social needs and aspirations of the people who live in it.
Appendix K: Cultural Heritage Assessment July 2015
AECOM Island Gas Ltd – Springs Road Exploratory Wellsite 8
3 Proposed Development
3.1 Location
The Site lies within the commercial premises of L. Jackson & Co. Ex-MOD/NATO Disposals. The Site was formerly the RAF Misson Surface-to-Air Guided Weapon site (for a full description and history of the Site, refer to the baseline section below).
The Site is located in Nottinghamshire, approximately 2.9 km to the north east of Misson village. The Site is located entirely within the boundary of the commercial premises and is bordered by it to the south and parts of the western boundary. The Site is also bordered by Springs Road on the western boundary and agricultural fields and woodland to the east and north.
3.2 Topography and Geography
The Site is located in an area of low-lying, flat landscape characterised by land drains excavated in the 18th century. The variation and screening in this landscape comes from the vegetation, from hedgerows and settlements. The bedrock geology of the area is formed by the Mercia Mudstone Group and Sherwood Sandstone Group. No superficial geology is recorded within the Site itself, but to the west the geology is recorded as River Terrace Deposits, made up of sands and gravels.
Appendix K: Cultural Heritage Assessment July 2015
AECOM Island Gas Ltd – Springs Road Exploratory Wellsite 9
4 Baseline Conditions
4.1 The Site
4.1.1 RAF Misson The Site lies within former RAF Misson (M18176/1309681, M18175), which consisted of a bombing range, training area and Surface Air Guided Weapon Site (SAGW). RAF Misson was originally established as a bombing range during WWII but soon after that this use ceased and was then parts of the site were used as a SAGW or for military training.
The overall RAF Misson was kept in control of the MOD until 1969. Then 242.8 ha of land peripheral to the former bombing range was sold off – which included the SAGW land, which was sold to the business which has operated it since as a surplus military vehicle and equipment sale site. The remainder of the land was returned to agricultural use.
4.1.2 Bombing Range RAF Misson was developed as a bombing range during the Second World War for use by operational training crews operating out of RAF Finningley, situated to the northwest of the Site. However, the only surviving feature from this phase of use is a single World War II air raid shelter and associated access road (since re-surfaced) located at the former entrance to the bombing range. This now forms a secondary access to the military surplus site north of the present entrance and will serve as the access to the proposed development. The bombing range occupied an area of approximately 807 acres (327 ha). The site was decommissioned shortly after the war. The clearance of site commenced in the 1960s, with a clearance certificate for the whole site finally issued in 1979 (RCHME 1997).
The bombing range covered at its fullest extent some 326.8ha extending as far north as Snow Sewer, to the north of Levels Farm and down to Cow Pasture Drain. Its furthest west extent was Springs Road and to the East South Idle Drain. It was used during WWII as a bombing range but its use for this purpose finished soon after 1948. Within the site, little evidence of the bombing range survives other than a single bomb shelter near the Site entrance.
4.1.3 Surface to Air Guided Weapon Site The SAGW site was constructed around 1959/60 and was located parallel to Springs Road. The application Site sits within the northern part of this former SAGW. The operational life of the SAGW site was only two and a half years.
The extant features are all associated with its use as a Mk I bloodhound missile launch site from October 1960 to June 1963 (Cocroft et. al. 2004).The development of the part of the bombing range closest to Springs Road as a missile launch site resulted from Britain’s nuclear defence strategy during the 1950s . This included the development of a surface-to-air guided weapon system designed to protect the nuclear deterrent forces, including the V bombers housed at Finningley, by destroying incoming Soviet bombers.
A total of 10 sites were established in locations to protect V bomber airfield. Of these, only four (not including RAF Misson) retain their original layout. Each site had 16 missiles, organised into two flights of eight. The missiles were controlled by a Launch Tactical Control Post close to the missiles themselves, with an associated Tactical Control Centre and Type 82 Radar. At many of the sites, these were all housed together, utilising the existing airfield. At Misson, the tactical control centre was separately located at RAF Lindholme to the north, where it survives, alongside the radar building. Structures which survive at Misson include picket post, station headquarters, directorate building, servicing building and static water tank.
