Newington South

NEWINGTON QUARRY Sand & Gravel Extraction Environmental Statement

ANNEX E - ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT

47072089.ES AECOM March 2015

AJA andrew josephs associates

consultancy | project management | expert witness

Newington Quarry Near Misson Nottinghamshire

Proposed Extensions

Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

E:mail [email protected] ● Telephone 07990 571908 www.andyjosephs.co.uk 16 South Terrace, Sowerby, Thirsk, YO7 1RH

Andrew Josephs Ltd. Registered Office, Antrobus House, 18 College St, Petersfield, GU31 4AD. Registration no. 4547366

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

CONTENTS

Page

1 INTRODUCTION 5 1.1 Scope of this Report and Description of the Proposed Development 1.2 Methodology 1.3 Relevant Legislation, Policy and Guidance

2 BASELINE ASSESSMENT 12 2.1 Designated Cultural Heritage Assets 2.2 Non-designated Cultural Heritage Assets 2.3 Archaeological Investigations in the Vicinity of the Proposed Extension Areas 2.4 Archaeological and Geological Background of the Proposed Extension Areas

2.5 Brief History of Misson and the PEA 2.6 Aerial Photography 2.7 Site Visit 2.8 Assessment of Setting of Designated Assets

3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 23 3.1 Archaeological Potential 3.2 Mitigation of Direct Impacts 3.3 Indirect Impacts 3.4 Mitigation of Indirect Impacts

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

4 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS 4.1 Criteria used in the Evaluation of Predicted Effects 4.2 Assessing Significance 4.3 Evaluation of the Significance of Predicted Effects

5 SUMMARY 33

FIGURES after page 38 1 Location Plan

2 Designated Heritage Assets within 2km of PEA 3 Cultural Heritage Sites and Monuments within 1.5km of PEA 4 Superficial Geology of Proposed Extension Areas and Current Quarry 5 Ordnance Survey 1st edition of 1891-94 6 Cropmark plots shown by green lines, with linear cropmark in western PEA and square enclosure outside PEA boundary arrowed 7 Context and Visual Assessment of the PEAs from Designated Heritage Assets

PHOTOGRAPHS after page 46 1 Looking towards Misson from PEA, January 2015 2 Looking towards Misson from current quarry 3 Church of St John the Baptist, Misson 4 View from Church of St John the Baptist towards PEAs 5 West Street, Misson

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

6 Looking towards current quarry from near West Street, Misson 7 Church of St Helena, Austerfield 8 View from Church of St Helena towards PEAs

Appendix after page 51 Scoping response from Nottinghamshire CC

A note on printing …..

Blank pages within this document are to allow “back-to-back” printing (or photocopying), thus using only half the paper of standard printing. 4

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

1. Introduction

1.1 SCOPE OF THIS REPORT AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 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, artefacts of anthropological origin, and deposits and sediments that can help us recreate past environments. In its broadest form cultural heritage is represented by the landscape and townscape itself. This report, commissioned by Hanson Ltd, presents the findings of a cultural heritage assessment undertaken as part of an Environmental Impact Assessment of a proposed extension (one of which is an additional working area) at Newington Quarry, Nottinghamshire. The proposed extension is in two parts, as shown on Figure 1. The development shall comprise: • progressive working of an additional working area within the existing Newington South development over approximately 12 months, with restoration to flood plain wetland habitats, utilising the same production methods as currently employed at the site and with export via the existing site access road; and • upon completion of Newington South a move of operations to Newington West, again using the same working methods, which will provide an additional c. 2 years’ worth of production at the site, and creation of a new access off the C219 (Bawtry Road) to serve the Newington West extension. The approximate centre of the two proposed extensions are at NGR SK 684 940 (the southern area) and SK 676 940 (the western area).

1.2 METHODOLOGY The proposed extension areas (PEAs) lie within a landscape that has been intensively studied from an archaeological and palaeoenvironmental perspective. The current quarry has been subject to a wide range of archaeological techniques including desk-based assessment, geophysical survey, auger survey, test-pitting, trial-trenching and excavation. Scientific analysis has been carried out including palaeoenvironmental assessment, radiocarbon dating and dendro-chronological dating. The work has been carried out by numerous organizations including Northern Archaeological Associates, GSB Prospection, the Universities of Hull, Birmingham and Sheffield and Pre-Construct Archaeology. Reports have been submitted to Nottinghamshire County Council Heritage Service, responsible for monitoring the work. These reports have provided important information in respect of the archaeological potential of the proposed extension.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

The northern PEA has itself been subject to a limited area geophysical survey, in 2000, which showed there was potential for archaeological remains, although the results did not correlate with plotted cropmarks. A detailed, site-wide geophysical survey will therefore be carried out prior to determination of the planning application. Trial-trenching may subsequently be required. Due to ground conditions it has not been possible to undertake this work prior to submission of the application. Research has included collation of available information from the Nottinghamshire Historic Environment Record (NHER) and online databases, including the National Monuments Record, Heritage Gateway and PASTSCAPE. An overview of historical sources was also made including consultations with the Nottinghamshire Archives, as were searches of the online index to the National Archives and of all collections held in local record repositories listed on the Access to Archives website. A visit to the proposed extension areas and its environs was carried out on January 28th 2015. The aim of this assessment is to compile information that will assist in determining the cultural heritage implications of the proposed extension and allow the scope of any required mitigation to be set. All work has been undertaken in accordance with Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment (Chartered Institute for Archaeologists 2008, revised 2012). This assessment considers both direct and indirect effects upon cultural heritage. Direct effects would normally occur within the area of ground disturbance that precedes mineral extraction or the creation of infrastructure, and areas to be landscaped and managed as part of the overall scheme. Indirect effects can occur as a result of significant changes to the setting of an historic landscape or feature, whether permanent or temporary. This is particularly relevant to designated assets of cultural heritage importance, such as Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas. After consideration of topography and the proposed working methodology and restoration, a study area of 1.5km from the PEAs has been selected as an appropriate zone within which an effect could occur. Consultations have been held with Ursilla Spence, Senior Archaeological Officer, Department of Planning, Nottinghamshire County Council. The work was based upon a scoping response that included concerns raised by English Heritage on the setting of designated assets (Appendix A).

1.3 RELEVANT LEGISLATION, POLICY AND GUIDANCE

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). 1.3.1 National Policy and Guidance In accordance with The Town and Country (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 the significance of an effect should be identified as part of this cultural heritage

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

assessment. This is achieved using a combination of the following published guidance and professional judgement. • National Planning Policy Framework 2012. Department for Communities and Local Government. • Planning Practice Guidance, 2014. Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment. UK Gov. Planning Portal. • 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. • English Heritage 2009. Planning Mitigation and Archaeological Conservation – Resource Assessment. 1.3.2 National Planning Policy Framework National planning policy on how cultural heritage should be assessed is given in National Planning Policy Framework, published in March 2012. This covers all aspects of heritage and the historic environment, including listed buildings, conservation areas, registered parks and gardens, battlefields and archaeology. The relevant policy is reproduced below. Chapter 12 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment 128. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. 129. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal. 7

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

130. Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of or damage to a heritage asset the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision. 131. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:

• the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; • the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and • the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. 132. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss 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, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. 133. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply: • the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and • no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and • conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and • the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.

134. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. 135. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

136. Local planning authorities should not permit loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred. 139. Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets. 140. Local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from those policies. 141. Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development management publicly accessible. They should also require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.

