Documents From NTA Planning 20-11-14

8/10/2019 Documents From NTA Planning 20-11-14

1/66

WARLANDS, SHALFLEET, ISLE OF WIGHT

REVISED FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT & DRAINAGE STRATEGY

Prepared By

D McCallum & Associates87-89 High StreetBembridgeIsle of WightPO35 5SF

T: 01983 875743M: 07801 140687E:[email protected]:www.dm-assoc.com
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.dm-assoc.com/http://www.dm-assoc.com/http://www.dm-assoc.com/http://www.dm-assoc.com/mailto:[email protected]


2/66

Flood Risk

Observations of the Environment Agency flood mapping indicates the site to be beyond the

extents of Zone 2 & Zone 3 flood risk. As such, it would appear that the site is located within

Zone 1 and is considered to be at little or no risk of flooding. Furthermore, similar mapping

for risk of flooding by surface water suggests that the site is at low to very low risk of

flooding. As a result only a simple Flood Risk Assessment or Statement is considered to be

sufficient to demonstrate that the risk to flooding of the site is very low, given the availability

and currency of statutory information. Refer to Maps 1 and 2 below for images of the

mapping described above.

Map 1: Risk of Flooding from Rivers and Sea

APPLICATION SITE


3/66

Map 2: Risk of Flooding from Surface Water

Site Description and Levels

The site is located with Zone 1, approximately, at National Grid reference SZ408892 at

20.0mAOD. Finished construction levels of the proposed housing, access roads,

footways/footpaths and other associated features is expected to be close to existing ground

levels and will vary across the site relative to the natural slope of the site toward the A3054

of between 25.5mAOD and 20.0mAOD.

Observation of the geological drift map of the site would suggest that the site is underlain by

the Hamstead Member which is a soil predominantly clay-like in nature.

As such, the sub-soils of the site are not conducive to the effective disposal of surface water

runoff through means of infiltration. It is expected that in rainfall events of high intensity and

or duration that some localised flooding or perched water of the ground surface and or

adjacent features may occur due to the poor infiltration rate of the ground.

In-situ percolation tests have not been conducted but it is feasible that the infiltration rate of

the soil may be less than 1.0 x 10-6m/s, which is typical of a poorly draining clay material.

APPLICATION SITE


4/66

Foul Water Disposal

Southern Water has been approached in relation to the status and nature of their existing

foul water sewerage infrastructure in vicinity of the application site. Southern Waters sewer

asset records are included for reference In Appendix 1 of this report.

A public foul water sewer network exists in the adjacent estate Fleet Way. Southern Water

has undertaken a sewer capacity check of this foul sewer network and it is confirmed that

sufficient capacity exists to permit connection of the application site to the existing foul sewer

network.

The associated documentation in respect to the foul sewer capacity check undertaken and

confirmed by Southern Water is included In Appendix 1 of this report

Therefore, the proposed foul water drainage strategy for this site is to convey all foul water

drainage to a point of outfall close to the eastern boundary of the application site and

adjacent to the existing Fleet Way estate. The outfall from the application site will then form

a connection with the existing Southern Water (foul) manhole: ref 9102 (SZ40899102).

A foul water pumping station and associated rising mains may be required within the

application site to facilitate connection to the Southern Water (foul) manhole.

Refer to drawings 14012/DMA/00500 and 14012/DMA/00510, which illustrate the proposed

foul water drainage strategy.

Surface Water Disposal

Due to the nature of the expected sub-soils, site levels and site constraints; soakaways,

French-drains and other similar surface water infiltration structures or features may not be

suitable for discharging a significant volume of surface water from the proposed hard-

standing areas and roofs of the future site. In-situ percolation tests conducted during future

ground investigations will confirm the extent of volume of surface water that may be possible

to discharge to ground.

Alternative forms of source-control surface water features may be utilised to assist with the

overall management of surface water discharge; for example balancing/retention/detention


5/66

ponds, infiltration basins, swales and or similar. The relative qualities and limitations of

these types of drainage feature will be carefully considered in the final detailed drainage

design for the site.

Southern Water has been approached in relation to the status and nature of their existing

surface water sewerage infrastructure in vicinity of the application site. Southern Waters

sewer asset records are included for reference in Appendix 1 of this report.

A public surface water sewer network exists in the adjacent estate Fleet Way. Southern

Water has undertaken a sewer capacity check of this sewer network and it is confirmed that

insufficient capacity exists to permit connection of the application site to the existing surface

water sewer network within Fleet Way.

The associated documentation in respect to the surface sewer capacity check undertaken

and confirmed by Southern Water is included in Appendix 1 of this report

To facilitate disposal of surface water drainage from the site, Southern Water propose that:

the existing main sewer in the A3054, that discharges the adjacent Fleet Way estate, should

be upgraded to accommodate surface water discharge from the application site.

Therefore, the proposed surface water drainage strategy for this site is to convey all surface

water drainage from the site via any surface water amenity features to a point of outfall on

the northern boundary along the proposed access road to the future site. The future site

sewer will form a connection to a new sewer built along the A3054 eastward of the site which

will outfall to the existing Southern Water (surface) manhole: ref 1252 (SZ41891252).

In terms of sustainability, the future drainage proposals for the site may include for the

introduction of attenuation devices and or structures forming part of the system. Furthersurface water attenuation or source control features may be contained within the curtilage of

the individual properties forming the proposed site layout. Overall surface water

management may be a collective system of mains drainage and SuDS features, subject to

detailed design and associated agreements and approvals.

All surface water drainage aspects will be subject to flood modelling and routeing, if

necessary, to demonstrate efficient and effective surface water management in accordance

with all statutory, regulatory and best practice guidance. All surface water drainage for the

application site will be designed to ensure negligible, if not zero, impact on the immediate


6/66

and surrounding environment as is reasonably practicable to achieve. The future surface

water drainage system may also assist with the effective disposal of existing flood events

following periods of significant rainfall.

Refer to drawings 14012/DMA/00500 and 14012/DMA/00510, which illustrate the proposed

surface water drainage strategy.


7/66


8/66


9/66


10/66


11/66


12/66


13/66


14/66


15/66


16/66


17/66


18/66


19/66

1

WARLANDS, SHALFLEET, ISLE OF WIGHT

HIGHWAY ACCESS &TRANSPORT STATEMENT

Prepared By

D McCallum & Associates87-89 High StreetBembridgeIsle of WightPO35 5SF

T: 01983 875743M: 07801 140687

E:[email protected]:www.dm-assoc.com
mailto:[email protected]://www.dm-assoc.com/http://www.dm-assoc.com/mailto:[email protected]


20/66

2

1.0 ANALYSIS

1.1 The proposed site will form a simple major/minor priority junction with the existing

highway, the A3054. The form of junction is expected to be a ghost-island type with a

dedicated right-turn lane and associated highway features. The junction arrangement

indicated in support of the outline planning application accords with the current

requirements and addendums of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), which is

the appropriate and recognised statutory guidance for the junction design of this nature.

1.2 The Local Highway Authority has been consulted in relation to the nature and design

requirements for the proposed access junction.

