HeritageCollective
Annex 2: Heritage Assessment
Barton Quarry, Wychnor, Staffordshire Proposed Western Extension
On behalf of Hanson
November 2017
Project Ref: 2962
Project Number: 2962 Authored by: Jonathan Edis Date: November 2017 Document version M:\HC\Projects\Projects 2501- 3000\2901-3000\2962 - Barton Quarry, Barton under Needwood, Staffordshire\2962A\Reports\2017. 11.19 - Barton Quarry Heritage Statement.docx
INTRODUCTION
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
BASELINE CONDITIONS
PREDICTED LIKELY EFFECTS
SCOPE OF MITIGATION
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
RESIDUAL EFFECTS
CONCLUSION
Table 1 – Criteria for assessing magnitude of change Table 2 – Criteria for assessing sensitivity and significance Table 3 – Criteria for assessing significance of impact Table 4 – Predicted indirect impacts
Annex 1 – Legislative and Policy Framework Annex 2 – Heritage Assessment
November 2017 Hanson UK
Introduction
1.1 Heritage Collective has been instructed by Hanson UK to prepare a Heritage assessment to accompany a planning application for a western extension to their existing workings at Barton Quarry, Wychnor, Staffordshire (NGR SK 190 160). This document assesses the extent and significance of heritage assets in and around the proposed development area. It also discusses potential impacts arising from the proposed development on the setting and significance of heritage assets, and mitigation measures to minimise those potential impacts.
1.2 Specifically, the document evaluates direct and indirect impacts on cultural heritage components in the surrounding landscape, including Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments and Conservation Areas, within the Study Area. It should be read in conjunction with the Heritage Assessment in Annex 2, which deals with the concept of “harm” in the specific sense arising from the interaction of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the National Planning Policy Framework. A separate document (prepared by Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Limited) evaluates potential physical impacts on archaeology.
1.3 Registered Parks & Gardens, Historic Battlefields and World Heritage Sites are not considered within these assessments as there are no such designations within the wider landscape.
1.4 National and local policy guidelines on heritage seek to minimise impacts on the significance of heritage assets, including impacts arising from a change within their setting (surroundings).
Assessment Methodology
Objectives
1.5 The key objectives of the impact assessment are to:
● identify heritage assets on and within 500m of the Site, having regard to the presence of designated heritage assets beyond that distance where applicable; ● assess the impacts of constructing and operating the development upon
November 2017 Hanson UK
the setting and significance of assets identified; ● identify measures for avoiding or mitigating potential impacts; ● detail any residual effects that cannot be mitigated.
Key Tasks
1.6 The assessment has involved the following key tasks:
● site visit to assess heritage assets; ● preparation of a Heritage Assessment/Statement dealing with the concept of potential harm to the significance of designated heritage assets by way of change within their setting (notably the scheduled monuments, listed buildings and conservation areas in this case) as it is understood specifically in the National Planning Policy Framework; and ● consideration of a range of measures to mitigate potential impacts of the proposed development on known and potential heritage assets.
Heritage Assessment
1.7 The present assessment (including the Heritage Assessment in Annex 2) relies on the archaeological desk-based assessment (Coates & Richmond 2015) for background information, and to this extent it has an overview of a range of source material derived from (1) The Historic Environment Record (HER) of Staffordshire County Council, (2) Relevant documentary and cartographic records held by the County Records Offices, (3) and aerial photographs covering the Site and its surrounds held by the Council and the NMR.
Consultation
1.8 Consultation has been led by Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Limited, including the relevant officers of Staffordshire County Council and Historic England.
November 2017 Hanson UK
Mitigation Measures
1.9 Measures that might be taken to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on heritage assets are considered following the discussion of potential impacts.
Types of Impact
1.10 A development can result in two types of impact upon a cultural heritage asset: direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts arising from a development are likely to only affect heritage features within the site boundary. Indirect impacts are defined as any impacts upon the settings, or the current state of survival of surrounding heritage assets, as a result of the presence of the proposed development.
1.11 This document is concerned with the assessment of impacts on cultural heritage components in the landscape (outside the Site) including the setting of surrounding Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas.
Significance Criteria
1.12 The significance of potential impacts is assessed by taking into account the sensitivity of the heritage asset and the potential magnitude of change. Magnitude of change is a function of the nature, scale and type of disturbance or damage to the heritage asset. For example, a high magnitude of change may result in the loss of, or significant damage to, a feature of heritage interest. Criteria for assessing the magnitude of predicted change are provided in Table 1.
Table 1 Criteria for assessing magnitude of change on receptors
Magnitude of Change Definition
Large Total loss or major alteration to key elements or features of the pre-development conditions, such that
November 2017 Hanson UK
its post-development character and composition would be fundamentally changed.
Moderate Loss or alteration of one of the key elements or features of the pre-development conditions such that its post- development character would be partially changed.
Small Slight alteration from pre-development conditions.
Negligible Very slight or no change from pre-development conditions.
1.13 The sensitivity/significance of the relevant heritage asset (receptor) will depend on a range of factors, primarily associated with the four main components of significance described in the National Planning Policy Framework – that is, architectural interest, historic interest, archaeological interest and artistic interest. The sensitivity of the receptor is also influenced by its importance in terms of national, regional or local statutory or non- statutory protection. Table 2 sets out the criteria for assessing sensitivity and significance.
Table 2: Criteria for assessing sensitivity & significance of receptors
Sensitivity & Criteria Significance High Scheduled Monuments. Archaeological sites of schedulable quality and importance. Medium Undesignated and designated sites of demonstrable regional importance, including conservation areas and listed buildings. Low Sites with specific and substantial importance to local interest groups. Sites whose importance is limited by poor preservation and poor survival of contextual associations. No Sites with no surviving archaeological or historical Importance component.
November 2017 Hanson UK
Unknown Importance cannot be ascertained.
1.14 The sensitivity of the heritage asset, together with the magnitude of change, defines the significance of the impact (Table 3). Impacts of ‘major’ or ‘moderate’ significance are considered to equate to significant impacts in the context of the EIA Regulations.
Table 3: Criteria for assessing significance of impact Sensitivity Magnitude of Change
Large Moderate Small Negligible
High Major Major Moderate Minor
Medium Major Moderate Minor Negligible
Low Moderate Minor Minor Negligible
No importance Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible
Baseline Conditions
Proposals
1.15 The proposals are for a western extension to existing workings at Barton Quarry, an established sand and gravel quarry situated close to the confluence of the Rivers Trent and Tame.
Location and Topography
1.16 The Site is located to the east of the A38, north-east of the Village of Alrewas in east Staffordshire. The River Trent defines the southern extent of the Site with the A38 (T) forming the western boundary. The Lichfield to Derby railway line lies to the immediate east, with a minor C-class road leading to Catholme
November 2017 Hanson UK
Farm, together with the protective envelope of Scheduled Monument (Staffordshire SM 214) defining the northern extent. The area lies between the 50m and 55m AOD contours. For discussion of the geology of the Site, together with the historic background, information from the Council Historic Environment Record, cropmarks, geophysical survey, and trial trench survey, reference should be made to the archaeological Chapter and the desk based assessment.
Conservation Areas – significance and setting
1.17 The Trent and Mersey Canal, opened in 1777 runs along the west side of the A38 (formerly a Roman road known as Ryknild Street, and later a turnpike road), near the western boundary of part of the Site. The canal was designated as a conservation area by Staffordshire County Council in 1988. In all, the stretch of canal near the Site is some 600m to 700m long.
1.18 The canal is an 18th century engineering feat of industrial archaeological interest, including some listed buildings which are described further below. It is an area of Medium significance and sensitivity.
Listed Buildings – significance and setting
1.19 There are six grade II listed buildings within the 500m Study Area, of which Wychnor Bridges Farmhouse is closest to the site, standing on the east side of the A38 with its attached and independently listed ancillary buildings, namely a stable and hayloft, and a smithy and cottage. The farmhouse and its two attached listed buildings date from the early 19th century and are of Medium significance and sensitivity.