1.3.3 Nottinghamshire County Council Policy and Guidance Nottinghamshire County Council policy on cultural heritage in relation to development is set out in the Adopted Minerals Local Plan 2005. Cultural heritage is discussed under three headings: historic landscape character, archaeology and listed buildings, and conservation areas. These are reproduced below.1 Historic Landscape Character  Landscape is an integral part of the historic environment along with archaeological and historic sites, monuments, and historic buildings. This environment embraces all the physical elements from the past that exist in our surroundings.  Traditionally, the conservation of the historic environment has been based upon the preservation and management of individual sites, buildings or specially designated areas, such as Conservation Areas or Areas of Natural Beauty. However, this is partial and selective, based upon judgements of importance, with the inevitable consequence that many aspects of the historic environment are not considered in the making of policies and decisions.  Historic Landscape Characterisation is a relatively new approach to the description of parts of the historic environment. Based upon the Landscape Assessment techniques put forward by the Countryside Commission (1993), and developed by English Heritage, it gives expression to the varying degrees of historical depth which are visible in today’s landscapes.  The Nottinghamshire Historic Landscape Characterisation project was completed in 1999 by the County Council in partnership with English Heritage. The Historic Landscape Character Map and report, extends and compliments the Countryside Appraisal work by

1 Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan, 2005. Environmental Protection, Chapter 3, pp 44-46

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

presenting the historic dimension of today’s landscape in Nottinghamshire in a compatible form.  The project has shown that if the character of many localities is to be maintained, means of conserving their historic landscapes, and the elements that define these, must be found. The Historic Landscape Character Map provides a basis for this and establishes a benchmark against which further change can be monitored. Archaeology  There are over 8500 archaeological sites and historic features in Nottinghamshire currently registered on the County Sites and Monuments Record. Archaeological sites or remains also include ancient river channels (palaeochannels) and alluvial (river borne) or colluvial (surface wash, downhill slope movement) deposits. The preserved organic remains and geomorphological structures within these deposits provide critical evidence about the context and effects of post-human settlement and landuse. It is unlikely that the known archaeological resource will be the limit and there is a high probability that proposals for mineral extraction will affect known archaeological sites or areas of archaeological potential.  PPG 16, sets out the national approach to archaeology. The first part of this is to preserve Scheduled Ancient Monuments and their settings. Mineral extraction will not normally be permitted at such sites. In addition the CBI’s revised Code of Practice for mineral operators on archaeological investigations provides advice on how mineral operators should consult archaeological interests in formulating planning applications.  The need for preservation in situ of other sites and remains will be assessed upon their importance and the impact that their loss would have upon the overall archaeological resource in the County. Although preservation of archaeological sites is a primary objective, it is clearly impracticable to preserve them all. Equally sites should not be destroyed without careful consideration and treatment. The second part of this approach is to ensure that, where preservation in-situ is not feasible, sites are surveyed, excavated or otherwise appropriately recorded. These provisions can only be assessed after the archaeological characteristics of proposed sites have been evaluated. An appropriate scheme of treatment must then be agreed, with the County Council.  It follows that archaeological constraints must be identified and addressed at the earliest possible opportunity, and ideally well before the planning application stage, if delays are to be avoided. With full prior discussion, a scheme of treatment covering all issues can be submitted as part of a planning application to be secured through simple conditions and/ or a legal agreement with the minimum of delay. Arrangements for funding may need to be incorporated into planning obligations. Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas  The historic environment also consists of a large number of Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas registered on the County Council Historic Buildings Record. Nottinghamshire also has a number of parks which are listed on the ‘Register of Park and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in England, 1985’ produced by English Heritage covering some 3,800 hectares of the County. Others are also registered on the County Sites and Monuments Record. PPG 15 provides for the protection and enhancement of the 10

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

historic character of the County. Proposals for mineral development will often affect open land and may affect the setting of Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, historic battlefields and the open countryside.  Although the harm caused by the extraction phase may be temporary, changes to the landscape once the site is reclaimed could result in permanent harm to the setting of historic environments. A further area of concern is the impact that lorry movements can have upon buildings in terms of vibration to foundations and spray from vehicles eroding stone work. It may therefore be necessary in some circumstances to secure vehicle routeing agreements to avoid areas of conservation interest (see Policy M3.14).  With the use of careful design and stand-off distances, it may be possible to accommodate mineral development in the vicinity of such features. Nottinghamshire County Council policy is set out in Box 1, below.

Box 1 - Nottinghamshire County Council cultural heritage policy

POLICY M3.24 ARCHAEOLOGY

Planning permission will not be granted for minerals development which would destroy or degrade nationally important archaeological remains and their settings, whether scheduled or not. Planning permission will only be granted for development which would affect archaeological remains of less than national importance where it can be demonstrated that the importance of the development outweighs the regional or local significance of the remains and where appropriate provision is made for the excavation and recording of the remains.

POLICY M3.25 LISTED BUILDINGS, CONSERVATION AREAS, HISTORIC BATTLEFIELDS, AND HISTORIC PARKS AND GARDENS

Planning permission will not be granted for minerals development which would cause an unacceptable level of harm to the character, appearance, condition or setting of conservation areas, listed buildings, historic battlefields and historic parks and gardens.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

2. Baseline Assessment

2.1 DESIGNATED CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS

2.1.1 Scheduled Monuments Two scheduled monuments (SMs) lie within 2km of the PEAs boundary. The location of these is shown on Figure 2 and summarised in Table 1 below. An assessment of the setting, based upon a site visit, has been undertaken at Section 2.7.

Table 1 Scheduled Monuments within 2km of PEA

Description Scheduled Distance from Distance from Monument western PEA southern PEA Ref boundary at boundary at nearest point nearest point

Moated site and fishpond east of Misson village 23217 1.8km 1.2km

The monument includes a trapezoidal moated site and a single filled-in fishpond. It includes a central platform surrounded by a 10m wide moat that varies between 1m and 2m deep. The platform is up to 1m higher than the surrounding land.

Roman fort and a section of Roman road 350m 29923 2.0km 2.6km north west of Holly House Farm

The monument includes the buried remains of Scaftworth Roman fort and an adjacent section of Roman road, 1.5km to the east of Bawtry immediately east of the flood barrier bank of the River Idle.

The monument was first recorded as an earthwork on an early map of Nottinghamshire dating to 1774. By 1813 the site was no longer visible as an earthwork, having been levelled as a result of the land being taken into cultivation. The site was rediscovered from the air in 1944 as a crop mark.

2.1.2 Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas 17 listed buildings are situated within 2km of the PEAs, all within the villages of Misson and Austerfield. The Church of St John the Baptist, Misson, 900m north-east of the southern PEA boundary and 1.6km north east of the western PEA, is a Grade I structure. The other listed buildings in Misson are Grade II and three are located on the western edge of the settlement, where potentially they could experience views. The locations of these and the

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

church are shown on Figure 2. The other listed buildings lie within the village envelope and all views south west are contained by neighbouring development. Three listed buildings in Austerfield lie within 1.5km of the western PEA. Of these, the Grade II* Church of St Helena is the most sensitive and includes a fine 8th century tympanum over the south doorway. The locations of the three buildings is shown on Figure 2. An assessment of the setting, based upon a site visit, has been undertaken at Section 2.7. Nottinghamshire County Council also classes the villages of Misson and Newington as Historic Settlement Areas. These are a local designation and are not formal Conservation Areas. 2.1.3 Other Designated Cultural Heritage Features There are no World Heritage Sites, historic parks and gardens or historic battlefields within 2km of the PEA.

