9. Archaeology

Introduction

9.1 This Chapter reports the outcome of the assessment of likely significant environmental effects arising from the Proposed Development in relation to archaeological resource.

9.2 The Chapter describes the consultation that has been undertaken during the EIA, the scope of the assessment and assessment methodology, and a summary of the baseline information that has informed the assessment.

9.3 A number of effects have been avoided in advance of the assessment and where relevant, these are clearly stated. The assessment reports on the likely significant environmental effects, the further mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects, or further enhance beneficial effects. The conclusions are provided both in terms of the residual effects and whether these are considered significant.

9.4 This Chapter is intended to be read as part of the wider ES with particular reference to the introductory chapters of this ES (Chapters 1 - 5), as well as Chapter 19: Cumulative Effects Assessment.

Policy and Guidance Framework

9.5 The assessment has been prepared to comply with relevant policy and guidance which is listed below and set out in more detail in the Archaeological Assessment (Appendix 9.1):

9.6 Chapter 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019) and supporting National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) (2019).

9.7 Swindon Borough Council Local Plan (2015), in particular Policy EN10.

Guidance

9.8 Historic England Good Practice Advice Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision Taking in the Historic Environment (2015);

9.9 Historic England Advice Note 12: Statements of Heritage Significance: Analysing Significance in Heritage Assets (2019);

9.10 Historic England Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance: For the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment (2008);

9.11 Chartered Institute for Archaeologists Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk- Based Assessment (2017); and

9.12 International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties (2011).

9.1

Summary of Consultation

9.13 Table 9.1 provides an overview of the consultation that has informed the design of the Proposed Development, the consideration of likely significant effects and the methodology for assessment.

Table 9.1: Summary of Consultation

Body / Contact Date and Form of Summary Organisation Consultation Historic England Hugh Beamish 16/10/2018, Scoping Expects the ES to contain a Opinion thorough assessment of the likely effects of the Proposed Development on the historic environment. Wiltshire Melanie 16/10/2018, Scoping Advised that it is an County Council Pomeroy- Opinion archaeologically sensitive area. Archaeological Kellinger Expects to see a comprehensive Service chapter on cultural heritage including the results from a programme of archaeological evaluation. Historic England Hugh Beamish 17/01/19, Written Recognises assessments of Built Post-Application Heritage and Archaeology are Advice undertaken in different contexts but reference to discrepancies, and recommendation that these disciplines are coordinated closely. Historic England Hugh Beamish 17/05/2019, Written Acknowledges satisfactory Post-Application clarification of methodology used in Advice the ES.

Scope of the Assessment

9.14 An EIA Scoping Report was submitted to SBC in August 2018, as presented in Appendix 1.1. This section provides confirmation on the scope of the assessment presented within this Chapter. The scope of this chapter relates only to buried archaeological features within the 500m radius study area; all above ground heritage assets and potential effects on setting are assessed in Chapter 8: Built Heritage.

Effects which are Not Significant 9.15 The following effects, which are not significant, were identified as part of the EIA Scoping Report and are not considered further in this Chapter. The effects are listed in this section with the supporting evidence outlined below.

9.2

Direct and indirect effects on buried assets during operation 9.16 The Proposed Development will have no appreciable effect on the archaeological resource during the operational phase of the development. No below-ground disturbance that might affect archaeological features is anticipated beyond the construction phase. Potential impacts resulting from compaction as a result of car park creation and usage or changes to drainage and water levels that might result in harm to surviving organic deposits will have already been mitigated through design and no on-going effects are anticipated.

9.17 Since the submission of the EIA Scoping Report (Appendix 1.1) in August 2018 the following additional effects are not considered significant and the evidence to support this is outlined below.

Indirect effect on buried deposits (settings) 9.18 No significant impact has been identified on the setting of below-ground archaeological deposits within the Site. The Roman farmstead has no appreciable presence in the landscape or any apparent associative elements; consequently, the setting provides no contribution to the heritage significance of this asset.

Likely Significant Effects 9.19 The following effects are considered elsewhere in the ES:

• Effects relating to above ground heritage assets, including listed buildings and Conservation Areas are assessed in Chapter 8: Built Heritage.

9.20 The following effects are considered significant and are reported within this Chapter:

• Construction:

‒ Direct effect on buried archaeological deposits

Extent of the Study Area

9.21 The study area comprises the area of the Site plus 500m from the redline boundary for Historic Environment Record (HER) data.