1.20 Bridges 42 and 43, dating to the 19th and 18th centuries respectively, stand near Wychnor Bridges Farmhouse, on the west side of the A38, crossing the Trent and Mersey Canal within the conservation area. These bridges, which are listed grade II are also of medium significance and sensitivity, as is a grade II listed milepost on the canal towpath some distance to the west.
November 2017 Hanson UK
Scheduled Monuments – significance and setting
1.21 There are five scheduled monuments, one of which is in three parts, wholly or partly within the Study Area. They are all of High significance and sensitivity, comprising:
Wychnor deserted medieval village (1009032) which is on the west side of the A38. Scheduled in three parts, only one element of the monument enters the Study Area. Iron Age pit alignments west of the A38 (1006995). Bronze Age or Neolithic features, possibly a cursus, north of Catholme (1006073). Three areas of prehistoric monuments north of Catholme, including a timber circle and hengi-form feature of possible Neolithic or Bronze Age date (1019109). Four suspected Bronze Age ring ditches and enclosures and associated linears abutting the north-east of the application site (1006072).
1.22 The monuments are not contiguous, and they appear to span the Neolithic to medieval periods with little or no evidence of site-specific continuity.
Predicted Likely Effects
Assessment of Impacts of Construction/Establishment
1.23 Sources of impacts upon the setting of heritage assets are likely to arise from the following:
- Establishment of quarry infrastructure;
- Creation of haulage and access routes across the proposed quarry workings;
- Soil stripping across quarry phases prior to extraction;
- Creation of soil storage and landscape screening bunds;
1.24 Sources of impacts upon heritage assets outside the proposed development have the potential to arise as a result of the proposals. In this case,
November 2017 Hanson UK
construction/establishment actions can create indirect impacts upon the setting of heritage assets. Predicted indirect impacts together with the proposed mitigation of those impacts (if appropriate) are detailed under Table 4.
1.25 This assessment primarily addresses impacts on the setting of cultural heritage components in the surrounding landscape, including Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments and Conservation Areas. Potential impacts on the buried archaeological resource are addressed in the Archaeology Assessment.
Assessment of Impacts
1.26 In the case of a quarry development, direct impacts on the setting of cultural heritage assets within the boundaries of the development arise primarily from disturbance relating to excavations and soil stripping. Given that these operations are most likely to be experienced during the construction/establishment phase (site establishment, soil and overburden stripping) there are no anticipated additional impacts on such receptors during the operational phases. Operational impacts of a direct character are therefore identified as negligible, rising to moderate in the case of the effect on Monument 1006072 which abuts the proposed development.
1.27 In terms of the impacts on the setting and significance of designated heritage receptors beyond the Site, the operational effect of the quarry will have a negligible impact in most cases, rising to moderate effects in the cases of Monument 1006072 (where the effect may be moderate/large) and the three listed buildings at Wychnor Bridges Farm. Given that these are medium/high sensitivity receptors, the impacts are significant in EIA terms, although in the case of the listed buildings the “buffer zone” created by the modern farm buildings to the east and south-east noticeably reduces that impact. For this reason, the impact on the three listed buildings at Wychnor Bridges Farm is not regarded as being significant in EIA terms, and it should further be noted that the conclusion of the Heritage Assessment in Annex 2 is that these listed buildings and their settings are preserved for the purposes of considerations relating to section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
November 2017 Hanson UK
1.28 No other designated heritage assets, including scheduled monuments, listed buildings and conservation areas, are the subject of EIA-significant impacts as a result of the proposed development.
Scope of Mitigation
1.29 The proposed development has been kept as far away as possible from the two scheduled hengi-form scheduled monuments north of Catholme Lane, so as to secure the best preservation of the setting and significance of these features, that appear to be broadly contemporary and which appear to have a significant relationship with the River Trent. Out of all the buildings and monuments described here, many of which have only a loose chronological or functional association, the two hengi-form monuments are of particular importance and the north-eastern extent of the development has been limited accordingly.
1.30 In practice it is not possible to fully mitigate against the change from agri- industrial setting to lake-type setting in the case of Monument 1006072 and the group of three listed buildings at Wychnor Bridges Farm. In the case of the listed buildings, the effective “buffer” of modern buildings, combined with the stand-off distance between the listed buildings and the limit of extraction, is such that the significance of the designated heritage assets would be unaltered even if (hypothetically) the agri-industrial environment could be restored after the completion of the development. Detailed analysis of the effect of the proposed development on the setting and significance of the listed buildings in Annex 2 concludes that there is no harm. On this basis, mitigation would have no more than a neutral effect on the preservation of the buildings, even if it were possible.
1.31 In the case of Monument 1006072 the change from agri-industrial surroundings to lake-type surroundings (on three sides) will have a permanent impact on setting that cannot be fully mitigated. A buffer zone of 10m is proposed along the southern, eastern and western edges of the monument. No development is proposed along the whole NE side. Beyond the buffer zone there will be a battered edge at a 45° angle forming the edge of mineral workings. Final restoration will see the appropriate landscaping to create new water features with shallow margins, islands, seasonal and permanent ponds and tributary streams.
November 2017 Hanson UK
While this partial mitigation will to some extent reduce the impact of the proposed development, full mitigation will not be possible. There will be a significant effect as described in Table 4, which should be read in conjunction with the conclusion in Annex 2.
1.32 No other designated heritage assets (listed buildings, scheduled monuments, and conservation area) will be affected by the proposed development in a manner such as to consider mitigation.
Cumulative Impacts
1.33 There are no identified cumulative impacts on heritage assets during the construction or operational phases of the proposed development.
Residual Effects
1.34 Residual effects are those that remain after the mitigation measures detailed above are taken into account and are those that remain where the mitigation measures are not able to deal with the relevant effect. There are no anticipated residual effects for the construction or after completion phases of the development following implementation of the mitigation measures detailed.
Conclusions
1.35 A wide range of sources were consulted for the archaeological desk based assessment which underpins this study, including the local Historic Environment Record, published articles and books and manuscript documents. In addition, the site has been thoroughly evaluated by an archaeo-geophysical survey followed by trial trenching. The data gathered has provided the information required with which to assess the impact of the development proposals on the heritage resource.
1.36 In terms of indirect impacts on cultural heritage components in the surrounding landscape (including Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments and Conservation Areas), the impacts are summarised in Table 4.
1.37 The proposed development will change the setting of Monument 1006072 (a
November 2017 Hanson UK
group of four scheduled suspected Bronze Age ring ditches and associated linears now levelled by ploughing) from modern agri-industrial surroundings to a water body on three sides, nearly abutting the artificially designated boundaries of the protected area. This will noticeably change the setting and surroundings of the monument, albeit the setting only contributes a relatively small amount to its overall significance. As a result there will be an impact on the setting of the monument.
1.38 The proposed development will bring about change within the wider surroundings of a number of other scheduled monuments, but there will be no significant EIA impacts.
1.39 The proposed development will also bring about change within the wider surroundings of the Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area, but there will be no significant EIA impacts.
1.40 The proposed development will bring about change within the setting of Wychnor Bridges Farmhouse and its attached former smithy, cottage, stables and hayloft. The agricultural context of the farm will be altered to a water body on the east side. Given the “buffer” of modern farm buildings and the small contribution made by the setting of the listed building on the east side, including consideration of views, there will be no significant EIA impacts.
1.41 There will be no material effect on the setting of any other designated heritage assets and no other significant EIA impacts in heritage terms.
November 2017 Hanson UK
ANNEX 1
Legislative and Policy Framework
Legislation
Legislation provides for the protection (through being added to the scheduled list of archaeological monuments and thus preservation in-situ) of the most important and well-preserved archaeological sites and monuments (Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, 1979). The nearest Scheduled Monument to the Site is ST 214 (Circular Enclosures 270m W of Wychnor Junction) (UiD 1006072), which borders to the immediate north. Several others are recorded for the surrounding landscape.
