Proposed Wind Turbine Site at Gorvin Farm, Woolsery, Bideford, Devon

Home , Trerice, Yarnscombe

T H A M E S V A L L E Y ARCHAEOLOGICAL S E R V I C E S S O U T H W E S T

Proposed wind turbine site at Gorvin Farm, Woolsery, Bideford, Devon

Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

by Richard Tabor

Site Code GFW13/226

(SS 2888 1947)

Proposed wind turbine site at Gorvin Farm, Woolsery, Bideford, Devon

Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

for Mosscliff Environmental Ltd

by Richard Tabor

Thames Valley Archaeological Services

(South West) Ltd

Site Code GFW13/226

December 2013 Summary

Site name: Proposed wind turbine site at Gorvin Farm, Woolsery, Bideford, Devon

Grid reference: SS 2888 1947

Site activity: Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Project manager: Steve Ford

Site supervisor: Richard Tabor

Site code: GFW13/226

Summary of results: The site lies within an area which contains a number of heritage assets several of which are scheduled ancient monuments and listed buildings. There will be no physical impact on these assets by the proposed development and the impact on their settings is slight. The proposed foundations and service trenches for the development are relatively small scale but may have an impact on unrecorded heritage assets. and it is recommended that archaeological investigation takes place during the groundworks. This fieldwork could be secured by an appropriately worded condition attached to any planning consent granted.

This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.

Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford 13.12.13 Steve Preston 12.12.13

TVAS (South West),Unit 21, Apple Business Centre, Taunton TA2 6BB Tel. (01823) 288 284; Fax (01823) 272 462; email [email protected]; website : www.tvas.co.uk

Proposed wind turbine site at Gorvin Farm, Woolsery, Bideford, Devon Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

by Richard Tabor

Report 13/226 Introduction

This report is an assessment of the archaeological potential of a small area of land located south-west of and reaching into Gorvin Farm, Woolsery, near Bideford, Devon (NGR SS 2888 1947; Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Ms Lucy Boulton of Mosscliff Environmental Ltd, The Innovation Centre, University of

Exeter Campus, Exeter, Devon, EX4 4RN, and comprises the first stage of a process to determine the presence/absence, extent, character, quality and date of any archaeological remains which may be affected by redevelopment of the area.

Planning permission is to be sought from Torridge District Council for the installation of two wind turbines and associated services.

Site description, location and geology

Gorvin Farm is c. 4.3 km west of the focus of the settlement of Woolfardisworthy in the Torridge district of

North Devon (Fig. 1) and situated in the neck of the Hartland peninsula. Bideford is the nearest town. The proposed site for the two wind turbines is c. 400m south-west of the farmyard (Fig. 2). A 145m long cable would link the western turbine to that nearer the farm, which would in turn be linked by a 390m cable to an outbuilding close to the centre of the central farm complex. Each turbine base would require the excavation of a 5.3m square trench to a depth of 1.05m. The cable trenches would be c. 0.5m wide and c. 0.75m deep.

The greater part of the proposal site (Fig. 1: F1; Pl. 1) is set on a west to east ridge with a maximum height of 182m above Ordnance Datum (aOD). The ridge offers a partial view of a former chapel at Harbour Cross

([16]; Pl. 2) but the farm buildings are all but concealed within a small north-east facing coomb ([11]; Pl. 3).

Both fields are bound by mixed hedges over banks of stone and earth. There are open fields to the north, east and south of the site, the latter separated from it by the road between Summerwell Farm and Gorvin Cross, but the area to its west is dominated by a conifer plantation.

The wider landscape comprises rough grazing interspersed with managed forest and areas of bog, reflecting the acidity, impeded drainage and low fertility of its peaty upland soils (NSRI 2013). The underlying solid geology comprises Crackington Formation Carboniferous sedimentary sandstone (BGS 2013).

Planning background and development proposals

Planning permission is to be sought from Torridge District Council to install to wind turbines with associated service cables.

The Department for Communities and Local Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF

2012) sets out the framework within which local planning authorities should consider the importance of conserving, or enhancing, aspects of the historic environment, within the planning process. It requires an applicant for planning consent to provide, as part of any application, sufficient information to enable the local planning authority to assess the significance of any heritage assets that may be affected by the proposal. The

Historic Environment is defined (NPPF 2012, 52) as:

‘All aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through time, including all surviving physical remains of past human activity, whether visible, buried or submerged, and landscaped and planted or managed flora.’ Paragraphs 128 and 129 state that

‘128. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. ‘129. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.’ A ‘heritage asset’ is defined (NPPF 2012, 52) as

‘A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. Heritage asset includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing).’ ‘Designated heritage asset’ includes (NPPF 2012, 51) any

‘World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument, Listed Building, Protected Wreck Site, Registered Park and Garden, Registered Battlefield or Conservation Area designated under the relevant legislation.’