2.2 NON-DESIGNATED CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS A search of the Nottinghamshire Historic Environment Record and online databases was undertaken of a search area of 1.5km radius from the boundaries of the two PEAs in order to obtain information on cultural heritage sites and interventions (such as archaeological fieldwork) located within the PEAs and the surrounding area. This was chosen as being an appropriate area of search in order recover information that can place the PEA into its local context, as well as helping to identify the potential for previously unrecorded features within the PEA. We are grateful to Virginia Baddeley of the NHER for her assistance. The search produced a large number of records of interventions, monuments and finds additional to those noted in section 2.1, above. The locations of these are shown on Figure 3 and summarised below in Table 2. No sites or finds lie within either PEA other than those associated with the ongoing work at Newington Quarry, discussed in section 2.4, below.

Table 2 Cultural heritage records within 1.5km of PEA boundaries

HER No Description Period M5071 Settlement, Scaftworth Ro M5085 Church of St John the Baptist, Misson Med M5091 Farmstead, Misson U M18381 Middle / late Neolithic / early Bronze Age knapping site at Misson Neo M18385 Mesolithic knapping site at Misson Mes L5049 Roman finds, Misson Ro L5071 Part of a field system & enclosures, Scaftworth U L5072 Fields & trackways, Everton U L5073 Linear features, Everton U L5074 Bronze Age palstave, Misson BA L5076 Roman pottery near River Idle on Everton Carrs, Misson Ro

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

L5085 C13 structure of St John the Baptist's Church, Misson Med L5091 Adjoining rectangular enclosures, Misson U L5097 Neolithic axe, Misson Neo L5161 Enclosure, Scaftworth U L5163 Linear feature, Misson U L5569 Human bones, Hagg Hill, Misson U L5570 "Barrier Bank", Scaftworth U L5577 Bronze axe, River Idle at Misson BA L9467 C14 structure of St John the Baptist's Church, Misson Med L9468 C15 structure of St John the Baptist's Church, Misson Med L9613 Roman pottery, Misson Ro L10740 Linear features and enclosures at Everton U L10741 Linear feature at Everton U L10899 Flints from Newington farm, Misson Neo L10900 Roman finds from Newington farm, Misson Ro L10901 Medieval finds from Newington farm, Misson Med L10902 Post-medieval finds from Newington farm, Misson P Med L10903 Modern finds from Newington farm, Misson P Med L10927 Med iron arrowhead from River Idle, Misson Med L11263 Heat affected stone from Newington Quarry, near Misson Neo L11264 Post medieval pottery from Newington Quarry, near Misson P Med L11695 Fire cracked pebbles from Newington II, Misson Neo L11696 Post medieval pottery from Newington, Misson P Med L11984 Bronze Age palstave from Hagg Hill Quarry, Misson BA L11985 Romano-British finds from Bawtry Road, Misson Ro L11986 Bronze age sword or dagger from near Misson BA L11987 Neolithic polished axe from Misson Neo L11988 Mesolithic to Bronze Age Flints from Misson Mes L11989 Romano-British pottery from Misson Ro L11990 Medieval pottery from Misson Med L11991 Post medieval gun flint from Misson P Med L11992 Romano-British ditches at Bawtry Road, Misson Ro L11993 Unworked flint from Phase 2, Misson Mes L11994 Neolithic to Bronze Age lithics from Misson Neo L11995 Prehistoric flints from Misson Mes L11996 Ditch at Misson U L12023 Pit features, south of Slaynes Lane, Misson U L12032 Ro pottery from south of Slaynes Lane, Misson Ro L12033 Medieval pottery from south of Slaynes Lane, Misson Med L12034 Mes and Neo flints from south of Slaynes Lane, Misson Neo L12035 Later Mes and early Neo flints from south of Slaynes Lane, Misson Mes

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

L12036 Mes flints from Phase 3, Slaynes Lane, Misson Mes

Key: Mes- Mesolithic; Neo- Neolithic; BA- Bronze Age; Ro- Roman; Med- Medieval; P Med- Post- Medieval; U - Undated

2.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED EXTENSION AREAS

There has been very little archaeological work within the immediate vicinity of PEAs that lies outside the current permissions (see section 2.4). There have been a number of recorded early prehistoric lithic finds and Roman pottery from west of Newington Farm (HER L10899, L10900). These were recorded during late 19th and early 20th century gravel extraction on Hagg Hill, from where a Bronze Age palstave was also found (L11984).

A watching brief undertaken during the construction of the reservoir for Tunnel Tech North Ltd (Sumpter, 1998) recovered 36 struck flints, with a further three possible waste flakes and also 2 lumps from an unworked nodule. All but four flakes came from the northern and western sectors and none from the higher part of the field. The flint was generally well- preserved and is said to suggest Neolithic-Bronze Age activity, though occasional white- patinated flakes hint at a possible earlier presence. The material was thought to be locally derived.

Near Misson, a number of stray prehistoric, Roman and medieval finds have been made (e.g. L11987, L11988, L11989 and L11990).

A watching brief undertaken annually by Trent and Peak Archaeological Trust during overburden removal at Newington II Quarry extension, northwest of the application site, revealed no significant archaeological remains, although it did provide useful information on the sedimentary deposits across the site (Howard, 1994).

Archaeological investigations within the Idle Valley upstream of Bawtry have taken place on the Roman fort and road at Scaftworth (work summarised by Van de Noort and Ellis, 1997), the Romano-British field systems at Blaco Hill Quarry (SK705884) near Mattersey (Garton et al., 1995; Morris and Garton, 1998) and a series of medieval linear field banks at Tiln (SK695837) (Bateman et al., 1997 and Howard et al., 1999).

Downstream from the PEA, a programme of field walking and small-scale excavation examined an area producing Mesolithic and later material at Misterton Carr (SK729950) during 1966 and 1971 (Buckland & Dolby, 1973). An archaeological survey of the lower reaches of the River Idle was also undertaken as part of the Humberhead Levels survey which formed part of the Humber Wetlands Project (Van de Noort and Ellis, 1997).

Although no work was undertaken during this project around Newington or Misson, archaeological and palaeoenvironmental surveys were undertaken within the Idle floodplain at Scaftworth, Gringley Carr and Misterton Carr.

The Idle Valley also falls within study areas for the aerial photograph reconnaissance work undertaken by Derrick Riley during (Riley, 1980) and the RCHME Nottinghamshire Aerial Photographic Project (1995). 15

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

2.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND OF THE PROPOSED EXTENSION AREAS

2.4.1 Previous archaeological investigations within the permitted quarry The following reports have been produced following archaeological investigations within the permitted quarry. The information within them gives an indication of the archaeological potential of the PEAs.