Background Studies to Inform the ES

9.22 The following background studies have informed this Chapter:

• Baseline desk-based assessment (Appendix 9.1) - This survey has been undertaken to ascertain the potential impact on archaeological assets within the Site and the surrounding areas in accordance with the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists’ (CIfA) Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-based Assessments and with reference to Historic England and ICOMOS Guidance. It includes consultation with the Swindon and Wiltshire HER and with Historic England (Archives).

• Two geophysical surveys have been undertaken within the study area and the wider environs in May 2017 (Archaeological Surveys Ltd Ref. No. J669, 2017) and June 2017 (Archaeological Surveys Ltd Ref. No. J714, 2017) by SBC in regard to the Eastern Villages Southern Connector Road and as part of this Proposed Development.

9.3

• An archaeological field evaluation (New Eastern Villages Southern Connector Road, Wanborough, 2018) has been undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology on behalf of SBC in regard to the Southern Connector Road; the report is not yet publicly available, but relevant trench locations associated with this work have been identified and the general results communicated by the County Archaeologist.

• A second scheme of evaluation trenching has been carried out as part of the Proposed Development encompassing both Phase 1 and Phase 2 (Foundations Archaeology Ref. 1337; Appendix 9.2).

Assessment Methodology

Methodology 9.23 The archaeological assessment involves a desktop study of presently available archaeological, historical, aerial photographic and other relevant information. Government guidance on heritage (NPPF) encourages a proportionate consideration of the significance of any known or potential heritage assets present within a site, and the effect of the Proposed Development upon that significance, where development is being considered, prior to formal planning applications being submitted. This allows an assessment of the implications of any development proposal. This informs the decision as to whether heritage assets with an archaeological interest are likely to be present, whether a field evaluation is considered necessary, and may contribute to the development of an appropriate mitigation strategy if required.

9.24 The value of archaeological remains resides primarily in their evidential value. The degree to which the buried resource is likely to contribute to knowledge is judged in this report in relation to local, regional or national contexts, as specified in the CIfA Standards and Guidance.

9.25 The methodology is drawn from the Chartered Institute for Archaeologist’s Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-based Assessments and with reference to Historic England Guidance, including The Setting of Historic Assets, Managing Significance in Decision Taking in the Historic Environment and Conservation Principles and Cultural Heritage Management Plans in Section 6, Part 2, Volume 10 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges by the Highways Agency. The methodology has changed slightly from that set out in the Scoping report in order to reflect current best-practice.

9.26 Given the nature of heritage assets, this assessment process involves a degree of subjective interpretation based on existing data sources and professional judgement. This is particularly the case when assessing the potential presence and likely significance of buried archaeological deposits that may still exist within a site. The assessment of the significance and the effect on above ground heritage, including on their settings, similarly involves a degree of interpretation and professional judgement because different elements of a heritage asset or its setting contribute differentially to its significance. How the significance of a heritage asset is likely to be affected by a set of development proposals will be contingent upon the nature of those proposals and professional judgement is required in order to gauge likely effects.

9.27 The actual archaeological resource, which may be present, is buried beneath the modern ground surface and the assessments of potential and significance are extrapolations from

9.4

known data both within and around the study area using the results of desk-based assessment, geophysical survey and archaeological evaluation trenching.

9.28 In assessing the below-ground archaeological and significance potential of the Site, the criteria specified in Table 9.2 and Table 9.3 were used. The criteria used for tabulated data/criteria have been modified from those used in the desk-based assessment to ensure consistency of terminology across the ES, comparison of effects and a robust cumulative assessment, without loss of technical accuracy.

Table 9.2: Table of Archaeological Potential and Assessment Criteria

Potential Criterion High Archaeological features and finds are likely or very likely to be present, with features occurring frequently and having high coherence. Structural evidence is likely. Medium-High Archaeological features and finds are probable, with likely coherent groupings and possibly structures. Medium Archaeological features and finds are likely to be present and may include coherent groupings. Low-Medium Archaeological features and finds may be present but are likely to occur only infrequently and may have poor coherence. Low Archaeological features and finds may be present but are likely to be infrequent or rare. Negligible Archaeological features and finds are unlikely to be present.

Table 9.3: Importance/sensitivity of Archaeological (below-ground) Assets

Value Descriptors High World Heritage Sites. Assets that are of acknowledged international importance. Scheduled Monuments. Undesignated assets of schedulable quality and importance. Medium Local authority designated sites. Non-designated sites or other assets of regional importance. Low Non-designated assets of local importance. Non-designated sites or assets with low coherence and poor preservation. Negligible Non-designated assets with very little surviving coherence and very poor preservation.