The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 provides for the designation of listed buildings and conservation areas, and it imposes a specific duty on the decision maker in respect of planning decisions relating to development affecting the setting of listed buildings.
National Planning Guidance
The NPPF - 2012
The Government’s objectives for the historic environment are set out in the NPPF (2012 – Chapter 12 Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment). It gives local planning authorities guidance on the appropriate ways of dealing with the historic environment, including archaeology, in the planning process. The guidance is that local authority development documents and plans should include policies for the protection, enhancement and preservation of sites of heritage interest and their settings, and that the proposals maps should define the areas and sites to which these policies and proposals within the development plan apply. The principles and policies in the NPPF 2012 are a material consideration which must be taken into account in development management decisions.
The NPPF 2012 also gives backing to local planning authorities, at the stage of applying for planning permission, to request additional information from prospective developers about their site before determination of any submitted
November 2017 Hanson UK
planning application. The information contained in this document and its annexes forms part of that additional information.
This document also takes account of the related guidance given in the National Planning Practice Guide (PPG) 2014 and Historic England’s recent publication, Historic Environment: Good Practice Advice in Planning: Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (2015).
Historic England state that ‘conservation decisions are based on the nature, extent and level of a heritage asset’s significance and are investigated to a proportionate degree’ (2014.6). Local planning authorities should require an applicant to provide a description of the significance of the heritage assets that are potentially affected by a development, and the contribution of their setting to that significance. The level of detail should relate to the importance of the heritage asset and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on the significance of the asset.
The main thrust of the guidance is that, where development is proposed, the significance of a heritage asset and its settings should be protected if that significance is deemed to be special. Where loss of significance is justified on the merits of new development, local planning authorities should impose appropriate planning conditions requesting the heritage asset to be appropriately recorded prior to its loss.
The NPPF 2012 is primarily concerned with the protection of heritage assets which are designated. Some non-designated assets are of heritage significance, but not at a level that would pass the threshold for national designation. The desirability of conserving them is a material consideration, but individually less of a priority than for designated assets (ibid. 135). The requirements for recording and understanding any such assets that are to be lost apply to these assets, although the requirement imposed upon any permission will need to be proportionate to the nature and lower level of the asset’s significance.
Local Planning Guidance
East Staffordshire Borough Council Local Plan (2012-2031)
November 2017 Hanson UK
The East Staffordshire Borough Council adopted its Local Plan on 15th October 2015. It provides the overall planning strategy for development in the Borough up to 2031, alongside development management policies. Within the document are a number of Strategic Objectives, of which the following relates to heritage:
Strategic Objective 9: Historic Environment – Sustainable Management & Use To deliver high quality places that conserve and enhance the historic environment whilst promoting local distinctiveness, place making, significance and sustainable development to support heritage-led regeneration and the sustainable use of heritage assets, particularly in Burton upon Trent, the market town of Uttoxeter, rural villages and the wider countryside.
Strategic Policy 1 of the Plan also includes a section on the historic environment, and states the following:
In assessing whether a development proposal or allocation is as sustainable as possible, the Council will apply the following principle(s) depending on the type of application or development proposed:
● integrated with the character of the landscape and townscape, provides for archaeological investigation where this is appropriate and conserves and enhances buildings of heritage importance, setting and historic landscape character.
Strategic Policy 25 of the Plan relates specifically to heritage. Relevant sections are detailed below:
Strategic Policy 25: Historic Environment: Development proposals should protect, conserve and enhance heritage assets and their settings, taking account of their significance, as well as the distinctive character of the Borough’s townscapes and landscapes. Such heritage assets may consist of undesignated and designated assets including conservation areas, listed buildings, scheduled monuments, archaeological sites, registered parks and gardens and historic landscapes which contribute to the Borough’s historic environment and local distinctiveness.
November 2017 Hanson UK
This should include the use of high quality design as stipulated in the NPPF and the Borough Council’s Design SPD. Development proposals that are likely to have negative impacts on the historic environment should demonstrate how harm can be effectively and justifiably mitigated.
Development proposals should be informed by the various information sources and evidence base that are available.
In addition to the above, the Local Plan contains a number of Detailed Policies, of which DP 5 and DP 6 relate to Heritage. Relevant sections of the polices are as follows:
DETAILED POLICY 5
Protecting the Historic Environment: All Heritage Assets, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Archaeology:
The significance of the Borough’s historic environment and heritage assets (designated and undesignated) will be protected and enhanced where new development proposals will be expected to make a positive contribution to the fabric and integrity of existing buildings, conservation areas or other non- designated areas where there is distinctive character, strategic views or a sense of place.
All heritage assets New development proposals within the historic environment such as within conservation areas or which fixes or adjoins a listed building must respect the context of the character and appearance of such heritage assets in terms of using sound design principles which are stipulated in the Design SPD. The design of new development must be informed by the context of its surroundings and take account of the local character through the Historic Environment Record and/or other relevant sources of information/evidence base.
Scheduled Monuments, Archaeology & Archaeology Sites
November 2017 Hanson UK
Scheduled Monuments are legally protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (1979). No works are to be carried out on Scheduled Monuments without Scheduled Monument Consent. Applications for consent are submitted to English Heritage in their role as advisors to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport.
Scheduled Monuments and other nationally important archaeological sites and their settings should be preserved and development proposals should take account of undesignated archaeological sites and sites of potential archaeological interest. This should be informed by relevant information including the Historic Environment Record (HER), Historic Environment Assessment (HEA) and the Extensive Urban Survey (EUS) (if relevant). Archaeological sites should be subject to appropriate and relevant assessment and field assessment where appropriate especially to determine whether remains should remain in in situ or to be excavated. All subsequent archaeological reports should be deposited with to Staffordshire County Council so that the information is made publicly available.
DETAILED POLICY 6
Protecting the Historic Environment: Other Heritage Assets
Non-designated heritage assets
Should planning permission be granted which includes the loss of an undesignated heritage asset an appropriate level of recording should take place prior to, and/or during, the commencement of works.
Historic Landscape
Where Statements of Significance and Environmental Impact Assessments are required the applicant should also assess the impact of new development upon the wider historic landscape character (and) potential unseen archaeology …….. and seek to protect and enhance it where appropriate. The assessment of historic character should also be used to inform the design of any new development and seek opportunities to retain any significant or
November 2017 Hanson UK
defining assets of the historic landscape ….. as part of open space and Green Infrastructure provision where appropriate.
Staffordshire & Stoke-on-Trent Minerals Local Plan 2015 to 2030
The Minerals Local Plan was adopted on the 16th February 2017. It sets out the vision, objectives, spatial strategy, policies and development control polices to guide minerals development up to 2030:
Policy 4 – Minimising the Impact of Mineral Development
In assessing the impact of proposals for mineral development on people, local communities and the environment, where relevant, the following environmental considerations will be taken into account:
k) Historic environment, having regard to the relative importance of designated and non-designated heritage assets and their settings; the potential for previously unrecorded archaeological remains; and having regard to the Staffordshire Historic Environment Record, the Staffordshire Historic Landscape Characterisation and the Aggregates and Archaeology in Staffordshire to ensure that the proposals protect and conserve the historic environment.
Reason:
National policy recognises the importance of minimising the impacts on designated and non-designated heritage assets, their settings and historic landscape character and requires a distinction to be made between the relative significance of the heritage assets. Policy 4 requires developers to provide an appropriate level of assessment, evaluation, mitigation and where warranted, preservation in situ, interpretation or enhancement of the heritage asset. The Staffordshire Historic Environment Record provides information on all recorded designated and non-designated heritage assets. This combined with the Staffordshire Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) can inform the potential for the presence of previously recorded archaeological remains.
November 2017 Hanson UK
The HLC describes the historic character of the landscape and how it has developed over time. The publication ‘Aggregates and Archaeology in Staffordshire’ sets out approaches to mitigation for the variety of aggregate resources found across the county.
All of the above policies and statements for best practice have been taken into consideration in the preparation of the assessment.