‘Archaeological interest’ is glossed (NPPF 2012, 50) as follows:

‘There will be archaeological interest in a heritage asset if it holds, or potentially may hold, evidence of past human activity worthy of expert investigation at some point. Heritage assets with

archaeological interest are the primary source of evidence about the substance and evolution of places, and of the people and cultures that made them.’ Specific guidance on assessing significance and the impact of the proposal is contained in paragraphs 131 to 135:

‘131. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:  the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;  the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and  the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. ‘132. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. ‘133. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:  the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and  no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and  conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and  the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. ‘134. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. ‘135. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

Paragraph 139 recognizes that new archaeological discoveries may reveal hitherto unsuspected and hence non- designated heritage assets

‘139. Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets.’ Paragraph 140 requires local planning authorities to ensure that any loss of heritage assets advances understanding, but stresses that advancing understanding is not by itself sufficient reason to permit the loss of significance:

‘141. Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development management publicly accessible. They should also require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.’

In determining the potential heritage impact of development proposals, ‘significance’ of an asset is defined

(NPPF 2012, 56) as:

‘The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.’ while ‘setting’ is defined as:

‘The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.’

In the case of Scheduled Ancient Monuments (and their settings), the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and

Archaeological Areas Act (1979) also apply. Under this legislation, development of any sort on or affecting a

Scheduled Monument requires the Secretary of State’s Consent. There are several Scheduled Monuments in the vicinity.

At present proposed development is treated within the 'Torridge Local Plan 1997-2011' (TDC 2004), although the consultation process has been completed for a new 'Draft North Devon and Torridge Local

Plan' (NDC/TDC 2013). Policy ENV1 (Conservation Interest) of the earlier document stated

‘Development will be expected to effect the following: ‘(a) to protect or enhance the distinctive architectural, historical, archaeological, geophysical, landscape, geological, ecological, and hydrological attributes, characteristics, and features of the area; and ‘(b) to incorporate conservation and where possible enhancement measures within the overall scheme design, layout, and phasing where an appropriate assessment establishes conservation priorities....'

Specifically with regard to historic buildings, Policy ENV2 (Development affecting Historic Buildings and

Structures) from the same document states:

‘(1) Development proposals, including works, that affect a Listed Building or its setting will be determined having regard to the desirability of preserving the building, its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses. ‘(2) Development affecting a building of local importance will be permissible provided that the general architectural or historic character will not be harmed and the removal of features that contribute to the character, appearance, architectural or historic interest will be avoided.'

The existing Local Plan makes explicit reference to archaeological considerations. Policy ENV4

(Archaeological Preservation) states:

‘(1) Development will be permissible provided that: ‘(a) nationally important archaeological remains and their settings are not affected adversely; and ‘(b) archaeological remains of local importance are preserved in situ with appropriate restoration or enhancement; and/or ‘(c) where physical preservation cannot be achieved and the case for the development outweighs the case for preservation, appropriate arrangements are made for the examination, recording, and reporting of the remains prior to and during development.

‘(2) Where archaeological potential is suspected, a planning condition will be imposed to require that adequate provision shall be made for assessment, recording, and reporting of archaeological remains discovered during development, and for their physical preservation where appropriate.'

The new 'Draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan' (NDC/TDC 2013) embraces most of these concepts as well as emphasizing the place of heritage within the community. The draft Policy ST12 (Conserving

Heritage Assets) states:

‘(1) The quality of northern Devon's historic environment will be preserved and enhanced through positive management by: ‘(a) conserving and enhancing the historic dimension of the landscape; ‘(b) conserving and enhancing cultural, built, historic and archaeological features of national and local importance and their settings, including those that are not formally designated; ‘(c) identifying and protecting locally important buildings that contribute to the area’s local character and identity; and ‘(d) increasing opportunities for access, education and appreciation of all aspects of northern Devon’s historic environment, for all sections of the community. ‘(2) Proposals to improve the energy efficiency of historic buildings or to generate renewable energy from or surrounding heritage assets will be supported where: ‘(a) there is no loss or degradation of historic fabric including traditional windows; and ‘(b) equivalent carbon savings cannot be achieved by alternative siting or design that would have a less severe impact on the integrity of heritage assets.’

Methodology

The assessment of the site was carried out by the examination of pre-existing information from a number of sources recommended by the Institute for Archaeologists paper ‘Standards in British Archaeology’ covering desk-based studies. These sources included historic and modern maps, Devon Historic Environment Service,

Devon Records Office and Devon On-line Catalogues, geological maps and relevant publications or reports.

Archaeological background

General background

Gorvin Farm is set within a rich prehistoric landscape. The nearest Palaeolithic flintwork has been from the an area north of Bideford sandwiched by the coastal strip and the River Torridge (Collings et al. 2007, 4). Coastal areas have also been the loci for Mesolithic flint scatters, some clearly knapping sites. The nearest recorded scatters dated to the period, however, are some distance away at Parkham and Clovelly. A shell midden associated with a submerged forest has been discovered at Westward Ho! on the south side of the merged estuaries of the Rivers Torridge and Taw (Collings et al. 2007, 4). A line of Neolithic stakes may have formed part of a trackway in the same area. There are no demonstrably Neolithic features within 5km of the site and finds of the period are limited to an arrowhead and possibly a scraper near Clovelly (Dyer and Manning 2000,

12).

