Augean Environmental Statement Section 73

AUGEAN SECTION 73 EAST NORTHANTS RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT APPLICATIONS MANAGEMENT FACILITY

APPENDIX ESN

EAST NORTHANTS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FACILITY. CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT. FEBRUARY 2012

AU/KCE/SPS/1612/01/ES April 2012

AU_KCEp11821 Andrew Josephs Ltd Environmental Consultants

Specialising in Cultural Heritage and EIA

East Northants Resource Management Facility

IPC document reference: WS01 0001/ENRMF/ESAPPESN

Planning Act 2008 The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009 Regulation 5(2)(a)

Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2012

E:mail [email protected] ● Telephone 0044 (0) 7990 571908

16 South Terrace, Sowerby, Thirsk, YO7 1RH

Andrew Josephs Associates is a trading name of Andrew Josephs Ltd.

Registered Office, Antrobus House, 18 College St, Petersfield, GU31 4AD. Registration no. 4547366 East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

CONTENTS 1 Introduction 4 1.1 Scope 1.2 Setting 1.3 Relevant Legislation 1.4 National Policy and Guidance 1.5 Regional Policy and Guidance 1.6 Sub-regional and Local Policy and Guidance 1.7 Methodology 1.8 Consultations 2 Cultural Heritage Databases 18 2.1 Statutorily Designated Features 2.2 Northamptonshire Heritage Environment Record 2.3 Peterborough Heritage Environment Record 3 Archaeological Background 24 3.1 Previous Archaeological Investigations within the PDA 3.2 Archaeological Investigations in the Vicinity 3.3 Archaeological Background 4. Historical Research 26 4.1 Synthesis 4.2 References 5. Impacts and Mitigation 27 5.1 Direct Impacts 5.2 Indirect Impacts 5.3 Mitigation 6. Assessment of Effects 30 6.1 Criteria used in the Assessment of Effects 6.2 Assessing Significance 6.3 Evaluation of the Significance of Predicted Effects 7. Summary 37 2

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

Figures (after page 39)

1 Location Plan 2 Zone of Theoretical Visibility showing scheduled monuments and listed building groups 3 Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings 4 Cultural Heritage Sites and Monuments within 1km of PDA 5 Location of Watching Brief in 2008

Appendices (after page 45) Appendix A Correspondence with Northamptonshire County Council Archaeological Adviser Appendix B Scheduled Monuments within 5km of PDA Appendix C Listed Structures within 2km of PDA Appendix D Glossary of Cultural Heritage Terms

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

1. Introduction

1.1 SCOPE 1.1.1 Cultural heritage is represented by a wide range of features that result from past human use of the landscape. These include historic structures, many still in use, above ground and buried archaeological monuments and remains of all periods, and artefacts of anthropological origin. In its broadest form cultural heritage is represented by the landscape and townscape itself. This report, written by Andrew Josephs BA (Hons), Cultural Heritage Consultant, presents the findings of the cultural heritage assessment for a proposed development at the East Northants Resource Management Facility (ENMRF), Stamford Road, Northamptonshire centred on National Grid Reference (NGR) TF 0080 0005. The Development Consent Order (DCO) application is by Augean South Limited and is for the alteration of existing and the construction of new facilities for the recovery and disposal of hazardous waste and disposal of low level radioactive waste. The full description of the development is contained with the Environmental and Planning Statements.

1.2 SETTING 1.2.1 The proposed development area (PDA) lies, approximately 2.5km north of the village of King’s Cliffe and 1.5km south-east of the village of Duddington. To the north of the PDA is Collyweston Great Wood, and agricultural land adjoins the western and southern boundaries. Beyond Collyweston Great Wood at a distance of 1.5km lies the southern edge of RAF Wittering. 1.2.2 The PDA lies wholly within Northamptonshire, approximately 600m west of the boundary with Peterborough City Council. The location of the PDA is shown on Figure 1.

1.3 RELEVANT LEGISLATION 1.3.1 The importance of cultural heritage is clearly recognised at both national and local levels. Certain features that are deemed to be of particular importance are given legal protection through the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (Scheduled Monuments), the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) and the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 (Hedgerows of Historic Importance). 1.4 NATIONAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE 1.4.1 In accordance with the EIA Regulations the significance of an effect should be identified as part of this cultural heritage assessment. This is achieved using a combination of the following published guidance and professional judgement. 4

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

 PPS 5 Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Planning Guide. March 2010. London.  English Heritage 2008. Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment. London.  English Heritage 2011. The Setting of Heritage Assets: English Heritage guidance.  English Heritage 2011. Seeing The History In The View: A Method For Assessing Heritage Significance Within Views  English Heritage 2008 Archaeology and Mineral Extraction. London  English Heritage 2008 Mineral Extraction and the Historic Environment. London.  Minerals and Historic Environment Forum 2008 Mineral Extraction and Archaeology: A Practice Guide

1.4.2 The main source of guidance on how cultural heritage should be assessed is given in Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (March 2010) which deals with all aspects of heritage and the historic environment, including listed buildings, conservation areas, registered parks and gardens, battlefields and archaeology. The introduction to PPS5 sets out the Government’s view of cultural heritage: 1.4.3 The Government’s overarching aim is that the historic environment and its heritage assets should be conserved and enjoyed for the quality of life they bring to this and future generations. To achieve this, the Government’s objectives for planning for the historic environment are:  to deliver sustainable development by ensuring that policies and decisions concerning the historic environment:

 recognise that heritage assets are a non-renewable resource

 take account of the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits of heritage conservation; and

 recognise that intelligently managed change may sometimes be necessary if heritage assets are to be maintained for the long term.

 to conserve England’s heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance by ensuring that: . decisions are based on the nature, extent and level of that significance, investigated to a degree proportionate to the importance of the heritage asset 5

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

. wherever possible, heritage assets are put to an appropriate and viable use that is consistent with their conservation . the positive contribution of such heritage assets to local character and sense of place is recognised and valued; and . consideration of the historic environment is integrated into planning policies, promoting place-shaping.

 to contribute to our knowledge and understanding of our past by ensuring that opportunities are taken to capture evidence from the historic environment and to make this publicly available, particularly where a heritage asset is to be lost.

1.4.4 PPS5 sets out a number of policies that it states ‘ must be taken into account in development management decisions, where relevant’. Those most relevant to this planning application are: Policy HE6: Information requirements for applications for consent affecting heritage assets 10 HE6.1 Local planning authorities should require an applicant to provide a description of the significance of the heritage assets affected and the contribution of their setting to that significance. The level of detail should be proportionate to the importance of the heritage asset and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on the significance of the heritage asset. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets themselves should have been assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary given the application’s impact. Where an application site includes, or is considered to have the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where desk-based research is insufficient to properly assess the interest, a field evaluation. HE6.2 This information together with an assessment of the impact of the proposal should be set out in the application (within the design and access statement when this is required) as part of the explanation of the design concept. It should detail the sources that have been considered and the expertise that has been consulted. Policy HE7: Policy principles guiding the determination of applications for consent relating to all heritage assets

HE7.1 In decision-making local planning authorities should seek to identify and assess the particular significance of any element of the historic 6

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

environment that may be affected by the relevant proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of: (i) evidence provided with the application (ii) any designation records (iii) the historic environment record and similar sources of information (iv) the heritage assets themselves (v) the outcome of the usual consultations with interested parties; and (vi) where appropriate and when the need to understand the significance of the heritage asset demands it, expert advice (from in-house experts, experts available through agreement with other authorities, or consultants, and complemented as appropriate by advice from heritage amenity societies).