9.29 Where archaeological features are statutorily or non-statutorily designated, this can assist in the grading of their significance. For example, Scheduled Monuments are of national importance, whilst locally designated archaeological sites are of local importance. However, not all archaeological features are designated. To assist in assessing the significance of these

9.5

features, the relevant criteria, as set out in Scheduled Monuments guidance (DCMS 2013), referring to determining the suitability of a site for scheduling, provide useful guidance. These criteria include:

• Period;

• Rarity;

• Documents/Finds;

• Group Value;

• Survival/Condition;

• Fragility/Vulnerability;

• Diversity; and

• Survival/Potential.

9.30 Assessing the effect of development proposals on the significance of heritage assets employs a two-step process:

(a) Identification of the importance of known and potential heritage features; and

(b) Magnitude of the effect.

9.31 Historic England has produced guidance (Statements of Heritage Significance: Analysing Significance in Heritage Assets, 2019) on assessing the significance of heritage assets, which considers significance in terms of a series of values that can be summarised as follows:

(a) Archaeological Interest: There will be archaeological interest in a heritage asset if it holds, or potentially holds, evidence of past human activity worthy of expert investigation at some point.

(b) Architectural and artistic interest: These are interests in the design and general aesthetics of a place. They can arise from conscious design or fortuitously from the way the heritage asset has evolved. More specifically, architectural interest is an interest in the art or science of the design, construction, craftsmanship and decoration of buildings and structures of all types. Artistic interest is an interest in other human creative skills, like sculpture.

(c) Historic Interest: An interest in past lives and events (including pre-historic). Heritage assets can illustrate or be associated with them. Heritage assets with historic interest not only provide a material record of our nation’s history, but can also provide meaning for communities derived from their collective experience of a place and can symbolise wider values such as faith and cultural identity.

9.32 Other guidance utilised for the project includes the Historic England publications Good Practice Advice in Planning, Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment (2015) and Good Practice Advice in Planning, Note 3: The Setting of Historic Assets (2017). Although no World Heritage Sites are affected by the Proposed Development,

9.6

consideration has also been given to the Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties (ICOMOS 2011).

9.33 Having determined the significance of any known or potential heritage asset, the assessment of likely potential and effects of the development upon heritage assets can be undertaken using the scale of significance, which are based on the relevant sections in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, which provides the framework generally utilised for the production of tabulated assessment criteria for use in an Environmental Impact Assessment (Highways Agency 2020). The framework criteria have been modified to ensure consistency with the wider Environmental Statement.

9.34 The original tabulated assessment criteria utilised are provided in the desk-based assessment (Appendix 9.1).

9.35 As archaeology is a finite and irreplaceable resource, for which the preferred option is preservation in situ, it is generally considered that there can be no substantial beneficial effects of proposals to archaeological resources.

9.36 The NPPF draws the distinction between substantial and less than substantial harm to the heritage value of assets affected by development proposals. No guidance is offered in the NPPF as to the threshold between the two. The assessment of effects on all heritage assets whether designated or non-designated has been calculated using Tables 9.2-9.5. These are based on the relevant section of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Highways Agency 2020), which provides the framework generally utilised for the production of tabulated assessment criteria for use in an Environmental Impact Assessment. The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) has produced a similar scheme in which substantial impacts affect assets to such a degree that they are ‘totally altered’.

Reporting of the Environmental Effect and Significance Criteria 9.37 The following table sets out the magnitude of change criteria which are based on the DMRB (Highways Agency 2020) as the accepted source of tabulated data relating to archaeology and modified to ensure consistency with the wider Environmental Statement.

Table 9.4: Magnitude of change

Significance Description of impact criteria criteria Large Beneficial change: None Adverse change: Change to most or all key archaeological materials, such that the resource is totally altered. Adverse effects caused to areas of high archaeological potential, Archaeological Priority Areas, Scheduled Monuments, and to other archaeological sites of importance. Medium Beneficial change: None Adverse change: Changes to many key archaeological materials, such that the resource is clearly modified. Adverse effects would occur on archaeological resources at a local level by groundwork that would have a detrimental impact on archaeological deposits but would leave some of the resource in situ.

9.7

Significance Description of impact criteria criteria Small Beneficial change: A change in land use or management to enhance the preservation of the identified archaeological resource. Adverse change: Change to key archaeological materials, such that the asset is slightly altered, including small areas of known or potential resources at a local level or where the archaeological resource is very truncated or fragmented. The removal of the resource would not affect future investigation and may increase archaeological knowledge. Negligible Very minor changes to archaeological assets. Mitigation may protect the resource from adverse effects.