November 2017 Hanson UK Table 4: A summary of significant indirect “setting” impacts during construction/establishment
Site Predicted Indirect and setting-related Impact Mitigation
Scheduled Monument 1006072 The monument comprises the buried remains of a A buffer zone of 10m is proposed along the suspected Prehistoric ritual site recorded as a southern, eastern and western edges of the Circular enclosures centring cropmark in an arable field. It is described in more monument. No development is proposed along 300yds west of Wychnor detail in the Archaeological Assessment. the whole NE side. Beyond the buffer zone Junction there will be a battered edge at a 45° angle The proposed minerals development will skirt the forming the edge of mineral workings. Final southern, eastern and western edges of the restoration will see the appropriate landscaping monument. As a result, the setting of the monument to create new water features with shallow will be altered on three sides from agri-industrial margins, islands, seasonal and permanent surroundings to lake-type surroundings. ponds and tributary streams.
This is assessed as a moderate to large magnitude of Even the final restoration will leave a noticeable change to a high sensitivity receptor, resulting in a change in setting that cannot be further major EIA impact. With the benefit of professional mitigated, and which will permanently change judgment the severity of the impact can be regarded the context and surroundings of the monument. as being lessened by important factors, such as the fact that the monument cannot be seen or appreciated While the result will be a permanent significant at all, in its current form. However, the impact on the impact that cannot be fully mitigated, it is setting of the monument is significant in EIA terms and important to note that the Heritage Assessment requires consideration to be given to mitigation. in Annex 2 concludes that the change within the setting of the monument will give rise to harm falling at the lower end of the spectrum within “less then substantial harm” in paragraph 134 of the NPPF, such that it is capable of being outweighed by public benefits in the balancing exercise.
HeritageCollective
Annex 2: Heritage Assessment
Barton Quarry, Wychnor, Staffordshire Proposed Western Extension
On behalf of Hanson
November 2017
Project Ref: 2962
Project Number: 2962 Authored by: Jonathan Edis Date: November 2017 Document version M:\HC\Projects\Projects 2501- 3000\2901-3000\2962 - Barton Quarry, Barton under Needwood, Staffordshire\2962A\Reports\2017. 11.19 - Barton Quarry Heritage Statement.docx
HeritageCollective
CONTENTS PAGE NO.
1.0 INTRODUCTION 4 2.0 RELEVANT HERITAGE POLICY AND GUIDANCE 5 3.0 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HERITAGE ASSETS 8 4.0 EFFECTS ON HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE 22 5.0 CONCLUSION 25
FIGURES Figure 1 Location map Figure 2 Looking N from Catholme Lane, near railway bridge Figure 3 Looking NW from Catholme Lane, near railway bridge Figure 4 Looking W from Catholme Lane, near railway bridge Figure 5 Looking SW from Catholme Lane, near railway bridge Figure 6 Wychnor Bridges Farmhouse, from NE, 500m Figure 7 Wychnor Bridges Farmhouse, from NE, 150m Figure 8 Wychnor Bridges Farmhouse, front elevation Figure 9 Stables and hayloft Figure 10 Smithy and cottage Figure 11 Looking over Bridge 42 to Wychnor Bridges Farmhouse Figure 12 Bridge 42, Trent and Mersey Canal Figure 13 Bridge 43, Trent and Mersey Canal Figure 14 Looking south to Wychnor Lock 11 Figure 15 Milepost, Trent and Mersey Canal Figure 16 Looking south from Wychnor Lock 11 Figure 17 Looking north to Wychnor Lock 11 Figure 18 Bridge 42 looking south Figure 19 Modern bridge at Dogshead Lane Figure 20 Modern carriageway at Dogshead Lane Figure 21 Catholme Lane Bridge over the canal
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 3 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This heritage assessment has been prepared for Hanson by Heritage Collective. It relates to the proposed western extension of Barton Quarry, Wychnor, Staffordshire. It specifically addresses potential harm that might be caused to the significance of heritage assets by way of change within their setting, as required by the National Planning Policy Framework. The assessment is Annex 2 to the main Heritage Chapter dealing with effects relevant to the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, as is explained further below.
1.2 A site visit was undertaken on 3 July 2017.
1.3 The author of this report has more than 35 years’ experience of advising on change in the historic environment, including employment with the Air Photographs Unit of the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, and with Bedfordshire County Council where he worked for ten years as a Conservation Officer. He was Director and Head of Historic Buildings for ten years at CgMs, and he is a founder Director of Heritage Collective UK Limited, a firm that provides heritage advice on projects ranging from national infrastructure schemes to minor alterations affecting listed buildings and other heritage assets. His qualifications include an M.A. in Architectural Building Conservation and Ph.D., and he is a full Member of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC) and a full member of the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (MCIfA). He has advised on thousands of schemes affecting the setting and significance of heritage assets.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 4 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
2.0 RELEVANT HERITAGE POLICY AND GUIDANCE
2.1 Scheduled monuments are protected, and their management is controlled, by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, 1979. They are one of seven types of “designated heritage asset” recognised in Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets, as described further below, including circumstances where the setting of the asset is changed by way of development.
2.2 Listed buildings are another type of “designated heritage asset”. The decision maker is required by section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building and its setting when considering new development. All subsequent references to “the Act” in this assessment refer to the Planning (LBCA) Act 1990. The decision maker must also give considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving the listed building. There is a strong presumption against the grant of permission for development that would harm the special interest of the listed building. However, this presumption can be overcome if the harm can be mitigated or outweighed by public benefits within the meaning in the NPPF as is explained further below.
2.3 Conservation Areas are the third type of “designated heritage asset” referred to in this assessment. Strictly speaking, the provisions of section 72(1) of the Act do not apply in this case because no part of the proposed development is within a conservation area. However, the proposed development is within the setting of a conservation area (described in more detail below) so the preservation of the character and appearance of the conservation area is an important material consideration.
2.4 For the purposes of this assessment preservation means to do no harm, as was established in the South Lakeland case in 1992. Harm is defined by English Heritage as change which erodes the significance of a heritage asset.1
2.5 The significance of a heritage asset is defined in the NPPF as being made up of four main constituents, architectural interest, historical interest, archaeological
1 Paragraph 84 of Conservation Principles 2008.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 5 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
interest and artistic interest. The setting of the heritage asset can also contribute to its significance. Setting is defined in the NPPF as follows:
“The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.”
2.6 The assessments of heritage significance and impact are normally made with primary reference to the four main elements of significance identified in the NPPF. Paragraph 128 of the NPPF indicates that local planning authorities should require applicants for planning permission to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected – which is the underlying purpose of the present assessment.
2.7 The NPPF requires the impact on the significance of a designated heritage asset (such as the scheduled monuments, listed buildings and conservation areas described in this report) to be considered in terms of either “substantial harm” or “less than substantial harm” as described within paragraphs 132 to 134 of that document. National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) makes it clear that substantial harm is a high test, and case law describes substantial harm in terms of an effect that would vitiate or drain away much of the significance of a heritage asset.
2.8 Paragraph 132 of the NPPF states that great weight should be given to the conservation of a designated heritage asset when considering applications that affect its significance. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.
2.9 This assessment is informed by the guidance of Historic England, issued in July 2015, on development affecting the setting of heritage assets, usually known as GPA3. The guidance is not a prescriptive methodology, but it is helpful in assessing the way in which elements of setting contribute to significance.
2.10 This assessment is confined to the significance of heritage assets and the impact of change (and potential harm) on that significance. It does not address the planning balance in which public benefit is weighed against the degree of harm, if any. The assessment is a specific thread of the main assessment of
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 6 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
heritage impacts under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, for which reference should be made to the Heritage Chapter in the Environmental Statement.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 7 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
3.0 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HERITAGE ASSETS
Introduction
3.1 Designated heritage assets in the vicinity of the proposed development range greatly in age and type, from 18th and 19th century industrial features (canal, canal bridges and farm buildings) to medieval and prehistoric earthworks and cropmark sites. For the most part, these designated assets tend to be isolated glimpses into different periods in the past, rather than a cohesive picture of land use over time. The positions of the heritage assets are shown on plan in Figure 1.