 WAERC (2000) Newington Quarry: Palaeoenvironmental and lithostratigraphic analyses report No. NAA/00-1

 Northern Archaeological Associates (2004) Newington Quarry, South of Slaynes Lane – Report on the archaeological and palaeoenvironmental potential NAA 04/10

 WAERC (2004) Further Palynological and Radiocarbon Assessment of Samples from Newington (NQ02) (SK675943) WAERC NAA04-01

 GSB (2005) Newington Quarry, area to south of Slaynes Lane Geophysical Survey Report 2005/80

 Didsbury, P (2006) An assessment of the fieldwalked ceramic from Newington Quarry. NQ05

 Makey, P (2006) Fieldwalked flint assessment. NQ05

 NAA (2006) Newington Quarry (south), Nottinghamshire – fieldwalking report and mitigation proposals

 Utsi Electronics (2006) Newington Quarry: results of the GPR trial day, 14th September 2006

 PCA (2014) Newington Quarry South: summary of Phases 1-3

2.4.2 Geology The geology within the study area comprises extensive superficial deposits overlying solid Triassic Bunter Sandstone. Mineral Assessment Report 37 (SK69) indicates that fluvial deposits of the Ipswichian Older River Gravel and Devensian First Terrace (sands and gravels), outcrop as dissected higher terrace facets across the study area. First Terrace deposits underlie the contemporary floodplain of the Idle and are overlain by sands (probably result of wind action and/or flooding), a veneer of peats (produced through persistent waterlogging) and fine grained alluvial silts and clays (laid down during flood events). Boreholes sunk within the PEAs and their environs for geological and palaeo-environmental reasons has allowed the identification with reasonable accuracy of separate geological units: 16

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

 Southern PEA: deep organic deposits associated with an incised sediment-filled river channel;  Western PEA: a sandy ridge rising to about 3.75m OD and fine grained silts and clays. These are shown on Figure 4. The significance of the geological units within the PEA is that the nature of the archaeological resource and its quality of preservation is largely consistent with the geological zones. The assessment of potential for archaeological remains within these zones, based upon the results of 10 years of watching briefs, can be predicted with reasonable confidence. 2.4.3 Southern PEA: Zone Of Deep Organic Deposits The survey work undertaken by University of Hull (WAERC) in 2000 and 2004 indicated that the most suitable samples for pollen analysis were those from the deeper organic floodplain peat sequences to the south of Slaynes Lane. The WAERC survey, however, also demonstrated that even within these deeper deposits the peat is well-humified or very well humified and assessment of pollen samples from these deposits suggests that preservation is on the whole unexceptional or poor, although it is recognised that localised variations do occur. WAERC has undertaken pollen analysis of basal channel sediments. This indicates that initiation of peat formation at c.-0.6m OD in this area was probably occurring from at least the Late Mesolithic to early Neolithic period (7-5000 BP) in association with the growth of alder dominated fen-carr floodplain vegetation (WAERC, 2000). Samples taken from the top of the peat and recent radiometric dating of the upper floodplain deposits during Phase 1 of the current quarry indicates that these wetland deposits had expanded onto the areas of the upper floodplain by the later Neolithic/early Bronze Age period (c.2500 BP) and then continued to form at least into the middle of the 1st millennium BC. This depositional chronology is considered by WAERC probably to represent the general pattern of floodplain sediment development at Newington. It also considers that the poor state of peat preservation seen to date is likely to be representative of the more general picture throughout this area. Despite their poor state of preservation, the deeper organic peats of the incised river channel clearly offer the potential to provide a depositional record spanning the period from the Late- glacial/early-Holocene to at least the 1st millennium BC (possibly later) depending upon the degree of desiccation of the uppermost levels. In this respect it is reasonable that the area should be considered one of high palaeoenvironmental potential. Recent work has, however, demonstrated that this palaeoenvironmental resource is clearly suffering from the impact of agricultural use, land drainage and water table abstraction. The extent to which drainage and water table abstraction has affected the ground water elevation has been assessed by Chris Leake2 (2000a and 2000b) and the resultant effects of the changes

2 Leake, C. 2000 An investigation of the hydrology and hydrogeology in the vicinity of Newington, Nottinghamshire and an assessment of the potential impacts of proposed mineral extraction upon the local water environment

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

in the water environment on the palaeoenvironmental resource has been summarised by WAERC (2000, 2002). There is no evidence to indicate that in the absence of mineral extraction, these adverse effects would not continue to compromise much of the palaeoenvironmental value of these deep organic deposits. It is considered therefore that, subject to the implementation of an agreed archaeological mitigation strategy, the proposed mineral extraction would offer a valuable opportunity for understanding the palaeoenvironmental record and thus preserve by record, information that would otherwise be severely damaged or destroyed. To date there is no evidence to suggest that the deep organic deposits within the incised river channel are likely to contain important and extensive, well preserved archaeological remains although preserved timber has been found in watching briefs carried out since 2011. The watching brief, undertaken by PCA, has confirmed that (to date) archaeology is confined to a natural ridge of sand (a relict riverbank) to the north of PEA within which the peat deposits are shallower and more desiccated. This represents dry ground where sporadic prehistoric activity was taking place. Based on geological modelling, it is possible that a small part of another ridge of sand may just extend into the southern PEA. Immediately to the south of the ridge, peats generally become deeper and contain well- preserved natural timbers, 25 samples of which have been retained for dendrochronological assessment. Further south, and adjacent to the PEA, the lower peat horizons become siltier and contain less preserved timber. It seems likely that this represents an area which can be directly associated with the margins of the former river channel. This observation is, however, made with the proviso that though difficult if not impossible to predict, unforeseen waterlogged remains such as boats, trackways or occupation platforms can always occur in wetland contexts and the potential to encounter such remains would therefore need to be taken into account within any agreed mitigation strategy for mineral extraction.

2.4.4 Western PEA: Mixed Geology Zone of outcropping sandy deposits In the south-west corner of the PEA is a distinct ridge of sandy deposits rising to about 3.75m OD. These deposits have been logged as an out-cropping ridge of First Terrace sands (IGS, 1979), but on the basis of existing borehole information, it has been suggested that these could be fine grained fluvial or aeolian sands overlying the First Terrace deposits (NAA, 2000). The southern edge of the sand ridge, lying to the south of Slaynes Lane, was investigated prior to extraction with surprisingly negative results as it had been interpreted from fieldwalking results in 2006 (NAA 2006) as a zone of high potential for Mesolithic archaeology. Nevertheless, this zone should be regarded as potentially attractive to human occupation, lying as it does above areas of clay, floodplain and waterlogged peat.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

Fine grained silts and clays These overlying silts and clays form a relatively thick sequence and can be divided (particularly using the 1983 borehole records) into a lower and upper clay unit. The lower is characteristically described as a ‘firm red brown/brown clayey sandy silt/silty clay’. In contrast, the overlying fine alluvium is described as ‘grey, green or brown soft clayey silt/silty clay’. The lower (red/brown) deposit is of similar description, appearance and stratigraphic position to the possible Lake Humber lacustrine sediments identified in quarry workings north of Newington (Howard, 1996) and at Blaco Hill (Garton, et al, 1995). If this interpretation is correct, this would date these sediments to the Late Devensian (c.12000 BP) and mark the level above which archaeological remains could potentially be present. The age of the fine grained alluvium is unknown and could date from c.7,000 BP onwards when rising sea levels resulted in the readjustment of river base levels and the infilling (through sedimentation) of the incised river channels with fine-grained alluvium and peat. There is some archaeological potential for later prehistoric (Bronze Age onwards) archaeology within this unit.