9.38 The effects of the proposed development are summarised in the following table.

Table 9.5: Significance of Effects Matrix

Value/Significance

High Medium Low Negligible

Large Major Moderate to Minor to Negligible Major Moderate

Medium Moderate to Moderate Minor Negligible Major

Small Minor to Minor Minor to Negligible

Magnitude of Impact Impact of Magnitude Moderate Negligible

Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Baseline Conditions

9.39 The Site comprises a number of agricultural units, within which parts of the 19th century field pattern can be discerned. Previous archaeological and geophysical assessment and survey have identified a number of buried archaeological features within a small part of the Site area in the form of a series of enclosures representing part of a Roman farmstead which lies predominantly to the west of the existing road, which bisects the asset. The farmstead is broadly connected to a wider area of Roman settlement identified during works on the New Eastern Villages and Southern Connector Road schemes and represent activity related to the hinterland of the scheduled Roman town, which lies outside the study area at 1.3km to the north. On the basis of the aerial photographic, geophysical and trial trenching surveys, the greater part of the Site appears to be devoid of archaeological interest, although buried evidence for discrete features of Roman date may survive in some localised areas along with medieval agricultural activity predominantly in the form of ridge-and-furrow.

9.8

9.40 The online British Geology Viewer defines the bedrock for the Site as ‘Gault formation - mudstone’. No superficial deposits for the site are recorded. Preliminary ground investigations at the site have confirmed the presence of the gault formation beneath a topsoil measuring between 0.25 and 0.5m deep.

9.41 This section also considers the archaeological and historical background to the Site and the study area, examines the potential for the presence of currently unknown archaeological features to be present and provides an indication of likely significance.

Designated and Non-designated Assets 9.42 There are no designated archaeological features within the area of the Site. The closest scheduled monuments both lie in excess of 1km from the Site and the proposals have no direct or indirect physical impact upon them. Settings issues with regard to these assets were considered in the Built Heritage Assessment and scoped out as not significant.

9.43 Non-designated archaeological assets are currently known from within the Site, particularly along the western edge of the Site in the form of a Roman farmstead and associated features, as well as from within the remainder of the Site in the form of a number of undated features in the form of ditches and pits. There is some evidence that these relate to Medieval and Post-medieval agricultural activity, but this appears to survive only in a fragmentary form in a very limited number of trenches, with no overall coherence across the Site.

Historic Landscape Character 9.44 The Site is described in the Historic Characterisation Landscape Project (HLCP) as 'Amalgamated Fields' and is allocated the unique ID HWI6549. The Site is shown on the 1st edition OS map as well-established farmland by the later 19th century. The fields comprising the Site have seen a degree of modification leading to the loss of a number of historic field boundaries and the amalgamation of eight early fields into four Modern ones. Elements of the historic form can be discerned in the Modern layout on the external boundaries of the Site, which are broadly unchanged since the late 19th century.

Prehistoric Activity 9.45 A search of the HER returned four entries relating to Prehistoric activity within the study area, including and ring-ditches within 150m, as shown on aerial photographs and geophysical survey results but none within the Site. There are also significant Prehistoric monuments in the wider Wiltshire Landscape, particularly Liddington hillfort. Aerial photographic, geophysical and archaeological evidence indicates that the site fell within an agricultural landscape from at least the Medieval period and is likely to have been utilised in a similar manner in the later Prehistoric and Roman periods. Field evaluation within the Site has identified limited evidence for Prehistoric activity, all of which was recovered in close proximity to the Site of the Roman farmstead suggesting that this area may have been more favourable for settlement during the period. The absence of evidence for prehistoric activity across the greater part of the Site suggests that it was likely to have been either unimproved marsh or utilised as grazing or agricultural land during this period. A number of other undated features are known from within the Site but, on the basis of the available evidence, appear to be of Medieval and/or Post-Medieval date and may form evidence for the highly fragmented survival of agricultural activity. Other undated features are known from the immediate vicinity of the Site that may be datable to the Prehistoric period.

9.9

9.46 Based on the available evidence, there is, therefore, a low potential for the survival of Prehistoric finds and features outside the identified focal point on the western edge of the Site. Any such surviving features would have been truncated by later agricultural activity. Modern farming activity may potentially result in a slight on-going degree of harm to these features. Features relating to agricultural land use would be of local/regional importance, while the presence of settlement/ritual activity would be of at least regional importance and should therefore be considered medium-high in terms of heritage sensitivity. The heritage importance of stray finds associated with Prehistoric periods is, however, predicted to be low-medium.