3.2 Perhaps the most dominant historic man-made structure in the landscape is the straight course of the former Leeds-Exeter trunk road, now the A38, which in part follows the course of the Roman road known as Ryknild (Icknield) Street (Figure 1). Turnpiked in the 18th century and administered by Lichfield Turnpike Trust from 1729, the road was made into a dual carriageway between c.1958 and c.1964. The Trent and Mersey Canal, opened in 1777, follows the course of the road past part of the application site.
3.3 A 500m study area around the proposed development site has been selected for this assessment (Figure 1). This is more than adequate for the assessment of the impacts arising from the proposed development, taking into account the relatively low-lying nature of the topography. The assessments of significance and impact, including considerations of setting and context, have all taken into account the artificially elevated public viewpoint where Catholme Lane crosses the modern bridge over the railway line.
3.4 For the purposes of explaining the various heritage assets, the designations are set out below, starting with the Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area, then turning to the listed buildings and structures, and finally addressing the prehistoric scheduled monuments.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 8 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
Conservation Areas
The Trent and Mersey Canal
3.5 This stretch of the Trent and Mersey Canal was designated as a conservation area on 6 May 1988 by Staffordshire County Council (Figure 1). It is described and analysed by the Council in 28 sections, of which sections 1 to 5, and part of section 6, are in East Staffordshire – essentially, the length of canal between (from east to west) Stretton, Shobnall, Branston, Barton Turn, Catholme and Alrewas.
3.6 The canal was described in the Council’s designation appraisal as follows:
“On its completion in 1777 the Trent and Mersey Canal was the greatest civil engineering project yet carried out in England. Its construction involved a variety of major works, most notably in the cutting of five tunnels. Two of these were in Staffordshire. The longest of them all, James Brindley’s Harecastle Tunnel, was the single greatest achievement not only of the entire canal project but also on a national level. It was a notable first: the first major transport tunnel to be constructed in England; for some time it was also the longest. Thomas Telford’s new tunnel, built alongside it, is an equally impressive feat of engineering.”
3.7 For the purposes of this assessment it is the 600m to 700m stretch of canal between the road crossing at Bridge 42 (near Wychnor Lock 11) and the road crossing at Dogshead Lane that is of particular relevance (Figure 1). This part of the Trent and Mersey Canal is generally set lower than the carriageway of the A38, so that when walking along the towpath the observer has the impression of being within a cutting. There are two modern road bridges that cross the canal at the Dogshead Lane junction with the A38 (Figures 19 and 20), and an older bridge to the north at Catholme Bridge, although this is not listed (Figure 21). To the south, near Wychnor Bridges Farmhouse, are two grade II listed canal bridges (Bridges 42 and 43) which are discussed in more detail under the subheading of listed buildings below. There is also a grade II listed milepost on the canal, further west, near Wychnor. This is also described further below.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 9 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
3.8 The canal is obviously a structure of special interest from a historical point of view, as an early and important example of Britain’s canal network. It is a feat of engineering that is of archaeological interest as an industrial monument, and it retains a recreational function. While its architectural interest is largely confined to specific structures (bridges, locks etc) strung out along its course, there is an aesthetic charm within some parts of the canal. For the most part, the qualities of the stretch of canal under consideration here have to compete with the noise of traffic from the A38 at a distance of about 12m, even though the vehicles themselves may be largely hidden by foliage in the summer months.
The contribution of setting to significance
3.9 The canal runs through what is still essentially an agricultural landscape, although there have been considerable changes in the 240 years since its completion. Even a cursory glance at older O.S. maps shows that field boundaries have been largely changed and removed in the vicinity of Wychnor during the 20th century, altering what seems to have been the enclosure landscape of c.1810 described in the archaeological desk based assessment.
3.10 One of the main structural characteristics of this stretch of the canal was that it followed the course of Ryknild Street and then turned sharply westward towards Wychnor at Bridges 42 and 43 (Figure 1). It is the clear association of the canal and the line of the old Roman road that is of significance here. However, the canal does not assert itself visually in the wider landscape. Even when seen from the elevated viewpoint where Catholme Lane crosses the railway, the canal is not visible to any extent at all. It is merely the A38, visible as a line of trees with intermittent vehicles, that hints at the course of the canal. Therefore, the canal is an important structural element in the historic landscape, but it does not assert itself visually and it is not easy to appreciate the significance of the canal within its wider surroundings. In order to have any appreciation of the canal from the point where Catholme Lane crosses the railway (Figures 3, 4, 5), it is necessary to know about it from other sources and from prior knowledge.
Alrewas Conservation Area
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 10 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
3.11 Alrewas Conservation Area stands to the south-west of the application site, where it bisects the course of the Trent and Mersey Canal. At its nearest point, Alrewas Conservation Area is over 400m from the outer edge of the buffer zone associated with the proposed development - that is, nearly 1km from the site boundary. No land east of the A38 contributes materially to the setting or significance of Alrewas Conservation Area.
Listed Buildings
Locations, descriptions and significance of the listed buildings
3.12 There are no listed buildings within the proposed development area, but there are six grade II listed buildings within 500m of the site boundary. Five of these listed buildings are within about 60m to 100m of the western side of the site boundary, in the vicinity of Wychnor Bridges Farmhouse, which was listed grade II on 17 September 1952. The farmhouse (Figure 8) is officially described as follows:
“Large farmhouse. Early C19 with later alterations. Red brick with stone details. Hipped tiled roof of low pitch; end and centre stacks to rear. 3-storey, 2:3:2 front; strings at ground and first floor cill levels; glazing bar sashes of 20 panes, (12 panes under eaves); flat gauged brick arches; 3-sided central bay running full height of front with a hipped roof (a blind window to the centre under the eaves); cut away to ground floor and supported by 4 Tuscan columns (2 half- columns against wall) under a moulded stone frieze; central entrance set under-the bay and flush with the line of the main elevation; 6-panel door. A farm building range (q.v.) is attached to the south, and a smithy range and cottage (q.v.) to the north.”
3.13 The farmhouse stands on the A38 Ryknild Street at the point where the Trent and Mersey Canal leaves its straight course along the old Roman road and diverts westward towards Wychnor and Alrewas. It is attached to Smithy Cottage (Figure 10) which was independently listed grade II on 26 March 1986 and which is officially described thus:
“Smithy, cottage and attached range of outbuildings. Early C19 with C20 alterations. Red brick; tiled roof; hipped to cottage and with ridge stacks. Cottage at north end has 2-storey and 3-window front; C20 small (replica)
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 11 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
casements in original segmental-headed openings; narrower to centre window; entrance, formerly central, now with C20 boarded door paired to right of a C20 casement; former head still visible. Long, approximately 30m, single-storey smithy range connects cottage to farmhouse; stack to north end over square small-pane casement and paired boarded door and small casement to right.”
3.14 Wychnor Bridges Farmhouse is also attached to some further outbuildings (Figure 9) which were independently listed grade II on 26 March 1986 and which are described as follows:
“Stables and hayloft. Early C19 with late C19 alterations. Red brick; tiled roof, hipped at south end. Stables with hay loft over; long, approximately 30m, frontage; elliptical-arched carriage entry to left of centre with segmental- headed mullion and transom window to attic between this arch and the house (q.v.). Hay loft door to far right of block.”
3.15 Bridges 42 and 43 (Figures 12 and 13) on the Trent and Mersey Canal were also listed grade II on 26 March 1986. The two bridges stand about 20m apart from each other on the west side of Ryknild Street, about 50m west of Wychnor Bridges Farmhouse.
Bridge 42 (Also known as Wychnor Hall Bridge 42): “Road bridge. Early to mid- C19. Red brick; ashlar parapet with projecting lower string and flat coping. Broad, stone-dressed elliptical arch which also takes in towpath, unlike many of the other bridges on this canal. Carriageway cambered over span. Adjacent to Bridge 43 (q.v.).”
