Historic Environment Assessment

Client: Sedgemoor District Council

Prepared by: Steven Membery

Approved by: Bob Croft

Rev Number Description Author Checked Date 4 Final S. Membery B. Croft 20/01/17 T. James 18/01/17

1 Historic Environment Assessment

Contents

1. Introduction ...... 4 Summary Statements ...... 4 Assessment Background ...... 7 Assessment Methodology ...... 7 2 Bridgwater ...... 12 3 Bridgwater East ...... 15 Bridgwater East Site options (Sites C and D) ...... 16 4 Bridgwater South ...... 17 Site E: Land south of Dawes Farm ...... 18 Site F: Land at Shortlands Farm ...... 19 Site G: Bridgwater Gateway Phase 2 ...... 22 Site L: Huntworth J24 ...... 25 5 Bridgwater West ...... 36 Site A: Cokerhurst Farm, Wembdon and land south of A39, Durleigh ...... 37 6 Burnham on Sea & Highbridge ...... 45 Site A: Land north of Mulholland Way ...... 49 Site B: Brue Farm extension ...... 53 Site C: Land east of Isleport Lane ...... 60 Site D: Land north of Stoddens Farm...... 64 7 Cheddar Sites Options ...... 71 Archaeology and History ...... 72 Site A: Yeo Valley ...... 73 Site B: Land west of Upper New Road ...... 74 Site C: Round Oak Farm ...... 76 Site D: Venn’s Gate...... 77 Site E: Sharpham Road/Hellier’s Lane ...... 80 Site H: Land to the West of Cheddar Business Park ...... 81 Area I: Winchester Farm ...... 82 8 North Petherton Site Options ...... 83 Sites A, B and C ...... 85 Site D: Sellick’s Lane/Newton Road ...... 89 2 Historic Environment Assessment Site F: Park Lane ...... 96 9 Tier 2 Settlements ...... 99 Axbridge ...... 99 Cannington ...... 100 Nether Stowey ...... 101 Puriton ...... 102 Wedmore ...... 103 Woolavington ...... 106

3 Historic Environment Assessment 1. Introduction This assessment has been carried out to ensure sites in the emerging Sedgemoor District Council Local Plan are in accordance with the requirements concerning the historic environment as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the National Planning Practice Guide (NPPG) and relevant Historic England practice guides. The assessment covers the sites of Tier 1 settlements by identifying heritage assets and outlining and qualifying potential impacts. Requirements for further information such as archaeological evaluation or the submission of Heritage Statements are identified where impacts are envisaged. The assessment addresses the Tier 2 settlements in terms of Development Management policies. Summary Statements Sites have been assessed for potential impacts on heritage assets (archaeological, built and historic character) using appropriate data sets. Sites with potential for as of yet undiscovered assets with archaeological interest have been identified and the requirements for further evaluation prior to determination of future planning applications have been described. On sites containing, or near designated assets an appraisal of the assets and their settings has been carried out. The summary results of these assessments are as follows:

Bridgwater East  Sites C and D have low overall archaeological potential but may contain paleo- environmental material that contains evidence relating to past environments. Therefore, it may be appropriate to attach a condition to permissions requiring retrieval and analysis of such material. This would however, depend on the nature of the development and the level of impact.

Bridgwater South  Site E has no historic environment issues.

 Site F has the potential for buried archaeology relating to Roman period occupation/activity and further archaeological evaluation is required (geophysical survey and trial trench evaluation). An appropriate mitigation strategy should be designed based on the results of the evaluation.

 Site G has identified archaeology and potential for as of yet undiscovered remains. Some of the option area has already been evaluated and will require mitigation in the form of targeted excavation. Areas not yet evaluated will require geophysical survey and trial trench evaluation. An appropriate mitigation strategy should be designed based on the results of the evaluation.

 Site L has the potential for a Moderate/Large Impact on the visual setting of a listed building, The Hayes and a Moderate Impact on Huntworth House listed building. A Heritage Statement should be prepared and submitted with planning application. Mitigation measures would be required in order for this site to accord with the NPPF.

4 Historic Environment Assessment These measures may include requiring appropriate distance to be kept between the asset and the development as well as screening. Site L also has the potential for archaeology relating to prehistoric activity and further archaeological evaluation is required (geophysical survey and trial trench evaluation). An appropriate mitigation strategy should be designed based on the results of the evaluation.

Bridgwater West  Site A Western Extension contains identified archaeology relating to prehistoric settlement so mitigation in the form of archaeological excavation is required. A programme of archaeological evaluation will need to take place on the southern area of the site, including geophysical survey and trial trenching. This site has the potential for a Slight Effect on the visual setting of a listed building, Cokerhurst Farm.

Burnham on Sea and Highbridge  Site A has a potential for Roman period archaeology on the site as well as medieval ridge and furrow and an undated windmill mound. There will be a need for predetermination earthwork surveys and trial trenching to evaluate the potential archaeology.

 Site B has the potential for archaeological remains therefore survey and other recording/investigation will be required in order to conform with the NPPF paragraph 141. This would be achieved through attaching archaeological conditions to planning permissions. This site has the potential for a Neutral/Slight Effect on the visual setting of a listed building, Holcroft.

 Site C has the potential for archaeology relating to prehistoric activity and further archaeological evaluation is required (geophysical survey and trial trench evaluation). An appropriate mitigation strategy should be designed based on the results of the evaluation.

 Site D has the potential for archaeology relating to medieval activity and further archaeological evaluation will be required (geophysical survey and trial trench evaluation). An appropriate mitigation strategy should be designed based on the results of the evaluation. The site has the potential to have a Moderate/Large Effect on the visual and historic setting of a listed building, Stoddens Farmouse.

Cheddar  Site A has no historic environment issues.

 Site B There is an indication with the place names that there once was well with religious connections, the Holywell, in the area. It would be appropriate to attach an archaeological condition to planning applications in this area.

 Site C has no historic environment issues.

5 Historic Environment Assessment

 Site D has no historic environment issues.

 Site E has no historic environment issues.

 Site H has the potential for buried archaeology relating to Romano-British/early medieval period occupation and further archaeological evaluation will be required (geophysical survey and trial trenching). An appropriate mitigation strategy should be designed based on the results of the evaluation.

 Site I has no historic environment issues.

North Petherton  Sites A, B, C, D and F have the potential for buried archaeology relating to Roman period settlement and further archaeological evaluation will be required (geophysical survey and trial trench evaluation). An appropriate mitigation strategy should be designed based on the results of the evaluation.

 Sites C and D have the potential for a Slight Effect on the visual setting of listed buildings, Spitgrove and Batts House.

 Site F has no historic environment issues.

6 Historic Environment Assessment Assessment Background This assessment was carried out in order to inform on Historic Environment issues within the Sedgemoor District Local Plan (SDLP). It identifies any issues concerning potential impacts on heritage assets, both built and archaeological. The assessment ensures the SDLP conforms to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The assessment is based on current policy and practice guides and follows the procedures set out in the The Historic Environment in Local Plans Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning:1 (Historic England 2015) requires that Local Plans should:

 "be based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area – which would include the historic environment. In particular, this up-to-date evidence should be used to assess the significance of heritage assets and the contribution they make to the environment (NPPF Paragraphs 158 and 169)"

Should contain:

 "detailed historic characterisation work assessing the impact of a proposal for a major urban extension or rural development"

 "visual impact assessments, considering the potential impact of sites upon the setting of important heritage assets"

 "an appropriate archaeological assessment to consider whether heritage assets with archaeological potential are likely to be present in areas where the HER indicates that there has been little or no previous investigation"

Historic Environment and Sites in Local Plans Historic England Advice Note 1 (2015) also requires that Local Plans should include:

 "Characterisation work to understand the potential impact of sites on historic places, and inform assessments of an area’s capacity to accommodate development."

 "The updating of existing information, such as the production of a more detailed study on the significance of heritage assets including assessment of their setting, an assessment to understand heritage impacts in greater detail or the identification of new heritage assets."

Assessment Methodology

Archaeological Assessment The sites are assessed for known and potential assets of archaeological significance. This is carried out in line with the Institute for Archaeologists Standards and guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment December 2014.

Historic Landscape Characterisation The Somerset Historic Environment Record and the Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) are data sets held by the South West Heritage Trust. The HLC descriptions are quoted

7 Historic Environment Assessment within the text verbatim from the dataset and are not tested within this assessment unless accessible evidence exists to contradict, or inform on the HLC description. Designated Assets Where designated heritage assets are identified that may be potentially affected by development further assessment is applied. The identification of potential affects is based primarily on the proximity of the asset to the site. Or where appropriate, views (to and from assets) or where there is potential for impacts on an asset’s setting and therefore its significance.

The assessment identifies any assets, describes their significance (using the qualitative assessment set out below) and defines their heritage values. The setting of assets is described and its contribution to the assets’ significance is defined. Impacts are identified and their significance on the assets is determined. The assessment was carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Historic England guidance using the listing descriptions as baseline data accompanied by site visits to assess the setting and identify the impacts.

The following summarises the methodology and principles applied:

 Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment (Historic England 2008) details the principles to understanding heritage values and defines four categories:

 Evidential value

 Historical value

 Aesthetic value

 Communal value

 Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 3 The Setting of Heritage Assets (Historic England 2015) details the methodology for assessing potential impacts and enhancements.

 Step 1: identifying the heritage assets affected and their settings

 Step 2: Assessing whether, how and to what degree these settings make a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset(s)

 Step 3: Assessing the effect of the proposed development on the significance of the asset(s)

 Step 4: Maximising enhancement and minimising harm

 Step 5: Making and documenting the decision

The assessment uses the method set out in the Cultural Heritage section of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges: Volume 11 (DMRB 2009) to characterise the Importance (significance) of Heritage Assets and the Magnitude of Impacts on them in order to define the Significance of Effects.

8 Historic Environment Assessment Scale of Site Importance Importance (significance) is determined in accordance with criteria derived from the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Table 6.1.

Determining Magnitude of Impact The magnitude of impact is determined in accordance with qualitative assessment descriptions set out in Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Table 6.3 DMRB.

9 Historic Environment Assessment Significance of Effect Significance of Effects is determined in accordance with qualitative assessment descriptions set out in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Table 6.4.

Sources The following sources were utilised in this assessment:

 National Heritage List for England: www.HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/

 Heritage Gateway: www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/

 Somerset Historic Environment Record (SHER) http://www.somersetheritage.org.uk/

 Historic landscape characterisation http://www.somersetheritage.org.uk/

 Tithe Maps c.1840 http://www.somersetheritage.org.uk/

 2nd edition OS maps 1:10560 (c.1903-30)

 RAF 1946 Aerial Photographs (Aps) http://www.somersetheritage.org.uk/

 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges: Volume 11 (DMRB 2009)

 Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment (Historic England 2008)

 The Historic Environment in Local Plans Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning:1 (Historic England 2015)

 Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 3 The Setting of Heritage Assets (Historic England 2015)

10 Historic Environment Assessment

 Institute for Archaeologists Standards and guidance for historic environment desk- based assessment December (2014)

 Lidar map of Britain (https://houseprices.io/lab/lidar/map)

 English Heritage Extensive Urban Surveys, Gathercole (2001)

 Bowen’s Map of Somerset (1750)

Images Images of HER locations, aerial photographs, Ordnance Survey maps and tithe maps are included in the text where appropriate. For example, where a site has archaeological potential but has not been subject to archaeological desk-based assessment, geophysical survey, trial trench evaluation, or where there is potential impact on a designated asset or its setting. Photographs are included where they usefully illustrate an aspect of the assessment (to indicate the nature of an asset’s setting for example).

Heritage assets of archaeological interest that are recorded on the SHER that are mentioned in the text and appear on location maps are in bold.

Ordnance Survey Licence Statement All maps are reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office (c) Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Somerset County Council 100038382 (2014).

11 Historic Environment Assessment 2 Bridgwater

Archaeology and History Bridgwater is centred on an outcrop of marl (on the highest point of which the castle stood) in an area dominated by low-lying alluvial deposits.

There are signs that the area was exploited in prehistoric times: aerial photographs show enclosures at sites around Bridgwater. There may have been a route passing across the river and along the Wembdon Hill ridge. However, although there have been scattered finds of prehistoric artefacts in the town, there is little sign of any settlement close to the river. There are traces of some Roman activity in the area as scattered pot and coins have been found in the town itself. One small settlement site has been found to the north of the town at Perry Green, but there has been nothing so far to suggest any urban activity.

Although there was no Saxon burh at Bridgwater or in the surrounding area, command of the lands along the river was important. In 1066, the Sheriff of Lincolnshire held the land. There are records of several estate holders in the early 11th century and it is likely that the manors around Bridgwater had Saxon origins, but there is no sign of particular occupation on the site of the town itself.

At Domesday, Bridgwater was recorded as Brugie, which may mean "bridge". but the name may come from the Old English brycg (gang plank) or Old Norse bryggja (quay), though this idea has been refuted on etymological grounds. The modern name of the town comes from this element, combined with that of the first Norman landholder, Walter de Douai. There is no evidence of any really urban activity in the 11th century: however, at Domesday a five-hide agricultural settlement is recorded, and the church may well have been in existence then. Indeed, a strong feudal focus at Bridgwater is implied by the fact that Bower, Horsey, Hamp and Pawlett were held of Bridgwater in the early medieval period. The parishes of Bridgwater, Wembdon and Chilton Trinity may indeed have originated in a single estate, which was still partly intact at Domesday.

Around 1200, William Brewer (or Briwer) was granted a charter to build the castle; shortly afterwards, Bridgwater’s first borough charter was granted to Brewer, it is likely that the central foci of the castle, church and market, and the bridge, together with the early suburb of Eastover, were laid out swiftly. The building of a stone bridge was important to Bridgwater’s future as it blocked the direct route to Langport and other upstream ports: the town became the transhipment point for the inland traffic. Bridgwater’s subsequent history in this period is one of marked commercial success as a mercantile town. By the 14th century, it was one of the most important towns, and ports, in Somerset (state documents addressed to "ports of the realm" were sent only to Bridgwater and Dunster in Somerset). At its peak, it had four annual fairs, of varying degrees of importance, and produce and livestock markets. Despite a temporary decline of prosperity in the mid-14th century, the expansion of the fabric of the town is reflected by the recording of about 650 burgages between 1377 and 1399 and in 1402 the accounts of the port for the first time became separate from those of Bristol. Bridgwater’s medieval success was based in part on the cloth trade, of which it was a centre. Apart from wool and finished cloth, it also traded commodities such as agricultural produce, hides and wine with France, Spain, Wales and Ireland. It was a cosmopolitan merchant town. Its mercantile focus was independent of shipping in this period: there were comparatively few

12 Historic Environment Assessment ships belonging to the town and, indeed, many of the goods brought in big ships and traded via Bridgwater were actually landed at its sister port of Combwich further downstream.

The town’s fortunes began to fluctuate again in the 15th century. Bridgwater was touched by the Wars of the Roses, the campaigns to stop Henry Tudor’s landing and the 1497 rebellion. In 1460, the town petitioned for a reduction of the annual payment on the grounds of poverty. The lingering effects of the plague may have been a factor, but Bridgwater also did not have a solid base for its mainstay, the cloth industry, lacking fulling mills in the town. This led to the partial withdrawal of the cloth trade to other centres in the mid-15th century. The situation improved somewhat between 1480 and 1510, but then worsened: in the 16th century. Despite these problems, or perhaps because of them, it was in the mid-15th century that the merchant guild was founded (1453) and the town won the right to a mayor (1468). The acquisition of the monopoly on the import and redistribution of Welsh millstones in the 1560s began the general upward trend in the importance of the port.