Roman Activity 9.47 The HER records a number of finds and features relating to the Roman period. These include a building with various paddocks and enclosures on the western edge of the Site, which would appear to represent a farmstead lying predominantly to the west of the Site boundary on the western side of the road known as The Marsh. Geophysical survey and field evaluation (trenching) have demonstrated that elements of the farmstead extend into the Site in the form of a number of enclosures, which are likely to represent areas for storage and/or animal pens; some evidence exists that some timber-post structures may have been present within the enclosures. The geophysical surveys, which are supported by the existing trial trenching, also indicate that there is very little archaeological evidence of this period outside of these enclosures and no such additional evidence was identified by the subsequent evaluation trenching. The evidence therefore suggests that the greater part of the Site would have been used as agricultural land, perhaps as pasture given the water levels within the Site and apparent absence of field divisions. The few features indicative of field divisions identified by the field evaluation, none of which contained dateable artefactual material, appear to be either directly or indirectly associated with Medieval and Post- medieval agricultural activity. The absence of identifiable evidence for Roman field systems supports the likelihood that the area of the Site was largely unenclosed during the Roman period and that, outside the known farmstead, there is very little scope for the recovery of coherent activity.

9.48 A number of undated features are known from the immediate vicinity of the Site and may be datable to the Roman period. The farmstead, along with the proximity of the Cunetio Roman road to the west, Ermin Street through Wanborough village to the east and the town of Durocornovium, which lies outside the study area approximately 1.3km to the north, supports the interpretation that the wider Site was in use for agricultural purposes during this period.

9.49 Based on the available evidence, the Site is therefore considered to have low potential to yield archaeological features and finds dating to the Roman period outside of the identified limits of the farmstead, which is of regional importance. Features relating to agricultural land use would be of local/regional importance, while the presence of further settlement/ritual activity would be of at least regional importance and should therefore be considered medium-high in terms of heritage sensitivity, particularly if it can be demonstrated to be associated with the hinterland of the scheduled town. The heritage importance of stray finds associated with the Roman periods is, however, predicted to be low-medium.

Early Medieval (Anglo-Saxon) Activity 9.50 A search of the HER returned two records for the Early Medieval period within the 500m search area. Wanborough is listed in the 1086 Domesday survey as being held by the Bishop

9.10

of Winchester and was a relatively rich and important estate. The village is believed to have an Early Medieval/Saxon origin (MWI20202) and could date from any period after the area fell to Saxon control in AD 556. Saxon settlement in the area is likely to have included scattered homesteads, prior to the nucleation of settlement that took place during the Medieval period, although given the wealth of the estate, it is possible that a significant Saxon settlement was present at the site(s) of the historic village(s), with field systems extending into the Site.

9.51 However, although Saxon finds and features cannot be entirely ruled out; on the basis of the available evidence, the potential to recover Early Medieval period finds and features is judged negligible-low and they are not expected, although their importance would be at least regional given the limited evidence available for activity of this period and their heritage sensitivity would be low-medium for stray finds and medium-high for settlement or ritual activity.

Medieval Activity 9.52 The HER returned a number of entries relating to the Medieval period. Wanborough itself is listed in the HER as being an Early Medieval Settlement and is mentioned in the Domesday survey of 1086 as in the ownership of the Bishop of Winchester; the manor remained wealthy and important during the Medieval period. The Site itself was clearly under agricultural cultivation throughout this period, as evinced by extensive areas of ridge-and- furrow cultivation within and around the Site shown on LiDAR, but may have partially remained marshland or pasture as is likely to have been the case in the earlier periods.

9.53 The Site is located to the west of the historic core of the Medieval settlement of Wanborough and south of the moated site at Court Close. A grant of land at Inland to Warnage Manor for the endowment of St. Katherine’s Chapel suggests that there was a farm in existence by the mid-late 13th century and the Site is therefore likely to have been in agricultural usage by this time. Historic maps further suggest that the Site was under agricultural use prior to the late 18th or early 19th century. The presence of ridge and furrow around the Site, observable on both aerial photographs and LiDAR data suggests that if it was exploited for agriculture during the Medieval period, it is likely to have been under a standard three-field system and thereby often under arable cultivation. No definite evidence of this activity was identified during trial trenching in the field evaluation phase, although it is possible that the undated features present to the east side of the track running southeast from Inlands farm may be related to ridge-and-furrow. These features may have survived in the margins of the field where not so heavily impacted upon by Post-medieval and Modern ploughing. The Site has been under arable for much of its recent history and this later activity appears to have disturbed, altered, truncated or removed entirely any agricultural features relating to the Medieval period across the greater part of the Site. Stray Medieval finds will have worked their way on to Site through manuring practice and will probably be present, although only a single sherd of medieval pottery was recovered during the evaluation. Nevertheless, the presence of Medieval finds and features relating to other activities cannot be discounted entirely, although these are not anticipated.