HE7.2 In considering the impact of a proposal on any heritage asset, local planning authorities should take into account the particular nature of the significance of the heritage asset and the value that it holds for this and future generations. This understanding should be used by the local planning authority to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposals. HE7.3 If the evidence suggests that the heritage asset may have a special significance to a particular community that may not be fully understood from the usual process of consultation and assessment, then the local planning authority should take reasonable steps to seek the views of that community. HE7.4 Local planning authorities should take into account: – the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and of utilising their positive role in place-shaping; and – the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets and the historic environment generally can make to the establishment and maintenance of sustainable communities and economic vitality by virtue of the factors set out in HE3.1 HE7.5 Local planning authorities should take into account the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment. The consideration of design should include scale, height, massing, alignment, materials and use. HE7.6 Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of or damage to a heritage asset in the hope of obtaining consent, the resultant deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be a factor taken into account in any decision. HE7.7 Where loss of significance is justified on the merits of new development, local planning authorities should not permit the new 7

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

development without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred by imposing appropriate planning conditions or securing obligations by agreement.

Policy HE9: Additional policy principles guiding the consideration of applications for consent relating to designated heritage assets HE9.1 There should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets and the more significant the designated heritage asset, the greater the presumption in favour of its conservation should be. Once lost, heritage assets cannot be replaced and their loss has a cultural, environmental, economic and social impact. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Loss affecting any designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, including scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings and grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. HE9.4 Where a proposal has a harmful impact on the significance of a designated heritage asset which is less than substantial harm, in all cases local planning authorities should: (i) weigh the public benefit of the proposal (for example, that it helps to secure the optimum viable use of the heritage asset in the interests of its long-term conservation) against the harm; and (ii) recognise that the greater the harm to the significance of the heritage asset the greater the justification will be needed for any loss.

Policy HE10: Additional policy principles guiding the consideration of applications for development affecting the setting of a designated heritage asset

HE10.1 When considering applications for development that affect the setting of a heritage asset, local planning authorities should treat favourably applications that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset. When considering applications that do not do this, local planning authorities should weigh any such harm against the wider benefits of the application. The greater the negative impact on the significance of the heritage asset, the greater the benefits that will be needed to justify approval.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

HE10.2 Local planning authorities should identify opportunities for changes in the setting to enhance or better reveal the significance of a heritage asset. Taking such opportunities should be seen as a public benefit and part of the process of placeshaping.

Policy HE12: Policy principles guiding the recording of information related to heritage assets

HE12.1 A documentary record of our past is not as valuable as retaining the heritage asset, and therefore the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether a proposal that would result in a heritage asset’s destruction should be given consent. HE12.2 The process of investigating the significance of the historic environment, as part of plan-making or development management, should add to the evidence base for future planning and further the understanding of our past. Local planning authorities should make this information publicly available, including through the relevant historic environment record. HE12.3 Where the loss of the whole or a material part of a heritage asset’s significance is justified, local planning authorities should require the developer to record and advance understanding of the significance of the heritage asset before it is lost, using planning conditions or obligations as appropriate. The extent of the requirement should be proportionate to the nature and level of the asset’s significance. Developers should publish this evidence and deposit copies of the reports with the relevant historic environment record. Local planning authorities should require any archive generated to be deposited with a local museum or other public depository willing to receive it. Local planning authorities should impose planning conditions or obligations to ensure such work is carried out in a timely manner and that the completion of the exercise is properly secured.

1.4.5 The Setting of Heritage Assets: English Heritage Guidance 2011 1.4.5.1 This document sets out English Heritage guidance on managing change within the settings of heritage assets, including archaeological remains and historic buildings, sites, areas, and landscapes. 1.4.5.2 Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS 5) defines the setting of a heritage asset as ‘the surroundings in which [the asset] is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral’. 1.4.5.3 From the definition provided above, it can be understood that setting embraces all of the surroundings (land, sea, structures, features and 9

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

skyline) from which the heritage asset can be experienced or that can be experienced from or with the asset. Setting does not have a fixed boundary and cannot be definitively and permanently described as a spatially bounded area or as lying within a set distance of a heritage asset. Views on what comprises a heritage asset’s setting may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve, or as the asset becomes better understood. Construction of a distant but high building; development generating noise, odour, vibration or dust over a wide area; or new understanding of the relationship between neighbouring heritage assets may all extend what might previously have been understood to comprise setting. 1.4.5.4 Reference is sometimes made to the ‘immediate’ and ‘extended’ setting of a heritage assets, but the terms should not be regarded as having any particular formal meaning. While many day-to-day cases will be concerned with the immediate setting of an asset, development within the extended setting may also affect significance, particularly where it is large- scale, prominent or intrusive. Relationship of setting to curtilage, character and context Setting is separate from the concepts of curtilage, character and context: 1.4.5.5 Curtilage is a legal term describing an area around a building, the boundary of which is defined by matters including past and present ownership and functional association and interdependency. The setting of an historic asset will include, but generally be more extensive than, its curtilage (if it has one). 1.4.5.6 The character of a historic place is the sum of all its attributes. This may include its relationships with people, now and through time; its visual aspects; and the features, materials, and spaces associated with its history, including its original configuration and subsequent losses and changes. Heritage assets and their settings contribute to character, but it is a broader and non-statutory concept, often used in relation to entire historic areas and landscapes. 1.4.5.7 The context of a heritage asset is a non-statutory term used to describe any relationship between it and other heritage assets, which are relevant to its significance. These relationships can be cultural, intellectual, spatial or functional (English Heritage 2008a). They apply irrespective of distance, extending well beyond what might be considered an asset’s setting, and can include the relationship of one heritage asset to another of the same period or function, or with the same designer or architect.

1.5 REGIONAL POLICY Regional policy relating to cultural heritage is set out in the East Midlands Regional Plan (March 2009), policies 26 and 27. 10

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

1.6 SUB-REGIONAL AND LOCAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE Sub-regional and local policy relating to cultural heritage is set out in the Control and Management of Development DPD (adopted June 2011) and the Development and Implementation Principles SPD (adopted September 2011).