Since the site was surveyed by the Royal Commission in 1997 (RCHME; now Historic England), the Maintenance and Engineering Buildings and Launch Control Posts have been demolished. The associated missile hardstandings do survive, consisting of two fire units, each containing 16 missile pads. The missile pads are octagonal in plan, arranged off a square loop road and constructed from reinforced concrete. To each was originally bolted a cable termination pillar and launcher plant assembly. Leading away from each launcher plant assembly was a sunken service conduit covered by galvanised metal tread. Further cable conduits ran between the hardstandings. Only the bolts and the conduit now survive on most pads. On some pads the conduits have been removed and filled with concrete.
Appendix K: Cultural Heritage Assessment July 2015
AECOM Island Gas Ltd – Springs Road Exploratory Wellsite 10
4.1.4 Training Area In the 1960s part of RAF Misson further to the east of the SAGW was used as a training area. This use continued during the 1970s until 1995. During this time the training area was clear of debris from the wartime bombing use and a clearance certificate was issued by the RAF on the 13th July 1979. The army, prior to cessation of use as a training area, undertook their own explosive ordnance disposal inspection and a clearance certificate was issued in 1996. The site was sold in the late 1990s and has since been designated as the Misson Training Area SSSI.
4.1.5 Significance The former RAF Misson as a whole, including the Site, is considered to be of medium significance as a non-designated asset of evident historic interest as an in the understanding of an important period of Britain’s military past. It formed part of the English Heritage 2004 publication on Cold War sites in Britain and the significance of this asset has been considered in detail in the assessment phase of this report.
4.2 The Study Area
4.2.1 Designated Assets Scheduled Monuments
One scheduled monument has been identified within the 5km search area. This is the asset of a medieval moat and fishpond located immediately south-east of Misson village (NHLE: 1008629), approximately 2.5 km to the south of the proposed development. The monument includes the remains of the moat which survives as a trapezoidal shaped earthwork with a single, infilled fishpond. The moat is approximately 10 m wide, and between 1 – 2 m deep and measures 52 m along is longest axis and 25 m along its shortest axis. The northwest side of the moat has been truncated by a dyke and field boundary. The central platform of the moat survives well and is up to 1 m higher than the surrounding land and is likely to preserve remnants of the buildings which were once located within the central area.
The setting of this asset is the river valley in which it is located and the settlement of Misson to the west. Moated sites were often located within river valleys and were a status symbol for the medieval land owning classes. As such, the significance of this asset lies in its archaeological and historic value. The moat could provide waterlogged deposits which could contain environmental evidence and, as mentioned, it is likely the central platform contains the foundations of the original buildings. This could provide evidence of the social hierarchy and status of the period, and information on land- use. It could also provide evidence of the development of the form and construction of moated sites within Nottingham as part of a wider thematic study. The asset has historic value in providing evidence of the development of Misson. Moated sites are not defensive in function. The moats were status symbols rather than deterrents and were designed to impress passers-by. Therefore it is more likely that views of the asset were of more significance than views from the asset. Views towards the asset therefore contribute towards the setting. Although the settlement at Misson has moved increasingly closer to the moated site, there is still an appreciable boundary and the relationship with the river and the open land to the east of the asset help to preserve the rural setting of the asset.
As a scheduled monument, the asset is of high value.
Listed Buildings
There are 25 listed buildings located within the search area. These consist of two grade I, one grade II* and 22 grade II assets. A significant proportion of the listed buildings identified are located within settlements and are grouped accordingly for the purposes of this report.
Newlands Farm (Grade II; NHLE 1045073) is situated on Spring Road approximately 522 m to the north of the Site. The farm dates to the early 19th century and is constructed over two storeys and three bays with central door to the south façade. The building has been subject to refenestration and extension; however, it does retain legibility, alongside the associated outbuildings which extend to the north. The farmhouse is located within established gardens, enclosed by dense vegetation which separates it off from the surrounding agricultural landscape. As a listed building, the asset is of medium significance.
Finningley
Finningley lies 2.8 km to the north west of the Site. The historic core is designated as a conservation area, centred on the village green and church. In contrast to the later expansion of the settlement to the east, the conservation area retains its village quality with an amorphous development of low density housing, interspersed with later infill. The buildings are predominantly detached and set back from the street within established gardens, adding to the green quality of the village.
Appendix K: Cultural Heritage Assessment July 2015
AECOM Island Gas Ltd – Springs Road Exploratory Wellsite 11
The majority of historic properties date to the 18th and 19th century, including three of the four listed properties. These include the grade II listed Village Hall (NHLE 1151558), converted from an 18th century barn, and Holly House (NHLE 1191976), an early to mid-19th century house which retains its classical detailing. Also listed is the Old Rectory (NHLE 1314817). The building dates to 1704 with 19th century range to the rear.