1.3 In summary the principle design criterion applied to the current access junction geometry is

as follows:

(Highway) Design speed = 70kph (40mph)

Running/through lane width = 3.25m (A3054)

Right turn lane width = 3.00m (A3054)

O/A carriageway width at entrance to proposed site = 9.50m (A3054)

Junction radii = 10.00m

Site access road width = 6.00m

Visibility splays (L/R) = 2.40m (X) by 120.00m (Y)

1.4 The above geometry may be amended subject to further detailed assessment and design

following the findings of traffic data and modelling that may be required as suggested by

early discussion by the LHA and following comments received from submission of the outline

planning approval stage. It is feasible that subject to favourable results and agreement by

and with the LHA then the extents of the currently indicated junction arrangement may be

modified to reduce the impacts on the immediate and local environment.

1.5 A Stage 1 Road Safety Audit has not been conducted at this time but this is expected to be

required following comments received from the outline planning application submission.

The RSA1 would be conducted in conjunction with and relative to results received from

traffic data and modelling.


21/66

3

1.6 Given the rural nature of the proposals street lighting of the major highway in the vicinity of

the new junction is not expected to be required.

1.7 Provision for access and egress for pedestrians is considered by the construction of footways

and footpaths within the boundaries of the proposed site and that will connect to existing

pedestrian thoroughfares to the adjacent residential estate to the east (subject to the

agreement of the lands owners). Should this not be forthcoming, future occupants shall also

access the village via the public right of way that occupies land along the eastern boundary

of the site providing pedestrian linkage between the A3054 and Warlands Lane, which in

turn leads to the village. Further pedestrian provision to the west of the site is considered as

an informal footpath set-back from the A3054 toward the front of the proposed site.

1.8 Provision for cyclists and other forms of non-motor vehicle forms of transport, such as

bridleways may be incorporated with future pedestrian routes that have been considered as

part of the outline planning proposals but should be subject to a demonstrable need for

such and suitable connections to existing, localised and or other thoroughfares of a similar

nature.


22/66


23/66


24/66


25/66


26/66


27/66


28/66


29/66


30/66

Technical Note

November 2014

UE-0144 TN Eco Design Warlands, Shalfleet_5_141110

Project Land west of Warlands Lane, Shalfleet, Isle of Wight Date November 2014

Note Design Specification for Ecological Enhancements Ref UE-0144

Author SP/NP Page 1 of 11

Status Final

1. Introduction

This technical note provides further information regarding the ecological protection, mitigation and

enhancement recommendations set out in the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey for a site at Warlands Lane

in Shalfleet on the Isle of Wight (Grid Reference 440805, 089131). Original recommendations from the Phase

1 report are set out below, with additional information in orange boxes.

2. Protection Measures

The following species / groups will require precautionary measures to be adopted prior to or during

construction. If it is not possible to implement these, for example due to the timing of works, further surveys

may be required.

Nesting birds; and

Amphibians and reptiles.

A number of sections of hedgerow will be removed in order to facilitate access to the new

development. As a result there is considered to be a risk of impact to amphibians, reptiles and

birds, if present at the time of vegetation clearance. The precautionary methods detailed in the

following sections on nesting birds, amphibians and reptiles should be implemented to managethese risks.

Nesting birds

Suitable nesting bird habitat occurs around the surveyed fields in hedges and trees (and possibly in arable

habitats). It is recommended that negative impacts on breeding birds are avoided by undertaking the works

outside of the bird breeding season. Works in these areas should therefore be carried out between

September and early February. Removal of other habitat should also be undertaken sensitively (to avoid

potential impacts to other species) outside of the bird breeding season.


31/66

Technical Note: Design Specification for Ecological Enhancements Page 2

November 2014


Any construction works undertaken within the bird breeding season where suitable bird breeding habitat

exists will require a check for breeding birds by a suitably qualified ecologist. This should take place no

more than two days prior to commencing construction. This is to ensure that no disturbance to active bird

nests occurs. If a nest is found the nest must be cordoned off and works adjacent to this nest must be

delayed until such time that the chicks have fledged from the nest. This should be supervised by a suitably

qualified ecologist.

Amphibians and reptiles

The hedgerow sections to be removed provide potential hibernacula, foraging opportunities and dispersal

routes for widespread amphibian and reptile species. However, the terrestrial habitat within the arable part

of the site is of negligible value for these groups. It is therefore recommended that a precautionary

approach to clearance is adopted to avoid harm to any individual amphibians or reptiles which may be

present.

Prior to clearance of the hedgerow sections a search should be carried out by an experienced ecologist in

order to ensure that no amphibians or reptiles are present. As a further precaution the ecologist should

remain on site and supervise the clearance of the hedgerow sections. If any amphibians or reptiles are found

prior to or during clearance, they will be captured and moved to an area of adjacent suitable habitat.

3. Generic Mitigation

Generic mitigation is proposed to address potential impacts to ecological receptors of interest which are not

covered by the above recommendations. Mitigation measures can be based on:

Avoidance through re-location, re-design or changes in the construction programme (e.g.

carrying out works outside of bird breeding season);

Reductionby lessening the severity of an impact which cannot be avoided (e.g. erecting an

exclusion fence for reptiles around the works area); and

Compensationthrough habitat creation or enhancement.

The following generic mitigation should be carried out as part of the proposed scheme alongside the

protection measures described above:

1 It is important, where construction works are located within hard standing areas, that

impacts to any adjacent features (e.g. grassy verges, woodland ground layer and hedges

which may be of ecological value) due to activities such as storage of materials or vehicle

movements are also avoided.

2 Removal of hedgerow and trees/shrubs and should be kept to a minimum, possibly by fine-

tuning the scheme design. The connectivity of hedgerows and between areas of woodland

and scrub should be maintained wherever possible to prevent fragmentation (this will

benefit nesting birds and bats for example).

3 Avoiding the use of external lighting, or keeping its use to the minimum required for itsintended purpose, during both construction and operation. Where external lighting is to be


32/66


November 2014


provided, it should be low-level, directional lighting with minimal spill and glare, and

consideration should be given to reduced hours of operation and/or a movement

responsive system of control (this will benefit bats for example).

4 British Standard and/or National Joint Utilities Group Guidelines (NJUG)1 should be

followed at all times during construction when working in close proximity to trees or shrubs

which are to be retained. According to NJUG Guidelines the root protection zone or

precautionary area (P.A.) is 4x the circumference of the trunk (circumference is measured

around the trunk at a height of 1.5m above ground level). The distance is measured from

the centre of the trunk to the nearest part of any excavation or other work.

5 All excavations left overnight should be provided with a ramp to enable easy escape of

badgers, hedgehogs and other fauna.

4. Enhancement Measures

Due to the presence of the Pondclose Copse woodland close to the site and the presence of connecting

hedgerows, it is recommended that bat boxes are placed on some of the houses within the proposed

development. The two storey buildings proposed to the east and south east of the development are

considered most suitable for this purpose. Bat boxes can either be mounted on exterior walls or be installed

integrally to form part of the wall. A number of species use boxes including pipistrelles, brown long-eared

bats or serotine bats, hence boxes should be selected which are suitable for these species. Boxes such as

Schwegler 1FF or integral Schwegler 1FR bat tubes would be suitable for this site.