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

1.6.1 Control and Management of Development DPD The following policies are relevant to this application:

POLICY CMD7 - Natural assets and resources

1.6.1.1 Minerals and waste development should seek to (where possible) achieve a net gain in assets and resources, through:

 delivery of wider environmental benefits in the vicinity where development would adversely affect any regional or locally designated sites or other features of local interest,

 protecting and enhancing green infrastructure and strategic biodiversity networks, in particular the River Nene and other sub-regional corridors, and

 consider opportunities to contribute towards Northamptonshire Biodiversity Action Plan targets for habitats and species. 1.6.1.2 Proposals for minerals and waste development will be required to undertake an assessment (where appropriate) in order to:

 identify and determine the nature, extent, and level of importance of the natural assets and resources, as well as any potential impacts, and

 identify mitigation measures and or requirement for compensation (where necessary) to avoid, reduce, and manage potentially adverse impacts. POLICY CMD8 - Landscape character

1.6.1.3 Minerals and waste development should seek to reflect Northamptonshire landscape character. Development should mitigate potentially adverse impacts on the local character and distinctiveness of Northamptonshire landscape where necessary during the development, operational life, restoration, aftercare, and after-use. Opportunities for enhancement should be maximised through restoration, aftercare, and after- use. 1.6.1.4 Proposals for minerals and waste development will be required to undertake a landscape impact assessment (where appropriate) based on the county Environmental Character Assessment in order to identify:

 the presence of landscape values (including their nature, extent, and level of importance and determine any potential impacts,

 any necessary measures to mitigate potentially adverse impacts, and 12

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

 opportunities to protect and enhance particular features that create a specific aspect of local distinctiveness or character. POLICY CMD9 - Historic environment

1.6.1.5 Where heritage assets of significance are identified, proposals should seek to enhance Northamptonshire's historic environment through:

 careful management of heritage assets and their settings, including the mitigation of potentially adverse impacts, and

 enhancement of specific features of the historic environment, including individual heritage assets or historic landscapes, as part of the restoration scheme. 1.6.1.6 Proposals for minerals and waste development involving a site which includes heritage assets (including development within the setting of an asset), particularly those with an archaeological interest, will be required to undertake appropriate desk based and or field evaluations in order to:

 identify and determine the nature, extent, and level of the significance of each heritage asset, the contribution of its setting to that significance, as well as any potential impacts on the asset or its setting, and

 identify the requirement for a programme of post-permission works including any mitigation measures and long-term monitoring. POLICY CMD10 - Layout and design quality

1.6.1.7 The layout and overall appearance of waste management facilities, and where appropriate minerals development, will be required to demonstrate that the development:

 supports local identity and relates well to neighbouring sites and buildings,

 is set in the context of the area in which it is to be sited in a manner that enhances the overall townscape, landscape, or streetscape (as appropriate),

 utilises local building materials as appropriate,

 incorporates specific elements of visual interest, and

 builds-in safety and security.

1.6.2 The Development and Implementation Principles SPD provides additional guidance on the consideration of the historic environment in the design and restoration of minerals and waste development, as follows:

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

1.7 METHODOLOGY 1.7.1 Where there is a reason to believe that cultural heritage features may be affected by a development proposal then the first step in the preparation of the impact assessment is the collation of available information from archival sources, national and local authority records. Research was therefore undertaken at the Northamptonshire County Record Office and Historic Environment Record and, due to the proximity of the PDA to Peterborough City Council, at the Historic Environment Record for Peterborough. 1.7.2 In consultation with David Jarvis Associates the setting of the PDA in relation to designated features was considered. This was informed by the 15

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) (Figure 2). ZTV studies are based on a digital terrain model of the site and the surrounding area derived from Ordnance Survey data. Detailed digital models of the proposed development are inserted into the broader model and tested using 3D terrain modelling software (LSS) to determine the approximate extents and levels of visibility. The ZTV does not take into account the screening effects of vegetation, structures or development.

1.7.3 The PDA is visually separated from the villages of Kings Cliffe, Collyweston and Duddington by distance (at least 1.5km) and by topography and strong woodland blocks. As demonstrated on Figure 2, there is no possible visual connection between the villages, the listed buildings within them and the PDA and consequently they are discounted from further detailed assessment. Similarly, all scheduled monuments are at a distance of 2km or greater and fall outside the ZTV.

1.7.4 Since the initial assessment was carried out for the proposed development a number of structures have been listed within RAF Wittering. Figure 2 indicates that the airfield lies within the ZTV, but David Jarvis Associates have confirmed that after field survey the airfield does not lie within the Zone of Visual Significance (ZVS) for the proposed development. The ZVS shows that views are restricted to a very limited area of land, predominantly to the west, south and south east of the site.

1.7.5 Nevertheless, as these structures were only listed in July 2011 and have not previously been considered as part of the cultural heritage assessment of the proposed development, further research and assessment was carried out, as described in Sections 2 and 5, below.

1.7.6 The assessment was carried out in accordance with guidance set out in The Setting of Heritage Assets: English Heritage Guidance 2011. This recommends a broad approach to assessment, undertaken as a series of steps: Step 1: identify which heritage assets and their settings are affected; Step 2: assess whether, how and to what degree these settings make a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset(s); Step 3: assess the effects of the proposed development, whether beneficial or harmful, on that significance; Step 4: explore the way maximising enhancement and avoiding or minimising harm; Step 5: make and document the decision and monitor outcomes.

1.7.7 Usually as part of a desk-based assessment a site walkover would be undertaken. However, the whole of the PDA has been disturbed (from an archaeological perspective) during the ongoing operations. An archaeological 16

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

watching brief was undertaken in 2008 by Northamptonshire Archaeology under the current planning permission.

1.8 CONSULTATIONS Consultations were held with Lesley-Ann Mather, County Archaeological Adviser, in February 2011. Ms Mather confirmed that:

“I have checked our records and I agree with the conclusions within your Cultural Heritage document that the potential for archaeological survival within the proposed development area is low as it has been previously disturbed. Therefore no archaeological mitigation will be required.” (see Appendix A).

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

2. Cultural Heritage Databases

2.1 STATUTORILY DESIGNATED FEATURES 2.1.1 A search was made of the English Heritage, Northamptonshire County Council and Peterborough City Council databases to obtain information on Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Registered Parks and Gardens and Historic Battlefields within a distance of 2km and a distance of 5km for Scheduled Monuments. This was considered an appropriate distance based upon the evidence of the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (Figure 2). Listed Buildings 2.1.2 The nearest listed buildings to the PDA are located in the village of Duddington (Figure 3 and Appendix C, references 2-28). The settings of these buildings comprise the village itself and the broader valley slopes on which they are located. The PDA is visually separated from the village by a ridge and strong woodland blocks. Consequently the setting of these cannot be affected by the proposed development and are discounted from further detailed assessment. 2.1.3 Huskissons Lodge, (Figure 3 and Appendix C, reference 1) a Grade II listed 17th century farmhouse, lies 2km south of the PDA, to the north of King’s Cliffe. The ZTV shows that there is no visual connection between the house and the PDA, and this was confirmed on a site visit by David Jarvis Associates.

2.1.4 The nearest listed buildings at RAF Wittering lie at a distance of 1.4km to the north-east of the PDA. In total four listed structures (or groups) lie within 2km, (Figure 3 and Appendix C, references 29-32).

2.1.5 Because of the relative flatness of the landscape surrounding the airfield, the ZTV indicates that there is a potential visual connection with the PDA. However, through refining the ZTV by taking into consideration the screening effects of woodland and vegetation, and evidence from site visits, it is clear that due to the mature woodland of Collyweston Great Wood, that thoroughly screens the proposed development and which is up to 1km deep, there could be no views of the PDA from the listed buildings.

2.1.6 Consideration was therefore given to whether the PDA contributes in any way to the setting of RAF Wittering, which provides the curtilage and immediate context of the listed buildings. Historical research and mapping shows that Collyweston Great Wood is of ancient origins, and was part of the medieval royal forest of Rockingham. Since the construction of the airfield, the Wood has always provided separation from the PDA.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

2.1.7 RAF Wittering was established in 1916 for the Royal Flying Corps and saw considerable service in both World Wars; after a period as the main RAF flying school, it became a fighter aerodrome in 1935. The advent of the Cold War and the development of the atomic bomb resulted in the selection of ten existing military airfields in the early 1950s as the main bases for the V-force, which carried Britain's airborne nuclear deterrent from 1953 to 1969. Wittering is the pre-eminent example of an airfield landscape that was completely reconstructed in the second half of 1952 for the deployment of Britain's principal deterrent force. It was also the home of the Bomber Command Armament School1.