The Old Rectory is set back behind the street frontage, forming a group with the Grade I Church of Holy Trinity and St Oswald (NHLE 1286821). The church has its foundations in the 11th century, with extension in the 12th, 14th and 15th century, with extensive restoration in 1885. The church is of rubblestone construction with two stage west tower. The secluded quality of the church is reinforced by its position away from the village core, set within an established churchyard. Screening within the village means that the church is only visible from key points, with little visibility beyond the conservation area. As a grade I listed building, the church is of high significance.
Misson
The village of Misson lies 2.9 km to the south west of the Site. The historic interest of the village is reflected in its 15 listed buildings, alongside the Scheduled Medieval Moated site (discussed above). The village is characterised by detached dwellings dating from the 17th to 19th centuries, with limited modern infill. The listed buildings comprise cottages and former farmhouses which add interest to the streetscape. The use of brick creates a uniformity of materials with buildings fronting the street to create a unified architectural composition.
Many of these are focussed around the Grade I listed Church of St John the Baptist (NHLE 1045108). The church retains fabric from the 14th century, with additions in the 15th and 16th century and restoration in the 19th century. It is enclosed by an ashlar and rubblestone wall which continues around the graveyard, with the ground itself raised above street level. This aids the prominence of the church within the village, alongside the two stage west tower. As a grade I listed building, the church is of high significance
The former Vicarage (Grade II; NHLE 1370418) is located away from the church, to the northeast of the village. The building dates to the 1830s and is constructed from brick with restrained classical detailing. The building is no longer associated with the church and sits in an isolated position within established gardens.
Haxey and Westwoodside
The village of Haxey lies 6 km to the north east of the Site. While outside the study area, the raised position of the village makes it visible from a large area, therefore, any significant views towards and encompassing the Proposed Development have been considered. The village developed as an agricultural settlement with the built form characterised by late 18th and 19th century buildings. The historic core is situated to the west, following a linear arrangement along Church Street and terminating at the Grade I listed Church of St Nicholas (NHLE 1241103). The church retains fabric from the 12th century with 13th century additions. The position of the church, along with its four stage west tower, makes it a prominent feature within the village, while the slightly raised topography means it has a wide visual envelope. As a grade I listed building, the church is of high significance.
Westwoodside, located 3.8 km to the north east of the Site, is predominantly a mid- to late 20th century extension of Haxey, consuming the earlier farmsteads which historically defined the character of this area. Two such farmstead are Park Farmhouse and Hilltop Farmhouse, both Grade II listed (NHLE 1067710 and 1083257). Both date to the late 18th century and were originally in agricultural use; however, their setting has been substantially altered with the encroachment of modern development. Hilltop better retains its context with outbuildings extending along Gollands Lane, but both have since been converted to purely domestic use.
Austerfield
Austerfield is a small settlement around 5.2 km to the south west of the Site. The settlement follows a linear arrangement with detached buildings fronting the main road. The buildings are a mixture of 19th and 20th century dwellings with the Grade II* listed Church of St Helena (NHLE 1151575) situated towards the centre. The church retains fabric from the 12th century, restored and extended in the late 19th century. The prominence of the building is diminished by its position set back from the road, and its architectural form with a bellcote rather than landmark tower. As a grade II* listed building, the church is of high significance.
Non-designated Assets
A small number of non-designated assets were identified within the study area from the Nottinghamshire HER and the Historic England Archive.
Appendix K: Cultural Heritage Assessment July 2015
AECOM Island Gas Ltd – Springs Road Exploratory Wellsite 12
There are no firmly identified assets dating from the prehistoric period within the study area. To the west of the Site, a number of cropmarks were identified through aerial photography analysis. The cropmarks consisted of square and rectangular enclosures with field boundaries (L5092), a linear feature, which was seen to cross the former enclosures terminating at a rectangular enclosure (L5093), a series of large double-ditched features located in parallel fields with a number of smaller ditches with a possible cropmark of a lane (L5094) and some further linear ditches and enclosures (L5095). None of these features were tested by archaeological excavation to provide definitive dating evidence and are categorised as being of an unknown date within the Nottinghamshire HER. However, some of the cropmark forms have been tentatively dated to the Roman period, or possibly Iron Age period. The cropmarks are indicative of an agricultural field system established and maintained in the area for a long period, and though are typologically similar to Roman and prehistoric examples, this cannot be stated with certainty. It is likely that the cropmarks may extend eastwards, beneath the site of the later RAF Misson. It should be noted that none of the identified cropmarks above are still extant. Sand and gravel quarrying the in the late 19th and 20th centuries has removed all traces.