Bridge 43: “Accommodation bridge. Late C18. Red brick; stone half-round copings and quoins; concave faces with parapets dying into ground; segmental arch over canal; stone rubbing quoins below impost level. The Trent & Mersey Canal was opened circa 1777. Adjacent to Bridge No 42 (q.v.).”
3.16 The sixth listed building is a canal milepost which was listed grade II on 10 February 1995 and which stands about 270m WSW of Bridge 43 (Figure 15). It is officially described as follows:
“Canal milepost. Dated "R & D Stone 1819" on shaft. Cast iron painted black and white. Circular post with moulded head and embossed letters on 2 convex
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 12 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
tablets below: "Shardlow 22 miles" "Preston Brook 70 miles". Probably cast in the foundry of Rangeley and Dixon in Lichfield Street, Stone*. The Trent and Mersey Canal was built between 1766 and 1777 by James Brindley and Hugh Henshall. Charles Hadfield, The Canals of the West Midlands (1966) *Jean Lindsay, The Trent and Mersey Canal (1979).”
3.17 It is probable that the site of Wychnor Bridges Farmhouse was chosen because of its position on Ryknild Street, at the point where the Trent and Mersey Canal turned towards Alrewas. The farmhouse is said to date from the early 19th century, but it could have been built in stages any time after the opening of the canal in 1777. The associated former stables, hayloft, smithy and cottage appear to be rather later in date, perhaps constructed in the early-mid 19th century. While there is intervisibility between the farmhouse and the listed canal bridges, the structures are functionally different. They have an association rather than a strong grouping.
3.18 The heritage significance of the farmhouse lies primarily in the architectural appearance of its late Georgian brick facade, and in its canted front bay under a hipped slate roof. It is an unusually large building for a farmhouse, and it has a particularly long road frontage (about 70m) including the former stable, hayloft, smithy and cottage. The historical value of the farmhouse lies in the way in which it illustrates improved farming practice at the height of the agricultural revolution, in association with the canal and the turnpike. Wychnor Bridges Farmhouse is not of special archaeological or artistic interest.
3.19 The heritage significance of the separately listed former stable, hayloft, smithy and cottage lies in its group value with the main farmhouse, using similar building materials and providing ancillary uses in association with the main building. These buildings are not of particular archaeological or artistic interest.
3.20 The architectural and historical significance of the two canal bridges lies partly in their form and fabric, which differs as a result of their dates – they were built perhaps as much as fifty years apart. Bridge 43, which is the earlier of the two, is smaller and has parapets dying into the ground. Bridge 43 is more robust, with coped parapets, and it carries a thoroughfare. The two bridges illustrate evolving building technologies, and they are both of industrial archaeological interest. The pleasing aesthetic form of their arches when seen along the canal also has some artistic merit.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 13 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
The contribution of setting to significance
3.21 Wychnor Bridges Farmhouse and its associated former stables, hayloft, forge and cottage, have been excluded from the Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area. That is not to say that they are not of special interest, or that there is no association between the listed buildings on the two sides of the A38, but it does indicate that a conscious decision was made, at the time of designating the conservation area, not to include the farm buildings. This decision is consistent with the different functions and settings of the two groups, which can be described as follows:
Wychnor Bridges Farm group: The farm group clearly has a locational relationship with the canal and with Ryknild Street, as has already been described. It is set within a predominantly agricultural landscape, and it addresses the road frontage formally and with authority. There has been considerable change in the 20th century arising from the dualling of the A38 and the construction of modern agricultural sheds on a much larger footprint than the historic buildings, extending more than 140m eastward from the road.
The architectural and historical significance of the farm group is best appreciated from the west side of the A38, looking over Bridge 42 towards the front elevation in order to enjoy some vestigial historic context (Figure 11). Even here, the A38 dominates visually and in terms of noise. In almost all other respects, the significance of the farmhouse group is difficult to appreciate within its modern and much altered surroundings. For example, a direct view of the front elevation from the A38 involves standing immediately beside the A38 (Figure 8). Views from the east at a distance of about 150m and 500m reveal little about the significance of group of listed buildings (Figures 6 and 7). In longer views from the east, at a distance of about 960m, the farm group is lost in a background of trees (Figure 5). These longer views tell us very little about the role of the late Georgian farmhouse in the landscape, and for a relatively large building it is not prominent or dominant in its wider surroundings.
Canal Bridges group: The two listed bridges are best appreciated when looking along the canal corridor, from the towpath, in association with
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 14 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
Wychnor Lock 11 (Figures 14, 16, 17 18). Bridge 42 also has some association with the road westward towards Wychnor, but the old road to the east has in effect been severed by the dualling of the A38. There are no significant long views of the bridges, except within the canal, and they exercise a local influence on their surroundings which is very much bound up with their archaeological and historical significance as industrial structures associated with the waterway.
3.22 The listed milepost to the west of the bridges is also very much associated with the canal corridor, and it does not play a significant part in the wider surroundings.
Scheduled Monuments
Locations and descriptions of the scheduled monuments
3.23 There are five scheduled monuments (one of which, 1019109, is in three parts, making eight separate areas in all) within the 500m study area around the site boundary (Figure 1). Their context is illustrated in Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5). They are all identified in the archaeological desk based assessment, where consideration is given to the implications that these monuments may have for the buried archaeological resource. The identification numbers used in the identifying descriptions below are those in the National Heritage List.
3.24 One of the monuments differs from the others in that it is an earthwork site of Medieval date, being the remains of the village of Wychnor on the west side of the A38. It only just comes partly within the 500m study area, and for the most part it is 0.5km to 1.0km distant from the application site. All the other monuments are of prehistoric origin, and they all seem to have been identified from cropmark evidence, although excavation has in some cases corroborated the position and dating of cut features. They date primarily to the Neolithic and Bronze Age, although Iron Age structures may be present. The monuments are not all contemporary with each other, and they are not contiguous. At a high level they can be thought of as air photographic or map evidence, in the form of discrete snapshots of the evolving prehistoric landscape as it was in the first and second millennia BC.
Monument 1006072: Circular enclosures centred 270m W of Wychnor Junction
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 15 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
3.25 Scheduled on 21 January 1973, with a “minor enhancement” on 7 July 2015, these structures are officially described as follows:
“The monument includes the buried remains of four ring ditches and pit alignments situated on gentle sloping ground just over 800m to the north of the confluence of the rivers Trent and Tame. Four circular ring ditches and linear pit alignments have been identified as cropmarks from aerial photography and possibly represent Bronze Age barrows and a large circular henge monument.”
3.26 In effect, these structures are only identifiable as cropmarks, having been subjected to ploughing, and there are no substantive remains above ground. They have an artificial rectilinear boundary around which the north-eastern “red line” boundary of the application site is drawn.
Monument 1006095: Pit alignments 300m N of Wychnor Bridges Farm
3.27 Scheduled on 27 February 1975, with a “minor enhancement” on 6 July 2015, this monument is officially described as follows:
“The monument includes linear pit alignments situated approximately 1km north of the confluence of the rivers Trent and Tame. At least two pit alignments have been identified as cropmarks from aerial photographs. Both are defined as a single row of pits aligned approximately north east to south west. The monument is believed to represent a double-row alignment dating to the Iron Age period which marks off the Catholme Ceremonial Complex to the east.”
3.28 In effect, these pit alignments are only identifiable as cropmarks, having been subjected to ploughing, and there are no substantive remains above ground. They lie on the western side of the A38 – that is, to the west of Ryknild Street, and to the west of the Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area.
Monument 1006073
3.29 This group of enclosures, and a possible cursus, comprise a scheduled monument to the north of Catholme, mostly within the 500m study area around the application site. The monument lies to the east of the A38 Ryknild Street corridor, and to the east of the Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area. The
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 16 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
date of scheduling is uncertain, as is the date of the archaeological remains, although a cursus, if correctly identified, would place them broadly in the Neolithic or Bronze Age. These structures are known primarily from cropmark evidence.