There is a rich Bronze Age monumental landscape with groups or alignments of often well-preserved round barrows on Welsford and Bursdon Moors, as well as in the Gorvin area itself. It has been suggested that there may have been significantly more which have been destroyed (Bayer 1996, 20-1). In addition, there are circular enclosures on Welsford and Summerwell Moors which are likely to be broadly contemporary (Dyer and

Manning 2000, 3). It is generally assumed that the elegantly set out multivallate enclosure at Clovelly Dykes is an Iron Age hillfort, although the site has never been excavated. Two 'Castle' fieldnames in the Parish of

Hartland may also be indicative of prehistoric defended settlements.

Evidence from the Roman period in the Gorvin locality is entirely lacking but place-names suggest that some settlements have post-Roman antecedents (Collings et al. 2007, 5-6). Documentary evidence concerning

Hartland exists from the 9th century onwards (Dyer and Manning 2000, 4).

The only invasive archaeological interventions in the local area carried out under modern conditions have been negative.

Devon Historic Environment Record

A search was made of the Devon County Council historic environment record (HER) for a radius of 1km of around the proposal site on 22nd November 2013. The search identified 29 monuments and four archaeological interventions within the search radius. Gorvin Farm house is the only listed building in the study area although other buildings are recorded as of local interest. The HER entries are summarized in Appendix 1 and their locations shown on Figure 1. The information has been brought up to date by the inclusion of the results from a recent geophysical survey (Smalley 2013).

Neolithic, Bronze Age Prehistoric finds in the area have been restricted to a scatter of flint flakes and tools from around Summerwell

Farm, 1km west of the site [Fig. 1: 5]. However, the proposal site is within a landscape which includes several groups of round barrows which are scheduled as ancient monuments. Although none have been excavated those which remain extant are well-defined and typical of the Late Neolithic to earlier Middle Bronze Age. An important group associated with a circular enclosure lies just on the north-west margins of the study area [9] but of particular relevance is barrow [1] in the south-west of Field 1 in which the proposal site will lie. This barrow, with seven others [2, 4, 6, 8] is described as forming a north to south alignment, though the barrows are not all intervisible. A barrow in Field 2 no longer survives as a mound [3] but there is another extant example on the

Hartland golf course [7].

Iron Age, Roman, Saxon There are no entries within the HER for these periods.

Medieval Much of the neighbouring Cornish historic landscape has been classified as 'Anciently Enclosed Land' (Young

2007, fig. 5) and it is suggested that a bank surviving as an earthwork is one of the traces of early enclosure around East Yagland which was part of the Manor of Hartland in 1301 [10]. Gorvin had already been referred to respectively as Garfen and Gorfenne in documents of 1204 and 1249 and the farm itself is likely to have at least late medieval origins, the present farmhouse retaining extensive 17th-century fabric [11]. Speculation that

Biteford Bridge is on the site of a Medieval crossing is based on the suitability of the location [13].

Post-medieval, Victorian, Modern There are several water-related features which are likely to be post-medieval and Victorian with a well [10], two reservoirs [14, 15] and a pond-like earthwork [14] marked on early Ordnance Survey maps. A horse-engine house [11] is recorded at Gorvin Farm and at nearby Harbour Cross a Bible Christian chapel was open from

1875 to 1962 [16]. The latter is now a house. A moat-like rectangular enclosure [17] is thought to be a modern stock enclosure.

Negative Neither a watching brief carried out during the installation of a weather mast [18] nor an evaluation at Hartland golf course [20] found evidence of archaeology. Geophysical survey of 20ha parcel of land revealed a number of linear and pit-like anomalies, some of which may be of archaeological origin and some relating to medieval ridge and furrow [19] (Smalley 2013).

Cartographic and documentary sources

Gorvin is not mentioned in Domesday Book (AD 1086) but subsequent documentary evidence strongly implies that it was an established part of the Manor of Hartland by that time. The farm's name is likely to derive from the

Old English (Anglo-Saxon) gor meaning 'dirty' or 'muddy' and fenn, meaning 'marshy ground' (Mills 1998, 86,

402). The earliest references to it are as a tenement of Hartland Manor in 1204 and 1247 (Gover et al. 1931, 78).

As Hertitone that manor accounted for nine of the 20 hides which with the manors of Clovelly, Welcombe,

Woolfardisworthy and Yarnscombe (Chope 1902, 418) made up the Hartland Hundred. Hartland Manor had been held by Gytha, the mother of Harold, prior to the Norman conquest. It remained in royal hands after the conquest, albeit those of William. By 1086 it yielded £48, increased from £23, and the householders included 60 villans and 45 bordars with 30 plough teams and a further 15 ploughs in demesne. Neighbouring Welcombe was rated at 60s, compared with 100s prior to the conquest, whilst Woolfardisworthy had risen from 5s to 15s.