2.5 BRIEF HISTORY OF MISSON AND THE PROPOSED EXTENSION AREAS Misson is recorded in the Domesday Book of 1086 as Misna/Misne, a placename suggests Ekwall3 identical to placenames in Holland and Germany stemming from the Old German musin meaning ‘marsh’, which would be appropriate to the situation. The next record is in 1192 when Pope Celestine granted an advowson (the right of patronage of a church, and the appointment of the clergy) to the canons of Mattersey Priory concerning the advowson of several churches including Misson. Prior to that the church had been in the advowson of the Abbot of Welbeck, an abbey of Premonstratensian canons, founded by Thomas de Cuckney in 1140. A severe fire destroyed Mattersey Priory in 1279. On 20 November of that year Archbishop Wickwane ordered an inquisition to be held concerning the destruction of the charters and other muniments pertaining to the pensions and possessions of the house which had perished in the flames. Amongst the documents listed as destroyed was one assigning to them an annual pension of 5 marks out of the churches of Misson and Gamston on Idle. The Taxation Roll of 1291 estimates the annual taxable income of the priory at £52, of which the parish of Misson contributed a sizeable £12. About the end of the reign of Edward I (1307), Isabel de Chauncy, daughter of Thomas de Mattersey, for the souls of herself and of her late husband, Sir Philip de Mattersey, gave in her widowhood to the prior and convent of St. Helen on the Isle of Mattersey her whole demesne, including lands and tenements at Misson, together with the advowson of the church.

In October 1403 John Scot, 'chivaler,' obtained licence to grant the manor of Misson to

3 Ekwall, E 1959. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Placenames, 4th edition

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

William Myrfyne, warden or chaplain of the hospital of St. Mary Magdalen by Bawtry, to find a chaplain ‘to celebrate daily in the hospital for the good estate of the said John and for his soul after death, and for the souls of his wives, sons, and ancestors, and also for the souls of Robert Morton and Joan his wife.’ These letters patent were not, however, executed, and were surrendered in February 1406, when by payment of an additional 5 marks John Scott was permitted to transfer the manor of Misson back to the Prior and Convent of Mattersey in aid of their maintenance.

The Valor Ecclesiasticus of 1534 shows that the priory held amongst its assets ‘the appropriated rectory of Misson.’4

Inclosure took place in 1762; the Award survives, but no map5. However, a plan was made a year earlier of the Manor and Lordship of Misson and a copy was obtained from Nottinghamshire Archives.6 Amongst later references to Misson is a conveyance dated 1781 in the Milnes family papers of Fryston Hall, Yorkshire, held at Sheffield Archives7. This mentions the ‘lease and release of a parcel of meadow in the ‘Slanes’ and in the ‘Buttfields Meadow’ of Misson abutting on to the River Idle for the sum of £165. At this time Misson was in Lincolnshire.

Between 1809 and 1817 bounty money was used by the church of Barmby Moor, near Pocklington in the East Riding of Yorkshire to buy 23 acres at Misson8. Whilst this may be possible, it is more likely that this is a misreading of the document and the church in question was Barnby Moor, 15km south west of Misson.

The Tithe Award of 1843 is held at Nottinghamshire Archives9. This shows the western PEA cutting across 7 field division (mainly drains), a situation still maintained when the Ordnance Survey 1st edition was surveyed in 1891 (Figure 5A). The southern part of the PEA cuts across 5 drains (Figure 5A).Otherwise there is no detail within the PEA. In 1848 Lewis’s Topographical Dictionary (1848) describes Misson as ‘a parish in the county of Nottingham, containing, with the hamlet of Newington, 834 inhabitants. The parish consists of 5792 acres of land, of which the soil is generally sandy and light: the village is neat and well built. The living is a discharged vicarage, valued in the king's books at £6. 4. 4½., and in

4 A History of the County of Nottingham: Volume 2 (1910) 5 Nottinghamshire Archives EA 65/1/1-2 6 Plan of Part of the Manor and Lordship of Misson in the Counties of Nottingham & Lincoln. The property of Jonathon Hecklom Esq. & others. Surveyed in the year 1761. Nottinghamshire Archives M S 1L 7 Conveyance (lease and release) 28 - 29 Sep 1781. Sheffield Archives CM/2005/1 - 5 8 A History of the County of York East Riding: Volume 3 (1976) 9 Misson Tithe Award Nottinghamshire Archives AT 89/1c

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

the patronage of the Crown; net income, £359; impropriator, Earl Spencer. The tithes were commuted for land in 1760, when 286 acres were allotted to the vicar.’

2.6 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY The area has been intensively examined from the air including pioneering work by Derrick Riley and, more recently, by English Heritage as part of the National Mapping Programme (NMP). The survey recorded all sites visible from aerial photographs and covered the PEA. The results are included in the NHER. Some cropmarks have been plotted immediately to the west of the western PEA, with one linear feature extending eastwards into the PEA. These are shown on Figure 6. As part of this cultural heritage assessment, research was therefore focussed on examining photographs held by Hanson Ltd that were not available to previous researchers. These included low-level oblique angle photographs taken on two sorties in about 2001. The light contrast was unfortunately not good enough to identify archaeological features, if present. Google Earth and other imagery was also examined and photographs showing crop and soilmarks dating to 2008 and 2012 are shown on Figure 6.

2.7 SITE VISIT A site visit was made on January 28th 2015. The fields were under crop with very limited soil visibility (Photograph 1). It was evident that the fields were flat and devoid of any relief, a result of repeated ploughing over centuries. A systematic walkover was therefore not undertaken.

2.8 ASSESSMENT OF SETTING OF DESIGNATED ASSETS The principal objective of the site visit was to assess the potential for indirect effects to occur as a result of significant changes to the setting of cultural heritage features. In particular, consideration was given to the potential for effects upon Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings. A visit was made to nearby designated assets to assess their relationship with the PEA. The context of the designated assets and the PEA is annotated on Figure 7. They are described in Section 2.1. Views towards Misson from the PEA are shown on Photograph 1 and from the existing quarry Photograph 2. 2.8.1 Scheduled Monuments Two scheduled monuments lies within the Study Area. A moat is sited on the eastern edge of Misson village, 1200m north east of the southern PEA. A combination of housing, vegetation and topography prevent any views from the moat to the PEA. Its context is the village of Misson itself and it has no relationship with the PEAs. As a result of the flat landscape, punctuated by occasional trees, hedgerows and shelter belts, as well as the flood defence banks of the River Idle trees, the PEAs are not visible from

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

Scaftworth Roman Fort Scheduled Monument, which lies, 2km to the south west of the western PEA.

2.8.2 Listed Buildings The most important listed building is the Grade I listed Church of St John the Baptist, Misson, 900m north-east of the southern PEA boundary and 1.6km north east of the western PEA (Photograph 3). The Church lies in the heart of the village and has housing to all sides. There are no views at ground level from the Church to the PEAs due to intervening development (Photograph 4). Other listed buildings in Misson, of which there are 13, are all listed Grade II. The nearest are located on West Street (Photograph 5) with other development, including some recent dwellings, providing their context. There are no views of either PEA at ground level from any listed buildings in Misson. The view from the western edge of Misson, near West Street, looking in the general direction of the current quarry is shown on Photograph 6. It can be seen that the quarry is not visible from the vicinity of West Street. Both PEAs lie more distant than the current quarry. Three listed buildings in Austerfield lie within 1.5km of the western PEA. Of these, the Grade II* Church of St Helena is the most sensitive. The Church dates back to the 11th century and lies on the eastern edge of the settlement. There is some new build housing close by (Photograph 7). There are no views of the PEA due to intervening vegetation and topography from any listed building in Austerfield. Photograph 8 illustrates the view towards the western PEA from the churchyard, which is not visible due to vegetation and topography. 2.8.3 Historic Settlement Areas Misson and Newington are listed as Historic Settlement Areas. This is a County designation, and whilst it signifies that these settlements have some historic merit, they do not carry the same importance as a Conservation Area. There would be no views from Misson due to intervening development, nor from Newington due to a mushroom factory.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

3. Impacts and Mitigation

3.1 ARCHAEOLGICAL POTENTIAL

3.1.1 Southern PEA

The southern PEA lies within an area of very limited archaeological potential. Fallen, preserved timbers of non-anthropogenic cause are likely to be found and, although extremely unlikely, waterlogged remains such as boats, trackways or occupation platforms can always occur in wetland contexts and the potential to encounter such remains would therefore need to be taken into account within any agreed mitigation strategy for mineral extraction.