Possible evidence for Roman activity (43AD – 410AD) could be inferred from the discovery of a rim sherd of a 3rd century AD cooking vessel and part of a beehive quern (320786) found to the west of Springs Road in the 1960s. As findspots, this record has no intrinsic heritage value but could provide evidence of further Roman activity in the area. However the limited nature of the finds recovered indicates that it is likely these sherds were deposited as part of medieval manuring of the fields, or through warping, or flooding incidents. There is evidence for Roman activity in the wider vicinity, with a possible crossing point of the River Idle located at Misson to the south and the Roman fort at Scaftworth.
There are no non-designated assets identified within the study area dating to the early medieval and medieval period (410 – 1540 AD), however the first documented record of Misson is in the Domesday book and the village was therefore large enough to be taxable at this time. In the Domesday Book, it is noted as being in the hands of the king, having formerly being held by Tosti. Misson is then recorded as being held by Knut with Earnwine also holding land there. The Domesday also records that the settlement contains a fishery and woodland pasture (Williams & Martin 2002, 785).
The name of Misson is first recorded as Misne, then later Misene and Miseneya. The name is of Old German origin and means ‘marsh’ and implies that drainage of the surrounding land was poor and the area would have been similar to fenland being situated less than 6 m above sea level. From the earliest maps of the area, the area around Misson was also known as The Carrs, another name which means marshy, waterlogged terrain. It is possible that the settlement developed at this location despite the marshy conditions and availability of higher, better drained land to the south because this was most convenient, shortest and safe passage across the Idle,
During the medieval period, Misson was large enough to support a church, the Church of St, John the Baptist, constructed in 1150 in the highest point of land within the area, to avoid flooding. The medieval period also saw the construction of the scheduled moated site at Misson, along with fishponds. The existence of this high status asset indicates that although Misson was located in a less than ideal area for construction, there was some element of importance which meant that settlement continued. This was possibly because it controlled an important crossing point of the River Idle. The proposed development site at this time was still boggy agricultural land, suitable for seasonal pasture. The place name evidence of the farms in the area indicates that there may have been areas of woodland in the vicinity of the proposed development.
It was not until the 17th century the marshland around Misson started to be drained. In 1626, Charles I granted permission to the Dutch engineer Cornelius Vermuyden to design a scheme to create more agricultural land and to try and prevent the frequent flooding by draining the marshes. The area which was drained included the proposed development site. The scheme commenced immediately and was complete within 2 years. The cost of the works was £400,000, an enormous sum. The newly created land was owned by the Crown, Vermuyden and existing tenants who claimed right of Common. To fund the scheme, Vermuyden’s land was sold off to the partners who then paid tax on their newly acquired lands. A map of 1639 by Josias Aerlebou shows the proposed development site in an area called Myson Springs and may even have been located in the land owned by Vermuyden in the scheme outlined above.
Although the post-medieval period saw an improvement in the drainage, it is likely that the Site remained marshy, marginal land and probably still used for seasonal agriculture, rather than for any permanent settlement. By the early modern period (1750 – 1914), the area had been drained and was enclosed in the late 18th century. It is likely that during this period, the proposed site was used as agricultural land. The 2nd edition Ordnance Survey map of 1885 shows the very regular, small, rectangular fields which continue to dominate the landscape to the south and north of the Proposed Development Site and also shows Misson Springs Cottage to the immediate south of the Proposed Development access road. No other developments are shown on the mapping until the late 20th century mapping, even though the development site was in use as a bombing range and later, as the Bloodhound Missile base. A full set of Ordnance Survey maps are shown in Annex I2 of Appendix I: Contaminated Land. These illustrate that since the early 20th century, the site has seen no substantive change – the main changes being the military developments, which due to their nature are not shown until the most recent mapping in any case.