It is recommended that 10no. integral bat tubes are installed within the two-storey houses that are

located to the south of the development. These can be incorporated into the design of the building

so that only the access holes are visible from the exterior of the building. Indicative locations are

illustrated on the proposed layout plan given at Annex 1 of this document.

The Schwegler 1FR Bat Tube is designed to meet the characteristic requirements of the types of

bats that inhabit buildings such as pipistrelles or serotines. It is designed to be installed on the

external walls of buildings, either flush or beneath a rendered surface and maintains excellent

climatic conditions inside providing bats with a safe and stable environment in which to roost.

Bat boxes should ideally be located south-facing (between south-east and south-west) and above5m from ground level. If possible they should be installed facing vegetation features such as

mature hedgerows or trees, but with a clear line of flight for bats entering or leaving the roost.

1 The British Standard, BS 5837:2005: Trees in relation to Construction Recommendations; and National Joint Utilities Group: Guidelines

for the Planning, Installation and Maintenance of Utility Services in Proximity to Trees (April 1995)


33/66


November 2014


Alternatively 10no. Schwegler 1FF bat boxes could be mounted onto the exterior walls of the two-

storey houses in the south of the site. Bat boxes should be located south-facing (between south-

east and south-west), close to vegetation and above 5m from ground level.

New houses could be enhanced for birds that utilise buildings for nesting purposes by installing bird nesting

boxes, e.g. installation of swift Apus apus and house martin Delichon urbica boxes under eaves.

Consideration could also be given to providing nest boxes for house sparrows Passer domesticus(red data

species) which are present locally.

It is recommended that 3no. Schwegler 17 or 17B swift nest boxes are externally mounted on the

north-facing aspects of the two storey buildings located to the north of the development. The

boxes should be installed at least 6m 7m above ground level, ensuring that there is unobstructed

access for birds entering and leaving. If possible, boxes should be sites under the shelter of eavesor overhanging roofs. Indicative locations are illustrated on the proposed layout plan given at

Annex 1 of this document.

It is recommended that 8no. Schwegler 1SP house sparrow terraces are externally mounted on the

west facing aspects of the bungalows located to the south and west of the development. Sparrow

terraces should be located at least 2m above ground level, out of direct sunlight and close to shrubs

or other vegetation. Sparrows are social birds preferring to nest in groups; each of these terraces

provides three nesting chambers.


34/66


November 2014


A swale or soakaway is proposed to the north-east corner of the new development. Ideally newly created

wetland habitats should be profiled to incorporate a variety of depths and planted with appropriate nativevegetation. It is also recommended that hibernacula be created close to the new pond as this will provide

an additional resource for amphibians, invertebrates, and other fauna which may colonise it. Grassland

surrounding the pond could be less frequently managed thereby providing suitable habitat for reptiles and

amphibians.

The figure below2illustrates a suitable topographical profile for the swale, planted swale with trees

to speed water take up and provide soil stability. Further detail on possible design specifications

for the swale is given at Annex 2.

A planting scheme could include plants suitable for damp margins, although a landscape architect

would need to specify these, as suitability is dependent on how often the swale is wet.

Damp zone - inundation-tolerant, plant up to 250mm above anticipated normal water level as plugs

2Source: Sustainable Drainage: Cambridge Design and Adoption Guide:

https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/sites/www.cambridge.gov.uk/files/docs/SUDS-5-Ponds%20and%20Wetlands.pdf
https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/sites/www.cambridge.gov.uk/files/docs/SUDS-5-Ponds%20and%20Wetlands.pdfhttps://www.cambridge.gov.uk/sites/www.cambridge.gov.uk/files/docs/SUDS-5-Ponds%20and%20Wetlands.pdfhttps://www.cambridge.gov.uk/sites/www.cambridge.gov.uk/files/docs/SUDS-5-Ponds%20and%20Wetlands.pdf


35/66


November 2014


in groups of 5-10no. plants to create stands:

Persicaria amphibia (amphibious bistort), Caltha palustris (marsh marigold), Phalaris arundinacea

(reed canary grass), Veronica beccabunga (brooklime), Angelica sylvestris (wild angelica), Lythrumsalicaria (purple loosestrife), Lotus uliginosus (greater birds-foot trefoil), Lycopus europaeus

(gypsywort), Myosotis scorpiodes (water forget-me-not), Apium nodiflorum (fools-water-cress),

Lychnis flos-cuculi (ragged robin), Rumex hydrolapathum (water dock), Mentha aquatica (water

mint), Cardamine pratensis (cuckoo flower), Ranunculus flammula (lesser spearwort), Juncus

articulatus (jointed rush), Carex pseudocyperus (hop sedge), Stachys palustris (marsh woundwort),

Scrophularia auriculata (water figwort).

Hibernacula should be constructed from unevenly shaped, inert fill materials such as hardcore, brick

rubble, rocks, logs, etc, loosely filled with topsoil, and capped with topsoil and turf. They should be

located on a gentle slope to prevent flooding. They can either be piled on top of the ground (asdepicted in the figure3 below) or dug into the ground, but in both cases should have exposed

margins to allow access. They should be surrounded by rough, infrequently managed vegetation.

It is recommended that a strip of longer grassland is maintained along the boundary hedgerows, and sown

with native wildflowers, and amenity areas within the development could also include similar habitats. This

would provide a valuable resource for insects such as butterflies and bees, and would enhance the value of

the existing eastern corridor for wildlife.

There are a wide variety of wildflower and grass mixes available on the market. It is recommended

that species are sourced from stock grown wild in the UK. Mixes containing the following species

would be suitable: Corn poppy Papaver rhoeas, meadow buttercup Ranunculus acris, musk mallow

Malva Moschata, oxeye daisy Leucanthemum Vulgare, salad burnet Sanguisorba Minor, lesser

knapweed Centaurea Nigra, wild carrot Daucus Carota and yarrow Achillea millefolium.

Suitable locations for this type of planting would include the areas adjacent to the boundary

hedgerows surrounding the new development, and areas of planting along the footpath to the east

of the site. It is recommended that grass areas are at least 1m 2m wide. To encourage perennial

3English Nature (2001): Great crested newt mitigation guidelines.


36/66


November 2014


flowers and grasses to make good root development, it is important to mow the meadow in the

first year after sowing. Cut to a height of 5cm (2in) four times during the year. It is also

recommended that initial mowings are left in situ for a few days to allow seed to drop to the

ground. Following this, it is then important to collect arisings from mowing to reduce soil fertility

an increase of which will encourage ruderal species such as nettle and thistles to colonise the areas.

Once the grassland is established, the mowing regime should be limited to once a year, no earlier

than the end of August and no later than the end of March. Wildlife grasslands should not be cut

between the beginning of April and the end of August, except to maintain sight-lines or for other

road-safety purposes. Cuttings should be removed wherever possible.

To minimise the risk of disturbance to foraging, commuting and roosting bats on and around the site post-

development, it is recommended that the following lighting precautions are considered during detailed

design for the development:

- Lighting should be appropriately located and directed to avoid illuminating retained mature

trees and hedgerows to the site boundaries;

- Security lighting should be kept to the minimum necessary for its intended purpose, be set

on short timers, and be sensitive to large moving objects only;

- Other lighting around the site should be kept to the minimal feasible lux level, installed on

lighting columns at the lowest practical height level, and designed to minimise spill.