The deeper organic floodplain peat sequences found here have been demonstrated to be well- humified or very well humified, and assessment of pollen samples from these deposits suggests that preservation is on the whole unexceptional or poor.

3.1.2 Western PEA

The western PEA has a higher archaeological potential, evidenced by geophysical anomalies and cropmarks that would point to Iron Age or Roman activity just to the west of the PEA, with a linear cropmark continuing into the PEA.

Evidence of human activity within Phases 1 and 2 of the current quarry has been identified associated with the pre-peat land surface and limited to a small undated ditch and a small domestic flint assemblage which appeared to be predominately of middle to later Neolithic/early Bronze Age date. In Phase 3 archaeological monitoring of pre-extraction soil- stripping revealed a series of natural hollows in the silty overburden which had been in-filled by accumulations of buried soil and sealed by the peat deposits. One of these natural hollows contained a series of silt deposits associated with a large assemblage of c.3500 worked flints of Mesolithic date. This may hint at a Mesolithic settlement in the near vicinity.

Despite the lack of archaeology found within the recent watching brief on the sandy ridge south of Slaynes Lane (PCA 2013), work at Misterton Carr (SK730948), Gringley Carr (SK720950) and Scaftworth (Buckland and Dolby, 1973; Van de Noort and Ellis, 1997) has demonstrated that the River Idle corridor has been the focus for exploitation from the Early Mesolithic onwards. The majority of the activity appears to date to the Mesolithic/early Neolithic when the deeply incised channel would have formed an ideal wetland resource. The Mesolithic flint scatters tend to be situated on the edges of the incised river channel and many of those from Misterton and Gringley Carr were located on ridges of blown sand in close proximity to the palaeochannel. The lithic material from the later prehistoric period is more widely spread over the floodplain reflecting the rise in sea-level and the increase in the area of wetland resource beyond the confines of the incised river channel.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

To assess further the potential of the western PEA detailed gradiometry will be carried out as soon as ground conditions allow, which is expected to be in March 2015. This would be followed, if appropriate, by trial-trenching to target any anomalies and assess the nature, extent and significance of archaeological deposits. The results would be available before determination of the planning application and allow appropriate planning conditions to be attached to a planning permission, should consent be granted.

3.2 MITIGATION OF DIRECT IMPACTS 3.2.1 Overview The nature of mineral extraction results in the total loss of the archaeological resource wherever extraction takes place, and the potential loss or damage in other areas associated with infrastructure and landscaping. In accordance with planning policy, such loss needs to be offset by a programme of mitigation. Such mitigation could be carried out in advance of quarry phasing.

Two investigative approaches to mitigation are suggested, depending on the results of the evaluation in the western PEA.

3.2.2 Watching Brief It is likely that a watching brief would be required across the whole of the western PEA, and, should archaeology have been identified in the evaluation, quarry development may need to be preceded by set-piece archaeological excavation (see section 3.2.4). An occasional watching brief would seem appropriate for the southern PEA, focussing on the central- northern part where a sand ridge may extend into the PEA. Strategies would be agreed in consultation with the County Archaeological Officer and formalised in a Written Scheme of Investigation. The watching brief could be tiered as shown in Box 2, below.

3.2.3 Watching Brief Procedure An archaeological contractor would be appointed to carry out the fieldwork with an experienced and appropriately qualified supervisor in charge of day-to-day site-based work. Where required within areas of potential archaeological interest, soils would be stripped using a backacting 360° machine to a level agreed with the monitoring archaeologist. No tracking or movement of plant may take place on the exposed surface until it has been signed-off by the archaeologist. Machinery may need to be halted or diverted to allow archaeologists safe access to examine the stripped surface.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

Box 2 Tiered Watching Brief

Tier 1 Low-level monitoring would involve one archaeologist observing soil stripping within designated the PEA. This would be an appropriate approach where isolated archaeological sites are being occasionally exposed. If archaeology is apparent s/he can intervene, and request a change of machining methodology to avoid archaeology until it can be dealt with or adopt a tier 2 approach, below. If no archaeology is showing up and with the agreement of Nottinghamshire CC, the watching brief would become more intermittent, as has been the case in the current quarry area. Tier 2 Continuous monitoring would involve two archaeologists per machine - one watching, one cleaning and marking. This would be an appropriate approach where archaeological features are being regularly exposed. When/if there is more archaeology than two archaeologists can deal with, a team would be brought in to excavate (Tier 3, below). Tier 3 Set piece archaeological excavation of areas containing a density of features using a team of archaeologists.

Any archaeological finds within the topsoil will be collected and bagged by area; all finds from the exposed surface will be individually bagged and located to their findspot. Exposed surfaces will then be cleaned by hand tools as necessary in order to clarify located features and deposits. Excavation and recording of archaeological features and deposits will then take place either within the remit of the watching brief if not extensive or as part of a formal archaeological excavation (see section 3.2.4). 3.2.4 Archaeological Excavation and Recording Details of methodologies will be formalised in a Written Scheme of Investigation, agreed with Nottinghamshire CC, prior to development commencing. Fieldwork All excavation areas will be cleaned as necessary to facilitate the identification of archaeological features, buried soils and palaeoenvironmental deposits. These will be tied into the OS grid. Features will be planned by an experienced archaeologist using a GPS as they are revealed to allow a base plan to be prepared. Excavation of linear archaeological features will be undertaken by hand and to a level at which their form and date can be ascertained and in consultation with Nottinghamshire CC. 50-100% of individual discrete features will be excavated dependent upon type of feature and finds assemblages recovered. Settlement related features such as postholes and ring gullies will be 100% excavated, as will all prehistoric pits containing finds assemblages. Established excavation and recording methodology will be used and this will be agreed in advance of work with Nottinghamshire CC. All excavated features will be mapped onto a base plan by hand (1:50). Each feature will be individually documented on context sheets and hand drawn in section and plan at an appropriate scale (1:10 or 1:20). Subsequent survey data will be made available in digital format for transfer to the Heritage Environment Record (HER) GIS system. A plan showing all significant features will be located on the Ordnance Survey National Grid.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

The Project Manager will be responsible for ensuring that the recording strategy develops in the light of excavation results and input from finds, environmental and other specialists. On- site records checking and matrix creation (where appropriate) will be kept up to date and will be carried out by key site personnel. Photographic records and hand-drawn sections will be completed to recognised standards. Monochrome and colour photographs supplemented by colour slides and digital photography will form the photographic archive. Bulk samples will be taken by the excavator and in consultation with the English Heritage Regional Scientific Advisor and the project’s environmental specialists, to test for the presence and potential of micro- and macro-botanical environmental indicators. If human remains are encountered, Nottinghamshire CC, the Coroner and the client will be informed. Removal of these remains will be carried out in accordance with all appropriate Environmental Health regulations and will only occur after a Ministry of Justice licence has been obtained. Analysis, Report, Archive and Oasis record The drawn and written stratigraphic record will be checked and cross-referenced to provide a structured archive of the results of the fieldwork. Any artefacts recovered will be cleaned, catalogued, and packaged in accordance with the requirements of the appropriate Museums Service. All finds work will follow the procedures set out in the document Standards and Guidelines for the Collection, Documentation, Conservation and Research of Archaeological Materials (Chartered Institute for Archaeologists 2001). Specialist requirements for conservation and/or analysis will be identified and instigated. A report on the watching brief and any excavations will be submitted to Dorset CC within three months of the completion of each extraction phase. The report will include, as appropriate: • A non-technical summary. • Details of the scheme and the commissioning body. • A description of the site, including its geology and topography. • A description of the methods employed during the watching brief and excavation. • A description and interpretation of the results. • Plans and sections showing archaeological features and deposits. • Photographs of significant archaeological features and deposits. • Specialist reports. • A list of references.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