2.1.8 Collyweston Great Wood provides the south-westerly backdrop to the western end of the airfield, where in the 1950s and 60s the four listed structures and groups of structures were built as part of the anti-Soviet nuclear deterrent capability. Further structures are listed to the east, including hangars to house the nuclear bombers, at a distance of approximately 4km.

Scheduled Monuments

2.1.9 The nearest Scheduled Monument (SM) is a 15th century bridge, on the western side of Duddington and 2km from the PDA. Four SMs are at Collyweston, more than 2.8km north-west of the PDA. Three SMs are situated 3.4-3.8km south-west of the PDA. A further two SMs are located at Apethorpe, 4.2km south-east of the PDA. (Figure 3 and Appendix B, references 1-8). None of the SMs lie within the ZTV. The combination of distance and lack of visual connection indicate that the setting of the SMs cannot be affected by the proposed development and are discounted from further detailed assessment.

2.2 NORTHAMPTONSHIRE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENT RECORD 2.2.1 The Northamptonshire Heritage Environment Record (NHER) contains information on archaeological sites in the county. Those located within 1km of the boundary of the PDA are listed in Table 1 below and shown on Figure 4. This was chosen as being an appropriate area of search in order to recover information on archaeological sites and features which can place the PDA into its local context, and to help identify the potential for further, previously unrecorded features within the PDA. 2.2.2 A large number of features came from the Rockingham Forest Project including enclosures, woods, hedges, lawns and common land recorded within the parishes of Duddington and Easton-on-the Hill. Whilst these are of importance for the recreation of the medieval and post-medieval landscape, they are of limited value in relation to the PDA. HER entries have been grouped together where relevant.

1 Source: Listing description, National Heritage List. 19

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

Table 1 Northamptonshire Heritage Environment Record (NHER) Entries within 1km of PDA

HER NO FEATURE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

1846/0/1 - DITCH & BANK EARTHWORK MNN134540 2486/0/2 - POSSIBLE ROMAN BUILDING IDENTIFIED MNN128890 FROM AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY (SEE ALSO 9400) 2830/0/11 - POSSIBLE CHARCOAL BURNER’S SITE OF MNN132014 UNKNOWN DATE 2830/0/12 - POSSIBLE CHARCOAL BURNER’S SITE OF MNN132013 UNKNOWN DATE 2845 - MNN4982 POSSIBLE SETTLEMENT SITE OF UNKNOWN DATE 2845/0/1 - UNSTRATIFIED ROMAN FINDS MNN22409 2846 - MNN4983 POSSIBLE SETTLEMENT SITE OF UNKNOWN DATE 2846/0/1 - POSSIBLE ROMANO-BRITISH SETTLEMENT MNN22410 2846/0/2 - POSSIBLE STONE BUILDING OF UNKNOWN MNN22411 DATE IDENTIFIED FROM AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY 2846/0/3 - SLAG FOUND DURING FIELDWALKING OF MNN27529 UNKNOWN DATE (SEE ALSO 9399/0/0) 2847/0/1 - POSSIBLE RECTANGULAR ENCLOSURE OF MNN32458 UNKNOWN DATE IDENTIFIED FROM AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN1982 2847/0/2 - POSSIBLE ENCLOSURE OF UNKNOWN DATE MNN128886 IDENTIFIED FROM AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY 2868 - MNN5000 ROMAN RELIGIOUS RITUAL AND FUNERARY SITE (KNOWN AS SITE NN5000) 2868/1 - MNN12247 ROMAN TEMPLE (SAME GRID REFERENCE AS 20

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

ABOVE) 2868/1/0 - UNSTRATIFIED ROMAN FINDS (SAME GRID MNN28710 REFERENCE AS ABOVE) 2868/1/1 - EXCAVATION; 1953-4; ROMANO-BRITISH MNN22442 TEMPLE; SEVERAL PERIODS OF CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING HEXAGONAL & OCTAGONAL STONE BUILDINGS; LATTER WITH OPUS SIGNINUM FLOOR; ALSO PAVED AREAS & HEARTH & BURNT AREAS; PROBABLE ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES NEARBY; PARTLY BULLDOZED FOR RAF DEVELOPMENT FINDS INCLUDE ANIMAL BONES & OYSTER SHELLS & BURNT STONES & SAMIAN POT SHERDS & C1ST-C4TH POTSHERDS & IRON SLAG & WORKED STONE & INSCRIBED STONE (SAME GRID REFERENCE AS ABOVE) 2894 - MNN5020 SITE NN5020 (NO DESCRIPTION) 2894/0/1 - CHARCOAL FILLED PIT IDENTIFIED DURING MNN22494 PIPELINE DEVELOPMENT IN 1977 (SAME GRID REFERENCE AS ABOVE) 5086 - MNN137059 POSSIBLE SITE OF POST-MED DATE (NO DESCRIPTION) 5086/0/1 - POSSIBLE BUILDING OF POST-MED DATE (NO MNN114613 DESCRIPTION) 5087 ASSART FARM VISIBLE ON MAP OF 1798 AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS. IN RUINS ON 1950 OS MAP 7713/0/14 - DITCH & BANK EARTHWORK MNN134519 7713/0/54 - DITCH & BANK EARTHWORK MNN134439 8232 - MNN136254 UNCERTAIN ACTIVITY (NO DESCRIPTION) 8232/0/1 - GREGORY'S LODGE PRESENT FROM 1775 TO MNN114614 1950 BUT NOT STANDING NOW 8678/1/6 - REMOTE MUNITIONS STORES, RAF MNN116745 WITTERING AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS 9150/0/1 - POSSIBLE LAWN. CLEARING IN WOOD 21

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

MNN113064 THOUGH NOT LABELLED AS LAWN 9152/0/2 - PRECINCT OF WESTHAY" ON ENCLOSURE MNN113069 MAP. PROBABLY LAWN 9172 ROCKINGHAM FOREST PROJECT – ENCLOSURES, WOOD, HEDGES AND COMMON LAND RECORDED WITHIN PARISH OF DUDDINGTON 9173/0/1 - 'THE SHORT' – FIELDNAME MNN114729 9173 ROCKINGHAM FOREST PROJECT – LAWN, ENCLOSURES, WOOD, RECORDED WITHIN PARISH OF DUDDINGTON 9173/0/7 - CROPMARK INTERPRETED AS PART OF MNN128888 NATIONAL MAPPING PROGRAMME AS A FOOTPATH BUT SHOWN AS FIELD BOUNDARY ON 1ST EDITION OS MAP AND ON 1950S OS MAP 9174 ROCKINGHAM FOREST PROJECT – ENCLOSURES RECORDED WITHIN PARISH OF DUDDINGTON 9175 ROCKINGHAM FOREST PROJECT – COMMON LAND AND WOODS RECORDED WITHIN PARISH OF EASTON ON THE HILL 9316/0/0 - AREA OF BURNT PEBBLES, SHATTERED, AND MNN26368 CHARCOAL. REALLY OF UNKNOWN DATE- PREHISTORIC COOKING SITES? 9389/0/0 - MNN191 SIGNIFICANT FIND SCATTER OF ROMAN DATE INCLUDING BUILDING STONE AND POTTERY. 9394/0/0 - MNN197 CHARCOAL BURNING SITE 9397/1/0 - MNN199 CHARCOAL BURNING SITE 9399/0/0 - MNN115 BLACK SLAG FROM IRONWORKING SITE (SEE ALSO 2846/0/3 9400/0/0 - MNN126 POTTERY SHERDS, OCCUPATION DEBRIS, CHARCOAL AND SLAG PATCHES. POSSIBLE ROMAN IRONWORKING (SEE ALSO 2486) 9576/0/2 - POUND IN NE CORNER OF BUXTON WOOD MNN116789 9686/1/1 - POSSIBLE CHARCOAL BURNING PLATFORM MNN128889 AND MACULA (POST MEDIEVAL - 1540 AD TO 22