Appendix K: Cultural Heritage Assessment July 2015
AECOM Island Gas Ltd – Springs Road Exploratory Wellsite 13
The use of the Site as a bombing range in World War II was the first non-agricultural use of the area. The range extended from Snow Sewer in the north, South Idle Drain in the east, Cow Pasture Drain in the south and Springs Road to the west, an area approximately 2 km square. The bombing range was probably established in 1939 when the No. 5 Group Pool at RAF Finningley to the northwest became a site for the operational training of bomber crews. It was definitely used by No. 25 Operational Training Unit (OTU) between February 1941 and January 1943 when the bombing range was then used and maintained by No. 18 OTU. The date that the bombing range went out of use is unknown. It was still being used for air gunnery in 1948.
Following the closure of the bombing range, the Site was identified as a location for the Bloodhound missile site and the installation of the pads and buildings began circa 1959/60.
A number of non-designated historic structures were identified during the site visit dating to the early modern period. Many have undergone significant modernisation which had removed any architectural or historic value, or removed any understanding of their historic relationship with the surrounding landscape. Their interest, therefore, now lies in their evidential value as evidence for the 19th century agricultural development of the area. Included within this group are Levels Farm, April Cottage and Red House, Springs Road. These are considered to be of low significance.
Misson Springs Cottage lies to the south of the Site access. Aligned east-west, the cottage is a simple two storey, three bay structure with outshot to the east. The building dates to the 19th century, but has been rendered and modernised with new roof and replacement uPVC fittings. The building is no longer in use and in a poor state of repair. The construction of the missile site also removed much of its historic agricultural setting. Due to the extent of modern alteration and loss of historic fabric, the cottage is considered to be of low significance.
Middle Wood Farm located approximately 0.7 km to the south of the Site (NHER Ref 1.35.39) is identified on the Nottingham Historic Environment Record as a structure of historic interest. The building previously formed part of a 19th century farmstead; however, the structure, including the associated outbuildings, has recently undergone extensive modernisation removing much of its historic interest. As a result, the building is considered to be of low significance.
Until the early 20th century, the field pattern of small, rectangular fields divided with drains that can still be seen to the south of the study area was still legible and this 17th and 18th century landscape was visible. However the use of the proposed development site and the area to the east as a World War II bombing range, subsequent development of the site, reversion part of the range to woodland (now Misson Training Area SSSI) and agricultural improvements in the surrounding area has modified this field boundary pattern, reducing its legibility. Similarly, the land to the west of Springs Road within the study area was subject to sand and gravel extraction in the latter half of the 20th century, therefore also removing the distinctive field boundaries. Therefore the landscape is of negligible heritage significance and will not be impacted by the Proposed Development.
There is negligible archaeological potential within the Proposed Development Site. This is due to the history of the area as being extremely marshy and poorly drained until the 17th century and therefore unsuitable for any construction or habitation. Even after the area was drained, there is no indication of any development in the site, being used most likely as agricultural land and later a bombing range. The choice of this area for a bombing range reinforces this as the location chosen for such a military site would necessarily be isolated and largely free of buildings, or at least with few enough buildings to allow them to be requisitioned by the military.
The cropmark evidence to the west of the Site is indicative of early agricultural use of the area as suggested and it is thought possible that the cropmarks could continue beneath the proposed development site. However, the use of the site, firstly as a bombing range, indicating the possibility the area has been significantly disturbed by bombing activity. Then the alterations and construction work required for the missile base indicate that the level of potential for archaeological deposits to survive is low. The construction of the missile base did not simply involve the laying down of concrete bases, but required the excavation of channels to run the electrical connections along, drains and substantial depths of concrete, not simply a thin layer of hardstanding to enable the missile launchers to be anchored securely into the ground. This would have required a substantial block of concrete to survive the dynamic forces created by the launching and the entire site is criss-crossed with the remnants of these electrical grid connection and drainage channels. There is a remote possibility that archaeological deposits could survive below the base, but this is rated as very low.
Appendix K: Cultural Heritage Assessment July 2015
AECOM Island Gas Ltd – Springs Road Exploratory Wellsite 14
5 Assessment of Impacts
5.1 Construction
The wellsite will be constructed over the missile hardstandings. While the hardstandings will remain in situ, there is the potential for accidental damage during Phases 1 and 4. The impact on the asset as a whole is minimal.
Located at the northern entrance to the military surplus site is an air-raid shelter. This represents the only extant building from the World War II bombing range. The air-raid shelter is situated to the north of the former entrance to the bombing range which is to be used as the access for the proposed development. This is set back 5 – 10 m from the access road and is protected by a substantial metal security fence. The potential for this to be accidentally damaged by construction traffic is therefore minimal. The potential impact on the significance of RAF Misson as a whole (M18176/1309681), an asset of medium value, is considered to be minimal.