• Tabulated context and finds data. • Recommendations and a timetable for further analysis and publication. • A review of the effectiveness of the archaeological strategies and watching brief methodologies and make recommendations for future phases. An Oasis report will be initiated prior to the start of fieldwork and updated following the completion of the project. All artefactual material recovered will be held in storage by archaeological contractor and the permission of the landowner will be sought for the transfer of such archaeological finds to an appropriate depository to facilitate future study and ensure proper preservation of all artefacts. An accession number from a suitable repository will be obtained before the start of work. In the unlikely event that artefacts of significant monetary value are discovered, and if they are not subject to Treasure Act legislation separate ownership arrangements may be negotiated. All archives will comply in format with MAP 2 recommendations.

3.3 INDIRECT IMPACTS 3.3.1 Introduction Indirect impacts are those that do not physically affect a cultural heritage feature or landscape, but that alter the context or setting. Such impacts can be difficult to define and should take into account a number of factors including:  The type of feature 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  Accessibility, interpretation and public appreciation 3.3.2 Scheduled Monuments There would be no impact on the setting of scheduled monuments. Misson moats has no visual or contextual connection with the PEAs and is 1.2km from the southern PEA on the eastern edge of the village, with views blocked by development and vegetation. Scaftworth Roman Fort lies 2km distant from the western PEA and views towards the PEAs are interrupted by the flood banks of the River Idle. 3.3.3 Listed Buildings The nearest listed buildings lie on West Street, Misson at a distance of 700m from the southern PEA. They have no views to either PEA due to intervening development. Indeed, there are no views of the PEAs from any of the 17 listed buildings within 2km, and the land of the PEAs has no contextual link to them. The Grade I Church of St John the Baptist is entirely contained within the historic core of Misson. 3.4 MITIGATION OF INDIRECT IMPACTS

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

No mitigation is required in respect of designated assets.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

4. Assessment of Effects

4.1 CRITERIA USED IN THE EVALUATION OF PREDICTED EFFECTS

In accordance with the EIA Regulations the significance of an effect should be identified. This is achieved using a combination of published guidance and professional judgement, as set out in section 1.3.1, above. Four criteria have been considered in evaluating the significance of the predicted effects of the proposed development, based upon the impacts and mitigation measures identified in Section 3. These are sometimes referred to as residual effects. 4.1.1 Type of effect 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. 4.1.2 Probability of the effect occurring An assessment is made as to the likelihood of the identified effect occurring. Probability is considered as certain, likely, unlikely or not known. 4.1.3 Sensitivity Three categories of sensitivity are identified: high, medium and low. These are expanded upon in Table 3, below.

Table 3 Definitions of sensitivity

Sensitivity Definition

High Sites and settings of national importance. Scheduled Monuments. Registered Battlefields. Grade I and Grade II* Listed Buildings and Grade I Registered Historic Parks and Gardens. Sites may also be discovered as a result of new research that are also of national importance and are candidates for scheduling.

Medium Sites and settings of regional importance. Archaeological sites and features that are not considered sufficiently important or well-preserved to be protected as Scheduled Monuments. Grade II Listed Buildings and Grade II Registered Historic Parks and Gardens. Conservation Areas.

Low Archaeological sites and structures, and other components of the historic environment that contribute to the local landscape. Locally designated assets.

4.1.4 Magnitude 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,

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

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 4, below.

Table 4 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

4.2 ASSESSING SIGNIFICANCE 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.

Table 5 presents a matrix of the inter-relationship of importance/sensitivity with magnitude.

Table 5 Inter-relationship of importance/sensitivity with magnitude

Magnitude Considerable Slight None Sensitivity High Significant Not significant Neutral Medium Significant Not significant Neutral Low Not significant Not significant Neutral

4.3 EVALUATION OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PREDICTED EFFECTS The results of the evaluation of significance are drawn together in Table 6, below, together with the rationale behind the evaluation. 30

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

This page is intentionally blank to allow back-to-back printing

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Heritage Assessment February 2015

Table 6 Effects and Evaluation of Significance

Type of Probability Sensitivity Magnitude of Effect Of Effect Effect Significance Rationale Occurring Direct effects upon statutorily designated Neutral Certain High Neutral Neutral There will be no direct effects upon designated heritage assets, the features of the historic environment nearest being 700m distant. Medium

Effects upon buried archaeology within PEA Negative Likely Not known Considerable Not known Apart from a single linear cropmark in the western PEA, there are no known features of cultural heritage interest within the PEAs, Permanent but there exists potential for archaeological sites to be present, especially on the sandy ridge in the south-west of the western PEA. Field-based evaluation will be carried out at the earliest opportunity and prior to determination of the planning application. It is considered unlikely that nationally important remains will be found, due to the long history of ploughing, but if they are discovered, they could be preserved in situ. A scheme of mitigation involving a watching brief and excavation would ensure recovery of any archaeological information within the PEA. This approach has worked successfully on the current quarry.

Indirect effects upon designated heritage assets Neutral Certain High Neutral Neutral There will be no intervisibility between the PEA and any designated heritage assets due to topography, intervening Medium development and vegetation. The PEAs do not form part of the context of the assets; the nearest listed building being 700m north-east and Misson moats scheduled monument 1.2km from the southern PEA. Scaftworth Roman Fort is 2km from the western PEA with views blocked by topography, including the flood banks bordering the River Idle.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Heritage Assessment February 2015

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

5. Summary

5.1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings of a cultural heritage desk-based assessment to accompany a Planning Application and Environmental Impact Assessment of a proposed southern additional working area and western extension to Newington Quarry, near Misson, Nottinghamshire. 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, artefacts of anthropological origin and evidence that can help reconstruct past human environments. In its broadest form cultural heritage is represented by the landscape and townscape itself. This assessment considers both direct and indirect effects upon cultural heritage. Direct effects are those that physically affect a cultural heritage asset. Indirect effects can occur as a result of significant changes to the setting of a cultural heritage landscape or asset, whether permanent or temporary. This is particularly relevant to designated assets such as Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Registered Parks and Gardens. Desk-based research and a site visit was carried out and consultations were held with the County Archaeological Officer. The work was based upon a scoping response that included concerns raised by English Heritage on the setting of designated assets. 5.2 RESEARCH The proposed extensions lie within an area that has been intensively studied from an archaeological and palaeoenvironmental (the study of ancient environments) perspective. The current quarry has been subject to wide range of archaeological techniques including desk- based assessment, geophysical survey, auger survey, test-pitting, trial-trenching and excavation. Scientific analysis has been carried out including palaeoenvironmental assessment, radiocarbon dating and dendro-chronological (tree-ring) dating. The work has been carried out by numerous organisations including Northern Archaeological Associates, Pre-Construct Archaeology, GSB Prospection and the Universities of Hull, Birmingham and Sheffield. Reports have been submitted to Nottinghamshire County Council Heritage Service, responsible for monitoring the work. These reports have provided important information in respect of the archaeological potential of the proposed extensions. Research has included collation of available information from the Nottinghamshire Historic Environment Record (NHER), online databases and archives. A site visit to the proposed extension areas (PEAs) and designated assets within 2km was carried out in January 2015.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