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

1749 AD) IDENTIFIED FROM AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY

2.3 PETERBOROUGH HERITAGE ENVIRONMENT RECORD 2.3.1 The Peterborough Heritage Environment Record was also consulted as it includes some records within Northamptonshire where they are the result of cross-county investigations, such as pipelines, or where there may be some doubt as to the precise location. At its nearest point the county boundary lies 600m east of the PDA. The records are listed in Table 2 below and shown on Figure 4.

Table 2 Peterborough Heritage Environment Record (PHER) Entries within 1km of PDA

HER No FEATURE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

50021 KNOCKER’S TEMPLE. APPROXIMATE POSITION OF STONE FOUNDATIONS OF POSSIBLE ROMAN TEMPLE FOUND IN 1953-54 BY CAPTAIN KNOCKER. THE DESCRIPTION IS THE SAME AS THE NORTHANTS SMR ENTRY 2868/1/1 - MNN22442

51109 PIPELINE WATCHING BRIEF. UNDERTAKEN IN 1999 – NO FEATURES OBSERVED AT THIS LOCATION

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

3. Archaeological Background

3.1 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN THE PDA 3.1.1 An archaeological watching brief was carried out between June and September 2008 by Northamptonshire Archaeology on the last remaining area of the East Northants RMF that was undisturbed by waste management operations. The area covered by the watching brief is shown on Figure 5. No archaeological features or deposits were identified2. 3.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS IN THE VICINITY 3.2.1 The vicinity of the PDA has been extensively examined, in particular by David Hall between 1960 and 1999. Numerous archaeological sites have been located – in particular of Roman date– including possible settlement, buildings and ironworking through fieldwalking. The National Aerial Photographic Mapping Programme covered the area. 3.2.2 A large number of landscape features were identified from the Rockingham Forest Project. Supported by the Heritage Lottery Fund and English Heritage its aim was to track the evolution of the Forest from the 10th to 20th centuries. This followed work by David Hall in locating earthwork enclosure banks and ditches. 3.2.3 One excavation is recorded in Collyweston Great Wood, 800m north of the PDA. This took place in 1953-4 and identified a Romano-British temple of several periods of construction including hexagonal & octagonal stone buildings, and associated finds.

3.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND 3.3.1 Few parts of England have been examined in as much detail as this part of Northamptonshire. The combined efforts of David Hall and the former County Archaeologist, Glen Foard, ensured that programmes of desk-based research and field-based examination mapped large numbers of sites and possible sites. 3.3.2 The result of this research suggests that the vicinity of the PDA has a strong Romano-British presence including the temple site (HER 2868, referred to in 3.2) 800m north and a probable settlement and ironworking site (HER 2846) 700 south-east of the PDA. A further, similar Roman settlement and ironworking site lies to the north-east of 2846 (HER 2486 and 9400) and may be a continuation of 2846. Both sites lie to the east of Westhay Lodge.

2 Leigh, D.J. 2008 An Archaeological Watching Brief during soil stripping on land at Slipe Clay Pit, Landfill Site, Stamford Road, Kingscliffe, Peterborough June - September 2008. Northamptonshire Archaeology. Report 08/193 24

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

3.3.3 Despite fieldwalking and aerial photographic assessment, there are no known Roman sites nearer than 500m from the PDA (HER 9389) where a significant find scatter of Roman date including building stone and pottery was located by David Hall. 3.3.4 Prehistoric sites are rare, with a single possible cooking site within the 1km study area. This was marked by burnt and cracked pebbles and identified during fieldwalking 340m north-west of the PDA. 3.3.5 The medieval and post-medieval periods have been intensively examined, both in the field by David Hall who mapped earthwork enclosure banks and ditches, and more recently by the Rockingham Forest Project. The landscape of these periods has been recreated with some success.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

4. Historical Research

4.1 SYNTHESIS 4.1.1 The following synthesis is drawn from research by Anthony Breen. It is included for background information. 4.1.2 It is evident that the general area has been the subject of several detailed studies (Petitt 1968, Hall 1992, Foard, Hall, Britnell 2003). These studies have been published and the scope for additional documentary research is therefore limited. The Northamptonshire Record Office holds relatively few documents relating to the history of the PDA. The area was formerly royal forest and many of the historic records relating to the forest in medieval and early modern period are held at the National Archives at Kew. Many of these sources have been studied and the details extracted have been included in the published works. Later the land was leased to Earl of Exeter, a member of the Cecil family. This family’s extensive archives are held at Burghley House, Stamford in Lincolnshire. 4.1.3 Until the clearances of the woodland in the nineteenth century the PDA was managed coppice woodland and had been coppiced from at least the seventeenth century onwards. The lands around the PDA were open common grazing and woodland. 4.1.4 The PDA is now located in the northern western corner of the civil parish of King’s Cliffe close to the neighbouring civil parishes of Collyweston to the north and Duddington with Fineshade to the west. The parish is described in the Victoria County History as ‘in many ways one of the most interesting in this district. A bailiwick of Rockingham Forest of which it formed a part took its name from the village. The parish is exceptionally well wooded, and nearly 2,000 acres have been brought into cultivation within the last sixty years. The large tract of woodland called Westhay in the north was an extra- parochial district in Rockingham Forest until 1861, when it was added to King’s Cliffe’. 4.2 REFERENCES Glen Foard, David Hall & Tracey Britnell The Historic Landscape of Rockingham Forest Northamptonshire County Council 2003 David Hall Open Fields in Northamptonshire Northamptonshire Record Society Vol XXXVIII 1992 Philip A. J. Pettit The Royal Forests of Northamptonshire A Study of Their Economy 1588-1714 Northamptonshire Record Society Vol XXII 1968 R.M. Serjeantson and W.R.D. Adkins editors Victoria County History Northamptonshire Vol. 2 1906 26

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

5. Impacts and Mitigation

5.1 DIRECT IMPACTS 5.1.1 The whole of the PDA has been disturbed to below levels at which archaeology could be present. There will therefore be no direct impacts on the cultural heritage resource

5.2 INDIRECT IMPACTS 5.2.1 Indirect impacts are those that do not physically affect a cultural heritage asset or landscape, but that alter the context or setting. Such impacts should take into account a number of factors including:  The type of asset or landscape  The nature and scale of the development  Working methodology  Temporality  Topography  Visibility, screening and physical separation  Proximity  The critical views of, and from the feature or landscape  Curtilage and context  Accessibility, interpretation and public appreciation 5.2.2 The PDA is visually separated from the villages of Kings Cliffe, Collyweston and Duddington by distance (at least 1.5km) and by topography and strong woodland blocks. As discussed in Section 2.1.2, 2.1.3 and 2.1.9 it can be demonstrated that there is no possible visual connection between listed buildings or scheduled monuments within them and further detailed assessment is not required.