There will be no impact during construction on any of the identified non-designated heritage assets. All the archaeological assets are located outside of the Proposed Development footprint.
There is no potential for the construction of the Proposed Development to impact upon the setting of the scheduled moated site and fishpond east of Misson village (1008629), an asset of high value. The Proposed Development is located within the general agricultural landscape which forms part of the setting, however this was altered considerably, first during the17th century when the large land drains were inserted, subdividing the fields into their regular, uniform appearance, and again during the 20th century. Therefore the setting does not contribute greatly to the significance or understanding of the asset.
5.2 Operation
Both physical impacts and impacts on the setting of the heritage assets during the operation of the Site (phases 2 and 3) have been considered. Any impacts identified during operation will be limited to 9 months duration; therefore, they are considered to be temporary.
The potential for vibration damage to the missile pads has been considered in conjunction with Appendix C: Noise and Vibration. This has concluded that, due to the use of a rotary bore, the level of ground borne vibration will be below the level required to cause superficial damage. There will, therefore, be no vibration damage to the asset during Phase 2.
There will be no impact during operation on any potential archaeology which could remain beneath the missile bases. The drill rig may have the potential to damage cable runs connecting the missile hardstandings. However, this damage will be limited to the area of the drill itself. The impact of this on the asset as a whole is minimal.
There will be no impact upon the scheduled moated site and fishpond east of Misson village (1008629), an asset of high value. The drill rig will be visible from this asset, however it has been demonstrated that it is views towards the asset which contribute to the significance, not views from it. In addition, there are no views where the asset and the borehole rig would appear in the same view, or block or impede a view which contributes to the significance of the asset. The Proposed Development is located within the general agricultural landscape which forms part of the setting, however this was altered considerably, first during the 17th century when the large land drains were inserted, subdividing the fields into their regular, uniform appearance, and again during the 20th century when it was used as a bombing range. Therefore the setting does not contribute greatly to the significance or understanding of the asset.
There will be no impact upon the remainder of non-designated archaeological assets because they are no longer extant, and therefore cannot experience an impact.
There will be an impact on the evidential value of RAF Misson during the operation of the Site. The introduction of the drill rig and compounds will obscure part of the missile hardstandings, thus affecting the ability to understand the relationship between the two firing units. The remaining impacts are considered to affect the setting of the identified heritage assets. Alongside a consideration of the limited visibility of the drilling rig, the assessment of impacts to setting also takes into account the effect of RAF Misson on the historic landscape. The missile site was superimposed on an existing rural
Appendix K: Cultural Heritage Assessment July 2015
AECOM Island Gas Ltd – Springs Road Exploratory Wellsite 15
landscape. While, in itself a symbol of the evolving landscape, the introduction of an industrial element interrupted the historic setting of many of the surrounding buildings and settlements.
Misson Springs Cottage is located to the south of the Site access road. While the drill rig will be seen within the context of existing structures associated with the military surplus site the impact on the significance of the asset is minimal as much of its historic context has already been removed.
The significance of Levels Farm, April Cottage and Red House lies in the evidential value of their fabric. This will not be impacted by the proposals.
Due to the proximity of the grade II listed Newlands Farm (NHLE1045073); the drill rig will introduce a new feature within the skyline, visible from the house, while the proposed lighting will increase the visibility of the site. This is considered to be an addition to existing impacts on the rural setting of the buildings as a former farmstead. A number of photomontages have been produced as part of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (see Appendix E), one of which is from the viewpoint at Newlands Farm. Photomontages EX and EX illustrate the views likely to be experienced from this location of the operational drill rig, however it is considered that although the rig will be a visible element within this landscape, it will not change the significance of the building. The level of this impact is considered to be minimal resulting in a minor adverse effect.
The Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) produced as part of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (see Figure E1 at Appendix E) and the photomontages EX to EX show that the drill rig will be visible from a wide area. However, the visibility of the rig will not affect the ability to understand and appreciate the historic significance of the remaining assets identified in Section 4.2.1; therefore, there will be no impact during phase 2.
Appendix K: Cultural Heritage Assessment July 2015
AECOM Island Gas Ltd – Springs Road Exploratory Wellsite 16
6 Mitigation Proposals
A minimal impact has been identified on the missile hardstandings due to the potential for accidental damage during construction. A protective layer will be placed on the hardstandings prior to the construction of the wellpad and ancillary welfare and Site compound facilities to ensure no damage is caused during the installation of the compound and wellpad. This will remove the impact. In addition, conducting any evaluation or excavation fieldwork would necessitate a larger area that the well drilling case being opened thus causing more damage to the original fabric of the missile site than the drilling of the well itself. Therefore no fieldwork has been proposed.