Over subsequent centuries there are several references to tenants in the 'vill' of Gorfen, mainly in the papers of the Arundell family held in the Cornish Records Office. In the second half of the 13th century Henry and Joan de Gorfenn were respectively paying 8s rent and services and 28d annual rent to the Dynham family (CRO 2013,

AR/1/581 and 582). A witness to a property transfer in another 13th century document, Henry de Gofen, may have been the same man family (CRO 2013, AR/1/628). In 1301 Sarah and Agnes de Gorfenne were free tenants

(Chope 1902, 443).

The subsequent history of the area contains nothing of note.

A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at Devon Record Office and online in order to characterize activity throughout the site’s later history and to assess whether this may have affected any possible archaeological deposits within the proposal area (see Appendix 2).

The earliest map available of the area is Saxton’s county map of 1575. The approximate location of Gorvin may be judged from the relative positions of Woolfardisworthy and Welcombe, although the latter was incorrectly marked to the north of the former (Fig. 3). Welcombe was not marked on subsequent maps by

Jansson (1646) and Blome (1673) but does appear more accurately to the south-west of Woolfardisworthy on

Donn's map of 1765 (Fig. 4). There are no known enclosure maps of either Hartland or Woolfardisworthy (Kain et al. 2004) but the Greenwoods' map of 1827 allows a much closer approximation of Gorvin's location because it shows Summerwell and Biteford (Fig. 5).

The first map to show the bounded proposal site is the Tithe map of 1846 (Fig. 6). The proposed western turbines would be located in plot 4090, the service cables running from there through plots 4094, 4095 and terminating in 4078. The land was owned by Lewis Buck and occupied by John Prowse, as was the case for the neighbouring plots. At the time of the tithe, plots 4090 and 4094 were under arable. Much of the surrounding land combined arable and coarse pasture. The farm complex, plot 4095, was described as 'House, Garden, Court' and the building where the service cable would terminate and the plot 4078 within which it was set were

recorded as 'Barn and Mowhay'. The name 'Stone Acre' for plot 4092 may be telling. The source of the stone may have been the barrow which is no longer visible in the south-east corner of the field (Fig. 1, [3]).

The layout of the farm is significant as it suggests at least two episodes of development prior to the drawing of the tithe map. Aside from the house itself, at least two currently extant buildings appear to be represented on it. The house was linked by boundaries to a similarly oriented rectangular building adjacent to the west side of the road, forming a yard accessed via an opening at the east end of the north boundary. However, the building in plot 4078 was on a slightly different orientation, and possibly of a different phase of construction. To the north of the building complex the road appeared to entirely surround a rectangular enclosure. Plot 4075, north of the road, was marked ‘Garden’.

Although no enclosure maps exist for the area, there was clearly a programme to subdivide and, where feasible, to improve the land in the four decades after the tithe map (Fig. 7). The former plot 4090 had become three fields. The footprint of the farmhouse, yard and building to its east appeared unchanged. In contrast annexes have been added to the north and south ends of the building east of the former tithe plot 4078. The addition to the south end appears be the horse engine house listed in the HER. This implies an unusually late construction date, although it falls within a suggested time bracket for their use of 1785 to 1851. However, the floruit of this type of building is considered to be from 1800 to 1830 (Hutton 1976, 32) with a particular surge in coastal areas in the South-West during the Napoleonic Wars due to shortage of human labour (Hutton 1976, 34).

Clearly, during its period of use, the barn to which it was attached was used for threshing.

The greatest change to the farm complex on the map of 1885 was the addition of a second yard bounded by three connected ranges of buildings. The south of the west range included or replaced a structure marked on the tithe map and the yard was subdivided and connected to the farm house by small enclosures within it. Access to the new yard was between the north boundary of the old farmyard and the south boundary of the new east range.

A third yard area appears to have been created by the blocking-off of the broad track north of the new east range with a triangular structure. A narrow rectangular structure was marked on the west side of the newly enclosed area. A footpath on the west side of the complex crossed the old boundary between tithe plots 4094 and 4090 and one of the new boundaries within 4090 on a south-westerly route which terminated at the road to Summerwell.

By 1906 all but one small enclosure appended to the north range of the new main yard had been removed.

The shaded triangle denoting a structure on the 1885 map was left unshaded and the narrow yard to its north was subdivided by a north to south boundary. No changes had been made to the footprints within the main building complex nor to the boundaries of fields along the course of the proposed development. Indeed, as late as 1954

the only changes appear to have been the removal of the north annexe on the east side of the building in tithe plot

4078 and the removal of the north to south boundary in the small north yard (Fig. 8). There are no maps covering the intervening period but air photographic evidence from 1946 is consistent with this apparent lack of change.

The field boundaries remained unchanged in 1964 but at 1:10560 the scale was too small to make confident assertions about changes to the farm buildings, excepting the removal of all structures from the small north yard.

It is possible that the west range of the main yard first marked in 1885 had been demolished. Certainly by 1986 it was unmarked although a new north to south oriented structure had been constructed in closer proximity to the farmhouse (Fig. 9). An L-shaped enclosure had been appended to the south side of the north range and two smaller enclosures were set to the west of the east range. The most significant change to the farm was the addition of a massive covered complex south of the building on the east side of the road to the farm. The tumulus, previously somewhat oval, has become a suspiciously perfect circle, presumably stylized rather than accurately surveyed.

Unfortunately there are glaring errors on the most recent mapping of the area (OS 2012) which appear to show that most of the farmhouse has been demolished whilst a large newly constructed building in the west corner of the farm complex is wrongly oriented. This is plainly contradicted by recent air photographic imagery which shows the footprints of the farm buildings much as they were on the tithe map in 1846, apart from annexes added to the east side of the building in plot 4078.

Listed buildings

The only listed building within the study area is the Grade II listed 17th-century farmhouse [11] at Gorvin Farm itself, which has possible late medieval origins. The building to its east with which it formed the original central yard ought probably to be treated as within its curtilage. The orientation of the building east of the access road implies that it was built at a different time, either earlier or later. A noted feature of the farmhouse is that the shallow pitch of the roof and the chamfering of principal timbers with butt-jointed purlins is evidence for the earliest known use of small local slates in Devon (MDV14282).

The proposed development would have no physical impact on the house as the service trenches would be well to its north. The underground cables would also have no impact on the setting of the house, nor on the setting of the whole farm complex. The wind turbines themselves would be visible from west-facing first floor rooms but as the house is concealed within a coomb the impact on its setting would be minimal.

The turbines would also be partially visible from the locally listed former chapel but the intervening high hedges and banks coupled with the distance of nearly 500m would minimize any impact upon its setting.

Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields

There are no registered parks and gardens or registered battlefields within close proximity of the site.

Historic Hedgerows

The Hedgerows Regulations 1997, Schedule 1, Part II, defines an ‘historic’ hedgerow as one marking 'the boundary, or part of the boundary, of at least one historic parish or township' which existed before 1850 (among other criteria, not relevant here). Although the hedgerows over stone and earth banks along the south of Field 1 and dividing it from Field 2 follow boundaries which appear in the Tithe map of 1842 and may have very ancient origins none of them coincide with those of the parish. It is clear from records for Hartland Manor that Gorvin and Yagland were discrete tenements within it and road between Summerwell would have been a suitable boundary marker. However, there is no evidence that the site's boundaries meet the 'historic' criteria.

Aerial Photographs

A selection of potentially informative vertical photographs of the site and its surrounding area has been extracted from a list supplied by the National Monuments Record (NMR; Appendix 3). No oblique (specialist) photographs were found. In addition a small selection of vertical air photographs of the site and its surrounding area were viewed at the Devon Historic Environment Service office in Exeter and features of interest are discussed below.

Several extant barrows are visible as earthworks in 1946 air photographs (RAF/3G/TUD/UK/158, frames

5180, 5181, 5207, 5208). There are no discernible traces of the barrow in Field 2 (Fig. 1, [3]) and it is salutary that even the prominent extant barrow south-west of the site is not readily visible (Fig. 1, [2]). The barrow north of the site (Fig. 1, [6]) is fairly distinct and the known barrow in Field 1 is clear (Figs. 1 and 2, [1]).

A single possible earthwork appears very clearly in frame 5181 (Fig. 2, [21]) but as it is not visible in any other frames it seems likely to be an artefact of the photographic process. However, to its north, in the north-west corner of Field 1, and arcing cropmark (Fig. 2, [21]) is visible in all the 1946 photographs and in two frames,

5207 and 5208, there is some evidence that it continues into the neighbouring forested area. The feature appears to be related to a broad, slightly curved, cropmark in the field to the north which might either be an infilled holloway or a palaeochannel.

A group of weak linear cropmarks in the north-east of the same field appear to be parts of small enclosures

(Fig. 2, [22]) but they are very poorly defined. A number of other straight linear marks lie to the south east and one coincides with the route of a footpath marked on Ordnance Survey maps from 1885 to 1964. These are thought to be of non-archaeological origin.

Discussion

There are several known heritage assets on the site or in a position to be affected by its development, but it is necessary also to assess the potential for the presence of previously unknown heritage assets in the form of below-ground archaeological remains. In considering the archaeological potential of the study area, various factors must be taken into account, including previously recorded archaeological sites, previous land-use and disturbance and future land-use including the proposed development.

The site lies within a field which contains a recorded probable heritage asset namely a round barrow of presumed Bronze Age date. The site of a second barrow is only slightly at more distance and further similar sites are present within the wider study area. It is considered possible that contemporary occupation sites, unrecorded levelled round barrows or other non-monumental funerary deposits may lie in within the vicinity.

Although not recorded specifically within the HER for this site, field boundaries comprising earth and stone banks over much of the south-west peninsula are considered to have medieval or earlier origins. Here, those around Gorvin Farm, which is documented from medieval times with physical remains from post-medieval times may have their origins well prior to the 19th century when they were first mapped in detail. The proposed cable route would traverse one of these boundaries.

This study has also noted the presence of crop or parch marks on aerial photographs within the same field as the proposed turbines. These features might be of archaeological interest but will not be impacted by the turbine bases nor cable trench route.

One factor in the location of the turbines was that they should have a minimal impact on the settings of local historical or listed buildings and this has been achieved. It could be considered by some, that the setting of

the scheduled round barrow in the same field will be diminished a little by the presence of the turbines but, arguably, this is much less than that of the nearby conifer plantation. Such a plantation is alien to the local landscape when the barrows were built and interferes with the intervisiblity between this barrow and other similar monuments and any contemporary settlements. In this context, the siting of the turbines would have minimal impact. The impact on the setting of the other nearby scheduled barrow is now of no consequence as it has been levelled.

The cable trench route has also been designed to avoid physical damage to the historic buildings at Gorvin

Farm. It necessarily cross cuts one field boundary, which is again arguably of historic interest, but the impact is small as the route uses an existing gap.

It is recommended that the groundworks for the new development (that is the excavation of the turbine bases and the route of the cable) are subject to archaeological monitoring. In particular the overburden removal for the turbine bases down to the top of the archaeologically relevant horizon should be subject to archaeological supervision followed by excavation and recording of any archaeological deposits revealed. The cable trench should be archaeologically monitored when it is dug.

This work could be secured by an appropriately worded condition attached to any planning consent granted. and. A scheme for this fieldwork will need to be drawn up and approved by the archaeological advisers to the

District Council and carried out by a competent archaeological contractor.

References

Alcock, N, 1973, ‘Medieval Houses in Devon and their Modernization’, Medieval Archaeol 17, 100–25 Bayer, O, 1996, ‘Barrows in the Torridge District of North West Devon: A Study in Distribution and Location’, unpublished dissertation, Leicester University BGS, 2013, British Geological Survey, 1:50,000. http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html (accessed: 6th ‘December 2013) Chope, R, 1902, The Early History of the Manor of Hartland’, Report and Transactions of the Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science, Literature and Art, 34, 418–54 Collings, A, Manning, P and Valentin, J, 2006, ‘The North Devon Area of Outstanding Archaeological Beauty, Phase 1 Archaeological Survey: Summary Report’, Exeter Archaeology report 06.22, Exeter CRO, 2013, Arundell of Lanherne and Trerice [AR/1/528 - AR/1/1121] / Hartland Manor AR/1/576 - 630, Corwall Records Office, http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=021-ar_1-2&cid=1-2-8- 4#1-2-8-4 (accessed: 10th December 2013) DCC, 2013, On-line Catalogues, http://www.devon.gov.uk/lsdatabase? (accessed: 2nd December 2013) Dyer, M and Manning, P, 2000, ‘Archaeological Assessment of Hartland Forest Golf Club and Marshall Farm, near Woolfardisworthy, North Devon’, unpublished client report, Exeter Fitzpatrick, A, 2008, ‘Later Bronze Age and Iron Age’, in (ed) C Webster, The Archaeology of South West England: South West Archaeological Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda, Somerset County Council, 103–30 Gover, J, Mawer, A and Stenton, F, 1931, The Place-names of Devon, Part 1, English Place-Name Society 8, Cambridge Hutton, K, 1976, ‘The Distribution of Wheelhouses in the British Isles’, Agricultural History Review 24, 30–5 Kain, J, Chapman, J and Oliver, R, 2004, The Enclosure Maps of England and Wales, 1695-1918, Cambridge

Mills, A, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford NPPF, 2012, National Planning Policy Framework, Dept Communities and Local Government, London NSRI, 2013, Soilscapes, https://www.landis.org.uk/soilscapes2/ National Soils Research Institute (accessed: 6th December 2013) Smalley, R, 2013, ‘Harbour Cross Wind Farm, Devon’, unpublished client report, Stratascan, Upton Upon Severn TDC, 2004, Torridge District Local Plan 1997-2011, Torridge District Council TDC/NDC, in prep, Draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan, North Devon District Council and Torridge District Council Webster, C, 2008, The Archaeology of South West England: South West Archaeological Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda, Somerset County Council Williams, A and Martin, G, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London Young, A, 2007, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Mapping Project, English Heritage HEEP Project 2710: A Report for the National Mapping Programme, Truro

APPENDIX 1: Devon Historic Environment Record and recent excavated evidence within a 1km search radius of the centre of the proposal site.

No SMR No Grid Ref (SS) Type Period Comment 1 MDV11608 2859 1947 Earthwork, Neolithic, Bowl barrow. Scheduled monument 1016646 cartographic, Bronze Age survey 2 MDV61 2849 1933 Earthwork, Neolithic, Bowl barrow and ring ditch. Scheduled monument 1016644. cartographic, Bronze Age survey 2 MDV102747 2842 1931 Photographic Neolithic, Bowl barrow. Bronze Age 3 MDV7128 2922 1951 Earthwork, Neolithic, Bowl barrow. Scheduled monument 1016645. cartographic, Bronze Age survey 4 MDV62 2860 1845 Earthwork, Neolithic, Bowl barrow. Scheduled monument 1016971. cartographic, Bronze Age survey 5 MDV55-60 2745 1965 Findspot Neolithic, Scatter of flint flakes and tools. Bronze Age 6 MDV11609 2868 1992 Earthwork, Neolithic, Bowl barrow and ring ditch. Scheduled monument 1016647. photographic, Bronze Age survey 6 MDV11610 2868 1995 Earthwork, Neolithic, Bowl barrow. Scheduled monument 1016647. cartographic, Bronze Age survey 7 MDV11612 2955 1932 Earthwork, Neolithic, Bowl barrow. cartographic, Bronze Age survey 8 MDV12405 2875 2022 Earthwork, Neolithic, Bowl barrow. Scheduled monument 1016648. photographic, Bronze Age survey 8 MDV102330 2869 2021 Photographic Neolithic, Probable round barrow. EDV6132 Bronze Age 9 MDV104 etc Earthwork Neolithic, Welsford Moor round barrow group, ring cairn. Scheduled Bronze Age monuments 1019085 (group), 1017139 10 MDV67972 2994 1935 Documentary, Medieval Settlement, possible early field enclosures. 1301, part Manor of cartographic Hartland. 11 MDV75877 2904 1957 Documentary, Medieval References to Garfen (1204) and Gorfenne (1249). cartographic 12 MDV75880 2746 1936 Documentary, Medieval References to Yaggalond (1320), Yaggelande (1381) and Yeageland cartographic (1566). Possibly Eagga's or Geagga's land. 10 MDV102332 2997 1936 Cartographic, Medieval, Earthwork bank, probably part of field boundary. photographic Post-medieval 13 MDV67975 3020 1892 Assessment report Medieval, Bridge. Likely Medieval or earlier crossing point. Post-medieval 11 MDV14282 2903 1974 Extant building, Medieval, Farm house. Possible late medieval origins; extensive surviving 17th LB1333134 Listed building Post-medieval century fabric. 10 MDV75879 2997 1936 Cartographic Post-medieval Well. 14 MDV19848 2837 2052 Cartographic Post-medieval, Ruined reservoir, OS 1906. Victorian 15 MDV102329 2786 2021 Cartographic, Post-medieval, Reservoir, OS First edition. photographic, Victorian earthworks 14 MDV102331 2872 2054 Cartographic, Post-medieval Hollow, possibly pond or dew pond. photographic to Modern 11 MDV75878 2908 1975 Cartographic Victorian Horse engine house. 16 MDV2602 2936 1949 Extant building Victorian Chapel, Bible Christian. 1875-1962. Now a house. 17 MDV 13827 3038 2024 Photographic Modern Moat-like rectangular enclosure for watering stock. 18 EDV5883 2880 1919 Watching brief Negative Installation of anemometer mast. 19 EDV9110 2864 1894 Geophysical Post-medieval, Ridge and furrow, field boundaries and other possibly archaeological survey undated anomalies. 20 EDV5581 2972 1929 Evaluation Negative Three trenches, total length 115m. 21 2856 1963 Photographic Undated Curvilinear cropmark and possible earthwork. 22 2885 1966 Photographic Undated Group of linear cropmarks.

Listed Buildings Grade II unless stated.

APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1575 Christopher Saxton’s County map of Devon (Fig. 3) 1646 Johannes Janssons’s map of Devon 1673 Richard Blome’s map of Devon 1765 Benjamin Donn’s map of Devon (Fig. 4) 1827 Christopher and John Greenwood’s map of Devon (Fig. 5) 1846 Tithe map of Hartland, part 2 (Fig. 6) 1885 First Edition Ordnance Survey, County Series 1905-6 Ordnance Survey, County Series, revised 1953-4 Ordnance Survey, County Series, revised, provisional (Fig. 7) 1963-4 Ordnance Survey, 1:10,560 1985 Ordnance Survey, County Series, revised 1986 Ordnance Survey, County Series, revised (Fig. 2, Fig. 8) 2011 Ordnance Survey – Explorer OL 126 (Fig. 1) 2012 Ordnance Survey, 1:1,250

APPENDIX 3: Aerial photographic catalogue

Vertical (non-specialist)

Sortie number Frame Date flown NGR (SS) RAF/3G/TUD/UK/158 5180 19 APR 1946 293 195 RAF/3G/TUD/UK/158 5181 19 APR 1946 286 196 RAF/3G/TUD/UK/158 5207 19 APR 1946 284 193 RAF/3G/TUD/UK/158 5208 19 APR 1946 290 192 RAF/106G/UK/1631 1065 08 JUL 1946 289 203 RAF/106G/UK/1631 1066 08 JUL 1946 284 203 OS/78038 304 10 MAY 1978 291 196 OS/78038 305 10 MAY 1978 285 196 OS/78038 331 10 MAY 1978 284 183 OS/78038 332 10 MAY 1978 290 183 OS/95637 31 25 JUL 1995 294 192 OS/95637 32 25 JUL 1995 294 199 OS/95637 33 25 JUL 1995 282 199 OS/95637 34 25 JUL 1995 282 192 RAF/58/2984 60 30 JUN 1959 301 195 RAF/58/2984 59 30 JUN 1959 283 200 RAF/58/2984 60 30 JUN 1959 283 194 OS/98710 52 29 AUG 1998 287 206 OS/98710 53 29 AUG 1998 294 206 OS/00921 3015 08 APR 2000 294 193 OS/00921 3016 08 APR 2000 295 200 OS/00921 3031 08 APR 2000 282 195 OS/00921 3032 08 APR 2000 282 188

17 Barnstaple

Exeter

SITE Dartmoor

Plymouth Torquay

22000

21000 9

15 8 17

20000 6 11 22 5 21 F1 F2 3 1 16 12 10 2 7 18 20 19 19000 SITE 13

SS28000 29000 30000 31000

GFW 13/226 Proposed wind turbine site at Gorvin Farm, Woolsery, Bideford, Devon Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 1. Location of site in relation to Clovelly and within Devonshire. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Explorer 126 at 1:25000 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 7 8

F2 22

4 2

F1 1 5

Linear cropmark Possible earthwork 4 Photo viewpoint Cable trench (not to scale) Turbine base (not to scale) GFW 13/226 Proposed wind turbine site at Gorvin Farm, Woolsery, Bideford, Devon Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 2. Locations and directions of site visit photographs, showing possible air photographic features, superimposed on Ordnance Survey map, 1986 Approximate location of site

GFW 13/226 Proposed wind turbine site at Gorvin Farm, Woolsery, Bideford, Devon Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 3. Saxton's map of Devon, 1575 Approximate location of site

GFW 13/226 Proposed wind turbine site at Gorvin Farm, Woolsery, Bideford, Devon Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 4. Donn's map of Devon, 1765 Approximate location of site

GFW 13/226 Proposed wind turbine site at Gorvin Farm, Woolsery, Bideford, Devon Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 5. Greenwood's map of Devon, 1827 GFW 13/226 Proposed wind turbine site at Gorvin Farm, Woolsery, Bideford, Devon Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 6. Tithe map, 1846 GFW 13/226 Proposed wind turbine site at Gorvin Farm, Woolsery, Bideford, Devon Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 7. Ordnance Survey map, 1885 GFW 13/226 Proposed wind turbine site at Gorvin Farm, Woolsery, Bideford, Devon Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 8. Ordnance Survey map, 1953-4 GFW 13/226 Proposed wind turbine site at Gorvin Farm, Woolsery, Bideford, Devon Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 9. Ordnance Survey map, 1986 Plate 1. The ridge on which the proposed turbines would stand, looking westwards

Plate 2. The former chapel at Gorvin Cross from the ridge, looking eastwards GFW13/226

Proposed wind turbine site at Gorvin Farm, Woolsery, Bideford, Devon Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Plates 1 and 2. Plate 3. Access from Field 1 to Field 2, towards Gorvin Farm yard, looking north-eastwards

Plate 4. The nearest of two barrows (Fig. 1, [6]) north of the ridge, looking northwards GFW13/226

Proposed wind turbine site at Gorvin Farm, Woolsery, Bideford, Devon Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Plates 3 and 4. Plate 5. The barrow west of the ridge (Fig. 1, [1]), looking westwards

Plate 6. The barrow in the field south of the proposal site (Fig. 1, [2]), looking west-south-westwards GFW13/226

Proposed wind turbine site at Gorvin Farm, Woolsery, Bideford, Devon Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Plates 5 and 6. Plate 7. Track between farmstead buildings proposed meter building left, looking south-east-southwards (courtesy Mosscliff Environmental Ltd)

Plate 8. The west side of the proposed meter building, looking east-south-eastwards (courtesy Mosscliff Environmental Ltd) GFW13/226

Proposed wind turbine site at Gorvin Farm, Woolsery, Bideford, Devon Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Plates 7 and 8. TIME CHART

Calendar Years

Modern AD 1901

Victorian AD 1837

Post Medieval AD 1500

Medieval AD 1066

Saxon AD 410

Roman AD 43 BC/AD Iron Age 750 BC

Bronze Age: Late 1300 BC

Bronze Age: Middle 1700 BC

Bronze Age: Early 2100 BC

Neolithic: Late 3300 BC

Neolithic: Early 4300 BC

Mesolithic: Late 6000 BC

Mesolithic: Early 10000 BC

Palaeolithic: Upper 30000 BC

Palaeolithic: Middle 70000 BC

Palaeolithic: Lower 2,000,000 BC