Since the initial assessment was carried out for the proposed development a number of structures were listed within RAF Wittering in July 2011. Figure 2 indicates that the airfield lies within the Zone of Theoretical visibility (ZTV), but David Jarvis Associates have confirmed that after field survey the airfield does not lie within the Zone of Visual Significance (ZVS) for the proposed development. The ZVS shows that views are restricted to a very limited area of land, predominantly to the west, south and south east of the PDA.

Nevertheless, as these listed buildings have not previously been considered as part of this cultural heritage assessment, an assessment has been carried out, as described in Table 3, below.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

Table 3 Assessment of indirect impacts upon listed structures at RAF Wittering

Factor Comments in relation to Listed Structures at RAF Wittering

Type and significance One Grade II* and 3 Grade II structures or groups of of structures structures relating to Britain’s nuclear deterrent and constructed in the 1950s and 60s. Nature and scale of Alteration of existing and the construction of new the development facilities for the recovery and disposal of hazardous waste and disposal of low level radioactive waste within perimeters of existing facility. Working methodology Construction of new landfill void for the disposal of hazardous wastes and low level radioactive waste. Restoration Phased restoration of the site to woodland and grassland for ecological benefit and public access following the completion of landfilling. Temporality Restoration to be completed by approximately 2026. Topography RAF Wittering is situated at about 85M AOD, as is the PDA, and the land between is very gently undulating. Visibility, screening There are no views of the PDA from the listed and physical structures due to Collyweston Great Wood that separation provides a dense screen up to 1km deep. Proximity At its nearest point the proposed development lies 1.4km from nearest losted structure, and 1.7km from the furthest of the grouping at the western end of the airfield. Further listed structures lie approximately 4km to the north-east of the PDA. Critical views of, and There are no critical views to or from the proposed from the structures. development. Curtilage and Context RAF Wittering provides the curtilage and immediate context of the listed buildings. There is no historical relationship with the PDA. Accessibility, The is no public access to either the PDA or RAF interpretation and Wittering public appreciation

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

5.3 MITIGATION 5.3.1 No mitigation in relation to cultural heritage is incorporated into the proposed development.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

6. Assessment of Effects

6.1 CRITERIA USED IN THE EVALUATION OF PREDICTED EFFECTS

6.1.1 In accordance with the EIA Regulations the significance of an effect should be identified. This is achieved using a combination of published guidance3/4 and professional judgement. Four criteria have been considered in evaluating the significance of the predicted effects of the proposed development. Type of effect 6.1.2 Effects may be positive, negative, neutral (i.e. no discernible effect) or none. They may be permanent or temporary, direct or indirect. They may also be cumulative with other effects occurring in the vicinity. 6.1.3 Direct effects have a physical impact upon an archaeological site, structure or cultural heritage asset. This may lead to the partial or total destruction of that feature. 6.1.4 Indirect effects of development upon Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Registered Parks and Gardens, Historic Battlefields and other features of the cultural heritage landscape are more difficult to assess. Recent government policy includes consideration of the context (or setting) of a cultural heritage feature (or place) and how we should assess its significance.5 Probability of the effect occurring 6.1.5 An assessment is made as to the likelihood of the identified effect occurring. Probability is considered as certain, likely or unlikely. Sensitivity 6.1.6 Three categories of sensitivity are identified: high, medium and low. These are expanded upon in Table 4, below.

3 See references cited in section 1.4.1. 4 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, 1995 Volume 10, Section 6. Highways Agency Advice Note. Approaches to evaluation of significance and approach to mitigation is equally relevant to large-scale developments. 5 PPS 5, op. cit. 30

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

Table 4 Definitions of sensitivity

Sensitivity Definition

High World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Registered Historic Parks and Gardens and Registered Battlefields. Grade I Listed Buildings. Sites may also be discovered as a result of new research that are also of national importance and are candidates for scheduling. Medium Archaeological sites and features that are not considered sufficiently important or well-preserved to be protected as Scheduled Monuments, but that may be considered to be of at least regional importance. Grade II* and Grade II Listed Buildings. Conservation Areas. Low Archaeological sites and structures, and other components of the historic environment that contribute to the local landscape. Local designations.

Magnitude 6.1.7 The magnitude of change to a cultural heritage feature or landscape is considered in terms of its vulnerability, its current condition and the nature of the impact upon it. With respect to sub-surface archaeology, there may be a degree of uncertainty of the magnitude of change, and where this is the case it is noted. Magnitude is assessed as considerable, slight or none and the criteria used in this report are set out in Table 5, below.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

Table 5 Criteria for Assessing Magnitude of Change

Magnitude of Change Description of Change

Considerable Complete destruction of a well-preserved archaeological site, historic structure or element of the cultural heritage landscape Change to the setting of a cultural heritage feature such that our ability to understand the resource and its historical context is permanently changed Slight Destruction of an archaeological site or other cultural heritage feature already in degraded condition Change to the setting of a cultural heritage feature such that our ability to understand the resource and its historical context is slightly or temporarily changed None No physical effect upon an archaeological site or other feature of the cultural heritage landscape No discernible effect upon the setting of a cultural heritage feature, or our ability to understand the resource and its historical context

6.2 ASSESSING SIGNIFICANCE 6.2.1 The four criteria are considered together to reach a conclusion upon the significance of an effect taking into account any measures that are proposed to mitigate the effect. In accordance with the EIA Regulations these are quantified as significant, not significant or neutral (i.e. no change to the existing situation). In some cases it may not be possible to quantify the significance of an effect, for example due to a gap in information, and this is noted. 6.2.2 Table 6 presents a matrix of the inter-relationship of sensitivity with magnitude.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

Table 6 Inter-relationship of sensitivity with magnitude

Magnitude Considerable Slight None Sensitivity High Significant Not Neutral significant Medium Significant Not Neutral significant Low Not Not Neutral significant* significant *except effects of considerable magnitude upon statutorily protected heritage assets which are always ‘significant’

6.3 EVALUATION OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PREDICTED EFFECTS 6.3.1 The results of the evaluation of significance are drawn together in Table 7, below, together with the rationale behind the evaluation.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

This page is blank to allow back to back printing

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

Table 7 Effects and Evaluation of Significance

Effect Type of Probability Sensitivity Magnitude Significance Rationale Effect of Effect of Effect Occurring

Direct effects upon None Certain High None Neutral There will be no direct effects upon statutorily designated assets statutorily designated features of the historic environment Indirect effects upon None Certain High-Medium None Neutral The nearest listed structures (one Grade statutorily designated assets 11* and 3 Grade II) lie >1.4km north-east of the PDA at RAF Wittering. There is no visual connection with the PDA due to a strong, 1km deep woodland screen provided by Collyweston Great Wood. Neither is there any historical connection between the PDA and RAF Wittering. Other listed buildings in Duddington, Collyweston and to the north of King’s Cliffe are visually separated from the PDA by topography. The settings of these buildings comprise the villages themselves and the broader valley slopes on which they are located. The nearest Scheduled Monuments are at Duddington and Collyweston; similarly these cannot be affected by the proposed development for the same reasons.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

Effect Type of Probability Sensitivity Magnitude Significance Rationale Effect of Effect of Effect Occurring

Effects upon buried None Certain N/A None Neutral The entire PDA has been disturbed below archaeology within the PDA levels that could retain archaeological potential.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

7. Summary

7.1.1 This report, undertaken by Andrew Josephs (BA Hons), cultural heritage consultant, presents the findings of a cultural heritage assessment for a proposed development at the East Northants Resource Management Facility, Stamford Road, Northamptonshire. The report considers both direct and indirect effects upon cultural heritage. Indirect effects can occur as a result of significant changes to the setting of an historic asset or landscape, whether permanent or temporary. This is particularly relevant to designated features such as Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Registered Parks and Gardens and Historic Battlefields.