Eliminate bare bulbs and upward-pointing lights, and increase the spacing between lanterns.

The spread of light should be kept near to or below the horizontal. Flat cut-off lanterns or

accessories should be used to shield or direct light to where it is required.

- For pedestrian lighting, use low-level lighting (e.g. light bollards) that is as directional as

possible. It should be below 3 lux at ground level, and ideally below 1 lux.

- Use narrow-spectrum bulbs to lower the range of species affected by lighting. Use light

sources that emit minimal UV light and avoid the white and blue wavelengths of the light

spectrum so as not to attract high numbers of invertebrates. Lights should peak higher than

550nm or use glass lantern covers to filter UV light. White LED lights do not emit UV, but

they have still been shown to disturb slow-flying bat species.

Source: (Gunnell et al., 2012; Gunnell et al., 20134)

Native and/or wildlife attracting tree and shrub planting, particularly seed, nut, fruit or nectar bearing

species, should be included in the landscape design. This would enhance the area for birds, invertebrates

and other wildlife in the long-term. Trees which produce fruit, seeds or are nectar bearing are a particularly

valuable resource for urban wildlife.

4Gunnel K, Grant G, Williams C (2012): Landscape and urban design for bats and biodiversity. Bat Conservation Trust.

Gunnel K, Murphy B, Williams C (2013): Designing for biodiversity: A technical guide for new and existing buildings. RIBA Publishing

and Bat Conservation Trust.


37/66


38/66


November 2014


Annex 1: Proposed development layout plan

Please see following page.


39/66


November 2014


Proposed location

of nest and roost

boxes:

Swift

boxes

Bat boxes

Sparrow

terraces


40/66


November 2014


Annex 2: Ecological design for Sustainable Urban Drainage System

Source: Sustainable Drainage: Cambridge Design and Adoption Guide:

(https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/sites/www.cambridge.gov.uk/files/docs/SUDS-Design-and-Adoption-

Guide.pdf)
https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/sites/www.cambridge.gov.uk/files/docs/SUDS-Design-and-Adoption-Guide.pdfhttps://www.cambridge.gov.uk/sites/www.cambridge.gov.uk/files/docs/SUDS-Design-and-Adoption-Guide.pdfhttps://www.cambridge.gov.uk/sites/www.cambridge.gov.uk/files/docs/SUDS-Design-and-Adoption-Guide.pdfhttps://www.cambridge.gov.uk/sites/www.cambridge.gov.uk/files/docs/SUDS-Design-and-Adoption-Guide.pdfhttps://www.cambridge.gov.uk/sites/www.cambridge.gov.uk/files/docs/SUDS-Design-and-Adoption-Guide.pdfhttps://www.cambridge.gov.uk/sites/www.cambridge.gov.uk/files/docs/SUDS-Design-and-Adoption-Guide.pdf


41/66


42/66

Past Wight 1

CONTENTS:

1.0 NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY......................................................................................... 2

2.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................. 2

3.0 INTRIDUCTION.... 3

4.0 PLANNING BACKGROUND.......................................................................... 4

5.0 GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY..................................................................................... 6

6.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND............................................................................ 6

7.0 AIMS...................................................................................... 8

8.0 METHODOLOGY..... 9

9.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESULTS. 12

10.0 FINDS REPORTS10.1 The Pottery and Clay tobacco pipe by Jacqui Pearce. 1410.2 Building Material Evaluation by Ian M Betts.. 1410.3 The Mollusc shell by Alan Pipe. 1510.4 Finds not sent for specialist analysis.. 16

11.0 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................ 17

12.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................ 17

13.0 REFERENCES. 18

14.0 APPENDICES14.1 Appendix 1: IWC Brief for Archaeological Work.. 1914.2 Appendix 2: Spreadsheet of Mollusc Remains..... 25

FIGURES:Figure 1: Site location Plan.................................................................................................. 3Figure 2: Dates for Archaeological periods used in report............................................... 6Figure 3: Location of Heritage Assets from HER search 7Figure 4: Moss on surface of field (27thAugust 2014)....................................................... 9Figure 5: Location of proposed development within site............................................ 10Figure 6: Clay lumps on surface of plough-soil...................................... 11Figure 7 Ploughed area within the field.............................................................. 11Figure 8 Table of finds .............................................................................. 12Figure 9: Distribution plot of finds within field... 13


43/66

Past Wight 2

Archaeological Evaluation Report (IWHER 9125) 19thSeptember 2014

1.0 NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY

1.1 This report has been compiled by Past Wight Heritage Consultancy and describes theresults of an archaeological field-walking programme commissioned by the Warlands Groupto comply with pre-planning advice given by the Isle of Wight Councils PlanningDepartment.

1.2 The programme of archaeological field-walking was carried out between 5thand 7thSeptember 2014. The 33 finds collected and recorded during the field-walking were all datedto the Post-Medieval period. There was no evidence of Prehistoric, Roman or Medievalactivity on the site.

1.3 Because of the lack of archaeological evidence within the plough-soil, it is recommendedthat there should be no further pre-planning consent archaeological work. However, it isrecommended that a condition is attached to planning consent requiring the developer tofund an archaeological watching brief during development.

2.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Grateful thanks are due to Keith Plant for ploughing the land so that the field-walkingprogramme could go ahead.

Dr. Rebecca Loader, Isle of Wight Councils Senior Archaeological Officer provided the datafor the initial Historic Environment Record (HER) search and Owen Cambridge providedadvice and monitored the field-walking on behalf of the local planning authority.

Thanks are also due to Louise Fowler, Assistant Post-Excavation Manager at Museum ofLondon Archaeology and to Jacqui Pearce, Ian M. Betts and Alan Pipe of MOLA for the

identification and analysis of the finds.

Thanks are also due to Siofra Boyd of Nicholas Taylor and Associates.


44/66

Past Wight 3

3.0 INTRODUCTION

3.1 This archaeological field-walking programme has been undertaken by Dr Ruth Waller ofPast Wight Heritage Consultancy on behalf of the Warlands Partnership.

3.2 The field walking programme was focussed on land to the rear of 18 to 34 Fleet Wayand adjacent to Hayfield Cottage Warlands Lane with access off Main Road at Shalfleet,Isle of Wight. The land comprises OS Parcels 5819 8116 and 8200 land and is referred toas the site throughout this report.

3.3 The site lies approximately 9km directly west of the County Town of Newport, Isle ofWight, with the centre of the site at National Grid Reference SZ4088/8923. The location ofthe site is shown on Figure 1 below:

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

3.4 The site covers an area of 1.40 hectares and is currently part of an arable field to thewest of the village of Shalfleet. The site is bounded to the north by the A3054 road whichruns through the village, to the east by modern properties fronting Fleet Lane and byWarlands Lane. The southern and the western boundaries are bounded by hedged fieldsand Pondclose Copse, an Ancient Woodland.

3.5 In accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG 2012) and the policies ofthe Isle of Wight Councils Island Plan, this Archaeological Evaluation Report presents theresults of a programme of field-walking in order to gather information about the presence ofburied archaeological remains on the site.