A minimal impact on RAF Misson has been identified as a result of the potential for damage to the bomb shelter due to HGVs accessing the site – but the location of this structure means that any potential for damage is negligible.
A minimal impact has been identified on the missile hardstandings due to the potential for damage during construction by the drill rig. The drill rig will be positioned to avoid any of the extant cable runs which connect the missile hardstandings. This will remove the impact.
As the hardstandings will be retained in situ, no archaeological recording is recommended.
Appendix K: Cultural Heritage Assessment July 2015
AECOM Island Gas Ltd – Springs Road Exploratory Wellsite 17
7 Residual Effects
After mitigation, there remains a minor adverse effect on RAF Misson during operation, however this a tempo?????????
No mitigation is proposed for Misson Springs Cottage due to the temporary nature of the impact; therefore, there remains a negligible effect.
No mitigation is proposed for the grade II listed Newlands Farm (NHLE 1045073); therefore, there remains a minor adverse effect.
Table 7.1 summarises the residual effects of the Proposed Development following the incorporation of recommended mitigation measures as detailsed in section 6.
Table 7.1: Summary of Residual Effects
Receptor Sensitivity Magnitude of Initial Mitigation and Residual effect (Significance) of impact classification of monitoring and (re)statement receptor (incorporating effect and of significance environmental statement of (incorporating design and significance mitigation and management) monitoring) Potential for accidental No impact – not damage to Avoidance of RAF Misson and Temporary minor significant missile asset and former missile Medium adverse effect – hardstandings preparation of pads. not significant Minor adverse – during briefing note not significant construction - Minimal Temporary impact on appreciation of Temporary Temporary Misson Springs Low asset resulting negligible effect – None proposed negligible effect – Cottage from lighting not significant not significant during operation - minimal Impacts on Temporary minor setting during Minor adverse – Newlands Farm Medium adverse effect – None proposed operation - not significant not significant minimal
Appendix K: Cultural Heritage Assessment July 2015
AECOM Island Gas Ltd – Springs Road Exploratory Wellsite 18
8 References
Bassetlaw District Council, 2011. Core Strategy & Development Management Policies DPD.
Bramley, J. 1931., “Sir. Cornelius Vermuyden”. (In) Transactions of the Thoroton Society. Vol 35.
Buckland, P & Dolby, M, 1973. “Mesolithic and Later material from Misterton Carr, Notts. An Interim Report”. (In) Transactions of the Thoroton Society Vol 77.
CIfA 2014 Standard and guidance. Historic environment desk-based assessment.
Cocroft, W. 2004. Cold War: Building for Nuclear Confrontation 1946-1989.
DCLG. 2012. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
DCLG. 2014. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/
EH 2003 (Under Review) Twentieth-Century Military Sites. Current approaches to their recording and conservation
EH 2011 Designation Listing Selection Guide. Domestic 3: Military Structures.
HE 2015 Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3. The Setting of Heritage Assets.
HE 2015 Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2. Managing Significance in Decision Taking in the Historic Environment.
Nottinghamshire County Council, 2005. Adopted Minerals Development Plan
Royal Commission on the Historic Monuments of England (RCHME). 1997. Historic Building Report: RAF Misson, Springs Road, Misson, Nottinghamshire.
The Stationery Office. 1979. Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (1979) (as amended).