Direct Effects 7.1.2 There will be no direct effects upon cultural heritage assets or archaeology. The whole of the PDA has been disturbed during the current operations to below archaeological levels.

Indirect Effects 7.1.3 The nearest listed structures (one Grade II* and 3 Grade II) lie 1.4km or more north-east of the PDA at RAF Wittering. There is no visual connection with the PDA due to a strong, 1km deep woodland screen provided by Collyweston Great Wood. Neither is there any historical connection between the PDA and RAF Wittering. Other listed buildings in Duddington and to the north of King’s Cliffe are visually separated from the PDA by topography. The settings of these buildings comprise the villages themselves and the broader valley slopes on which they are located. The nearest Scheduled Monuments are at Duddington and Collyweston; similarly these cannot be affected by the proposed development for the same reasons.

7.1.4 It is therefore concluded that there would be no indirect impacts from the proposed development. Conclusion 7.1.5 In terms of cultural heritage, the proposed development accords with national planning policy PPS5 (2010), the East Midlands Regional Plan (2009) and local policy set out in the Northamptonshire Control and Management of Development (2011).

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

This page is blank to allow back to back printing

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

FIGURES

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

ENMRF Augean

02/2012 Location plan

Figure 1 Location Plan

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

ENMRF Augean

02/2012 See below

Based on drawing by David Jarvis Assocs

41 Figure 2 Zone of Theoretical Visibility showing scheduled monuments and listed building groups

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

Scheduled Monuments within 5km of PDA

Listed Structures within 2km of PDA

ENMRF

Augean

02/2012

Figure 3 Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings

Figure 3 Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings 42

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

ENMRF Augean

02/2012

Figure 4 Historic Environment Record Information within 1km of PDA

43 Figure 4 Historic Environment Record Information within 1km of PDA andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

ENMRF Augean

02/2012

See below

0 100 200m

Figure 5 Extent of 2008 Archaeological Watching Brief

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

APPENDICES

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

Appendix A Correspondence with Northamptonshire County Council Archaeological Adviser

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

Correspondence with Northamptonshire County Council Archaeological Adviser

From: Andrew Josephs [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 21 January 2011 12:35 To: Lesley-Ann Mather Subject: Kings Cliffe

Lesley-Ann

Further to our conversation, please find attached a first draft of the ES chapter for the Kings Cliffe Planning Application and a low-res plan showing the proposed planning application boundary and the last remaining area of soils that was stripped in 2008 under a watching brief.

I would be grateful if could confirm that you agree with our conclusion that there will be no direct impacts on archaeology and that no further mitigation will be required.

Many thanks

Andy

Andrew Josephs Ltd - Specialists in Archaeology and EIA Telephone 07990 571908 - Visit our website at www.andyjosephs.co.uk

From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 12:36:59 +0000 Subject: RE: Kings Cliffe

Andy

Sorry for the delay in responding. I can confirm that I have checked our records and I agree with the conclusions within your Cultural Heritage document that the potential for archaeological survival within the proposed development area is low as it has been previously disturbed. Therefore no archaeological mitigation will be required.

Regards

Lesley-Ann

Lesley-Ann Mather

County Archaeological Advisor

01604 237909

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

This page is blank to allow back to back printing

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

Appendix B

Scheduled Monuments within 5km of the PDA

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

Scheduled Monuments within 5km of the site

Number shown on English Heritage List Monument name Easting Northing Figure 3 Entry Number 1 Collyweston Sundial 499456 302918 1003637 2 Dovecote NW of Apethorpe Hall 502190 295593 1003645 3 Bowl Barrow North of Hill Side Spinney 497054 298936 1017544 499346 302751 4 Site of Manor House and Gardens 499070 302960 1003632 499448 302894 5 Duddington Bridge 498562 300925 1006613 Churchyard Cross in St Leonard’s Church 6 502495 295687 1018118 Yard 7 Boundary Cross 300m North of Alders Farm 498836 296939 1017621 8 Fineshade Motte and Bailey Castle and Abbey 497259 297703 1009601

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

Appendix C

Listed Structures within 2km of the PDA

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

Listed buildings within 2km of the PDA

English Number shown Building Name and description Easting Northing Designation Heritage List on Figure 3 Entry Number 1 Huskissons Lodge17th century farmhouse 501293 297762 Grade II 1066549 2 Home Farmhouse17th century farmhouse 498899 300662 Grade II 1192289 3 Braddan House late 17th century house 498928 300630 Grade II 1286692 4 Dial House built in 1726 498904 300611 Grade II 1372004 Outbuilding approximately 15 metres south of Dial House. 5 498901 300595 Grade II 1040109 17th century house, now an outbuilding and garage 6 Pear Tree Cottage17th century house 498897 300582 Grade II 1192297 Office, outbuildings and attached wall and pier 7 approximately 10 metres north of Duddington Manor. 17th 498874 300780 Grade II 1372003 century office, outbuilding and attached wall Gates and attached gatepiers approximately 10 metres east 8 498900 300768 Grade II 1192274 of Duddington Manor. 18th C. Duddington Manor, and attached wall and pier. Manor 9 498887 300755 Grade II 1040107 house built in 1633 10 Manor Farmhouse. 17th century farmhouse now house 498921 300731 Grade II 1372002 Dovecote approximately 50 metres north of Home 11 498882 300711 Grade II 1192293 Farmhouse. Late 17th century Numbers 1 and 2 and attached outbuilding. Late 15th 12 498924 300702 Grade II 1040106 century Barns approximately 20 metres north west of Home 13 498875 300693 Grade II 1040108 Farmhouse. Mid 18th century Pair of 17th C chest tombs approximately 10 metres north of 14 498777 300898 Grade II 1372001 Chancel of Church of St Mary 15 Church of St Mary. 12th to 14th century 498774 300884 Grade II* 1040104 Chest tomb and headstones approximately 5 metres south 16 498781 300871 Grade II 1040105 east of south porch of Church of St Mary 17 Stocks Hill House. Late 15th 498902 300884 Grade II 1192303 18 Corringham. 13th and 19th C. 498968 300895 Grade II 1040113

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

English Number shown Building Name and description Easting Northing Designation Heritage List on Figure 3 Entry Number