From 1600 on trade again increased, much of it being coastal, and more of it involving raw materials such as timber, iron, glass and salt. By the end of the 17th century, the cloth industry had also temporarily recovered, and Cock Fair was established in the late 17th century. Bridgwater was involved in significant military actions during the Civil War; it was briefly occupied by part of the retreating Parliamentary garrison of Taunton, and then taken and garrisoned by the Royalists. In 1645, the town was besieged and taken by Fairfax and the New Model Army (camped in the fields of Eastover), whilst the southern and eastern outliers of Sydenham and Hamp were used as headquarters. After the Restoration, there was a marked growth of nonconformity in the town. In 1685, national events again came to the fore: Monmouth was proclaimed king in Bridgwater, with his army camping on Castle Field, and some of his troops fled back there after the Battle of Sedgemoor.

Bridgwater’s industrialisation began early. The brick and shipbuilding industries existed in a small way in the late 17th/ early 18th centuries. In the 1720s, the process was boosted by the schemes of the Duke of Chandos, which included the construction of the glass cone, as well as the redevelopment of the castle area. The terraces of Chandos Street and Castle Street were intended for the moneyed tradesmen the Duke hoped to attract. In the event, he himself did not prosper and his schemes failed. Nevertheless, the elegance of his housing developments reflects the transition of the town from a mercantile centre to a focus of the professions and "society": with the acquisition of the August assizes in 1720, the town acquired its "season".

After its precocious industrial development in the early 18th century, Bridgwater faltered and was somewhat stagnant at the end of the 18th century, operating as a market town, a coaching halt and a port. From the start of the 19th century onwards, however, the emphasis was again on the growth of industry, and commensurate improvements in the town’s communications. The growth was dramatic: the population rose from about 3000 in 1801 to 14,900 in 1901, an increase of some 400%, much of this growth taking place in the first half of the century. Population growth was accompanied by the construction of large Victorian working class suburbs of increasingly high quality. There was a huge expansion of the brick and tile industries. The brick industry had begun by the end of the 17th century, but escalated in the late 18th and 19th centuries. In the 1840s the brick and tile works and the Bath brick plants employed about 1300 men in the summer season. By 1850 there were many brickworks north and south of the town, and these prospered for the rest of the century. This meant that Bridgwater grew east-west in order to avoid the areas of clay pitting. The growth in the brick industry was complemented by the establishment of vastly improved communications systems

13 Historic Environment Assessment and port facilities in the first half of the 19th century. The creation of the Tone Navigation (in the 18th century) was followed by the early 19th century drainage schemes and the creation of a series of canals, which linked Bridgwater to Taunton, Exeter, Chard and Westport. The Bridgwater and Taunton Canal, opened as far as Huntworth in 1827, was extended in the 1840s to form part of the new dock complex to the north of the medieval town, which finally allowed all traffic to dock in Bridgwater rather than Cambic (Combwich). The railways also arrived in Bridgwater in the early 1840s, and the Bristol and Exeter Railway Carriage Works formed part of an influx of engineering industries to the town. Shipbuilding also flourished. Business in the docks peaked in the 1870s, but after this date trade gradually declined.

In 1835, the Town Corporation was established. Though Bridgwater’s heyday was in the 19th century, its principal industry, the brick making industry, continued to flourish throughout the first half of the 20th century. Though the demand for Bath bricks ceased in the first part of the century, the brick and tile works were mostly reopened after World War 1. The brickyards declined in the 1960s and the last one closed in 1970, due to exhaustion of the best clay and the availability of cheaper alternatives. The port, too, gradually declined, with the canal closing for business c1907, the dock and Edington railway branches closing by the 1950s, and the docks themselves closing in 1971. Population increase has nevertheless continued, though not at the same rate. Bridgwater has continued to attract new industries, such as the Cellophane works and, more recently, light industry. The cellophane works closed in 2005 and were demolished in 2010-15. Road traffic has replaced much of the water- and rail-borne trade. The new communication route of the M5 has restored the town’s wider links and associated distribution warehouses and other light industrial plants have been developed along the M5. The suburbs have continued to grow, gradually absorbing parts of the surrounding parishes. The Corporation was dissolved in 1974, with the creation of Sedgemoor District Council.

Recent large scale development has tended to be associated with light industry along arterial roads that have access to the M5 or housing developments on the fringes of the town such as Chilton Trinity and south Bridgwater along the Taunton Road.

14 Historic Environment Assessment 3 Bridgwater East

15 Historic Environment Assessment Bridgwater East Site options (Sites C and D)

Archaeological Assessment  The northern and southern fringes of the East Bridgwater site options are characterised by evidence associated with Post Medieval industrial activity. To the north, a mound of glass making waste was identified at Rones Farm, East Bower (SHER No. 10221). To the south lie the remains of Champion’s brickworks (SHER Nos. 10219 & 31622). The area is bisected northwest to southeast by the Bridgwater to Langport turnpike Road (SHER No. 24589).

 A deserted medieval settlement to the west of Crow’s Lane (the western edge of the application area) has since been completely built on by housing (SHER No. 11248).

Historic Landscape Characterisation Anciently Enclosed Land pre-17th century. General field size, 3-6ha. Less than 25% boundary loss since 1905. Previously wetland. However recent research has indicated a more complex character in this area so the HLC description may not reflect the true nature of the character of the site. It is probable that most of this area was reclaimed from salt marsh in the Early Medieval period.

Archaeological Potential The sites have low archaeological potential but may contain paleo-environmental material that contains evidence relating to past environments. This is likely to be at some depth due to the deep deposits of clay that built up during post-Roman marine incursions. Further Archaeological Investigation Due to the potential for paleo-environmental evidence it may be appropriate to require the retrieval and analysis of material. This would however, depend on the nature of the development and the level of impact (for example if piled foundations are used).

Considerations for Planning Applications A condition should be attached to permissions to ensure recovery and analysis of paleo- environmental evidence.

Appropriateness for development in terms of the NPPF Development of Sites C and D are not likely to impact on buried archaeological remains or any designated assets but may impact on paleo-environmental material. The sites are considered to be in accordance with the principles and policies set out in Section 12 of the NPPF.

16 Historic Environment Assessment 4 Bridgwater South

17 Historic Environment Assessment Site E: Land south of Dawes Farm

Archaeological Assessment  An evaluation in of the Site (SHER 32026) found no evidence of occupation activity and no finds were recovered. Historic Landscape Characterisation Anciently Enclosed Land modified 17th to 19th century. General field size, 6-12ha. Between 25% and 50% boundary loss since 1905.

Archaeological Potential There is only very low (or no) potential for any archaeology on the site. Further Archaeological Investigation No further archaeological investigation is required.

Considerations for Planning Applications There are no historic environment considerations. Appropriateness for development in terms of the NPPF The site is considered to be in accordance with the principles and policies set out in Section 12 of the NPPF.

18 Historic Environment Assessment Site F: Land at Shortlands Farm

Archaeological Assessment  The remains of a group of possible prehistoric and/or Roman ditched enclosures are partially visible as cropmarks on aerial photographs (SHER No. 11887). The enclosures, which are situated on a gentle slope overlooking a stream, may represent the remains of a settlement and/or possibly stock enclosures or fields. Further soilmarks can be seen in the adjacent field to the east suggesting the settlement may be more extensive.

 An evaluation (SHER No. 28556) carried out in 2008 to the north of Wilstock farm recorded two post medieval ditches and two undated features.

Location of HER references

 North Petherton tithe Map 1841: Same field pattern as appears on the later 2nd edition Ordnance Survey map.

19 Historic Environment Assessment

 2nd edition Ordnance Survey (1903-1930s): Shows the site as a single field.

 1946 RAF Aerial Photographs: Indicates the site had been divided into three fields.

20 Historic Environment Assessment

Historic Landscape Characterisation Recently Enclosed Land 17th to 18th century. General field size, 6-12ha. Between 25% and 50% boundary loss since 1905.

Archaeological Potential The site has potential for archaeology relating to prehistoric/Roman period activity. Further Archaeological Investigation This should initially comprise geophysical survey followed by trial trench evaluation to provide sufficient information to describe the significance of the archaeological asset. The results of these surveys should be used to design a mitigation strategy that may involve excavation of archaeology on the site. Considerations for Planning Applications Detailed archaeological investigations will need to be carried out prior to the determination of planning applications on this site and, dependant on results, further mitigation measures may be required through attaching a condition to permission. Appropriateness for development in terms of the NPPF Development of Site F is likely to impact on buried archaeological remains therefore prior to determination of planning applications associated with this site, archaeological evaluation should take place as required by paragraph 128 of the NPPF. Dependant on results a condition may be attached to permission to accord with paragraph 141 of the NPPF. The site is considered to be in accordance with the principles and policies set out in Section 12 of the NPPF.

21 Historic Environment Assessment Site G: Bridgwater Gateway Phase 2

Archaeological Assessment  A number of cropmarks have been identified within this site area. Subsequent geophysical survey identified a complex arrangement of ditched rectilinear enclosures thought to relate to settlement activity. Many of features appeared to cut each other, suggesting multiphase activity.

 An evaluation (SHER 30279) of the geophysical survey area broadly confirmed the results of the geophysical survey. Archaeological features and finds dating from the Bronze Age to the 13th century AD were recorded. Although the majority of recorded features remained undated, two ditches and a pit containing Early to Middle Bronze Age pottery were identified within two enclosures in the north-western extent of the development site. Iron Age pottery was also recovered from a curvilinear enclosure along the central northern boundary of the application Site. Iron Age pottery, Roman pottery and a late Roman or post- Roman glass bead were retrieved from ditch fills from a possible enclosure complex in the south western area of the development site. Pottery sherds and a knife fragment of 12th-13th century date were recovered from a ditch fill in the south-western corner of the development site, these probably relate to farming activity associated with the former Hadworthy Farm (demolished c1989).

 While the evaluation did not produce conclusive evidence to date the enclosures recorded as cropmarks/geophysical anomalies, the report concluded that some of the enclosures could be of Bronze Age date but may equally be attributed to the Iron Age.

Location of HER references

22 Historic Environment Assessment  North Petherton tithe Map 1841: Same field pattern as appears on the later the 2nd edition Ordnance Survey map.

 2nd edition Ordnance Survey map (c.1903-30): The site was divided in to regular and irregular fields with possible wet areas in the west side of the Site. Hadworthy Farm is located within the site.

23 Historic Environment Assessment  1946 RAF Aerial Photographs: Show same field pattern as 2nd edition with drainage channels cut through some fields. Hadworthy Farm was extant.

Historic Landscape Characterisation Recently Enclosed Land 18th to 21st century. General field size, 12+ha. Between 25% and 50% boundary loss since 1905.

Archaeological Potential The site has proven archaeology relating to prehistoric and Roman period occupation. Further Archaeological Investigation A programme of archaeological investigation will need to be carried out based on the key areas of activity. Some areas of excavation have been agreed (as part of the existing permission) but the site covers areas that have not yet been fully evaluated. Therefore, further geophysical survey, trial trenching and excavation (where warranted) will need to take place. Considerations for Planning Applications Detailed archaeological investigations will need to be carried out prior to the determination of planning applications on areas of the site not yet evaluated and, dependant on results, further mitigation measures may be required through attaching a condition to permission. Appropriateness for development in terms of the NPPF Development of Site G will impact on buried archaeological remains and therefore prior to determination of applications evaluation would be required to conform with paragraph 128 of the NPPF. Also prior to development, archaeological excavation should take place as required by paragraph 141 of the NPPF. There are no impacts on any designated assets. The site is considered to be in accordance with the principles and policies set out in Section 12 of the NPPF.

24 Historic Environment Assessment Site L: Huntworth J24

Archaeological Assessment  The remains of a prehistoric settlement (SHER No. 11264) indicated by a soilmark partially extend into the southwest area of the site. The cropmark remains of an enclosure (SHER 11920) and ring ditch (SHER No. 11921) lie on the western edge of Huntworth and also partially within the site.

 Petherton medieval park, Huntsworth (SHER No. 10607) lies c150m to the south of the site.

 Marconi Beam Radio Station, S of Huntworth (SHER 12716) lies to the south of the site.

Location of HER references

25 Historic Environment Assessment  North Petherton tithe map 1841: Same pattern as appears on the later 2nd edition OS map.

 2nd edition Ordnance Survey (1903-1930s): Shows a similar field pattern as presently exists (A, B and C).

A 26 Historic Environment Assessment

B

C

27 Historic Environment Assessment  RAF Aerial Photograph 1946: Shows similar field patern as extant.

Historic Landscape Characterisation Recently Enclosed Land 18th to 21st century. General field size, 12+ha. Between 25% and 50% boundary loss since 1905.

Archaeological Potential The site has potential for prehistoric activity as indicated by the presence of a prehistoric settlement and associated ring ditches (barrows) most likely dating to the Bronze Age.

Further Archaeological Investigation Detailed archaeological investigations will need to be carried out prior to determination of planning applications on this site. This should initially comprise geophysical survey followed by trial trench evaluation to provide sufficient information to describe the significance of the archaeological asset. The need for further mitigation measures may be determined on the basis of these results. Potentially Impacted Designated Assets  The Hayes, Huntworth Lane (North side) Grade II.

28 Historic Environment Assessment Historic England Listing Description: “House. Early C19. Roughcast, pantile roof, coped verges, 3 brick ridge stacks. Two storeys, 4 bays, 2-light casements to first floor, 3 renewed in aluminium; 4 pairs of pointed arch head, French windows to ground floor, three-quarter glazed, Gothick style. Verandah to left return, 2 further pairs of French windows.” List entry number: 1344992

 Huntworth House, Huntworth Lane (South side) Grade II. Historic England Listing Description: “Small country house. C17/C18, C19 alterations. Colour washed roughcast, double Roman and triple Roman tile roofs, brick stacks. Long 2-storey main frontage in 3 units, 2:3:6 bays; rusticated pilasters between bay sets and to left side; attic to right bay set with windows blocked; 2 and 3-light casements except left 2 bays with sash windows with glazing bars; 2 canted bay windows on ground floor. Two door openings with triangular pediments on pilasters, panelled reveals, panelled doors with glazed lights. Pyramidal roofed wing at rear with small wooden turret, cupola and wind- vane.” List entry Number: 1177863

 Huntworth Park House Grade II. Historic England Listing Description: “Farmhouse, now house. C17/C18. Rubble and brick, triple-Roman tile roof, brick stacks. Two storeys, 5 bays, 2-light casements with

29 Historic Environment Assessment glazing bars; central plain door. Tiled pent-roofed verandah on wood supports along ground floor. Two storey addition to left return.” List entry number: 1307243

Importance of Assets In accordance with criteria derived from the DMRB, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Table 6.1 (2009) the designated assets are considered to be of:

 The Hayes, Huntworth Lane (North side): Medium Importance  Huntworth House, Huntworth Lane (South side): Medium Importance  Huntworth Park House: Medium Importance

In accordance with the methodology set out in Historic England’s Good Practice Advice in Planning: 3 (Historic England 2015) and Conservation Principles, Policies & Guidance (Historic England 2008) their heritage values are considered to be:

 Evidential because they have the ability to reveal information about past human activity.

The assets share the same potential to provide information concerning the construction and later modifications to the buildings.

 Historical (illustrative) as they provide a visible link between past and present human cultural activity.

All three assets illustrate the past nature of settlement in the area and represent the oldest structures within the hamlet.

 Aesthetic in terms of architectural design.

The assets although of differing dates and styles are all of architectural merit and represent the different natures of hamlet settlement from farming to relatively high status houses.

30 Historic Environment Assessment Setting Assessment The three assets are all situated close to each other within the hamlet of Huntworth. The main approach to all three is along Huntworth Lane, which is a single carriageway and bounded by hedgerows.