Monuments 1019109: Timber circle, hengi-form monument, and part of a pit alignment at Catholme
3.30 This monument, which is in three distinct parts, was first scheduled on 23 January 1973, with an amended description dated 8 December 1999. The various elements are officially described as follows:
“The monument includes the buried remains of a Neolithic timber circle, a hengi-form monument and part of a pit alignment located on the western gravel terrace of the River Tame, to the east of Catholme. It is protected within three separate areas.
The timber circle to the east of Catholme has been reduced by ploughing and its remains are no longer visible on the ground surface. It is visible, however, as cropmarks, areas of enhanced crop growth over the fills of the buried postholes which regularly appear, and have been recorded from the air on a number of occasions between 1945 and 1995. The circle is roughly round in plan, approximately 50m in diameter, and consists of a regular arrangement of closely spaced postholes which are radially aligned. At least five concentric circles of some 225 postholes have been identified.
The timber circle at Catholme is spatially associated with the buried remains of a hengi-form monument which is situated 200m to the west, within a separate area of protection. It has also been reduced by ploughing and the earthwork remains are no longer visible above ground level. Aerial photographs have revealed that the hengi-form monument is roughly circular in plan and its central area, which measures 17m in diameter, is enclosed by a ditch that will survive as a buried feature. Short lines of postholes are visible radiating out from the ditch and are arranged in a `wheel-like` pattern.
Approximately 200m north west of the timber circle, aerial photographs have identified the buried remains of a pit alignment which runs roughly west-east for about 600m. A second alignment, approximately 450m in length, branches
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 17 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
off in a north easterly direction from the central section of the former. Part excavation in 1999 immediately to the west of the monument provided evidence that the pits forming the alignments average 1.3m in diameter and are approximately 0.5m deep. A 150m long section of the west-east alignment immediately to the north of the hengi-form monument together with the first 30m section of the alignment running north eastward are included in the scheduling within a third area of protection in order to preserve their relationship with the hengi-form monument.”
3.31 All three parts of this monument lie wholly within the 500m study area around the application site, to the north-east of Catholme.
Monument 1009032: Wychnor deserted medieval village, moated site, moated enclosure and two fishponds
3.32 First scheduled on 19 January 1970, the description of the earthworks of this deserted medieval village was amended on 23 October 1992. It is said of this monument that:
“The monument includes Wychnor deserted medieval village, the moated site of Wychnor Hall, an adjacent moated enclosure and two fishponds. It is divided into 4 separate constraint areas. The central and eastern parts of the deserted medieval village display hollow ways bounded by raised platforms that were the tofts and crofts of the inhabitants. To the north are banks, ditches, and other raised platforms while to the west are the banks and ditches of field boundaries with ridge and furrow. South of this are other field boundaries and earthworks. To the south of the deserted medieval village is the moated site of Wychnor Hall, the north-western part of which has been destroyed by the Trent and Mersey canal. It survives as a raised platform surrounded on three sides by a dry moat 7m wide and 1m deep. An outer bank up to 19m wide flanks the south-east arm but reduces to 10m wide adjacent to the north-east arm. An outlet channel issues from the eastern corner of the moat. South of the moated site is a moated enclosure, likewise partly destroyed on its north-western side by the canal, but surviving as a raised platform surrounded by a dry moat 5m wide and 1.4m deep. An inner bank 7m wide runs along the perimeter of the platform. Within the moated enclosure, at its northern end, are two dry fishponds. An outlet channel connects the south-western arm of the moated enclosure to a channel that drains into the nearby River Trent.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 18 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
Wychnor Hall moated site was in the hands of the Somervilles by 1164 and later passed by marriage to the Griffiths in 1328. The house had been demolished by 1535.”
3.33 The scheduled area is in three parts, of which the closest (Figure 1) just enters the 500m study area around the application site. The monument lies to the west of the A38 Ryknild Street corridor, and to the west and north of the Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area.
Significance of the scheduled monuments
3.34 All the scheduled monuments described above are of national significance. Their primary interest lies in their archaeological resource. They are of architectural and artistic interest in an abstract sense, since they once consisted of structures and buildings within there would have been a degree of design and artistic endeavour. Although they are mostly of prehistoric date, monuments of this kind are normally regarded as being of historic interest in terms of what they can reveal about the material culture of people who lived in a remote time in the past. The monuments described above are all relatively rare, or at least they are uncommonly well preserved for their various site- types.
The contribution of setting to significance
3.35 The Medieval earthwork remains of Monument 1009032 differ from the other monuments under consideration here because they can be seen and appreciated to the extent that they retain visible surface structure. However, in this low-lying location their visual influence does not extend far from their immediate surroundings. While their predominantly agricultural surroundings and context are almost certainly part and parcel of their origins, the interaction is localised. Standing east of the A38 an observer would be unable to discern anything about the significance of the monument, even with the benefit of other source material.
3.36 The fourth bullet point under paragraph 9 of GPA3 tells us that:
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 19 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
“Heritage assets that comprise only buried remains may not be readily appreciated by a casual observer, they nonetheless retain a presence in the landscape and, like other heritage assets, have a setting” (sic).
3.37 Two examples of such heritage assets are then given in GPA3, one of which is a battlefield. The other refers to buried archaeology that relates to historic street or boundary patterns, surrounding topography, or continuity of land use. A further paragraph states that “…it does not necessarily follow that the contribution [of setting] is nullified if the asset is obscured or not readily visible”. This, however, does allow for the possibility that it can be nullified in certain circumstances. It is, at any rate, clear that the form of survival of an asset may influence the degree to which its setting contributes to significance and the weight placed on it.
3.38 In the case of the prehistoric monuments within the study area, they are not readily visible, and by any reasonable measure they must be described as obscure. If GPA3 is correct in stating that “they nonetheless retain a presence in the landscape” then the weight given to that presence is influenced by the following:
There is no evidence that they have contributed to the continuity of boundaries or boundary patterns that survive into the modern landscape. Recorded field boundaries (mostly removed) appear to date from the last 200 years or so. There is no evidence that the course of any lane or parish boundary is associated with any of the monuments in question. Indeed, the way in which Ryknild Street cut through the area in Roman times points towards discontinuity rather than continuity.
There is no evidence of continuity of land use. Agricultural land use in the area has probably changed out of all recognition in the last 250 to 500 years, and it is most unlikely to have been continuous since the Bronze Age.
While all the monuments will have responded to local topography at the time of their construction, the low-lying nature of this area makes the appreciation of this topographical relationship rather two-dimensional. It is in upland areas that the interaction between prehistoric monuments
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 20 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
and their surroundings tend to become more appreciable, particularly when the structures are made of stone and survive above ground.
3.39 On this basis it is difficult to give much weight to the contribution that setting makes to the significance of the prehistoric monuments in question. They have been scheduled primarily because of the preservation of below-ground remains, rather than because of the preservation of their original setting, which is generally poor and much altered. Even when seen from elevated positions, such as the bridge where Catholme Lane crosses the railway, the locations of the monuments must usually be extrapolated from air photographs and maps by eye. It is from here that the very altered nature of the setting is also apparent – composed of the road and railway corridors, modern agri-industry, existing quarrying, and the modern “sheds” to the north – the Argos Distribution Centre, Pirelli Tyres, Bombardier Transportation, and others.
3.40 Even if the modern environment is set aside, the most significant aspects of the monuments in question lie in their buried structure – the archaeological resource, and the abstract qualities of the original architectural and historical dimension. It is in these physical remains that the heritage significance of the monuments is at its strongest. In relative terms, the additional contribution made by their setting is small.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 21 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
4.0 EFFECTS ON HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE
The application proposal
4.1 The application proposal involves the phased extraction of material throughout most of the application site and restoration to a water body with extensive tree planting. Conveyors will be constructed over the railway during the operation of the quarry extension, linking with the main site to the east. Measures to protect the edges of Monument 1006072, including localised edge treatments and stand-offs, are described in more detail in the archaeological reports.