9.54 Based on the available evidence, the potential for Medieval finds and features to be present within the Site is consequently assessed as low, with fragmented agricultural features and stray finds the most likely category of evidence to be present. Stray finds are only likely to be of local interest and be of generally of low importance. Any agricultural remains from this period are most likely to be of local importance with some potential regional interest,

9.11

although the baseline conditions within the Site are likely to have significantly circumscribed their evidential value. The predicted sensitivity of any remains, if present, is therefore considered low.

Post-Medieval Activity 9.55 There is considerable post medieval period activity within the study area, although this is mostly represented by historic buildings and farms/outfarms. Historic maps suggest that there has been a farm at Inlands since 1887 at the latest and this is mentioned in the HER as a 19th century farmstead (MWI68143). A Medieval farm may have existed in the area, but no evidence exists – beyond the place name – to link it to the present Inlands Farm.

9.56 Historic maps suggest that during the latter part of the period the Site is likely to have been under arable cultivation. Post-medieval agricultural remains, including an outfarm (MWI68145), as well as a number of field boundaries are shown on early Ordnance Survey mapping, LiDAR, aerial photography and geophysical survey, but have since been removed. Limited evidence for one of these early field boundaries was recovered during the evaluation, indicating that they have been predominantly destroyed by the modern baseline condition of agricultural activity; a limited number of features in Trenches 21, 22 and 27 on the northern edge of the proposed Phase 1 building appear to be associated with one of these early boundaries, but other trenches sampling the same line were devoid of archaeological interest. Stray Post-medieval finds are also likely to have worked their way on to the Site through manuring practices and as refuse from nearby occupation.

9.57 Based on the available evidence, particularly given the likely survival of agricultural features and the possibility of stray Post-medieval finds being present within the Site, the potential of the Site to yield material from the Post-medieval period is considered low, outside the poorly preserved field boundary. Post-medieval stray finds are only likely to be of local interest and be of generally of low importance. Any agricultural remains from these later periods are most likely to be of local importance with some regional interest, although the baseline conditions within the Site are likely to have circumscribed their evidential value. If traces of the demolished Post-medieval outfarm are still present, it is likely to be of only local interest. The predicted sensitivity of any remains, if present, is therefore considered low.

Modern Activity 9.58 Modern material has almost certainly worked its way on to the Site and, along with drainage features, is to be expected. The potential for Modern material is considered to be high, but of negligible sensitivity.

Future Baseline

9.59 In the event that the Proposed Development is not implemented the modern agricultural regime will continue to form the baseline conditions, without any significant evolution. Retention of an agricultural regime is likely to result in a degree of on-going adverse impact on the identified archaeological features on the western margin as modern ploughing techniques may act to further erode any remains, given the shallow depth of the surviving archaeology from the existing ground surface. Additional harm may also accrue to the identified Roman farmstead through construction of the proposed Southern Connector Road.

9.12

Sensitive Receptors

9.60 The following sensitive receptors have been identified and assessed within the ES:

• Buried archaeological assets within the Site.

Primary and Tertiary Mitigation

Construction Phase 9.61 The following primary and tertiary mitigation measures, which have been evaluated as part of the construction phase assessment, are outlined below:

• Primary mitigation:

- No primary mitigation has been identified with regard to the Site.

• Tertiary mitigation:

- Archaeological monitoring of groundworks associated with the construction of the car parking and/or appropriate archaeological excavation where impact cannot be avoided.

Operation Phase 9.62 The following primary and tertiary mitigation measures, which have been evaluated as part of the operation phase assessment, are outlined below:

• The Proposed Development has been prepared in order to minimise impact on the archaeological resource in as much is practicable by preserving the main identified focus of Roman activity within the Site, either through avoidance or beneath a proposed car parking area. No additional mitigation is required during the operational phase based on the assumption that suitable mitigation will be implemented during the pre-construction and construction phase to avoid a change in the existing drainage regime that may affect the level of moisture within archaeological features.