View along Huntworth Lane looking east

The Hayes is set back slightly from Huntworth Lane on the north side. It is located adjacent to Site L (which lies to the north) with only a hedgerow separating the site from the asset. It is not visible from any public rights of way except from Huntworth Lane, due to it being bounded by trees on the east and west sides. From the lane the south facing aspect of the building is most evident with a low natural stone wall fronting the lane.

31 Historic Environment Assessment

Huntworth House is located on the south side of Huntworth Lane with a gravelled parking area at the front. The boundary on the lane is composed of a low natural stone wall topped with Bay Laurel. The building is within a sub-divided plot with a private lane to the west and fields to the south and east. Huntworth Lane and a small field containing mixed species trees lies between the asset and Site L.

Both assets share a similar character when encountered from Huntworth Lane. They are situated within a rural/hamlet setting with hedgerows and trees framing the buildings, creating a sense of seclusion. This seclusion or small hamlet feel is a significant aspect of the setting of these two buildings. They both present (perhaps) their finest aspects on to the lane. The fields that comprise Site L are late inclosure in date (possibly derived from late 19th century inclosure) and therefore are not contemporaneous. They do not therefore have any historic connections with the assets.

The assets are within an interesting group of enclosed fields. These form an irregular shape orientated roughly northeast – southwest, which is evident on the 1946 aerial photographs (see below). This shape may reflect variation within geology or a slight difference in height, which enabled settlement in this area on the edge of (possibly seasonal) wetland. There appears to be a historic connection between the assets and this surrounding field system rather than the later 19th century inclosure.

32 Historic Environment Assessment

Huntworth Park House is located to the south-east of Huntworth House and is approached from Huntworth Lane which curves south east approximately 70m east of Huntworth House. The building is set back on the west side of the lane and is situated on the south side of a small field bounded on the north, east and west sides with trees.

33 Historic Environment Assessment Again the asset is set within a rural hamlet and has a sense of isolation. Site L lies c.100m to the north and is not visible from the asset with fields and Huntworth Lane between the asset and the site.

View towards Huntworth Park House looking south from Huntworth lane. Impacts If Site L were taken forward for development it will impact on the setting of two of the assets, Huntworth House and The Hayes. Whilst the degree of separation and the nature of the boundaries between Huntworth Park House and the site mean there will be no impact on the setting of the asset. The impact on The Hayes is due to the proximity of Site L to the asset. It is adjacent to the site and would share a boundary. Impacts on Huntworth House would be less as it is not adjacent to the site. The approach to both the assets along Huntworth Lane and their sense of seclusion would be impacted upon by the presence of a development on the north side of the lane. There will be no direct impacts on the listed buildings. They lie outside the site so no impact on their evidential value is envisaged. There will be impact on their wider setting which would affect the way the asset is appreciated in terms of aesthetic value.

Magnitude of Impact The impacts from development of the site are primarily on the aesthetic value of the setting of the assets. This value is a strong contributor to the significance of the assets as their secluded rural location was an original intentional feature. This aspect is still preserved in the landscape despite the proximity of the M5 motorway. Due to its location adjacent to Site L, impacts on The Hayes would be greater that Huntworth House. The Magnitude of Impact is determined in accordance with qualitative assessment descriptions set out in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Table 6.3 (2009):

34 Historic Environment Assessment  The Hayes: Moderate/Major  Huntworth House: Moderate  Huntworth Park House: No Change

Significance of Effect Significance of Effects is determined in accordance with qualitative assessment descriptions set out in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Table 6.4 (2009):

 The Hayes: Moderate/Large  Huntworth House: Moderate  Huntworth Park House: No Change

Considerations for Planning Applications Due to the potential impacts on designated assets Heritage Statements would need to be submitted with planning application. The use of green, or open space and/or landscaping as well as sensitive design should be applied to ensure the impacted assets retain their sense of seclusion. There should be no development adjacent to The Hayes and screening would need to be used to mitigate impacts on the immediate setting of the asset. Archaeological evaluation should take place prior to determination of planning applications and dependant on results a condition requiring archaeological mitigation may be attached to permissions. Appropriateness for development in terms of the NPPF If Site L is subsequently taken forward for allocation it is likely to impact on buried archaeological remains and therefore prior to determination of planning applications associated with these sites archaeological evaluation should take place as required by paragraph 128 of the NPPF. Dependant on the results of the evaluation further mitigation may be required to conform to the NPPF paragraph 141. There are likely to be moderate impacts on the setting of two designated assets (possibly large for one asset) which, would require the submission of a Heritage Statement and mitigation measures in order to allow Site L to conform with the principles and policies set out in Section 12 of the NPPF.

35 Historic Environment Assessment 5 Bridgwater West

36 Historic Environment Assessment Site A: Cokerhurst Farm, Wembdon and land south of A39, Durleigh

Archaeology and History The main part of the ancient parish of Wembdon lay close to the town of Bridgwater on the north-west side. A small part of it was within Bridgwater borough from 1835, and the southeast corner has been increasingly occupied since the 1840s by the expanding suburbs of Bridgwater. North-east of the town a detached part of Wembdon parish including Sydenham which gave its name to a medieval estate, lay between the Parrett and Horsey rhyne, much of its boundary formed by a curving ditch which may mark a former course of the river. Saxon burials have been discovered on the northern ridge of Wembdon Hill and traces of Romano-British settlement have been found further north near Perry Court. Enclosures of uncertain date are located southwest of Perry Green.

Archaeological Assessment  A geophysical survey (SHER No. 11652) and subsequent evaluation in 2011 (SHER No. 31460) identified two enclosed late Iron Age/Romano British settlements (SHER Nos. 34798 & 34785) on elevated ground within the very northern and southern areas of the site. Archaeological features recorded within these enclosed areas include ditches, pits and postholes, with associated finds comprising pottery, animal bone, iron slag, iron ore, fragments of furnace lining and a hob nail; all suggest domestic and perhaps industrial activity of a broadly late Iron Age/early Romano British date. The occupation of both enclosed sites may have been contemporaneous, with some evidence of intercutting, perhaps suggesting prolonged or even re-use of the site. The rest of the site contained localised areas of hillwash and buried soil layers; however, a small number of late Iron Age/Romano-British and post-medieval ditches likely to represent former agricultural boundaries were recorded together with evidence for post-medieval clay extraction.

 A Saxon inhumation cemetery has previously been identified in the gardens of properties adjoining Wembdon Hill (SHER No. 12470).

 An area of small-scale medieval settlement with possible evidence for industrial activity was identified towards the southeast corner of the site area during the 2011 evaluation. Excavated features included ditches which contained 10th to 13th century pottery, animal bone, and iron smithing slag. Adjacent pits and postholes were found to contain late Iron Age/Romano-British finds.

 Scheduled Monument, medieval settlement 160m south and 240m south west of Sandford Farm. (SHER No. 10910)

 Several post-medieval features were also recorded during the evaluation broadly within the central section of the site area. These comprised several ditches and quarry pits. The ditches represent the remains of former field boundaries subsequently removed to facilitate modern mechanised cultivation. The quarry pits are thought to relate to clay extraction activities.

37 Historic Environment Assessment

Location of HER references

 Wembdon tithe map & apportionment (1842): Greenway Farm (Plot 504) is described as House Barton & Orchard. Dodd End is recorded as Barton. Both are surrounded by orchards. Plot 492 is called Vinnecots Down: A possible reference to former area where vines grew Old English (OE) for vine & OE Cot meaning land with, or near a cottage. Plot 489 Hangers: meaning a tree covered slope (OE hangar).

38 Historic Environment Assessment

 Bridgwater tithe map & apportionment (1847): No apportionment transcription currently available.

 2nd edition Ordnance Survey (1903-1930s): Quantock Road now constructed. Field boundaries in vicinity removed.

39 Historic Environment Assessment

 1946 RAF Aerial Photographs: Drainage to NE of Greenway Farm (tithe plots 463/464 & 489). Orchards surrounding Dodd End & Greenway Farm are still present. Queensway Farm beginning to be established.

Historic Landscape Characterisation The site is all within Recently Enclosed Land 17th to 18th century. General field size, 3-6ha. Between 25% and 50% boundary loss since 1905. Archaeological Potential The area north of Quantock Road has proven archaeological remains that relate to Iron Age/Roman and medieval period occupation and activity. The archaeology has been located in three areas within the site.

The area south of Quantock Road is likely to have similar archaeological potential as the northern area but no evaluation has taken place. Although north facing slopes are generally less favourable for permanent settlement they were the focus of ritual/religious activity in the

40 Historic Environment Assessment prehistoric period and given the proximity of Iron Age settlement (on the northern area) this type of ritual activity is very likely to have taken place. Further Archaeological Investigation A programme of archaeological evaluation will need to take place in the southern area of the site. This should include geophysical survey and trial trenching. Also investigation in the form of excavation will need to be carried out on the three principal areas of interest identified by the evaluation on the northern area. Potentially Impacted Designated Heritage Assets Medieval settlement 160m south and 240m south west of Sandford Farm Scheduled Monument Historic England Scheduling Description: “A Scheduled Monument represented by earthworks which mark the locations of village features including the site of a possible moated manor house. These earthworks will contain archaeological deposits and environmental evidence relating to the settlement, the lives of the inhabitants and the landscape in which the monument was constructed, for which there are also contemporary documentary references.” List entry Number: 102001

Cokerhurst Farmhouse Grade II Historic England Listing Description: “C15, C16, some C19 and C20 external alterations. Pebbledash, bitumenised slate roof, 3 brick sticks. Open hall house with later flooring forming a 3-unit and cross passage plan, further wing to rear forming an L-plan. Entrance frontage of 2 storeys and attic, 1:1:1 bays, 3-light casements with glazing bars to first floor, 2 pairs of French windows to ground floor with glazing bars, further C20 casement left; all opening with rusticated jambs and stepped voussoirs executed in cement. Door opening between second and third bays, C19 half glazed door, C20 gabled and glazed porch. The salient interior feature is the roof construction formed of jointed crucks; chamfered cross-beamed ceiling to right ground floor room, this room also with a fireplace with a cambered and moulded wooden bressumer, moulded stone jambs. Further exposed ceiling beams to be seen throughout the house. Early C19 staircase, further winder staircase.” List entry Number: 1059055.

41 Historic Environment Assessment

Importance of Assets In accordance with criteria derived from the DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Table 6.1 (2009) the assets are considered to be of:

 Medieval settlement west of Sandford Farm: High Importance.  Cokerhurst Farm: Medium Importance.

Heritage Values Following the methodology set out in Historic England’s Good Practice Advice in Planning: 3 (Historic England 2015) and Conservation Principles, Policies & Guidance (Historic England 2008) the heritage values of this significance are considered to be:

5.1.8.1 Medieval settlement west of Sandford Farm:  Evidential because it has the ability to reveal information about past human activity.

The asset is primarily composed of buried archaeological remains and materials that are represented by the visible extant earthworks. Information pertaining to the origins, development and abandonment of the asset are potentially retrievable through archaeological excavation.

 Historical (illustrative) as it provides a visible link between past and present human cultural activity.

The presence of an abandoned settlement which is visible as earthworks is a tangible link to past activity on the site.

5.1.8.2 Cokerhurst Farm  Evidential because it has the ability to reveal information about past human activity.

The asset has the potential to provide evidence concerning the construction and use of the building as well as any changes/modifications to the structure.

 Historical (illustrative) as it provides a visible link between past and present human cultural activity.

The farmhouse is a tangible link between the present and the past uses of the area and illustrates the transition from a rural/agricultural area to a more developed village environment.

 Aesthetic in terms of architectural design.

The building is of architectural merit sufficient to warrant listing and represents a vernacular style using local materials.

42 Historic Environment Assessment 5.1.8.3 Setting Assessment Medieval Settlement West of Sandford Farm The Scheduled Monument is c.300m to the west of Site A and to the southwest of the present- day Sandford Farm. The present earthworks suggest a street which survives as a trench or hollow way. There are several house platforms or farm sites and a large ditched enclosure, which is probably a manorial site. This may well have been a moated manor house. A large bank and ditch surround the site which is almost certainly the village boundary bank.

Site A and the monument are not inter-visible due to topography and intervening hedges. There is no apparent relationship between the wider landscape and the asset as boundary loss means the asset now sits in a later field system.

5.1.8.4 Magnitude of Impacts Due to the distance between the asset and the site it is considered that there will be no impact on the setting of the monument. Therefore, in accordance with qualitative assessment descriptions set out in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Table 6.3 (2009):

 No change

5.1.8.5 Significance of Effect The significance of effect is determined in accordance with qualitative assessment descriptions set out in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Table 6.4 (2009):

 Neutral

5.1.8.6 Setting Assessment Cokerhurst Farm Cokerhurst Farm is situated to the north of the site. The farm's immediate surroundings have seen some modern development in the form of new garages, outbuildings and road construction/hard standing. To the south of the building are gardens, small paddocks, a modern agricultural barn and a small fishing lake. The environs are bounded by a track running around the paddocks. The farm originates from the 15th century and now sits within recently enclosed

43 Historic Environment Assessment fields. There are no discernible associations with the surrounding field system. However, the asset is agricultural in its form and original function so appreciation of the building from the fields to the south, east and west is of a rural building within a rural setting.

5.1.8.7 Impacts If Site A were taken forward for development it will enclose the farm within its existing environs and therefore have an impact on its original isolation within a managed rural landscape. There will be no direct impacts on the building as it is outside the development area. There will be no impact on its evidential value but there will be some impact on its wider historic setting. There may be an increase in noise levels due to increased traffic and human activity. This could impact on the way the asset is appreciated in terms of its aesthetic value.

5.1.8.8 Magnitude of Impact Development of Site A will have an impact on the aesthetic value of the asset as it will change its immediate environs from fields into a developed area. The magnitude of impact is determined in accordance with qualitative assessment descriptions set out in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Table 6.3 (2009):

 Minor Impact

5.1.8.9 Significance of Effect Significance of Effects is determined in accordance with qualitative assessment descriptions set out in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Table 6.4 (2009):

 Slight

Considerations for Planning Applications Further assessment of the assets should take place and a Heritage Statement should be submitted with planning applications to fully understand the impacts on the setting of the designated asset. Justification for this impact should be robust and the design of the site must ensure the enhancement of the immediate setting of the asset in order to conform to the NPPF. The use of green, or open space and/or landscaping as well as sensitive design should be applied to ensure Cokerhurst Farm retains a relationship with the landscape. House designs and layout in proximity to the listed building should be sympathetic and enhance the environ by, for example creating new views and ensuring nearby dwellings use appropriate materials. The southern area of the site will require archaeological evaluation prior to determination of an application. A condition requiring excavation of archaeology would be attached to permissions in the norther area of the site. Appropriateness for development in terms of the NPPF Development of Site A will have an impact on buried archaeological remains and therefore prior to development archaeological evaluation should take place (in the southern area) to accord with the NPPF paragraph 128 and excavation should take place on those areas deemed of archaeological importance as required by paragraph 141. The impact on the designated asset is considered low as the modern setting of the asset does not contribute greatly to its value. If site A is subsequently taken forward for allocation it is considered to be in accordance with the principles and policies set out in Section 12 of the NPPF.

44 Historic Environment Assessment 6 Burnham on Sea & Highbridge

45 Historic Environment Assessment Archaeology and History For much of prehistory, this part of Somerset was under the sea and it is only in the last few thousand years that the land has been emerging: the area around Burnham and Highbridge has therefore been particularly vulnerable to the vagaries of sea and river. Not surprisingly, the history of settlement in the area has been partly conditioned by natural and artificial changes in the coastline and the drainage pattern. For at least a thousand years and perhaps longer there have been drainage cuts altering water flow from the Levels. There has also been a gradual process of land reclamation to the south of Burnham and west of Highbridge.

There is only the possible barrow in south Burnham to suggest prehistoric activity there, though an Iron Age lake settlement existed to the south of Highbridge, at Alstone. Occupation at Alstone continued into the Roman period and, indeed, there appears to have been a focus of Roman activity in what is now Highbridge and south Burnham. Settlement was concentrated on the slightly higher land inland of the dunes, north of a somewhat deeper, wider inlet, and south of a now vanished river. A number of sites in this area have produced evidence of dressed stone buildings and a possible warehouse. There may have been some kind of commercial activity here, since the postulated shape of the late Roman inlet suggests that there would have been natural harbour sites either at the neck or further up its northward arm.

However, there is no evidence of any such activity under the Saxons, perhaps partly because of receding waters and/or a breakdown of drainage control. The process of land reclamation was slow, but some of the places which, from archaeological evidence, must have been flooded in late Roman times were settled by Domesday. The parishes of Burnham and Huntspill were certainly formed in this period, their common boundary running along what is now the Westhill Rhyne. The northern boundary of Burnham follows the course of the vanished river, named as the Siger in 663, which may have been the principal waterway in the Roman and early Saxon periods. Land at Burnham (though not necessarily a settlement) is mentioned in the late 9th century in King Alfred’s will and the name of the old settlement of Huish, on which the Medieval manor covering north Highbridge centred, comes from the term hiwisc, which usually signifies a Saxon farmstead: this one is mentioned in a 10th century charter.

Burnham and most of Highbridge were in the same parish, but Burnham manor was separate from Huish. The church at Burnham, and surrounding land, was given to Gloucester Abbey in the 12th century and later became part of the Wells estates. Burnham then remained static throughout the Medieval and Post-Medieval period, a largely agricultural settlement in good grazing land, with a communal rabbit warren north of the church. There appears to have been about 50 houses around the church in the late 18th century.

Other settlements were scattered through the parish, amounting to quite dense overall settlement. There were changes in drainage and coastline in the Medieval and post-Medieval periods which perhaps affected Highbridge more than Burnham. There was a continuous process of sand deposition and silt build up at the inlet mouth. All the minor sea inlets referred to in the 10th century charter were blocked by early Medieval times (Nash, 1973), as was the River Siger. This process peaked in the 14th century, but continued until the 18th century, leading to a gradual expansion of settlement. In the 13th century the Pillrow was cut and sea

46 Historic Environment Assessment defences constructed. It may have been as part of the same schemes that the high bridge (first referred to in 1280) and the sea dam below it were built. The bridge was at the obvious, and probably the old, crossing point of the watercourse. It secured Highbridge’s communications role.

The early turnpike to Bristol came through Highbridge in the 18th century, although the route was liable to flooding. Highbridge's wharves were also influential in its early development: the town’s name may originally have been Hythe Bridge (Anon, 1903). The wharves shown on the 1797 enclosure map are extensive areas of bank east and west of the bridge and Locke describes Highbridge at the turn of the century as a "delightful seaport village" with 24 houses altogether and an inn. At the end of the 18th century, the enclosures around Burnham and Highbridge signalled the onset of the first phase of growth of Burnham and Highbridge. Traders were already congregating in Highbridge and a cattle market was started in 1797, a direct result of the changes in farming practice. The enclosures were followed by drainage schemes. Some of these were injurious to Highbridge, leading to silting around its early quays. The Brue drainage cut (1806) dramatically altered the river and enabled the construction of new wharves. However, Highbridge remained a small harbour in the first three decades of the 19th century. The coming of the Glastonbury Canal in 1833 profited the town (initially) and from the 1820s onwards, the effects of improvements to the turnpike route were felt in the shape of increased traffic through Highbridge. These communications improvements laid the foundations for the second phase of 19th century growth.

Meanwhile in Burnham, a quite different path of growth was being pursued. The sale of his private lighthouse gave the vicar, Rev Davies, funds to "improve" the little settlement. Close to the church he built a spa complex and, although the spa was never nationally important, a steady trickle of visitors to Burnham led to the first real nucleated settlement at Burnham, with elegant housing to provide lodgings. It was the coming of the railways that accelerated the growth of both towns. The Bristol and Exeter reached Highbridge in 1841, and opened its station in 1842. In the same year, the new Wells turnpike opened. Subsequently, the Somerset Central reused the line of the canal, and its line from Glastonbury was opened in 1854. When this became the Somerset and Dorset in 1862, Highbridge became a railway town with the opening of the works. This led to the building of railway housing in both Highbridge and south Burnham. There were also several brickworks in the area, and many clay pits. The directories show the growth of trade and exports to Wales - mainly brick and tile, cheese and cattle - from Highbridge. An attempt was made at Burnham to emulate this growth. Although the main line bypassed the town, the Somerset Central was extended to Burnham by 1858 and ran onto a pier constructed for the purposes of trade, not leisure. Paddle steamers ran during the later 19th century, but the pier was not a commercial success. The rail connection, however, proved crucial to the 19th century expansion of Burnham as a holiday resort. In the first decades of the 20th century, Burnham's growth continued, despite severe floods. Holiday camps, housing and municipal facilities formed the bulk of this growth.

47 Historic Environment Assessment Highbridge, too, prospered as a dock and railway town. However, subsequent closures of the railway works, the creamery and the docks cast Highbridge into a trough from which it has only begun to emerge since the construction of the M5. Burnham, too, despite the passing of the heyday of English seaside towns, has profited from the improved communications, and is now a commuter town, linked to Highbridge by ribbon development along the old road.

48 Historic Environment Assessment Site A: Land north of Mulholland Way

Archaeological Assessment  Roman & medieval finds (SHER No. 10269) have been found in the area to the southeast of the site, near Worston Bridge. Romano-British finds include course ware pottery and briquetage suggesting that saltworking was being undertaken in the vicinity. A tributary of the former River Siger lies to north of the site (SHER No. 29686).

 Medieval heritage assets within the site include the earthwork remains of a windmill mound (SHER No. 10286) within the central area. Excavations in 1979 indicate that it was of 13-14th century date. Its location immediately to the south of the junction of several drains (drains either side of Board’s Lane have remnant embankments visible on 1946 RAF aerial photographs) suggests it may have been used for water management purposes.

 An area of ridge & furrow (SHER No. 27987) which underlies the later grid of land improvement drainage lies at the very western end of the area.

Location of HER references

49 Historic Environment Assessment  Burnham and Highbridge tithe map c.1841: The main central area is recorded as Great Havage (Plot 269). Tithe map plots no’s 510 & 518 which lie in the vicinity of the site where Romano-British pottery has been found, have the field names Old Walls & Part of Old Walls respectively. Plots along eastern boundary are called Worsten Ground, Home Ground and At Worsten – all making reference to the former settlement to the east.

 2nd edition Ordnance Survey (c. 1900): Eastern area now comprises one large plot.

50 Historic Environment Assessment

 1946 RAF Aerial Photographs: Shows the site cut by drainage channels and the mound is clearly visible.

Historic Landscape Characterisation The HLC initially suggested that this was an area of Anciently Enclosed Land pre 17th Century, General Field Size, 3-6ha, Less than 25% boundary loss since 1905. However, recent research has indicated a more complex character in this area so the HLC description is incomplete.

Archaeological Potential There is a potential for Roman period archaeology on the site as well as medieval ridge and furrow and an undated windmill mound Further Archaeological Investigation Further analysis of the HLC through desk based and field study, an earthwork survey and trial trenching is required to evaluate the potential archaeology to provide sufficient information to describe the significance of the archaeological asset. Considerations for Planning Applications There will be a need for further assessment prior to determination of planning applications on this site to characterise the potential archaeology and historic landscape. Dependant on results it is likely further mitigation measures (such as excavation and preservation in-situ of historic features) may be required through attaching a condition to permission.

Appropriateness for development in terms of the NPPF Development of Site A is likely to impact on buried archaeological remains and therefore prior to determination of planning applications associated with this site archaeological desk-based

51 Historic Environment Assessment assessment and evaluation should take place as required by paragraph 128 of the NPPF. Further mitigation may be required (dependant on results of the evaluation) to conform to paragraph 141 of the NPPF. The site is considered to be in accordance with the principles and policies set out in Section 12 of the NPPF.

52 Historic Environment Assessment Site B: Brue Farm extension

Archaeological Assessment  Alstone lake settlement site (SHER No. 10918 & Scheduled Monument) lies c 250m to west of site area

 Romano British pottery & later finds (SHER No. 11821) was found in the spoil from a hole for an electricity pole in the corner of a field opposite the Artillery Arms.

 The majority of the site is covered by medieval and/or post medieval ridge and furrow. Visible as earthworks, this area was mapped from RAF aerial photographs taken in 1940 and 1946. Located south of Burnham-on-Sea, the area is defined to the north by the southern bank of Brue Pill, to the east by the Bristol-Exeter railway line, to the west by the eastern bank of the River Parrett (ST 2983 4718) and to the south by the northern bank of the North Rhyne.

 The scattered blocks of ridge and furrow underlie later extensive land improvement drainage in the form of an irregular grid of rectilinear and curvilinear earthwork ditches, which cover almost all the fields within the defined area. Many of the ridge and furrow blocks around Brue Pill have been destroyed.

Location of HER references

53 Historic Environment Assessment

 Huntspill tithe map 1840: Same field pattern as shown on later 2nd edition Map.

11261

 2nd edition Ordnance Survey (c. 1900): Same field pattern evident on modern mapping.

54 Historic Environment Assessment

 1946 RAF Aerial Photographs: Show a series of drainage channels and ponds.

Historic Landscape Characterisation Anciently Enclosed Land modified 17th to 19th century. General field size, 6-12ha. Less than 25% boundary loss since 1905. Archaeological Potential There are extant remains of possible medieval ridge and furrow and drainage systems on the site Further Archaeological Investigation Survey and other recording/investigation will be required to characterise the potential archaeology.

Potentially Impacted Designated Heritage Assets  Alstone lake settlement Scheduled Monument Historic England Scheduling Description: “An Iron Age settlements preserved in waterlogged conditions are rare nationally. The Iron Age settlement at Alstone, lying as it did at the interface between an island shore and the open water of the surrounding flooded landscape, is an important example of a rare and valuable type of site which exists in very limited topographical situations and has high archaeological value. The high potential for waterlogged preservation of organic material and a wide diversity of features and artefacts, rarely encountered in more common dry land sites, gives such

55 Historic Environment Assessment sites great importance in increasing understanding of the skills and way of life of past communities. The protection of this site, the only part of the area of occupation which has not been built upon, preserves unique evidence of the activities which took place at Alstone in the Iron Age, this evidence is invaluable to our understanding of the period locally and nationally.” List entry Number: 1012311

 1 Alstone Road Grade II Historic England Listing Description: “House. Early C19. Rendered and scribed as ashlar on front, C20 roughcast on returns and rear, hipped bitumenised slate roof, 3 tall brick stacks. Two-storey, 3-bay symmetrical frontage, 2-light Gothick casements with glazing bars. Central door opening, 6-panelled door, segmental head, fanlight with radiating glazing bars, large flat wooden hood on 2 chamfered posts. Outbuilding to right is not of special interest. List entry Number: 1344665.” List entry Number: 1344665

 Holcroft Grade II Historic England Listing Description: “Early C19. C20 house rouqhcast; bitumenised slate, double and triple-Roman tile roofs; cornice, parapet with coping, brick stacks. Two storeys, 3:1 bays, 16-lane sash windows, stepped voussoirs. Door opening to centre of left 3-bays, 6-panelled door, fanlight with radiating glazing bars, ornamental cast-iron "trellis" porch, flat roof. Single-storey wing to left, French windows.” List entry Number: 1060141

56 Historic Environment Assessment

Importance of Assets In accordance with criteria derived from the DMRB, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Table 6.1 (2009). the assets are considered to be of:

 Alstone Lake Village: High  1 Alstone Road: Medium  Holcroft: Medium

Heritage Values Following the methodology set out in Historic England’s Good Practice Advice in Planning: 3 (Historic England 2015) and Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance (Historic England 2008) the heritage values of this significance are considered to be:

6.3.7.1 Alstone Lake Village  Evidential because it has the ability to reveal information about past human activity.

The asset is comprised of buried archaeological remains relating to prehistoric settlement on the edge of the wetland. It has the potential to provide information on the origins, use and abandonment of the site as well as very high potential for the retrieval of preserved material including wood and paleo-environmental evidence such as seeds/pollen.

6.3.7.2 1 Alstone Road and Holcroft  Evidential because they have the ability to reveal information about past human activity.

The assets contain information relating to construction and modification of the structures.

 Historical (illustrative) as they provide a visible link between past and present human cultural activity.

The buildings themselves are a reminder that the settlement has time depth and illustrate the nature of the area in the 19th century.

 Aesthetic in terms of architectural design.

The assets have sufficient architectural merit to warrant listing and are indicative of 19th century styles.

Setting Assessment Alstone Lake Village and 1 Alston Road Alstone Lake Village lies to the west of Site B and is separated from it by the A38 and a housing estate. There is no visible or historic relationship. Site B is likely to have been waterlogged (either permanently or seasonally) in the Iron Age. The asset is surrounded by houses on the east, south and west, and bounded by a road with houses on the opposite side to the north. As there is no connection between the asset and the site, there will be no impact on the asset or its setting.

57 Historic Environment Assessment 1 Alstone Road is located away from Main Road (A38) behind a row of 1930s houses and is surrounded by dwellings. There is no visibility to, or from Site B. The building is considered too distant to be impacted by the site in terms of setting.

Impacts The site does not impact on the assets or their settings.

Magnitude of Impact The magnitude of impact is determined in accordance with qualitative assessment descriptions set out in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Table 6.3 (2009):

 No Change

Significance of Effect Significance of Effects is determined in accordance with qualitative assessment descriptions set out in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Table 6.4 (2009):

 Neutral

Setting Assessment Holcroft Holcroft is located on the west side of Main Road (A38) and faces the site which, lies to the east of the road. There is a field between Main Road and the site. The asset was built within a small plot (identified on the 2nd edition Ordnance Survey map) with its frontage facing the road,

separated by a small front garden. It is not part of the surrounding field system. Recently constructed houses are adjacent to the building on its southern side.

Impacts Site B does not appear to be detrimental to the setting of the listed building as a main road and a large field lie between the asset and the site. The site is set back from the Main Road and due to the topography the views to the asset from the site and vice versa are minimised.

58 Historic Environment Assessment Magnitude of Impact The magnitude of impact is determined in accordance with qualitative assessment descriptions set out in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Table 6.3 (2009):

 Negligible

Significance of Effect Significance of Effects is determined in accordance with qualitative assessment descriptions set out in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Table 6.4 (2009):

 Neutral/Slight

Considerations for Planning Applications Development of Site B is likely to impact on archaeological remains so field survey and other recording/investigation will be required. This would be achieved through attaching archaeological conditions to planning permissions. Because of the potential Neutral/Slight impact on the listed building a Heritage Statement should be submitted to support applications.

Appropriateness for development in terms of the NPPF There will be Neutral/Slight impact on the setting of a designated asset. A Heritage Statement needs to be submitted to support applications to conform to the NPPF paragraph 128. A condition requiring archaeological investigation should be attached to permission to ensure the site is in accordance with paragraph 141 of the NPPF and the principles and policies set out in Section 12 of the NPPF.

59 Historic Environment Assessment

Site C: Land east of Isleport Lane

Archaeological Assessment  The field in the southwest corner of the site contains an undated cropmark complex. Features include a broadly north-south orientated trackway, to the east of which a line of parallel marks orientated east-west end in a circular terminal forming a banjo shape enclosure. In the SE corner of the field there is a circular mark with ditches running south and east from it to the field boundary. In the south-west part of the field is a possible circular enclosure (SHER No. 12388)

 Undated earthworks including a rectangular enclosure have also been recorded at Isleport Farm (SHER No 11169). They predate the parish boundary.

Location of HER references

60 Historic Environment Assessment  Burnham on Sea and Highbridge tithe Map 1841: Same field pattern as appears on later 2nd edition Ordnance Survey map.

 2nd edition Ordnance Survey (1903-1930s): Same field pattern as tithe map.

61 Historic Environment Assessment  c. 1946 RAF Aerial Photographs show the area to be covered by a network of land improvement drainage.

Historic Landscape Characterisation The HLC description is Recently Enclosed Land 18th to 21st century. General field size, 3-6ha. Less than 25% boundary loss since 1905. However, there is evidence from recent research that this is incorrect and simplifies the character.

Archaeological Potential The site has potential for Iron Age settlement. Further Archaeological Investigation A desk-based assessment and geophysical survey followed by trial trench evaluation will be required to provide sufficient information to describe the significance of any archaeological assets on the site. The need for further mitigation measures may be determined on the basis of the results. Considerations for Planning Applications Detailed archaeological investigations will need to be carried out prior to the determination of planning applications on this site. The need for further mitigation measures may be determined on the basis of the results. If appropriate further investigation should be secured through attaching a condition to permission.

Appropriateness for development in terms of the NPPF Archaeological desk-based assessment and evaluation should take place prior to determination as required by paragraph 128 of the NPPF. Further investigation may be required to conform

62 Historic Environment Assessment to the NPPF paragraph 141. The site is considered to be in accordance with the principles and policies set out in Section 12 of the NPPF.

63 Historic Environment Assessment Site D: Land north of Stoddens Farm

Archaeological Assessment  The earthwork remains of several enclosures (SHER No 11151) are recorded in the northern end of the site. These earthworks, which could be the remains of a deserted farm, are recorded in two separate locations. The ditches form small sub-rectangular enclosures. The small, rectangular features associated with this complex may represent house platforms. Some earthworks are visible on the 1946 RAF air photographs. Not visible on the LiDAR map of Britain.

 Ridge and furrow (SHER No. 27997), which underlies the later grid of land improvement drainage covers the majority of the site.

 A relict water channel which could be associated with the former salt marsh channel of late Roman to early Medieval date – part of the former course of River Siger (SHER No 29686) crosses the eastern half of the site broadly north to south.

Location of HER references

64 Historic Environment Assessment  Burnham on Sea tithe map 1841: Shows orchards around Stoddens Farm and same field pattern as 2nd edition Ordnance Survey map.

 2nd edition Ordnance Survey (1903-1930s): Same field pattern as modern mapping.

65 Historic Environment Assessment  1946 RAF Aerial Photographs: shows an underlying field patter of small regular and irregular fields cut by drainage channels and dykes.

Historic Landscape Characterisation Anciently Enclosed Land pre-17th century. General field size, 3-6ha. Less than 25% boundary loss since 1905. Previously wetland. However recent research has indicated a more complex character in this area so the HLC description may not reflect the true nature of the character of the site.

Archaeological Potential The site has potential for medieval settlement. Further Archaeological Investigation Detailed archaeological investigations will need to be carried out prior to the determination of planning applications on this site. This should initially comprise geophysical survey followed by trial trench evaluation to provide sufficient information to describe the significance of any archaeological assets. The need for further mitigation measures may be determined on the basis of these results. Potentially Impacted Designated Heritage Assets Stoddens Farmhouse, Grade II

66 Historic Environment Assessment Historic England Listing Description: “now house. C17 core, late C18 exterior features. Flemish Bond local brick, double-roman tile roof, coped verge to left, 3 brick ridge stacks. Two storeys, 4 bays, flush mounted 16-pane sash windows to first floor with cambered wooden lintels, plain projecting brick band at first floor level, 20-pane sash window to right of ground floor, brick voussoirs half-glazed french windows of 6 panes each, to left of ground floor. Door opening to centre, plank door, rustic porch addition to right in a similar style, probably late C18; double roman tile roof, coped verge, single 3-light casement to each floor with glazing bars. Plastered beam to interior inscribed: "John Pride 1688". List Entry Number: 1251510.

Importance of Asset In accordance with criteria derived from the DMRB, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Table 6.1. (2009) the asset is considered to be of:

 Medium Importance.

Heritage Values Following the methodology set out in Historic England’s Good Practice Advice in Planning: 3 (Historic England 2015) and Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance (Historic England 2008) the heritage values of this significance are considered to be:

 Evidential because it has the ability to reveal information about past human activity;

This is based on the physical structure of the asset which has the potential to contain information pertaining to construction and later modifications that reflect changes within the use of the building.

67 Historic Environment Assessment  Historical (illustrative) as it provides a visible link between past and present human cultural activity.

The building represents an agricultural past that predates the more modern development in the area. It shows a previous land use as farmland and illustrates the utilisation of the area following reclamation and land division.

 Aesthetic in terms of architectural design.

The building is an example of vernacular rural architecture and is composed of locally sourced and manufactured materials.

Setting Assessment The farmhouse is located just off Stoddens Road and bounded by fields to the north, east and west. It is set within smaller sub-divided irregular fields that appear on the tithe map mainly as orchards. The Historic Landscape Character (HLC) description is not definitive. The 1946 aerial photograph shows an underlying field pattern of small regular and irregular fields cut by drainage channels and dykes. This pattern and morphology may be indicative of medieval reclamation. The smaller irregular fields are described by the HLC as settlement, post tithe map (c1840). This latter character is not supported by the tithe map as the fields appear on the c.1840 map. Therefore, it is likely these orchards are part of the pre-17th century field system, or a 18th century sub-division associated with the farmhouse.

The building is visible from the road and although high hedgerows surround the farmhouse it is partially visible from the surrounding fields (at time of visit). Views from the building are somewhat restricted by the hedgerows and mainly confined to the immediate surroundings. Site D however, would be visible from the site and vice versa.

68 Historic Environment Assessment It is clear that the small orchard fields are historically associated with the farmhouse and represent a significant aspect to its setting. The wider underlying field pattern visible on the

Stoddens Farmhouse from Stoddens Road facing north-west 1946 aerial photographs may be associated with the farmhouse, imply a surviving relationship with the asset’s historic context. The current setting (in more enclosed fields, possibly pre 17th century) does still reflect the relationship between the building and its hinterland at that date.

Impacts If Site D was taken forward for development it will enclose the building on the north, east and west sides and therefore have an impact on its location within a pre-17th century landscape. The asset will therefore lose its relationship with both the earlier (buried) field system and the surviving 17th century field pattern. Site D will have an impact on the surrounding historic landscape character and therefore an impact on the farmhouse and its related field setting.

Magnitude of Impact The magnitude of impact is determined in accordance with qualitative assessment descriptions set out in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Table 6.3 (2009):

 Major

Significance of Effects Significance of Effects is determined in accordance with qualitative assessment descriptions set out in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Table 6.4 (2009):

 Moderate/Large

69 Historic Environment Assessment Considerations for Planning Applications Further assessment should take place and a Heritage Statement should be submitted prior to determination of planning applications on this site. The statement should detail the exact impacts on the designated assets. Mitigation measures should be provided as supporting information with any planning applications.

The use of green, or open space and/or landscaping as well as sensitive design should be applied to ensure Stoddens Farmhouse retains a relationship with the landscape. A larger area of green open space should be incorporated into the site to reflect the buildings link with the earlier field system. This may involve the retention of the fields to the north and west of the farmhouse and a larger area of green open space. The smaller orchards should be retained to preserve the historic setting and enhancement should take place to mitigate any visual intrusion.

Detailed archaeological evaluation and assessment will need to be carried out prior to the determination of planning applications on this site. The need for further mitigation measures may be determined on the basis of the assessment. Appropriateness for development in terms of the NPPF The Site will have an impact on a designated heritage asset which is considered Moderate/Large. Justification for this impact would have be robust and the design of the site would have to ensure the enhancement of the wider setting of the asset in order to conform to the NPPF. Archaeological assessment would need to be carried out and where necessary further mitigation in terms of excavation and/or preservation in-situ to accord with the NPPF paragraphs 128 and 141.

70 Historic Environment Assessment 7 Cheddar Sites Options

71 Historic Environment Assessment Archaeology and History The parish of Cheddar is one of the richest archaeological areas in Somerset, each period being well endowed with surviving remains and monuments, from the Palaeolithic to the industrial period. The village’s position at the mouth of Cheddar Gorge from which the Cheddar Yeo river flows into the Axe valley, on the southern edge of the Mendip Hills, is both a memorable and impressive situation

The prehistory of the area is dominated by the cave sites of the Gorge which have produced evidence from the Palaeolithic onwards. The lower slopes of the Mendips and valley edges are likely to have been used for settlement whilst the high ground is the site of many funerary monuments in the Neolithic and Bronze Age periods.

Roman period artefacts have been found at several locations in and around the village. Recent excavations have taken place within and around the Kings of Wessex Academy that indicate settlement and burial taking place throughout the Roman period. Large scale evaluation in advance of a proposed reservoir at Hythe have revealed an extensive very well preserved Roman settlement and port that continued through the early medieval period. There is evidence of a Roman villa, as shown by parch marks beside St. Andrews church.

It is the Saxon and medieval history for which the village of Cheddar is best known. In 1960- 2 Philip Rhatz excavated a large site which has been interpreted as the site of the documented Saxon and medieval palaces. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records meetings of the witan at Cheddar in 941 (aet villa caelebris), 956 (Palatio regis) and 968 (sedes regales). An impression of the royal residence is also provided in the life of St Dunstan which describes him being recalled to Edmunds court at Cheddar after being flung out from St. Mary Glastonbury and then being appointed Abbott of Glastonbury c.940 following Edmunds miraculous escape from death in Cheddar Gorge. By Domesday the royal estate had been divided into four parts, the palace site however, remained a royal residence, probably as a hunting lodge, giving access to the Cheddar forest, rights to which had been retained by the King. Certainly the royal residence was visited by both Henry I and II and rebuilding orchestrated by King John is documented in 1209. However, in 1213 John granted the royal estate to Hugh, Bishop of Lincoln who in turn passed it to his brother Jocelin, Bishop of Wells. Episcopal tenure brought about the rebuilding of both the East Hall and chapel. Excavation has shown that the area was abandoned to pasture and cultivation by c.1400. The Axbridge Chronicle, a 14th or 15th century compilation of earlier documents, retells the story of King Edmund hunting in Cheddar Gorge but substitutes Axbridge for Cheddar as the site of the hunting lodge. This suggests that the importance of the Cheddar palaces had disappeared from memory by the time the Chronicle was compiled. Outside the area of the palaces three foci of settlement were established; industrial activity spread along the river, commercial areas around the market place and cross and a further laid- out area along the parallel Bulmire Street and The Hayes.

Cheddar seems not to have had any particular importance in the post-medieval and industrial periods. A variety of factories, using the fast flowing river as power source, were situated along its banks and the lower Mendip slopes were used for strawberry production. However, the gorge and caves have become a major tourist attraction providing an important seasonal income for the village. The village has gradually spread to include outlying farmsteads and hamlets, many of which are likely to have had early origins.

72 Historic Environment Assessment Site A: Yeo Valley

Archaeological Assessment  No archaeological assets are currently within site option. The site of a former 20th century ochre mine site lies to northwest. The majority of the site is covered by a depot

 Cheddar tithe map 1837: Majority of plots are described as in Redshord or at Broadway.

 2nd edition Ordnance Survey c.1900: A north-south orientated rectilinear field system.

 1946 RAF Aerial Photographs: Two thirds of the site appear to be under pasture with nursery buildings in the south west corner fields. Historic Landscape Characterisation The HLC description is “Industry” while the 1946 aerial photograph shows regular large fields probably indicative of later enclosure.

Archaeological Potential The site has low archaeological potential. Further Archaeological Investigation No further investigation is required. Considerations for Planning Applications There are no historic environment considerations. Appropriateness for development in terms of the NPPF Development of this site is not likely to impact on buried archaeological remains or any designated assets. The site is considered to be in accordance with the principles and policies set out in Section 12 of the NPPF.

73 Historic Environment Assessment Site B: Land west of Upper New Road

Archaeological Assessment  Cotswold Archaeology’s geophysical survey and evaluation to the south of Holywell Lane (SHER No. 35040) recorded no archaeological features.

 The Cheddar Valley and Yatton Railway (SHER No. 26231) forms the western boundary. Eastern boundary comprises the former Rowberrow to Pedwell turnpike Road (SHER No.12963).

 Cheddar tithe map and apportionment 1837: The majority of plots in the northern section are described as At Holwell. All the plots in the southern section described as being Part of The Barrows.

 2nd edition Ordnance Survey c.1900: Undeveloped land

 1946 RAF Aerial Photographs: Majority of site looks like it is under pasture. Allotments/strips lie along the eastern boundary. An orchard is located at very southern end. Historic Landscape Characterisation Anciently Enclosed Land modified 17th to 19th century. General field size, 3-6ha. Less than 25% boundary loss since 1905.

74 Historic Environment Assessment Archaeological Potential The place name Holywell suggests that there once was a well with religious connections in the area. Further Archaeological Investigation Due to the potential for a well with religious associations it would be appropriate to ensure that recording of the well takes place if encountered during development. Considerations for Planning Applications It would be appropriate to attach an archaeological condition to planning applications in this area to ensure recording of the possible well. Appropriateness for development in terms of the NPPF Development of Site B is likely to impact on buried archaeological remains and therefore a condition relating to archaeology should be attached to planning permissions as required by paragraph 141 of the NPPF. There are no impacts on any designated assets. The site is considered to be in accordance with the principles and policies set out in Section 12 of the NPPF.

75 Historic Environment Assessment Site C: Round Oak Farm

Archaeological Assessment  Geophysical survey in 2015 identified modern features, former field boundaries and land drains (SHER No. 36004). The eastern part of the site is covered by the Cheddar & Cheddar Moor Area of High Archaeological Potential.

 Cheddar tithe map 1837: Nothing from tithe map field. Majority of plots are described as At Holwell. Holwell Rye runs northeast-southwest through the site.

 2nd edition Ordnance Survey c.1900: The site appears as undeveloped land, with several orchards. Round Oak Farm is depicted.

 1946 RAF Aerial Photographs: Majority of the site is under pasture with traces of former orchards still visible. Historic Landscape Characterisation Anciently Enclosed Land modified 17th to 19th century. General field size, 3-6ha. Less than 25% boundary loss since 1905.

Archaeological Potential The site has low archaeological potential. Further Archaeological Investigation No further investigation is required. Considerations for Planning Applications There are no historic environment considerations.

Appropriateness for development in terms of the NPPF Development of Site C is not likely to impact on buried archaeological remains and there are no impacts on any designated assets. The site is considered to be in accordance with the principles and policies set out in Section 12 of the NPPF.

76 Historic Environment Assessment Site D: Venn’s Gate

Archaeological Assessment  The site lies within the Cheddar & Cheddar Moor Area of High Archaeological Potential (CCMAHA). No areas of archaeological interest have been recorded on the site.

 Cheddar tithe map 1837: No noteworthy field names.

 2nd edition Ordnance Survey: Brock House, the orchards and the boundary arrangement are almost identical to tithe map.

 1946 RAF Aerial Photographs: Area appears covered by allotments. Traces of the orchards still survive with more housing present. Historic Landscape Characterisation Anciently Enclosed Land modified 17th to 19th century. General field size, 3-6ha. Less than 25% boundary loss since 1905.

Archaeological Potential Although within the CCMAHA there are no recorded archaeological sites in the area and no evidence of buried archaeology exists.

Further Archaeological Investigation No further investigation is required. Potentially Impacted Designated Heritage Assets Brock Farmhouse and forecourt wall Grade II Historic England Listing Description: A Farmhouse. C16, C17 additions and alterations, further C20 work. Rendered, double-Roman tile roof, ridge in 2 sections of slightly different height, coped verges, brick stack to left. Two storeys, 3:1 bays: 3-light casements, except 2 3- light ovolo-moulded mullioned windows to first floor and 2 4-light ovolo moulded mullioned windows to ground floor. Door opening between first and second bays, 6-panelled door, top 2 panels glazed, iron "tent" canopy hood on decorative wooden latticework. Pent roofed outshut on left return, double-Roman tile roof. Low rubble forecourt wall with plain coping, central C20 decorative wrought iron gate. List entry Number: 1059111

77 Historic Environment Assessment

Importance of Assets In accordance with criteria derived from the DMRB Volume 11, Section 3 Part 2, Table 6.1 (2009) the asset is considered to be of:

 Medium Importance.

Heritage Values Following the methodology set out in Historic England’s Good Practice Advice in Planning: 3 (Historic England 2015) and Conservation Principles, Policies & Guidance (Historic England 2008) the heritage values of this significance are considered to be:

 Evidential because the asset has the ability to reveal information about past human activity.

This is based on the historic fabric of the asset and its ability to provide information pertaining to construction, changes in form/fabric.

 Historical (illustrative) as it provides a visible link between past and present human cultural activity.

The asset provides a physical reminder that settlement in the area had an agricultural basis that predates the existing developed area.

 Aesthetic in terms of architectural design.

The asset merits listing based on its date and architectural significance.

78 Historic Environment Assessment Setting Assessment Brock Farm lies to the east of the site and is separated from it by a small housing estate and a number of small fields. It is bounded to the east and south by houses and roads to the north (Warrens Hill) and the west (Hanney Road). There is no inter-visibility between the asset and Site D. There is no evidence of any relationship with a surviving field system. The assets location within a built up area means that it is appreciated in terms of its architecture rather than its connection with its historic agricultural past.

Impacts There is likely to be an increase in noise associated with the site option due to raised traffic levels and human activity. However, the asset is located on two roads which already have traffic movement. The asset does not lie within the site and so there are no direct impacts envisaged. It is clearly very separated from Site D so there will be no impacts on the asset or its setting. Site D has no impact on the aesthetic heritage value or the evidential, historic or aesthetic setting. Magnitude of Impact The magnitude of impact is determined in accordance with qualitative assessment descriptions set out in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Table 6.3 (2009).

 No change

Significance of Effect Significance of Effects is determined in accordance with qualitative assessment descriptions set out in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Table 6.4 (2009):

 Neutral

Considerations for Planning Applications There are no historic environment considerations.

Appropriateness for development in terms of the NPPF Development of Site C is not likely to impact on any buried archaeological remains. The impacts on the designated asset are considered to be neutral. The site is considered to be in accordance with the principles and policies set out in Section 12 of the NPPF.

79 Historic Environment Assessment Site E: Sharpham Road/Hellier’s Lane

Archaeological Assessment  A geophysical survey (SHER No. 32702) was carried out in 2012, for new reservoir on land to the south and west of the site. Several possible archaeological features were identified. No archaeological features were recorded during the subsequent targeted evaluation (SHER No. 32091).

 The earthwork remains of medieval and post medieval field boundaries possibly enclosing a settlement have been identified on land to the north (SHER No. 19286).

 Cheddar tithe map 1837: The field pattern of north-south orientated strip fields. Two field names at the eastern end of the site area are recorded as in Foss Mead (Plots 1762 & 1763. Foss often refers to a raised bank or road. Two further plots to the east of area have the same name.

 2nd edition Ordnance Survey c.1900: Fields in same arrangement as tithe map.

 1946 RAF Aerial Photographs: Area is pasture with the same field arrangement as tithe map.

Historic Landscape Characterisation Recently Enclosed Land 18th to 21st century. General field size, 0-3ha. Less than 25% boundary loss since 1905.

Archaeological Potential The site has low archaeological potential. Further Archaeological Investigation No further work is required in this area.

Considerations for Planning Applications There are no historic environment considerations.

Appropriateness for development in terms of the NPPF Development of Site E is not likely to impact on buried archaeological remains or any designated assets. The site is considered to be in accordance with the principles and policies set out in Section 12 of the NPPF.

80 Historic Environment Assessment Site H: Land to the West of Cheddar Business Park

Archaeological Assessment  The site lies within the Cheddar & Cheddar Moor Area of High Archaeological Potential. The scheduled Roman settlement site, Anglo-Saxon and Norman royal palace and St Columbanus Chapel lies c. 120m to the east.

 Roman pottery was found during the early 20th century (SHER No. 11418), but a subsequent desk-based assessment and evaluation in 2008 (SHER No. 28139) to the north recorded no archaeological features or finds.

 A geophysical survey in the south half of the site recorded possible features which may have an archaeological origin (SHER No. 31850).

 Cheddar tithe map 1837: The area of the map is in poor condition and difficult to read. Plots recorded as Napsham (plot 1866) to the south and House & Paddock (plot 1870). Steart Farm is also depicted

 2nd edition Ordnance Survey c. 1900: Shows Steart Farm.

 1946 RAF Aerial Photographs: Steart Farm and possible drainage network visible in pasture field to south.

Historic Landscape Characterisation Settlement, post tithe map (c.1840).

Archaeological Potential The site has archaeological potential based on the results of the geophysical survey. Further Archaeological Investigation Field evaluation should take place to test the efficacy of the geophysical survey and enable the description of the significance of any assets with archaeological interest on the site. Considerations for Planning Applications Archaeological evaluation will need to take place prior to the determination of planning applications and dependant on results a condition may be attached to permissions to ensure the recording of archaeology.

Site Appropriateness in terms of the NPPF Development of Site H is likely to impact on buried archaeological remains. Therefore prior to determination of planning applications archaeological evaluation should take place as required by paragraph 128 of the NPPF. If appropriate a condition requiring archaeological mitigation should be attached to permissions to conform to paragraph 141 of the NPPF. There are no impacts on any designated assets. The site is considered to be in accordance with the principles and policies set out in Section 12 of the NPPF.

81 Historic Environment Assessment Area I: Winchester Farm

Archaeological Assessment  Geophysical survey in 1993 (SHER No. 44862) to the north of the site identified possible field boundaries. No features were recorded during the subsequent targeted field evaluation in1998 (SHER No. 44873).

 The Cheddar Valley and Yatton Railway (SHER No. 26231) forms the southwest boundary.

 The Cheddar to Wells turnpike Road (SHER No. 26233) forms the northeast boundary.

 The earthwork remains of a rectilinear mound to the northeast, are clearly visible on the RAF photos (SHER No. 11517).

 Cheddar tithe map 1837: Plots 874-877 in the western half of site are called In Welsh hern/horn. Plots 874 & 879 in the eastern half of site are called New Leaze. The western boundary of the site is very sinuous due to the watercourse it follows. This boundary forms part of a much longer sinuous field boundary. The site appears to have formed part a much larger tongue of unenclosed land extending out from the foothills of the Mendip Hills. Fields within the site area have very straight boundaries and are therefore 18th/19th century enclosures.

 2nd edition Ordnance Survey c. 1900: Smaller field divisions on western side of site are no longer present.

 1946 RAF Aerial Photographs: Pasture fields covered by a network of land improvement drainage (possibly post medieval warping drains).

Historic Landscape Characterisation Recently Enclosed Land 18th to 21st century. General field size, 3-6ha. Less than 25% boundary loss since 1905.

Archaeological Potential The site has low archaeological potential. Further Archaeological Investigation No further investigation is required. Considerations for Planning Applications There are no historic environment considerations. Appropriateness for development in terms of the NPPF Development of Site H is not likely to impact on buried archaeological remains or any designated assets. The site is considered to be in accordance with the principles and policies set out in Section 12 of the NPPF.

82 Historic Environment Assessment 8 North Petherton Site Options

83 Historic Environment Assessment Archaeology and History North Petherton lies below the eastern foothills of the Quantocks, in an area once largely marsh and prone to flooding. As with other marsh and marginal areas in Somerset, the land appears to have been exploited in prehistoric times, possibly on a seasonal basis. A Mesolithic flint assemblage has been recovered as well as isolated Neolithic and Bronze Age artefacts from Greenway Farm (to the south of the present settlement).

Some 2nd and 3rd century Roman activity is suggested by finds of Roman material just east of North Petherton, but little is known of its extent or character. Recent excavations near Junction 24 on Taunton Road have revealed scattered Romano-British farmsteads comprising of singular roundhouses set within field systems.

North Petherton was at the centre of a large royal estate in the Saxon period, and the hundred meeting place. It was never hidated, but by Domesday was of 30 ploughlands, considerably larger than most private holdings: North Petherton is still one of the largest parishes in Somerset. The record at Domesday of a pre-Conquest church on an estate of such size and status suggests a minster foundation, with dependent chapels at Chedzoy, Pawlett and, possibly, St Michaels church (though this was independent by 1066). It is likely that the settlement of North Petherton itself (for which there is no evidence earlier than the 10th century) grew up around the minster. Whilst not originally urban in form, North Petherton had some central functions by the end of the Saxon period, with a short lived mint in operation around 1045.

After the conquest, the monarchy retained an interest in the lands. The royal park to the east was extended under Henry II into a royal forest centred on North Petherton. The bounds of the forest are not known in detail: it may have lain mainly on the Quantocks or on the marshes. North Petherton acted as an administrative centre for the forest, and the chief forester of Somerset owned land there, but in the 13th century the bounds were restricted, and the town's functions were redirected into the royal park. North Petherton was also surrounded by several small manors.

The medieval borough is something of an enigma, and its relationship with the settlement's royal administrative functions unclear. There is a reference to a burgage in North Petherton in 1251-2, although the borough was not separately represented at the eyres of 1225 or 1242-3, nor at the law hundreds of the 1430s. In the 1490s, however, a list of fines refers to Petherton Burgus. North Petherton flourished in the later middle ages as evidenced by the rebuilding of the church but with Bridgwater so close, its prosperity seems to have been based more on agricultural and pastoral activity combined with good communications.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the coming of the turnpike and the repeated improvement of the route through the town maintained North Petherton's communications, although it was not directly touched by canal or railway. The market, a large corn market according to Collinson in 1791, continued throughout the post-medieval period, and the park was converted into fields during this time. There was little urban growth, however, until comparatively recently when the town has become a commuter settlement beside the M5.

84 Historic Environment Assessment

Sites A, B and C Sites A, B and C are considered together in this section as one area rather than separately as all three sites share a similar historic character and archaeological potential. Site C has the potential to impact on the setting of two designated assets and this is discussed under Section 9.3.5 – 9.3.13.

Archaeological Assessment  Romano-British settlement is situated at very northern edge of Site A (SHER No. 10619). Excavation produced occupation evidence and 3rd century Romano-British pottery. The cropmark remains of a possible prehistoric/Romano-British enclosure lies c. 130m to the east of Site B (SHER No. 26952).

Location of HER references

85 Historic Environment Assessment  North Petherton tithe map 1841: shows a pattern of rectilinear fields with field boundaries running east to west and a ribbon of buildings along Newton Road.

 2nd edition Ordnance Survey c.1900: More field boundaries – Baymead Farm, Staffland Farm & Brook Farm. Large pond in Area A. The area is part of a former open with post medieval settlement occurring along the road line located in the ends of the field strips. Batts House and Spitgrove occupy an east to west field block.

86 Historic Environment Assessment

 1946 RAF Aerial Photographs: Same field boundary arrangement as Ordnance Survey map. It shows the pre-motorway landscape and the large pond is visible.

87 Historic Environment Assessment

Historic Landscape Characterisation Anciently Enclosed Land pre-17th century. General field size, 3-6ha. Less than 25% boundary loss since 1905. Archaeological Potential Due to the evidence of Roman-British settlement and agricultural exploitation of the area there is a high probability that there are remains relating to occupation or activity of this date on the site. Further Archaeological Investigation Detailed archaeological investigations will need to be carried out prior to the determination of an application on this site. This should initially comprise geophysical survey followed by trial trench evaluation in order to provide sufficient information to describe the significance of any archaeological assets present. The need for further mitigation measures may be determined on the basis of these results. Potentially Impacted Designated Heritage Assets Two designated assets, Spitgrove and Batts House listed buildings are potentially impacted by Site C and these are considered within the Site D section (see Section 8.3.5 – 8.3.13).

Considerations for planning applications For Site A and B archaeological evaluation should take place prior to determination of applications and dependant on results a condition may be attached to permission requiring mitigation. For information on Site C See Section 8.3.12.

Site Appropriateness in terms of the NPPF Development of the sites is likely to impact on buried archaeological remains and therefore prior to determination of planning applications associated with these sites archaeological evaluation should take place as required by paragraph 128 of the NPPF. Further mitigation may be appropriate dependant on the results of the evaluation (as per the NPPF paragraph 141). The impacts on the designated assets are considered to be Slight Effects as the modern setting of the assets does not contribute greatly to their value and the buildings themselves are not affected by the site (see Site D for designated assets assessment). Justification for this impact should be robust and the design of the site must ensure the enhancement of the immediate setting of the asset in order to conform to the NPPF. The site is considered to be in accordance with the principles and policies set out in Section 12 of the NPPF.

88 Historic Environment Assessment Site D: Sellick’s Lane/Newton Road

Archaeological Assessment  Soilmarks of enclosures are visible on Google Earth (SHER 36773) on land 300m to the northwest of the A38/Taunton Road. Morphology suggests prehistoric/Romano- British date.

Location of HER references  North Petherton tithe Map 1841: Shows the same field pattern as appears on the later 2nd Edition OS map.

89 Historic Environment Assessment  2nd edition Ordnance Survey c. 1900): Same arrangement as the tithe map with several boundaries removed.

 1946 RAF Aerial Photographs: Much of site appears as pasture.

90 Historic Environment Assessment

Historic Landscape Characterisation Recently Enclosed Land 17th to 18th century. General field size, 3-6ha. Between 25% and 50% boundary loss since 1905. Archaeological Potential Due to the evidence of prehistoric and/or Roman-British period activity in the area, there is a high probability that there are archaeological remains of this date on the sites.

Further Archaeological Investigation Detailed archaeological investigations will need to be carried out prior to determination of a planning application. This should initially comprise geophysical survey followed by trial trench evaluation. The need for further mitigation measures may be determined on the basis of these results. Potentially Impacted Designated Heritage Assets Spitgrove, Newton Road, Listed Building Grade II Historic England Listing Description: “A late C18 house. Roughcast, pantile roof, coped verges, end brick stacks. Two storeys, 3 bays, 12-pane sash windows to first floor, 16-pane sash windows to ground floor, exposed sash boxes. Central 6-panelled door, top 2 panels glazed, flat hood on iron brackets. Single bay addition set back to left in conforming style.” Listed Building Number: 269361. List entry Number: 1060168.

Batts House, Newton Road Listed Building Grade II Historic England Listing Description: “A late C18 house. Flemish bond brick, emphasised ashlar quoins, triple Roman tile roof, coped verges, end brick stacks. Two storeys, 3 bays, outer bays with 2 storeyed canted bay windows, flat roofs, 8;12;8 pane sash windows to each, central 12-pane sash window. Central door opening, panelled door, trellis porch, under lead "tent"- canopy hood. Right return with further 2-storeyed canted bay to roadside.” Listed Building Number: 269360. List entry Number: 1344677

91 Historic Environment Assessment Importance of Assets In accordance with criteria derived from the DMRB Volume 11, Section 3 Part 2, Table 6.1 (2009) the assets are considered to be of:

 Spitgrove: Medium Importance.  Batts House: Medium Importance

Heritage Values Following the methodology set out in Advice in Planning: 3 (Historic England 2015) and Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance (Historic England 2008) the heritage values that relate to this significance are considered to be:

 Evidential because they have the ability to reveal information about past human activity.

This includes the fabric of the buildings as artefactual evidence and the potential for further information concerning construction details and any changes/additions to the original structure.

 Historical (illustrative) as they provide a visible link between past and present human cultural activity.

The buildings date from the late 18th century and together illustrate the village edge nature of the locality in the period through their style.

 Aesthetic in terms of architectural design.

The assets represent two different styles of architecture (see Setting Assessment) but share a similar date and exhibit features of the period.

Setting Assessment Both of the assets are graded at II and are therefore of medium importance. They are in close proximity and were both constructed in the late 18th Century. Spitgrove is in the style of a typical Somerset farmhouse whilst Batts House exhibits a domestic style more "urban" in design. Given that, the buildings are more or less contemporary it is difficult to assess which was built first but certainly neither existed in isolation for any extended time.

Batts House's relationship with its surroundings in terms of both visual and historic is defined by its individual character adjacent to a road on the outskirts of the village. It does not appear to have been designed to sit within a landscape or have interactions with the field systems surrounding it. Although it would have originally been isolated (or possibly built next to an existing Spitgrove Farm) it is now close to the 20th century expansion of the village. Its immediate surroundings are within a divided field with straight boundaries (orientated northeast-southwest) that are part of the overall field pattern identified by the HLC.

92 Historic Environment Assessment

Spitgrove has clear agricultural roots in its design and therefore may well have originally been more integrated within the 17th-18th century surrounding fields. Due to boundary loss it is difficult to interpret any relationship except with its immediate field enclosure. With exception to the south where, a more sinuous field is located, the house sits within a large field divided into smaller plots shared (to some extent) with Batts House. Again it was possibly originally isolated but could also have been built next to an existing Batts House.

93 Historic Environment Assessment

For both assets the views towards the settlement are of mainly 20th century dwellings on the edge of the village, with fields to the south, east and west. The buildings are likely to be encountered primarily from Newton Road. Here Spitgrove obscures Batts House from the south but does present a good view of the front of the farm. The buildings are just visible from Taunton Road but they are too distant for any detail to be seen. Only the roofs are fully visible. No discernible deliberate views have been identified except that possibly Spitgrove was orientated to present its frontage to viewers from the south on Newton Road. Although this orientation is shared with Batts House, it is occluded by Spitgrove so there may be no intended view. Rather it may be that both houses are south facing to maximise light and heat. Impacts The assets are in close proximity to each other and lie at the southern end of Site D and directly opposite Site C. Site C will result in less seclusion for Batts House as the site will extend the settlement up to, and (to the east) around the asset. Site D will have a similar impact as it will extend the settlement south of the asset. While Spitgrove House lies just south of Site D, Site C will extend the settlement to the southeast on the opposite side of Newton Road.

Development of Site D will impact on Spitgrove House by reducing its rural environment. The view from the south will not be affected. Modern encroachment is evident along Newton Road up to Batts House already eroding the seclusion of the building and conjoining it to the terminus of the settlement. The setting of the two listed buildings may be compromised by "crowding in" of contemporary housing. In particular, Spitgrove’s direct relationship with its rural hinterland will be impacted. There are no direct links with the surrounding field system.

The assets themselves do not fall within the Site options and so there are no direct impacts envisaged. Therefore, the potential development will no impact on the evidential heritage values, but there would be some impact on the aesthetic values due to increased development. There would also be an impact on Spitgrove in terms of its historical value due to the impact of the development on the assets historic setting. This is due to its relationship with its rural landscape. Magnitude of Impact The impacts on the setting of the assets are primarily concerning visual and emotive change (i.e. the sensory appreciation of the assets in a rural landscape). Therefore, the impacts will have only little change to the significance of the assets. They will not affect the evidential value and in the case of Spitgrove only have limited impact on the aesthetic and historic values.

The magnitude of impact is determined in accordance with qualitative assessment descriptions set out in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Table 6.3 (2009).

 Spitgrove: Minor  Batts House: Minor

Significance of Effect Significance of Effects is determined in accordance with qualitative assessment descriptions set out in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Table 6.4 (2009):

 Spitgrove: Slight

94 Historic Environment Assessment  Batts House: Slight

Considerations for Planning Applications Development of Sites C and D is likely to impact on buried archaeological remains and therefore prior to determination of planning applications archaeological evaluation should take place. Dependant on the results of the evaluation archaeological mitigation may be required through attaching a condition to permissions. Further assessment of the listed building’s setting should take place and a Heritage Statement should be submitted prior to determination of planning applications on this site. The statement should detail the exact impacts on the designated assets. Mitigation measures for archaeology and any impacts on the listed buildings should be provided as supporting information with any planning applications.

The use of green, or open space and/or open landscaping as well as sensitive design should be applied to ensure Spitgrove farm retains a relationship with the landscape. House designs and layout on the approaches to both buildings should be sympathetic to the need to enhance their environs by example creating new views and ensuring nearby dwellings use appropriate materials. Appropriateness for development in terms of the NPPF The impacts on the designated assets are considered to be Slight Effects as the modern setting of the assets does not contribute greatly to their value and the buildings themselves are not affected by the site. Justification for impact should be robust and the design of the site must ensure the enhancement of the immediate setting of the asset in order to conform to the NPPF. Archaeological evaluation should take place prior to determination of applications (as per the NPPF paragraph 128) and if appropriate further mitigation (as per the NPPF paragraph 141). The site is considered to be in accordance with the principles and policies set out in Section 12 of the NPPF.

95 Historic Environment Assessment Site F: Park Lane

Archaeological Assessment  No sites with archaeological interest are currently recorded within the site, but a prehistoric settlement was excavated in advance of a new dairy c.150m to the north.

 The settlement site was identified through evaluation (SHER Nos. 28772 & 28773). Subsequent excavation (SHER No. 30191) demonstrated a settlement sequence from the Middle Iron Age to the Romano-British period. Settlement evidence comprised three round houses of Middle-Late Iron Age date located within large a ditched boundary, which in turn lay within a more extensive field system. In the late Iron Age/Romano-British period, the settlement was remodelled. The round houses and associated boundary ditch went out of use and a number of curving enclosure ditches were constructed, probably associated with animal stock holding. Although this period saw a major remodelling of the settlement, continuity of occupation was demonstrated by the earlier alignment of field boundaries being reaffirmed and further developed. Archaeological features were recorded in the field to the northeast of the site.

 The northern edge of the site is formed by Park Lane, which originally lead to Petherton Park, a former medieval hunting park.

Location of HER references

96 Historic Environment Assessment  North Petherton tithe map 1841: Plot 2848 is recorded as Heathfield Ground.

 2nd edition Ordnance Survey c.1900: The field patterns are similar to the boundaries shown on the tithe map.

97 Historic Environment Assessment  1946 RAF Aerial Photographs: No archaeological features visible.

Historic Landscape Characterisation Recently Enclosed Land 18th to 21st century. General field size, 6-12ha. Between 25% and 50% boundary loss since 1905 Archaeological Potential The site has the potential for prehistoric and/or Roman-British period archaeology associated with settlement or agricultural activity. Further Archaeological Investigation Detailed archaeological investigations will need to be carried out prior to the determination of planning applications on this site. This should initially comprise geophysical survey followed by trial trench evaluation to provide sufficient information to describe the significance of archaeological assets present. The need for further mitigation measures may be determined on the basis of these results. Appropriateness for development in terms of the NPPF The site options are likely to impact on buried archaeological remains and therefore prior to determination of planning applications associated with these sites archaeological evaluation should take place as required by paragraph 128 of the NPPF. Dependant on the results of the evaluation archaeological mitigation may be required (as per the NPPF paragraph 141). If Site F is subsequently taken forward it is considered to be in accordance with the principles and policies set out in Section 12 of the NPPF.

98 Historic Environment Assessment 9 Tier 2 Settlements

Axbridge Axbridge is situated on the southern fringe of Mendip, to the north of the town is the steeply sloping Axbridge hill, rising to over 230m, to the south the flat moorland of the Axe Valley. A low spur of dry land projects into the moor which may have been the area of initial settlement. Despite the town's name the river Axe lies over 1.5km to the south, although an earlier course may have come closer to the town. The medieval town lies strung out along the main road running along the foot of the hills, linking Cheddar to the coast.

The town is adjacent to The Mendip Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which are noted for their limestone caves, some of which have produced evidence of use in both the prehistoric and historic periods.

Until recent years only a few Roman sherds and coins had been found in residual contexts within the town. However, excavations in 1989 and 1992 have produced in situ Romano-British features and raised the expectation that the site was settled during this period. The surrounding area was certainly occupied in the Roman period; to the south of the town a series of earth- bound features seen on aerial photographs have been interpreted as representing a complex Romano-British landscape and Roman occupation is attested to the north at Rose Wood.

It is the Saxon and earlier medieval archaeology for which Axbridge is better known, however this is largely due the documentary sources rather than archaeological discoveries. The town was recorded as a burh in the early 10th century Burghal Hideage, presumably defending the western route to the royal residence at Cheddar. It has been suggested that the foundation of the borough of Axbridge was connected to restructuring of royal assets involving a shift in focus of royal residence from Wedmore to Cheddar at the beginning of the 10th century. As has been noted elsewhere in the county at Somerton and Langport, the founding of Axbridge may reflect a preference to distance commercial activities from the royal residence. The Axbridge Chronicle makes the relationship between these two explicit as it describes how goods collected but not used in the King's round would be sold in the borough market. A mint was known to have operated at Axbridge between 997-1003 and 1017-1038, with 22 coins recorded. At Domesday it is described as a borough under the royal manor of Cheddar with 32 burgesses paying 20 shillings, 2 mills and 3 fisheries.

A series of charters records the history of the borough through the medieval period. In c.1204 King John passed the manor of Cheddar to the Bishop of Bath and Wells and a charter of this date confirms the Axbridge Burgesses' rights to a market and other privileges such as exemption from county jury service and freedom from interference from the county sheriff, thus confirming the towns legal and economic independence whilst it remained part of the estate. In 1229 a charter of Henry II freed Axbridge traders from tolls and a fair was granted in 1239 both showing Axbridge continued to be an important market. By the 14th century Axbridge was a well-established cloth-trading town using overland routes to Bristol and the river ports on the Axe (Rackley, Lower Weare and possible wharves on the Axe to the south of the town). The prosperity of the town in the later medieval period is reflected in the high quality of surviving buildings of this period.

In 1557 a charter of Mary I transformed the Craft Guild into a Borough Corporation with a Mayor, and in 1599 Elizabeth I granted a second market day. On the back of this charter is a descriptive perambulation of the 'Liberties of Axbridge', which describes a long thin area lying

99 Historic Environment Assessment north-south from the top of Axbridge Hill down to Portmeade Ditch. The perambulation appears to cross the town on the west side at the junction of High Street and West Street, excluding the latter. Although the town had clearly expanded along West Street in the medieval period it was not until the early 17th century that a charter was granted which brought West Street into the area of the borough of Axbridge. Despite there being evidence of much rebuilding and particularly re-facing of buildings in Axbridge in the 17th century the decline of the cloth industry was to bring the demise of the town as an important trading centre.

Neither of the 19th century turnpiked roads in the vicinity were diverted through the town centre and the Cheddar Valley and Yatton Branch of the GWR railway which passed on the northern edge of the town was short lived built in 1869 and closed in 1963.

Very little rebuilding has taken place in the centre of Axbridge, as shown by the large number of early listed buildings lining the main streets which now lie in the Conservation Area. Potentially Affected Heritage Assets  Conservation Area  1 Grade I, 7 Grade II* and 81 Grade II Listed Buildings  1 Scheduled Monument  186 Historic Environment Records Policy Response Any future site allocations in the development plan will need to address the issues identified above. Planning applications should be screened for archaeological potential and applications must contain the information pertaining to the historic environment as described in Policy D27, including archaeological assessment (Desk based assessment) and where appropriate evaluation in the form of geophysical survey and trial trenching. Where designated assets are likely to be impacted then an assessment of their setting should be carried out and a Heritage Statement should be provided to support planning applications.

Cannington Early occupation of Cannington is shown by the Iron Age hillfort of Cannington Camp which lies just to the north east of the modern settlement. Recent excavations on the new by-pass has revealed high status Roman occupation in the form of a large villa with associated bathouse. An excavation of an early medieval cemetery by Rhatze in the 1970s recovered a large number of burials including the "Princess of Cannington", a young child interred in an individual enclosure. Domesday records that in 1066 Cannington was a royal manor with an estate belonging to Cannington church, this church, possibly of Anglo-Saxon origin, being replaced by the current St Mary’s Church in the 14th century. In 1138 Robert de Courcy founded Cannington Priory for Benedictine nuns. At the Dissolution of the Monasteries in 1536 the Priory was granted by Henry VIII to Edward Rogers and his family who greatly altered the Priory to create a grand Elizabethan Manor House, before it passed to the Clifford family towards the end of the 17th century. The excavations in 2013–14 were concentrated to the west of Cannington Court.

Potentially Affected Heritage Assets  Conservation Area

100 Historic Environment Assessment  4 Grade I, 4 Grade I* and 27 Grade II Listed Buildings  2 Scheduled Monuments  147 Historic Environment Records Policy Response Any future site allocations in the development plan will need to address the issues identified above. Planning applications should be screened for archaeological potential and applications must contain the information pertaining to the historic environment as described in Policy D27, including archaeological assessment (Desk based assessment) and where appropriate evaluation in the form of geophysical survey and trial trenching. Where designated assets are likely to be impacted then an assessment of their setting should be carried out and a Heritage Statement should be provided to support planning applications.

Nether Stowey Nether Stowey begins in the medieval period, with the building of the castle. However, the history of settlement in the vicinity of the town begins long before that. From very ancient times, the main Quantocks pass has been at this point and the common factor in the early history of the area is this communication line, and its control. The castle may well overlie an earlier earthwork, and there are hints from aerial photographs of prehistoric enclosures in the fields east of Stowey Court: moving west from the town up on to the Quantocks the density of prehistoric sites grows.

The Iron Age fort of Dowsborough lies about one and a half miles west of Nether Stowey. In the 19th century it was suggested that the fort might have been reused in the Roman period, but this has not been substantiated. In the Saxon period, however, the herepath, the military road, ran from Combwich over the Quantocks between the estate centres at Cannington and Williton. It probably followed a Roman road at this point - the name Stowey, recorded as Stawei in 1086, comes from the Old English stan weg, or paved road. According to Greswell, there was still a lane known as Stow Here Pat leading onto the Quantocks west of Nether Stowey in the post-medieval period.

There may have been more than one small pre-Conquest settlement here and, perhaps, a minster associated with the largest of these. The suggestion of a possible minster church is in part based on a disputed identification of an estate at Bodesleghe, which was in the possession of a priest at Domesday, with the more securely documented early settlement at Budley. This village was situated between Nether Stowey church and modern Whitnell, where "Budley" fields lay in the post-medieval period, and is the explanation for the somewhat detached position of the church, which continued in use when the settlement shifted.

The town of Nether Stowey has, in fact, three foci of settlement - the church and manor, the market place, and the castle - or four, if Over Stowey is counted too. These foci may represent the relics of the four separate estates of Saxon origin recorded at Domesday, though these were held of one landowner by then. The early castle at Over Stowey was apparently abandoned in favour of a new site at Nether Stowey. The new castle was probably in existence by 1154, possibly earlier. The settlement below the castle shows no signs of deliberate planning, but it was certainly encouraged by the obliteration of Budley under the manor park and the formation of a borough. The borough may have been in existence by 1157-8 and certainly was by 1225, when it was represented at the eyre. A charter of 1274 refers to the "ancient" borough, and in 1306 26 burgage plots in the centre of the town are recorded.

101 Historic Environment Assessment

The economy of the medieval town was based on textiles and pottery, and it had both a weekly market and a yearly fair after 1304. In 1334, the borough taxation for Nether Stowey gave the lowest total of all the Somerset boroughs. Nevertheless, a distinctively urban economy seems to have continued throughout the medieval period: there is little surviving evidence for farming. The castle fell into disuse in late medieval times and much of the stone was probably taken to the manor for the building of Lord Audley's new manor house. But after his failed rebellion in 1497, which also involved the townsmen, the partly-constructed mansion was allowed to fall into ruin.

New lords of the manor rebuilt the site and Nether Stowey continued to be a hive of small- scale industry, particularly pottery, and a commercially important market throughout the post- medieval period. The town still had its market and fair in 1791 when Collinson visited, but was only a "reputed borough", and had the alternative name of Market Stowey in 1795. At the end of the 18th century the town figured briefly in the country's literary life, with Coleridge residing in Lime Street from 1797 to 1800. In 1840 Bragg's directory called it a "small market town" though, in fact, there was a population boom in the first part of the 19th century. By 1861, this had tailed off and Nether Stowey was being described as a "former market town" - though it retained a large population of retailers, professionals and craftsmen.

The second half of the 20th century has seen an expansion of the town's population, with the construction of several housing estates contributing to the town as a commuter settlement. Potentially Affected Heritage Assets  Conservation Area  1 Grade I, 3 Grade II* and 26 Grade II Listed Buildings:  5 Scheduled Monuments  77 Historic Environment Records Policy Response Any future site allocations in the development plan will need to address the issues identified above. Planning applications should be screened for archaeological potential and applications must contain the information pertaining to the historic environment as described in Policy D27, including archaeological assessment (Desk based assessment) and where appropriate evaluation in the form of geophysical survey and trial trenching. Where designated assets are likely to be impacted then an assessment of their setting should be carried out and a Heritage Statement should be provided to support planning applications.

Puriton Iron-age and Romano-British settlements are indicated west of Puriton village and there are traces of linear banks and ditches of field systems on Puriton Level to the north. Puriton village is on the gentle northern slope of the Poldens and appears to have developed from two roughly parallel streets with the church and a small green known as Rye at its western end. Farmhouses were all within the village. Several of the survivors are of the 17th century or earlier, of stone with through-passage plans. They include Batch Farm, Cann's Farm, Court Farm, Home Farm, and, best preserved, Manor Farm, which has an original shouldered doorway with an ovolo- moulded window over, and beams in the room to the left of the through passage. About 1785

102 Historic Environment Assessment the settlement was described as 'straggling round the church', the houses of rough stone and thatch, of two storeys, some whitewashed.

Increased employment at Dunball in the later 19th century gave rise to small units of terraced housing by 1881, both there and in Puriton village (Waterloo Terrace and Hillside) and variously described as buildings or villas, (fn. 19) which gave a more urban character. Local authority housing was introduced in 1927, the last added in 1965; over thirty dwellings were built between 1931 and 1947. Detached villas appeared in the 1930s, perhaps marking the beginning of the village as a dormitory for Bridgwater. (fn. 20) From the 1960s a Coventry- based developer built several streets of standard housing both within and to the south of the village. Nineteenth-century houses forming Downend Buildings occupy a site whose road pattern indicates the late 12th- or early 13th-century planned borough

The four open arable fields, later subdivided and renamed, lay around Puriton village on the slopes to the south and east, sometimes referred to as the Down, and to the west. Some strips remained until after 1842 on the southern edge of the parish. Grassland on Puriton Level was gradually drained and inclosed between the mid-16th century and the early 18th when common grazing was regulated along its three broad access routes, North Mead, Selmead, and Broad droves and to Dunball and Rye commons. Inclosure was completed between 1798 and 1842.

Potentially Affected Heritage Assets  1 Grade I and 3 Grade II Listed Buildings  1 Scheduled Monument  81 Historic Environment Records Policy Response Any future site allocations in the development plan will need to address the issues identified above. Planning applications should be screened for archaeological potential and applications must contain the information pertaining to the historic environment as described in Policy D27, including archaeological assessment (Desk based assessment) and where appropriate evaluation in the form of geophysical survey and trial trenching. Where designated assets are likely to be impacted then an assessment of their setting should be carried out and a Heritage Statement should be provided to support planning applications.

Wedmore The Isle of Wedmore is formed by a sizeable ridge of higher ground lying between the coastal plain and the moors of the Brue and Axe Valleys; the River Axe separates it from high ground to the east. In times of high water, it has formed an extensive area of refuge from flood and marsh. Wedmore itself lies in a sheltered combe approximately half way along the north- eastern slope of the ridge, which is oriented towards the Axe Valley and the Mendips.

It has been clear for some time from a range of archaeological evidence - including flint from the uplands, and preserved wood from the moors - that the area of Wedmore was exploited from at least the Neolithic period onwards. For the later prehistoric period a possible pattern of farmsteads is just beginning to emerge from the earlier levels of sites initially identified as Roman. In the Roman period, recent research suggests that there may have been a regularly spaced network of farmsteads, and whilst a general relationship to earlier settlement patterns

103 Historic Environment Assessment has not yet been established, there is evidence for an Iron Age origin to at least some of the sites. One such site, the Close, lies on the south-west edge of modern Wedmore, whilst several other probably Roman sites have been identified on the margins of the settlement. Indeed, it is not impossible that a Roman site lies at the core of later Wedmore, though archaeological evidence for this is at present very limited.

Archaeological evidence for the nature of the transition between Roman, Post-Roman and Saxon settlement is also limited. The Close has yielded evidence of Saxon occupation, but not necessarily before the 10th century. Yet historical evidence - in the form of medieval references (generally accepted as genuine) to 7th century charters, the originals of which do not survive to add detail - shows that by the late 600s Wedmore lay at the heart of a large and important royal estate, the origins of which are obscure (many such estates have been shown to have originated in much earlier landholdings). The Isle of Wedmore was granted to Bishop Wilfrid of York by Centwine of Wessex in 682, for the building of a monastery, but the grant was rescinded by his successor, Caedwalla, after Wilfrid had instead passed the land on to Glastonbury Abbey. The estate then remained in Crown hands until 1062, with a royal manor centre at Wedmore. The subsequent history and development of Wedmore makes it almost certain - though again archaeologically unproven - that this centre was not at the Close but on what became the medieval manor and church site. The nature and role of Wedmore under the Saxon kings remains slightly unclear, for it was part of a multi-focus estate embracing Axbridge and Cheddar. Its main use to the Saxon kings appears to have been as a hunting lodge from which they could exploit the royal forest of Mendip and in particular the Isle of Wedmore (which means the Hunting Moor). But the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Asser imply that it was a villa regalis, suggesting that a substantial hall and complex, perhaps serviced by some associated settlement, existed at least by the reign of Alfred. The events of 878 suggest that there must also have already been a church (probably of minster status). For it was in that year that Alfred brought to Wedmore the defeated Dane, Guthrum, and his chief followers to complete their baptismal process (with the ceremony of 'chrysom-loosing'), to negotiate the terms of the Peace of Wedmore (the treaty which recognised the Danelaw in eastern England), and to be entertained and impressed by Saxon hospitality and sport.

The 878 Peace represents Wedmore's one moment of fame, and dominates most accounts of its Saxon history. How the place developed between the late 9th and the 11th centuries is again more obscure, though archaeological and place name evidence suggests a process of settlement (or re-settlement?) of the Isle may have continued. Several settlements on the Isle, together with fisheries, mills and lands, are mentioned in the grants of 1062 and 1065 which record Edward the Confessor's gift of the manor of Wedmore to Bishop of Giso of Wells, and can be taken to mark - or recognise - the transfer of the main royal interest to Cheddar.

By the time Wells acquired the Wedmore estates, a process of fragmentation had begun. Though the ecclesiastical parish remained (and remains) extensive, the Domesday Survey makes it clear that there were several manors on the Isle, not all of which were held by Wells. Panborough, for example, belonged to Glastonbury Abbey, which resulted in a number of boundary disputes in the medieval period (though these never directly affected the settlement of Wedmore itself). Wedmore at first continued to house the seat of the Isle's main manor, but in 1136 a change began. The manor was allocated as part of the endowment of the recently established Dean and Chapter of Wells. It was divided into six prebends - estates to support canons - but as these were mostly held, either directly or indirectly, by the Dean himself, he effectively became Lord of the Manor from that point on. A Papal Bull of 1157 confirms his

104 Historic Environment Assessment title to the estates, and a late 12th century charter of free warren (hunting rights) is also in the Dean's name.

The significance of this for Wedmore was twofold. On the one hand the Deans' preference for their palace at Mudgley resulted in a loss of status for the old manor centre and, by extension, the settlement at Wedmore, which was thenceforth administered by a steward. But, on the other hand, the Deans also took steps to maximise the revenue potential of the Isle. Signs of land improvements (causeways and flood defences) and planned developments are evident in and around several villages on the Isle, but these are most marked at Wedmore, where a planned "Borough" was laid out on the eastern edge of the existing settlement in the late 12th or 13th century. The name of this area, together with 14th century mentions of burgages and a port- reeve (both urban terms), suggest urban aspirations. However, though a market and fair grant of 1255 is recorded, there is no evidence that official urban status was granted or even applied for.

The economic basis of Wedmore seems always to have been its local livestock markets and fairs. Despite medieval drainage schemes (which actually made access by water more difficult), it remained isolated by swampy ground until the end of the post-medieval period, and was therefore only moderately prosperous - though it was also protected by its relative isolation from serious disturbance in the troubled 17th century. It suffered most from absentee Lords of the Manor. This had been a problem even under the stable influence of the Deans of Wells, and was even more so from 1537 onwards, when the manorial history became a complex story of confiscations, sales and fragmentation. This had some benefits, for it allowed development by local smallholders, but on the whole was detrimental to Wedmore's economy. So while the population gradually rose as cottages and farms were built on small plots and waste ground, the manor house often stood empty, the market failed and the settlement gradually fell into decay, many of the burgages turning to orchard. In the 1730s, Strachey described the Borough as a poor, ragged place which had seen better days, and in 1791 Collinson described it as housing only farms and cottages.

It was about the time Collinson was writing that the main enclosures of agricultural land were taking place. Though small scale enclosure around the Isle of Wedmore had occurred from the 14th century onwards, the last two decades of the 18th century saw a dramatic change in the landscape. Between the late 18th century and the mid-19th, Wedmore benefitted from the agricultural improvements. A weekly market was revived and the cattle fairs prospered: the town (as it was now referred to) even acquired some medium-scale industry, including a brickworks and a brewery. It became somewhat gentrified and acquired several local businesses and large houses in this period. However, its communications were still sub- standard: turnpikes were late in coming, and no railway link was ever achieved, despite a late 19th century proposal to build one. Its base remained local agriculture, and it was therefore hit very hard by the agricultural problems of the later 19th century. The census population reached a peak in 1841, but fell steadily after that, and the fairs failed in the early 20th century. It was not until the 1960s that the trend was reversed, since which point the population has been slowly rising, and Wedmore is now a thriving commuter village. Potentially Affected Heritage Assets  Conservation Area  1 Grade I, 4 Grades II* and 117 Grade II Listed Buildings  4 Scheduled Monuments  333 Historic Environment Records

105 Historic Environment Assessment Policy Response Any future site allocations in the development plan will need to address the issues identified above. Planning applications should be screened for archaeological potential and applications must contain the information pertaining to the historic environment as described in Policy D27, including archaeological assessment (Desk based assessment) and where appropriate evaluation in the form of geophysical survey and trial trenching. Where designated assets are likely to be impacted then an assessment of their setting should be carried out and a Heritage Statement should accompany applications.

Woolavington A Bronze-Age round barrow lies on the boundary with Puriton in the south-west of the parish and there is extensive evidence of Romano-British occupation in several places, some unidentified, including the Combe in the south-east. Further north on the moor, mounds of debris including pottery and coins are thought to have been part of a salt-making industry.

Woolavington village forms a grid at the junction of the main north - south and east - west roads on the edge of the moors. The slope to the south of the village was occupied by the arable land, less than a third of the parish, divided by the 16th century into four fields: East, South, West, and Crany or Crandon. They were very small, possibly including the area known as Martland in the south-west, and land known as Sog and Waterpit implies that even this slightly higher ground had problems with drainage.

The main village street runs east - west and includes the church and several surviving 16th-and 17th-century houses. Most were set back from the road and a small green, now known as Hector Stones, after the occupier of neighbouring property, was formed in front of one. The parallel street to the south seems to have been created from house sites taken from the arable fields or orchards. The houses south-east of the church, two of which, Dawbins and Harrisons, date from the 16th century, were built on strips of orchard. Most dwellings in the late 18th century were one-and two-storeyed, thatched, cob cottages; in Lower Road two still stand of a former row and a small house encroaches on the waste at the end of the road. More substantial stone-built cross-passage houses of the 16th and 17th centuries survive south of the main east - west street. They include Dawbins, Jacobs, Tassel's Cottage, no. 4 Vicarage Road, and Apple Tree Cottage. Originally single-storeyed, they were raised later, the 16th-century houses as early as the 17th century, although some houses in the village were being raised to two storeys as late as the 1930s.

In the 18th century a large stone barn was built at the Grange and two-storeyed farmhouses were erected west of the church north and south of the main street. In Lower Road they include Causeway Farm, dated 1734 and with old-fashioned ovolo-moulded windows, the later 18th- century house opposite, and the former Mortimers Farmhouse, set behind a walled forecourt. One or two similar houses were built in the centre of the village in the early 19th century, for example no. 4 Higher Road. There was a limited amount of house building between 1838 and the 1930s; most conspicuous is the poor quality stone terrace north-west of the church, formerly an almshouse. Local authority houses were built in the village in the 1930s and the 1940s. Houses were pulled down opposite Dawbins to build new homes in the 1960s.

106 Historic Environment Assessment In 1941 a large new estate was begun on the hillside south of the village to house workers at the Royal Ordnance Factory in Puriton. By October 1942 177 pre-cast, concrete bungalows, described as temporary, had been built by the Ministry of Supply. It was for a long time a separate community with its own social centre and youth club. The prefabricated houses were replaced by 228 local authority houses and bungalows between 1963 and 1966. The space between that estate and the village was subsequently filled by private housing, and in the later 20th century more house were built on orchards and other sites within the original village.

Potentially Affected Heritage Assets  1 Grade I and 9 Grade II Listed Buildings  60 Historic Environment Records Policy Response Any future site allocations in the development plan will need to address the issues identified above. Planning applications should be screened for archaeological potential and applications must contain the information pertaining to the historic environment as described in Policy D27, including archaeological assessment (Desk based assessment) and where appropriate evaluation in the form of geophysical survey and trial trenching. Where designated assets are likely to be impacted then an assessment of their setting should be carried out and a Heritage Statement should be provided to support planning applications.

107 Historic Environment Assessment