Beaumont and terrace and railings attached to main front 19 498971 300859 Grade II 1192364 built in 1828 20 Riverside Cottages, early 17th C 498810 300814 Grade II 1372007 21 Mill House, late 18th century house 498616 300974 Grade II 1372005 22 Duddington Mill, watermill now offices 498614 300941 Grade II 1040112 Dovecote, 18th century, approximately 30 metres south west 23 498687 300902 Grade II 1192350 of Church Farmhouse Outbuilding approximately 2 metres south west of Church 24 Farmhouse. 18th century outbuilding, originally probably a 498710 300918 Grade II 1372006 brewhouse or bakehouse Church Farmhouse, 17th century 2 houses now one farm 25 498723 300921 Grade II 1286661 house 26 2 Mill Street, 17th century house 498742 300915 Grade II 1040111 27 Duddington Bridge, 15th century 498568 300933 Grade II 1040110 28 Welland Bridge, medieval bridge 498564 300928 Grade II 1178275 RAF Wittering: nuclear bomb store buildings Vw16, Vw17, 29 501485 301619 Grade II 1402769 Vw18, Vw20, Vw21 and A22 RAF Wittering: nuclear fissile core stores, buildings A09, 30 501482 301667 Grade II* 1402763 A10, A11, A14, A15, A27, Vw28, A29 and A33 31 RAF Wittering: Nuclear bomb loading crane 501509 301771 Grade II 1402775 32 RAF Wittering: Electrical testing building A08 501497 301700 Grade II 1402772

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

Appendix D Glossary of Cultural Heritage Terms

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

Glossary of Cultural Heritage Terms

appraisal: Brief review (often within the planning framework) of the SMR and Historic Maps etc, to decide whether a development application has the potential for archaeology. The appraisal may or may not become a condition. archaeology: The scientific study of past human life and change through analysis of material remains that humans have left behind (from the Greek root archaeo, meaning ancient and logos, meaning study) archaeological monitoring: Archaeological monitoring involves an archaeologist being present in the course of carrying out development works (which may include conservation works), to identify and protect archaeological deposits, features or objects which may be uncovered or otherwise affected by the works. (See Watching Brief)

archaeological periods: The time-scales of the archaeological periods referred to in this report are given below. The periods are given their usual titles. It should be noted that for most cultural heritage purposes the boundaries between them are not sharply distinguished, even where definite dates based on historical events are used. Subdivisions within periods are not considered separately.

Prehistoric: Palaeolithic (c. 500,000 BC – c.10,000 BC) Prehistoric: Mesolithic (c. 10,000 BC – c. 4,300BC) Prehistoric: Neolithic (c. 4,300 BC – c. 2,300BC) Prehistoric: Bronze Age (c. 2,300 BC – c. 600 BC) Prehistoric: Iron Age (c. 600 BC – c. AD 43) Romano-British (c. AD 43 – c. AD 410) Anglo-Saxon (AD 410 – AD 1066) Medieval (AD1066 – AD 1485) Post-medieval (AD1485 to present day)

aerial photograph (APs): Photographs taken from the air and used to identify archaeological sites either by low light for upstanding monuments or by differential crop growth on sites within arable fields. 55

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

artefact : An object or part of an object which has been used or created by a human and provides physical clues to the activity carried out by humans in the area of discovery assemblage: a group of artefacts found together in a single location such as a grave or pit.

conservation area: an area (usually urban or the core of a village) considered worthy of preservation or enhancement because of its special architectural or historic interest, "the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance," as required by the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 consultant : An expert providing objective and independent advice to the applicant/developer on the basis of professional standards. contractor : A person or organisation commissioned to undertake archaeological research and fieldwork either to a brief or general requirement for archaeological investigation set by a planning archaeologist. cropmark : An archaeological site no longer visible on the ground due to the removal of upstanding remains (often by ploughing). The sites are recorded from Aerial Photographs by differential crop growth over buried features such as pits, ditches and walls

cultural resource : Broad definition of a feature, site, structure or other form of heritage element that is deemed to be of value to the country either on a local, regional or national level. As with all resources, this term relates to both the fragile and irreplaceable nature of the resource. curatorial archaeologist : An archaeologist with responsibility for management of the archaeological resource. The work of such organisations or individual is one of cultural resource management. County Archaeologists, Planning Archaeologists, Sites and Monuments Record staff, English Heritage, Historic Scotland and CADW are all within this role. designation: The various pieces of legislation used for legally protecting heritage assets from damage and destruction are grouped under the term ‘designation’

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

desk-based assessment (DBA) : An assessment of both the known and potential archaeological resource within a specified area. A study is carried out on available sources such as SMRs, Map Evidence, Documentary Sources Aerial Photographs. The study will provide a background for a decision to be reached on the potential archaeological resource in a local, regional, national context within the review area. English Heritage (EH): The government agency charged with the protection and care of the monuments and heritage resources of England environmental archaeology : The study of the interface between the environment of a locality and the human activity within the area, accomplished through the study of soils, plant and animal remains. excavation : Intrusive fieldwork with a clear purpose, which examines and records archaeological deposits, features and structures and recovers artefacts, ecofacts and other remains within a specified area or site. This will lead to both a further programme of Post Excavation and Publication and perhaps further excavation. evaluation : A limited programme of non-intrusive and/or intrusive fieldwork, which determines the presence or absence of archaeological features, structures, deposits, artefacts or ecofacts within a specified area. This may take the form of an intrusive investigation of a percentage of the site, geophysical or topographical survey. The results of this investigation will establish the requirements for any further work. fieldwalking: A form of evaluation that provides details of surface features visible during a physical search of the site area and is a systematic observation of the ground surface during. The recovery of artefacts that may indicate periods of occupation is also an important part of this evaluation (also termed walkover survey) geophysical survey : A method of seeing beneath the ground surface using a number of methodologies, including Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), Resistivity and Magnetometry. It takes a specialist to both use the field equipment and interpret the data. When used with Topographic survey the results can be very effective, though it is very dependent on soil and geological conditions within the site area.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

historic environment record (HER) : A database (usually computerised and sometimes online) of all archaeological sites and find locations from a given area, usually a county, maintained by the County Council, and adopted by formal resolution. IFA : Institute for Archaeologists. It is an organisation for archaeologists in the United Kingdom that promotes professional standards and ethics for conserving, managing, understanding and promoting heritage. in situ: in its original place listed building: a building that has been placed on the Statutory List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest. In England and Wales the authority for listing is granted to the Secretary of State by the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. natural: in archaeological terms this refers to the undisturbed natural geology of a site OD: Ordnance datum; used to express a given height above sea-level. (AOD Above Ordnance Datum) OS: Ordnance Survey scheduled monument a 'nationally important' archaeological site or historic building, given protection against unauthorized change. The protection to scheduled monuments is given under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. stratigraphy : the building block of archaeology, where careful excavation and recording determines the precise sequence of events that took place to create the deposits, cuts and features that have been uncovered. test pits : a series of small (usually 1m x 1m) excavations to give an indication of the underlying soil / deposit profiles. These may take place prior to full evaluation, or may be all that is required on the site. topographic survey : A detailed analysis of the ground surface of the site, a contour plan (from a flat 2D plan to a 3D computer model) is produced and can help to recognise buried landscape features or features that are too slight or too large to see with the naked eye.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy East Northants RMF February 2012 Cultural Heritage

trial trenches : see evaluation watching brief : A formal programme of observation and investigation conducted during any operation carried out for non- archaeological reasons within a specified area or site on land or underwater, where there is a possibility that archaeological deposits may be disturbed or destroyed. The programme will result in the preparation of a report and ordered archive.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy