13.0 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE

Transcription

1 13.0 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE Introduction 13.1 This chapter of the ES assesses the likely significant effects of the Overall Development in terms of archaeology and cultural heritage and is supported by Appendix 13.1, a gazetteer of known archaeological and cultural heritage resources in the area around the Overall Development. In particular the chapter considers the potential effects from the loss of buried archaeological remains, positive earthworks (such as boundary features) and standing historic structures The chapter describes the assessment methodology; the baseline conditions currently existing at the Assessment Site and surroundings; the likely significant environmental effects; the mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects; and the likely residual effects after these measures have been employed. This chapter has been prepared by WSP Environment and Energy. Planning Policy Context National Planning Policy Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 16 Archaeology and Planning (Ref. 13.1) 13.3 PPG 16 Archaeology and Planning (1990) contains policy advice on how archaeological remains on land should be preserved or recorded. It also gives advice on the handling of archaeological remains and discoveries under the development plan and control system. It provides guidance on Scheduled Monuments and non-designated archaeological remains, and management of these issues within development proposals. It acknowledges the importance of archaeological remains as a finite and valuable resource and advocates the preservation in situ of important remains wherever possible. Paragraph 8 states that: Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings, are affected by development, there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation. However, the document also acknowledges that there may be instances where the need for development outweighs the significance of the remains, which may be satisfactorily mitigated by archaeological recording /A5/ES January 2010

2 PPG 15 Planning and the Historic Environment (Ref. 13.2) 13.4 PPG 15 Planning and the Historic Environment (1994 contains a full statement of the Government s policies for the identification and protection of historic buildings, conservation areas and other elements of the historic environment. It recognises the vulnerability and cultural value of the built environment and promotes the conservation of important historical features whilst at the same time seeking to enable a sustainable role for these assets within development. The document states that potential impacts of development affecting the historic environment, whether statutorily protected or not, should be a material planning consideration It is proposed to replace the above two PPGs with a new single Planning Policy Statement (PPS) in the consultation paper Planning Policy Statement 15: Planning for the Historic Environment (July 2009). Its purpose is to provide a more integrated approach in considering listed building control, conservation areas and other important assets as well as archaeological assets of the historic environment. It states that development decisions need to take account of the historic environment in its entirety. Regional Planning Policy Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East - The South East Plan (adopted 6 th May 2009) (Ref. 13.3) 13.6 The South East Plan acknowledges the place of the historic environment in the planning process in Policy BE6. This policy states that: When developing and implementing plans and strategies, local authorities and other bodies will adopt policies and support proposals which protect, conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the historic environment and the contribution it makes to local and regional distinctiveness and sense of place... Proposals that make sensitive use of historic assets through regeneration, particularly where these bring redundant or under-used buildings and areas into appropriate use should be encouraged. Local Planning Policy TVBC Local Plan ( ) (adopted 2006) (Ref. 13.4) 13.7 Local planning policy is set out in the TVBC Local Plan, which was adopted in June The applicable saved policies to the Overall Development, as permitted by the Secretary of State while the transition from the local plan to the core strategy occurred, are as follows /A5/ES January 2010

3 13.8 Policy ENV 11: states: In order to protect the cultural and historic heritage of the Borough, development which would adversely affect features, buildings and areas which are of national and local historic importance or of archaeological interest (whether or not a Scheduled Ancient Monument) will not be permitted. If preservation in situ is not possible or feasible, archaeological investigation and recording leading to the interpretation of local culture and history will be required as an acceptable alternative Furthermore, the TVBC Local Plan also states: Where there is evidence that archaeological remains may exist and whose extent and importance are unknown, the Council will require developers to arrange for an archaeological field evaluation to be carried out before the planning application can be determined, to allow an informed planning decision to be made (Regulation 4: Town & Country Planning (Applications) Regulations 1988) Policy ENV 17: Settings of Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Archaeological Sites and Historic Parks and Gardens states: Development will only be permitted if it would not have an adverse effect on the special character and appearance of the setting of: a. a conservation area; b. a listed building; c. an archaeological site or monument, which is of national or local importance (whether or not it is a Scheduled Ancient Monument); or d. a registered historic park or garden. Test Valley Borough Core Strategy Pre-Submission Draft (October 2008) (Ref. 13.5) The Test Valley Borough Core Strategy Pre-Submission Draft has been withdrawn and therefore holds limited weight in planning terms. Draft Policy SSA1 of the Pre-Submission Core Strategy identified land at Picket Piece for the development of a new neighbourhood of 800 dwellings. Discussion The planning policy framework in relation to archaeology and cultural heritage presents a consistent message in relation to resources which may be affected by development in general /A5/ES January 2010

4 13.13 Archaeological deposits are accepted to be a finite resource which should be preserved in preference in situ, and where this is not possible by record. PPG16 and the regional/local planning frameworks set in place a regime whereby a suitable programme of archaeological work will be completed (where warranted) to define the importance of archaeological deposits which might be present within a development site. This could comprise a desk based assessment or defined elements of archaeological fieldwork. This could be presented alongside the planning application or provided in response to a condition of planning approval Built heritage resources are accepted to be important both as assets in a physical sense, but also as elements of a wider landscape. In this sense they are subject to analysis through their direct use or alteration and also changes in their nearby areas which might affect their settings. Assessment Methodology The ES considers the effects on Archaeology and the Cultural Heritage resource that will occur during the site preparation, earthworks and construction and operational phases of the Overall Development. Extent of the Study Area The following search areas have been used to establish the presence of known archaeological and built heritage remains within and in the vicinity of the Assessment Site. The centre of the Assessment Site at National Grid Reference (NGR ) has been used for all searches and the extent of the study area from the centre is outlined below unless specifically stated: Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAM) 1km radius; English Heritage Registered Historic Parks and Gardens 1km radius; English Heritage Registered Battlefields 1km radius; Listed Buildings c0.5km buffer zone around the site; Conservation Areas c0.5km buffer zone around the site; and Hampshire Archaeological and Historic Building Record (AHBR) Information (Ref. 13.6) c.0.75km radius The search areas for features that are statutorily or non-statutorily protected (SAMs, English Heritage Registered Historic Parks and Gardens, English Heritage Registered Battlefields, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) are considered suitable and will identify wider setting issues, especially in terms of upstanding features or structures. The search area for the AHBR information is considered suitable to enable a judgement to be made in the 12212/A5/ES January 2010

5 determination of the known and potential archaeological resource surrounding the Assessment Site The information is presented in the baseline section below in terms of those resources which lie within the Assessment Site itself and those which lie within the area surrounding it (termed the study area). Consultation Consultation was held with HCC s County Archaeologist in August The consultation provided an opportunity to agree the overall methodology for the assessment. Method of Baseline Data Collation Desk Study The following sources have been reviewed to assess previous land use and archaeological potential: National, regional and local planning policies; AHBR, including Listed Building data; Information held at the National Monuments Record in Swindon including archaeological records, bibliographic sources and aerial photographs; Cartographic, photographic and bibliographic information held by the Hampshire Records Office and British Library; SAM and Listed Building Information (obtained from English Heritage); Walkover surveys of the site; and Other background material (various internet sources including Multi-Agency Geographical Information Centre (Ref. 13.7); and British History Online (Ref. 13.8). Site Visit / Other Assessment A site walkover was undertaken in January and September All parts of the Assessment Site were visible, though some elements were not directly accessible The walkover was undertaken to allow direct observations of the Assessment Site to be made for the purposes of identifying or supplementing information gathered from documentary and third party sources (see sources listed in paragraph 13.22) through examination of views (into and out from the Assessment Site), ground conditions and also the landscape in relation to archaeology and cultural heritage as it appeared at the time of the walkover /A5/ES January 2010

6 Significance Criteria The assessment of potential effects resulting from the Overall Development has taken account of the likely effects during both the construction and operational phases. The significance level attributed to each effect has been assessed based on the magnitude of change due to the development proposals, and the sensitivity of the affected receptor/receiving environment to change, as well as a number of other factors. The seven scales of significance ranging from major beneficial to major adverse are described below: Major Beneficial: where the Overall Development could be expected to result in a significant effect on archaeological features/areas. Beneficial effects may result from the recovery of new archaeological evidence or moderate improvements in the general historic environment which improve the way in which members of the public may experience historic or archaeological assets. This may extend to the removal of modern structures which have impaired the integrity of the historic environment and restoration of historic landscape features; Moderate Beneficial: where the Overall Development could be expected to result in a noticeable effect on archaeological features/areas. Beneficial effects may result from the recovery of new archaeological evidence or moderate improvements in the general historic environment which improve the way in which members of the public may experience historic or archaeological assets. This may extend to the removal of modern structures which have impaired the integrity of the historic environment; Minor Beneficial: where the Overall Development could be expected to result in a small, barely noticeable effect on archaeological features/areas. Beneficial effects may result from the recovery of new archaeological evidence or minor improvements in the general historic environment which improve the way in which members of the public may experience historic or archaeological assets; Negligible: where no discernible effect is expected as a result of the Overall Development or no perceptible change in the condition or setting of archaeological features, or elements of the historic or built environment; Minor Adverse: where the Overall Development could be expected to result in a small, barely noticeable effect on archaeological features/areas and appropriate mitigation of preservation through record has been implemented. Could also constitute change to an area of locally important archaeological remains or their setting or alterations to historic landscape features that do not affect the visibility, height and/or overall form of the feature, landscaping or ecological planting on an area where archaeological features have been identified and change to elements of the historic or built environment following the implementation of appropriate scheme of preservation through record; 12212/A5/ES January 2010

7 Moderate Adverse: where the Overall Development could be expected to have a noticeable effect on an archaeological site or elements of the historic and built environment of regional importance and/or extensive long term change to the setting or visual amenity of such a site. Could also constitute alterations to historic landscape features that change the visibility, height and/or overall form of the feature or of a locally important archaeological site or elements of the historic or built environment without appropriate mitigation; and, Major Adverse: where the Overall Development could be expected to have a very significant effect on an archaeological site or its setting of national importance. Could also constitute effect upon archaeological sites or elements of the historic or built environment of regional value without adequate record or mitigation or alterations to historic landscape features that significantly change the visibility, height and/or overall form of the feature There are no standard criteria used to identify the importance of archaeological sites or identify the potential for their survival. The identification of the importance of archaeological and cultural heritage features used in this assessment is outlined in Table 13.1 and their potential in Table This has been established through professional judgement The divisions explained in Tables 13.1 and 13.2 are utilised to provide a comparable and consistent assessment of importance and potential within the baseline section of this chapter. Table 13.1: Archaeological Importance Archaeological Importance High Moderate Low Negligible Criteria SAM and their setting; World Heritage Sites; Grade I and Grade II* Listed Buildings and their setting; and Non-designated sites of high significance (national/international). Grade II Listed Buildings and their setting; Parks and Gardens of Historic Interest; Conservation Areas ; Non-designated archaeological sites of moderate significance (regional); and Features associated with a SAMwhich are still present and in a good state of preservation. Locally Listed structures; Non-designated archaeological sites of low significance (local); and Features associated with a SAMwhich are still present, but do not survive in a good state of preservation. Sites or features with no significant value or interest; Sites or features that are known to have been present, but have since been completely removed; and Potential sites or features that have been sealed beneath significant depths of material (such as spoil tips) /A5/ES January 2010

8 Table 13.2: Archaeological Potential Archaeological Potential High Moderate Low Negligible Unknown Criteria Existing sites that are readily visible as standing structures or earthworks that survive in a good state of preservation; Known sites comprising buried archaeological remains; and Areas where numerous sites of certain dates or periods are known within the vicinity, indicating similar sites are likely to be present within a site area. Areas where a few sites of certain dates or periods are known within the vicinity, indicating similar sites may be present within a site area; Areas where numerous sites of certain dates or periods are known within the vicinity, but where the site area has been subject to some previous; and development or disturbance. Areas where very few sites of certain dates or periods are known within the vicinity, indicating similar sites may possibly be present; Areas where numerous sites of certain dates or periods are known within the vicinity, but where the site area has been subject to extensive previous disturbance through modern development or industrial processes; and Areas where significant build up of material has occurred in modern times associated with levelling, spoil tipping or other industrial activities sealing areas where archaeological deposits may be present. Areas where no known archaeological remains have been identified through previous archaeological investigations; and Areas where previous disturbance through modern development or industrial activity has completely removed archaeological remains that were known or may have been present. Where there is no available archaeological information indicating the presence or absence of archaeological remains. Assumptions / Limitations This assessment of the archaeological potential of the Assessment Site is reliant on the data provided by the local and national authorities, and within the previous archaeological and historical reports regarding known archaeological sites within or in the locality of the site. The results of the desk-based works have provided an archaeological and historic environment baseline for the Assessment Site, although as is always the case with buried archaeological remains, there is still the potential for hitherto unexpected remains to be discovered at the Assessment Site. Baseline Conditions Baseline Conditions in Two SAMs were identified within the study area but both SAMs lie outside of the Assessment Site boundary. The information regarding the SAMs is summarised in Table 13.3 below. No other designated features were identified. Table 13.3: Scheduled Ancient Monuments SAM name Reference No. Period Location (distance from Assessment Site Description 12212/A5/ES January 2010

9 boundary) Devil's Ditch within Pepper Hill Firs Roman house 1/2 mile (810m) e of Finkley Farm Late Prehistoric North-east( c0.6km) HA201 Roman North north-east (c1km) A linear feature built and in use primarily in the Bronze Age. May have had use for inhabitants of the era as a land marker/division or possibly ritual use. This section survives as both a negative and positive feature. East of Finkley Farm. Excavated in Finds include a hearth, spearheads, coins, knives, etc. Large scatter of artefacts found after ploughing. O.S.A. No. SU34 NE16. Ref: 1. A Parochial History of St. Mary Bourne, (Stevens), pp Ref: 2. V.C.H., Vol. 6, pp It is unlikely that either of these SAMs would extend into the Assessment Site boundary, with the extrapolated line of Devil s Ditch lying to the east of the development area All AHBR data is illustrated on Figure 13.1 and listed in Appendix The number in square brackets (i.e. [10406]) is the identifier on Figure Distances from the Assessment Site boundary to individual AHBR points are provided for illustration purposes only, based on a 10 figure grid reference for the Assessment Site and the data from the AHBR for the record in question. The data set derived from the AHBR for this purpose was at a sufficiently accurate level to define distances within minimal error levels. Table 13.4 indicates the time periods pertinent to this assessment. Table 13.4: Time Periods Used in the Archaeological Assessment Name of Time Period Start of Period End of Period Prehistoric Palaeolithic 450,000-12,000 BC Mesolithic 12,000-4,000 BC Neolithic 4,000-1,800 BC Bronze Age 2, BC Iron Age 700 BC - AD 43 Historic Roman AD Early/Mid Saxon AD Late Saxon/Early Medieval AD Medieval AD Post Medieval AD Modern AD Present Day Information obtained from the HCC Historic Landscape Characterisation project indicated that the Assessment Site was within an area of Open Downs bordered by Woodland Downland Plateau both to the north and south. There is a buffer of approximately 1km to the transitional area of the two landscape characterisations /A5/ES January 2010

10 Prehistoric The AHBR search indicated that there were no instances of prehistoric material recovery within the Assessment Site Within the study area, evidence dated to the Bronze Age and Iron Age is noted on the AHBR. Bronze Age material is known around Tinker s Hill where several artefacts have been recovered including two hammer stones [23083] and a broach [23084], at a distance of approximately 690m east of the Assessment Site centre. Additional evidence has been recovered from a site near Melrose Farm where two ring ditches ([32778] and [32779]) of probable Bronze Age date are located (c590m east south-east of the Assessment Site). These features have thus far not been directly investigated. A single plough damaged bowl barrow is noted approximately 700m east of the Assessment Site [23082] Evidence from the Iron Age broadly indicates similar areas of activity. At Tinker s Hill, aerial photograph evidence has indicated the presence of a range of features including enclosures, trackways and pits ([32765], [32768], and [32770]). The individual enclosures noted through aerial photograph interrogation indicate an expansive, complex, multi-period settlement. One single enclosure complex [32765] is estimated to cover an area of 14ha. While slightly outside the AHBR search area, the Iron Age farmstead at East Anton (lying at the junction of two Roman roads) to the west of the Assessment Site is indicative of the likely settlement areas being respected by later activity A key landscape feature is The Harroway, a trackway with prehistoric origins. This runs to the north of Andover, cutting the limit of the study area for this Assessment Site. The trackway remained in use through into the Medieval period as a thoroughfare towards Canterbury and London for pilgrims The overall interpretation of prehistoric activity in the study area is somewhat limited by the low numbers of recent excavation of potential prehistoric sites, though those sites which have been investigated have been shown to be of high archaeological interest because of their abnormal construction such as the pair of contiguous round barrows at Walworth (Ref. 13.9). The presence of earlier activity is known to the east of Andover, with Neolithic evidence being recovered, though this too is difficult to interpret given the low levels of opportunity for modern investigation /A5/ES January 2010

11 Roman The AHBR search indicated that there were no instances of Roman material recovery within the Assessment Site or study area The low levels of known Roman material within the AHBR search radius is indicative of the low levels of modern investigation (as noted above) given the relatively dense settlement known from the wider area. Occupation at East Anton is the closest point of settlement to the Assessment Site and may represent the site of the settlement at Leucomgnus, though this interpretation is based on the proximity of a Roman road rather than other direct investigation evidence. Anglo Saxon The AHBR search indicated that there were no instances of Anglo Saxon material recovery within the Assessment Site or study area While there is some measure of discussion as to the precise nature of settlement during this period in the vicinity of modern Andover, historical records confirm the existence of a town in this area by the mid 10 th century which was retained in Royal ownership. The prevalence of place names incorporating Ann may indicated the extent of the Royal estate, though these are largely south-west of the modern town. Medieval and Post Medieval The AHBR search indicated that there were no instances of Medieval and Post Medieval material recovery within the Assessment Site or study area The general expansion of the known areas of Iron Age and Roman settlement have tended to confirm a gradual shift towards the west (as attested by the Royal estate), which would be consistent with the available evidence There is limited evidence to suggest a coherent settlement in the area of Picket Piece until the later part of the Post Medieval period, though the Ox Drove may have been established in the Medieval period and has been referred to as Ladies Walk on some map imprints and documentary sources The name Picket Piece is likely a modern derivation of the Middle English piked or pointed, then corrupted to peaked. This may have been linked to the convergence of Ox Drove and Harroway to the immediate east of the area. Middle Piece is known from c1780 where the 12212/A5/ES January 2010

12 name is used on the Dewar Estate Map, with Picket Piece first appearing on the Tithe Award of Cartographic Evidence The earliest map of the area viewed for this assessment was the Dewar Estate Map (c1780). Picket Piece, as noted above, is not illustrated on this imprint although the thoroughfare Ox Drove is indicated. Finkley Farm, marked to the north of the approximate location of the Assessment Site, is the most prominent feature on the imprint The Andover Tithe Map (1851) shows Picket Piece, as in the present bordered by two roadways. The land is reported (as a single unit) as being arable land farmed by John Bailey Mundy and owned by William Mortimer The earliest OS map imprint available (1871) shows similar detail to the Tithe map, though the roadways are named (Ox Drove and Harroway). Later OS imprints progressively add further internal detail to the Assessment Site, such as subdivisions. Baseline Conditions in 2015 and In the absence of any development on the Assessment Site, any potential archaeological remains within the Assessment Site boundary may be at risk of gradual disturbance or destruction as a result of both natural processes (plant growth etc) and also potentially the cumulative effect of large numbers of effects from small disturbances not subject to planning control (for example, small scale planting, fences etc) Built heritage remains (subject to proper maintenance as required by legislation should they be Listed) will not be subject to significant change. Likely Significant Effects Construction of Phase One Disturbance of Known Buried Archaeological Remains The assessment of the available evidence along has indicated that the Assessment Site has limited potential for the recovery of remains of known date. The most likely remains are those associated with activity along the main thoroughfare known to exist from the Medieval period which ran in close proximity to the Assessment Site: the Ladies Walk or Harroway and Ox Drove. The reviewed cartographic evidence does not date further back than c1780, at 12212/A5/ES January 2010

13 which point the road alignment is illustrated but no nearby structures are noted (the nearest being Finkley Farm) Given the available evidence, there is the potential for the recovery of artefactual evidence from the Medieval and later periods. Such remains are likely to have low importance. There is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term effect on archaeological remains of Medieval or later date associated with the Ox Drove of minor adverse significance prior to the implementation of mitigation measures. Disturbance of Unknown Buried Archaeological Remains The available evidence from the AHBR Figure 13.1 does not identify archaeological remains from the prehistoric and Roman period in the near vicinity of the Assessment Site. The recovery of material of these periods would therefore have high significance in demonstrating activity in an area where it was previously not known and also supplement the evidence indicating an Iron Age/Roman settlement area to the north-west of the Assessment Site. There is moderate potential for such remains to exist, and should they survive they would be of low-moderate significance dependant on the level of survival There is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term effect on archaeological remains of these dates of moderate adverse significance prior to the implementation of mitigation measures. Operation of Phase One and Construction of Subsequent Development No additional significant effects have been identified beyond those identified for the construction of Phase One (i.e. the potential for both elements of the known archaeological resources to be present and also hitherto unknown remains). Operation of the Overall Development (i.e. Phase One and Subsequent Development complete) No additional significant effects have been identified beyond those identified for the construction of Phase One /A5/ES January 2010

14 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase One and Subsequent Development Disturbance of Known Buried Archaeological Remains In order to determine the presence, form and condition of remains associated with Medieval and Post Medieval activity, a programme of archaeological investigation will be undertaken. Given the site conditions and work which has typically been required in response to development applications nearby (such as the Walworth Industrial Estate), the first stage of this is likely to be a phase of geophysical survey targeted on areas of the Assessment Site which can be shown to have limited modern disturbance. There may be a requirement to conduct further archaeological fieldwork dependant both on the results of this preliminary geophysical survey and on the flexibility of the development proposals to allow a commitment to preserve archaeological deposits either in situ (for example where ground levels are to be increased to a level where disturbance is unlikely) or by record. Disturbance of Unknown Buried Archaeological Remains The mitigation measures outlined in paragraph would be suitable for identifying if unknown buried archaeological remains were present. Operation of Phase One and Operation of the Overall Development (i.e. Phase One and Subsequent Development complete) There are not anticipated to be any operational effects resulting from the Overall Development. Residual Effects Construction of Phase Disturbance of Known Buried Archaeological Remains Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term effect on the known buried archaeological remains of negligible to minor adverse significance following the implementation of mitigation measures /A5/ES January 2010

15 Disturbance of Unknown Buried Archaeological Remains Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term effect on the unknown buried archaeological remains of minor adverse significance following the implementation of mitigation measures. Operation of Phase One and Construction of Subsequent Development Impacts from construction of subsequent development are as described in and and there are not anticipated to be any operational effects resulting from the operation of Phase One. Operation of the Overall Development (i.e. Phase One and Subsequent Development complete) There are not anticipated to be any operational effects resulting from the Overall Development. Cumulative Effects Construction and Operation of Phase One and Subsequent Development Archaeological resources are finite and irreplaceable, therefore any change to their condition directly or loss to other resources which may add towards either the innate value of known resources or the wider understanding requires consideration In general it is not possible to definitively judge what archaeological deposits may exist within specific sites within the study area without the level of investigation completed for the Overall Development. In this respect, in the absence of specific archaeological and cultural heritage assessment, the planning policy regime can be assumed to value resources consistently with their innate value in mind, and best practice mitigation is therefore assumed for these purposes With reference to the prevailing circumstances around the Overall development and the identified cumulative developments (Table 2.2), it is possible to directly assess the work completed given the availability of archaeological and cultural heritage assessments which have been completed both for the Picket Twenty development and also work in East Anton In both these cases full consideration has been given to the presence of archaeological remains and built heritage assets. The development plans for both developments would 12212/A5/ES January 2010

16 involve similar impacts upon archaeological resources, though development further to the west around East Anton was more likely to result in the impact upon remains of Roman date The Overall development lies in an area which is not considered to sit within an area which was within a wider area of known coherent historical development. In this respect there is limited reason to propose that elements of the historic environment may be cumulatively impacted upon should the Site and elements of the surrounding area be developed As such, cumulative impacts upon archaeological resources with respect to this area overall are defined as being negligible as there is limited known archaeological potential for widespread historic activity which would be lost as part of the development of the Site and wider area. Summary The Assessment Site lies to the east of the modern urban area of Andover, and its origins lie as part of the historic hundred of Andover. Early evidence is known of prehistoric and Roman activity within the study area, though few sites of these dates have been investigated to fully determine their relative importance in the wider landscape. This is of particular relevance to the prehistoric landscape which, while being relatively well understood in region, has not been subject to significant modern investigation within the study area. The nearest evaluation investigated potential remains of this period (to the west of the Assessment Site) recovered no evidence During the Medieval and Post Medieval periods, the Assessment Site lay in the agricultural lands outside any areas of settlement. The Ox Drove, identified as being established in the Medieval period, is not known to have attracted roadside activity of significant nature Given that parts of the Assessment Site have been subject to relatively low levels of historic development, there remains potential for the survival of remains from the prehistoric and Roman periods in line with the recovery of material recovered from the west of the Assessment Site. Artefactual evidence may be present from the Medieval period onwards The full scope of archaeological investigation will need to be discussed and agreed with the Archaeological Officer of HCC prior to the implementation of the archaeological works Table 13.5 contains a summary of the likely significant effects of the Overall Development /A5/ES January 2010

17 Table 13.5: Table of Significance Potential Effect Construction of Phase One Disturbance of Known Buried Archaeological Remains Disturbance of Unknown Buried Archaeological Remains Nature of Effect (Permanent/ Temporary) Significance (Major/Moderate/Minor) (Beneficial/Adverse/ Negligible) Mitigation / Enhancement Measures Permanent Minor Adverse Phased programme of archaeological work (form to be agreed through the issue of a Written Scheme of Investigation) Permanent Moderate Adverse Phased programme of archaeological work (form to be agreed through the issue of a Written Scheme of Investigation) Operation of Phase One and Construction of Subsequent Development Disturbance of Known Buried Archaeological Remains Disturbance of Unknown Buried Archaeological Remains Operation of the Overall Development N/A Cumulative Effects Effects upon archaeological resources Permanent Minor Adverse Phased programme of archaeological work (form to be agreed through the issue of a Written Scheme of Investigation) Permanent Moderate Adverse Phased programme of archaeological work (form to be agreed through the issue of a Written Scheme of Investigation) Geographical Importance* I UK E R C B L Residual Effects (Major/Moderate/Minor) (Beneficial/Adverse/ Negligible) * Negligible-Minor Adverse * Minor Adverse * Negligible-Minor Adverse * Minor Adverse Permanent Negligible N/A * Negligible * Geographical Level of Importance I = International; UK = United Kingdom; E = England; R = Regional; C = County; B = Borough; L = Local 12212/A5/ES January 2010

18 Archaeology and Historic Buildings Record Figure 13.1 A3: Not to scale Key: AHBR point SAM Cropmark Designed and Checked : IB Mountbatten House, Basing View, Basingstoke Land. at Picket Piece, Andover Approved : IB Hampshire, RG21 4HJ Drawn : IB Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) Wates Developments Date : November