5.3 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS There will be no direct effects upon statutorily designated assets of cultural heritage importance, the nearest lying 700m north-east of the southern PEA. 5.3.1 Scheduled Monuments There would be no impact on the setting of scheduled monuments. Misson moats has no visual or contextual connection with the PEAs and is 1.2km from the southern PEA on the eastern edge of the village, with views blocked by development and vegetation. Scaftworth Roman Fort lies 2km distant from the western PEA (2.6km from the southern PEA) and views towards the PEAs are interrupted by the flood banks of the River Idle. The effect upon these is considered neutral and no mitigation is required. 5.3.2 Listed Buildings The nearest listed buildings lie on West Street, Misson at a distance of 700m from the southern PEA. They have no views to either PEA due to intervening development. Indeed, there are no views of the PEAs from any of the 17 listed buildings within 2km, and the land of the PEAs has no contextual link to them. The Grade I Church of St John the Baptist is entirely contained within the historic core of Misson. Three listed buildings in Austerfield lie within 1.5km of the western PEA. Of these, the Grade II* Church of St Helena is the most sensitive. There are no views of the PEA due to intervening vegetation and topography from any listed building in Austerfield. Misson and Newington are listed as Historic Settlement Areas. This is a County designation, and whilst it signifies that these settlements have some historic merit, they do not carry the same importance as a Conservation Area. At ground level there are no views into the PEA. The effect upon these is considered neutral and no mitigation is required. 5.3.3 Other Designated Assets There are no World Heritage Sites, historic parks and gardens or historic battlefields within 2km of the PEAs. 5.4 ARCHAEOLOGY

5.4.1 Southern PEA

The superficial geology of the majority of the southern PEA is, based on recent watching briefs, not attractive to occupation and may be considered to lie within an area of very limited archaeological potential. Fallen, preserved timbers of non-anthropogenic cause are likely to be found.

Although extremely unlikely, waterlogged remains such as boats, trackways or occupation platforms can always occur in wetland contexts and the potential to encounter such remains would therefore need to be taken into account within any agreed mitigation strategy for mineral extraction.

A small part of a sand ridge may extend into the central-northern part of the PEA, and this may of higher archaeological potential.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

5.4.2 Western PEA

The western PEA has a higher archaeological potential evidenced by geophysical anomalies and cropmarks that would point to Iron Age or Roman activity just to the west of the PEA. One linear cropmark extends into the western PEA.

The geology of this PEA includes an extension of the sandy ridge investigated, with surprisingly negative results, in the current quarry to the south of Slaynes Lane.

Despite the lack of archaeology found within the recent watching brief on the sandy ridge south of Slaynes Lane (PCA 2013) work elsewhere has demonstrated that the River Idle corridor has been the focus for exploitation from the Early Mesolithic onwards. The majority of the activity appears to date to the Mesolithic/early Neolithic when the deeply incised channel would have formed an ideal wetland resource. The Mesolithic flint scatters tend to be situated on the edges of the incised river channel and many of those from Misterton and Gringley Carr were located on ridges of blown sand in close proximity to the palaeochannel. The lithic material from the later prehistoric period is more widely spread over the floodplain reflecting the rise in sea-level and the increase in the area of wetland resource beyond the confines of the incised river channel.

The fine grained silts and clays that cover the majority of the western PEA could date from c.7,000 BP onwards when rising sea levels resulted in the readjustment of river base levels and the infilling (through sedimentation) of the incised river channels with fine-grained alluvium and peat. There is some archaeological potential for later prehistoric (Bronze Age onwards) archaeology within this unit.

To assess further the potential of the western PEA geophysical survey will be carried out as soon as ground conditions allow, which is expected to be in March 2015. This would be followed, if appropriate, by trial-trenching to target any anomalies and assess the nature, extent and significance of archaeological deposits. The results would be available before determination of the planning application and allow appropriate planning conditions to be attached to a planning permission, should consent be granted.

5.5 MITIGATION The nature of mineral extraction results in the total loss of the archaeological resource wherever extraction takes place, and the potential loss or damage in other areas associated with infrastructure and landscaping. In accordance with planning policy, such loss needs to be offset by a programme of mitigation.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

It is considered extremely unlikely that archaeology of national importance will be found by the evaluation, due to the effects of centuries of ploughing and reduction in the water table form abstraction. Nevertheless, should archaeology of such importance be identified, the opportunity exists to exclude it from development. Two investigative approaches to mitigation are suggested, depending on the results of the evaluation in the western PEA. It is likely that a watching brief would be required across the whole of the western PEA, and, should archaeology have been identified in the evaluation, quarry development may need to be preceded by set-piece archaeological excavation. In brief, the mitigation strategy would comprise the following stages:  Removal of overburden under the supervision of an archaeologist;  Archaeological excavation, mapping and recording of a sample of features identified;  Palaeoenvironmental sampling  Analysis, assessment and publication.

An occasional watching brief would seem appropriate for the southern PEA. Strategies would be agreed in consultation with the County Archaeological Officer and formalised in a Written Scheme of Investigation submitted to the County Council and approved before development commences. The mitigation would normally be secured via a planning condition attached to a consent. 5.6 CONCLUSION This assessment of the effects of the proposed extensions, in accordance with the EIA Regulations, has concluded that there will be no significant effects upon cultural heritage when taking into account the mitigation measures outlined in the Environmental Statement. The proposed scheme fully accords with national and Nottinghamshire County Council cultural heritage policy.

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

FIGURES

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

Figure 1 Location Plan showing Southern Additional Working area and Proposed Western Extension Area

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

Figure 2 Designated Assets within 2km of PEAs

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

Figure 3 HER entries within 1.5km of PEAs

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

Figure 4 Superficial geology of PEAs and current quarry

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

Soilmark on 2005 air photo

Figure 5A Ordnance Survey, 1891, Southern PEA

Figure 5B Ordnance Survey, 1891-94, Western PEA

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

Ditch on 1891-94 OS map

Figure 6 Cropmark plots shown by green lines, with linear cropmark in western PEA and square enclosure outside PEA boundary arrowed

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

Figure 7 Context and visual assessment of PEAs from designated heritage assets

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

PHOTOGRAPHS

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

Western edge of Misson

Photograph 1 Looking towards Misson from Western PEA

Western edge of Misson

Photograph 2 Looking towards Misson from current quarry

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

Photograph 4 Views looking in direction of PEAs from Church of St John the Baptist

Photograph 3 Church of St John the Baptist, Misson

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

Photograph 6 View towards current quarry from near West Street, Misson Photograph 5 West Street, Misson

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

Photograph 7 Church of St Helena, Austerfield Photograph 8 View in direction of PEAs (not visible) from Church of St Helena

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newington Cultural Heritage Assessment February 2015

APPENDIX

SCOPING RESPONSE FROM NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

consultancy | project management | expert witness

Specialists in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ~ Telephone 07990 571908 - Visit our website at www.andyjosephs.co.uk