3.6 This field-walking programme was carried out in accordance with a Written Scheme of


45/66

Past Wight 4

Investigation (WSI) submitted to and approved by the Isle of Wight Councils ArchaeologyOfficer on 26thAugust 2014.

3.7 As a result, this report will enable the Isle of Wight Council to assess the archaeologicalpotential of the site and to consider the need for design, civil engineering or archaeologicalmitigation solutions to the impact of development proposals on the archaeological potentialidentified.

4.0 PLANNING BACKGROUND

4.1 The Government issued the National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG 2012) in March2012. The NPPF takes an integrated approach to the historic environment and on page 52 itdefines 'heritage assets' as being:

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 includesdesignated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning

authority. (DCLG, 2012, Annexe 2: Glossary).

4.2 The Island Plan Core Strategy and Development Management Policies were adopted bythe Isle of Wight Council on March 2012 as the local development plan. The Core Strategysets out the Isle of Wight Councils vision for development up until 2027. Policy DM11(Historic and Built Environment) expands on the Councils general approach to the historicand built environments set out in Policy SP5 (Environment) and explains the approach thatthe Council will take in respect of the built and historic environment on the Island, givingspecific guidance for planning applications. Policy DM 11 includes the following issues:

7.186 In new development, it is important to retain historic referencepoints which create a sense of local identity and distinctiveness. Thisincludes historic features such as ancient roads, green lanes andbyways and settlement patterns. It is important to remember that it isnot only the historic buildings and features that are important but alsothe spaces between and within these assets. Proposals need to takeaccount of these characteristics to ensure that they respect thecontext within which they sit, be it a historic monument, building orstreetscape. The insensitive development of a heritage asset, or landsurrounding it, can have negative consequences, such as loss oflocal identity and even, in extreme circumstances, the loss of the

asset altogether. The Council will not support proposals which resultin such a negative impact upon the built and historic environment.

7.187 To ensure this, the Council will require that all developmentproposals demonstrate that a full assessment of the impact of aproposal upon the significance of a heritage asset has been made.The Council will consider proposals taking into account the role theheritage asset plays in its local context and the wider Island contextensuring that all economic, social and environmental factors areconsidered.

4.4 An Application for Outline Planning Permission with all matters reserved was made to

the Isle of Wight Council under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCP/04554/F,P/00666/13) in April 2014.


46/66

Past Wight 5

4.5 Planning Application TCP/04554/F, P/00666/13 includesoutline planning permissionfor 24 dwellings, access roads, footways/footpaths and other associated features includinga balancing pond.

4.6 The Isle of Wight Council, as the local planning authority, have requested the Warlands

Group to provide further information on the likelihood of the presence of buriedarchaeological remains on the proposed development site, by commissioning a programmeof Archaeological Field Evaluation. This Field Evaluation Report is the 2ndStage of theProgramme of Archaeological Field Evaluation for the Warlands site. A Desk BasedAssessment Report was submitted to the Isle of Wight Council on 25thAugust 2014 (PastWight, 2014a) as the first stage.

4.7 This Programme of Field-walking has been undertaken with the requirements of the pre-planning advice given by the Isle of Wight Councils Brief for an Archaeological Evaluation:Warlands, Shalfleet (P/00507/14), dated 21stAugust 2014. This document is attached asAppendix 1 on page 19 and is referred to as the Brief in this report.

4.8 The Isle of Wight Councils Brief advice states:

It is likely that significant archaeological deposits remain within the site;therefore the results of a field evaluation will be required before the LPA candetermine any forthcoming application. (pg 3)

Significant archaeological remains dating from the Roman period have beenidentified, circa 200m to the West of the proposal site. The nature of these remainsappears to indicate that there is a previously undiscovered Roman domestic oradministrative centre close by. There is also some evidence of activity in this periodcollected from the proposal site by local metal detectorists and recorded on the PASdatabase. (pg 3)

The site also displays characteristics which make it probable that multi periodactivity is likely to have occurred within the boundaries. (pg 3)

4.9 This Field Evaluation Report has been compiled in accordance with current bestarchaeological practice and local and national standards and guidelines, including: English Heritage Management of Archaeological Projects (EH 1991). English Heritage Archaeological Assessment and Evaluation Reports (Guidelines)

(EH 1992). English Heritage Archaeological Guidance Paper 3: Standards and Practices in

Archaeological Fieldwork (EH 1998).

English Heritage Environmental Archaeology: A guide to the theory and practice ofmethods, from sampling and recovery to post-excavation (EH 2002). Institute for Archaeologists Standards and Guidance and Guidelines for Finds Work

(IfA 2008a). Institute for Archaeologists Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Field

Evaluations (IfA 2008b). United Kingdom Institute for Conservation Conservation Guidelines No.2 (UKIC

1983). United Kingdom Institute for Conservation Guidance for Archaeological

Conservation Practice (UKIC 1990).


47/66

Past Wight 6

5.0 GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY

5.1 A site visit and visual inspection were carried out on 23rdAugust 2014. The proposeddevelopment site is part of a 140 hectare arable field from which the winter wheat hasrecently been harvested. The development site area centres on National Grid Reference SZ4088/8923.

5.2 The 1:50,000 scale 1976 Geological Survey Map of Great Britain (sheets 330, 331, 335)shows the field within which the proposed development site is to be sited lies on the clay andgravels of the Hamstead Beds which were formed in the Oligocene epoch of the Palaeogenegeological period, some 33.75 to 32.5 million years ago.

5.3 The arable field falls gently to a height of approximately 20m Above Ordnance Datum(AOD) at the south-west, north-west and north-east from a height of approximately 28metres AOD in the south east corner.

5.4 The visual inspection of the site revealed that the arable field lies to the west of the

village of Shalfleet and to the south of Main Road. The site lies immediately west of the backgardens of house fronting Fleet Way. To the north, east and part of the western boundarythe field are formed by mature hedgerows. The southern and remainder of the westernboundary are bounded by Pondclose Copse, an Ancient Woodland.

6.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

6.1 A detailed Desk Top Assessment was carried out for a radius of 250 metres from theproposed site in advance of the field-walking programme. The archaeological background ofthe site is given in full in the Desk Top Assessment Report (Past Wight, 2014) and is onlygiven in brief below.

6.2 Known Heritage Assets are described in this report using the following archaeologicalperiods and the dates for these are given in Figure 2 below:

Period name DatesMesolithic period 8000 BC and 4000 BCNeolithic period 4000 BC to c. 2300 BCBronze Age period c. 2300 BC to c.700 BCIron Age period c. 700 BC to 43 ADRoman period AD 43 to c. AD 400Anglo-Saxon period AD 400 to AD 1066

Medieval period AD 1066 to AD 1485Tudor period AD 1485 to AD 160316t Century AD 1501 to AD 159917thCentury AD 1601 to AD 169918thCentury AD 1701 to AD 179919thCentury AD 1801 to AD 189920thCentury AD 1901 to AD 1999

Figure 2: Dates for Archaeological periods

6.3 A search was made on 18thAugust 2014 of the known Heritage Assets recorded on theIsle of Wight Historic Environment (HER) database. Details of the Heritage Assets are givenin the Desk Top Assessment Report and their locations are shown in Figure 3 overleaf:


48/66

Past Wight 7

Figure 3: Location of Heritage Assets on the IWHER within a 500m radius of the site.