The Stationery Office. 1990. Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
Whites Directory of Nottinghamshire 1885-6. Sheffield. W. White. http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html (Accessed 12.03.14)
Archive Documents
NRO-EV1R – A Plan of the Lordships of Everton and Harwll 1760
NRO-EV4L – A plan of Everton Lordship with the Manor of Harwell 1761
NRO-EV3L – Everton and Harwell Estate for sale by J. Holmes
NRO-PR2311a – A survey of Misson Commons 1629
NRO-YSK1s – Copy of Plan by Josias Aerlebout 1639 of the drainage features of Hatfield Chase
MS1L – A Plan of the Lordship of Misson by W. Brailsford & I. Milnbourn 1761
AT89/1c& 1b – Misson Tithe and Award 1843
Appendix K: Cultural Heritage Assessment July 2015
AECOM Island Gas Ltd – Springs Road Exploratory Wellsite 19
S6/1c & 1b – Gringley on the Hill Tithe and Award 1859
MI1S – George Kelk Plan of Low Ground in Stockwith 1773
YKS1S – Plan of Hatfield Chase 1639
Appendix K: Cultural Heritage Assessment July 2015
AECOM Island Gas Ltd – Springs Road Exploratory Wellsite 20
Annex K1: Gazetteer of Heritage Assets
Appendix K: Cultural Heritage Assessment July 2015
AECOM Island Gas Ltd – Springs Road Exploratory Wellsite 21
Annex K1: Gazetteer of Heritage Assets
Ref. No Period Name Description Status Moated Site and Earthworks of moated site and associated fishponds providing evidence for medieval Scheduled 1008629 Medieval fishpond east of activity and occupation of high status in this area in the medieval period. Monument Misson village Early 1045067 N/a WHITE COTTAGE II modern
Early 1045068 N/a GIBDIKE FARM HOUSE AND BOUNDARY WALL II modern
Early 1045069 N/a WOODBINE LODGE, RAILING AND GATEPIERS II modern
Early 1045070 N/a WILLOW HOUSE II modern
Early 1045071 N/a WHITE COTTAGE II modern
Early 1045072 N/a WHITE GATES AND WHITE GATES COTTAGE II modern
Early 1045073 N/a NEWLANDS FARM HOUSE II modern
Early 1045074 N/a NORTHFIELD HOUSE RAILING AND BOUNDARY WALLS II modern
Early 1045075 N/a COOKSON'S HOUSE II modern
Early 1045108 N/a CHURCH OF ST JOHN THE BAPTIST AND BOUNDARY WALL I modern
Appendix K: Cultural Heritage Assessment July 2015
AECOM Island Gas Ltd – Springs Road Exploratory Wellsite 22
Ref. No Period Name Description Status
Early 1045109 N/a CHURCH HOUSE II modern
Early 1067710 N/a PARK FARMHOUSE II modern
Early 1151558 N/a THE VILLAGE HALL II modern
Early 1156702 N/a GREENBANK II modern
Early 1191976 N/a HOLLY HOUSE II modern
Early 1286821 N/a CHURCH OF HOLY TRINITY AND ST OSWALD I modern
Early 1302754 N/a WEST HILL, BOUNDARY WALL AND RAILING II modern
Early 1314817 N/a THE OLD RECTORY II modern
Early 1370398 N/a SWAN HOUSE II modern
Early 1370417 N/a REEDS COTTAGE II modern
Early 1370418 N/a THE OLD VICARAGE II modern
Rim and base of C3rd pot found in 1965. Upper stone of beehive quern found 1967. Non- 320786 Roman Pottery sherds Both pots are now in the Doncaster Museum designated Military Vehicle Non- M18175 Modern The missile site at Misson is also used as a military vehicles depot. Depot at Misson designated
Appendix K: Cultural Heritage Assessment July 2015
AECOM Island Gas Ltd – Springs Road Exploratory Wellsite 23
Ref. No Period Name Description Status
RAF Misson, Bloodhound Mark II Missile Site, operational 1960-1963. The site was formerly part of a WWII Bombing range until 1959. The Bloodhound Missile site was one of 11 built to protect the RAF's nuclear deterrent forces of V-bombers and THOR Non- M18176/1309681 Modern RAF Misson missiles. The site originally consisted of 64 buildings, 32 missile hardstandings and designated maintenance and control buildings. The site is occupied by a military surplus dealer, only a small number of original buildings survive.
Two square enclosures and one rectangular identified by aerial photography with Enclosure with field Non- L5092/320796 Unknown possible associated field boundaries. The area has been destroyed by sand and gravel boundaries, Misson designated quarrying.
Linear feature, Linear feature, crossing 3 fields with an enclosure at one end. Possible a Roman field Non- L5093/320796 Unknown Misson system but now destroyed by sand and gravel quarrying. designated
Double ditched feature identified through aerial photography, with smaller double Double ditched Non- L5094/320795 Unknown dithced features and enclosures. A possible trackway with side ditches, but now features, Misson designated destroyed by sand and gravel quarrying.
Cropmarks at Linear features identified through aerial photography, some double ditched along with a Non- L5095/320795 Unknown Misson rectangular enclosure. They have largely been destroyed by quarrying activity. designated
Appendix K: Cultural Heritage Assessment July 2015