4.2 Therefore, the main visual changes within the application site will be (1) extraction and movement of overburden etc during the active phase of the quarry, involving the use of vehicles and machinery within the site, including temporary works, and (2) replacement of the existing predominantly agricultural land use with a landscaped and planted water body.
Effect on Conservation Areas
4.3 The application site makes a limited contribution to the setting and significance of the Trent and Mersey Conservation Area, and the active phase of quarrying will not diminish any aspect of the heritage significance of the area. The restoration to a landscaped water body will permanently alter the wider surroundings of the conservation area, but there will be no loss of appreciation and no reduction of the significance of the designated heritage asset.
4.4 There will be no material effect on the Alrewas Conservation Area arising from the proposed development.
4.5 No harm will be caused by the proposed development to the significance of the Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area and Alrewas Conservation Area. Paragraphs 133 and 134 of the NPPF will not be engaged, and no harm should be placed in the planning balance.
Effect on Listed Buildings
4.6 The application site makes a limited contribution to the setting and significance of the two groups of listed buildings at Wychnor Bridges Farmhouse and Canal Bridges 42 and 43. The active phase of quarrying will not diminish any aspect
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 22 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
of the heritage significance of the listed buildings, particularly when the intervening “buffer” of modern farm buildings is taken into account. The restoration to a landscaped water body will permanently alter the wider surroundings of the listed buildings, but there will be no loss of appreciation and no reduction of the significance of the designated heritage assets. Careful consideration has been given to the change that would occur in the view shown in Figure 7 when making this assessment.
4.7 No harm will be caused by the proposed development to the setting of significance of the listed buildings known as Wychnor Bridges farmhouse and its attached former stables, hayloft, smithy and cottage. Similarly, no harm will be caused to the setting or significance of Canal Bridges 42 and 43. There will be no effect on the listed canal milepost to the west.
4.8 Paragraphs 133 and 134 of the NPPF will not be engaged, and no harm should be placed in the planning balance. There will be preservation for the purposes of the decision maker’s duty under section 66(1) of the Act.
Effect on Scheduled Monuments
4.9 The proposed development will have no material effect on the setting or significance of the scheduled medieval earthworks of Wychnor deserted village (1009032), which stand a considerable distance away on the west side of the A38.
4.10 For similar reasons, the proposed development will have no material effect on the setting or significance of the cropmarks of scheduled prehistoric features on the west side of the A38 (1006095) or north of Catholme (1006073 and 1019109 – the latter in three parts). The proposed development has been kept as far as possible from the two hengi-form monuments north of Catholme Lane because of their possible contemporary grouping and their wider relationship with the River Trent.
4.11 Although the modern agri-industrial setting of monument 1006072 has been completely changed since its ring ditches and associated linears were constructed in the prehistoric (probably Bronze Age) period, and although the present setting makes only a relatively small contribution to the significance of the monument, there will be some loss of context arising from the proposed
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 23 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
development. It is the long term change from modern agriculture to water body, nearly abutting three sides of the rectilinear boundary of the monument that will have the greatest effect, rather than the relatively more temporary disturbance caused by mineral extraction.
4.12 The result of the change will be a low level of harm to the setting and significance of monument 1006072, falling within the meaning in paragraph 134 (less than substantial harm) of the NPPF. It is this level of harm that should be placed in the planning balance.
Summary of effects
4.13 The proposed development will not cause any loss of significance in respect of any listed building, or any conservation area. The setting and significance of the majority of the scheduled monuments within 500m of the proposed development will be preserved, and no scheduled monuments will be affected beyond that distance. In only one instance will there be any loss of setting or significance in relation to a scheduled monument (1006072) at the north- eastern edge of the proposed development. This will amount to a low level of less than substantial harm within the meaning in paragraph 134 of the NPPF.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 24 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
5.0 CONCLUSION
5.1 The proposed development will change the setting of Monument 1006072 (a group of four scheduled suspected Bronze Age ring ditches and associated linears now levelled by ploughing) from modern agri-industrial surroundings to a water body on three sides, nearly abutting the artificially designated boundaries of the protected area. This will noticeably change the setting and surroundings of the monument, albeit the setting only contributes a relatively small amount to its overall significance. As a result, there will be less than substantial harm to the significance of the monument, within the meaning in paragraph 134 of the NPPF. Only a small amount of harm will be caused, falling at the bottom of the spectrum within less than substantial harm. It is this harm that should be considered in the overall balancing exercise.
5.2 The proposed development will bring about change within the wider surroundings of a number of other scheduled monuments, but there will be no loss of significance and no harm.
5.3 The proposed development will also bring about change within the wider surroundings of the Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area, but there will be no erosion of the significance of the conservation area. Paragraphs 133 and 134 of the NPPF will not be engaged.
5.4 The proposed development will bring about change within the setting of Wychnor Bridges Farmhouse and its attached former smithy, cottage, stables and hayloft. The agricultural context of the farm will be altered to a water body on the east side. Given the “buffer” of modern farm buildings and the small contribution made by the setting of the listed building on the east side, including consideration of views, there will be no loss of significance. Paragraphs 133 and 134 of the NPPF are not engaged. There is preservation for the purposes of the decision maker’s duty under section 66(1) of the Act.
5.5 There will be no material effect on the setting of any other listed buildings, and no harm within the meaning in paragraphs 133 and 134 of the NPPF.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 25 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
Figure 1 – Location map showing positions of designated heritage assets
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 26 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
Figure 2 – View north from near the point where Catholme Lane crosses the railway, looking towards the Argos Distribution Centre into the field containing Monuments 1006073 (extreme left) and 1019109 (in three separate parts).
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 27 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
Figure 3 - View north-west from near the point where Catholme Lane crosses the railway, looking towards the position of Monument 1006073 with the Argos Distribution Centre just visible to the right of view.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 28 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
Figure 4 - View west from near the point where Catholme Lane crosses the railway. Monument 1006072 is beyond and partly to the left of the trees. The course of the A38 Ryknild Street can be inferred by the tree line in the distance.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 29 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
Figure 5 - View south-west from near the point where Catholme Lane crosses the railway, looking across Monument 1006072 which is centre-right, just beyond the clump of trees that can be seen on the right hand side of the image. The distant tree line is effectively the course of the A38 Ryknild Street. The location of Wychnor Bridges Farmhouse (the chimneys and roof of which can be seen from this viewpoint) is arrowed.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 30 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
Figure 6 – Wychnor Bridges Farmhouse seen from the north-east, at a distance of about 500m.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 31 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
Figure 7 – Wychnor Bridges Farmhouse seen from the north-east at a distance of about 150m.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 32 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
Figure 8 – Wychnor Bridges Farmhouse – front elevation from A38.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 33 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
Figure 9 – Wychnor Bridges Farmhouse and former stable and hay loft, seen from the A38.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 34 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
Figure 10 – Former smithy and cottage, Wychnor Bridges Farmhouse, seen from the A38.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 35 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
Figure 11 – Wychnor Bridges Farmhouse seen looking east over Bridge 42, across the Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 36 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
Figure 12 – Bridge 42, Trent and Mersey Canal.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 37 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
Figure 13 – Bridge 43, Trent and Mersey Canal.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 38 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
Figure 14 – Looking south from Bridge 43 towards Wychnor Lock 11, Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 39 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
Figure 15 – Grade II listed milepost, Trent and Mersey Canal.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 40 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
Figure 16 - Looking south from near Wychnor Lock 11, Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 41 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
Figure 17 - Looking north towards Wychnor Lock 11, with Bridge 43 beyond, Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 42 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
Figure 18 - Bridge 42, Trent and Mersey Canal, looking south, with Bridge 43 partly visible through the arch.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 43 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
Figure 19 – Modern road bridge at Dogshead Lane, looking north, Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 44 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
Figure 20 – Modern carriageway at Dogshead Lane, looking north, Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 45 Western Extension
HeritageCollective
Figure 21 – Old road bridge carrying Catholme Lane over the Trent and Mersey Canal, looking north.
Heritage Assessment Barton Quarry – Proposed On behalf of Hanson November 2017 © 46 Western Extension