Assessment of Effects, Secondary Mitigation and Residual Effects

Construction Phase 9.63 The proposals for the Site have the potential to result in the disturbance of known and presumed archaeological features, particularly along the western boundary where Prehistoric and Roman features have been identified, unless these areas can be entirely excluded from built development and/or inappropriate planting. Detailed plans for Phase 1 and parameter plans for Phase 2 have been provided in relation to this report and it may be assumed that the development will require, inter alia, soil stripping, excavation works for footings, services, access roads, balancing ponds and landscaping. These works will pertain across the relevant parts of the Site, albeit there will be areas of open space, as well as extensive areas of car parking, which may not penetrate deeply into underlying deposits.

Direct effect on buried deposits 9.64 The potential effects of the Proposed Development may vary from neutral/negligible to major adverse depending on the nature of surviving archaeological deposits and the precise nature of the proposed construction activity. Existing intrusive (trial trenching) and non-

9.13

intrusive survey (geophysical and aerial survey) strongly suggests that the areas of highest potential are present in a limited area on the western margin of the Site. This area of the Site however contains some of the main development proposals and processes, including the excavation of balancing ponds. The unmitigated effects on these archaeological deposits would consequently vary between moderate to substantial adverse.

9.65 In accordance with the results of the geophysical and trial trenching surveys, there appear to be virtually no archaeological features outside of the area immediately around the Roman settlement.

9.66 The sensitivity of the buried archaeological assets within and in the immediate vicinity of the Site in the form of localised Prehistoric activity and Roman settlement (as identified in the Section above) is considered to be high. The magnitude of change is considered to be large. On this basis there is likely to be a significant direct impact (through physical harm to archaeological deposits) or indirect impact (through changes to the drainage regime leading to potential loss of organic remains). Any measurable impact would result in a permanent, irreversible, adverse effect which is considered to be moderate-major unless suitable mitigation is in place.

9.67 The sensitivity of the remaining areas of the Site is considered to be negligible. The magnitude of change is considered to be small. On this basis there is likely to be a direct, permanent, irreversible adverse effect that is considered to be negligible.

Secondary Mitigation or Enhancement 9.68 The Proposed Development has been prepared in order to minimise impact on the archaeological resource in as much is practicable by preserving the main identified focus of Prehistoric and Roman activity within the Site. As part of the Reserved Matters this focus of activity will be preserved either through complete exclusion or beneath car parking area(s). Precise details of any relevant car park design will need to be agreed in order to ensure that buried deposits are protected from damage including compaction and changes to the drainage regime that may have the potential to impact on preservation conditions through limited land raising and/or implementation of a buffer zone that will remove the potential for impact on the top of archaeological deposits, or to change the existing water levels and thereby impact on preservation of organic material. A phased programme of archaeological works potentially including pre-construction archaeological excavation and archaeological monitoring (a watching brief) during the construction phase will be agreed via a planning condition in relation to this area as appropriate.

9.69 No further areas of archaeological significance that might require mitigation through the implementation of a programme of archaeological works have been identified. It is accepted, however, that further areas of archaeological significance may exist, that have not been identified through the comprehensive programme of assessment and evaluation that has been undertaken. Provision may, therefore, need to be made for an intermittent programme of archaeological monitoring (a watching brief) during the construction phase.

9.70 In the event that the watching brief identifies currently unknown significant archaeological finds or features that cannot be dealt with through this mechanism it may be necessary to adapt the mitigation methodology to a more comprehensive programme of preservation by record (e.g. archaeological excavation). It is not considered likely that preservation in situ would be a reasonable or practicable alternative at this stage.

9.14

9.71 A monitoring regime will be agreed with the Wiltshire County Archaeological Service as the archaeological advisors to SBC in order to ensure adherence to the programme of mitigation works including preparation of final reports and appropriate deposition of the archive.

Residual Effect 9.72 The sensitivity of buried archaeological assets within and in the immediate vicinity of the Site (as identified in the Section above) is considered to be high within a localised area and negligible across the remaining areas. The magnitude of change is considered to be negligible following the implementation of the mitigation measures identified above, resulting in a direct, permanent, long-term and irreversible adverse effect which is considered to be negligible.

9.73 This effect is not considered to be significant.

Limitations and Assumptions

9.74 To ensure transparency within the EIA process, the following limitations and assumptions have been identified:

• The assessment has relied on data held by the Wiltshire and Swindon HER, Pastscape and the National Heritage List. These data sources represent current knowledge rather than absolute data sets. The accuracy of these data sources is assumed but inaccuracies may exist – in particular find spots or older interventions may be mislocated and/or fail to identify the full date, extent and significance of archaeological sites. Any such inaccuracies may give rise to inaccuracies within the assessment.