6.4 There was no known evidence for Palaeolithic activity within the 500m radius of the site.

It was considered that the archaeological potential for this period at the study site was low.

6.5 Mesolithic and Neolithic finds within the HER search area were found either within thetopsoil of arable fields or were residual within pipeline trenches. They suggested mediumpotential for the presence of similar remains on the proposed development site.

6.6 The proposed development site lies within an area of Bronze Age activity with burialmounds to the south-west, burnt f lint assemblages to the north-east and stratified probablesettlement in the modern village core to the east. There was high potential for Bronze Ageburied remains within the site

6.7 There were no finds or sites of Iron Age date recorded in the 500m radius of the site,consequently the site was considered to have a low potential for Iron Age remains.

6.8 The proposed development site lies 280 metres to the west of a known Roman metal-working, probably smelting, site and 500 metres to the west of a possible 2 ndor 3rdCenturybuilding and residual finds found during an Archaeological Watching Brief. This evidencesuggests a concentration of Roman settlement or industrial activity focussing on the banks ofthe Caul Bourne Stream. The domestic and possibly structural Roman remains from the field450 metres to the north of the site also suggest nearby activity. The presence of a possibleRoman figurine from the north of the proposed site suggested that buried archaeologicalremains of a Roman shrine or burial may survive on this site. Alternatively, it could havebeen a casual loss of a personal object which would not give any indications of the presence

of buried archaeological remains on the site.


49/66

Past Wight 8

6.9 The excavated evidence clearly shows a Saxon settlement with a burial ground datingbetween c. 660 and 1070 AD to have been located around the current village core and theCaul Bourne Stream.

6.10 The Medieval village at Shalfleet is recorded in the Domesday Book of 1086 AD. St.Michael the Archangel Parish Church lies in the heart of the modern village at approximately430 metres to the east of the site (HER 433). Buried remains of Medieval occupation havebeen excavated from within the core of the village. Medieval coins have been recorded bymetal detectorists in the ploughed arable fields to the south-west and west of the proposeddevelopment site. The Portable Antiquities Scheme has also recorded a silver penny ofEdward III dating to 1363-1369AD on the field containing the proposed development site andfour other Medieval finds including a purse bar in the fields to the south and south-west(IWFLO, pers. comm.).

6.11 The archaeological information from the HER search shows that the proposeddevelopment site lies between the Medieval manor and village of Shalfleet to the east andthe probably Medieval hamlet of Ningwood to the south-east. It is likely that the fields south

of the road through the Medieval settlement were used for arable farming.

6.12 Data recorded in the Isle of Wight Historic landscape Characterisation shows theproposed development site lying within an area of field patterns of Medium Semi-RegularFields which were amalgamated from earlier fields sometime before the Late 18thCentury(HLC land parcel 1296).

6.13 The Map regression results in the Desk Based Assessment show that there has beenno development on the site between 1769 and 1967 and the field was used for arable cropsin the 1839 Shafleet Tithe Apportionment.

6.14 The Desk Based Assessment Report concluded that the archaeological potential of the

proposed development site was:

Palaeolithic period - Low. Mesolithic and Neolithic periods - Medium

Bronze Age period High, Iron Age period - Low

Roman period - High

Saxon period Medium.

7.0 AIMS

7.1 The aims of the archaeological evaluation were:

7.1.1 To establish the presence/absence of archaeological remains within the site bysurface collection.

7.1.2 To determine the extent, condition, nature, character, quality and date of anyarchaeological remains encountered from artefacts collected from the surface of theplough-zone.

7.1.3 To inform further stages of archaeological field-evaluation if required.


50/66

Past Wight 9

8.0 METHODOLGY

8.1 A Written Scheme of Investigation report was produced by Past Wight HeritageConsultancy for the Warlands Group and submitted to the Isle of Wight Council on 25thAugust 2014 (Past Wight report no: PW/2014/10).

8.2 This field evaluation has been assigned the Primary Record Number IWHER 9125 andthe Event Number EIW 856.

8.3 Because of the underlying geology, it was deemed that geophysical survey techniqueswould not be successful on this site and a programme of Field-walking was agreed.

8.4 The initial methodology for the field-walking programme was to walk the entire fieldswithin the proposed development area with transects at 1m intervals. However, when theinitial site visit to lay out the grid was undertaken on 27thAugust 2014, it was noted that thesurface of the field was not visible between the harvested wheat stalks because of thepresence of a layer of moss on the surface caused by the recent wet weather, as shown in

Figure 4 below. An amendment to the methodology was agreed by the Isle of WightCouncils Archaeology Officer.

Figure 4: Presence of moss on the surface of the field 27thAugust 2014

8.5 The proposed area of development measures 100m by 100m and is located in the north-eastern corner of the field as shown in Figure 5 overleaf.

8.6 The tenant farmer agreed to plough a 150m by 150m area in the north-eastern corner ofthe field so that the surface of the plough soil could be searched. The amended methodologyfor the programme of field-walking stated that the entire surface of the ploughed area wouldbe walked with transect intervals at 0.20cm. With the field-walkers gaze measured at 0.30mto both sides of the transect walked, the methodology was designed to ensure that each partof the fields surface was viewed at least 3 times on 3 consecutive transects to ensuremaximum recovery of all surface finds.


51/66

Past Wight 10

Figure 5: Location of proposed development within the site.

8.7 The site grid was laid out on 27thAugust 2014 and was tied into the National Grid usingDigital Global Positioning System.

8.8 The field-walking was carried out by Dr. Ruth Waller between 5thand 7thSeptember2014. All finds were bagged and their position was calculated using both the site grid and aGarmin eTrex10 hand held Global Positioning System.

8.9 The field-walking conditions were sunny or overcast on the 3 days and are recorded onthe Past Wight field-walking sheets which are included in the site archive. Because the soilwas a thick clay, the recent ploughing produced some large clay lumps within which findsmay have been present but were not visible to the eye. An example of the clay lumps isshown in Figure 6 overleaf. Attempts were made to kick these lumps apart, but many did not

break up. It is possible that finds were contained within these lumps, but otherwise,confidence that the recovered finds give a representative picture of below ground remains ishigh.

8.10 The sub-surface soil over the whole of the field was a yellowish brown silty clay(Munsell 10YR 5/4).

8.11 There were large natural flint nodules and many plough-struck flints within the plough-soil.

8.12 The ploughed area of the field is shown in Figure 6 overleaf:


52/66

Past Wight 11

Figure 6: large clay lumps left by recent ploughing.

Figure 7: The ploughed area within the larger field, looking north-west


53/66

Past Wight 12

9.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESULTS

9.1 Thirty three archaeological finds were recovered and recorded during the field-walkingprogramme. Each was given a small-find number and the details of each find are given inFigure 8 below:

SmallfindNo:

Material Form Date Grid ref.

1 Ceramic Building Material, Roofing tile Post Medieval SZ 40925 892682 Oyster Shell common/flat oyster

upper (right) valvenone SZ 40926 89170

3 Ceramic Building Material, Brick? Post Medieval SZ 40926 891664 Ceramic Building Material, Unknown Post Medieval SZ 40920 891365 Ceramic Building Material, Roofing tile Post Medieval SZ 40926 891756 Ceramic Building Material, Peg Roofing tile Post Medieval SZ 40926 891787 Ceramic Building Material, Roofing tile Post Medieval SZ 40932 892288 Creamware Pottery Plate 18

tto 19

t

centuries

SZ 40931 89247

9 Ceramic Building Material, Brick? Post Medieval SZ 40916 8913410 Ceramic Building Material, Roofing tile Post Medieval SZ 40922 8917811 Ceramic Building Material, Roofing tile Post Medieval SZ 40933 8926312 Oyster Shell common/flat oyster

lower (left) valveNone SZ 40903 89236

13 Ceramic Building Material, Field drain Post Medieval SZ 40898 8924114 Tobacco Pipe stem Stem 17th to 18th

centuriesSZ40895 89141

15 Ceramic Building Material, Brick? Post Medieval SZ 40886 8923416 Ceramic Building Material, Brick? Post Medieval SZ 40877 8916517 Oyster Shell common/flat oyster

lower (left) valveNone SZ 40877 89145

18 Tobacco Pipe stem Stem later 18th or19th century

SZ 40871 89131

19 Ceramic Building Material, Roofing tile Post Medieval SZ 40870 8918620 Ceramic Building Material, Field drain Post Medieval SZ40870 8918721 Plough struck flint Not worked None SZ 40862 8924122 Grey Slate Roofing tile Post Medieval SZ 40864 8914723 Verwood ware Pottery Dish c 16001900 SZ 40864 8914024 Verwood ware Pottery Dish c 16001900 SZ 40864 8914025 Ceramic Building Material, Roofing tile Post Medieval SZ 40856 8914326 Not included (flint) Not worked None SZ 40855 8922427 Ceramic Building Material, Field drain Post Medieval SZ 40856 8926128 Probably ironstone Natural sandstone None SZ 40846 89216

29 Ceramic Building Material, Field drain Post Medieval SZ 40845 8918230 Ceramic Building Material, Field drain Post Medieval SZ 40839 8914831 Ceramic Building Material, Roofing tile Post Medieval SZ 40806 8917132 Ceramic Building Material, Brick? Post Medieval SZ 40792 8918933 Ceramic Building Material, Peg Roofing tile Post Medieval SZ 40819 89268

Figure 8: Details of finds recovered during Warlands Fieldwalking

9.2 Although there were a number of flint nodules and lots of plough-struck flints within thetopsoil, on closer examination none of them showed any evidence of having been worked byhuman hand. As scatters of flints have been found in surrounding fields in Shalfleet, wasexpected that there may have been a few worked flints present in the topsoil of this field. It ispossible that the intensive modern ploughing regime on this field may have destroyed any

prehistoric flints present.


54/66

Past Wight 13

9.3 The positions of the finds within the area field-walked have been marked onto the 19741:2500 OS map as shown in Figure 9 below. The grid references of each find are included inthe table of finds in Figure 8. As the finds were all post-medieval in date, no furtherinterpretative distribution plots have been carried out.

Figure 9: Field-walking plot of find positions.


55/66

Past Wight 14

10.0 FINDS REPORTS

10.1 The Pottery and Clay tobacco pipe by Jacqui Pearce

10.1.1 The pottery from IW EIW 856 was spot-dated and recorded in accordance withcurrent MOLA practice, using standard codes for fabric, form and decoration, withquantification by sherd count, estimated number of vessels (ENV) and weight in grams. Thedata were entered onto an Excel spreadsheet. A total of 3 sherds from a minimum of 3vessels, weight 39 g, were recorded, all collected during field-walking. All pottery is post-medieval in date. Two clay pipe stem fragments were also recorded. No pipe bowls,decorated or marked pipes were recovered.

10.1.2 The latest identifiable pottery fabric is creamware (CREA, ), represented by asingle small sherd probably from a plate. The body colour and glaze are typical of the palercream colour developed by Wedgwood and others by the 1760s. It remained in productioninto the second quarter of the 19th century and was widely popular across the country fordining and tea wares in particular. The sherd in question is too small to yield any further

information on form, dating or source.

10.1.3 A sherd from the base of a dish in Verwood ware (VERW, ) is glazed inside only,but is otherwise not distinctive enough to allow closer dating than the broad range of c 16001900 assigned here. The Verwood pottery in Dorset supplied serviceable domesticcoarsewares over much of southern England during this period, with small numbers ofsherds even found in London excavations. Their occurrence on the Isle of Wight is notsurprising. A second sherd, probably also from a vessel made at Verwood, has red surfacesand a pale grey core, and carries white slip decoration in a series of concentric bandsaround the inside. It is most likely part of a bowl, but is abraded and too small for thecomplete form to be reconstructed.

10.1.4 The two clay pipe stems recorded are difficult to date in the absence of anyaccompanying bowls. However, based on the size of the stem and bore, one is more likely todate to the 17th to 18th century () and the other to the later 18th or 19th century ().

10.2Building Material Evaluation by Ian M. Betts (MOLA)

10.2.1 A total of 23 fragments of building material were recovered from IW EIW 856 (Smallfind numbers to ) weighing c457gms. These comprise mainly small fragments ofroofing tile, drainage tile and what appears to be brick. A roofing slate is also present.

10.2.2 Listed below is a summary of the building material by small finds number:

SmallFind no.

Fabric Type

1 1 Roofing3 7 Brick?4 6 ?5 1 Roofing6 4 Peg roofing?7 1 Roofing9 7 Brick?10 1 Roofing

11 2 Roofing13 3 Field drain


56/66

Past Wight 15

15 5 Brick?16 7 Brick?19 1 Roofing20 2 Field Drain22 Slate Roofing?

25 1 Roofing?27 3 Field Drain?28 sandstone ?29 2 Field Drain30 2 Field Drain31 1 Roofing?32 5 Brick?33 4 Peg tile

10.2.3 Seven ceramic fabric types can be identified, these are described below:

Fabric No. Colour Fabric description Form type1 Orange, red Fine sandy fabric with frequent very

small quartz (up to 0.1mm).Occasional red iron oxide (up to 4mm)and cream clay inclusions (up to2mm).

Roofing

2 Orange, red Very fine silty fabric with cream bandsand a scatter of red and black ironoxide (up to 1.5mm)

Roofing, FieldDrain

3 Orange Scatter of clay inclusions (up to 3mm).Occasional black iron oxide (up to1mm).

Field Drain

4 Orange Scatter of fairly large quartz (up to0.6mm) and cream and red inclusions(up to 2mm).

Peg roofing

5 Red Sandy fabric with frequent quartz (upto 0.3mm). Scatter of white flint andblack iron oxide (up to 1mm).

Brick?

6 Orange Coarse fairly sandy fabric withcommon quartz (up to 1mm).Occasional cream clay inclusions (upto 3mm).

?

7 Orange Fairly common quartz (up to 0.3mm).Scatter red iron oxide (up to 3mm).

Brick?

10.2.4 Although it is not possible to give precise dates to much of the ceramic buildingmaterial, all is probably of post-medieval date. The fragments of round field drain areprobably 19th century. According to Robinson (1986, 79) clay drainage pipes were first usedin Britain at the beginning of the 19th century. The Shalfleet examples have an approximateexternal diameter of 6575mm. They are in two different fabrics suggesting they are fromdifferent tile manufacturers.

10.2.5 The flat roofing tiles are probably peg tiles although only one has its nail/peg hole stillsurviving (sample ). This would have originally been round in shape. Three roofing tilefabric types can be distinguished.

10.2.6 There are five extremely small pieces of probable post-medieval brick, along with


57/66


58/66

Past Wight 17

10.4.2 Advice on disposal or retention of these two finds and Small Find No 28 (naturalstone) will be taken from the Isle of Wight County Museums Service prior to deposition of thefinds archive.

11.0 DISCUSSION

11.1 Nature of archaeological remains

11.1.1. This field-walking programme has successfully achieved the aims of the pre-determination evaluation set out in section 7.1 on page 8 of this report.

11.1.2 The results of the field-walking have established the absence of archaeologicalremains from all periods prior to 18thCentury within the plough-soil of the area of proposeddevelopment.

11.1.3 The results of the field-walking have been able to determine that a light scatter of 18thand 19thCentury building material lies over the field-walked area. There is a concentration ofbuilding material along the eastern edge of the field and the fragments of field drain (SmallFinds No.s 13, 20, 27, 29 and 30) suggest that a 19thCentury ceramic drainage system hasbeen disturbed by modern ploughing.

11.1.4 The condition of all the finds recovered is commensurate with that of the post-medieval ceramic building material in having been damaged by modern ploughing.

11.1.5 There was no evidence of Prehistoric, Roman or Medieval activity on the site.However, it is has been shown that the agricultural clay deposits in other counties may mask

prehistoric activity.

12.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

12.1 Because of the lack of archaeological evidence within the plough-soil, it isrecommended that there should be no further pre-planning consent archaeological work.

12.2 However, because of the ability of clay agricultural soils to mask prehistoric activity, it isrecommended that a condition is attached to planning consent requiring the developer tofund an archaeological watching brief during development.


59/66

Past Wight 18

13.0 REFERENCES

English Heritage 1991. Management of Archaeological Projects.

English Heritage 1992. Archaeological Assessment and Evaluation Reports (Guidelines).

English Heritage 1998. Archaeological Guidance Paper 3: Standards and Practices inArchaeological Fieldwork.

English Heritage 2002.Environmental Archaeology: A guide to the theory and practice ofmethods from sampling and recovery to post-excavation

Hayward, P; Nelson-Smith, A; & Shields, C, 1996Seashore of Britain and Europe.London. HarperCollins

IFA 2008a. Institute for Archaeologists Standards and Guidance and Guidelines for FindsWork.

IfA 2008b. Institute for Archaeologists Standard and Guidance for an ArchaeologicalEvaluation.

Past Wight, 2014. Desk Based Assessment of land at Warlands, Shalfleet. Past WightReport number PW/2014/10, 25thAugust 2014.

Past Wight, PW/2014/11. Written Scheme of Investigation for Archaeological Field-walkingat land at Warlands, Shalfleet, 25thAugust 2014.

Robinson, M, 1986.The extent of farm underdrainage in England and Wales, prior to 1939,The Agricultural History Review, 34, 7985

UKIC 1983. United Kingdom Institute for Conservation. Conservation Guidelines No 2.

UKIC 1990. United Kingdom Institute for Conservation. Guidance for ArchaeologicalConservation Practice.


60/66

Past Wight 19

14.0 APPENDICES

14.1 Appendix 1: Isle of Wight Councils Brief for Archaeological Work(Note: the spaces between the lines in this report have been condensed in the interests ofreducing paper use, so the page numbers in the Contents may be incorrect)

B A E: , (/00507/14).

1.0 3

2.0 3

3.0 3

4.0 4

5.0 4

6.0 5.0 6

.0 6

.0 6

10.0 7


61/66

Past Wight 20

,

1.1 F

E .

1.2

. ,

, .

1.3 A

C.

1.0

2.1 ,

2.2 .

;

A .

3.0

3.1

3.2 A

.

4.0

4.1

.4.2 ,

200 .

.

A .

4.3

.

5.0

5.1 A ,

.

. A

C A .

,

.

5.2

/, , , ,

.

5.3 C ;


62/66

Past Wight 21

( )

. C

, .

.

.

6.0

6.1 , .

. A

,

.

6.2

.

.6.3 ,

.

:

6.3.1 C ;

6.3.2 A ;

6.3.3 E A ( );

6.3.4 , C A ;

6.3.5 A ;

6.3.6 ( )

A ;

6.3.7 A ;6.3.8 A ;

6.3.9 A .

6.4

. .

C , , ( )

( )

.

, ,

.

6.5

, .

.0

7.1 ,

:

7.1.1 A ;

7.1.2

. .

;

7.1.3

& ;


63/66

Past Wight 22

7.1.4 , , .

,

,

.

7.1.5 D . A

.7.2 E

.

:

7.2.1 ;

7.2.2 ;

7.2.3 ;

7.2.4

;

7.2.5 , ;

7.2.6 A

;7.2.7 A

.

D B G (A) A, 1981 B A

.

,

. A

;

7.2.8

.

7.2.9 D/C

/.7.9.10 A 1996 ()

.

A F . A

/, ,

.

.

, , ,

, ( A

1996 () C 81). EA DEECG EED CEDED ACE E.

.0

7.1 The County Archaeological Officer will provide a monitoring programme to ensure

that fieldwork meets the specification. To facilitate this, he should be contacted at least 14

days prior to the commencement of the fieldwork.

7.2 All on site recording forms, registers and a working Harris matrix should be available

for viewing during monitoring.

8.0 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS


64/66

Past Wight 23

8.1 A C A,

C . :

8.1.1 ;

8.1.2 , D,

;

8.1.3 A 8.1.4 ;

8.1.5 A

.

8.1.6 A

;

/. A

.

8.1.7 1700AD

10

. A .8.1.8 A .

.0

9.1 A () /

.

.

9.2 C ,

C A

A D ( ).

.

10.0

10.1

C A

, .

C A ,

.

10.2 A E

A ;

.

11.0

11.1

. ,

C A .


65/66

Past Wight 24

11.2 F :

:

C C

C A C ,

61 C G ,C

,

30 1

30 1 : 01983 823366

: 01983 823810

E: .@..

D G

C A C

61 C C C

,

30 1 30 3E

: 01983 823810

E: .@..

B C, C 21/08/14


66/66

14.2 Appendix 2: Excel Spreadsheet of Mollusc Remains

SPECIESCOMMONNAME

FINDSNUMBER VALVES COMMENT PRESERVATION

oyster,

common/flat Ostrea edulis 2 1 right (upper) eroded fragmentoyster,common/flat Ostrea edulis 12 1 left (lower) eroded fragmentoyster,common/flat Ostrea edulis 17 1 left (lower) eroded fragment

TOTAL 3