• The assessment has also relied on data held by the Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre and Local Studies Library. It is acknowledged that there are gaps in the surviving data that may adversely affect the interpretation and conclusions set out within this assessment.

• The assessment has made use of geophysical surveys and archaeological investigations within the Site and within the vicinity of the Site which provide the baseline data and context, but it is acknowledged that the potential exists for unidentified finds and features to survive.

• The archaeological evaluation work undertaken with regard to the Proposed Development comprises a 4% sample focussed on anomalies identified by aerial photographic, LiDAR and geophysical surveys. This is currently considered an appropriate standard sample with regard to best practice and was undertaken by a suitably recognised and experienced team. However, there are a number of inherent limitations with regard to archaeological interpretation as a result of:

‒ i) variations in the degree of preservation, which may not be readily identifiable or interpretable within the available sample.

‒ ii) the interpretability of the material data recovered, both through incompleteness and through limitations associated with how it relates to and shaped historic cultural changes that have limited appreciability to modern perspectives. Archaeology is not an exact science and there are subjective

9.15

elements to analysis and interpretation. In this instance, for example, it is possible that Roman activity was originally more widespread but that circumstances which are not apparent in the archaeological record have resulted only in localised survival. This can be illustrated by the partial survival of much more recent buried post-medieval field boundaries for which evidence appears in some trenches but not in others.

• Proposed mitigation may result in changes to the identified potential and significance of the archaeological resource and consequently alter the grading of significance and impact included in this assessment.

• The settings of above ground heritage assets and archaeological assets including Liddington Castle and Hall Place have been considered as part of the Built Heritage assessment and scoped out of Chapter 8: Built Heritage as not significant.

• The terminology for sensitivity, magnitude of change and level of effect differs from that outlined in the EIA Scoping Report. This is to ensure consistency with the rest of the ES in relation to conclusions drawn and does not materially alter the methodology agreed with SBC.

Summary

9.75 Table 9.6 provides a summary of the effects, residual effects and a conclusion as to whether the effect is significant or not significant.

9.16

Table 9.6: Summary of Residual and Significant Effects

Effect Receptor Residual Effect Is the Effect Significant? Construction Phase Direct effect on buried deposits Buried archaeological assets within and in the Negligible NO immediate vicinity of the Site

9.17

References

Archaeological Surveys, (2017). Eastern Villages Southern Connector Road: Magnetometer Survey

Archaeological Surveys, (2017). Pack Hill, Wanborough, Swindon: Magnetometer Survey

Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, (2014 (rev 2017)). Standards and Guidance for Archaeological Desk-Based Assessments.

Cotswold Archaeology, (2018). New Eastern Villages Southern Connector Road, Wanborough, Swindon: Archaeological Evaluation.

Department of the Environment (DoE), (1985). List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest.

Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG), (2018). National Planning Policy Framework.

Drury, P. and McPherson, A., (2008). Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance: for the sustainable management of the historic environment, Historic England

Highways Agency, (2020). Cultural Heritage Assessment, Section 3, Part 2 and Environmental Assessment and Monitoring, Section 2, Part 4; Volume 11 of Design Manual for Road and Bridges

Historic England, (2015). Managing Significance in Decision-taking in the Historic Environment. Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 2

Historic England, (2016). Preserving Archaeological Remains: Decision-taking for Sites Under Development.

Historic England, (2017). The Setting of Heritage Assets. Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 3

Historic England, (2019). Statements of Heritage Significance: Analysing Significance in Heritage Assets

ICOMOS, (2011). Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties

Lake, J. and Edwards, B., (2014). Wiltshire and Swindon Farmsteads Guidance. Farmsteads Assessment Framework.

Lake, J. and Edwards, B., (2014). Wiltshire and Swindon Farmsteads Guidance. Wiltshire and Swindon Farmsteads Character Statement.

Sunley, T., (2016), The Wiltshire and Swindon Historic Landscape Characterisation Project.

Swindon Borough Council, (2015). Swindon Borough Local Plan 2026.

9.18

Webster, C J (ed), (2008). South West Archaeological Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda, Somerset County Council 2008.

Grove, J and Croft, B (eds), (2012). South West Archaeological Research Framework Research Strategy 2012–2017, Somerset County Council 2012

9.19